HC Deb 15 July 1915 vol 73 cc1125-31

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £516,765, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid." [NOTE.— £125,000 has been voted on account.]

Sir J. D. REES

Is this the Vote for Grants-in-Aid of Local Revenues?

The CHAIRMAN

It is Class V., Vote 2.

Sir J. D. REES

Then I desire to ask a question of the representative of the Colonial Office. What is the explanation of the absence of any Vote for 1915–-16—I am not objecting to it at all, but it requires explanation—for Nyasaland, as against the sum of £85,000 voted last year? Is it because of the King's African Rifles being removed from Nyasaland on account of the War, or is there any other explanation of that large decrease, so very large when the total income of that small Protectorate, with which I have some close connection, is considered? I presume it is on account of the removal of the military, but I do not know, and I should be glad to be informed. Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell me what is the significance of the slanting letters in Nyasaland and Uganda? Are they on some different footing to the other Grants entered in this column? I do not quite know. There seems to be some difference indicated, but I do not know what it is. I am referring not to the figures of money, but to the printing of the names Nyasaland and Uganda. As regards the interest on loan for redemption of railway subsidy lands in Nyasaland, I see the sum is increased by £2,000, which I presume is owing to a further instalment having been paid of the £180,000 Joan, to which reference is made. If there is any explanation available I shall be glad to have it, as I am interested in this as I dare say other Members are not. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared with the information, perhaps he will take into account what I have said, and it will not be necessary for me to delay the Committee.

Sir F. BANBURY

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I desire to ask him one or two questions. Items A, C, D, and E have a star against them, and the star shows that— The expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but he will be furnished by the Colonial Office with the audited accounts and with any report of the Director of Colonial Audit thereon. Ho surrender will be made at the close of the year of such sum as may bet issued out of the Grant-in-Aid. Item B has a dagger against it which shows that This Grant-in-Aid is accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General, but any unexpended balance at the end of the year is not liable to surrender. I want to know why one Grant should be accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and not the other? I have not looked the matter up, and I may be wrong, but what I would point out is that in this Vote, the next Vote, and several other Votes there are footnotes to the effect that any unexpended balances will not be surrendered. That is a very dangerous precedent, and the habit seems to be growing. I can quite understand that it is necessary to give Nigeria a certain sum of money to defray the expenses which arise during the year, but I do not quite see why, if the £100,000 is not expended, the balance should not be surrendered. There may be some good reason for it, but on the face of it I do not see why it should not be surrendered. If this habit of not surrendering balances is going to increase, it will destroy all the checks which the wisdom of our ancestors imposed upon the expenditure of this money, which checks I feel sure the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) will agree with me are most important.

Mr. KING

May I repeat what I have said before on other Votes, when the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was not present, that I am sorry to see an unprecedented number of Votes in the Estimates of this year which are not to be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and in regard to which the balances are not to be surrendered. The Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion recently that, whatever changes were to be brought about, the financial control of this House was not to be surrendered. I very much regret to see the great number of eases where this is done.

Sir J. D. REES

I cannot find the figures relating to Ceylon, though I have looked through several times. I want to look up something and cannot find it. Where does it come in?

Mr. MONTAGU

I do not know where Ceylon does come, really, but I understand that by special arrangement there is to be a day for the discussion of Colonial Votes on the Report stage next week. I have had no notice, and there is no repre- sentative of the Colonial Office here, and I find it difficult to answer all the hon. Member's questions; but I will answer some of them. The disappearance of the Vote for Nyasaland is because, I am happy to say, that, which was an instalment under an old arrangement, has now become unnecessary, Nyasaland having become self-supporting. With regard to the word "Nyasaland" being written in italics, it is a time-honoured practice, because Nyasaland is only printed at all to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is no Vote. With regard to the hon. Baronet's question, there are two ways by which this House grants money. It may be granted either as a Vote, subject to surrender of the unexpected balance at the end of the year, or as a Grant-in-Aid, and the. difference between the two is that a Grant-in-Aid is not surrenderable at the end of the year. It is not intended to be spent within the year. It is intended to be spent on projects begun during the year, but by arrangement with the body or Colony or institution receiving it it is deliberately put outside the conditions of surrender. It is not a new practice and it is not an extensive practice. I challenge the hon. Member to give me any evidence that Grants-in-Aid are becoming more frequent. On the contrary, everybody prefers that if the arrangement can be supported, if there are not grave inconveniences which tend to make the body receiving the money anxious to expand rather than to surrender, Grants—not Grants-in-Aid—are always preferred throughout the public service. In this particular case it is an instalment of an old Grant-in-Aid payable over a series of years—probably it will become extinct, like the Nyasaland Grant, in good time—and subject to the same conditions as during previous years when previous instalments were paid.

