§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Suplementary sum, not exceeding £5,866,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in
2187
course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses in connection with Shipping Liquidation.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer)In ordinary circumstances I should ask for the sympathy of the Committee for having to present so large a Supplementary Estimate, which was the legacy of my predecessor. But I think, when the Committee have heard what I have to say on the matter, I shall be able to show them that there is no cause for searching on the part of the House in regard to this particular estimate, though the figure undoubtedly seems large at first sight. The point I wish to make first of all is that not a penny of this Supplementary Estimate is new expenditure. It is merely old liabilities extending from the time of the War that have been brought to account either sooner or later than had been anticipated in the estimate for the year. It concerns three sub-heads of the Shipping Liquidation Vote. I think I can make my point most clear to the Committee if, in a very few sentences, I explained exactly what the work of shipping liquidation involves. The Ministry of Shipping was a gigantic organisation. It spent during its career over £750,000,000, of which about £650,000,000 was recoverable. After the Armistice it moved about eight million men from all parts of the world, and at the time of the Armistice it had 647 ships under its control. This included Government-owned ships, prize ships, neutral requisitioned ships, time-chartered ships, and these ships were incurring charges in every port in every ocean and earning money at every port at the same time. The Ministry of Shipping had commercial transactions with every Allied Government, with nearly all the neutral Governments, every British shipping company, every British shipbuilding company, every repairing company in Britain, and every marine engineering company in this country. It built ships in every shipyard in this country, and it built ships in a great many shipyards in other countries as well. It controlled at one time three-quarters of the world's shipping and it took over the bulk of the ex-enemy mercantile marine. Four hundred and nineteen ex-enemy vessels were handed over to its charge and at 2188 the time of the Armistice it had 821 vessels building.
This gigantic organisation, the Ministry of Shipping, was terminated on 31st March, 1921, and the Board of Trade took over to complete the liquidation. Everyone knows that the liquidation of an ordinary company is a long and a complicated business. Hon. Members will agree, I think, that the liquidation of the Ministry of Shipping has been not only a gigantic but also an exceedingly complicated task. I might mention to the Committee that since 1st April, 1921, to 31st October last over 114,000 different accounts have been settled. Some of these accounts are comparatively small; others involve gigantic amounts. During two years to the end of this financial year the Liquidation Department will have made payments of over 31 millions, while it will have collected debts of over 39 millions. This, naturally, has been very arduous and very complicated work.
The Committee would also perhaps be interested to know that during this period from 1st April, 1921, to 31st October last the Shipping Liquidation Department of the Board of Trade has succeeded in effecting reductions in claims from creditors and has initiated recoveries amounting to over £4,800,000. That has been effected at an administrative cost of about £240,000, so the work of the Shipping Liquidation Department has resulted in a very great financial saving to the country. In preparing its estimates for the year, what the Shipping Liquidation Department has to do is not only to come to Parliament to ask Parliament to defray its administrative charges, but it also has to ask Parliament for the money which it anticipates it will have to pay out to meet claims that may be substantiated during the year against the Ministry of Shipping less the amount which it anticipates it will be able to recover from the Government's debtors. I want to make this point perfectly clear, because this is the sole reason why there is a Supplementary Estimate I have to bring before the House. It is quite impossible for the liquidator to be able to say with accuracy whether a certain settlement will come within a particular financial year or not. You cannot tell many months in advance on which side of 31st March any particular claims may be 2189 settled, and I would remind the Committee that many of these claims are before the Courts, many of them have been submitted to arbitration, many of them are the subject of protracted negotiations. Therefore, while the work of liquidating the assets and liabilities of the Ministry of Shipping is progressing as fast as it possibly can progress, it is not possible for the liquidator to say exactly in what financial year certain assets can be realised and certain claims will have to be met.
This Supplementary Estimate is solely concerned with claims which have materialised, as I shall show to the Committee in a minute, either sooner or later than the liquidating department had anticipated. Not a penny of this money is required for administrative purposes. I will give the Committee an instance. Last year there was a big settlement by negotiation with the United States Government. They Claimed against the British Government a very large sum for services rendered. The Department anticipated that that settlement would be concluded before March 31st last, and they made provision in their Estimates for the year 1921–22. Accordingly while that settlement was not effected before March 31st last there were other receipts which came in earlier than anticipated, and therefore at the end of the last financial year the Shipping Liquidation Department had a surplus of 9½ millions which it had to hand over to the Treasury. This particular settlement with the United States Government, which involved a very big figure, was, as a matter of fact, completed and concluded last June, and it has resulted in a payment—a gross payment—by this country to the United States of £3,100,000, and although this money had been provided for in 1921–22 estimates, and had been voted by Parliament, it was not required, as it turned out, for the year 1921–22, and therefore had to be surrendered again to the Treasury. The settlement has taken place in the financial year 1922–23, therefore it has been necessary for the Department to come again to Parliament to ask for that money. That accounts for the largest item in these estimates.
