62 and 63. Sir WALTER RUNCIMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has recently ascertained that British vessels now under Blue Book rates are being used by the Government for Government account to bring to this country across the Atlantic wheat at 19s. per quarter and barley at 20s. per quarter entered on their bills of lading; whether these rates are charged by the Government or are fixed by the owners of the 1884 vessels; whether, while framing the proposals embodied in the Finance Bill, he found any instance of private shipowners or shipping companies charging 19s. or 20s. for these cargoes from the United States or Canada; if so, will he give the names of the companies charging these rates; and (2) whether his attention has been called to British vessels now arriving in the United Kingdom with wheat from America for consumption here, for the carriage of which the shipping companies received Blue Book rates, namely, 11s. per gross ton, or 6s. per deadweight ton, on time charter; whether the bills of lading are made out for Government account at 19s. per quarter, or over 88s. per ton; whether the British bread consumer gets the benefit of the low Blue Book rates, and in what way, or bears the burden of the 88s. per ton; and, if the latter, does the Exchequer get the difference between the two, or does it become a perquisite of the exporter or importer, or do they divide it between them?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money)My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to these questions. As my right hon. Friend is no doubt aware, all grain imported into this country is brought on Government account. The Bill of lading rates on wheat and barley are made out as stated in the questions, but they do not affect the price at which the grain is sold in this country. In the adjustment of accounts between the Ministry of Shipping and the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies, the latter are charged the assessed cost over all of actually transporting the grain from the various ports of shipment to this country. I may add that these arrangements had already been made before the Finance Bill was framed.
§ Mr. McKENNACan the hon. Gentleman state what is the reason for charging to the Wheat Commission 13s. a quarter more freight for wheat imported by the Commission than is actually paid to the shipowners?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYI am afraid that my right hon. Friend did not perfectly apprehend the answer I gave. If he reads it in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that that charge is not made. The Wheat Commission merely pays the actual cost. There is a very good reason for the nominal bookkeeping entry referred to in 1885 my answer, and I hope my right hon. Friend will allow me to give him that privately.
§ Mr. FLAVINIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the present freight for Indian corn from the Argentine to Great Britain is now more than the actual cost of manufacturing the article in Great Britain in pre-war times?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYI am not aware of that. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me particulars.
§ Mr. FLAVINWill the hon. Gentleman state what is the present freight for Indian meal from the Argentine. Is it not over £7 a ton?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYAs a matter of fact, the consumer, at the present time, as I indicated, merely pays the actual cost of bringing wheat to this country.
§ Mr. McKENNAIs there any private reason which cannot be made public for the Shipping Commission being credited with profits which it does not actually make?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYAs I indicated in my former answer, it is not possible for me to give a fuller answer than that already given. I shall be very pleased to do so privately.
§ Mr. McKENNAIs there any reason why my hon. Friend cannot state publicly why the Shipping Commission is credited with profits which it does not make?
§ Mr. HOUSTONIs not the explanation that the Government and not the shipowner is profiteering in the peoples food?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYAs I have already stated, the consumer pays merely the cost of bringing the wheat to this country and the nominal rate referred to by my right hon. Friend is merely a bookkeeping entry.
§ Sir C. HENRYWill my hon. Friend give any other hon. Member the information privately?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYWith very great pleasure.
§ Mr. FLAVINIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of twenty stone of Indian meal in pre-war time was 16s., whereas it is now £2 18s. to the consumer?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYI should like to have notice of that question.