§ (1) The old Sinking Fund for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and eleven, as calculated under Section nineteen of the Revenue Act, 1911, shall, notwithstanding anything in the Sinking Fund Act, 1875—
- (a) to the extent of one million five hundred thousand pounds, be issued and paid by the Treasury at such times as they direct to the development fund under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, in lieu of the sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund under Sub-section (2) of Section two of that Act in the years ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and thirteen, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and nineteen hundred and fifteen respectively; and
- (b) to the extent of one million five hundred thousand pounds, be issued by the Treasury at such times as they direct, and carried by the
2090 Treasury to a separate account, and made available in such manner as Parliament may determine for the purposes of the provision of sanatoria and other institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis, or such other diseases as the Local Government Board, with the approval of the Treasury, may appoint; and - (c) to the extent of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, shall be issued by the Treasury at such times as they may direct for the purpose of the advance authorised by this Act to the Government of the East Africa Protectorate.
§ (2) The Treasury may advance by way of loan to the Government of the East Africa Protectorate for the purpose of providing improved railway communication and harbours in the Protectorate, and improved water supply for Mombasa any sums not exceeding in the whole two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.
§ The Government of the Protectorate shall annually, until the whole advance is deemed to have been repaid, pay to the Treasury interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. on the amount advanced, and also, by way of Sinking Fund, a further sum equal to 1 per cent. on the amount advanced, and the whole of the advance shall be deemed to have been repaid when Sinking Fund payments have been made sufficient, if accumulated at 3½ per cent., with yearly rests to produce an amount equal to the advance.
§ Any sums paid on account of the principal or interest of the advance shall be paid into the Exchequer, and issued to the National Debt Commissioners, and shall be applied by them in like manner as the old Sinking Fund.
Mr. J. F. HOPEIn the absence of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hicks Beach), I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).
I do so roughly for the reasons stated by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) last week. I object to sums like this being taken from the Sinking Fund. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week, money which was proposed to be voted under this Clause was for objects which would commend themselves to the whole of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman then said that if he did not take them from the Sinking Fund he would have to borrow, and it would be absurd to borrow when he had the money at his disposal in the 2091 Sinking Fund. I would submit in the first place there is inconsistency in that, because it has always been the policy of the present Government not to allow any charges to be made by loans even for such purposes as to enable naval and military works which, under the former Government, were often provided for short periods. The point, however, which I wish to press is that this is a method of getting money without any proper inquiry as to its objects, at any rate in detail, and thereby removing Votes from the control of Parliament.
If these sums were put on the Estimates in the ordinary way Parliament could consider closely the objects for which they were to be devoted. These matters as to development and as to sanatoria and the like will not be subject to any detailed Parliamentary inquiry at all. We are giving a cheque to the Government for the whole amount without any kind of guarantee as to details or as to the manner in which the money will be applied. The whole object of the elaborate financial structure which was erected by Mr. Gladstone was to prevent sums being voted without the most exhaustive provision for Parliament being assured as to the need and value of the purposes for which it granted the money. I think this is really a very bad precedent. Once it is admitted it will be made use of in the future, and whenever there is a surplus on the old Sinking Fund large sums which ought to be devoted to reduction of debt will be taken away, and the Government of the day will have the advantage of using these sums without the scrutiny which all estimates ought to have. It is an extremely reactionary provision, and one which may be made use of by future Governments to the great detriment of proper finance. I think a protest should be made against it, and I move the Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis was discussed at considerable length on Thursday of last week, and I hope I am not criticising the hon. Member too severely when I say that he did not attempt to advance anything new. He rather relied upon the arguments which were used then.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWell, I thought I did answer them. I did my best to put the case for the Government in that 2092 respect, and I am quite prepared to repeat the arguments now, but I do not think it would serve any useful purpose. Even if this money were obtained by way of loan the hon. Member would not get any more details than he does now. He did not get more details of loans under the Naval Works Act.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Member's suggestion was that we should borrow——
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThen his suggestion is that the money should be put on the Estimates of the year?
Mr. J. F. HOPEThe suggestion was that there should be a "token" Vote, so that the matter could be discussed by Parliament.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThere is a much more effective way than that, as I pointed out last week, and that is by discussing it on the Vote for the salary of the particular Minister to whom these duties are allocated. It is purely a question of the demand of the Opposition for time to consider the matter. I do not think I can advance anything more useful.
