HC Deb 30 January 1945 vol 407 cc1341-7

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. Peake

This and the remaining Supplementary Estimates are purely technical in their purpose, which is to obtain authority to appropriate receipts on certain token Votes. The original Votes for these Services are all in the same form—a gross total of £110, Appropriations in Aid £10, leaving the net sum of £100 to be voted.

As hon. Members know, the actual expenditure on these Votes, which are all for purely war purposes, comes out of the Vote of Credit and the passing of the Estimates by the House of Commons gives formal authority for this procedure. But as regards receipts, the position is that under the Appropriation Act of the year Departments can only appropriate in aid of their expenditure receipts up to the limit of the amount shown in their Estimates, and that in these particular cases would be £10. All the rest of the receipts of the Departments would have to be paid into the Exchequer. If this were to be done there would be a very undesirable swelling of both the revenue and expenditure sides of the Exchequer Account. It is much more appropriate and convenient that the receipts should be used by the Departments towards their current expenditure. These nine Supplementary Estimates accordingly ask for authority to use the receipts in this way and thus reduce the issues from the Vote of Credit, instead of paying them over to the Exchequer and increasing Vote of Credit issues to a similar amount. The reason why we have to leave the matter until now, instead of dealing with it at the original Estimate stage is the virtual impossibility of estimating the volume of the receipts until near the close of the financial year. The Committee has approved the procedure in all the previous war years.

1.45 p.m.

Sir H. Williams

I have listened to what the Financial Secretary had to say, and he has said it very lucidly so far as the brief went. But I really think we ought to know a little more about this, because here, under the pretence of voting £90, we are doing something which I do not quite understand in respect of—if my arithmetic is right—about £730,000,000. I have heard of a gentleman in the City who went to gaol through this kind of process. I am not assuming that the very distinguished team of Under-Secretaries, supported by a Scottish Whip in front of me, have themselves been guilty. Nevertheless, I really think it is rather monstrous that this document should be issued with no explanation of what is the source of all this money. If, Mr. Williams, you will allow me——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)

I think this is quite a narrow point and the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the sources of the money now.

Sir H. Williams

I am not dealing with a question of policy, whether we ought to have the money. The original Estimate was £110 with an appropriation-in-aid of £10. That was in the Estimates which were ultimately incorporated in that great Act of Parliament we passed at the end of July. The revised Estimate has gone from £110 to £21,000,110 and the appropriation-in-aid has gone from £10 to £21,000,000. I am not dealing with policy, I am not entitled to do so, but I am entitled to ask these great administrators I see in front of me how they have succeeded in reaching these figures. Even the best Scottish system, to which we have voted a little money now, would not turn £10 into £21,000,000 in the course of some six or seven months. Not even rabbits in Australia——

The Deputy-Chairman

The largest possible sum that can be discussed is £10. The other point will arise at different stages, and I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will use his ingenuity to find a way to raise it, but not now.

Sir H. Williams

But what we are being asked to vote is £10.

The Deputy-Chairman

Yes.

Sir H. Williams

We are also approving of a new Estimate. It says so. These are Supplementary Estimates, and we are told that the original Estimate, which was incorporated in the Appropriation Act passed last July, was for £110. We are now——

The Deputy-Chairman

The other sum comes out of the Vote of Credit and the hon. Gentleman really cannot talk about it now.

Sir H. Williams

The £21,000,000 comes out of the Vote of Credit?

The Deputy-Chairman

Yes.

Sir H. Williams

I am glad to hear that, because the Financial Secretary said that the whole object of this was that it should not come out of the——

The Deputy-Chairman

No, that was the £10.

Sir H. Williams

I have not the Financial Secretary's brief in front of me, but what he said was that it was desirable to carry through the process in this way because appropriations-in-aid come within the Department and, therefore, it would not be necessary for the £21,000,000 to be issued out of the Vote of Credit. May I ask my right hon. Friend to read to us again the note he had on that?

Mr. Peake

What I explained was that this is a technical device in order not to make it necessary for the wartime receipts of these different Departments to be paid into the Exchequer Account. They are, instead, appropriated in aid within the Department and the result is that the Exchequer Account is not swollen as it otherwise would be, by the inclusion of these receipts on both sides of the Account.

Sir H. Williams

That means the expenditure does not come within the Vote of Credit.

Mr. Peake

No, Sir, it does not.

Sir H. Williams

But that is the consequence, because my right hon. Friend said that the receipts on both sides will not be swollen. You do not put this money into the Exchequer, so the revenue side is not increased; and you do not increase the other side, which is the Vote of Credit expenditure.

