HC Deb 23 February 1880 vol 250 cc1248-62

(1.)£2,924, Royal Palaces.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that he did not propose to take any exception to that particular Vote, or, indeed, to criticize the items at that period of the Committee; but he thought there was a question which it had been customary to put, either to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury or to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in connection with the Committee, and which had, indeed, sometimes been answered before they had been published. The matter did not appear in any part of the Estimates, nor had any information been given on the subject. Last year a certain amount of additional Estimates was voted; and the addition proposed this year amounted to a considerable sum—namely, £500,000. Now, the question which it would be interesting to the House to have some information upon and which he could not help thinking the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury ought to explain was this—what was the estimated saving in the Civil Service expenditure to be set off against this large Vote? He remembered last year that the amount was stated distinctly; and it was a matter of considerable importance to know, as the right hon. Gentleman had already admitted that there would be a heavy deficit, how much would be added to the expenditure estimated for in the Budget of last year. That information was necessary, in order that they might know what the general effect of these particular Votes would be on the deficit.

SIR HENRY SELWTN-IBBETSON

said, that he was unable to give the exact figures that the right hon. Gentleman required; but he could state that the saving would amount to a very considerable sum, and would affect materially the ordinary Supplementary Estimates of the year. He would point out to the Committee that the Supplementary Estimates of this year were excessive in one or two items. Amongst others, there was an item for relief works amounting to about £5,000. Those amounts had raised the Supplementary Estimates this year, but about £209,000 had been, or was expected to be, received on the other side of the account; and thus, although many of the items were excessive, the total amount, as compared with the amount of extra receipts, was reduced below that of last year.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, that the objection he entertained to the Supplementary Estimates was that they destroyed all comparison between the Estimate of the current year 1879–80 and the sum expended in the past year 1878–9, for which accounts had been rendered. He had gone very carefully over the proposed Supplementary Estimates, and he must say that a very large portion of the money now required was for expenditure which could have been foreseen, and ought to have been estimated for in the original Estimates. He would put it to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it was right to bring forward these new items at the end of the year? He thought the House had great reason to complain of the heads of Departments for the miscalculations they made, and the House ought to refuse to give them any additional sums beyond those estimated for at the beginning of last year. Until such time as the new Estimates for 1880–1 were brought in, very little inconvenience would result from refusing these supplemental demands. He had occasion to complain of the same matter last year—in fact, he had complained ever since he had been in the House; and he had opposed, not only the Supplementary Estimates, but the excessive Estimates brought forward at the end of the year long after the year had closed. In his opinion, the hon. Baronet ought to control Departments, and prevent them making new demands arising from defective calculations.

Voteagreed to.

(2.) £300, Marlborough House.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

remarked, that the truth of what he had previously said was more especially illustrated by this Vote. No doubt, it was a small sum, and he, for one, was anxious to do everything for the convenience of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales; but surely this amount might have been included in the original Estimates, as it was a sum which was obviously necessary for the convenience of the Prince.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that it was impossible to foresee this expenditure.

Voteagreed to.

(3.) £5,500, Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.

(4.) £6,700, Public Buildings.

(5.) £1,400, Furniture of Public Offices.

(6.) £150, Metropolitan Police Court Buildings.

(7.) £36,404, New Courts of Justice and. Offices.

MR. WHITWELL

said, that under the letter "D" they found it stated that the additional sum of £20,000 was required for furniture of the New Courts of Justice. He should like to know whether the Committee was to understand that the whole expense of the furniture and fittings for the New Courts of Justice was still to be estimated for—by how much it had exceeded the cost originally provided for?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that the old furniture had been used to as large an extent as was possible; but it had been found necessary to incur a large amount of additional expense for new furniture.

