CLEARING OFFICES. (Hansard, 6 March 1939)

§ Captain Wallace
There are, I think, two main reasons for this small Supplementary Estimate of £2,400. The original Estimate for the Clearing Offices, which, of course, ought to pay for themselves, was based on the assumption that we should have more payments under the Italian Clearing Agreement. Owing to trade not being quite so good as we had hoped during the latter part of last year the payments were only £6,000,000 instead of the estimated £7,000,000, with the result that commission, which we had estimated would amount to £52,500, turned out to be only £45,000. That made 1872 in itself a shortage of £7,500, or more than would be required for the Supplementary Estimate. There was another factor, and that was that the Estimates for the current financial year were made up on the assumption that the Spanish Clearing Office would resume operations, and would be going for nine months and producing £33,750 by way of commission. Owing to the continuance of the war in Spain the clearing was not resumed, and the actual receipts were nil. Altogether, therefore, expenditure was reduced by £16,500 and the receipts which we should have appropriated in aid were reduced by £18,900, involving this Supplementary Estimate of £2,400. This £2,400 is not lost to the taxpayers for as and when clearings are resumed they will get it back. The principle of all these clearings is that commission should be charged at a rate which is just sufficient to recoup the Department for the expenses to which it is put.

§ Mr. A. Henderson
I understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that the principal difference in the figures was due to the deficiency in the Anglo-Italian clearances. Are we to understand that that is because we have done less trade with Italy, or because the Italian Government have not seen fit to make the necessary payments?

§ Captain Wallace
I think the reason is that we have not done so much trade. I do not think there have been any increased delays in the Italian clearing. As hon. Members know, there is always a certain amount of delay. The money comes in from one side and is not paid out until very careful steps have been taken to make sure that it goes only to those who have a right to it. For that reason the clearings are subject to more or less delay, and I do not think there is any particular reason to suppose that the shortage of receipts compared with the Estimate is due to anything but a diminution of trade.

§ Colonel Nathan
I am frankly puzzled by the figures which appear on page 21. It is stated that the original Estimate was £85,900 and the revised Estimate is £67,000 and that the additional sum required is £18,900. That seems to be a non sequitur. Unless I have completely misunderstood the figures I should have 1873 expected to see that the original Estimate was £67,000 and the revised Estimate £85,900. Have the figures by any chance been misplaced?

§ Captain Wallace
The hon. and gallant Member will observe that sub-head D refers to appropriations-in-aid. This was money which we expected to get and that is what makes the figures appear to have been reversed.