HC Deb 14 July 1954 vol 530 cc626-50

Resolutions reported,

I. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st day of March, 1953, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £6,237,443 6s. 3d. viz.:

£ s. d
Total Surpluses 8,282,978 14 2
Total Deficits 2,045,535 7 11
Net Surplus £6,237,443 6 3
And Whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:
  1. (1)the application of the realised surpluses on Vote 2. Subhead F and Vote 8 for Army Services to meet the net deficit of £625,167 11s. 3d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met from issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, 1949;
  2. (2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

1. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

II. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1953, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net expenditure is £24,597,032 12s. 1d., viz.:

£ s. d.
Total Surpluses 36,930,296 8 5
Total Deficits 12,333,263 16 4
Net Surplus £24,597,032 12 1

And Whereas the Lord Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

  1. (1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Air Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £4,915,092 11s. 10d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, 1949;
  2. (2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.'

2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 167–204.]

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. James Simmons (Brierley Hill)

We were, unfortunately, prevented from dealing with this important matter by the premature moving of the Closure on Monday after only four contributions had been made to the debate. It has become the fashion in this House to attempt to prevent adequate discussion of the affairs of the Army. We have had no debate on the Army Annual Act for three years. Debates on the Army Estimates have been confined to the debate on Vote A and as a result of the inadequate debates on the Army Estimates themselves we are now presented with the Appropriation Account.

I submit that the Appropriation Account is a direct result of inadequate discussion in this House in the original discussion of these Votes before us today. Had there been more adequate discussion there would obviously have been more adequate accounting; we would not have had so many surpluses on one side and deficits on the other. I understand we are now discussing the Motion that the application of these sums be sanctioned by way of what is called virement. The House has a right to object to these sums being sanctioned by virement.

Mr. Speaker

The House has a right to object to this matter being handled in this way as a matter of accountancy, but not on account of anything that has been done by the Army or the War Office.

Mr. Simmons

We presume that we are able to suggest that some other method of dealing with this problem should be used. It is in our minds to suggest that an excess Vote would be a more honest, straightforward and direct method of dealing with the problem. We are presented with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General each year. The material in the Report leads us to form the opinion that this method of virement by which things are covered up and by which one figure is put against another without any discussion of details, helps to cover the scandals brought to our notice in the Report. Unfortunately, we are given scant opportunity of discussing that Report. We can only do so indirectly and by reference to the fact that it covers the accounts we are now discussing.

These disclosures are disquieting and the very method of accountancy to which we are objecting enables this kind of thing to go on and the "Army Crichel Downs" to be perpetrated. It enables the stocktaking of the Army to be done in such a way as to receive the condemnation of the Comptroller and Auditor General and then be covered up by the technical method of virement.

It is distressing to those who have the well-being of the Army at heart to think that, for instance, the Army can be rooked, as it was rooked by the contractors in the Canal Zone, which is disclosed in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report. If we had an Excess Vote instead of this method of virement, we could have a full discussion.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker

But we have not got art Excess Vote. We are now dealing with the report of a Resolution of a Committee of the whole House as to why these sums should be transferred in this way. That would not allow us to enter into matters of the Canal Zone, and so on. It is purely a question of accountancy.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

If you will allow me to make a submission—

Mr. Speaker

Order, order. Has the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) finished?

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

A point of order? Very well.

Mr. Wigg

We were in some difficulty during the Committee stage because we then based our arguments on the rulings Oven two years ago. The Chairman of Ways and Means, in his wisdom, then admitted to the Committee that he had misled the House in 1952 and therefore, half-way through that stage, we were placed in the difficulty of the Chair having changed its ruling. Do I understand that you too, Sir, are varying your ruling to conform with that of the Chairman of Ways and Means? Or it may well be that he is acting under your direction?

As I understood his ruling in the Committee, my hon. Friend was certainly in order in arguing that the Government should not have proceeded by virement but should have come to the House with an Excess Vote. If the Chairman of Ways and Means was correct in his revised ruling, it would also seem that my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) is very closely conforming to what the Chairman of Ways and Means ruled two nights ago.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think there is any real difference between us. As I have said before, this is purely an accounting question. The late lamented Mr. Monk introduced this Resolution at some time in the last century—I believe in an almost empty House which agreed with him—and since then this procedure has gone on. But I would like to impress on the House that it is purely a matter of accountancy.

