HC Deb 09 February 1937 vol 320 cc359-72

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £66,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department

11.13 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths

I should like an answer to a question which m as raised earlier this evening in regard to the big increases which appear on These Estimates in respect of fuel. I find on totalling up all the increases of expend- tore on fuel that there is no less than £88,900 increase in these Supplementary Estimates in respect of fuel alone. I asked the Minister earlier to give us the price per ton paid by the Government, and he gave an estimate showing as far as coal was concerned that it was round about 2s. per ton increase, and that on coke there was something like 5s. 6d. per ton increase. I have here the ascertainment figures for the 12 months for Yorkshire and they show the actual additional profits for the last 12 months, as against 1935. The profits in 1935 were £1,607,395, or 9.31d. per ton. In regard to 1936, the coalowners said, "We cannot give the miners an increase because we cannot afford it, and the increase we are giving them will have to come out of some of the profits made last year." We find that the profits made up to the end of 1936 in the Yorkshire coalfields were £2,259,760, or an additional profit of over £600,000. The increase in wages to the miners is the difference between 10s. 4.5d. and 11s. 3.12d. The increase in profits is the difference between 9d. per ton last year and is. 0.37d. this year. For last month the owners' profit in my county was is. 9½. per ton, clear.

The Deputy-Chairman

I am in a difficulty to see what is the responsibility of the Office of Works here. Had it been the Mines Department Vote, I could have understood the hon. Member.

Mr. Griffiths

What I would like to know is why the Office of Works, as far as these places are concerned, are paying £88,000 more. Why are we paying this tremendous increase when the increased price of coal was specially ear-marked, not for owners profits, but for an increase in miners wages? In one county alone I have shown that there were greater profits to the extent of £600,000 last year than in the previous year.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I did not intervene until I heard the hon. Member say that the increase was ear-marked for miners wages. I take it that the increase to which he was referring was the voluntary increase of 1s. per ton which a large number of buyers of coal agreed to pay on existing contracts.

Mr. Griffiths

Yes, and any other increase, because the owners said they were losing then.

Mr. Williams

The increase in which there was an undertaking to ear-mark—

The Deputy-Chairman

I must abide by my original Ruling. We cannot go into the distribution of coal profits on this Estimate. If hon. Members desire to raise it, they must do so on the Mines Department Estimate.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Benson

Further to that point of Order. As the increases were granted voluntarily on prices fixed by previous contracts, and, so far as we know, the Office of Works themselves may have voluntarily given an increase, surely we are entitled to know whether that increase has gone to its appointed end, or has been sidetracked into the pockets of the mine-owners.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is entitled to know whether the Office of Works did give a voluntary increase, but cannot go into the question of its destination on this Vote.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Batey

On page 30, there is an item of £1,500 for fuel, and further down another £3,500 for fuel. On page 31, there is an item of £35,000. On the last Estimate, I was pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary rise and to hear his voice, because earlier, when I wanted him to give us a little information, he was dumb. What he did tell us was that there had been an increase of between 2s. and 3s. per ton in the price of coal and an increase of between 5s. and 6s. in the price of coke. Will he tell us just what the Government paid per ton for coal and for coke? Then, we want to know to whom they paid the money, because we have a just suspicion that this increase has gone into the pockets of the coal factors in London and has never reached the miners. If there are increases in price to assist the miners' wages, we pay willingly, but we certainly refuse to pay any increase if it goes to swell the profits of the coal factors. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able on this Estimate to give the information he refused to give on the former Estimate, because I repeat that there is no justification for the present price of coal in London; it is a ridiculous price considering what the miners get for producing the coal.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Kelly

I wish to draw attention to items in the Estimate dealing with maintenance and repairs. Under paragraph (b) we are asked for £3,000 for further provision for what are called "minor alterations. "That is additional to what we voted earlier. I realise that the Department deals with Customs and Excise buildings; does that mean that there have been extensions to them? Then there is an item of £3,000 for new works and alterations in connection with post office and telegraph buildings, and I feel that the Minister could give us an explanation of why that expenditure is needed. There is a further big item of £45,500 for maintenance and repairs, a very large addition to the amount voted earlier. I have not heard of any great wage increases, and I am wondering what is the explanation in that case. There is a curious item with regard to household articles, where they speak of an increase in prices. They are demanding another £4,500. Is that due to tariffs or to any of these quota arrangements or other items which the Government seem to be so fond of? If so, we ought to have an explanation of that item.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Hudson

I have already dealt with the questions as to the increases in the cost of fuel, and I have nothing to add. As regards the £44,000 for maintenance and repairs, hon. Members will remember that some of it is a result of the largely increased services; alterations and improvements are constantly being called for.