MR. GREGORY

thought it would be satisfactory to the Committee if the hon. Gentleman would give some information as to the present state of completion of the new buildings. A considerable portion was fitted up and inhabited, and, in his opinion, the buildings, so far as they went, were well adapted to the purposes for which they were intended, and afforded great facilities for the transaction of business; but he should like to see them made of still greater use than they were. A separation had taken place, for instance, between the offices of the two Departments of the Paymaster General and the Registrar of the Court of Chancery. At present, a suitor was obliged to run from one office to another; when he had a cheque paid to him in Chancery Lane he probably had to go down to Carey Street or Lincoln's Inn Fields to obtain payment for it, or in case any alteration was required of the order under which he received it. It would be desirable for the convenience of the public that those offices should be immediately brought together. The Paymaster General at present occupied premises in Stone Buildings; so soon as those offices could be brought together the purchase money would be recouped the country from Lincoln's Inn. It was very desirable that that event should take place as soon as soon as possible. He believed that the offices for the Paymaster General were now ready for occupation. He thought it would be very desirable if the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information as to when the Courts would be completed and could be occupied. At present, a great inconvenience was sustained, and solicitors were at a loss to know where to find the various offices. When the whole of the Courts and offices could be brought together it would be a great convenience to the public.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that the eastern portion of the building was already in the possession of various Departments. Rapid progress was being made with the remainder of the works, and at the end of 1881 he trusted the whole building would be ready for the occupation of the different Courts. With regard to the separation of the different Departments, he might inform the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that the question of bringing the offices together was under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.

MR. CHILDERS

observed, that the question raised by the hon. Member for East Sussex was a very important one. It was very essential that the buildings should be made ready for occupation as soon as possible. He rose for the purpose of asking a question with regard to the cost of the buildings. In 1865–6 a very careful Estimate was made for the building of the New Courts of Justice, and it was arranged that they should be erected partly from money derived from the capitalized value of certain funds applicable for the purpose, and partly from other sources. He did not think that from 1865–80 anyone had asked how far that Estimate would be verified, or whether the very large sum which had to be expended in concentrating the Courts of Justice had been recouped out of the sum mentioned in the Estimate of 1866? The question was really very important, for it involved millions; and he thought it would be more satisfactory if the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would look into the matter, and would lay a Paper on the subject before the House.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

agreed with the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that the information to which he had referred would be of great interest to the Committee, and that he would endeavour to supply it on Report, or at some subsequent stage of the Estimates. He did not like to pledge himself upon the point raised, and would rather reserve his reply until it could be given more correctly. The subject had been brought before the House of Commons for the first time during the last Session, when he remembered that the Supplementary Estimates were not sufficiently accurate to afford the required information.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that the original Estimate under this Vote amounted to £120,000. And now an additional sum was required amounting to £36,404, an increase of considerably more than 25 per cent upon the amount originally estimated for. He wished to call the attention of the Government to the fact that hon. Members expected that, when the Civil Service Estimates were taken, due care should be exercised that the items were of such a character as might be relied upon, and that whenever there was a large increase hon. Members were entitled to be satisfied that such increase in the expenditure had been of such an unexpected character as to justify the Department in not including them in the original Estimates. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gerard Noel) would say whether the progress of the work under sub-head B had been considerably in excess of the reasonable expectations of the Department, and how it was that when the original Estimate was made no amount was put down for fittings or furniture? Was it a fact that a part of the building had been completed earlier than had been expected, and that furniture had been required in consequence which was not originally estimated for?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that there had been a long frost, accompanied by strikes, in the year 1878, which latter, he was happy to say, were concluded; and the works had, therefore, proceeded much more rapidly during the present year than they had during the last. They had used all the old furniture which they possibly could; but it was found that some fresh furniture should be supplied.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,

