HC Deb 30 July 1896 vol 43 cc1102-9

(1.) The Treasury may, if they think lit, at any time for the purpose of providing money for the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund under this Act, or repaying to that fund all or any part of the sums so issued, borrow money by means of terminable annuities for such period not exceeding thirty years from the passing of this Act as the Treasury may fix and all sums so borrowed shall be paid into the Exchequer. (2.) The said annuities shall be paid out of the moneys annually provided by Parliament for the foreign and colonial services; and, if those moneys are insufficient, shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, but shall not be payable as part of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt. (3.) The Secretary of State shall in every financial year cause to be laid out and laid before the House of Commons an account, in the form required by the Treasury, of the money expended and borrowed and the securities created under this Act, and the accounts of expenditure under this Act shall be audited and reported upon by the Comptroller and Auditor General as appropriation accounts in manner directed by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1860.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "thirty years," and to insert instead the words "fifteen years"so as to limit the period during which the terminable annuities by which the money borrowed should be repaid should run to 15 years.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said that for obvious reasons the term of 30 years was preferable to one of 15 years. He could not accept the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

asked whether these terminable annuities were to be met out of money annually voted by Parliament.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied in the affirmative. Each year the annuities would have to be met by money voted by Parliament.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

thought that if the railway made a profit, it ought to be paid into the Treasury in reduction of the charge.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield)

asked why we should benefit posterity to this enormous extent by shortening the term of the annuities?

* MR. PERKS,

in supporting the Amendment, observed that there was an important reason why the railway should be paid for in fifteen years, and that was that it would afford a good object lesson to the people of this country as to the danger of speculating in this wild way with public money. If under the auspices of the Government, they were going to plunge into investments, as the Government called them, but which were really wild speculations, because they were afraid if they did not do so some other nation might plunge into them, then the sooner the people were brought to their senses by having to bear the onus of this rash method of procedure, the better it would be. It would, therefore, be preferable instead of spreading this expenditure over thirty years to spread it over fifteen, so that a necessary and salutary lesson might the sooner be brought home to the people of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in defence of the proposal of the Government, had compared this railway with the works approved recently under the Naval Works Act. But these latter were carried out in civilised districts where they had carefully-prepared estimates. They were told that this system of thirty-years was always chosen in the case of permanent works. But was any railway constructed, in a tropical region, of iron bridges substituted for concrete bridges, a permanent work? Such a railway was not even a permanent work in their own country where the climatic conditions were not so severe, so that much less must it be so in a district subject to floods and where there would be very little user of the railway. The more a line was used, the more traffic it got, the more permanent it became in its character, for it received more attention. No one could contend that the railway would be, a permanent work in the nature of those executed under the Naval Works Act, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested. The revenue of the railway from Government traffic, according to the statement of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on Monday night, would only be £6,000 a year, so that while the railway was going to cost £3,000,000 of money the receipts from Government traffic would only be £6,000 a year——

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I rise to a point of Order. I submit that on this clause there is no question of the merits or demerits of the railway. It is a mere question of the number of years the terminable annuity should run.

* THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

That is so. The hon. Member is not entitled upon this Amendment to discuss the whole, merits of the Bill, the principle of which has been already passed by the House.

* MR. PERKS

was merely pointing out one of the reasons why he thought the period should be reduced from 30 to 15 years. In 30 years, probably none of the railway would be in existence, and it was not fair to saddle posterity with the cost of a railway which would, in their time, probably have disappeared or have been stolen.

MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

supported the Amendment. There was nothing which gave governing bodies whether they were local governing bodies or Imperial—a greater temptation to extravagance than that a loan should be spread over a considerable period of time. He ventured to think if the time was restricted in this case the Government would be acting wisely in so restricting it. The people of this country would then have their responsibility brought home to them in regard to the construction of the railway. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Naval Works Bill in support of the argument he desired to bring before the House. But those Naval Works were really of a permanent character which would last for centuries while this railway was a very different thing owing to accidents, floods or unforeseen circumstances which to a very much larger extent would be liable to attach to it, therefore the term ought to be shortened. In future their Imperial responsibilities were more likely to increase than diminish. If they were to carry out the policy of which the construction of this railway was the forerunner, then he said their responsibilities in various parts of the world would largely increase, they should require to draw more upon their resources in the future than they had done in the past, and the sooner they got rid of responsibilities of this kind the better.

MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)

contended that while 30 years was looked upon as a reasonable period over which to extend the repayment of loans in the case of permanent works in this country, it was much too long when dealing with a work of this kind which, having regard to the nature of its construction, and the climatic influences to which it would be exposed could not be described as permanent. This line would be subject to sun, to storms, and to the interference of insects, as was the case with railways in India. In India they could not lay wooden sleepers along a railway simply because they were liable to be eaten up and destroyed. That was an element to betaken into consideration. Again, iron bridges on a, railway were liable to deterioration from the effect of excessive heat. The permanency of an iron bridge in a tropical country was much shorter lived than a similar bridge in this country. Then in a tropical climate iron rails were liable to get twisted and out of condition. He thought it a safe and wise provision, from the novelty of the case and from the peculiar circumstances of the railway there, where they had no material to judge as to the permanency of the works, that they should fix the period at 15 years in the meantime. That did not prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer afterwards, if matters turned out well, from moving to extend the time to 30 years if necessary. Supposing this railway carried no goods; supposing the railway to be carried off by the natives? If they adopted the Bill as it stood, they would have placed themselves in the position of having spread the payment over a period of 30 years. He thought that was most unreasonable. He thought the Government should show their faith in the success of this railway by agreeing to repay the money within the 15 years.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

pointed out that the Committee had agreed that £3,000,000 should be advanced to the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department. Undoubtedly the best way of raising the money for this purpose was by terminable annuities for not exceeding 30 years. If they reduced the maximum term from 30 years to 15 they would not at all affect the principle of the Bill. They would simply tie the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and prevent him from raising the money in the best way. He would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he rose at the same time as the hon. Member for the purpose of asking leave to withdraw the Amendment. He simply wanted to raise a protest.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES,

in order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an explanation on one or two points, moved an Amendment providing that a detailed account of the expenditure by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should be supplied to the Treasury. Sub-section (3) of the clause provided that the Secretary of State should, in every financial year, cause to be laid before the House of Commons an account in the form required by the Treasury. He might remind the Committee that the Secretary of State was not an accountant—[cries of "Divide!"]—and that, consequently, he would require some direction as to the sort of account he was to deliver. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] In fact, he doubted whether the Foreign Office could provide an accountant who could pass an examination in book-keeping by double entry. [Ironical cheers.] The importance of the matter lay in the fact that they had placed£3,000,000 absolutely at the disposal of the Secretary of State, and it was eminently necessary that the accounts to be furnished to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, through him, to the House should be proper and detailed accounts. As the clause stood, all the Secretary of State need do was to say that he had received £2,000,000 and had spent £2,000,000 on this railway. [Loud cries of "Divide, divide!"] He was not inclined to sit down under this interruption, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would observe in his private interruptions some of the courtesy he observed in his public capacity, he would facilitate Debate. [Ironical cheers and cries of "Divide!"] This clause, as it stood, did not require that any details should appear in the account at all. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be ready to explain that he intended to insist on a detailed account. If the right hon. Gentleman told him that that was what he meant, and that he and the House would be provided with a detailed account of the expenditure, he should be quite satisfied and should withdraw his Amendment. [Ironical cheers.]

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,

who was received with loud cheers, said he was not in the habit of saying in private anything he was not prepared to repeat in the House. [Cheers.] He interrupted because the hon. Member was talking absolute nonsense. [Cheers.] The hon. Member stated to the Committee that under this clause the Secretary of State might, if he chose, certify an expenditure of £1,000,000 on the one side, and the receipt of £1,000,000 on the other, and that that would be sufficient for the account provided for by this clause. That was absolute nonsense. [Cheers.] The clause provided that the account should be made out in the form required by the Treasury. He had already stated, at a time when the hon. Member was not in the House, in reply to an hon. Member opposite, that the Treasury would be most careful to provide a detailed form of account, which should be laid, not only before the Treasury, but before Parliament afterwards. [Cheers.]

MR. GIBSON BOWLES,

who spoke amid loud and continuous cries of "Nonsense" and "Divide," said the right hon. Gentleman had been pleased to say that his description of the clause was nonsense, but the right hon. Gentleman had really confirmed that description. He persisted in saying that, so far as the clause was concerned, there was nothing whatever in it to require the Secretary of State to deliver a detailed account. [Cries of "Divide!"] The right hon. Gentleman had also been pleased to say that he never stated anything in private which he was not prepared to say in public. He did not dispute that, but, when the right hon. Gentleman said he had misdescribed the clause, he proved that it was not a misdescription at all by now telling him that he was prepared to give an account. [Loud laughter and cries of "Divide!"]

MR. PERKS

thought it would be well to present the information in regard to the various items of cost on this railway in the form usually presented in the construction of railways, and suggested that the Government should consult the engineers of the railway on the point.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said that was quite his idea of the way in which the information should be presented.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time to-morrow.