NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1896–7. (Hansard, 26 February 1897)

§ MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)
said this large Supplementary Vote amounted to an extraordinary Budget like the extraordinary Budgets of some Continental States, and surely the House was entitled to some explanation of it. He would like to know why £116,000 more was wanted for coal.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. W. E. MACARTNEY,) Antrim, S.
replied that, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the current year, it had been necessary to keep a larger number of ships in commission than were provided for when the Estimates were framed. This accounted for the additional expenditure in coal and maintenance stores. It was also considered advisable, owing to the increased activity in the shipping industry in private yards and the large number of private orders which were being placed, to take advantage of a rising market in the interests of the economical administration of the service and a "place" the Government, orders as early as possible. It had been necessary to accelerate the completion of guns under construction, and the supply of ammunition that they might be ready for certain classes of ships, the building of which was being hastened. The £100 asked for on account of works, buildings, and repairs was merely a formal sum placed in the Estimate to bring under the notice of the House the magnitude of the work to be undertaken, which included the reconstruction of a jetty at Devonport, and foundations for 100-ton sheers, dredging, etc., in order to provide accommodation for large battleships, the total estimated cost being £20,000. No money would be 1269 spent on these objects during the current year.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said it was a remarkable thing that one-quarter of the amount originally asked for was being spent in coal. He presumed this was largely due to the state of affairs in the East, and the employment of more troops on active service than was contemplated. If so it might be possible to raise the whole of the Eastern question on this Estimate. [Laughter.] Member who objected to the employment of Her Majesty's coal against the Greeks or the Christians in Crete might discuss the entire action of the Government in the matter. He presumed that the increase of £30,000 for guns related to the supply of wire guns. [MR. MACARTNEY signified assent.] He was glad of it. He would be glad to see more money spent on these splendid armaments, which he believed were the finest that could be used by any navy in the world.

§ MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.),
while admitting that the circumstances of the last 18 months had been exceptional, thought a fuller explanation should be given why so large a sum was wanted for coal. If it were possible and convenient to vote such sums as these on Supplementary or other Estimates, why were they asked to vote for enormous loan Bills?

§ MR. E. J. C. MORTON (Devonport)
said that last year they specifically voted about half a million for harbour accommodation and purposes connected with Devonport Dockyard. That being so, why were they now asked for £100?

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said the work had been considerably altered since the attention of the House was first directed to it, and it had been necessary to make provision for the larger class of battleships which could not get into the Keyham basin. In order to facilitate that it would be necessary to construct a new jetty. The Estimates had been revised, and amounted to a very much larger sum than was originally designed. In compliance with a rule of the Treasury, the nominal sum of £100 had been put in the Supplementary Estimate in order to call the attention of Parliament to the total estimated cost. The works which were to be carried out before the end of the current year would be provided for out of savings on Vote 10.

§ MR. MORTON
asked whether the sum of about half a million, which was specially voted last year for the current year, had already been expended?

§ MR. MACARTNEY
No, it has not already been expended.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said he was not surprised that hon. Members should have had some difficulty in understanding the exact position. As he understood it this was a new work of magnitude, and the Admiralty could not be allowed by the Treasury to spend money on it until it had been brought to the notice of Parliament and submitted to their approval. By means of the item of £100, the Admiralty would be enabled at the beginning of the financial year, before Vote 10 had been reached, to pay for the work out of the ordinary proceeds. What was specified here, however, but a series of works which did not seem to be connected necessarily with one another? His hon. Friend asked for some explanation in connection with this item and the Loan Act of last year. The Naval Loan Act of last year contained an item for harbours and approaches, which as far as he could gather was for Devonport. That was work which might be within the scope of the Naval Loan Act, but this was an extra item, the necessity for which had been discovered since. The amount would come on when the Navy Estimates were prepared. He did not know when they were to see the Navy Estimates.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (MR. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover Square
Tuesday.

§ MR. DILLON
said he thought the Secretary to the Admiralty had very clearly exemplified the enormous inconvenience of this double method of expenditure by loan and yearly Estimates. It was easy to carry out such works by the annual Votes instead of having recourse to the enormous loan Bills that had been passed during the last few years. The Secretary to the Admiralty could hardly claim to have carried out the Regulation of the Treasury. The Supplementary Estimate had only been circulated that morning, and, so far from the Treasury Rule being carried out, it was proposed to take the Vote in silence without a word of explanation.

§ MR. MORTON
asked why the sum of half a million voted last year had not been expended.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY
said that the £500,000 in the Loan Bill was intended to be spent over several years. That was for definite and specific works, and was not an annual Vote. This was a work of magnitude, but it did not enter into the general scheme; it was a separate work, and it would be contrary to Parliamentary procedure that any portion of the loan fund should be given for this particular item.