Now I come to subhead "G." If hon. Members turn to page 11 they will see that out of the £5,343,000 required 2190 under heading "G" £3,200,000 is required for settlements with other Governments not completed by 31st March, 1922. Out of that £3,200,000 all but £100,000 was required for the settlement with the United States Government to which I have referred. The remaining £100,000 is for a revote on a settlement which was come to with the Canadian Government but which was come to after March 31st, instead of before that date. The item of £900,000 in paragraph (c) of "G" is exactly the same, only in this case the settlements are with private firms and not with Governments. The item £1,243,000 in paragraph "G" (b) is the same in principle; it is for old liabilities that were not estimated to fall within the current year. They were old liabilities incurred during the War but vouchers for them were in accounts which had not been examined when this estimate was prepared. It turned out that there had been an under estimate of the liabilities that would be passed through during the current year. That accounts for by far the biggest item in this supplementary estimate. Other items are "J. Amounts due as the result of further adjudications of vessels as prize and final claims in respect of construction of vessels." £100,000 of that is a revote of final settlements which it was expected would be reached before March 31st in regard to the balance of accounts on vessels laid down in the United Kingdom during the War; and £250,000 is prize money in respect of ships that were condemned in the prize court during the year. When a ship that has been requisitioned by the Ministry of Shipping is condemned in the prize court the Ministry of shipping has to pay the money. The last item in the estimate is for money which is owing to the Government by ship owners and other private firms. It was anticipated that a sum of £2,850,000 would be collected from them in the current financial year and it is now thought likely that we shall succeed in collecting only £2,685,000. That does not mean that we shall not collect all the money, but we do not anticipate that we shall be able to come to a settlement during the current financial year.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe speech to which we have just listened ought to have been delivered at a more suitable hour, so that the country could have appreciated 2191 the manifold virtues of the Shipping Liquidation Department. I feel certain anyone who has listened to that speech will begin to realise the vast work the Department has done. Unfortunately, the one word we all wanted to hear was missing from the speech. "Shipping Liquidation" suggests that the Department might be liquidated, but I am afraid from the last words of the Noble Lord's speech that so far from its being liquidated we are likely to have, year after year, similar accounts, similar estimates, and, I am afraid, similar erroneous estimates. It was said that it was estimated that that £3,200,000 would be settled with the United States in the previous financial year, but to their surprise it was not settled till June. In that case why did they not prepare their estimates for 1921–22 with a view to meeting that liability? They must have known it was likely to be postponed and would not be met.
§ Viscount WOLMERThey did.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIn that case why was it not in the estimates for 1921–22?
§ Viscount WOLMERIt was in the estimates for 1921–22, but not in the estimates for 1922–23.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI meant 1922–23. Why was it not in the estimates for 1922–23? They must have known when they were preparing the estimates that the settlement was not likely to be made. In any case it does show bad budgetting when you not only have that, but also no less a sum than £2,000,000, or over, underestimated in the amount of other charges to fall due during the year. But what we really want to know is when this department will come to an end. The difficulty we are beset with is that however rapid the Noble Lord may desire to make liquidation it is inevitable, as long as there is a job such as this to carry on, that the liquidators themselves will not hurry the conclusion of the liquidation. Can we be assured that the Government are taking steps to bring this very expensive and long drawn out liquidation to an end? How much more is there to collect, and what is the estimate of the total sums we are likely to be held liable for in succeeding years?
§ Viscount WOLMERI can give that easily. Perhaps I should have given it in my remarks. The department still has to meet claims of about £6,000,000, and hopes to be able to recover about £11,500,000; and it is anticipated that the bulk of this work will have been completed within the next two years. If my hon. and gallant Friend has followed the figures I have given he will see that tremendous savings have been secured to the country as a result of the work of the Shipping Liquidation Department, and I can assure him that that work is being brought to a close as soon as possible. It would be very bad economy to pay accounts without examination.
§ Lord EUSTACE PERCYI should like to congratulate my Noble Friend on what is, I think, his first experience in introducing an estimate. He has done it with very great skill and ability. Perhaps he erred somewhat on the side of giving the Committee too many figures that may conceivably be used against him in the future. All I want to do is to point out that, even on the original estimate for this year, 1922–23 was the first year when the Shipping Liquidation Commission showed a net loss, and this supplementary estimate is an increase on what was already a net loss. I wish to remind the noble Lord that last summer the then President of the Board of Trade, while he gave no pledge of the House, anticipated that it would be possible to get rid of the temporary war Departments now under the Board of Trade. He anticipated, or at least hoped, to get rid of them by 31st March next. The Shipping Liquidation Commission is continued for two years in the hope that it will have to pay out £6,000,000 and be able to collect £11,000,000. The record of this year is no sufficient guarantee of a profit of very nearly 100 per cent, being made on the Department in the future. I do think that the Government should realise that we feel very doubtful as to the whole conduct of this liquidation, which appears to take the part of liquidation for liquefaction.
