HC Deb 11 March 1937 vol 321 cc1508-13

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1936.

SCHEDULE.
Deficits. Surpluses.
No. of Vote. Navy Services, 1935, Votes. Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure. Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts. Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure. Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
£ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.
1 Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services. 14,492 4 4 — — 2,570 18 0
2 Victualling and Clothing 17,896 0 1 — — 46,311 4 11
3 Medical Establishments and Services. 3,452 7 9 — — 1,693 14 10
5 Educational Services — 2,607 9 1 3,944 8 9 —
6 Scientific Services — — 3,202 2 10 2,432 0 3
7 Royal Naval Reserves — 97 13 3 16,446 18 7 —
8 Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:
Sec.1. Personnel 1,810 6 5 80 15 8 — —
Sec.2. Material 55,603 18 4 — — 111,596 6 6
Sec.3. Contract Work 40,998 0 2 — — 2,232 10 9
9 Naval Armaments — — 23,050 4 4 15,137 9 6
IO Works, Buildings, and Repairs. 62,629 19 5 9,644 19 4
11 Miscellaneous Effective Services. 42,872 7 10 — — 5,510 2 4
12 Admiralty Office — — 407 4 6 1,237 10 10
13 Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers. — — 18,027 7 1 479 12 8
34 Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men. — 1,326 1 9 36,246 8 4
15 Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities. 2,437 13 0 — — 126 1 5
— Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned. 22,315 12 10 — — —
264,508 10 2 13,756 19 1 101,324 14 5 189,327 18 0
Excess Vote — — 100 0 0 —
264,508 10 2 13,756 19 1 101,424 14 5 189,327 18 0
£278,265 9 3 £290,752 12 5
Net Surplus £12,487 3 2

12.47 a.m.]

Mr. Garro Jones

I think the Noble Lord will be very satisfied with the progress he has made up to now, but even he will not expect an Excess Vote to go through without offering some explanation. We have been receiving from the Admiralty Estimates and Supplementary Estimates and sub-Supplementary Estimates and now we have received an Excess Vote, which means that the Admiralty has overspent the sum authorized by this House. I should, therefore, like to have some explanation of how this has come about, whether there is to be any repetition of this overspending and whether it is going on now, and whether we are to receive further Excess Votes at the end of this year? I take it that this represents some of the measures which have been described as panic measures to meet the situation in the Mediterranean? It would be useful if we could have some assurance that that expenditure was really warranted.

I notice, for example, a sum amounting to £42,872 7s. 10d., which appears to have reference to the conveyance of personnel and telegraphic communication. I have been astonished at the amount which is expended by the Admiralty and Foreign Office—and in particular by the Admiralty—on telegraphic communication. I do not know whether this is in respect of new wireless stations erected, or whether it is in respect of communications sent by cables to the Mediterranean and paid for to the Cables and Wireless Service. Perhaps I should have given the Noble Lord some notice that I was going to ask this, but I am sure his general knowledge will enable him to give some reply. When the Admiralty sends cables to His Majesty's ships—I take it they are sent because otherwise we must have some other explanation of this sum—are they sent universally in code, or is there employed what is known in Fleet Street as cables, by which newspapers save vast sums by merging words together. I think the Government pays more for its cables than the newspapers do. If that is so, the matter is one which requires the attention of the Admiralty with a view to effecting some savings. An increase in respect of contract work is to be found in this section. Is any part of this increase due to the increase in the price of materials in respect of the construction undertaken by the Admiralty? I was really appalled to hear the Minister say that the Admiralty were not concerned with the price of materials.

Lord Stanley

We are very much concerned. What I said was that I could not be expected to answer that particular point, and that it should be addressed to another Department.

Mr. Garro Jones

I think that if the price being paid by the Admiralty is higher than it ought to be, that is a question which the noble Lord must answer. I view with some dismay the attitude of every Minister when questions are addressed to them on the subject of prices. I heard the President of the Board of Trade say he had no possible control over the price of materials; that it was the world price. If we accept unhesitatingly the world price in the expenditure of this sum of £1,500,000 we shall find ourselves very much out of pocket at the end of our rearmament. I believe "world price" is a euphony for the normal price plus an overcharge. The Government should not adopt a non possumus atti tude when we ask the price of material. When I asked what was being done to make forward purchases I was told that only small provision had been made for these.

The Chairman

This is the second time the hon. Member has made definite and distinct references to expenditure for the coming year. We are now dealing with the Excess Vote for the year ending 3ist March, 1936.

Mr. Garro Jones

My question can be crystallised into this form: How does it happen that it was necessary for the Admiralty to spend on a contract £42,872 7s. 10d? Was it not due to neglect in paying proper prices for materials? Have they taken any steps to prevent a recurrence of such Excess Votes? Have they made any forward purchases of the steel required for their contracts? If not, we shall find constant repetitions of these Votes. I believe that armour plate alone costs £110 per ton. Vast quantities are being used in the construction of battleships, and we shall be mulcted in heavy losses unless the Government take a different view in regard to prices of materials. I hope this Vote will not be looked upon as a precedent. The Government should know its requirements and see that their contracts are conducted in a more orderly manner. I hope the Noble Lord will give us a full explanation.

12.56 a.m.

Lord Stanley

I do not think the Committee would relish a full explanation. The hon. Member will be delighted to hear that the net result of the year's work was a saving. If the hon. Member would do me the honour of reading the statement he would see that the actual effect is going to be a net surplus of over £12,000 which is to be surrendered to the Treasury. All we are asking for is a token Vote to allow the excess receipts to be diverted towards balancing the amount overspent. We are dealing with enormous sums at the Admiralty and it is remarkable that our estimating should be so accurate as to be within £12,000, especially when you remember the many new features in the accounts due to the special measures which we had to take in the Mediterranean.

12.57 a.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

I cannot allow the noble Lord to claim credit, because those particular errors cancelled each other out. I do not think the Committee will accept that excuse. The Noble Lord should give the Committee a full explanation as to why there was an over-estimate and an under-estimate. It would be serious if Departments could come and say that it did not matter that they had over-estimated for a few hundred thousand pounds or millions of money. This is not a very serious example of excess. I do not think the error is more than is expected, but it is large enough to warrant an explanation. I hope a Minister is not to be entitled to get away without an explanation.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.