§ 1. £77 15s. 5d., National Gallery of Ireland.
§ (2.30.) MR GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis) said he thought it was nothing else than scandalous that the Minister in charge of the Vote should try to get it through without a word. The Vote was one which the Committee ought not to grant in view of the statement made by the Controller and Auditor-General. The Secretary to the Treasury well knew that any excess Vote required explanation and defence. An excess was a serious financial error. It meant that the Department concerned had expended more than it was authorised to expend by the House, and, therefore, the Secretary to the Treasury had no right to seek to get the Vote through 1004 by merely raising his hat; indeed, he had not done so much, for he had no> hat on. It was almost scandalous that he should adopt such a course. The Vote was for a sum of £77 15s. 8d., excess under the head of the "National Gallery of Ireland," and it would be well that the Committee should be made acquainted with the comments of the Controller and Auditor-General upon it. When he had elicited a statement on that point from the Secretary to the Treasury, he would ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee whether that body had examined that excess Vote. He very much regretted on this occasion that he was-not a member of the Committee, but, having served upon it eight or nine years, he felt that the time had arrived when he ought to take his discharge. Now what had the Controller and Auditor-General to say on the point? He complained, in the first instance, that accounts which should have reached him before the 30th November were not received before the 31st December. Why was that irregularity committed? Again, it was admitted that one item of £55, which should have been charged to last year's account, was included in this year's account by error, I so that the former year's account showed a surplus instead of a deficit.
§ The fact was, every kind of irregularity had been committed in connection with that account; it was sent in too late, and what should have been treated as a deficit had been converted into a surplus. Then the Controller went on to point out that this particular accounting officer had had his attention drawn from time to time to repeated delays in rendering the monthly account. Why had those delays been allowed I The Controller further complained that at the present date he had not been furnished with part of the account for the year 1902, and that he was therefore unable to satisfy himself that the accounts for 1901–2 had not been affected by the postponement of payments chargeable to that year. Further, there was a complaint of delay in paying in sums received as admission fees. The Committee would see there had been a series of financial irregularities, improprieties, and even misfeasances, on 1005 the part of this particular accounting officer. Although the amount involved was small the principle at stake was important, for every one of these improprieties struck at the very root of our financial system. Why had these irregularities been allowed to continue for two or three years? Had the Public Accounts Committee inquired closely into the reasons for the excess; and what action had they taken in regard to the official whose laches had thus been pointed out?
§ *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER, Fulham)said that nobody wished more than he did that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had remained a Member of the Public Accounts Committee. If he had done so he would surely have modified some of the language he had used. That Committee had gone fully into all the circumstances of that small excess Vote, and had come unanimously to a conclusion. It made a report to the House which was accessible to all hon. Members.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESWhere is it? My hon. friend is in error. It is not accessible to any Member of the House at this moment.
§ SIR A. HAYTER (Walsall)It has been laid on the Table, but it has not yet been distributed.
§ *MR. HAYES FISHER said the Public Accounts Committee on the previous Friday went thoroughly into the whole question. They all felt that an Excess Vote was a matter which required serious investigation, and after a long deliberation they decided to administer a reprimand to the accounting officer who undoubtedly was at fault in not rendering proper accounts. It was not the first time that this officer had fallen under the strictures of the Public Accounts Committee, and perhaps it was due to the fact that he was a gentleman of great artistic temperament who had no love for accurate accounting. The Public Accounts Committee placed on record their dissatisfaction with the conduct 1006 of the accounting officer—Sir Walter Armstrong. Sir Walter was a gentleman who had done enormous service to the gallery in Dublin, and perhaps they ought not to expect too-much from him in the way of arithmetic. But they had expressed their displeasure and reprimanded him. The Controller and Auditor-General also had reprimanded him, and there was reason to believe that Sir Walter would in future give this matter his attention. But if he did not, the Treasury had given an undertaking that they would see the accounts were duly rendered. They did not wish to lose the services of Sir Walter Armstrong merely because he was a dilatory and inactive accountant, and therefore they had accepted the assurance of the Treasury that in future the accounts should be rendered at the proper time.
§ SIR A. HAYTER, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said he shared with the Secretary to the Treasury his deep regret that the Committee on Public Accounts had no longer the assistance of his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, who had done such excellent service, particularly before the Public Expenditure Committee last session, and who had always so very readily given his assistance to the Committee. In regard to the particular Vote under discussion he might say that it was discussed at a very full meeting of the Committee last Friday. They went thoroughly into the question and found that the difficulty was due to the fact that a man very intelligent in his own department in the artistic world, was exceedingly bad at keeping accounts. They therefore decided to administer to him a serious reprimand, and they were satisfied with the assurance of the Treasury that no similar laches should be allowed in the future.
§ MR. GIBSON BOWLES, accepting this explanation as satisfactory, insisted on the duty of the Treasury to see that accounts were duly rendered. He added that, in view of the necessity of getting this Vote before the end of the financial year, he would not press his objection.
§ Vote agreed to.