§ Mr. SHINWELLWith regard to the transactions of the Shipping Liquidation Board, and with relation to the estimates, I think that the estimate itself is most unsatisfactory inasmuch as it does not indicate any details which would guide 2193 the House as to the need for an estimate of this kind. We are entitled, in the first place, to know something in regard to the prices at which the ships obtained from the enemy were disposed of, and to whom they were sold. We are also entitled to know whether the sum which accrues after ships have been disposed of and expenses paid—whether the balance remaining is devoted to any social service or is merely part of the national revenue to relieve the taxation. Is any part of it used for the purpose of carrying out the reparation pledges which were made to seamen of the mercantile marine? The late Prime Minister made certain promises some time ago to a deputation which addressed him on the subject of the reparation claims for the mercantile marine. The pledges have not yet been implemented and we, who have some connection with seafaring men, are entitled to ask for some fulfilment of the pledges which have been made.
I want, in addition, to ask the Noble Lord a question with regard to the method which was in operation when these ships were disposed of. I understand that Lord Inchcape was responsible for the major part of this. On 7th December, 1921, he said that 445 vessels had realised about £20,000,000. I am informed that certain of these ships; were disposed of to firms such as the White Star Line, the Cunard Line and the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services. So far as I know no information has been furnished by the Shipping Ministry, the Board of Trade, or any cognate Department, with regard to the sums received from these firms as payment for the ships handed over to them. I hope the Noble Lord will satisfy our desire for information on the matter to-night. There is another observation I shall make with regard to the methods adopted by some of the firms who have purchased vessels from the Shipping Disposal Board and then disposed of them to ex-enemy countries. I want to submit to the House an instance. I notice in the Journal of Commerce to-day that the Anchor Line has disposed of the "Algeria" to the Hamburg-America Line, the price not being stated. The "Algeria" is an ex-German vessel, and was purchased two years ago. I wish to know what the Anchor Line paid for this vessel, and whether they have disposed of the vessel for more, or less, 2194 than they paid to the Shipping Disposal Board? I think that that is a pertinent question. The Prime Minister said the other day with regard to the gift of German ships to this country under the Treaty of Versailles that it did not affect shipbuilding, because if Germany had retained these ships the effect would have been much the same as at present; that it would not have disturbed the carrying trade of the world. But vessels such as the "Majestic," which is owned by the White Star Line, the "Berengeria," which is owned by the Cunard, and the "Kaiserine Augusta Victoria," now the "Empress of Scotland," and owned by the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, are vessels which are essentially passenger vessels, and would have been contructed in the shipbuilding yards of this country to meet the exigencies of the passenger trade to the United States and Canada. We would have required ships to carry passengers and we could not have depended on the activities of the German shipping companies. There is an additional point I wish to make. The trade of Germany is increasing day by day and the shipping at one of the largest ports in Germany—Hamburg—has improved tremendously during the past six months. In addition to that the German shipbuilding yards are busier than for some time past as a result of the gift of reparation ships. Thus there is an increased number of ships capable of carrying the trade of the world, instead of a normal quantity, having regard to the normal conditions. The number is larger because of the German shipbuilding activities. That is an important consideration. My shipowning friends will understand that.
Arrangements, I understand, have been made to finish the Debate about this time. Can we be provided with information regarding these points, and will the Noble Lord give his sympathetic attention to the claims submitted by merchant seamen with regard to reparation?
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWe had a bargain to close at one o'clock. That means that we shall not be able to discuss other items, and the McGrigor's Bank estimate will have to go through without discussion—[HON MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It is a bargain and we have to keep a bargain.
§ Mr. BUCHANANYou have no right to bind us like that.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe point I wish to make is this. All the things we cannot discuss to-night can be discussed on the Report stage and the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday and Thursday of next week. Subjects can then be brought forward.
§ 1.0 A.M.
§ Mr. J. JONESOn a point of Order. If we carry this on to-night, will we simply be able to talk and do nothing?
§ The CHAIRMANAll the Resolutions passed in Committee have to be reported, and there will be an opportunity on the Report stage for discussion and for moving Amendments.
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSMay we take it that on the Report stage there will be an opportunity for discussion on some of these Estimates? Personally, I want to raise one thing, the vote for McGrigor's Bank. If I raised it now it would be a breach of the Parliamentary bargain which has been made and I would like to postpone it to the Report stage.
§ Mr. HOGGEI think it is vital in view of the arrangement we have made in the House of Commons that this should be said. These bargains were made between the Government and between the Opposition Whips. This agreement was arranged and what was given in view of the one o'clock closure to-night was that the debate on unemployment should be taken as the first order to-morrow, thus giving an opportunity of discussing unemployment from eleven till four to-morrow instead of discussing it in the small hours of the night when there can be no report. These arrangements have got to be made and the Whip representing the hon. Members behind must make them. Your Labour as well as your Liberal Whips have made them and unless we are prepared to honour these agreements we cannot carry on proceedings in this House. Labour after all has scored to this extent that in return for what the Prime Minister has done to-night they will get a full-dress Debate to-morrow on 2196 unemployment. I think we must agree to this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]