Sir F. BANBURY

I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Grants-in-Aid are never surrendered. I believe there is an idea amongst officials that Grants-in-Aid ought not to be surrendered, but that is quite a different thing from the practice of the House of Commons, and a Grant-in-Aid has always to be surrendered unless there is a foot-note to the Estimate which acquaints the House of Commons with the fact that Ministers desire that it should not be surrendered. Then, the House of Commons having been acquainted with the fact, if they choose to pass it, it is not surrendered. But to say that a Grant-in-Aid is never surrendered unless it is accompanied by a footnote to acquaint the Members of the Committee with the fact that it is contemplated not to surrender it, is an inaccuracy. I do not want to press the matter any further, but I have taken a humble part in criticising the Estimates to-day, and I am sorry there is no representative of the Colonial Office here. One must be quite fair. I acquiesced in the criticism of the absence of the representative of the Office of Works, and there are two representatives of the Colonial Office, and I really think on the last night in Committee there ought to have been one Member of each Department of the Government, an Under-Secretary at least, present, and it is hardly respectful to the Committee that all the Under-Secretaries should go away on an occasion like this. I really think some representation ought to be made to the Government that they should be here. After all, they are paid for being here, and are not paid for going away and not answering legitimate criticism.

Mr. MONTAGU

I do not think the hon. Baronet is quite fair. The Secretary of State for the Colonies and his Under-Secretary know that there has been a pledge given that the next Supply day will be devoted to the Colonial Office Vote. For that reason—there will be ample opportunity for discussing the Vote next week—he had no reason to anticipate that, without notice, anything would be raised on the Vote. The same Vote is rarely discussed in Committee and on Report. Therefore I think the hon. Baronet, perhaps forgetting that the Colonial Office Vote was down for next week, has been rather unfair to my colleague.

Sir F. BANBURY

I did not want to criticise any particular Member of the Government, but I had acquiesced in the criticism of the representative of the Office of Works, and I wanted to make a general criticism, not particularly on the Colonial Secretary, but on the fact that we have had, with the exception of the Secretary of State for Scotland, not a single Cabinet Minister here the whole evening. That is not respectful to the House of Commons.

Sir G. BARING

I do not want to take exception to anything the right hon. Gentleman says, as he is always so courteous, but I am very sorry to disagree with him. I endorse every word which the hon. Baronet has said as to the proceedings during the whole of this afternoon. We had an important discussion on the Office of Works Vote. The First Commissioner of Works, who is a Member of this House, did not take the trouble to defend the Vote. I have only been in the House ten years, but during that time it has always been considered necessary that the representatives of the Department should be here on every occasion when the Vote comes up for discussion; and, considering that the Colonial Office has two representatives in the House, it would have been more courteous if one of them had been here to defend the Vote. Surely it is possible for the Government Whips to give notice to Ministers that their Votes are coming up, and, with regard to the discussion which is to take place next week on the Colonial Office Vote, that is entirely beside the question. Whatever Vote comes up for discussion in Committee of Supply, there ought, if possible, to be a representative of the Department present to defend it.

Mr. HOGGE

I hope it will be observed that, at any rate, the Secretary for Scotland did attend when Scottish Votes were in progress. I am very glad to find that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has at length returned to his political senses and that he now supports the discussion, of these important Estimates of which yesterday he deprecated the discussion any longer. Yesterday he tried to impart the view that we ought to close down and discuss nothing. To-night he has been making a great fuss about not having sufficient opportunities for discussion in the presence of Ministers.

Sir F. BANBURY

Not at all. The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I said yesterday that I was prepared under the circumstances to agree to a curtailment of the days of Supply. That did not mean that on the days which we were to have nothing was to be said, and no one was to come down to explain anything. I do not recede from anything I said yesterday, and everything I said yesterday is consistent with what I have said to-day.

Mr. HOGGE

I cannot agree, because if the hon. Baronet still holds the view that he expressed yesterday, that the-public, in his opinion, wanted this place shut up, obviously the public would not want any discussion here, and it is ridiculous for him to make a fuss to-night about things not being discussed. However, I agree with those who do want things discussed, that the treatment of the House from that Bench has been not what we have a right to expect. A very great number of Votes have not been covered, and I do not think that anyone can complain that the Votes which have been taken up to the present have been delayed by any discussion which has arisen, and I hope time can be found even yet for a special discussion on the. Colonial Vote. Time ought to be found for other Votes, because time has been promised for the Colonial Vote, that does not do away with the argument that there are other Votes as important as the Colonial Office Votes which have not been discussed to-day, and which in a few minutes' time will be put from the Chair.

Question put, and agreed to.