If I may put it another way, it is a Treasury matter entirely. It has nothing to do with the Secretary of State for War and. as he is not responsible for it, I could not allow him to reply. In my judgment it would be unfair to use this opportunity to introduce, even by a side-wind, any criticisms of the Army to which no reply could be given. There are other opportunities, on the Estimates, and so on, where a Minister of the appropriate Department can be challenged and will have to reply, but this is not such an occasion.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, Sir, we have closely followed the reasoning of the late Mr. Monk. We have also followed the rulings which have been given on six occasions by Chairmen of Ways and Means, one of which said that we were only in order if we discussed accountancy. In 1952, I confined my arguments wholly to that point and yet, two nights ago, the Chairman of Ways and Means said that I must not use the same arguments as I used in 1952 when, in fact, I had followed slavishly the ruling you are now giving.

Mr. Speaker

I think what I have told the House about the position is the true one. It is most unusual to have a debate on the Report stage of a Resolution with which a Committee of the whole House has agreed as a matter of accountancy.

Mr. Wigg

I do not want to delay the House, Sir, hut, with respect, although my experience of the House goes back for only nine years, never until this week have we had the pleasure of having the attendance of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Never before, in either a Labour Administration or in this Administration, has this occurred. This is the first occasion that the Financial Secretary has come to the House. Always before a Service Minister has replied.

Mr. Speaker

Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the Financial Secretary was not in attendance when this was discussed in Committee?

Mr. Wigg

On any occasion when this has come before the House the debates have always been answered by a Service Minister.

Mr. Speaker

It is quite proper that a Service Minister should attend on Supply and on the Estimates. That is their duty, and they are the people to be criticised. But this is purely an accounting matter for the Treasury, which is quite different from a debate on Supply.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, I would refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT for 2nd July, 1948 Vol. 452, col. 2475. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) was the Under-Secretary of State for War and he gave an account of the procedure under the process known as virement and went into some detail. From that time onwards our discussions have always been answered by a Service Minister, including the discussion in 1952.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot, of course, answer for what took place in 1952, in committee, or in 1948. But I am quite clear that this is purely a financial matter, one for the Treasury and not the Service Ministers.

Mr. Hale

On our discussions on Monday night I ventured to call the attention of the Chairman of Ways and Means to the fact that the whole record shows that on previous occasions on the Appropriation Accounts a reply was made by a Service Minister. We have that happy position in 1951, and in 1952, when, unfortunately, there was a change of Government. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) who held a junior Ministerial position at the War Office in 1952—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Member held a Ministerial position at the time and I thought that he was at the War Office—[HON. MEMBERS: "No," the Ministry of Supply."] I thought that he replied as Minister in 1952—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has all the records with him and can check my recollection—

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison)

I replied in 1952.

Mr. Hale

I am obliged. The Under-Secretary has made my point, even if he corrected my recollection. That has been the habitual practice.

I am raising this in no sense of criticism. On Monday night my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) addressed the Committee at some length and was not interrupted by the Chair. I addressed the Committee, and the Chairman of Ways and Means was good enough to call me to order and say that I was not displaying the same ingenuity as my hon. and learned Friend. I did point out then that my hon. and learned Friend was not displaying ingenuity, but indignation, and that he was advancing a reasoned argument.

He argued that we should not have this process of virement because it was covering up certain financial scandals discussed in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which the House had no other opportunity of discussing, and therefore it was appropriate that on this matter we should discuss the question of virement from the point of view that it was inappropriate to use it as it was a wrong method of accountancy to use in a democracy. I admit that the last words widened the discussion, but I submit that that was the clear ruling from the Chair on Monday.

Mr. Speaker

I have always thought it possible to argue against these Resolutions on accountancy grounds. But it is purely an accountancy matter for the Treasury. When the hon. Member uses the argument that they will prevent all sorts of criticisms which might be introduced into a debate on Supply, I think that that is going too far. We cannot enter upon the merits of the points of criticism in this case, to reply to which not a Service Minister, but a Treasury Minister would be required.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, Sir. Will you look at HANSARD for 1952, Vol. 502, col. 2592, which shows that the debate was replied to by the Under-Secretary of State for Air? Previously, the points we had advanced were rather along the lines of those which have been raised by my hon. Friends. Other points were answered by the Under-Secretary of State for War. On the Report stage there was no debate. The Resolutions were agreed to. I would, therefore, have thought that my hon. Friend was strictly in order in raising the question of the disadvantage, from the financial point of view, of proceeding by virement instead of by Excess Vote.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)

