HL Deb 27 October 1920 vol 42 cc89-96

THE EARL OF MIDLETON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can lay on the Table a statement showing the actual expenditure of the country under Does a single member of this House disagree with that? I do not believe there is one. Not a single speech has been made in opposition to it. "And without some proof that the provisions for the protection of cathedrals and churches which have prevailed for centuries have proved inadequate." I think before an outside authority which has nothing to do with these matters, like the Office of Works, appoints what is called an Advisory Committee, they ought to have some cases before them, and be able to state what those cases are, which make the appointment of such an Advisory Committee either necessary or expedient. I cannot imagine any one differing from what I say. And then what is the last? "Or that the Church has in any way failed in her sacred trust towards these buildings." We have had two notable speeches from the other side acknowledging the work that the Church has done as regards its sacred buildings. There may be a difference in matters of taste; I know what the noble Earl said just now. Therefore I shall certainly press my Resolution to a Division, unless the Government will accept it.

On Question?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 27: Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Chilston, V. Islington, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Knaresborough, L.
Bedford, D. Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Northumberland, D. Parmoor, L. [Teller.]
Chichester, L. Bp. Phillimore, L.
Grey, B. [Teller.] Playfair, L.
Malmesbury, E. Armaghdale, L. Shandon, L.
Midleton, E. de Mauley, L. Southborough, L.
Selborne, E. Desborough, L. Stuart of Wortley, L.
Faringdon, L. Sydenham, L.
Chaplin, V. Granard, L.(E. Granard.) Wyfold, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Crewe, M. Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Peel, V. Pontypridd, L.
Beauchamp, E. Ashton of Hyde, L. Ranksborough, L.
Ferrers, E. Avebury, L. Somerleyton, L[Teller.]
Lytton, E. Hylton, L. Stanmore, L [Teller.]
Plymouth, E. Killanin, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

the various heads for April 1 to September 30, 1920, as compared with the estimated expenditure; what is the estimated expenditure in Mesopotamia for 1920:–1921; and what reductions of staff have taken place in Government Departments from April 1 to September 30.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not desire to trouble your Lordships with a speech upon this subject, but I would ask the noble Lord who represents the Treasury to say whether he can lay before us rather more detailed heads of expenditure than those which we have hitherto been privileged to see. I know that in another place the reply was given that it was unnecessary to publish this expenditure because it had already been published in the London Gazette of October I. What we desire to know is not merely what the total expenditure of the country has been for six months, but what the Government is spending under a variety of heads, a number of which we desire should disappear from the Estimates altogether. In the Return given in the London Gazette we have lumped together the Supply Services at £366,000,000. We want to know how much has been spent on the Army, how much on the Navy, and how much on the Civil Service, and we want the Civil Service subdivided so that we can see what has been expended on doles, on unemployment, on subsidies, and on those various Ministries some of which, according to the Resolution at which your Lordships arrived some months ago, ought to have disappeared from the Estimates. I do not ask for detailed expenditure which will take a long time to prepare. What we are anxious to have within a few days is merely the heads of those items which were given separately in a Memorandum of the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating his estimate of expenditure for the present year, and for a normal year. I think that was given in June last. All the heads of expenditure are large ones, and the figures must be accessible, and could be put together in a very few hours.

With regard to the second point referred to in my Resolution upon the Paper, I have asked what is the estimate of expenditure in Mesopotamia for 1920–1921. Perhaps I ought to have been more specific with regard to that. What I desired to put forward was a request for what is now the estimated expenditure. We all know what the estimated expenditure was at the beginning of the year, and we have reason to fear that that estimate has been largely exceeded. We have reason to believe that a supplementary estimate will be needed. What the country wants to know is what is the estimated expenditure now that the six months have gone by. If I asked what would be the actual expenditure on Mesopotamia it would take many months to obtain the information. Therefore I think we can best serve the purpose we have in view, in dealing with the position in Mesopotamia from the point of view of economy, if we are told what it is now estimated we shall have to spend before the close of the year.

