GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS. (Hansard, 22 July 1918)

§ Mr. BOOTH
When this Motion was before the House on Friday I allowed it to go through on the stroke of five o'clock in order to oblige the Government. The plea which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury then made was, I think, made in error. He said that this Motion had three stages. I knew that if I corrected 1608 him at the time we should go over five o'clock, and he would miss a day. I hope he appreciates the consideration that was shown to him. There are not three stages of a financial Resolution. I presume it was a slip of the tongue. He also made an error on a more serious matter. I stated it was the view of the Leader of the House that whenever a financial Resolution was proposed there should be a limit put in by the Government, or, on the other hand, the Minister in charge should explain why a limit was impossible. The thing was fought out on the Emigration Bill, and a specific pledge was then given. The hon. Member seems to doubt that; but if he consults his right hon. Friend he will find that I am right. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies granted a concession when the House had put a limit of £50,000, after a very narrow vote on a £10,000 limit. I then specifically asked the Leader of the House: "Are we to understand that in future a limit will be put into these Resolutions by the Government, or an explanation will be given why it is inconvenient to do so?" The Leader of the House agreed. You will find the question in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It must be clear to anyone who knows the right hon. gentleman that he would not leave the House under a misunderstanding. He agreed that as a matter of principle, wherever possible a limit should be put in. So far as I can see, it is not possible to put a limit in this Resolution. If the figure was named it would have to be very large. I am not saying that any specific pledge was given on this identical Motion, but a course was laid down, and I think the Government should observe the decision come to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Financial Secretary had stated on Friday that no limit could be inserted in this Resolution, I should have been satisfied. We must establish the precedent, and we must get the Government committed to it by their own practice. On three different occasions the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sanctioned putting in a limit. I am not unreasonable. When one Minister said he would not spend £500 I immediately moved a limit of £1,000. That is the spirit in which the House would meet the Government if the Government would be fair. Will the Financial Secretary now say that he endorses the policy I have mentioned, and explain why no limit is put in this Financial Resolution?

§ Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury)
I agree with what the hon. Member has said, and I thank him for his courtesy in letting the Committee stage be taken just on the stroke of five on Friday. If there had been a few minutes more I should have been able to give him the information he desired. I thought it might be necessary to give a careful explanation of his Resolution, but I find that the hon. Member is as familiar with the question of Government war obligations as I am. He recognises that in this case it is quite impossible to put in any figure at all. I am entirely at one with him—everyone in the House is—that wherever practicable a limit should be put in these Resolutions, but we must remember in this case what this particular Financial Resolution is. It is a Resolution that has to be passed upon which the Government War Obligations Bill can be built up. The Bill which can be introduced under this Resolution does two things. It continues in existence the obligations that have been incurred under the Acts that have been passed in each year of the War up to the last one, which was passed in December, 1916, and adds to that whatever obligations come to be payable incurred from December, 1916, down to the date of the passing into law of the Bill which is going to be introduced. The House will be pleased to learn that under the Bill the only new type of obligation is a very small one in comparison with those which have been included in previous Bills, and one for which, in my opinion, there will ultimately be no liability on the Exchequer of this country. The rest of the Bill will continue the obligations that have already been incurred, and which have been specified in the previous Bills. Hon. Members will remember that from the nature of these obligations, dealing as they do with subjects such as food supply, insurance of the shipping of the country, and things of that kind, it is quite impossible to give any estimate of what the liabilities may be and what the assets may be that will be set against 1610 them. It is for those reasons that no limit is mentioned, and no limit can be mentioned, in this Resolution. I trust that with the brief explanation which I have given them, and with the reminder to the House that they will be able to discuss the obligations in detail when they have the Bill before them, they will now allow the Report stage of the Resolution to be passed.

§ Mr. WATT
I desire to thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks which he has made. He has admitted the advisability of having in Financial Resolutions which come before the House a limit fixed, when possible. He has explained that in this particular case no limit is possible, but as he has admitted the general principle that the Government, in bringing in Financial Resolutions, will in future insert a limit whenever possible, I desire to thank him for the enunciation of that principle.