As I understand, the procedure is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide for virement by Treasury Minute, and for this Motion to be required in confirmation of that act. It seems that the procedure with which we are concerned is purely financial procedure. It is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT that the Chairman of Ways and Means expressed the view on Monday night that the ruling of 1952 had been too wide, and that the correct view was the one he expressed on Monday night. With respect, I submit that the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for War was able to make a reply in 1952 is not material to what the right hon. Gentleman said in that ruling.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he was present in 1952?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I do not suppose it will be in order for me to do so, but I was present.

Mr. Speaker

It is rather an ancient form of procedure. First, there is a Treasury Minute sanctioning the transference of surpluses to pay off deficits between funds. Then, if my recollection is right, the Minute goes before the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

That is so. The Public Accounts Committee has reported on that Minute and expressed its views on the appropriateness of the motion.

Mr. Speaker

Then it comes before us in this form, giving the sanction of the Committee, and then of the House, to the Minute.

Mr. Wigg

One of the rulings of the Chairman of Ways and Means which I quoted to the Chairman of Ways and Means on Monday night was a decision, I think by the present Lord Milner, that we could only discuss accountancy. In 1952 I did that. I discussed the form in which the accounts were presented. On Monday night I quoted what the Under-Secretary of State for War said in 1952, as follows: I now come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about the archaic form of the accounts. I agree with a great deal of what he has said. We may remember that 18 months or two years ago a body of opinion in the country thought the whole system of national accounting was out of date and that, instead of being on a cash basis, it should be on an income and expenditure basis. He went on to say: I do not think there is much hope of being able to select one facet or slice of the national accounts for this purpose, but I will take up the question again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2577.] On Monday, the Chairman of Ways and Means said: If I allowed that, I apologise for being negligent, for I ought not to have done so. And, later, he said: I am ruling myself out of order, and apologise. I am very sorry I was wrong then, but I think I am right now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 181–183.]

12 midnight

Mr. Speaker

I have had handed to me a report of what transpired in Committee and I see the Chairman said that the Question was that the application of certain sums should be sanctioned. Now we are asked to agree with the Committee in saying they should be sanctioned. That is to say, the Committee approved the use, in this case, of a form of accounts setting off deficits of some of the Department's Vote against surpluses in other Votes. If we now decide against that, the only result would be that the Department would have to effect the same result by introducing an Excess Vote.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, Sir, if this, the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, is debatable, and I take it it is debatable, then one of two things must be right. Either, we can debate the matter in the same form we debated it in Committee, or, the Chairman of Ways and Means has made yet another mistake and we have to debate the points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) along the precise lines that the Chairman of Ways and Means directed we should conduct the Committee stage last Monday.

Mr. Speaker

I have no desire whatever to prevent the House from scrutinising on all proper occasions the spending Departments, but I do not think that this is an occasion on which it can be done. That is all I am telling the House. I think if the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) can direct his speech to the accounting point I have mentioned, I think the House will listen to him. But, it is a general principle, that should be observed as a matter of order, that if no effective reply can be made, then it is not an appropriate occasion to make a speech. I do not mean an effective reply judged on its merits, because that is a matter of opinion, but, if the Minister would be out of order talking on it, so is the House.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

Is there no limit to the number of points of order which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) can put? I have heard him put seven.

Mr. Speaker

I have tried to explain my view on the matter. If I am wrong the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) can take some steps about it. But, so far as I know, I am right and I would ask the House to follow the ruling I have given.

Mr. Wigg

There is obviously no limit to the number of points of order that can be put. What we are trying to establish here is something that every hon. Member should have thought right because one day hon. Members opposite will be in Opposition.

I would submit, as a Service Member who is concerned about the efficiency of the Services, that we should discuss Estimates at every stage when they come before the House. We have conformed strictly to the rulings given by various Chairmen of Ways and Means—and I make no complaint at all as to that. He made a mistake and his ruling in 1952 was wrong. During the rest of the debate we adhered to the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means last Monday. If there is yet another ruling, would you be kind enough to make clear what it is, Sir?

