39. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount the Treasury has cut down the Grant to the Scottish Board of Agriculture; on what principle the Treasury proceeded in so doing; and whether he has taken steps to secure equivalent economies and retrenchments in public expenditure in England, Ireland, and Wales?
§ Mr. ACLANDAs the balance in hand to the credit of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund was estimated to amount to £394,000 on the 31st March last, and this amount by itself, without any new income, was far in excess of the present annual expenditure from the fund, it was arranged after consultation with the Department concerned that only a nominal sum of £10,000 should be included in the Estimates for 1915–16, instead of the sum of £185,000 allowable, as a maximum payment, under Section 5 (b) of the Small Landholders Act, 1911. The principle adopted was that in view of the War all reasonable economies should be effected in civil expenditure. This principle has been acted upon throughout in preparing the Estimates for English, Scottish, and Irish Departments alike. The Estimates contain, it is true, no Vote exactly corresponding to the Scottish Vote in question, but the corresponding services are being restricted in the same way. For example, all advances for English small holdings have been entirely suspended, save so far as required to meet pre-War commitments, while in Ireland the Board of Works have, save in cases of exceptional urgency, ceased to make advances for land improvement.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTDoes the hon. Gentleman say that this was done after consultation with the Scottish Office?
§ Mr. ACLANDYes.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, after taking into account both reductions and increases, the total effect is that the expenditure upon purely local Scottish services has been reduced by £141,000, while similar expenditure—
§ Mr. HOGGEIs the hon. Member aware that the money which he says is in balance is money which is ear-marked?
§ Mr. ACLANDYes; but as there was more money in hand than they have spent in previous years I think that they might get on with it.
§ Mr. HOGGECan my hon. Friend say from whom he got his information that the Scottish Board of Agriculture could not get on with the work, and is he aware that there are thousands of unsatisfied applicants for small holdings who could be put on to the land to-morrow if the Treasury were not so parsimonious?
§ Mr. ACLANDThat is not so. We knew the expenditure by this authority in previous years, and there was nothing put before us to suggest that they could suddenly and very rapidly increase that expenditure. Under those circumstances, it was reasonable to suppose that their expenditure would not so greatly exceed that of previous years, and, as they had much more money in hand than they had spent in any previous year, it was not unnatural to ask them to spend that money before they had more.