§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the financial arrangements of the year—
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young)This is rather a dry morsel with which to close the evening. These are the money Resolutions which are necessary to lead up to certain Clauses which are printed in italics in the Finance Bill. It will be within the knowledge of the House that these Resolutions are distinguished from those which the House has already passed in Committee of Ways and Means by the circumstances that those already passed are strictly Ways and Means Resolutions and are necessary to precede the imposition of the taxes, but this Resolution, which is now presented to the House, is a general money Resolution only necessary in so far as the Clauses to which it leads up may or will impose something in the nature of a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. The Resolution is, I fear, of a somewhat technical sort, but the Committee will no doubt desire that in the fewest possible words I should lay before them what its general import and effect will be.
§ Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYA full explanation.
§ Mr. YOUNGThe first paragraph eats up to Clause 32 of the Finance 777 Bill, which is the Clause necessary in order to give legal power to carry out the arrangement for the Conversion Loan as regards the charge which may come upon the Fund in question in connection with the proposed sinking fund which the Committee will remember is a sinking fund of 1 per cent. in every half-year when the price falls below 90. The second part of the Resolution relating to the Conversion Loan is, I fear, of a very definitely technical sort, but in substance it is this: That the Treasury have power to issue what securities are necessary for substitution for the converted securities, and they have power to charge all these newly issued securities upon the Consolidated Fund except in respect of a single case which is a case of the fourth series of War Bonds falling due in 1924. This procedure is necessary in order to give the Treasury power to charge the new securities on the Consolidated Fund in that case.
The third paragraph is that which leads up to Clause 39 of the Finance Bill. The purpose of this paragraph is only indirectly to lay a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. It is rather in the nature of a resolution to postpone a repayment to the Consolidated Fund. It is that Clause which provides for the bringing to an end of the special enlargement of the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund which was made directly after the War. The Committee will remember that immediately after the War, in order to wind up the system of financing trading transactions by Votes of Credit, which was naturally one capable of great extensions and vagueness, there was substituted the issue of larger capital to the Civil Contingencies Fund in order to provide for these trading operations. With the end of the period of trading operations by the Government I am glad to say it is now possible to reduce the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund and to write off or repay that very great extension of capital at the time to which I refer. In the present condition of the Fund, the capital amounts to £31,500,000, from which sums have already been repaid, and the additional capital has to be repaid by 30th September. In order to clear the Fund before that date, and to avoid having to come to the House for powers to continue the increase, it is proposed to write off the losses on capital amounting to £23,050,000, made up, as has been set out in this Resolution, of 778 £21,650,000 for the Sugar Commission, and £1,050,000 for zinc concentrates and spelter. That leaves the Fund in this condition, that when it has written off the sum to which I have already alluded, £23,050,000, there will be a balance of £7,250,000 to be repaid to the Exchequer and go towards the cancellation of debt. The Committee will see that this is a formal transaction, which is necessary in order to enable us to bring the Special Contingencies Fund down to a normal basis of operations.
2.0 A.M.
Finally, the fourth paragraph is a small matter which leads up to Clause 41 of the Finance Bill, which makes provision for the increase of the sums payable to county councils in respect of local taxation, the grants being increased from £40,000 to £60,000 a year. This is a grant to the county councils towards the cost of levying local taxation licences, the dog licences, gun licences and armorial bearings, and so on. It has long been maintained by the local authorities that the contribution was inadequate in consideration of the increased cost of living, and, after going into the matter very thoroughly with the local authorities, it has been decided that it is just and necessary to increase this grant from £40,000 to £60,000 a year. That is what is provided for in the Clause to which I have referred and to which this paragraph of the Resolution now leads. This Resolution is preliminary to matters which are contained in Clauses in the Finance Bill and which will be raised in the course of discussion of the Finance Bill. It is a formal step, and I trust I have succeeded in making clear its rather technical provisions to the Committee. I commend it to the House.