Mr. Speaker

I thought I had made it as clear as I possibly could and I do not think further words of mine can make it clearer.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. Is it not a breach of decorum of the House for applause to take place when you are giving a ruling, Sir?

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry, but I did not catch the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Hale

Is it not a recognised breach of the decorum of the House, and a proceeding to be deplored, that there should be applause when Mr. Speaker is giving a ruling?

Mr. Speaker

I did not hear any applause.

Mr. Simmons

Before that rather long interval I was trying to put forward the point of view that the method of accountancy was wrong. I do not know whether I would be out of order in describing it as dishonest, but it is certainly misleading. I regret that we cannot have any reply from the Under-Secretary of State for War, whose courtesy in other debates is well known and appreciated by those of us who occasionally have to cross swords with him.

In deploring the method of accountancy I think we can claim once again that the dead hand of the Treasury is clamping down and preventing adequate discussion of matters which are of vital import to the officers and men serving in Her Majesty's Forces. We have the appropriation Account covered by the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I realise that we cannot discuss his Report in detail on this occasion, but it does prove that the present method of accountancy is inadequate for we are told that reliable stocktaking has not taken place since 1950 in one Department. Therefore, we are entitled to ask that instead of the Government coming forward, as they have done on this occasion, with this method of virement, they should be honest and come to the House with an Excess Vote so that we could go more properly into detail.

Mr. Bing

When Mr. Monk first introduced his Motion dealing with this particular matter it was, unfortunately counted out because there were insufficient hon. Members in the House. Looking around at this moment we are possibly in the same position.

Brigadier Terence Clarke (Portsmouth, West)

Divide.

Mr. Bing

There may be sufficient hon. Members on this occasion.

I thought I might call the attention of Mr. Speaker to the fact and leave it to him to take such action as he thought fit. My point is that we should not agree with the decision the Committee came to. It is not for me to make any criticism of the conduct of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, in whose name the original Motion was set down, in Committee, but it is unfortunate that his officials shortened the discussion because if it had gone its full length we should not have insisted on discussing the matter at this stage as the Committee would have decided it was not the appropriate method of raising this matter.

I base myself, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, entirely on the words which you read out, and which were the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I wish to develop a type of argument to which it would be possible for the Under-Secretary of State for War to reply. I appreciate that it is improper to advance any argument to which an hon. Member who is attacked, whether he be on the Front Bench or on a back bench, is not in a position to reply. That is a courtesy which we should all extend one to the other. On the other hand, the House has the duty to safeguard those people who are in the Army, and to see, for instance, that they are not charged excessive prices. For that reason I was particularly sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, North—

Brigadier Clarke

There is no Member for Portsmouth, North.

Mr. Bing

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a brigadier. When I was in the Army, I was always under the impression that the officers looked after the welfare of the men, and, therefore, I think it unfortunate that perhaps one of the most distinguished officers—

Brigadier Clarke

May I suggest that if the Army had anything to do with this matter the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be here now.

Mr. Bing

Were I to reply to that remark, I might be tempted to bring the debate rather wide.

We ought all to try and combine to see how we can adapt the rules of order so as to discuss the matter within the purview laid down, and, at the same time, to see that the soldier is not charged twice for his N.A.A.F.I. meals. We should all combine to try and arrive at that situation.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who, of course, attained a far higher rank in the Army than I did, is quite right to call attention to that fact. It is probably one of the few things to which he can call attention. I hope that we shall have his co-operation, and that he will join hon. Members on this side in trying to find an appropriate method by which we can discuss this matter. As you have said, Mr. Speaker, this Motion is drawn in a comparatively narrow ambit.

I suggest that a grave error of judgment was made by the Treasury in ever putting forward this minute. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury advanced what was, one would have thought, a most ingenious and effective argument in which he said that the House really had nothing to complain about because, of course, this whole matter was an appropriate one to be dealt with by way of virement would have been discussed when the Estimates came up. But, of course, the Committee of Public Accounts had not reported at that stage, and it was not until hon. Members had in their hands the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts that they were in a position to judge whether or not—in view of everything which the Committee had said, and taking into account its full report—it was, in fact, acting in a proper or reasonable way in the Report it made.

