4078. Your Report, Sir Malcolm, is on pages 10, 11 and 12 of White Paper, No. 24 of 1926?-Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) Yes, sir.

4079. The only point I am tempted to put at this late hour is on paragraph 4, with reference to the Northern Ireland charges. (Sir Otto Niemeyer.) That is under Statute. Under the Act of 1920 the Imperial Government undertook to supply such sums as the Joint Exchequer Board decided were necessary for providing the Northern Irish Government with Government buildings, including the Parliament; and these are the sums which have been issued in respect of that liability under the certificate of the Joint Exchequer Board.

4080. Can you tell off-hand what the total liability to Northern Ireland is going to be for these matters?-For this particular building?

4081. The total liability at large; when are we to be done with it?-You mean on these buildings?

4082. Or anything else, if you can tell us.-As regards the buildings, the original Bill had a figure of £2,000,000 in it; that was taken out afterwards, and it was left without a figure. I should think the figure will probably be from £2,000,000 to £2,500,000, for buildingssomething of that nature. As regards grants to Northern Ireland apart from this, they have been made since as part of various arrangements which have been made with Northern Ireland. There were two main grants, one was mainly in respect of Special Constables in Northern Ireland; that has come to an end. The other was the grant which has been made under the Act passed the other day in

respect of Unemployment Insurance; and that, of course, will continue. All that, of course, is apart from the question of the contribution of Northern Ireland to Imperial expenditure, which is governed by the machinery set up under the original Act, and that of course, tinues.

.

con

4083. Would the items you have just enumerated add up to about £10,000,000? I am talking of the total figure, including Unemployment Insurance, which we put in the House, I think, at £4,000,000 or £5,000,000.-It depends on the result of various factors each year; at present it is about £800,000 a year. The other items I should think would certainly add up to £10,000,000 in the past.

Sir Fredric Wise.

4084. Does the checking of the Road Fund, which appears on page 2, come under the Comptroller and Auditor General? Yes.

4085. The various investments, and so on? (Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) Yes, we examine the Account; but there is a separate Fund Account which comes before this Committee.

4086. I understand you have given up holding your balances at the Bank of Ireland in Dublin? (Sir Otto Niemeyer.) Yes. We hold certain balances at the Bank of Ireland in Belfast; but we have not an Exchequer Account in Dublin because we have not any Exchequer payments there.

Sir John Marriott.

4087. Does that Northern Ireland Fund include the Residency?—No, that was an Imperial liability.

11 May, 1926.]

Continued.

4091. Reference is made in the third part of the paragraph to negotiations with Canada. Are those still proceeding; is there any later information on that subject? Perhaps Mr. Hughes can say. (Mr. Hughes.) Negotiations were completed, so far as we were aware, with Canada, but we have since received a communication from the High Commissioner that Canada has another claim, which has not yet been formulated. We are waiting the receipt of that claim.

Major Salmon.

4092. Is there no period of time within which they can make their claims?-I am afraid not, as between Governments.

Sir Fredric Wise.

4093. Do you know what the claim is? -I have no definite information.

Major Salmon.

4094. It is not possible to name a definite period within which the matters should be closed, because this can go on for ever at this rate. Could not we have a Statute of Limitations or something of that sort? We shall never have any finality to this unless we fix a date?-I think that would be rather difficult as between Governments, except so far as the terms of the final agreement may provide for that. I think the terms of the final agreement, under which these two payments will be included, will preclude that.

4095. It will preclude any reopening? -Yes, I think so.

Chairman.

4096. Have the Treasury anything to add on this point?-(Mr. Phillips.) No Sir, I can only say that progress in the shipping liquidation has been very real. I think a memorandum has been circulated to the Committee showing, for example, that between the beginning of 1924 and April 1926 the claims of the Government against other people were reduced from £17,000,000 to £5,000,000, and claims against the Department were reduced from £19,000,000 to £4,500,000. (See Appendix 19.)

4097. Have you anything to add on Paragraph 71, Sir Malcolm?-(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) No, Sir.