Mr. Peake

May I explain——

Sir H. Williams

I am only saying what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Peake

—to my hon. Friend that the Vote of Credit money is placed at the disposal of the Department to cover their necessary expenditure——

Sir H. Williams

I understand that, but I want to come back to the statement of my right hon. Friend. He said that the purpose of this technical transaction was to prevent the money being paid into the Exchequer——

The Deputy-Chairman

I am very sorry to interrupt this interesting discussion, but this is a formal occasion for passing this £10, and I am quite sure that to go into the details, as the hon. Member wishes to do, he will either have to bring a special Resolution, or raise it on some other occasion. This is a pure formality as I am given to understand the position.

Sir H. Williams

I am not arguing with your Ruling, Mr. Williams. What I am arguing is the statement made by the Financial Secretary. In moving this Vote he made the specific statement that the effect of this technical transaction is to reduce the issues from the Vote of Credit. I would ask him to look back at his notes, the part which he did not read out.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is now drawing my attention to something which has been said. In all probability I was a little too slow in noticing that, possibly, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said rather too much. I am sorry if that was the case but, in any case, the hon. Gentleman cannot continue his argument, because it is outside the scope of the present discussion.

Sir H. Williams

We cannot consider the policy involved in this?

The Deputy-Chairman

No, definitely not.

Sir H. Williams

What I meant by policy was what is stated here: This Estimate is presented in order to obtain Parliamentary authority for the application of the receipts realised in connection with these Services as Appropriations in Aid of the expenditure thereon, the issues from the Vote of Credit being thereby correspondingly reduced. So the question of policy which arises—which is debatable—is whether we are to permit the Departments, nine of them, not to put these moneys into the Exchequer, in which case we shall learn more about them than we are going to learn to-day.

The Deputy-Chairman

No, I am sorry but it really does not come in under the present Vote of Credit; it is another thing altogether. If the hon. Gentleman will look in Standing Orders, No. 238 of the Manual of Procedure, he will find it says: The committee of supply can reduce estimates of expenditure, i.e., can refuse to grant as much as the Crown asks for, but cannot reduce or discuss the application of appropriations in aid, these not being sums demanded by the Crown, but sums, actual or estimated, received from other sources. That really puts the position clearly and we really must not go on with the discussion.

Sir H. Williams

May I just put this point? If the Committee says "No" to the £10, then the £21,000,000, or whatever the sum is, will have to be paid into the Exchequer and the £21,000,000 will have to be paid out of the Vote of Credit. The effect of our vote to-day is to decide which thing is to be done. If the proposal is rejected, then the effect of the Motion before the Committee becomes inoperative and therefore the Vote of Credit will have to provide the £21,000,000, and this sum will have to be paid into the Exchequer. That seems quite conclusive.

The Deputy-Chairman

That really is a question of accounting, as I understand it, and we cannot go into the larger sums here. I am quite decided on this point, and it cannot be ruled otherwise.

Sir H. Williams

I am still not quite clear. Suppose we reject the proposal now before the Committee, which we are entitled to do for we are not bound to accept this proposal. The Government have proposed that £10 shall be voted in a certain way. If we reject that proposal, £21,000,000 inevitably will have to be provided out of the Vote of Credit and £10 less than that will have to be paid into the Exchequer. That is an inevitable consequence of the proposal before us. Surely, a proposal which has certain effects if carried, and certain other effects if not carried, must be debatable on the merits of the effect of the proposal? I do not see how that can be argued.

The Deputy-Chairman

It is a matter of accounting and we cannot discuss it. This discussion does not enable hon. Members to go into wider fields, much as some of us might like to do so.

Sir H. Williams

But if we do not give the money, a certain consequence is produced; if we do, another consequence is produced. Surely, the merits of an "Aye" and "No" Vote must be debatable? I do not understand it.

The Deputy-Chairman

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has great difficulty in understanding, as it is a complicated matter, but I think we really must keep to the position laid down in the Rules of the House, that we cannot go into the wider issues of the second and third columns at the present time. It is not the occasion to do it, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to leave it at that.

Sir H. Williams

I will bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, that we cannot go into the details in the second and third columns, but they contain the only new matter before us. The first column was before us some time in the Spring, and if our Rules of Order result in the fact—and as you have given your Ruling they must—that we are debarred from discussing the purpose of the Government in handling the transaction in this way, then the only conclusion I can come to is that we must take steps to amend the Rules of Order. It seems to me monstrous that the Government can adopt a certain policy in handling their finances which may have the effect of concealing from Parliament, and therefore from the public at large, the nature of those transactions, and we are debarred from discussing them. I realise that to the full, but it raises a very important point of procedure.

The Deputy-Chairman

The whole point is that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to change the Rules of Order, he must do it by a Motion, and this is not the time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Back to