with regard to the item of £12,000 for new furniture, pointed out that it was entirely a new one, and had made its appearance for the first time in the Estimates for this building; but, as it had never existed before, the Committee would perceive that it could not be in the nature of a Supplementary Estimate. Supplementary Estimates of this nature applied rather to money demanded for the purpose of extending or continuing works originally estimated for. How- ever, considering that sub-head B in the present Estimates did include this charge for new furniture, he regretted that more foresight had not been exercised by including the item in the original Estimates. He begged to ask the hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works at what date he discovered that the building would be occupied in the course of the year, and when it was that the present Estimate was admitted for the purpose of supplying additional furniture? The point which was raised by the appearance for the first time of this item in the Supplementary Estimates was one that he had repeatedly complained of, and it was a fact that the Public Accounts Committee passed these Supplementary Estimates from year to year, and never brought to the notice of the House the objectionable practice of including items in additional Estimates after the House had long passed the original Estimates. Objection was made last year by several hon. Members to the practice of the Government of coming down to the House with two or three Supplementary Estimates. This practice was always objectionable, and for several years he had pointed out the necessity of controlling Departments, and that no Department should get one farthing more than was absolutely required. He knew by his own experience that if a controlling power were exercised over Departments, they could easily regulate the amounts of money demanded in the original Estimates. He, therefore, repeated his question to the right hon. Gentleman, as to when he discovered it was necessary to supply the additional furniture?

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that the Estimates were prepared in January last year; but it was not until June that the Department became aware that the furniture would be required.

MR. DILLWYN

pointed out that they had received no sufficient Estimate of the cost of the new furniture; he thought they had a right to complain of this omission, and to insist that the Committee should always receive a full statement of expenditure. Hon. Members found themselves, under the present system, committed to an expenditure by small Votes being taken, and they afterwards learned that these formed only a portion of the whole Expenditure. The Committee ought, in his opinion, to con- sider this subject well, and to ascertain whether Votes taken were for a part or the whole of any particular scheme. To him it appeared very like part of a system; and, with, regard to this particular item, the House would hereafter be called upon to pay a very large sum for extra furniture. At that time, if any hon. Member asked what it was for, he would probably receive as a reply—"Oh, you voted that in the Supplementary Estimates of last year." He considered that no new expense should be allowed to be included in the Supplementary Estimates. The case before the Committee was a very strong one as bearing upon this point, and the amount asked for appeared to him to be but the first item of a very large expenditure.

MR. GERARD NOEL

replied to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) that it was believed the building would not have been finished until several months after it was completed; there was, therefore, no reason at the time of preparing the last Estimates to suppose that the furniture would be required. He reminded the Committee that the building was of an enormous size, containing as it did 250 rooms, besides galleries and corridors. It was, therefore, impossible to estimate what would be required until the building was completed. He had not the least idea at that moment what would be the total expense in respect of furniture.

MR. GREGORY

said, that all the old furniture available had been made use of. The building was, no doubt, a very large one, and contained a great number of offices, as well as rooms, very well adapted to their respective purposes. The offices had been occupied as rapidly as they could be, and, no doubt, the Government had found in the case of a building taken possession of in that way, it was extremely difficult to ascertain what would be required in the various offices. No doubt there would be a further outlay in respect of the furniture which it would be found necessary to supply. A great number of offices had already been occupied.

MR. DILLWYN

did not for one moment complain of the expense, being, of course, agreed that the furniture ought to be supplied, and in a proper manner; all he complained of was that the Papers relating to the expenditure which was being incurred had not been laid upon the Table of the House, for he thought that the Committee ought to have some idea of the amount that would be required before they were called upon to vote.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

could not see the impossibility which the hon. Gentleman the head of the Department had said existed, of forming an idea of the total expenditure under this head. He thought that when the Estimates were reached they should have a statement of the expenditure already incurred, and that which was about to be incurred.

Voteagreed to.

(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,111, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

asked for an explanation of the item of £1,500 under letter B?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the amount represented the excess which had been carried out in connection with the National Education Question for school purposes.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he would have to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,040, said to have been incurred in providing temporary barracks in certain parts of Ireland for the Constabulary during the late operations in the North of Ireland. The duty of the Constabulary, it appeared, had consisted, for the most part, in assisting the bailiffs in the service of ejectments and various processes of law. These duties had certainly never been contemplated at the first formation of this force, and he thought Irish Members had a right to object to their employment in these capacities. It would be useless for him, and he did not intend to go into the question as to whether the amount was correct; but he pointed Out to the Committee that the necessity for the employment of the Constabulary in those districts of Ireland where the temporary barracks had been provided had arisen from want of attention on the part of the Government, and from the unsatisfactory state of the law. He, therefore, begged leave to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,040.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,071, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

could not consent to the striking out of the amount proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). It had been found absolutely necessary to supplement the original Estimate for police in Ireland by this amount, for providing barracks in places where no accommodation existed. He would not go into the large question raised by the hon. Member as to the original cause of this necessity; but that necessity had arisen, and the barracks had been provided in the districts to which it had been found necessary to move the force. The Government, in consequence, were obliged to come to the House to sanction an amount for the cost of these barracks.