Mr. Batey

Does not the Minister intend to reply on the coal questions? He has not answered my questions about the price paid for fuel. Should I be in order in moving to report Progress?

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Paling

Why should the Parliamentary Secretary be so reluctant to tell the Committee about these increases? He spent a considerable time on another Estimate trying to persuade the Committee that it would not be in the public interest to disclose what he was paying. Here is an increase of 2s. to 3s. per ton on our coal, and the Parliamentary Secretary does not even make an inquiry into it. There is this enormous increase, and we have merely the bald statement of it. When we ask the Parliamentary Secretary why, he does not know. Either it is not in the public interest or it is too much trouble for him to tell us.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Hudson

The hon. Member is, quite unconsciously, doing me an injustice. I do not know whether he was here when I gave an explanation earlier about the increase in the cost of fuel, but the question directed to me from the benches opposite on this matter was whether I would explain to whom this increase had gone. I have told hon. Members opposite and the Committee that that was not a job for the Office of Works, but for the Mines Department. All that we are concerned with is to see that we get, in the public interest, the cheapest possible coal, and that we have done, because the various contracts have been put out to tender, and we have accepted the lowest satisfactory tenders. The reasons for the increase in price are various. The hon. Member knows that he has an idea where the money has gone; so have I; but it is not my job, as representing the Office of Works, to discuss the work of the Mines Department, and I should be out of order if I tried to do so.

Mr. Paling

Is it not the custom of the hon. Gentleman and the Office of Works, when there has been an increase like 2s. to 3s. a ton on one tender as compared with the last, to inquire as to the reason for the increase? That is what we want to know. The hon. Gentleman says I have some idea; I have; but I have also the knowledge that the increase in the miners' wages is only to the extent of 1s. a day in a very few districts, and in some it is as little as 3d.

The Chairman

That is quite out of order, and I cannot allow the hon. Member to argue it.

Mr. Paling

I was not intending to argue it, but was merely mentioning it in passing, as the Minister says I know where it has gone. I know that some of it has gone in that direction, but not all of the 2s. or 3s., by any means.

The Chairman

It would not be in order to discuss it on this Estimate.

Mr. Attlee

On a point of Order. Here we have a Supplementary Estimate asking for sums of money for coal and coke, and the answer of the Minister is that there has been an increase in prices. Surely we are in order in asking the Minister whether he has found some reason for the increase?

The Chairman

No; it appears to be the case that market prices have been paid, or prices which have been obtained by tender.

Mr. Attlee

With great respect, we have no information on that point beyond a vague statement. We have not been told whether these tenders were from London merchants and factors or direct from the pits; we know nothing whatever about it.

The Chairman

Unfortunately I was not in the Chair at the time, but I have gathered that tenders were invited in the ordinary way. I do not imagine that it was a peculiarly strict and limited form of tender; no doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman had thought that anything like that was the case, he would have asked a direct question.

Mr. Attlee

That specific question has been asked.

The Chairman

That question might, perhaps, be put, but I must lay down quite strictly that the reasons for the market price which has to be paid for any goods by the Office of Works are not a matter which the Office of Works can be asked now to disclose; they have to accept the market price.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

Your predecessor in the Chair was good enough to rule that we were entitled to ask the Minister whether this increase was a voluntary increase or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is clearly within the rules of order, when a Minister asks for an additional sum, for the Committee to ask whether he has paid the additional sum voluntarily or compulsorily. That would be tie case on every Supplementary Estimate if the Committee had any reason to believe that he had paid it voluntarily. Here is a case where there is a presumption that it has been paid voluntarily. There is a large number of increases in the price of coal which were paid voluntarily on certain contracts to meet certain conditions in the coal industry. Your predecessor ruled that we were entitled to ask that question and I hope you will rule that it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to reply to it.

Mr. H. G. Williams

May draw your attention, Sir Dennis, to the fact that when the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) raised the question of these prices I rose in order to deal with the point, but your predecessor ruled that it would be improper for me to go into it and I accepted his ruling because I saw its validity.

