§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSPerhaps I may be allowed to clear up a little incident which occurred during the Debate on the Finance Bill on Monday night. Yesterday I received this letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up! We cannot hear."]:—
I notice in the report of last night's Debate, on the Excess Profits Levy that at the conclusion of the discussion you said—'The Minister of Munitions was with the controlled firms.' The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said—'Why does the hon. Gentleman say that?' You replied—'I say it because the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions told me so.'In making this observation, you, quite unwittingly, I am sure, misrepresented my position.As you are well aware, during the recent negotiations, the Minister of Munitions supported the view that the same standards for depreciation and writing-off of capital expenditure should be allowed by the two Departments. In all these matters, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer slated, the Treasury has agreed to accept the figures fixed by the Ministry of Munitions. Moreover, I agreed it was desirable that the rendering of a double set of accounts should be avoided if possible. Your observation, however, naturally led the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I should think the House—to believe that controlled firms had received the support of the Ministry of Munitions in opposition to the Treasury in their contention that a bargain had been made with the Government as to the freedom of the 20 per cent. excess profits from taxation.On 31st May I saw a number of Members at the House with you on the various points which I have already mentioned. At that time Mr. Henderson, I believe, raised the question of the bargain over the 20 per cent. I told the Members present that it was the first time I had heard of that contention; that the quotations read tome then certainly appeared to give some support to it; but that I could do nothing in the matter until I was supplied with the quotations on which the claim as to the bargain was founded. It was arranged that Mr. Henderson should supply me with them and that, if I then felt they supported the case, I would put them up to the Minister in a memorandum. As I did not receive the promised extracts, on June 9th I wrote to Mr. Henderson reminding him and asking him to send them to me, as the time was getting short. I received the quotations from Mr. Henderson on 11th June. They consisted of three extracts from 'Hansard,' which, on examination, did not appear to me to support the contention, with the result that I took no further action in the matter. On this point, therefore, the Ministry, so far as I am aware, has expressed no opinion, and there has been no discussion between the Ministry and the Treasury upon it. I am sure you will take an early opportunity of putting this matter right.
§ Mr. S. ROBERTSC. Addison, the Parliamentary Secretary. I have much plea- 854 sure in acceding to the hon. Gentleman's request. The facts are these: Last week my hon. Friend (Sir Tudor Walters) and myself, being very anxious to settle the matters in dispute amicably, without the necessity of fighting them out in the House, were seeking to get an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Munitions. We met the Parliamentary Secretary in the Aye Lobby and told him our object, when he replied, "You should see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Minister of Munitions is in sympathy with you." But I did not interpret that to mean any opinion on any particular Amendment for exclusion from the Finance Bill, as the subject was not mentioned. I was appealing generally for postponement, but if I unintentionally misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman I am very sorry.