SUPPLY—REPORT. (Hansard, 6 April 1888)

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
said, though he did not see the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in his place, he desired to offer a personal explanation, and put himself right with the House, by saying that having that morning looked over the answer he gave the hon. Member to a question in reference to the administration and control exercised by the Treasury over the Post Office Buildings Vote, he found that answer did not quite accurately represent the facts of the case. He stated, on the previous night, that the Treasury gave no sanction to any application from the Post Office, unless the amount was first included within the Vote sanctioned by Parliament; and, secondly, unless the expenditure was to be appropriated to the particular and specific purpose mentioned in the Estimate. But he (Mr. Jackson) was afraid he went a little too far in saying that the Treasury gave no sanction to any expenditure except for the specified item mentioned in the Estimate. He thought what was present to his mind was this—that when the Estimates were framed, the Treasury was presented with a statement containing a list of all the buildings and all the items which were included in the Estimate, and it was this list he had in his mind, rather than subdivisions of the separate items in question. He was desirous not to mislead by the answer he gave. He knew the hon. Member for East Donegal was usually very accurate in regard to figures, and he (Mr. Jackson) had thought it his duty, and he hoped the House would excuse him for intervening for a few moments, to make himself perfectly clear. He might point out that there was this difficulty, that sometimes negotiations went on for years in regard to an item that might be put in the Esti- 695 mates for the year, and which was believed by the Post Office Authorities would come in course of payment during the current year. But these negotiations might be protracted, so that the purchase of a site could not be accomplished, or, even if that were not so, tenders for contracts might not be satisfactory, and delay might arise in carrying out the building. Therefore, he would have been right had he said that the Treasury gave no sanction to anything not previously considered and agreed upon; but he did not think he was justified in going so far as he did, and had no desire that the hands of the Treasury should be tied unnecessarily.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)
said, he gathered that the House was to understand that the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was right, and that it was in the power of the Treasury to divert expenditure from one item to another item. Was that so?

§ SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)
said, as he understood it, these sums voted for a particular building or for a specific purpose in the Post Office Vote were not necessarily always applied to that item; but the sums voted might be used during the year for other purposes. Then he would ask, might the money be used for purposes not stated in the Estimates; whether a building not mentioned in the Estimate could be erected with money voted for another building?

§ MR. JACKSON
said, yes, with the sanction of the Treasury. He would take a case to illustrate his meaning. Suppose £10,000 were entered in the Estimate for a Post Office building at Bristol, and suppose unforeseen circumstances arose preventing any portion of that £10,000 being expended during the year, it would be in the power of the Treasury to give authority for the building of a post office at Barnstaple, applying the saving on the Vote through the non-expenditure of the Vote for the building at Bristol to that purpose. He need not say, for hon. Members knew, that in the Estimates at the bottom of the column there was a sum put down for a margin, and there was also an item, he would not say for contingencies, but not for a specified purpose—that was to say, the Postmaster 696 General, with the sanction of the Treasury, might expend it on unforeseen requirements. It might sometimes happen that, negotiations having been going on for the purchase of a site or a building, the transaction suddenly became practicable, the owner possibly agreeing to accept terms he refused in previous years, and then the Treasury exercised that option and power they necessarily had. In some cases—one he had in his mind at the moment—negotiations had been going on for seven years, and the item had appeared in the Estimates over and over again. Of course, the only reason why the money was not used was simply that satisfactory terms were not arrived at.

§ SIR WALTER FOSTER
asked, would it not be better to have a Vote for contingencies set down in the Post Office Estimates?

§ MR. JACKSON
There is one.

§ SIR WALTER FOSTER
If money voted for a Post Office at Bristol were applied to Barnstaple—

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The hon. Member has already spoken.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he did not know the Secretary to the Treasury was going to mention this matter, or he would have sent for his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who was somewhere about the building. He was glad the hon. Gentleman had made his statement; it proved the usual accuracy of his hon. Friend in these matters. He would not attempt to discuss the statement now, but the House would see it was of very grave importance. He was sure that to many Members it came as a painful surprise to find that money voted for a Post Office building at Bristol might actually be devoted to expenditure at Barnstaple; it was contrary to the conception in every man's mind as to the disposal of money voted. He hoped that an opportunity would offer for raising the subject again; he would communicate with his hon. Friend, who would probably refer to it in the form of a question, to see if an end could be put to a state of things that the Secretary to the Treasury must acknowledge was not sound and businesslike.