I think it proper that when an hon. Member quarrels with a decision of the Committee of the House, he ought to say so. I think that the Committee of Public Accounts was in error when it suggested that this matter was a proper one to be dealt with by way of virement. I also think that the Committee of the whole House erred when it came to the same conclusion, and I believe that on Report the few who object to that ought to have an opportunity to be heard and of saying why they think that the Committee of Public Accounts was wrong, and why they think that the Treasury minute was wrong, and why they think that the Committee of the whole House on Monday was wrong. That is the argument, and I hope that the House will bear with me while I develop it.

When the original Monk Resolution was introduced, it was intended to deal with comparatively small sums, hundreds, thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands of pounds, which were involved between one Vote and another. What has happened in this particular matter is that there has been an entire difference, and a change of policy which has resulted in there being a very large surplus. That has been the result of a change of policy. Like all policy conducted by hon. Gentlemen opposite it is of a somewhat involuntary nature. A great deal of the sum arises from the failure of their recruiting campaign—

12.15 a.m.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled, Sir, that it would be inappropriate and out of order for me to reply. Surely it is out of order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to make imputations about the Army to which I cannot reply.

Mr. Speaker

It is out of order. I have already ruled quite firmly on that, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will conform to what I have said.

Mr. Bing

With respect I thought that I had, Sir.

If the Minister is in difficulty in knowing how to reply I might be permitted to say that if my argument that this should not be dealt with by virement is wrong surely the Minister can reply and say that the very arguments which were put from this side as to why the matter should be dealt with in this way are incorrect and wrong. If he says that these surpluses have arisen other than on a general policy basis surely he can be heard to say so. He has been heard to say so on the last four, five or six occasions when we have discussed this.

We have brought it up now on Report because this is a highly-important matter. A great deal of public money is involved. Under those circumstances it has been thought by my hon. Friends, with the welfare of the Army at stake, that this is a matter which we should not let pass. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Minister, who has always replied before is capable of doing as each of his predecessors has done.

All he need say in reply is that we on this side are mistaken in thinking the matter could be dealt with by Excess Vote and that it should be dealt with by virement because these are trivial matters. That is the argument which he should put to the House—that the £8 million which we are discussing is a mere bagatelle and that we have miscalculated to the extent of £2 million on one particular Vote is neither here nor there. He can get up and say that. Why not?

He says that this is a matter of accountancy, but one of the matters we have to consider is the sort of Report we have from the accountant. The House has employed the Comptroller and Auditor General. We know what he thought of these accounts. We may not perhaps be allowed to say so, but if we are discussing it on an accountancy basis is it not odd that we cannot discuss it on the basis of the Report of the accountant whom the House employs?

Mr. Speaker

I think the hon. and learned Member is going far away from the Question.

Mr. Bing

With respect, Mr. Speaker—

Brigadier Clarke

Go on, go on.

Mr. Bing

I am much obliged for the encouragement of the hon. and gallant Member. Perhaps he wishes to speak—it is always the excuse of the hon. and gallant Member. That is what is always said at a court-martial.

Brigadier Clarke

Some of us have never been court-martialled.

Mr. Bing

If it is not out of order, I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member.

If one looks at the account as a whole one sees a total surplus of no less than £8 million. That is a large sum of money, and while it would be inappropriate for me to refer to the Vote in which it is given one sees that there has, in fact, been a miscalculation by the Army as to what the cost of the Service as a whole was to be. It is a miscalculation of such magnitude that had the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated it he could have given a rise to the old-age pensioners for which hon. Gentlemen opposite have agitated with such force.

Mr. Speaker

Really, the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot introduce all these matters.

Mr. Bing

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but I was merely trying to advance some argument that this matter should not be dealt with on the accountancy basis, on which it is now proposed that it should be dealt with. The argument I was putting, which I thought was valid, was that if one has a surplus of no less than £8,282,976, and a deficit of as big a sum as £2,045,000, it is quite wrong that these two huge sums should be set against each other.

The proper course is to come here and ask for an Excess Vote, to be credited in another year, for the deficits, and to devote the proceeds of this to the social legislation which otherwise we would expect. One of the duties of this House is to try to investigate and keep a watch over public expenditure, and when there are deficits to the extent of £2 million, that is surely a matter which should be subject to examination by this House, because we cannot discuss it in any detail when those particular deficits arise. The argument which I was hoping would be adopted by the House against the view which is taken by the Committee was that this is a matter which should be dealt with by Excess Vote.

