I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (3) to add at the end of the sub-section the following proviso:—
Provided that the contrary shall be deemed to have been proved if the person can show that he possessed or had the custody of the goods as part of the stock in trade of a business and that the goods were sold in the ordinary course of trade to a customer and that he had no grounds for suspicion that the goods were to be exported.
This amendment was put down mainly for the purpose of eliciting further information, if I can get it, from the Minister for Finance, with regard to the operation of this section. He indicated, and I have no information which would enable me to suggest that what he said was not correct, and I am not disputing it, that some shopkeepers had been suspected of irregularities for the purpose of facilitating the export of goods. I am sure that he will not think that I have the slightest sympathy with anyone who engages in transactions of that kind, or that I would have the slightest desire to make it difficult for his Department to deal with.
He will appreciate that I am concerned with the position of the genuine trader, and in this I do not speak for myself, but for a large number of people. Some of those who spoke to me were genuinely concerned about the position. Roughly speaking, it is this: a person goes into a retail shop and produces a ration book. It is not possible to know whether it is a genuine ration book or not; it may well be. There is no onus on the shopkeeper to prove that the person who tenders the book is the actual owner of it. It is a case of taking a man's ration book from a woman or vice versa. The difficulty I have in mind is that about a person who is resident in the Six Counties, or who is working in England, and who uses a ration book to purchase clothes when he or she is at home.
The shopkeeper has no reason whatever to expect that the clothes will be exported. I do not mind telling the Minister that goods bought in retail shops are often exported as personal effects. In my own business, I was asked by my manager what he should do about it. I simply said there was nothing to do unless he had grounds for suspicion. If he asked a customer whether there was any possibility that the clothing would be exported he would probably be told lies by those who intended doing it in any case.
This is not a question of politics, and I am not raising it as a personal question, but I would like to ask the Minister if he is prepared, either now or at a later stage, to let us know the exact position of the bona fide shopkeeper. I do not intend to try to protect the shopkeeper who knowingly helps in the illegal exportation of rationed goods, but I do want the Minister to know that people residing in England come home and quite legally use the ration books and coupons of members of their families. They get clothes they could not possibly buy on the other side of the Channel, and I do not think it is possible for a shopkeeper to stop those practices.
On the strict reading of the Bill, the shopkeeper may be deemed to be the exporter if the goods are afterwards found to be exported. I put it to the Minister to see if there is any way out of the difficulty. The amendment is not meant to be a hostile one; it is designed to meet a genuine problem.