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI do not know whether hon. Members have quite caught the drift of the remarks, but if they have they will be equally surprised with myself to know that, among other sums involved, was one for £23,000,000. I must begin with an emphatic protest against this being taken at two o'clock in the morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I am prepared to sit up all night in order that these heavy financial commitments should be fully examined, and I must say I do not think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was adequate. In the first place 779 there are four Resolutions. I take it you will put these Resolutions separately. They are entirely different, and I imagine that the Question will be put from the Chair four times. For the sake of brevity, and in order that the hon. Gentleman may reply to all four together, I should like to deal with them briefly and seriatim. It seems to me the first paragraph of the Resolution raises the question, What is the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in further inflating the public funds by borrowing? This raises the whole matter of the 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan. I confess immediately that I do not care to discuss the suitability or otherwise of this type of loan if any Member present with greater financial knowledge is prepared to examine it, but at the same time I feel that it is one's duty to protest against yet another issue of a loan. It has not been well received by the financial public; it has had a bad Press, and I am glad to see that the Government are not going in for a vast and expensive publicity campaign, because I very much fear that it will be a failure. The last issues have depreciated so much in value that Government stocks have not become popular with the investing public. The one thing we ought to have been able to avoid this year was new borrowing, and I know that the Financial Secretary, if he had had his way in 1919, would have been able so to reduce that Debt by other means that this fresh borrowing would not have been necessary. But he was then a Back Bencher, and his remarks did not receive the attention from the Front Bench that they would now. The golden opportunity was lost, and it is now too late for the great, heroic, drastic reduction of Debt in which he and I believed. In the meantime, here we are faced with fresh borrowing. It is a pretty commentary on the financial policy of the Government. So much for the first paragraph of the Resolution. Personally, if I can can get anyone to support me, I am prepared to vote against it. This is not the time for fresh borrowing, if it car; be avoided, because it is not fair to the industrial concerns of the country to fight with them for the limited amount of capital available.
With regard to the second paragraph of the Resolution, I do not propose to say anything at all; the explanation satisfied me. But in regard to the 780 third paragraph of the Resolution some further explanation is desirable. If the supply days do not include these particular Estimates, we shall have no opportunity of discussing the trading operations of the Government in sugar, on which they have lost £21,650,000. Their operations with regard to sugar have been severely criticised in more than one competent quarter. There was the criticism of a Scottish gentleman named Cairns, which has never been adequately answered. I think we should have had some explanation of this heavy loss. The real truth about sugar is that we refused to trade with Central Europe, where we used to get our cheap sugar in the past, and in consequence we have had to buy sugar from Cuba and elsewhere at a high price and subsidise its low-priced sale to the public, thus keeping down discontent at a very high cost to the taxpayer. Similarly, unless these matters are taken on one of the Supply days we shall have no opportunity of going into the operations of the Board of Trade in purchasing zinc and spelter on which they have lost £1,050,000. I am sorry to see that the deputy head of the Board of Trade, who was in the House recently, has now left the Chamber, and apparently it is not intended to offer us any explanation. Is it the fact that we are still committed to purchase the zinc output of Australia for three years? The information we got was that just about the end of the War we purchased the zinc output for five years, as the result, I suppose, of the pressure brought to bear upon us by the able and astute Australian representative to this country, Mr. Hughes. I am told we paid for zinc at the time of the Armistice the very high world prices and now, of course, the price of zinc has gone down considerably. No wonder the Board of Trade comes forward with a demand from us for £1,050,000 for zinc concentrates and spelter. With regard to flax production, for which £350,000 is required, I think we might have some explanation about this. Are we still proceeding with this artificial production of flax in this country? Are we trying to grow flax uneconomically here, when, by a different policy, we could have got flax from the natural sources of supply? It would be just as sensible to try and grow cotton under glass. We ought to be informed 781 whether we are throwing more good money after bad in connection with fostering flax growing in this country. Of all the mad schemes of the Government, I think this is one of the maddest. The total amount comes to this tremendous sum of, I understand, £23,500,000.
I now come to the fourth paragraph of the Resolution, and on this I wish to ask specific questions which I know the Treasury will be able to answer. We are told that local authorities make a loss for collecting gun licences, dog licences, game licences, etc.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYWell, if they are not making a loss why are we going to give them an extra £20,000. If I understand the Financial Secretary aright, in the past we have given a grant-in-aid of £40,000 for the expenses of administering the collection of these various petty taxes—game licences, dog licences, armorial bearings and these sumptuary taxes which have come down to us from the ages. But this is not sufficient this year and we are for the first time increasing it to £60,000. The question I wish to ask is, does this mean increased wages, bonuses, and so forth, for the tax collectors? If so, we should be informed of it. If that is the case, I propose to vote against this fourth paragraph of the Resolution. We are demanding from the manual workers, the wage workers of this country, that they should accept reduced wages. When we are doing that, on the one hand, it is not fair, on the other, to proceed to pay out of public money in increasing the wages of Government servants like these tax collectors. We ought to be frankly told by the Treasury whether this extra £20,000 is to pay war bonuses. In any case, how is it that these local authorities have been able to get along till this year, and why is it suddenly discovered that they require an extra £20,000?
