HC Deb 27 May 1903 vol 123 cc66-73

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £225,000, as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present session for the acquisition of certain land in Dublin, and for the erection and equipment of a Royal College of Science and other buildings for the public service, and to authorise the Treasury for the purpose of providing for the issue and repayment of such sums to borrow money by means of Terminable Annuities for a period not exceeding thirty years, such annuities to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the Service of the Commissioners, and if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Arthur Elliot.)

MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.)

regretted that, owing to the unexpected way in which this matter had come on, the great body of Irish Members were not present to take part in the discussion, especially the Dublin Members, who were particularly interested in this question. As regarded the Bill itself, which had for its object the provision of a site for the new College of Science, he, of course, desired to support it, but he wished to take that opportunity of calling attention to the way in which the site was to be allocated. The Bill which was introduced last year was not carried, as it raised considerable opposition on the ground that certain Government offices were to be transferred. On this occasion he was anxious to raise the question whether the Government would not provide in connection with the present Bill that a portion of the new site should be allotted to a modern Gallery of Art.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that it would not be in order for the hon. Member to go into that point. The Bill itself was not now before the Committee. What they were discussing was the formal financial Resolution to give the Bill effect.

MR. BOLAND

wished to know whether there would be any later opportunity of discussing this matter.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY To THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT)

was doubtful whether he would be in order in going into the details of the Bill on this Resolution, but thought there would be ample opportunity of discussing details when this Bill got into Committee. He was perfectly aware of what the hon. Member had at heart, and assured him that only after the most careful consideration had the Treasury been forced to decide that they could not meet his views.

MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)

held that it would be in order, and in accordance with precedent, that the Minister in charge of the Resolution should explain the purpose for which this money was being asked. That course was frequently followed when they were discussing Resolutions ion which Bills were founded.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that was so. But he had stopped the hon. Member who was addressing the Committee because he was suggesting that the money should be spent on some other scheme than that involved. That was not permissible on this Resolution, which was simply to give effect to one specific purpose.

MR. BUCHANAN

said this money would be borrowed and repaid by terminable annuities, extending over thirty years, and he wished to protest against the growing practice of constructing public works of this sort, out of borrowed money rather than out of sums placed on the annual Estimates. That was a wrong principle so far as Parliamentary control was concerned, and it was a wrong system of finance. Hitherto that method had been adopted only in cases where the work would be of very great magnitude, and he thought the Committee were entitled to some explanation of why it had been adopted on the present occasion, where such a comparatively small sum was involved.

MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.)

said that in the debate of last year the then Secretary to the Treasury made certain statements as to what was to be done. He wished to know if the undertakings then given were to be departed from. At that time it was stated that certain buildings were to be occupied by the Irish Local Government Board, and he wished to know if that arrangement had been altered.

*THE CHAIRMAN

That is hardly relevant to this question, which is a strictly financial Resolution.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said it was not unreasonable to ask the present Secretary to the Treasury to give the Irish Members an opportunity of obtaining the fullest information in regard to this matter. If the Secretary to the Treasury would refer to the debate of the 28th of May last year he would find several long statements on the subject made by the then Secretary to the Treasury, and if the hon. Gentleman read those statements he would understand the point which had been raised by his hon. friend. He thought some undertaking ought to be given to look into this matter, because the point raised by the hon. Member for Kerry was one which ought to be carefully inquired into.

MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)

asked if it would be in order when they came to the Committee stage to make this money payable out of taxation instead of borrowed money.

MR. ELLIOT

said the Bill had now reached that stage at which it was largely in the hands of the Hybrid Committee, and he did not see why the questions which had been raised should not be threshed out before that Committee.

MR. BUCHANAN

said that the Hybrid Committee could not alter the method by which this loan was to be raised. If this was the one opportunity when the House of Commons could express its opinion as to the way this money was to be raised, surely they were entitled to take this occasion in order to obtain an explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury. So far as he was aware there was no precedent for a work of this comparatively small magnitude being constructed by means of borrowed money instead of out of the annual Votes of the year. He begged to move that this sum be paid out of the annual Vote.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I cannot accept that Motion because it rests with the Minister to decide in what way the money shall be raised and the Committee cannot alter that. The Committee can of course refuse the proposal, but it cannot extend it.

MR. BUCHANAN

My proposal would not extend it, but would simply alter it.

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)

said this was not the first time they had discussed this question in Committee of the House of Commons. Earlier in the session the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this plan of borrowing money for the purpose of constructing work was only used in cases of large and important work and that all small and minor works were to be paid for in the usual constitutional manner. They could not call this £250,000 a very large sum. Therefore, according to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this building ought to be paid for by the annual Vote of Parliament. He thought they ought to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to explain why the general principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been departed from.

MR. ELLIOT

said that it was quite true that this money had been raised by terminable annuities, but the Vote for these annuities would appear in the yearly Estimate, and hon. Members would be able to discuss these questions when those items came before the Committee. The system which they were adopting was the usual one.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

asked if it was not a fact that money had been borrowed for similar objects in exactly the same way for buildings in this country. He remembered not long ago that a considerable sum was raised in this way for public offices in London. The amount under discussion was relatively a small one, but it was a very important matter to Ireland, and he was utterly astonished to find objections being raised to obtaining this comparatively small sum for public offices in Ireland. Not long ago several millions, to which Ireland contributed, were expended upon colossal buildings in London, which not one Irishman in 10,000 would ever see, and now, when a small sum was asked for to erect public offices in Ireland, this petty quibble was raised as to the way the money should be found. He hoped this small sum would be granted in a graceful way. If there was any bones made about it, the people of Ireland would say they had had to drag this money out of the House of Commons. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would pay particular attention to the points which had been raised.

MR. BOLAND

asked whether, on the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow, he would be able to raise this matter again with a view to getting a further expression of opinion from the Secretary to the Treasury.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I should not like to give any ruling upon what will be in order on the Motion for Adjournment, when Mr. Speaker will be in the Chair.

MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said that by bringing foward this Resolution at the present time the Government were setting a precedent which might have serious consequences. It was not expected that this large financial question would come forward to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, and right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House who held strong views on the matter were not there. He would venture to suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury that it was reasonable that this Resolution should be postponed until a later occasion when it could be more fully debated.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

I am prepared to debate it as long as ever you like now.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said it was difficult to understand the position taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They denied that the principle which the Government applied to the erection of public offices in London should be applied in Dublin. Their only reason was that in one case the sum was two millions, while the other meant a quarter of a million. So far as principle was concerned, there was no principle to stand upon at all. The Treasury had decided on raising the money in this way, and why should hon. Gentlemen object? He agreed with the hon. Member for East Clare that it was taking all the grace out of it. The Committee had plenty of time to spare to-night, and he hoped they would not adjourn the discussion. He remembered that the Bill was lost last year by tactics of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He hoped that the same tactics would not wreck the Bill this year.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (Islington N.)

said that the method proposed in the Bill was obviously the right way of dealing with this matter. It might be a small thing, £250,000, but how could they possibly arrange for the Treasury getting that in annual sums? They would by adopting that means be upsetting rules just as much as if they got the amount in a Bill like this. It was very much better to do as was done in the case of the South Kensington Museum, and get the whole sum in this way than get it on haphazard Votes of the House. If they had not done this for large buildings there would have been a temptation to stop building operations during the expenditure consequent upon the war. In carrying out these large works it was very much better that the money should be voted as a whole at once. It was the cheapest, most business-like and commonsense way, and it was the way that any person in private life would adopt in dealing with such a matter.

MR. TOULMIN (Lancashire, Bury)

said he should like to join in the protest against the principle of borrowing money for such works as these. He did not desire that the Resolution should be postponed, or that they should stand in the way of these buildings being erected in Dublin. He did think, however, that it was well that the Committee should take note of the way in which this principle of borrowing was being extended. He could not admit that they had adopted the principle of borrowing money in this way. He thought it would be very much better to pay for the work out of Revenue. They did not pay for Post Offices in England by borrowing money. They paid a certain amount every year. Practically the passing of the Resolution would commit the House to the expenditure, and he thought it was a bad principle that these smaller sums should be borrowed. He was not sure but that they were being committed to more extravagant schemes than they might sometimes think wise to enter into, when they adopted for these smaller sums the principle of borrowing which should be reserved for larger sums.

MR. ELLIOT

said he could only refer the Committee to a case in 1894, when £200,000 was raised by means of annuities to provide additional land for the British Museum. There was nothing new being done by what was now proposed in connection with the College of Science and the new public offices in Dublin.

MR. BUCHANAN

said he accepted the precedent quoted by the hon. Gentleman as corresponding to a certain extent to what was now proposed, but still he maintained that this method of procedure was not that which had usually been followed in the past. The National Gallery for Ireland, which cost something like £80,000, was built entirely out of annual Votes. At present there was an annual Vote for the extension of the National Gallery, and hitherto, when the Government was going to undertake works of a character similar to this new College, he ventured to say that it had been the almost invariable practice to put a sum down annually on the Estimates to be voted by the House. It was their duty to protest against the continual extension of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarded as an evil practice which was growing up, of increasing the public debt by borrowing for works similar to these.

Resolved: That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £225,000, as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present session for the acquisition of certain land in Dublin, and for the erection and equipment of a Royal College of Science and other buildings for the public service, and to authorise the Treasury for the purpose of providing for the issue and repayment of such sums to borrow money by means of Terminable Annuities for a period not exceeding thirty years, such annuities to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Commissioners, and if those moneys are insufficient out of the Consolidated Fund.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday, 8th June.