§ 38. Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the principal repaid by the Treasury, in fulfilment of guarantees for the beet-sugar industry given under the Trade Facilities Acts, is more than 25 per cent. of the total repayments of principal by the Treasury under the Acts, whereas the guarantees for the beet industry are only 3 per cent. of the total 1261 guarantees; and what he proposes to do to control the loss to the Consolidated Fund caused by the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI am aware of the position set out in the first part of the question, and with regard to the second part I would refer the hon. Member to the last part of my reply to him on the 20th June, 1935.
§ Mr. MALLALIEUWill the right hon. Gentleman assure those Members of this House who are nervous as to the future of this industry that he will consult Lord Weir on the matter?
§ 39. Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that three Anglo-Dutch beet-sugar factories, valued in their respective companies' balance-sheets at 31st March, 1935, at £701,236, have supplied to their shareholders gross dividends of £2,217,936 and cash bonuses totalling £740,000 during a period when the three factories of the Second Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Limited, similarly valued at £973,020, have earned no dividends at all and have cost the Consolidated Fund £741,400 in the repayments of a loan under the Trade Facilities Acts; and whether, in view of the inferior design, construction, and management indicated, he will consider whether these three factories and any net assets accompanying them furnish proper security for the £741,400 repaid on their behalf and, if not, what other security the Treasury holds or proposes to obtain?
§ Mr. MALLALIEUCan the right hon. Gentleman say how the security in this case compares with the security in the case of the loan made to Duncan Stewart and Co., Limited, of which Lord Invernairn, Lord Weir's partner, is a director, and on which no interest has been paid for so many years?
§ 47. Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Minister of Agriculture the total sums paid to date, respectively, in the form of subsidy to and in the form 1262 of excise duty by the beet-sugar industry since the subsidy was introduced; the total sum debited to the cost of the industry in the same period in the form of Customs duties lost to the Exchequer; and the estimated figures under the same three headings for the present year?
§ The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot)The total mount of subsidy paid up to and including 26th June, 1935, under the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, and subsequent enactments, is £234,525,080; the amount of excise duty collected or to be collected upon the quantities of sugar and molasses upon which this subsidy has been paid is £15,110,000; and the additional sum which would have accrued to the Exchequer in the form of Customs duties, had these quantities of sugar and molasses been imported from foreign countries, would have been £13,350,000. The corresponding figures under the same three headings for this year are, respectively, £2,750,000, £2,280,000 and £2,920,000.