§ Major Sir KEITH FRASERAgreed!
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThere are four Resolutions here, and the second I have passed over. These Resolutions involve a very substantial sum of money, amounting to £30,000,000, and I think we are entitled to ask one or two 782 questions about them. Perhaps the hon. Member for Warrington (Sir H. Smith) will reinforce me in this.
§ Sir H. SMITHYou are talking non-sense.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIt is nonsense to the extent of £31,500,000. I think we are entitled to some explanation, which need not be long, from the Financial Secretary.
Major BARNESThe Committee is impatient in discussing these Resolutions. The Committee is not very fair; it should be impatient with the Government who is getting this through at this hour in the morning. We have been told that this is not the occasion upon which to discuss this matter. I understand that these matters might be discussed at a later stage on the Finance Bill. It was suggested by the Financial Secretary who introduced it that this was merely a formal thing, that we should have every opportunity of discussing it. That mis-represents the importance of a Financial Resolution if it is not to draw special attention that you are going to spend money. To take a Resolution of this importance at two in the morning and then for impatience to be shown because one or two Members in the discharge of their public duty wish to draw attention to the fact is, I suggest, a little unreasonable. I want to make a suggestion which I think would have the effect of shortening this Debate. It is this.
In the presentation of the third paragraph of the Resolution—I am not going to deal with the other because they have been so ably and exhaustively dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)—it was not really very clear as it was put by the Minister in charge whether this was simply a matter of book-keeping or whether we are really dealing here with an actual loss of £23,000,000. I am going to proceed on the assumption that what we are dealing with is an actual loss to the extent of £23,000,000. If I am wrong—
§ Mr. YOUNGAs regards the present Resolution to write off the Civil Contingency Fund, it is a mere matter of book-keeping providing that the capital of the fund should be reduced in one way rather than in another. On the Sugar Trading 783 Accounts there is no doubt a large dead loss, though it is not the same as the figure given here.
Major BARNESAs between the Civil Contingencies Fund and the Exchequer it is a matter of bookkeeping, but as regards the sum total of public money it is a matter of loss and the amount of the loss is not really known or ascertained at the present moment. I cannot quite understand why, if these accounts are not wound up and if the loss is not known, it should be dealt with at this particular moment and why we should have these circumstantial figures of £23,050,000 brought before us. What I want to suggest—is this to shorten the Debate? Will the Financial Secretary undertake that before we come to discuss this 39th Clause on the Finance Bill and the Short Schedule, he will place in the hands of the Members a Memorandum dealing with the accounts of the Royal Commission on sugar supplies, the account with regard to zinc concentrates and spelter and also with regard to flax, and that when the House comes to deal with this matter it will be in possession of full information? If the hon. Gentleman will give me this undertaking now, that would relieve me of the necessity of saying anything further on this Resolution. If the hon. Gentleman cannot give or will not give this undertaking; if he is not prepared to put the House into possession of these facts, I am bound to go on.
§ Mr. YOUNGMay I answer that point at once? If what my hon. Friend asks for is a full memorandum dealing with all the accounts—with the whole of the trading accounts of the Sugar Commission, of zinc concentrates, and spelter dealings and flax production—I do not think I can promise such accounts before we come to deal with these matters in Committee. The full report of all the trading transactions of the Sugar Commission is to appear very shortly, but I cannot say it will appear before we come to these Clauses in Committee. It is in preparation, and will be laid before the House shortly. What I can do, and, since this is a very technical and difficult matter, what I will do, is before we come to the Civil Contingencies Fund, which, as the hon. Member rightly says, is Clause 39 of the Finance Bill, I will undertake to 784 lay a White Paper, which will explain the transactions of the Civil Contingencies Fund and also the present transactions in which we are engaged in writing off sums on this account.
Major BARNESI do not want to ask for the preparation of detailed accounts. That would take a great deal of time, but I do think that the House should be in possession of sufficient information as to the question of why and how this loss has been made, and to justify Members in agreeing to this course being taken. That may be done in a comparatively brief memorandum showing the circumstances under which a loss of £21,000,000 has been made on sugar, of £1,000,000 on zinc concentrates and spelter, and of £350,000 on flax. I do not think that is an unreasonable request to make. The Committee agrees with me, and I hope that the Minister will see that a memorandum to that extent will be given. I do not think that he has quite promised that. He has promised a statement showing how the Civil Contingencies Fund has been dealt with. That is not a promise of a brief, clear statement of how this loss has been made.