I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he has heard the arguments which some of my hon. Friends want to put, will consider this matter. I am glad now to see the Patronage Secretary here. He should remember that if he stifles normal and proper opportunities for Parliamentary discussion, then hon. Members are bound to seek by other means methods of raising these matters, which are of the greatest importance. I would say for my hon. Friends on this side of the House that he will not do better by any curtailment of this particular discussion. They are bound to take up more time of the House than they would if the Financial Secretary took the right course. Let him withdraw this Resolution and put down for an Excess Vote. Let us have half a day to discuss it. Can we not have half a day to discuss the matter?

Mr. Speaker

That is really a long way from the Question before the House.

Mr. Bing

Perhaps I need not go into it, because the Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows exactly the standards which are contained in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report. I ask him to let us have an opportunity to discuss them, to decide who is responsible for them—whether it is this side or the other side. Surely this is the wrong procedure for dealing with this particular Estimate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I explained the procedure on this Resolution to the Committee on Monday night, and the House will not want me to repeat what I said. The point we are concerned with is a very narrow one and is very simple. It is this: for the year with which we are concerned, 1952–53, on the different Army Estimates the final outturn showed there was a total surplus of about £8 million on some Votes, and a little over £2 million deficit on others.

What is proposed by this Resolution is that so much as is necessary of the surplus on the Votes where there is a surplus, should be applied to make up the deficiency on the Votes where there is a deficiency. In this matter there has been followed the normal procedure of provisional authority for virement, followed by examination by the Public Accounts Committee, who recommended that virement be authorised and saw no reason why the House should not sanction virement and approve this Motion in Committee of the whole House, and on Report.

The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) sought to suggest that there was something dishonest—in fact, he used the word—and that the Government was lacking in straightforwardness and various other commendable characteristics in having recourse to this procedure. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) stated that this procedure was applicable only to small sums; I think that same point was put forward on Monday. He claimed that it was applicable only when small amounts were involved, but in the light of all this, it is very interesting to note what has happened in recent years. A Resolution in the same form dealing with the Army Vote was taken during five years that the party of hon. Members opposite was in office; the only difference is that the sums involved were somewhat larger.

In the face of that, it really is the most complete nonsense, with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Brierley Hill, to try to make this have the appearance of some new and scandalous procedure; something designed to hide scandals within the Army accounts. The simple fact is that this is the normal procedure carried out since it was suggested by the late lamented Mr. Monk. It was carried out for five years of the late Government's tenure of office and that discloses the complete hollowness of the case which it is sought to argue tonight.

Mr. Ross

rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch referred to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Army Appropriation Account for 1952–53 and suggested that our procedure was a wrong one because it did not permit items in that Report to be debated in the House. But that Report is still with the Public Accounts Committee, which has not yet reported.

If I may summarise, this is the normal procedure, simply dealing in a straightforward and traditional manner with the Army surplus and deficit, and this is not the appropriate occasion for hon. Members seeking to raise arguments with respect to Army accounts, nor for criticising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War; and the more so, since you, Sir, having ruled that he cannot reply.

Brigadier Clarke

On a point of order. May I ask whether the Opposition have earned their £2 for today?

Mr. Bing

Further to that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

Order, order. I did not accept what the hon. and gallant Member said as a point of order.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn)

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 0.

Division No. 202.] AYES [12.30 a.m.
Aitken, W. T. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Ramsden, J. E.
Alport, C. J. M. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Redmayne, M.
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Heath, Edward Remnant, Hon. P.
Arbuthnot, John Higgs, J. M. C. Renton, D. L. M
Banks, Col. C. Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Ridsdale, J. E.
Barlow, Sir John Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Russell, R. S.
Bishop, F. P. Hirst, Geoffrey Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Bossom, Sir A. C. Hope, Lord John Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Horobin, I. M. Scott, R. Donald
Boyle, Sir Edward Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Brooks, Henry (Hampstead) Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Hutchison, James (Scotstoun) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Bullard, D. G. Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Iremonger, T. L. Soames, Capt. C
Campbell, Sir David Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Spearman, A. C. M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Kaberry, D Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Kerby, Capt. H. B. Storey, S.
Colegate, W. A. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Cooper-Key, E. M. Linstead, Sir H. N. Summers, G. S.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Llewellyn, D. T. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Crouch, R. F. Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Tilney, John
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Maclean, Fitzroy Vane, W. M. F.
Davidson, Viscountess Macmillan, Rt. Hon, Harold (Bromley) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Deedes, W. F. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald Wall, P. H. B.
Drewe, Sir C. Maude, Angus Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Duthie, W. S. Mellor, Sir John Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Nabarro, G. D. N. Wellwood, W.
Fell, A. Neave, Airey Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Fort, R. Nicholls, Harmar Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Foster, John Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Wills, G.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Oakshott, H. D. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Garner-Evans, E. H. O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Wood, Hon. R.
Glover, D. Page, R. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Graham, Sir Fergus Pitt, Miss E. M. Mr. Studholme and Mr. Vosper.
NOES
NIL
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Mr. George Wigg and Mr. Bing.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Wigg

Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not attach the importance to the matter we are discussing that we do on this side of the House. One does not expect to find a very large number of Members who would interest themselves sufficiently to stay up night after night to delve into the question of the financial control of the Services. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seemed to think that he had scored a point by saying that for many years past this has been the practice of previous administrations.

I do not want to trespass one comma outside the rules of order, but it seems a little unfair to put the whole onus on the Labour Party for the reform of the financial control and the discipline of the fighting Services. Hon. Gentlemen opposite many of them with distinguished records in all three Services, had ample opportunities during the years 1945 to 1951 to do something about the reform of the Army and Air Force, but nothing was done. It was left to us and, when we got into Opposition, we started to do the job that an Opposition ought to do.

The steps that we have taken as regards the Services again tonight, we shall continue to take, because we are making no idle point. We do this year after year because, in my submission, this goes right to the root of the Army particularly. I shall be out of order to say more on that Service because we have passed the Army Resolution, and in my submission all the three fighting Services are not a subject for virement and I will say why.

Other spending Departments of the Government receive a Vote from this House and, the sum having been granted and the purposes having been laid down by the process of the House, the Minister in charge of the Department is then free to get on with the job. He has the money, as it were, in one big "dollop." But that is not so as regards the three Services. The money voted to the Army, Navy and Air Force is given under specific heads. There are no fewer than 11 Votes here which are involved. They include Pay; Reserve and Auxiliary Services; Air Ministry; Civilians at Outstations; Movements Supplies: Aircraft and Stores—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has expressed the hope that he will keep in order. I have to advise him that he is now out of order. The only thing that the Committee agreed was that the application of such sums be sanctioned, and we are now asked to agree with the Committee. To go into details would be out of order.

Mr. Wigg

I do not wish to go into details, but we are in some difficulty because, with respect, we are getting different Rulings from different occupants of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is now getting a Ruling from me.

Mr. Wigg

May I take that I shall be in order if I confine myself to the accounting? That is the Ruling which was given by Mr. Speaker, and that is what I am endeavouring to do.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member would be out of order. All that we can deal with now is that the application of such sums be sanctioned. He can argue that it should be on an Excess Vote, 'but that is as far as he can go.

Mr. Wigg

I realise that it would be grossly improper to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but, with respect, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise this with Mr. Speaker, because once again we have been given two distinct Rulings. Mr. Speaker said that we could talk about accounting. The accounting of this money was the only matter which it would be in order to discuss, and HANSARD will show that tomorrow.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have no doubt that it was the method of accounting that could be discussed, whether it should be done in this way or by an Excess Vote.

Mr. Wigg

I am dealing with the method of accounting and it is my submission that the method of virement should not be applied within the Services. The doctrine of the late Mr. Monk is all right when applied to other Departments, but when it is applied to the Service Departments it is wrong, as I shall endeavour to point out without going into details. I was reading the various accounting heads under which the money is split up and I wish to argue that this method of accounting, which had its origin in the history of the Army, has grown up mainly because it has not been challenged.

We have pleaded during the past years that the Treasury ought not to use this method. I am making no charge of impropriety. I have never gone beyond the point of saying that the system is archaic. This system has no relevance to the existing needs of the Services. On mabili- sation this method would not be used. The whole system changes on mobilisation. In 1952, when I made this plea, I received a promise that the matter would be looked into. My plea is that this system is completely and utterly out of date. I ask the Government not to treat this as something which has happened late at night, because we are not responsible for when this is put on the Order Paper.

