HC Deb 28 February 1890 vol 341 cc1517-23
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling, &c.)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any precedent for asking a Vote from the House on account of Estimates not yet in the hands of Members?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that in 1869–70 the Estimates were delivered on April 13, the first Vote on Account having been taken on April 9. There are other precedents for Votes on Account being taken practically simultaneously with the delivery of the Estimates. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that passing a Vote on Account does not bind the House to the approval of any new expenditure, and I would refer him to the statement on this point made by the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh in 1866. The course taken by the Government is in order to suit the convenience of the House, as next week, when the time would have been available for Supply, has been devoted to other purposes.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Estimates in the Vote on Account are not presented in a new form, reducing the number of Votes from 137 to 106; whether this change has been approved by the Public Accounts Committee: and whether the House will have an opportunity of examining any scheme for the re-arrangement of the Estimates, and pronouncing upon it, in conformity with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates Procedure in 1888, and of the Public Accounts Committee of the same year?

MR. W. H. SMITH

Yes, Sir; the Estimates covered by the Vote on Account have been presented in a form showing a reduction in the number of separate Votes to 106. The change has not yet been approved by the Public Accounts Committee, but it is proposed to invite the assistance of that Committee and to ask them to consider, and, I hope, to approve of the change. Any suggestions or alterations which that Committee may recommend will, I am sure, receive the careful consideration of the House and of the Government, with a view to giving effect to them; and it is clearly understood that in giving the Vote on Account the House does not commit itself to approval of the new orm of the Estimates. In 1860–61 the Civil Service Votes numbered 198; in 1861–62 they were reduced to 183; in 1865–66 they were 182; in 1866–67 they were 169; in 1867–68 they were 168; and in 1868–69 they were 146. In I reducing the number of Votes we are only, therefore, following precedent. The Government were so impressed with the necessity of making some change in the form of the Estimates which would reduce the number of Votes and insure their being better grouped that they did not like to delay making their proposals for another year. Accordingly, we determined that the Estimates should be prepared and presented in the new form, and in so doing we believed that the House and the Committee of Public Accounts would, without committing themselves to accepting the form for more than one year, be better able to judge of the change with a view to its future adoption. The Estimates when in the hands of Members will show that the means of comparison are preserved.

MR. J. MORLEY

May I ask whether it is true that the Government first of all adopted the change in the form of the Estimates, and then, last night at a late hour put on the Paper the proposal to refer the matter to the Public Accounts Committee. I would further ask whether, in the case of all the precedents the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, the change had not been first submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, and whether that Committee had not in 1888 I almost ordered that before any change was made in the form of the Estimates they, as well as the House, should first have an opportunity of considering the matter?

MR. W. H. SMITH

In answer to the first question of the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that I am under the impression that the Committee could not deal with the question unless it was referred to them by the House. With regard to the second question, the right hon. Gentleman will find that none of the changes to which I have referred had been submitted to the previous approval of the Committee of Public Accounts. In answer to the third question, I admit that the Committee did express a desire chat changes generally should be submitted to them for approval.

MR. J. MORLEY

I only want to know whether we are to-night going to consider a Vote on Account, cast in a form which has never been approved by, or submitted to, the Committee of Public Accounts?

MR. W. H. SMITH

The House will not in the slightest degree commit itself to the form in which the demand is submitted. There is no change in the method of accounts, and there is no change whatever in the services to be provided for. The fact is, that certain Votes have been put together.

MR. J. MORLEY

Is it not the case that the Civil Service Estimates have been printed in a changed form, which has afterwards to be approved of?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I have stated that they are undoubtedly presented in a changed form, as they were presented in a changed form in 1860, 1861, 1865, and 1866–78.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

Is it not a fact that the Estimates Procedure Committee of 1888 reported that a scheme of grouping should receive the attention of the Treasury and be submitted to the House. Was not this Resolution substantially adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government, when he said that no large alteration would be made of so serious a character as to need the approval of the House?

MR, W. H. SMITH

It is perfectly true that the Committee did desire and did instruct the Treasury to group the Estimates more carefully together, and the Treasury, having followed their instructions, have only been wanting in one thing—namely, that they have not submitted a scheme to the House for consideration in any other form than in the concentrated form of the Estimates themselves. The only way in which the Instruction of the Committee of 1888 could be carried out was in the way now submitted to the House in the Estimates of the year.