§ Mr. YOUNGThe losses on sugar are entirely due to the sudden and rapid fall in the sugar market during the last year of the trading. It would be impossible to avoid that loss without charging the sugar manufacturers and the sugar consumers here prices above the world prices for sugar; in a single word, the cause of the loss here is the sharp fall in sugar prices. As regards zinc concentrates, spelter and flax, the losses we are writing off here may very likely be covered by sums to be recovered subsequently. The only reason we have written them off now from the Civil Contingencies Fund is in order that we may wind up the increases in the Fund by 30th September.
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUELIf the losses on sugar were made entirely in the last 12 months, I would like to know what stocks of sugar, in sterling value, the Government held 18 months after the Armistice? This is a very serious matter, which ought to be debated in proper wakeful hours. It is a very serious thing to find that a Government Department, in transactions which relate to periods 18 months to 2½ years after the Armistice, 785 can lose a sum amounting to £21,000,000. I know all about the drop in prices. The whole matter comes back to the point that the Government should have closed up its commitments long before and got out of trading transactions altogether. If the hon. Member will say that on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill we can discuss these matters, I would adjourn what I have to say until that time.
§ Mr. YOUNGIt is not for me to say, but I suppose that anything which is in order to discuss now will certainly be in order then.
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUELI understand the hon. Member to say that this is merely a form of procedure, but he is asking the Committee to write off losses without having particulars, and the particulars may, or may not, be given later. The Committee may ask: Are there not other commitments on the part of the Government in any other branch of trade which will necessitate the Committee writing off further losses? I would like to know these further losses with regard to wool and other things. It is not a Party matter. We ought to protest against the Committee being asked at 2.30 in the morning to discuss losses of nearly £25,000,000 without having the facts before them for 1914–15, 1915–16, 1916–17 and 1917–18. I want to know whether, when the Armistice came, there was a change in policy. May I ask the Committee whether any Member dreamt he would hear what the Minister said that this loss on sugar has been sustained in the last twelve months?
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUELWhat year was that? The hon. Gentleman said the loss was sustained when the fall came in the price of sugar. It is common knowledge that that came last year. It is also common knowledge that it came in the autumn of last year. Was the Government speculating in sugar last year, or did the Government hold enormous for-ward stocks on which they sustained this loss? Has the Government realised the sugar or is the loss a book-keeping loss representing the price at which the con-tracts were entered into and the present market value? Surely the Committee ought to have this knowledge. These 786 business matters ought to be discussed in a business-like way and in business hours, and not at half-past two in the morning.
§ Mr. WATERSONI think we are justified in entering a protest similar to that which has just been entered by several Members from this side of the Committee. Naturally, as one interested particularly in economy, I feel justified in asking for more details in connection with these terrible losses upon stocks of sugar. If these great losses have been made upon stocks of sugar, it should have been the duty of the Government at a very early period to put the sugar on the market in order that the consumers might have had it. At that time there was a great demand for sugar, and the money might have been realised. The matter is so important that the Debate ought to be adjourned to a more suitable occasion, when Members would have a fuller opportunity of discussing the question. In addition to that we have had nothing from the Minister in charge as to the 50 per cent. increase which is now being given towards the collection of the various licences that have been referred to. I should like to know on what grounds the Ministry can justify an action of that character, and, as no explanation is forthcoming, I feel bound to move, "That this House do now Adjourn."
§ The CHAIRMANThat Motion is not in order when the House is in Committee.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move to leave out paragraph (3).
This would have the effect of leaving out the part of the Resolution dealing with the transfer of the alleged assets or liabilities of some £23,500,000. We all agree that the hon. Member has done his best to explain the situation, but he has told us that he has not got the whole of the accounts to hand yet, for the simple reason that they have not been made up by the Sugar Commission. In the circumstances I think the Committee is well justified in asking for the full figures. I associate myself with the protest against taking such an important matter at so late an hour in the sitting, but, in addition, I think we ought to have in front of us the documents that the hon. Member has mentioned showing the whole of the trading accounts. This is a matter that ought to be fully explained 787 to us by the Minister in charge of the Board of Trade. Hon. Members were being rationed when the Government had tremendous stocks, which they might have disposed of and have evaded this loss. Further, I have not had a reply to my question as to whether we we are still purchasing the output of Australian zinc products at the world price at the end of the War? Further, are we still proposing to spend
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI think we ought to have some explanation of paragraph 4.