§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERI think we should vote for this Amendment, because the Government are proposing a new system of finance which is most objectionable. The money in the Old Sinking Fund ought to be used to pay off debt, but instead of that it is carried to the credit of three Funds, one of which is the Development Fund. This is a secret service fund, and no resolution is required to be passed by Parliament before the Treasury can take that money and check it out for such purposes as they may desire. Personally I consider that most objectionable finance—to create a secret service fund to be dealt with in that way. It is subject to corruption. It is a sum of money now placed in the hands of the Ministry which they can, if they wish, give to those places which return supporters of theirs to this House, and refuse to those places which do not. The money is merely "to be paid by the Treasury at such times as they may direct." There is no Parliamentary control, nothing but Treasury control. That, I say, is dealing with public money in a most objectionable 2093 manner, and rendering it subject to corruption. We know it does not now exist, but it might in the future. Manchester returns Members at present which support the Government; Liverpool does not. There is nothing to prevent Manchester requests being granted and Liverpool requests being refused because they are on the other side in politics. It is absolutely wrong that you should create a secret service fund in this way, and that is one reason why this is not a proper way of dealing with the Old Sinking Fund—placing it to the credit of certain accounts, and not purchasing stock. As regards Subsection (3) there may be some little control over that. We are committed here to an expenditure of a million and a-half on sanatoria. There will be £900,000 on the rates, and as well as that there will be some contributions from other funds. That is what is clear from the discussions which have taken place.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI beg to move to leave out the word "to" ["such times as they direct to the Development Fund"], and to insert instead thereof the words "as to one-fourth part thereof to the credit of the capital account, and as to the remaining three-fourth parts thereof to the credit of the current account of."
It was clearly intended by the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act that a very considerable sum should be paid, I think it was for four or five years, out of that Fund for certain purposes not strictly defined as to their capital or revenue character. These purposes I am in hearty sympathy with. They are mostly purposes of agricultural development or development of a similar character. Certainly some of them are of a nature which would justify the expenditure of capital money. Most of them, however, suggest expenditure on purposes which are transient in their character. But when we are, for the first time, taking this money, not out of the current account of the year but out of the Old Sinking Fund, which, under the Sinking Funds Act of 1865, has been applied to the reduction of National Debt, surely it is in the interests of good finance that we should earmark a certain part of that fund as applicable to capital purposes and the remainder as applicable to the purposes of revenue. I may remind the Committee that the construction of harbours is one 2094 of the purposes to which this fund is to be applied. Also the starting of farm institutes. That will no doubt mean buildings of a permanent character which will belong, like the harbours, to the Government or to some public authority. They all represent certain national assets, and are not property of a decaying character which would require reinstating every year out of a current fund. Lately we have heard that a grant is to be made out of this fund towards starting a poultry institute. That will become a national asset. It is not a matter upon which large sums will be spent every year. If that is so surely there ought to be something placed towards the credit of the national capital account, or is the money to be left to the Development Commissioners to be spent on other purposes suggested to them by a Government Department?
Certain sums are going to be paid in the future for the maintenance of agricultural co-operation for the Agricultural Organisation Society. We believe that there is likely to be a considerable sum paid to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, although we believe the sympathy of the Government is not altogether with the proposal. But that is a perishing fund, if I may so call it. Surely we are entitled to say that some portion of this very large fund which is going to be represented to some extent by national assets in the future shall be applied as part of a capital account, the remainder only to be applied as part of a current account. It is not only in the interests of good finance, but it will show what there is for this expenditure, and what control Parliament has over it. The right hon. Gentleman is now obtaining a block grant, which apparently is going to wind up the finance of this Development Act. What is going to happen in the future to those institutions which are beginning to depend on an annual grant for current expenditure? Without some such provision for the future they will fail.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think the hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension. There are two sets of grants under the Development Act, the one for capital purposes, and the other an annual grant to be voted by Parliament from year to year. That annual grant for revenue purposes we are not dealing with at all. This is a grant for capital purposes—a grant of £500,000 a year for a certain number of years. We propose now to pay this one and a half millions in order to complete 2095 that grant towards capital purposes. The hon. Gentleman being anxious to secure a portion of this for capital purposes wants to ear-mark one-quarter of it. We propose to ear-mark the whole.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs it being applied by the Development Commissioners to capital purposes only?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is certainly what the idea was when the grant was made. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that at any rate in the main they are using it for capital purposes. In the main I think the money is used for the purpose of institutions of that kind, and what the hon. Member is thinking about rather is the annual grant from the Estimates.
