MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS [MONEY]. (Hansard, 26 March 1919)

§ Mr. LAMBERT
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House any information as to the amount of money that will be involved in this Resolution?

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt)
It is very, very difficult to say definitely, but the probability is, so far as we know, that there will not be in any one year more than three or four comparatively small sums. It is not a question of any very large undertaking; it will be the making or mending of a little bit of road or a site, a change at the docks—something of the kind comparatively small. These matters will come before the Treasury and the estimates will be considered. The work would be necessary or completing work. As regards guarantees for superannuation funds—that again is not a big matter. It is simply taking power to do these things which, if the railways had continued in the hands of the present owners, would be done by them, but, as they have been taken over by the State, has to be done by the State.

§ Mr. LAMBERT
Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us anything as to the extent of the offices, and as to whether or not there will be a central office in London? Can he give us any idea of the number and remuneration of the officials and the scope of their work? As I understand from the Home Secretary, the sums are not going to be large. But it has been said we lost last year £100,000,000. Will this Resolution cover that loss if a subvention has to be made by the Government? I am merely asking these questions for information.

§ Sir R. ADKINS
With reference to the Under-Secretaries. I notice the use of the plural "s." Does that mean that, suppos- 559 ing the House, after receiving the Report of the Standing Committee, considered it desirable that there should be, in view of the multiform character of the Ministry, three Under-Secretaries, that a further Financial Resolution would be insolvent, or is the plural "s" covered without any further Resolution?

§ Mr. SHORTT
So far as that is concerned I think the letter "s" is quite sufficient. It is quite impossible to say what the amount will be, because it is impossible to say how many of the existing Civil servants will be transferred from existing Departments to the new Department. The probability is that the number of new servants will not be great. With regard to the other point, most of the work will be done by the dock and railway officials and road surveyors who already exist.

§ Mr. LAMBERT
Will they be paid by the Government?

§ Mr. SHORTT
Yes, if it involves special money to make contributions to pensions or superannuation funds, and to make advances and other payments authorised under such Act. Supposing the Minister said to a railway company, "Your bridge road to this siding is wrong, and you must make a new one." That company might be nearly bankrupt, and they might say, "We cannot do it." In that case an advance might be made. This does not cover the ordinary expenditure of the Department. As to salaries and expenses, it is impossible to say what the amount would be. It is a question of how many people can be taken over. So far as the Treasury is concerned it is simply a transfer of their salaries from, say, the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board to the Ministry of Ways and Communications. That is the only difference it would make. The Minister, and, of course, the Undersecretaries, are new. Some of the officials will be new, but I shall be surprised if there are many. It is very difficult to say at this moment, because we cannot know how wide the scope may be. Assuming that we get in Committee everything we ask in this Bill, then it cannot be a big Department of new people as apart from those already being paid by the taxpayer.

§ Mr. LAMBERT
Assuming the railways are being worked at a great loss, will 560 this Resolution enable a subvention to be made to recoup the railways?

§ Mr. SHORTT
No.

§ Colonel GRETTON
I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words Provided that no new transport undertaking shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of capital expenditure required to complete the undertaking has been approved by the Treasury. I think this Resolution goes much further than the right hon. Gentleman has stated. I am not so concerned as to the appointment of the Minister. That matter was discussed on the previous occasion, and the Government gave an explanation. They explained that they could not forecast the exact expenditure and that matter was allowed to pass. There is here a very much more serious matter involved in the second part of the Resolution than the actual expenditure on the officials employed. The second part of the Resolution is to enable the Treasury to use such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee and to make contributions to pensions or superannuation funds, and to make advances and other payments authorised under the Act. The guarantees cover undertakings by the Government under the Act of 1871 and the Defence of the Realm Act when they took over the railways and then undertook to make up to the railway companies the dividends paid on a pre-war basis. The real pith of the matter lies in the words "advances and other payments authorised under this Act." Clause 3 of the Ways and Communications Bill authorises payment to be paid for securing a permanent way, rolling stock, appliances and equipment, whether fixed or moving, of a satisfactory design. That clearly indicates a very large expenditure on the reform or alteration of the equipment of the railways, permanent way and rolling stock. It may mean a very large capital expenditure upon the electrification of the railways, as explained by the Minister of Ways and Communications. Then they propose in the next Sub-section to carry out alterations and improvements in addition necessary for the public safety or for the more efficient and economic working of the undertaking. These various reforms which the Government propose would mean a very large capital expenditure.
Then in Clause 4 there are two Sub-sections to be carried forward into Clause 3 561 during the two years for which the powers are to endure. The Government is to be empowered, on page 8, under Sub-heading E, to purchase or take on hire or leave all railway wagons belonging to any private owners, and under Sub-heading F to establish, maintain, and work other services. Under both these headings the new Ministry, during the two years for which the powers are to endure, is to be entitled, under Section 3, to make very large capital expenditure. There has been a recommendation made by the Committee set up last Session, the Expenditure Committee. They say they have given careful consideration to the Standing Orders of the House to inquire into all Bills involving expenditure preceding or accompanied by a Resolution of a Committee of the Whole House, and go on to say they recommend that the principle that Money Resolutions involving expenditure should be retained and should be expanded. Their particular recommendation in this case has not been carried out. The Committee also state that, wherever possible, expenditure, capital or annual, should be accompanied by a White Paper. We have never received such a White Paper and no statement of the capital expenditure under the enormous powers intended to be conferred on the New Ministry. Further, one recommendation goes on to say, if cases should occur where conditions would not follow the forecast the fact should be stated in a White Paper with full explanations of the reason why. We have had no reasons given whatever of the capital expenditure which they intend to make under these new powers. I propose two provisoes which will cover these points.
The first proviso that I propose to move is as follows: Provided that no new transport undertaking shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of capital expenditure required to complete the undertaking has been approved by the Treasury. The normal course of procedure is that the Government from year to year produce estimates of the capital expenditure involved, whether it is for the erection of hospitals or any other buildings, for the approval of the House before the expenditure is undertaken. But under this Bill apparently the Minister may go to the Treasury and say, "This is an undertaking for which capital expenditure is involved. The expenditure this year will be so much. Are you prepared to authorize 562 that expenditure?" Those powers have been very fully exercised during the year, and there has been great laxity in matters of expenditure. Under the proviso which I propose, if it is accepted by the Committee, the Minister will be bound to submit to the Treasury a full and complete estimate of the total capital expenditure which he proposes in respect of the whole undertaking, and not merely of the expenditure for one year. During the War we have had experience of capital expenditure on a most lavish scale, and it has involved this country in great extravagance. There is the case of the Cippenham motor works in which an estimated expenditure of £1,000,000 was put forward, but in which the final expenditure was £1,750,000. These two instances ought not to be allowed, and I submit that after the loss of Treasury control during the War this House would be well advised to put into their Money Resolutions which may involve an unlimited capital expenditure a proviso requiring the Minister to submit to the Treasury an estimate of the total capital expenditure involved, whether it is upon wagons, the improvement of docks, or the development of roads, and requiring the Treasury to examine the expenditure and approve of it before advancing anything on account of it.