§ Mr. YOUNGI am afraid that some of the more interesting parts of the Debate have been those which have been least relevant for the purpose of the Motion. As the Committee will appreciate, in this Motion we are concerned very much with the Consolidated Fund and not with the accounts of these trading concerns. Let me refer to one or two points raised. The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to the first paragraph of the Resolution and the borrowing operation. I would like to correct any misapprehension that may have been left by his speech that any fresh borrowing is referred to or dealt with in that Clause at all. There is no fresh borrow-
§ money on subsidising flax growing in this country? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we ought to be told about these very important matters. I beg to move my Amendment, and I hope the Government in their own interests will accept it.
§ Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 8.
787| Division No 126.] | AYES. | [2.40 a.m. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Green, Albert (Derby) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hailwood, Augustine | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar) |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Casey, T. W. | Kidd, James | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Lindsay, William Arthur | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Lowther, M.-Gen. Sir H. C. (Penrith) | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Evans, Ernest | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Wise, Frederick |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Murray, William (Dumfries) | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Forrest, Walter | Nall, Major Joseph | |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Neal, Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Dudley Ward. |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Parker, James |
| NOES. | ||
| Gillis, William | Morgan, Major D. Watts | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Glanville, Harold James | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) | Major Barnes and Colonel Penry |
| Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Waterson, A. E. | Williams. |
| Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
§ ing. It is entirely a conversion loan substituting one security for another.
§ Let me pass now to the third paragraph of the Resolution, which has caused the greatest number of inquiries. Here let me say that the loss which I have referred to upon this account of £21,650,000 is not net, because there are to be set against it at some future time receipts by way of set-off which it is expected may amount to between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. It is necessary as a matter of book-keeping to write the losses off the capital account of the Civil Contingencies Fund in order that we may be able to wind these matters up by 30th September. The next matter to which I am going to pass is that of zinc concentrates and spelters. I was asked whether these trading concerns were yet wholly wound up. No. There are contracts still outstanding for 789 zinc concentrates that have considerable periods still to run. I think the last expires in 1930.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs that for the whole of the zinc output?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs it possible to give the price? The in-formation which I have, and which I would like to check, is that we got this zinc at a price which was then the world's price—at the time of the Armistice, there or thereabouts—and are we now buying this very large quantity of zinc at this price, or is there any let out?
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUELWill the hon. Gentleman also kindly explain what was the policy of the Government in entering into this contract?
§ Mr. YOUNGI am afraid I cannot go in very great detail into these contracts, because really that is a matter of fact, and the question of the whole policy in dealing with these articles is totally irrelevant to the reduction of the Civil Contingencies Fund, which is the object of the Clause. There are these losses to be written off, against which there may, in the future, be assets to be set, and in order to get the accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund clear we have to write them off now before 30th September. A question was addressed as to the continuation of the operation in flax. The state of affairs there is that no further business is being carried on in connection with flax cultivation by the State. The factories and undertakings have been disposed of. Finally, the question was asked as to what is the cause for the increase in the expenses of the collection of the local taxation licences. Generally speaking, the principal increase is in the payment of the inspection staff. Inspection is done partly, by the officers of the county councils. The cause of the increased cost to the local authority is the general circumstance of the rise in wages. It has been long under consideration. It is no new and sudden provision this year, but the result of protracted negotiations in which the county councils have argued and argued, I believe with justice, that the increases have been long overdue. These are all the matters raised 790 in the course of the discussion and I hope the Committee will now see its way to pass the Resolution.
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSI should like to ask whether this loss of £21,000,000 on the Sugar Commission's transactions is the final closing of the account or are there any further losses to come?
§ Mr. YOUNGI can only repeat what I have said. I am very desirous of giving all the information required, but it is really covered by the answer I have already given. The Report of the accounts of the Sugar Commission will be presented shortly, but not at the present time. As my hon. Friend knows, no doubt, there are no further stocks of sugar being purchased or have been purchased for many months by the Government.