4098. Paragraph 72 deals with National Shipyards?--You will remember the question of the National Shipyards has been on many previous occasions before this Committee, and last year Mr. Hughes put in a statement showing the position; the total cost had been about £6,500,000, and, according to the statement, the assets realised, or to be realised, were expected to produce £1,500,000. That question has been explained very fully to the Committee on several occasions. Since then, nothing fresh has occurred except the minor matters which are referred to in this Paragraph. I was told last year that various negotiations were proceeding to dispose of small matters connected with the disposal of the property. This Paragraph reports the progress since then. I understand that at the Beachley Power House the plant has been sold, but the land is still in hand. At Chepstow the railway sidings mentioned here either have been, or are on the point of being, sold, and the Chepstow water scheme is the only other matter. (Mr. Hughes.) The Beachley Power House and the railway sidings have both been sold and paid for since that Report.

Sir Fredric Wise.

4099. How much have they been sold for? The plant of the Beachley Power House was sold for £17,500, and the railway sidings for £8,000.

4100. You say certain electric plant, mains, sub-stations, etc. have been sold to a local Company for £5,000, payable within 15 years. What station is that? -The plant and mains referred to were those laid down during the period of the construction of the National Shipyard on the property of the Chepstow Electricity Company, and this sum is now funded and is to be repaid by the Chesptow Electricity Company over that period.

4101. They pay so much a year?-No, the first payment is not due for some

years.

4102. How many years?-It will depend: either five or ten. It is simply money spent on their property at the time when it was expected that the requirements for power in the neighbourhood would be very large, and we were only able to press a claim against them to the extent to which that expenditure is likely to enable them to have a larger revenue. At the present time the Shipyard is closed down, and they are getting

really no benefit at all from this expenditure of Government money on their property.

4103. Do we get any interest in the meantime?-We are entitled to interest in proportion to their capacity to pay. 4104. Interest on the £5,000 ?--Yes. 4105. Has that been received?-Nothing has been received so far; their revenue is very much what it was before the war.

4106. Are we pressing for the interest? -There is nothing due under the terms of the agreement yet.

4107. Do you mean not for ten years? -No; the interest will be calculated in proportion to the amount of power they

use.

4108. Supposing they use no power, there is no interest?-That is so.

4109. And the £5,000 is not payable for 15 years?-No. It was the only way to get anything at all in return for the expenditure on the property of this Company at the time when it was expected the National Shipyard would require a large amount of power.

4110. What was the expenditure?—The expenditure was substantially in excess of this. This is the estimated maximum value of the works on their property at a date after the war.

4111. Cannot you give me any approximate idea of the expenditure?—I think the expenditure was £17,500.

4112. And really you are accepting about £2,500 for it, if you take into account the accumulation of interest?We can only press a claim to recover this expenditure to the extent to which the Electricity Company will get some value from it. It was practically waste expenditure once the National Shipyard scheme was scrapped.

4113. Have we a mortgage on anything in connection with this particular transaction?-No; it is impossible to get a mortgage, but it is a debt that the Company has recognised in a formal agreement.

4114. Have we handed over this particular plant and mains without any charge on them as security?-We have got the agreement.

4115. But we have handed over practically the whole of the mortgage and so on, for an agreement?-We had no mortgage on it; the plant was ours.

4116. I mean it belonged to you, but you have handed over the land and so on?

¡Continued.

-But it had no realisable value apart from that.

4117. That is not the point; you have no security now except your agreement? -Except the undertaking of the Chepstow Company.

Sir Henry Craik.

How are you to get any security?

Sir Fredric Wise.

4118. I do not give anything up unless I get security.-The alternative in this case would have been to remove the property, and face a claim for damages for the interference with the Company's works. There would have been very little realisable value if we had removed this porperty. Part of it was expenditure on mains.

4119. You are getting next to nothing for it? It is one of the prices of the National Shipyard. When it was decided to construct the National Shipyard, it was necessary for them to have power, and the only authorised supplier in the district was the Chepstow Electricity Company.