Mr. Benson

I think the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that—

The Chairman

I need not trouble the hon. Member on that subject. I have already given my ruling. With regard to the other point, a very limited question such as the hon. Member suggested would, no doubt, be permissible. Whether it has been answered or not I do not know, but I must ask hon. Members to accept my ruling that this is merely a case where the Office of Works is having to buy certain materials according to market prices at the time. If there is a special suggestion that they have done otherwise, that is a question that may be put plainly and, no doubt, will be answered.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Hudson

Perhaps hon. Members are under some misapprehension about this question and are mixing up two different things. Some have in mind the shilling increase per ton which was given voluntarily, and others have in mind the price being paid for current contracts. The Estimates were originally made up in 1935 within the knowledge and expectation of what prices would be in 1936. In January, 1936, the Office of Works paid a shilling voluntarily, and I imagine a Supplementary Estimate for that amount was passed last year. The contract ran out in June last year and new contracts were entered into as the result of tenders, and there, clearly, the voluntary payment did not operate, because it was included in the tender prices. We are operating on the basis of contract prices as from June last year. These tenders represented an increase of 2s. to 3s. a ton over the prices that we had placed in our Estimates.

Mr. Paling

We have to assume then that the tenders were accepted without asking any reason for the increase?

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Benson

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation for these fuel increases. He says there were certain contracts which ran out in June, and upon those contracts a voluntary shilling was paid. Our financial year runs from 1st April to 31st March, and the shortage in the estimate for fuel is made up of two factors—the 1s. that was paid voluntarily from 1st April until June and the increased market price of 2s., which operated from June onwards. Therefore, the particular figure of £35,000 is made up partly of the voluntary 1s. and partly of the compulsory 2s. owing to the increased market price. As a portion of this Supplementary Estimate is due to the voluntary 1s paid by the Office of Works, are we not entitled to inquire of the Office of Works what steps they took to see that the 1s. went into the pockets of the miners?

The Chairman

I have definitely ruled that matter out of order.

Mr. Garro Jones

When we come to ask the Secretary for Mines whether he took steps to ensure that this increase went to the right place, he will say that he was not responsible for paying the increase.

The Chairman

What the hon. Member proposes to ask the Secretary for Mines is a matter to be dealt with when he has an opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Garro Jones

I am merely pointing out that when the Minister refers us to the Secretary for Mines, the Secretary for Mines—

The Chairman

The hon. Member is out of order in what he is trying to say.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I do not understand why we cannot be told the price per ton. I believe that all the coal in the country now is supposed to be sold under coal-selling schemes. If that be so, surely, the price that the Government are paying for that coal has to me disclosed to the various managing bodies responsible for running these schemes. Are we to understand that coal sold to the Government is outside these schemes, and that the prices are not disclosed? It is very astonishing news that matters of this kind cannot be disclosed to the Committee. I wonder what would be thought in the London County Council election now proceeding if the Council said, "Our coal is bought subject to tender and, therefore, we do not propose to disclose the price to the electors of London?" I would guarantee that at last the Opposition party on the London County Council would be able to find a good poster to put up. If we cannot be told the price of the coal and coke, can we be told the number of tons that have been purchased? Or is that another piece of secret information? I really fail to appreciate the humour that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade finds in that innocent question. I was going to rely upon him to do the mental arithmetic for me, because I know that he is a bit of a lightning calculator when it suits his purpose.

The way that the Committee have been treated on two items to-night makes one wonder whether the proper thing to do is, that the Minister should submit these Estimates, and, as soon as anyone gets up to ask a question, the Chief Whip, or his satellite who happens to be present at the moment, should move the Closure, on the ground that all inquiry is against the public interest, and that inquisitiveness on the part of the Opposition is to be discouraged. This House even in the time of Charles I was at least given some answer to its questions. Members were given their reply before they were put in the Tower. To-night one might just as well be in the Tower. There, at any rate, one would hear the question being answered as to the ownership of the Keys, without the suggestion that it was against the public interest that any information should be vouchsafed. Will the Parliamentary Secretary, as representing the Office of Works, tell us that he does not know, or will he give us the number of tons of coal and coke that have been used, and which are the subject of this Supplementary Estimate? Or is there some secret that will destroy the State and help Hitler or Stalin or some other undesirable person if they hear about it? We have been asked to admit that the House of Commons has no right to know anything, except when the Minister may possibly as a result of a number of visits by his Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Box under the Gallery, know a little about the matter. I very much doubt whether he even knows as much as he pretends to know.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Radford

I cannot think that hon. Members opposite are as foolish as they are making themselves out to be. It is absurd to ask the Parliamentary Secretary the price per ton which the Office of Works have paid for the coal concerned in this additional Estimate. He said that there are 2,500 Post Offices and many Inland Revenue and other offices spread all over the country, which use coal. Hon. Members must know that when you are having coal delivered to you at a point near the pithead the price is very different from the price charged if the coal has to be delivered at some place a distance away. Yet hon. Members ask what price has had to be paid for coal. He would probably have to give 100 or 200 different prices.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. D. Grenfell