§ Mr. PRETYMANHas Parliament now, or will it have in the future, any opportunity of knowing how the actual sum is spent? At what stage of our annual proceedings are any particulars available to the House of the manner in which the money is being spent? I suppose this sum is available for capital expenditure, and the money is not to be invested and the interest utilised.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis Bill makes no difference in that respect. All that has been decided by the Development and Road Improvement Act. It is simply an expenditure in accordance with the principles laid down there. Up to the present there have been reports to Parliament by the Commissioners as to the way in which the money has been spent. There was a very considerable Debate this year, and I have no doubt there will be Debates so long as the reports come in.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs not the right hon. Gentleman mistaken in saying that there is an annual sum as well as the capital sum under the first Part of the Act? The Development Fund means a fund into which only moneys applicable to the first part of the Act are applied. That has nothing to do with the Road Board Fund.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt was certainly intended that this money should be rather expended for capital purposes, and that there should be an annual grant made which is altogether apart from that.
Mr. J. F. HOPEHow does Debate arise if the Development Commissioners 2096 go wrong? What Minister are we to "go" for—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or who?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertainly, "go" for me.
§ Mr. BATHURSTI beg to move in paragraph (b) after the word "of" ["may determine for the purposes of"] to insert the words "research in connection with and of."
In this country, and indeed throughout Europe, we know very little as yet about tuberculosis—what are the causes of the disease and how best to treat it. If we are going to expend a sum of £1,500,000 upon sanatoria, possibly in the shape of large stone buildings, for the cure of tuberculosis, we shall be standing in the way of research and inquiry into the nature of the disease.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEOn a point of Order. This Clause relates to the expenditure of money on the basis of a resolution for the provision of sanatoria and other institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis. Research is provided for out of an annual sum which is voted in connection with National Insurance, and very considerable provision has been made in that respect. I submit, therefore, that this Amendment cannot be in order.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)I have looked up the Money Resolution on which the Clause is founded, and I see it is confined strictly to the purposes of the provision of sanatoria and other institutions. I am afraid that does rule out the question of research.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTThen I do not proceed with my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. W. O'BRIENI beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "of" ["the provision of"] to insert the words "or making grants in aid to."
The object of this Amendment can be stated in a minute or two and I do not think it will be regarded as of a controversial nature. Some of us found it our duty to oppose the Insurance Bill in its application to Ireland but that is no reason why we should not seek to utilise its provisions. In this particular matter I ask that justice should be done to those 2097 who, even before the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, took up one of the most humane projects of the measure, namely, the provision of sanatoria. The Clause as it stands will provide £1,500,000 for grants for the erection of sanatoria, but it is not retrospective in character. In the City of Cork the representatives of the people anticipated the Bill by being the first place in Ireland to erect a sanatorium at their own charges. All that we ask is that they should be placed upon exactly the same level as other bodies which have not yet taken action, and that they should be refunded the cost of the sanatorium. The Corporation of Cork erected the sanatorium on the most approved principle and levied a general rate of 1d. in the £ to cover the expense of the building. I may say the expenditure would have been much higher, except for the fact that the site was donated free by a gentleman who is a member of the Cork County Council. The ratepayers undertook the remainder of the cost and there is a sum of over £5,000 outstanding on loan. It would be justice to the ratepayers that they should have a grant to that amount, and I think it is also in consonance with the spirit of the Insurance Bill that the remaining £15,000 contributed by the ratepayers should be advanced, at all events for the purpose of the enlargement and perfecting of the sanatorium which has been a conspicuous success.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf the hon. Member had put this case before the Committee of the House on the Insurance Bill I must say that I should have thought he had a considerable case. The enterprise and public spirit of the ratepayers in the county, and city of Cork deserve every encouragement rather than discouragement, and if they were not put in the same position as those who will come in in the course of the next two or three years under the provisions of the Bill they would be penalised. That is the last thing in the world that ought to be done. I felt that the moment the case was presented to me I had no answer but to accept any reasonable Amendment to carry out the purpose the hon. Member has in view, and I think the first Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has just moved covers the whole point, so that I hope the hon. Gentleman will not move the next.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALYI thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very fair spirit in which he has accepted this pro- 2098 posal, and my hon. Friend authorises me to say that, in view of the favourable reception given to the first Amendment, he does not propose to move the others.
§ Amendment agreed to.