§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI wish to move to leave out the word "twenty-five" and to insert instead there-of the word "twenty-four."
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that I cannot now accept a manuscript Amendment. I have already put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI apologise if I showed any apparent discourtesy, which I had no intention of exhibiting. I am certain the Financial Secretary will be able to give me the information I desire. He has never sought to evade giving information since he adorned that bench, an example which I wish was followed by more of his followers. I do not think the Committee should be asked to pass this Bill without some examination and I can get very little information about this very large sum of £25,000,000. In the earlier Bill there was a loan of £10,000 for the Eye-mouth Harbour Trustees, and there was a 20 years' annuity of £600,000 in respect of the ultimate financial settlement with the Free State Government, and so on. There are other small sums mentioned—I mean small in comparison with this amount of £25,000,000. The capital liability incurred by the Local Loans Fund, in making loans, is approximately 1376 £6,570,000, for which the guarantee of £600,000 is required. Why is there this sudden jump to £25,000,000? I am not in any way questioning the assistance given to the Irish Local Appeal Fund, and the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) need not be alarmed. I am only pointing out that the sum so far dealt with has been comparatively small, under £1,000,000. Now we have a sum of £25,000,000. For what public loans is this required? There is no data at all in the Vote Office; we have no information at all. We are simply asked to pass this Bill blindly. Apparently, the Whips thought it would go through without any sort of discussion or examination. I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to follow his usual practice of giving us a full explanation as to the expenditure of this sum. That is the first thing I want.
Secondly, I want to know what control the Treasury will exercise over this expenditure. It is notorious that Treasury control has been relaxed during the last few years. It was entirely relaxed during the War, and we got into the habit of acquiescing in this relaxation by the Treasury. One of the greatest needs of the present time is that Treasury control should be re-asserted and we look to the Treasury to do what this House originally. attempted to do, namely, to control expenditure. Owing to our mode of procedure, the task of individual Members checking the expenditure to see that proper control is exercised is almost impossible. The Supply Committee has become a farce. Nothing is easier than to raise an issue of great political interest but of little financial interest on any Supply day. The ordinary Member of Parliament has little opportunity under our present proceedings of controlling public expenditure. Therefore, we look to the Treasury. I hope that with the appointment of the hon. Gentleman as Financial Secretary to the Treasury this control will be exercised, and that we shall see an improvement in the checks 1377 upon expenditure. I therefore ask him to describe to us how the use of this sum in the future is to be supervised by the Treasury. It is a very large sum of money, indeed, for which to make ourselves responsible. Though it may be said that it is only a loan, and we have a limited interest in the matter, nevertheless the ultimate liability might fall upon the Crown. It is, therefore, very important that this matter should be fully explained. I am sorry that I was not able to move my Amendment, but I think I have said enough to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making an explanation.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYBefore I assent to the sum of £25,000,000 being handed over for payment to the Public Works Loans Commissioners I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for an assurance that a due proportion of that money will be used for carrying out legislation passed by this House for the benefit of the agricultural industry. I would call his attention to one particular instance where the Public Works Loans Commissioners are, in my opinion, extremely at fault. In the year 1923 this House passed the Credit Facilities Act, under which the Public Works Loans Commissioners were entrusted with money to advance to farmers who between certain dates had purchased their own holdings on the security of mortgages on their lands. That Act of Parliament is still in existence, but the Public Works Loans Commissioners have refused to carry it out. I asked a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday on the subject but he refused to put pressure on the Public Works Loans Commissioners, or to give any satisfaction whatever.
The Public Works Loans Commissioners in the loans which they have made have not, I believe, made any bad debts. They only advance money on approved security of land, after due valuation, and very strict valuation. It was to assist farmers who in lieu of being turned out through the sales of large estates which had been forced upon land owners by other legislation, which I will not discuss, that this money was voted. The tenant farmers had to buy their land and to raise money on mortgages on the land, some of which were being called in. For some reason or other, the Public Works Loans Commissioners have fixed 1378 a sum of £5,000,000. What power they had to that I do not know; it may be that they had some power. I have full reason to believe that not the £5,000,000 or anything like that sum has been advanced. I have had one or two letters on the subject, although I have not them before me at the moment. I could give to the Financial Secretary at least one or two cases where within the last two or three months applications have been made under the Act for an advance, on a security which had been approved by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, but in reply to such applications we have been told that there was no further money to be advanced. As I understand it, part of the policy of our Government is to provide a much larger measure of long term credit for farmers, and that it should not be limited to this particular class of legislation. How are we to believe in the genuine intentions of the Government when we have here an Act which is not administered? I hope that the Financial Secretary will give me his assurance that out of the £25,000,000 some of the money will be used to carry out the decrees of Parliament as put upon his Department and the Public Works Loans Commissioners.
§ Mr. MAXTONI wish to refer to the money which is to be allocated to the Eve-mouth Harbour Trustees to meet a liability which the trustees are not able to meet themselves.
§ The CHAIRMANMay I ask the hon. Member where he finds that reference?
§ Mr. MAXTONI hope that I have the right document.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member must have the wrong paper.