Again, in asking about the reduction of staff in Government Departments, I desire to know the net reductions. I deeply regret, and I believe your Lordships will regret, that the promises made by the Government some months ago with regard to these reductions have not materialised, so far as we can see, to any great extent. The increases in the Ministry of Pensions during the month of August alone have largely absorbed the decreases made in all the other Departments. The increases made in the Health Department on a very large scale have gone far to check-mate the decrease in higher posts, to which we have been assured every effort of the Government would be directed. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will be able to read into the Question the explanations for which I venture to ask.

LORD HYLTON

My Lords, in answering the Question that the noble Earl has put upon the Paper, I will endeavour to deal with each of its three parts as clearly as I can. The first question of the noble Earl is whether the Government will lay on the Table a statement showing the actual expenditure of the country under the various heads from April 1 to September 30 of this year as compared with the estimated expenditure. I am informed that an identical question was asked by Mr. Locker-Lampson a few days ago in another place, and that in his reply the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the Revenue and Expenditure Return which, as the noble Earl said just now, was published in the Gazette in October. That Return, I think, is in the noble Earl's hands, and shows in different columns the estimated expenditure for the year and the actual Exchequer issues for the six months up to September 30, divided under seven heads. I am ready to read them out to the House if it is the noble Earl's wish. If, however, the noble Earl does not wish me to read them out, I can only refer your Lordships to the Gazette of October 1. The estimated expenditure and the actual Exchequer issues to which I have referred are divided in that Return under seven heads. One head, it is true, is stated to be Supply Services, but had I known beforehand that the noble Earl wanted those figures as regards the Supply Services to be divided up under the heads of Army, Navy, Civil Service, and so on, I would certainly have clone my best to have them so divided.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

The Question says "under the various heads." The various heads of expenditure are not covered by speaking of Supply Services as if the whole of the services of the country were one.

LORD HYLTON

As regards that, I can only say that an identical question was addressed to the Government in the House of Commons. I have not read any debate that took place in regard to it, but I fancy that the gentleman who asked the question was satisfied with the Return under the seven heads, including one as to Supply Services. If he had been dissatisfied or had asked for a further sub-division of the figures, I have no doubt it could have been done. But I had no idea that the noble Earl wanted more in the way of information than was given in reply to the question in another place a few days ago. However, I will at once have the figures looked into and divided up as the noble Earl desires. I imagine there will be no difficulty whatever in doing it, and I hope the noble Earl will not think for a moment that; I have endeavoured to burke it. I will certainly inform the noble Marl as soon as I can of the details he asks for, and will ascertain whether there is any objection, which, so far as I know, there is not, to laying them before the House.

In the second part of bin Question the noble Earl asks what is the estimated expenditure in Mesopotamia for 1920–1921; assume he means for the financial year. The answer that has been furnished me by the War Office is that the military expenditure in Mesopotamia; including that on refugees, in 1920–1921 is estimated as approximately £28,000,000. This figure includes capital charges. I only received this information just as I was coming down to the House, and I was not a ole to ascertain exactly what capital charge:, are included, but I understand that certain railways are indicated by that phrase. The total figure taken in the Estimates for the current year 1920–21 in regard to the operations in Mesopotamia I believe to be about £6,000,000 less than £28,000,000, and it is obvious that a supplementary estimate will have to be presented in regard to those operations by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When that estimate is presented in another place I daresay there will be a debate in reference to the details.

