HC Deb 12 August 1904 vol 140 cc492-4

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 1.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid)

asked how it was so much less was being asked for this year in regard to borrowing powers.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

also inquired if the right hon. Gentleman was carrying out the threats he made in his Budget speech with regard to municipalities. Was he putting increased difficulties in the way of local authorities obtaining loans?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.

was understood to say that in past years no doubt powers had been taken to advance much larger sums, but early this year it was found necessary to raise the rate at which the loans were made, and to somewhat restrict operations. Indeed, a further increase of the rate might prove to be necessary. What was now proposed was to confine loans to local authorities which had a rateable value of over £200,000.

MR. CALDWELL

asked what was the amount of the credit of the separate account of the surplus and of the deficiency up to the present, in respect of the sale of stock under cost price, and why the section was limited to the loss so caused.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said the deficiency at present was about £200,000. The nominal value of the securities of the fund was nearly £700,000, and would shortly be increased by £130,000. The provision was confined to the deficiency caused by the issue of stock at a discount, because that was the circumstance to meet which this fund was provided. If a loss was made it was only right that Parliament should be asked to re-vote the money, so that this House should retain complete control over the transaction in that respect.

MR. CALDWELL

submitted that a loss might arise from another cause, namely, the lending of money at a lower rate than the Government themselves had to pay.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said they were not allowed to lend money at a rate lower than that at which they raised it. It was never intended that local authorities should be subsidised out of this fund.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, and the schedule were then agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment;

Bill read the third time, and passed.