60. Mr. PALMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the North Eastern Railway Company first put forward the claim to include in the State 2151 guaranteed expenditure the £50,000 paid to the Minister of Transport; when was that claim disallowed by the Ministry of Transport; at what date was it then put forward to the Treasury; and when did the Treasury arrive at its decision disallowing the claim?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe item referred to, which was included in the railway company's claim in respect of the year 1918, came before the Railway Accountants' Committee at their meeting of 13th April, 1920; it was immediately reported on by the representative of the Ministry of Transport who attended that meeting. It was referred to the Treasury on 16th April; I instructed Sir Hardman Lever, the Treasury representative at the Ministry, on the 20th April. When the item was next before the Railway Accountants' Committee, namely, on 18th May, its inclusion as a working expense was formally dissented from by the Ministry's representative.
61. Mr. PALMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the North Eastern Railway Company, whose claim to be reimbursed under the State guarantee the £50,000 granted to the ex-deputy general manager of the company, have the right of appeal from the Treasury decision disallowing the payment to the Railway and Canal Traffic Commissioners; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the original agreement made between the company and the ex-deputy general manager, together with the terms of settlement under which the £50,000 was paid over?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not in possession of either of the documents referred to in the latter part of the question. If, as I understand is likely to be the case, the company contests the Treasury ruling, the claim will be referred to the Law Officers, by whose advice our further action must be guided.
Mr. PALMERWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, as to whether the original agreement will be laid upon the Table of the House, and whether it is not a fact that this question has to go before the Railway and Canal Traffic Commissioners, and therefore will not be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown?