HC Deb 14 August 1911 vol 29 cc1707-19

Considered in Committee.

(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse) moved the following Resolution:—

"I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1910, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in. the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

£ s. d.
Total Surpluses … 186,610 14 5
Total Deficits … 88,826 4 0
Net Surplus … £97,784 10 5

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services:

1. That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

SCHEDULE.
Number of Vote. Navy Services, 1909–10. Votes. Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.
Surpluses. Deficits.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
1 Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines — 11,752 14 5
2 Victualling and Clothing for the Navy — 5,876 12 9
3 Medical Establishments and Services 11,548 11 5 —
4 Martial Law 1,459 14 6 —
5 Educational Services 16,367 15 6 —
6 Scientific Services 512 4 2 —
7 Royal Naval Reserves 3,565 17 6 —
8 Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:
I. Personnel 6,312 15 9 —
II. Matériel 55,161 13 5 —
III. Contract Work — 29,546 16 2
9 Naval Armaments 14,877 12 3 —
10 Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad 62,200 8 7 —
11 Miscellaneous Effective Services — 18,191 0 8
12 Admiralty Office — 6,619 0 0
13 Half Pay and Retired Pay — 3,681 12 5
14 Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances 15,614 1 4 —
15 Civil Pensions and Gratuities — 8,728 18 9
— Amount written off as irrecoverable — 4,428 8 10
Total 186,610 14 6 88,826 4 0
Net Surplus £97,784 10 5
Sir HILDRED CARLILE

May I ask towards what particular Votes it is proposed to divert the surplus of £97,000?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)

The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and he will have had that very point before him.

Sir HILDRED CARLILE

I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is advisable that the House should be informed.

Dr. MACNAMARA

We are proceeding here under the Appropriation Act. We are entitled, with the sanction of the Treasury, to apply the surplus on one Vote for the purpose of meeting the deficiency on an-

other. We have received the sanction of the Treasury from time to time, and we have given full explanations to the Treasury of the appropriations we have made, and now we come to the House to receive their sanction under Section 4 of the Appropriation Act. I think it is due to the House that some explanation should be. made. I may point out that the Estimates were prepared in the fall of 1908,

as is usually the case. The expenditure began on 1st April, 1909, and was concluded on 31st March, 1910. Having regard to the eighteen months elapsed between the preparation of the Estimates and the final expenditure, the variation in prices, and certain unforeseen circumstances, I think the Appropriation Account shows remarkably close estimates. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee concluded his examination by stating that he was satisfied as regards the Navy evidence and the way it had been presented to the Committee. The net estimate was £35,831,800, and the Schedules show surpluses on ten Votes amounting to £186,610 14s. 5d., and deficits on seven Votes amounting to £88,826 4s., giving a net surplus of £97,784 10s. 5d., which we surrendered. If the hon. Gentleman will add the surpluses and deficits he will find that the total variation is £275,436 18s. 5d. The total variation in 1908–9 was £614,000; in 1907–8, £1,609,000; and in 1906–7, £1,685,000. The total variation upon the net estimate was.77 per cent. Having regard to the long period between the date when the Estimates were first prepared and the date of the last expenditure, I think it is a matter for congratulation that the variation has been so small. In the year before, the variation was 1.9 per cent. In the years before that the figures were 5.12, 5.29, 2.01, and 2.38 per cent. I think that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was entitled at the conclusion of the examination of our appropriations to congratulate the Department on the satisfactory way with which they had been presented. I shall be glad to answer any other question that may be asked.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question that was put to him. It appears that £97,000 has been given up, and £186,000 has not been spent on things which the House authorised and £88,000 has been spent on things which were not authorised by this House. I should like some explanation as to what items were incurred which were not authorised and why they were incurred. There are two very large items, an item of material £55,000, and works buildings and repairs at home and abroad £62,000. There is no less than £110,000 for materials that have not been purchased and works that have not been carried out. Of course, there is no saving there as the material will have to be bought and the works carried out, so that it is ridiculous to suggest that this item is a saving. On the other hand, when! we come to extras for contract works that have not been authorised, of which we have heard nothing whatever in this House, we find £29,000 paid for expenses of materials. Then there is an item of £8,728 for pensions and gratuities. These are items as to which we would like a little information.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I was only anxious to spare the Committee, but I am glad to answer any questions that may be asked. My hon. Friend referred to the item of materials, £55,000, and asked how we had not spent the money. If he refers to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Appropriation Accounts he will find that he gives in very great detail the reason why that money was not spent. As to the surplus on naval stores, that is owing to lower prices—and he will not quarrel with that—modified by £20,000 deficit on fuel. The hon. Member asked me as to a surplus of £62,000 on works, buildings and repairs, and said we had not spent the money. I would remind him that these Estimates are made eighteen months before they appear, and the matter is fully explained in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Appropriation Account. Then he referred to the extra sum of £29,547 for expenses of material, and asked how that was. The explanation is that it is due to the progress made with the work on machinery in His Majesty's vessels having been more rapid than was anticipated. The question as to £8,728 for pensions and gratuities is explained in the Appropriation Accounts in detail. It was mainly due to unanticipated awards of death gratuities and additional allowances under the Superannuation Act of 1909, and the expenditure on Service gratuities was larger than anticipated when the estimate was made eighteen months before. I think when we are dealing with these figures, and when we come to within 77 of the original estimate, the House may be congratulated.

Sir HENRY DALZIEL

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain what the amount of £4,000 irrecoverable is due to?

Dr. MACNAMARA

We are dealing with the Estimates of 1909–10, and not the present Votes. The House must be seised of that fact in considering the Appropriation Account.

Sir HENRY DALZIEL

May I point out that the matter is not quite so obvious as the right hon. Gentleman appears to think?

Dr. MACNAMARA

If my hon. Friend will look at pages 56 to 62 of the Appropriation Accounts he will find given in detail the balances which are irrecoverable. The normal expenditure is from £2,000 to £3,000 a year. Taking the various items together the grand total is £4,428. It is set out in great detail in pages 56 to 62 of the Appropriation Account.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

As I understand the question put by the hon. Member opposite was to what part of the service this sum was applied.

Dr. MACNAMARA

It is surrendered to the Treasury. We have appropriated less money than we were voted.

Major MORRISON-BELL

There is a small claim I pressed on the Admiralty from the Beer fishermen amounting to seven or eight pounds. Before they surrender this money, may I ask could they not keep back that amount?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I am afraid we cannot do that.

Major MORRISON-BELL

I hope if there is any money left in the Admiralty that you will remember this claim.

Mr. MORTON

I do not want to complain of this not having been brought forward at some decent hour. The real difficulty about this sort of thing is that it has never been before a Committee of this House except to-night. It has never been brought forward in the ordinary Estimates, and you hardly know what may be mixed up in this. When I was on the Public Accounts Committee I remember discovering some four or five hundred pounds for a dinner and something else for wine cellars. These matters ought to be brought forward in Committee in the ordinary way. It might be a useful thing for some younger Members to raise the question why, at least, you could not properly discuss these matters on the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill. At present you are not allowed to do so on the ground that it has already been discussed in Committee. I hope now

SCHEDULE.
Number of Vote. Army Services, 1909–10. Votes. Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.
Surpluses. Deficits.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
1 Pay, etc., of Army — 18,622 15 5
2 Medical Establishment: Pay, etc. 397 18 11 —
3 Special Reserves 109,093 9 8 —
4 Territorial Force — 376,902 4 0
5 Establishments for Military Education 3,253 11 0 —
6 Quartering, Transport, and Remounts 97,516 8 3 —
7 Supplies and Clothing — 63,232 14 3
8 Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores 9,233 1 1 —
9 Armaments and Engineer Stores 330,016 18 0 —
10 Works and Buildings 108,212 18 10 —
11 Miscellaneous Effective Services 3,531 8 5 —
12 War Office and Army Accounts Department 10,529 12 10 —
13 Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc. — 4,192 9 8
14 Non-effective Charges for Men, etc. — 12,631 17 3
15 Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances, and Gratuities 2,018 6 0 —
— Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned — 7,046 6 0
Total 673,803 13 0 482,628 6 7
Net Surplus £191,175 6 5

we have got rid of the Lords Veto that we shall have proper time to consider these matters at an earlier hour. At the present moment the way this money is voted is a scandal and it ought to be put an end to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1910, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely: —

£ s. d.
Total Surpluses … 673,803 13 0
Total Deficits … 482,628 6 7
Net Surplus … 191,175 6 5

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]

Sir HILDRED CARLILE

Can the hon. Member give any particulars as to the character of the amounts transferred?

Sir SAMUEL SCOTT

According to the Appropriation Accounts the largest items are J and K. Has the equipment referred to in item J yet been settled and supplied? Under item K, why has there been a saving in practice ammunition? Have the Artillery sufficient ammunition now? Why was their practice ammunition cut down?

12.0 M.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland)

The largest variation in the Estimate was in connection with the Territorial Force, where we had an excess expenditure of £375,000 over the Estimates. That was due to exceptionally good recruiting and exceptionally heavy attendance of men in camp, particularly for the full period of a fortnight. Though that upset our calculations, it is a thing upon which we must congratulate ourselves, and it is not some thing which it is easy to foresee from one year to another. In the year under review we were only just beginning to settle down under the Territorial system, and it was not possible, nor is it now, to make at all close or accurate Estimates for the Territorial Votes. The heavy under-estimate on Vote 9 is explained on page 37 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It is a fact that there were large savings because of the delay in connection with the field howitzers, but that matter is now settled, and the manufacture has been in process for some time. The saving in ammunition was not due to any cutting down of the scale of practice ammunition allowed; it was merely because during certain replacement of guns, guns did not fire so much ammunition in practice as they would have done if the change of pattern had not taken place during the year. There was, so far as I am aware, no cutting down in the scale.

Sir HENRY DALZIEL

I desire to say that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He suggested that there was reason for congratulation on the particulars laid before the Committee. I remember well in the old days the Opposition used to spend not a few hours or a few minutes, but a few days on the discussion of these matters. We should remember that these Army Estimates are really an amount set down opposite a head. When the War Office in the first year of the Territorial system gets £376,902 out I think that is a very large amount. I do not think there is any credit whatever for it. Then with regard to armaments and engineering stores, it is out £330,000. Surely that is nothing to boast about. I think the private Members of this House have reason to complain of these Estimates, which are seriously brought forward and discussed and passed. In future it must be felt that the War Office, with the consent of the Treasury, can practically juggle the figures from one hand to another without asking the House of Commons. In view of these enormous amounts it is quite clear that money voted to a particular item may be carried to another item altogether. I protest against the claim that there is any cause for congratulation in that.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

We know that it has been the practice of both sides for many years past to resort to this kind of thing, and that various sums of money distinctly authorised for various purposes have not been spent. There are other items which have been incurred but which were not authorised. Then the Treasury comes in and gives a licence to the use of certain moneys for one purpose and the other, and after that we are asked to strike an account and to sanction the appropriation of enormous sums of money for absolutely different purposes from those for which they had been voted. Whichever side is in power, I strongly object to this practice, and I think it is time that those of us who pretend to be business men took some sort of united action. I care not for the time being which party happens to occupy the Treasury Bench. I do say it is time that the considerable number of business men in the House united to insist upon some different arrangement to that of which we complain. I think the right hon. Gentleman who spoke upon naval matters was most to be congratulated, if at all, on account of the smallness of the amounts, but when we come to see that £673,000 voted for Army purposes has not been expended at all it shows a great want of foresight. It shows that arrangements were made for taxing the people for Army purposes to the tune of £673,000 which really was not wanted. Then there is nearly half a million of money laid out upon things which were never authorised at all. It shows that the control of the House of Commons over the expenditure of the country is unreal if this sort of thing is to be permitted. I shall be glad to join with any section of the House in making a very effective protest against this kind of thing being continued.

Mr. MORTON

I would like to ask for some particulars in regard to the £376,902 4s. and the £63,232 14s. 3d., the first of which is a deficit on the Territorial Force, and the second of which is a deficit for supplies and clothing. Why is this matter not brought before the House earlier than now? It has been before those concerned fifteen or twenty months. I can tell why it has been left till the last moment. There is no doubt but that these surpluses, as a rule, are made up purposely —"cooked," I should say—for the purpose of having surpluses to pay for all sorts of things that they do not want to discuss in this House. [An. HON. MEMBER: "Dinners!"] Well, you cannot tell what is in it. There is no one on the Public Accounts Committee now that knows anything about it. They took good care that I should not be reappointed. That is the way it is managed by the officials and others. They are afraid that anyone who understands the accounts will go into them. But why, in the matter of these two sums, has the opportunity not been taken to bring the matter before the House at a more reasonable hour, and long before, seeing that they have been before the authorities since April 1st—the very day for them!—1910?

Captain JESSEL

Why, I may ask some representative of the Government, have we not had these accounts much earlier in the Session? The Public Accounts Committee finished their work on them before Easter. It does seem to me an extraordinary proceeding on the part of the Government to have kept back this Report until now, especially after our trouble at the Committee to get them forward. We have had no discussion this year of the Public Accounts Committee. The extraordinary pressure of business and bad management on the part of the Government have had to do with it. I would like to make a suggestion to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Owing to the extraordinary number of promotions to the Peerage one of the Members of the Public Accounts Committee, Lord Ashton, has gone to the Upper House. No doubt there is a vacancy——

The CHAIRMAN

That is not the question before us.

Captain JESSEL

I was only taking up what the hon. Gentleman said about there being no one on the Committee able to do their duty. I only wanted to raise the question as a member of that Committee, and as a method of protest on behalf of my colleagues, especially the chairman, who is not here.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is away from the point.

Captain JESSEL

I bow to your ruling, Sir; and I should really like to have an answer as to why these accounts have not been put forward earlier?

Mr. ACLAND

It does not fall to me to fill the vacancy on the Public Accounts Committee. But I can reply to the hon. Member on the question of date. These accounts cannot be presented to the House of Commons immediately after the close of the financial year. They have got to be submitted first of all to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and, secondly, to the Public Accounts Committee itself. The Committee did not get the accounts until the spring of this year. As they are not before the House until the spring of the year, it does not seem to be a matter of very great public importance whether they should be discussed in June or at this time of the year. With regard to the question of surrender and to the suggestion of my hon. Friend that that money was surrendered in some curious or dishonest way, I can assure him that that is not so. These moneys are taken into account when the Annual Budget is presented, and are appropriated by the Treasury in aid of national expenditure at that time. I think my hon. Friend was rather in error when he said I congratulated myself in regard to this statement as a whole. We have been closer to our Estimates in past years, and I hope we shall be closer in future years. The only point on which I thought there was reason for congratulation was with regard to the particular case of the large surplus. It is a case of extraordinary difficulty. You have to make your Estimates in November as to the proportion of men who are likely to go to camp in August or September. We are dependent on all sorts of regulations not out until the beginning of the camp, and as to all sorts of things which it is impossible to foresee. With regard to the deficiency of £63,000 in Vote 7, that was very difficult to foresee. We had introduced a new system of payment for the soldiers. We trusted to the soldier to buy his own clothing in place of supplying him with it, and it was very difficult to foresee whether the soldier would be economical. The result has been that the soldier is looking after his clothing and boots more carefully than ever before, and the issues are not so great, therefore, as before. While I hope we shall be able to estimate more closely in the future, I think what I have stated is sufficient explanation of the cases in which the Estimates were less close than we could have wished.

Mr. MORTON

What was the date when the Public Accounts Committee had them?

Mr. ACLAND

February, 1911.

Mr. MORTON

Surely they should have brought them forward long ago. I do not make any personal charges against any of these gentlemen, except that they ought to know more than they do. You have no such system as that in the Civil Service. I say the system with regard to Army and Navy Accounts is bad and ought to be reformed by the Liberal Government.

Mr. BOOTH

I do not intend to discuss this Vote, as I am in the position of a new Member and must learn. I cannot promise to do justice to these Estimates even next year, but in the third year, and as an economist, I intend to put on my war paint and go into them very fully.

Question put, and agreed to; Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).