§ MR. KNOX
reminded the Committee that the Secretary to the Admiralty stated that the rule was that as soon as any work was contemplated, even though it was not to be done in the present financial year, there was to be a separate Estimate for it.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
No, I never said that.

§ MR. KNOX
said that, as he understood the matter, the whole of this £20,000, or at least a, large part of it, was going to be spent in the present, financial year, and he thought the Committee ought to be informed how much it was proposed to spend in the course of the present financial year.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said the work would be proceeded with with all due dispatch a but as the weather might interfere with its progress he could not say how much would be spent on it during the current financial year.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
I presume there will be an Estimate.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
Of course there will.

§ MR. KNOX
said that, on the principle the Under Secretary to the Admiralty had now laid down, there should never be an Estimate, because the weather might upset all calculations. He noticed that, under Sub-head B., for Metals and Metal Articles, the original Estimate was, £1,149,000, and the revised Estimate £1,419,000. He understood that the Admiralty, apprehending a rise in pig iron, had laid in a larger stock of metals and metal articles than was required for the work in hand for the financial year. The Admiralty had, in fact, speculated in "metal futures." He did not object to reasonable speculation by the Department, but he thought, the Committee should be told whether there had been a profit or a loss on the transaction.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said the metals and metal articles intended for ships in the course of construction had run short, and as large stock of these materials had been ordered. There could be no doubt as to the benefit that had accrued to the Department by the, buying of these stocks.
Vote agreed to.
2. £5,775 13s., Naval Defence Act, 1889 (Excess Expenditure), 1896–7.

§ MR. KNOX
said he should like to know how much of the original £10,000,000 for the construction of vessels, to which this vote was supplementary, had been spent in the dockyards of the north of Ireland?

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (MR. J. W. LOWTHER,) Cumberland, Penrith
Order, order! The discussion of that subject is not in order on this vote.

§ MR. KNOX
said he understood that this sum of £5,775 13s. was supplementary to an original sum of £10,000,000 for naval construction. He therefore submitted that it was a fair question to ask how much of that £10,000,000 had been spent in the Irish shipbuilding yards? He knew that, when the money was voted in 1889, one of the Irish yards, that of Derry, was decided to be fit for this work, and he would like to know whether any work had been given to it?

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I do not think that question can be properly raised.

§ MR. KNOX
said, if that were so, he was in doubt what question could be raised except the small financial question of excess. Was he to understand that in all cases like this, if the total amount raised had been exhausted and the Department concerned came to the House for a supplementary Estimate, they were not obliged to explain to the House on what works the excess had been incurred?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
desired to know how it was there was any excess at all. Was it in consequence of non-efficient specifications having been sent by the Department to the contractors, of new demands made by the Department on the contractors during the progress of the work?

§ MR. DILLON
said it was bad enough for the House to be asked to vote these large sums in. Loans Bill without being 1273 asked to increase the amounts by supplementary Estimates. It ought to be the policy of the Departments which get these large audits to keep within the margin, so that if they had not a, surplus remaining after the completion of the work they would not, at least, have to ask the House for a, supplementary Estimate to make up the deficiency.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
said he believed that this was the last time the Naval Defence Act of 1880 would appear on the Estimates.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
Yes.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
said the Naval Defence Act had now reached its final stage, and he thought it was a matter for congratulation that the original Estimate of £10,000,000 for that great work had only been exceeded by £500,000. Considering that the work had been in progress for seven years under three successive Boards of Admiralty, the fact that so small a sum as £500,000 was required to complete it reflected the greatest credit on the officials concerned, either in the preparation of the Estimate or in the carrying out of the work. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. KNOX
said the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee were in part a laudation of his own administration. He should like to hear something on the subject from the hon. Gentleman at present in charge.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said he should have thought, after what had been said by the hon. Member for Dundee, that it was unnecessary for him to say anything further about the Naval Defence Act. Close on 22½ millions sterling had been issued under the Act. The money was devoted to three purposes. For the first, which involved ten millions, there was an excess expenditure of £5,775 13s., for which the sanction of the Committee was now asked. For the second, involving-close on ten millions, there was an expenditure less than the Estimate of £2,000. and for the third, for which 2½ millions were asked, there was an expenditure less than the Estimate of £20,000. So that in the first case only was there a slight excess over the estimated expenditure.

§ MR. DILLON
What has become of the money in the cases where the expenditure was below the Estimate?

§ MR. MACARTNEY
It had to be surrendered to the new Sinking Fund.
Vote agreed to.