ARMY EXCESSES, 1900–1901. (Hansard, 3 March 1902)

(11.5.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said this Vote represented a portion of the excess of actual overestimated appropriations in aid for Army services for the year ended March 31st, 1901, which amounted to £1,588,736. Strictly speaking, however, the whole of that amount was involved in this Vote of £100 which the Committee was asked to pass. A note was attached explaining that the excess of gross expenditure was due mainly to unexpectedly heavy charges for transport, provisions, and stores owing to the prolongation of the war. This expenditure referred to a year ended almost a year ago, and it might have been expected that the accounts should be before the House by this time. The Public Accounts Committee had been given to understand that there had been great difficulty in obtaining full accounts, and they had allowed an Excess Estimate to be presented. All he wished to say was that he reserved his right when explanations were given to go into the fullest detail.

§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (Walsall),
as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said that what had been stated by the hon. Member for Kings Lynn was correct. It was impossible for the Committee to go into these accounts now, as they had not been prepared by the War Office; but they should hate an opportunity of discussing them fully when the accounts came before the Public Accounts Committee. He asked hon. Gentleman not to take a premature discussion now, but to be satisfied that the Public Accounts Committee had allowed this Excess Vote.

§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
asked when the Excess Vote could come before a Committee of the House.

§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER
On the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.

§ MR. DILLON
said the Report of the Public Accounts Committee was always shunted. It was well known to every Member of the House that the Report of that Committee might as well be presented to the Chinese Government as to this House for all the benefit of discussion it received. In his humble opinion, if they passed this Vote that night they would absolutely lose all power of discussing this question at all. It was only in connection with a vote in Committee of Supply that they could discuss that Report. In plain language, the Vote, though nominally for £100, was a Bill of indemnity to justify the Government for having appropriated for the Army in South Africa a sum of £1,000,000 that was not granted for such a purpose for the year 1901. If the Committee were to pass the Vote now, they would have no opportunity of discussing it again. What was the nature of the urgency which compelled the bringing forward of this Excess Vote at the present time? He had observed with interest the other day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was referring to the items in Supply which they would be obliged to pass before 31st March; he said that some of the Excess Votes were contentious; and yet the right hon. Gentleman expected the Committee to pass this Vote that night. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted this Vote he should explain to the Committee frankly why it was that he wanted this Vote passed before it had been examined by the Public Accounts Committee. As he understood this was not one of the Votes which the law required to be passed before 31st March; and he therefore suggested that it should be postponed until the Report of the Public Accounts Committee with respect to it was received.

§ MR. AYSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said the hon. Gentleman was under some misapprehension as to what had actually taken place. The Public Accounts Committee had reported that in the circumstances they had no objection to the Vote being passed; but 298 they promised to go more into its details at a later stage, when they had fuller information about it. If the Committee of Supply acted upon the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee and passed the Vote, they would not lose any opportunity of thoroughly investigating all the matters arising out of it. There would be Votes for transport and storage, and upon those Votes, of course, the questions arising out of the Excess Vote could be discussed. The course proposed by the Government in regard to the Excess Vote had been followed many times in his recollection, notably in connection with the Cold Storage Contracts.

§ (11.15.) MR. DILLON
said he did not at all agree that a discussion on the Excess Vote could be taken on a Vote providing for the expenditure of the coming year. No Chairman would allow the Committee to go into detail on an Excess Vote dealing with the year 1901, on Votes for 1902–3. The thing was absurd. He knew it was quite possible to refer in the course of a discussion on the Estimates to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, but it would not be possible to discuss previous Estimates in detail. The Estimate before the Committee was a very special case. An Excess Vote was generally a small matter, but he did not remember in the course of twenty years such an excess as they had to deal now with being introduced in a very innocent way as an excess of only £100. When they looked into it, they found it covered a sum of £932,000, which was the real matter they had to deal with, and it raised a subject of the most vital importance, which might fairly be discussed for a night, viz., the whole of the enormous question of the meat contract in South Africa in connection with the Cold Storage Company. The real object of the Vote was to justify the Government in what they had already done, namely, appropriating that sum of £932,000 to the expenses of the war in South Africa. The whole question of the extraordinary, and he would be even entitled to call them shady, and certainly complicated transactions which had taken place between the Cold Storage Company and the Government in South Africa were 299 involved in the Estimate, because part of the mystery surrounding the operations of the Cold Storage Company was the transactions by which captured stock was slaughtered by the Company and used in connection with their meat contract. He thought the Government ought to lay before the Committee some statement of the whole account between themselves and the Cold Storage Company in relation to the captured stock, and there ought to be some explanation as to the method by which the stock was valued and sold. Generally, the Committee ought to know what they were doing before they passed what was really a Bill of indemnity. As time went by the mystery deepened. Last year he ventured to point out that the Cold Storage Company had a contract for selling meat to the troops in South Africa at a price of 11d. per pound—

§ * THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.
This Vote has not been considered, for the reasons which have been stated, by the Public Accounts Committee. They have not been able to have all the particulars and details before them which were necessary before they could properly deal with the matter. It is essential, I think, in these matters that the House, if possible, should have before it the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on a proposal of this kind, in order to enable them to know what it is that is proposed, and why it is proposed. The only reason for asking the Committee to vote this Excess Vote now is, I understand, a financial reason which has been considered to require it to be included in the Appropriation Bill to be passed before the close of the financial year. I do not feel absolutely certain that it is quite necessary that this should be done in this case. I will make further inquiry into the matter, and if it is necessary we shall have to submit the Vote to the House again, in order that the law may be complied with. But if it is not necessary, I think it would be better for every reason that the Vote should be postponed uutil the Committee on Public Accounts has examined and reported on it. For the moment I will withdraw the Vote.

§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
said he should like to point out that that was one of the many occasions in which the country and the House owed a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Kings Lynn, because if it were not for his interference, the Vote would have been passed without one word of discussion. He hoped the hon. Member's constituents would note the fact.

§ * MR. BLAKE
said he acknowledged the fair spirit which animated the right hon. Gentleman, and he merely wished to suggest that, if the necessities of the law required the Vote to be passed, the right hon. Gentleman should give a pledge that, upon the Report of the Public Accounts Committee being made, some opportunity should be afforded for discussing the question. Notwithstanding the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, he feared that hon. Members would have no opportunity of discussing the matter against the will of the Government if the Vote were now allowed to pass.

§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said he hoped that hon. Members would have ample time for the discussion of the Vote when next it was brought before the Committee. The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, apart altogether from the Public Accounts Committee, was quite sufficient to provide a whole night's discussion. There were many items m that Report which every hon. Member who cared about economy ought to study. He would give only a single illustration.

§ * SIR M. HICKS BEACH
As the Vote is to be withdrawn, I would remind the hon. Member that we have other business to get through.

§ MR. WHITLEY
said he merely wished to point out that there was a statement in the Report which seriously conflicted with what the Financial Secretary to the War Office had given the House to understand in reply to certain Questions during the session.