MR. SHAW

said, the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was not satisfactory. It had not been sufficiently understood or explained that a portion of the Constabulary had been employed for the protection of private parties in some parts of the country, whose owners imagined themselves not to be free from danger, and, in consequence, applied for the police. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be well to make the gentlemen who had applied for the assistance of the police pay for the police accommodation which had in consequence to be provided. It was doubtful, in his opinion, whether it was wise to move the Constabulary about from one part of the country to another for the purposes of serving ejectments and notices to quit; at all events, the landlords who required their services ought to pay for them. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was quite right in calling the attention of the House to this subject; but he hoped that the Motion would not be pressed to a division.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

was perfectly willing to accept the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), not to press his Amendment.

Motion, by leave,withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

referred to the item of £870 for poplin on account of the State apartments. On looking at the previous Estimate, he could not find that any such item had appeared before. This was another instance where a new demand had arisen, and had been put into the Supplementary Estimates. The course pursued with respect to the two items which had been treated in this manner was one which, in his opinion, ought never to be resorted to so far as the Supplementary Estimates were concerned, and the amount ought to have been kept back until the next Estimates were prepared. He desired to know from the Secretary to the Treasury how it was that this new demand had been made?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

regretted that he had been mainly responsible for the introduction of this charge. On more than one occasion, the absolute necessity of re-furnishing the particular State apartments referred to had presented itself; and it had been suggested that, in order to give employment to a certain class of workmen, they might avail themselves of the necessity which had really arisen in order to afford some assistance to a particular trade which had been in a state of considerable depression and distress. He had therefore sanctioned, after the Estimates of last year had been passed, an amount to be included in the present Supplementary Estimates for the purpose of furnishing the apartments with a particular material, which it was said would give a stimulus to the trade. The Estimates for this particular work had always been very much in excess of the amount which the Government had sanctioned in the present instance, and he was happy to say that the result of the expenditure had been considered in Ireland to be quite satisfactory.

MR. WHITWELL

inquired what it was that the Government had purchased under letter A? As far as he could make out, it seemed that they had purchased an interest in a house. That, again, was not a supplementary item; it was a new demand altogether. He thought it would be important to the Committee to know, with regard to this, whether it was but the commencement of a series of further expenditure? They had, it appeared, only bought an interest in the house, and were only part-owners, for the Estimate did not say that the purchase had been made. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee as to what had been actually purchased. There was another question—namely, the charge for keeping up and maintaining buildings, under which head there appeared to be a deficiency of £2,000. His hon. Friends near him were quite ignorant of the nature of the demand for inspection officers, and perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee upon this point.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the interest in the house alluded to had been bought with a view to its being used in connection with the Science and Art Collection. There were certain buildings which it would be necessary to acquire, as the leases fell in, for the purpose of improving the Science and Art Museum. With regard to the estimated deficiency to which the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) had called his attention, the charge was entirely distinct from the special services which had appeared in former Estimates, and was distinctly for general services rendered.

MR. DILLWYN

pointed out the original Estimate was for the sum of £32.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, that owing to the increase in the Expenditure over the sum in the original Estimates they had a new charge of £1,400 for this one building. He quite admitted all the Secretary to the Treasury had said with regard, to the necessity of buying in buildings which might become available: but this system of making up the Civil Service Estimates with Supplemental Charges was one which the Committee of Public Accounts had always neglected to inquire into, and they never reported the defective manner in which those Estimates were prepared. He thought there would be an advantage in placing some military men at the Treasury to check the Civil charges in the manner followed of checking the military charges at the Treasury by means of civilians. Another reform was that of putting new blood upon the Committee of Public Accounts, who would, no doubt, point out some system which would be better than that at present existing for controlling expenditure. When hon. Members came to compare the Estimates of 1880–1 with those of 1879–80 they found the figures to be entirely different; and, as a matter of course, the comparison which ought easily to be made between one Estimate and another was rendered impossible.