Major Salmon.

4120. You put down the mains?-No; the Government found the money, this £17,500.

4121. And who actually put them down?-The National Shipyard staff. It was all done by Government labour.

Sir Fredric Wise.

4122. It would have been better to have sold the copper?-No. That question was gone into, and this was the better way of getting back something out of the expenditure on the works.

Major Salmon.

4123. You have a contingent asset without any tangible asset?-Yes; I think we are very lucky indeed to get anything back at all, in view of the way in which this Company was taken in hand at the time, and money spent on the property without obtaining the permission of the Company.

4124. In answer to Sir Fredric Wise you referred to two properties that you had sold since the last meeting; was that for cash?-For cash.

4125. And you have been paid?-The cash has been received.

4126. In both cases?--In both cases.

11 May, 1926.]

Chairman.

4127. To clear that up, are the cases that you mention the Beachley Power House and the railway sidings that you referred to?-Yes, those are the two.

Sir Henry Craik.

4128. One would presume that to carry away the sub-stations and so on would have been a work of very considerable expense, and they would have been no good when they were carried away, and with regard to the electric mains there was no prospect of making anything of them even if you carried them away?No; there would undoubtedly have been a large amount of waste labour in removing the mains.

4129. The most you can do is to hope for the best and not expect too much? -That is so.

Mr. Gillett.

4130. What are these housing properties that are referred to, and why were they taken over by the Department last year? Those are villages that were built in the neighbourhood of the National Shipyard, to house the employees.

4131. Who by ?-They were built as part of the National Shipyard scheme by the Government labour, for the Government.

4132. You mean they were just transferred from one Department to another? -Yes.

4133. I thought from reading this that it meant they had been purchased in some way by the Department ?-No.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.

4134. When you say that these mains, etc. cost £17,500, in what year was that money expended, or what period of years did it cover?-Round about 1918 and 1919.

4135. Of course money had a much smaller value in those days, so it would only be equivalent to an expenditure of very much less to-day; I will not go into figures? It would be less to-day.

4136. Can you tell me anything about these houses which are being sold; has any sale actually taken place already?-No; the Office of Works have these houses in hand now, but I understand they propose to advertise them in the near future. No sales have so far been effected. (Mr. Phillips.) The Office of Works told us, a

[Continued.

few weeks ago, they anticipated being able to sell these houses in the course of the present year; from which, I take it, they are in touch with possible purchasers.

4137. What was the broad ground on which the Treasury approved of the sale by the Office of Works; was it a general principle or a specific one?-There was no point in the Government carrying on management of these houses, that we could see.

Chairman.

4138. Have you anything to add to the evidence, Sir Malcolm?-(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) No, Sir; I might perhaps point out that this Power Station was designed to supply about seven times the amount of power that was ever actually wanted, and naturally the local Company would not saddle themselves, and could not be expected to saddle themselves on onerous terms with that property which was vastly in excess of the requirements of the district.

4139. Paragraph 73 refers to the sale of ships on deferred payment.-Yes. This again is a continuation paragraph. Full details of the sales of ships, whether Government-owned ships or ex-enemy ships, have been given to this Committee in previous years; therefore I confined my. self in this paragraph to stating the amounts that had come in during the year under review.

4140. Can you add anything to that rather disquieting phrase at the end of the paragraph: "Other similar losses are probable in the future? "-Well, the losses, I think Mr. Hughes will tell you, are quite trifling in comparison with what we have got. Take the Governmentowned ships; the sale price of those was about £82,000,000, and they have got, or will get, practically the whole of that, with the exception of possibly £1,000,000. With regard to the ex-enemy ships, the price was about £20,000,000, and the greater part of the money still outstanding is well secured, and the losses will be I cannot give you an exact figure, but the losses on those in round figures would not exceed £100,000; so, on the whole deal, the Government, I think, came out very well. The particu. lar losses referred to in those last thres lines of this paragraph are quite small in relation to the total; they would not exceed about £3,000.