§ Mr. JAMES WILSONI am astounded at the flippant way in which this proposed expenditure of £23,000,000 has been presented. It does appear to me that the spending of a few millions here or there to cloak the failures of the present Government, of which you are the tied voters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The Coalition people. It appears to me that the spending of £20,000,000, £30,000,000, or even £40,000,000 is to cloak the failures of the people to whom you have sworn allegiance, rightly or wrongly; but when it comes to a question of spending £9,000,000, £10,000,000, or £15,000,000 to give working men reasonable conditions or to give the miner who has to go down into the bowels of the earth—
§ The CHAIRMANThis argument is not pertinent to the Resolution now before the Committee.
§ Mr. J. WILSONI am sorry. It does appear to me that the supporters of the Government when it comes to be a Government Vote are prepared to vote any amount of money at the public expense, quite regardless of the public interest, so as to cloak the failures of the present Government to whom they are the tide allies and the bound supporters. But I do not think this Committee is entitled on a question like this, and at this hour, of the moment—[Laughter]—to approach it in a flippant and light-hearted manner. The real issue is the voting away of £23,000,000 of the taxpayers' money. The hon. Mem- 791 ber for Warrington (Sir H. Smith) has admitted to me that his business profession is such that he cannot afford to devote his time to attending to the business of the House of Commons.
§ Sir H. SMITHI do not understand what relevancy these observations have to the Resolution before the Committee; but I do submit, for any hon. Member, however inexperienced, to make a charge against another hon. Member of that sort, which is based entirely upon an alleged private conversation in this House, is without precedent whatsoever, and is not only irrelevant to the Debate, but when the hon. Member has been longer in this House he will learn that it is a gross breach of every tradition which is known to this House. As he has named me and made this charge against me, I refute and deny every allegation. It is entirely untrue that I made any such comment. I have never met the hon. Member or seen the hon. Member in my life until within three months ago.
§ The CHAIRMANI did not understand that a charge had been made against the hon. and learned Gentleman. On the other hand, it seems to me that the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. J. Wilson) was rather, what I may term, circumlocutory.
§ 3.0 A.M.
§ Mr. J. WILSONMy attention was drawn by the interruption of the hon. Gentleman. What I do protest against is this: I feel that at this hour the Committee ought not to be asked to vote away millions of pounds of the ratepayers', of the taxpayers' money. At this moment there is a situation prevailing in this country which everyone deplores and every one of us would like to see brought to an end at the earliest possible moment. I trust that this Committee, tied as it is, may free itself from its bondage and vote against this Resolution, which commits the Committee to spending money which,
§ under the circumstances, can neither be justified nor defended. For that reason I trust we shall vote against the Government on this Vote.
§ Mr. WATERSONThe Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made us more confounded than we were before he spoke. We cannot understand the reason why the Government should be allowed to enter into contracts of such long standing. It does seem exceedingly unreasonable that we should enter into contracts for 1930 for the zinc concentrates referred to in the Resolution. With relation to flax, one is reminded that we spent quite £3,000,000 in flax production which, according to the statement which has been made, has been entirely thrown away; which has been a waste, and a tax upon the resources of the taxpayers of this country. It would have been better, and we could have saved the whole of this £3,000,000 if the Government had adopted a wise policy in connection with trading relationship with Russia. Russia has had a considerable amount of flax which she was anxious to export to this country, and it would, at any rate, be an exchange of commodities. We should have been able to get employment in this country, and get many of the men at work who are receiving the unemployment dole. The statement has been made that the position is really graver than before the explanation was given. I really feel that at this time in the morning it would have been wiser for the Government, in the interests of its own honour, to have deferred discussion on this matter to a full House which would have been fresh. The House would then have been able to have more satisfactory results. I regret that the Government should press through a thing of this kind in a way which is totally unsatisfactory and cannot be a credit to the Government.
§ Main Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 8.
793| Division No. 127.] | AYES. | [3.10 a.m. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Fraser, Major Sir Keith |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Coats, Sir Stuart | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Green, Albert (Derby) |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Hailwood, Augustine |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Evans, Ernest | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Bruton, Sir James | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Forrest, Walter | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) |
| Casey, T. W. | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) |
| Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Kidd, James | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Parker, James | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Lindsay, William Arthur | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Loseby, Captain C. E. | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N. | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir H. C. (P'nrith) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.) |
| Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur | Wise, Frederick |
| Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar) | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Murray, William (Dumfries) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) | |
| Nall, Major Joseph | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Neal, Arthur | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) | Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie |
| Wilson. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Morgan, Major D. Watts | |
| Gillis, William | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Mr. Waterson and Mr. Glanville. |
| Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
§ Resolution to be reported To-morrow.