HC Deb 24 July 1918 vol 108 cc1907-10

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loans Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour Loan, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans."—[Mr Baldwin.]

Mr. BOOTH

There is no mention of any limit in this Resolution. I think it would be quite easy to put in a financial limit. I take it that the Resolution refers to the Public Works Loans Bill which is on the Paper, and, if it does, the amounts are all set out in the Schedule. Unless, therefore, we can have some explanation, I think we must move to insert the amount therein named, or, at any rate, a reasonable margin. There is no doubt that we have the promise of the Leader of the House that wherever possible a Minister must insert this limit. I know that my right hon. Friend, for some reason or other, is very reluctant to obey his chief. Perhaps I ought not to put it so strong as that, but he and I do not quite see the position in the same way. At any rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did say that, wherever possible, a limit should be inserted. I should, therefore, like to ask why a limit is not suggested.

Mr. BALDWIN

I do not think my hon. Friend quite understands that the limit is actually incorporated in the Bill itself. This Resolution merely entitles the writing off of these amounts which are incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. BOOTH

I am very sorry, but the House does not seemed to have gained the point which it thought it had gained. This is a Financial Resolution, and it so happens that it applies to a Bill which passed the Second Reading yesterday. As a rule, a Money Resolution applies to a Bill which goes to a Standing Committee.

Mr. BALDWIN

Not this particular Bill.

Mr. BOOTH

I say that as a rule these Money Resolutions apply to Bills which go to a Standing Committee, and this is the opportunity that this House has of putting in a limit beyond which the Committee cannot go. The Leader of the House has expressed his approval of this House at this stage putting in a limit, and he has agreed that if the Minister in charge does not suggest a limit he shall inform the House why a limit is not desirable. There can be no objection to a limit here. It clearly ought to be the amount which is in the Schedule. I trust you will entertain the Motion limiting the amount to the sum total of these items in the Schedule. I cannot add them up on the spur of the moment, but to put myself in order I beg to move as an Amendment to insert the words "not exceeding £10,000."

The CHAIRMAN

I would point out to the hon. Member that in this case it is superfluous, because the Committee is already limited by the terms of the Bill to a much smaller sum than £10,000. The Committee is limited to the sums named in Clause 3 of the Bill. Therefore, the purpose which the hon. Member has in view would not be achieved by an Amendment to this Resolution.

Mr. BOOTH

Then I understand that you assure me that we are protected on this occasion, and that in Committee you could not admit any Amendment which extended or increased that amount.

Mr. WATT

The Eyemouth Harbour money is guaranteed by the Scottish Herring Branding Fund, which was instituted by the Fisheries Board. Fees have to be paid by fishermen, and they go into a fund called the herring branding account. I understand that particular account was set aside as a guarantee for the advances made to this harbour. The Eyemouth Harbour trustees got the Fisheries Board to guarantee that this particular fund should be utilised to pay back the Government loan. We are told in the terms of the Bill that this guarantee fund has been found wanting, and that it is no longer available for the repayment of this money. I intended last evening asking my hon. Friend how it came about that this fund was no longer there to be utilised for repaying this loan. As far as I understand the situation, herring branding still goes on, and fees are still payable. Yet the fund seems to have vanished in some way, so that the Government are in the position of having to write off a large portion of the loan advanced to the Eyemouth Harbour trustees. What has become of the Herring Branding Fund? How is it that it is not in existence now to serve the purpose for which it was instituted?

Mr. BALDWIN

There is no such thing as the Herring Branding Fund. The condition on which the loan of £10,000 was made was that the surplus of these fees should be devoted to paying off one-fiftieth part of the principal and interest per annum. Very favourable terms were given to the Eyemouth Harbour when the last arrangements were made. It was arranged that only in the case of there being a surplus in the herring branding fees—that is, if they have had a successful year—should the principal and interest be paid, but that in any year when there was no surplus out of which it could be paid, then the amount for that year should be written off. If there should happen to be at a later time a surplus, it is not made available for paying any back debts. Each year is treated by itself. In some years there is a surplus, and in some years there is a deficit. For the last few years there has been a deficit. We only write off this small amount each year, and not the whole of the balance, because we hope and anticipate that when the War is over there will again be a surplus, and that the trustees will be able to pay principal and interest.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.