The Parliamentary Secretary has not taken the Committee into his confidence. All that we have been told is that during the current year there are three prices—the original tender price, the original tender price plus 1s., and a second tender price. Can he not tell us what additional payment he has to make, by adding the 1s. per ton, which was the amount of the voluntary agreement, to the original tender price, and how much is made up by the additional tender price? Unless we can be given information to which we are entitled I shall feel disposed to move to Report Progress. It is simply reluctance on the part of the Minister to tell us.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Hudson

I am not in the least reluctant to give any figures which I have. I have explained that as far as these Supplementary Estimates are concerned we are dealing with contract prices which run as from June of last year. We are dealing with figures for coal supplies from June, 1936, on contracts running to June, 1937. There may be some unimportant small amount in respect of the voluntary increase of 1s. per ton, but I am informed that very much the greater part of the increase is in respect of contracts running from 1st July.

Mr. Grenfell

What is to prevent the hon. Gentleman telling the Committee what volume of coal has been contracted for at the higher price?

Mr. Hudson

I dare say that with a great deal of difficulty we could obtain the information for the hon. Member from the Department, and if he is really keen I will do my best to-morrow to get him the information, though I do not think it will help him in the least.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

I hope the Committee will take notice of the increasing tendency of declining to give information. Does the hon. Member imagine that if he declines to give a contract price it will have any effect on the future price he pays? Does he think these coal sellers do not exchange information to the fullest extent of the price the Government pays for coal? If that principle is to be carried to its logical conclusion, when the First Lord of the Admiralty orders a new battleship we shall find that he will decline to give us details of the price or armament, on the ground that if Turkey asked a private firm to construct one the private firm would find the Government price had been given away and the firm would not be able to supply a foreign country at a higher price. I found last week that 12 tenders had been put in for a new bridge, and they all reached the price of £47,912 14s. 9d. It is ludicrous for the Minister to withhold information from the Committee on the supposition that he is thereby concealing the price from the friends of the firm who supply the coal.

Having regard to the secrets we have discovered to-night it is with some temerity that I want to raise a fresh point. There is in the Estimates the interesting item "certain Post Offices abroad" I know that our Post Office is a far-flung institution and has certain offices in foreign countries, but I should like to know the location of these offices, and for what the money is being paid.

The Chairman

Will the hon. Member for my guidance be good enough to tell me where this item is?

Mr. Garro Jones

It is on page 29, in the heading to the Vote.

The Chairman

In the particulars given I see nothing of any expenditure under that head, but I may be wrong.

Mr. Garro Jones

Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether any of this amount is in truth for "certain Post Offices abroad" which are listed in the heading, and if not, why we should be troubled with such a cryptic reference?

The Chairman

The hon. Member has referred to the heading, but I must point out to him that it has been put down because it is the heading of the original Estimate. The matter to which he has referred is not in the Supplementary Estimate, and the Debate must be confined to those particulars in respect of which the Estimate has been brought forward.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Potts

It is to me a matter of wonder why the Government decline to give this information. In the Estimates Committee the same point was raised in years gone by. All the coal was bought by contract, and the information given to me was that it was bought through factors. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) was on the same Committee and he knows as well as I do that the Estimates Committee were given the tonnage and the price per ton. The Department is bound to know exactly what has been paid. They know the tonnage and the price, and that in-formation ought to be given. If the price has been unreasonably increased beyond the 1s. per ton, the miners are entitled to more money than they are getting in wages. If the Minister is not in a position to give the information now, I think that we should have an undertaking that he will supply it at a date convenient to himself.

Mr. Hudson

I have already said that I will do my best to obtain the information as to tonnage.

Question put, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £66,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. STUART and Sir HENRY MORRIS-JONES were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. T. Williams

May I ask the chief Patronage Secretary to be good enough to tell the Committee how far he intends to go. It is now past midnight, and I understood the Prime Minister to say earlier that it was not his intention to sit late.

12.3 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson)

There is only one more Supplementary Estimate to be taken, namely, that for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens. The Government would like to get that before we adjourn. The Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates which were taken on Monday are not being proceeded with, but the Government would have liked the Committee stage of the British Shipping Bill. The Prime Minister said at Question Time that he did not propose to ask the Committee to sit late, and if the Committee do not wish to proceed with this Bill, it will not be taken to-night. The same applies to the Empire Settlement Bill.

Forward to