§ Mr. MAXTONPublic Works Loans Bill, 1927.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must be referring to No. 1 Bill.
§ Mr. MAXTONThat makes it all the worse. I protest against discussing a Bill when none of the facts relating to it are available. I am told that we can get the facts in the Vote Office about a Bill which we are not discussing, but the facts with regard to the Bill we are discussing are not available. I am going to move that we report Progress on this Bill 1379 in order that the Committee may be in the position of knowing what they are discussing. I have no desire to stand here and talk about something of which I know nothing, what ever other hon. Members are prepared to do, but if we are going to have the full explanation now I am perfectly willing to give way.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel)I will endeavour to give the hon. Member all the information concerning this Bill. This Bill, No. 2, is meant to cover the gap or interval between the Bill which was passed in March, 1927, and the Bill which in the ordinary course of events will, be passed next year. No. 1 Bill authorised the expenditure of a certain amount of money which it was expected would last until March, 1928; but the increase in housing has been so rapid—and I am sure we are all delighted—that we have expended the money provided by the No. 1 Bill more rapidly than was foreseen. Altogether about £31,500,000 has been spent and the money authorised by the No. 1 Bill will not be sufficient to carry us further than the 1st January next.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYAll on housing?
§ Mr. SAMUELAbout 90 per cent. has been spent on housing. I think I am right in saying 90 per cent., at any rate the great proportion of the money has been spent on that. The reason for the present Bill to all intents and purposes is to finance the housing programme. We have not enough money to carry us beyond the first of January next and, therefore, I am asking the Committee to authorise this further sum of £25,000,000.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWhat has the other 10 per cent, been spent on?
§ Mr. SAMUELThere are other small Acts, such as the Agricultural Credits Act and the Smallholdings Act. £10,000,000 already provided for housing has not yet been taken up, and we want to have the money in order to be able to pay it out when it is called for.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe Financial Secretary has not quite understood what I meant. He says that 1380 10 per cent. is not for housing but for other small Acts. Ten per cent. is £2,500,000. If that is the way the hon. Member is going to start talking at the Treasury, Heaven help us all!
§ Mr. SAMUELWe cannot foresee how much we shall require for housing up to next January. There has been a great acceleration on building owing to the subsidy since the 1st October, 1926. Let me say, that since the beginning of 1919, of the money raised by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, 90 per cent. has gone for housing purposes.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWhat is the other 10 per cent.?
§ Mr. SAMUELThe Agricultural Credits Act, the Smallholdings Act; and I said £10,000,000 has been recommended for housing purposes which has not yet been paid, but which we must provide for. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) asked me some questions about the Agricultural Credits Act. I think he was unduly harsh in saying that the Treasury refused to carry out the agricultural credits scheme. That is not so. Under the Act, Section 1 imposed a time limit on the advances to be made, a period of five years; and a second power was that the amount should be approved by the Treasury. The Treasury fixed that amount at £5,000,000. The whole of it has not yet been taken up.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYAnd now they are refusing to receive applications.
§ Mr. SAMUELI do not think that is so. Only £4,462,000 has been advanced up to the present, and as there is a sum of nearly £500,000 still to be used, I rather question whether my hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that the Treasury will not advance it.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYI will send my hon. Friend the papers.
§ Mr. MacLARENIs there provision, in the money now being asked for under this Bill, for agricultural credits?
§ Mr. SAMUELAs I have said, the amount available was £5,000,000, of which only £4,462,000 has been advanced. There is the balance available for those who are suitable for the grant of the money; and if they make applications I have no 1381 doubt that the Treasury will look into them, as long as the money is still available.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYHow about Treasury control?
§ Mr. SAMUELI have been in this House nine years, and I find that the control at the Treasury is very strong. Hon. Members opposite are trying to weaken the control. The main purpose of this Bill is to find more money to help forward the housing programme, which has been accelerated by the stopping of the subsidy on 1st October last.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am disappointed by my experience of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He thinks he has only to say the word "Housing" and we are to agree to £25,000,000, and the Chief Whip, of course, is ready to support him. They say, "Oh, don't hold up housing, or settlement of men on the land, or small holdings, or anything for the poor farmers." The House has then to vote the £25,000,000. Let me tell the Financial Secretary now, before the Estimates for next year, that that sort of sentimental sloppiness is all very well just after the War, but it will not do at the present time. Of course, the Financial Secretary is not sloppy at all, but he is sentimental. This small holdings scheme has been a terrible scandal. Near my constituency, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, ex-service men have been put on to what is known as "four horse land"—very heavy land which is excellent for certain kinds of agriculture, but is absolutely unsuitable 1382 for small holdings. All that money has been lost, and these men have been wasting their time. It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to talk about "small amounts" of £2,500,000, but I would ask the Committee not to allow this Bill to go through without further examination. I asked a question about Treasury control. The Financial Secretary says, "I have been here nine years and I think the Treasury control very well." Well, I am going to do my best during what I hope will be the hon. Gentleman's long tenure of office—
§ It being Four of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 21st November.