MR JENNINGS (Stockport)

May I ask whether, by this new system of classifying Votes, it is no longer the case that there will be a separate Vote for the maintenance of the Houses of Parliament, the maintenance of the British Museum, and the Metropolitan Police Courts: and whether these changes are not calculated to lessen the power of criticism possessed by the House over these Estimates?

MR. W. H. SMITH

Even if these Votes were not submitted as separate and substantive Votes, they would all appear as so many sub-heads, and the House would possess the same control.

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE WORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the precedent of 1867, and said that changes were in that year made in the Civil Service Estimates without submitting them first to the Public Accounts Committee. But is it not the fact that the changes were submitted to, and approved by, the Public Accounts Committee in that year and also in 1881?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I will make inquiry.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, if we pass this Vote on Account, it will not commit us to the change proposed, or, at any rate, preclude us from re-opening the question this Session?

MR. SPEAKER

It is for the House to judge whether it will preclude any question from being raised again; it is not a question of order.

MR. A. O'CONNOR

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the putting of one question from the Chair for a number of Services will not place at the disposal of the Government the balances unexpended on all those separate Services as if it were one Vote, instead of two or three?

MR. W. H. SMITH

If the House attaches any importance to the point which has been raised, there will be no hesitation on the part of Her Majesty's Government in giving an assurance that the surplus under one subhead shall not be expended in the Services under another sub-head.

SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether the assurance he has just given applies to the sub-heads generally, or whether it is only intended to apply to those which it is suggested to alter?

MR. W. H. SMITH

That, I think, is a question rather for the Public Accounts Committee to consider, and I may say that any suggestions which may be made in this Committee will certainly receive the most careful and respectful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

I beg, Sir, to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a matter of urgent public importance, namely, to the con duct of Her Majesty's Government in introducing large alterations in the mode of submitting the Estimates to this House without having previously submitted them to the approval of the House.

MR. SPEAKER

I would point out to the hon. Member that that is a question which would come better at a subsequent period on Committee of Supply.

MR. BUCHANAN

Am I to under stand, Sir, that I should be in order in moving to report Progress on a Vote of Account in order to call attention to this subject in Committee?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman's Motion could be made when the House is in Committee. The hon. Member would then be in order in raising the question as to the form in which the Votes are to be taken in this House.

MR, A. O'CONNOR

I wish, Sir, to ask a question on a point of order. The Government have intimated that they propose to have the subject of the new form of taking the Estimates referred to the Public Accounts Committee. The functions of the Committee are laid down on the Standing Orders, and they are not concerned in any way with the mode of putting the Votes from the Chair in this House, or, indeed, with the question of procedure in this House. The reference of such a question as is now suggested to the Public Accounts Committee would be really an extension of the province and powers of that Committee. I therefore ask you, Sir, as a point of order, whether such a proposal can be adopted without the passing of a Standing Order upon the subject.

MR, SPEAKER

I think that if the existing powers of the Committee should be exceeded then an instruction would be required to enable the Committee to consider the special question to be referred to it.

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the last paragraph of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee which has just been made, and which has reference to the point now raised. The Committee state that they do not desire to deal with any question relating to the voting of the Estimates in Committee of Supply. I would point out that the Public Accounts Committee is an exceptional Committee acting under a Standing Order of this House, and it would be highly inconvenient to submit to them such a question as has now been raised. [Cries of "Order, order!"] I am only elucidating the question I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, as I think it would be highly inconvenient to mix up these technical matters, as to the accounts and control over moneys that have been voted, with the question of procedure in the voting of the Estimates in this House.

MR. W. H. SMITH

My attention has been called to the paragraph referred to by the hon. Gentleman, which seems to negative the power of the Public Accounts Committee to entertain the question as to the form in which the Votes are to be submitted to the House, and to suggest that the responsibility should rest upon the Government themselves. The Government has accepted that responsibility; but they desire to obtain the assistance of the Committee on Public Accounts in order that that Committee may satisfy themselves that the form in which the Votes are submitted to the House is satisfactory.

MR. H. J. WILSON (Holmfirth)

Did I understand you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the question submitted by my hon. Friend (Mr. Buchanan) was not a matter of urgent public importance?

MR. SPEAKER

No; I suggested that it would more properly arise at a later stage, when the House is in Committee.