The noble Earl asks, thirdly, what reductions of staff have taken place in Government Departments from April 1 to September 30 this year The staffs of Government Departments have decreased by 4,000 during that period—namely, from 370,374 to 366,237. That figure represents the net decrease after allowing for additional staff required to deal with increases of work in certain Departments. For instance, the following increases have taken place during this period—I do not know that the figures include all, but I give them as examples:—In the Post Office, 2,279. That increase I believe is partly a temporary increase only, or a seasonal increase. As members of the staff during the summer months go on holiday additional temporary persons are appointed to do their duties. But although that increase is partly temporary or seasonal, I do not want the House to take it that the whole of the increase is of that character. But it is not only hoped, but expected, that there will be a decrease in those numbers shown before the end of the year. In the Ministry of Pensions there has been an increase during the six months of 1,786. That increase, I am informed, is due to the growth of the institutional staff connected with the Ministry of Pensions. It is hoped, however, that the maximum number likely to be employed in that Ministry has now been reached. There has also been an increase of 1,290 persons employed by the Inland Revenue. That increase, I am told, is due to the growth of Income-tax work.

The principal decreases are the following:—Ministry of Pensions, 6,744; Ministry of Labour, 1,972; Ministry or Food, 1,328. The number of persons employed by the Ministry of Food would, I am further informed, have been decreased had it not been for the coal strike. Owing to the coal strike I am afraid that at the present moment there is probably no prospect of a diminution of the number of persons employed by the Ministry of Food. There is no Department of His Majesty's Government more anxious to effect reductions of staff and economies in the public service than the Treasury, and I am told that everything that is possible, so far as they are concerned, has been done and is being done fin that direction. But the cause is well known to your Lordships, and to the public. It seems very difficult to effect these reductions; for reasons that I need not go into.

LORD ISLINGTON

Will the noble Earl kindly say whether I interpret his remarks correctly in this sense, that the present establishment cost in Mesopotamia is £22,000,000?

LORD HYLTON

£28,000,000.

LORD ISLINGTON

Yes, but I understood that out of that £28,000,000, £6,000,000 was to be deducted for capital expenditure.

LORD HYLTON

I am afraid I did not make it clear. The facts are that the estimated expenditure for the financial year in Mesopotamia is £28,000,000. Included in that is a certain amount represented by capital expenditure, such as the cost of the construction of railways, and so on. It will be necessary in another place to ask for a supplementary estimate of, I fancy, about £6,000,000 in order to make up the £28,000,000.

LORD ISLINGTON

I am obliged to my noble friend for correcting me. I may take it that the £28,000,000, apart from that capital expenditure to which he has alluded, is the amount of money that is required for the whole maintenance of the force now stationed in Mesopotamia. And when he informs the House and the country that this is the return from the War Office, does it represent all expenditure—I mean all expenditure beside that included under the head of the War Office. I think on the same day that the question was put in another place in regard to this matter the Secretary of State for War was asked what the military establishment in Mesopotamia amounted to at the present time, and the answer of the Secretary of State was, roughly speaking, something over 80,000 Indian troops and about 17,000 British troops. What, I think, the country is very anxious to know is that the expenditure incurred by that number of troops will be confined to the £28,000,000 estimated.

LORD HYLTON

If my noble friend desires to know what has been done in regard to troops in Mesopotamia or elsewhere a Question on the subject ought to be addressed to my noble friend Lord Peel, and I conceive it is almost impossible to say—it is a matter for the military advisers of the Crown to say—what the necessities of the case may require to be spent in Mesopotamia between now and the end of the financial year. I am afraid I cannot give any further answer.

LORD ASHTON OF HYDE

Am I right in supposing that the position is this? The Estimate for the year was £28,000,000, and you have already spent £22,000,000. Therefore you only have £6,000,000 more of the Estimate to go upon, and you require a Supplementary Estimate in consequence of the expenditure exceeding the £28,000,000.

LORD HYLTON

I think the facts are that the Estimate is about £28,000,000, and therefore £6,000,000 would be needed as a Supplementary Estimate.

LORD ASHTON OF HYDE

But was not the original estimate £28,000,000?

LORD HYLTON

I will inquire.

LORD ASHTON OF HYDE

And you have spent £22,000,000 already, and therefore you will require a Supplementary Estimate, because you cannot get on with the £6,000,000. That is the point, is not it?

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his promise of figures, and trust that he will endeavour to expedite them as we desire to have them in our hands as soon as possible.

[From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, October 261

The LORD SPEAKER acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.