MR. RYLANDS

remarked, that under sub-head C was an altogether unprecedented item. It seemed clear to him, from the particulars given, that the estimated deficiency was for purposes not stated in the sub-head. He thought it was a very rough-and-ready kind of way to put down a few hundreds or thousands for general deficiency. He should be glad if the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee of what the deficiency consisted, and what the amount put down "portal inspection" was for.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the portal inspection offices were those created under the Sanitary Act for the purpose of examining the cattle in Ireland. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the sum required for the purpose of the house at 3, Shelburne Place, he might observe that the Government had purchased merely an interest in that particular property, and that it could not justly be put down as a purchase of the property altogether. There were, he imagined, divers interests in that particular house, and it had become necessary to purchase a particular interest for the benefit of the country. Moreover, the smallness of the sum paid would indicate that it clearly did not represent the purchase of the house itself. If the hon. Member for Swansea was anxious to have further information on the subject he would promise to give it him upon Report.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

remarked, that no doubt it was quite right to purchase an interest in the house at Shelburne Place; but they were asked to grant a Vote on account of it without knowing anything of the particulars. They did not know the duration of the interest, or whether it would involve an expenditure of several more thousands.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

thought that the most satisfactory way would be that he should add to the Estimates of the present year a full statement of the facts with regard to that particular house. He was unable to state more than he had done at the present time; but full information should be given.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that he would like some further information as to the way in which a deficiency had arisen, and how much had been spent on the portal inspection offices?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

observed, that the deficiency was due to a larger amount having been spent on general service and maintenance than was expected. The deficit was not owing to anything having been expended in new works.

Original Question put, andagreed to.

(9.) £5,000, Shannon Navigation.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

remarked, that the sum of £8,000 was taken for these works in the Civil Service Estimates for 1880 and 1881, and the sum of £5,000 was now asked for to supplement the demands in the original Estimates of 1879–80. He believed that this was the third occasion on which the House had been asked to Vote additional sums for these works. During the last 40 years £200,000 had probably been spent on the Shannon Navigation, and to no purpose, for, so far from doing good, positive harm had resulted. Last year an hon. Member mentioned, as a result of the Expenditure on these works, that the grass land in the neighbourhood of the river had become dried up, owing to the water having been drawn off. He wished to ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury what actual good had been done, and how much further expenditure would be required for this costly river? It was very difficult to compare one year's expenditure with another, when sums were asked for by Supplementary Estimates.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the reason why sums were asked for by Supplementary Estimates was in one respect due to the fact that the Secretary to the Treasury was required to produce the Estimates at an early day in the Session. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself was particularly anxious that the Estimates should be laid before the House at the earliest possible period of the Session, and if that were done it would always be necessary to prepare Supplementary Estimates. He might state, with regard to this particular Vote, that the sum of £5,000 had been authorized to be expended on this navigation, because it would form one of the relief works in Ireland, and would afford employment to people in a part of the country where great distress existed.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

remarked, that he could bear testimony to the fact that the hon. Baronet had brought forward the Estimates at an early day, and he did not think there was any difference of opinion on that point.

Voteagreed to.

(10.) £8,386, Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.

MR. MONK

asked whether the Embassy House at St. Petersburgh belonged to the British Government or was held on a lease for years? Last year the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it had become necessary to renew the lease. It seemed to him that the present was a very large sum to ask in addition to the £14,000 taken last year.

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, that the hon. Member might recollect that when Lord Augustus Loftus took possession of the Embassy House at St. Petersburgh considerable changes were necessary. A part of the present sum was for furniture, and the remainder for other matters.

Voteagreed to.