§ MR. GOURLEYI beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the Navy Estimates for contract shipbuilding and works, in connection with the dockyards since 1877–88 to to 1892–3, showing that for contract shipbuilding in 1887–8 £144,849 less was expended than what was voted in the Estimate; in 1888–9, £137,405; in 1889–90, £485,326; in 1890–91, £41,814; in 1891–2,£186,617; in l892–3,£235,106, making a total of £1,231,117 less spent than voted by Parliament; and for Admiralty works, in 1887–8, £36,013; in 1888–9, £18,490; in 1889–90, £19,683; in 1890–1, £41,536; in 1891–2, £39,137; in 1892–3, £46,260, making a total of £201,119 less spent than voted; and will he state how and for what purpose these large sums of money have been appropriated, and by whose authority?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHThe Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to answer this question. The points referred to by my hon. Friend have been the subject of evidence this Session before the Public Accounts Committee, who will doubtless report upon them. In most cases, when savings on contract shipbuilding have been appropriated for other Naval Services, they have been used in aid of other parts of the Shipbuilding Vote. In every case 927 in which a saving cm one Vote or on one section of the Shipbuilding Vote has been used to meet a deficit on another Vote or section, the Treasury, acting under then-statutory authority, have approved the transfer. There was a surplus surrendered to the Exchequer in each of the years mentioned, except 1891–92, when an excess Vote became necessary.