12.45 a.m.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take it as a cri de coeur from those of us who are passionately interested in the efficiency of the Services. He need not do it in the light of day if he does not wish to. He could set up a Departmental Committee. I urge the Financial Secretary to ask the Chancellor to look at it not from the point of view of the Treasury, but from the point of view of the Services. Why is it that civilians are top dogs in the Service Departments? Why are they there? They are there to see the money spent, and to account for it in accordance with the will of Parliament. The main job of the finance departments of the Services is not to ensure that there are fidelity checks. Certainly, they do that. The would not for a moment allow a penny of public money to be mis-spent.

The job in which they are trained at the Air Ministry before they go out to the commands, the regulations which are framed, the tradition in which high-ranking air officers have grown up, is that of accountability for public money to Parliament. When at the end of an accounting period it becomes necessary for money to be transferred from one Vote to another, Minutes are exchanged between the Air Ministry and the Treasury, the process of virement is gone through, and the matter comes before the House. Every hon. Member concerned about the day to day effects of this particular method of financial control knows, and every Service Minister knows, that this is a strangehold on the efficiency of the Services.

Air officers whose training has cost thousands of pounds spend their time wondering when the Treasury will come down on them. This is the last stage in a long drawn process which you, Mr. Speaker, have reminded us, starts with the Estimates Committee, goes to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and comes to the House in this form. We have pleaded at all stages for reform. I make no apology for having been outvoted by 120 tonight. I shall keep on pleading until I get some Government, or Service Minister, to back me up, and to say that it is time that this system, born 200 or 300 years ago, no longer has a purpose, and ought to be altered.

I well remember reading, when I was a young soldier, a series of lectures given some 30 years ago by one of the financial pundits of the War Office, Sir Charles Harris. I have quoted him in the House on other occasions. He was conducting what was, I think, the first course for young officers arranged by the London School of Economics. Officers from all branches of the Services were taken there to be instructed in methods of financial control. Those lectures are well worth reading. They are, I believe, available in the Library. Sir Charles explained the various stage of the financial procedure to these officers, starting with the preparation of the Estimates.

I freely acknowledge what I learned from Sir Charles Harris's lectures, although I only had the pleasure of reading them. He thought that in the First World War, when the War Office got into such a terrible mess—and it then included the Royal Flying Corps and it was there that the Air Ministry was born, and this system we are now discussing had its birth—this system was strangling the efficiency of the Services and in his last years of public service—and very distinguished years they were—he did his best to try and get this system altered. He failed, partly because—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is rather a long way from Mr. Monk.

Mr. Wigg

I would not be surprised if Sir Charles, when he was a young man, perhaps had advice of his ingenious system. I think he retired about 1920 and would not have been too young to know something about Monk's Resolution.

I am not asking the Financial Secretary to read Sir Charles Harris's lectures, although he could read them with some profit and certainly the Secretary of State for War could learn from them a little bit about the financial control of the War Office. I am asking the Financial Secretary to believe that the few of us here tonight have an honest and sincere purpose, the same honest and sincere purpose we had about the Army and Air Force Acts, and I am extremely proud of the part I played, although I know that some hon. Gentlemen were as hostile then as now over being kept up, although I make no apology for that because this is a contribution to the efficiency of the Services.

The Financial Secretary should recognise this system as being all right when applied to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Works, but no good when one is concerned with the Services' efficiency, particularly when you have a change from one system to another. I would ask him not to set up a Select Committee or make any stirring statement tonight. All I am asking him is between now and next year to have another look at this and see whether it is in the best interests of the Services. If he comes back next year, and says he has had another look at it and is quite satisfied, I promise to go home early when it comes before the House.

Finally, I would make this point: we have got into great difficulty on this side of the House because of various rulings which have been given from the Chair. It may be we are stupid and have not understood as clearly as we might have done. Certainly, before Monday, we made an effort to follow the rulings then given and on Monday we were in some difficulties because the Chairman of Ways and Means told us he was wrong. That was an embarrassment because we had based ourselves on the doctrine enunciated by the Chairman of Ways and Means in 1952. We accepted that and directed ourselves to the revised ruling. Then you, Mr. Speaker, gave us another ruling tonight. Of course, we accepted your ruling and chose our arguments. Then you went away, after a little while, and back came Mr. Deputy-Speaker and we got another operation.

I am not challenging you, Sir, but asking you whether you would be kind enough to recognise the difficulties of back benchers and look at the rulings that have been given from 1945 onwards, and at the proceedings of the Committee stage, and tonight. Perhaps when you have had an opportunity of considering it, you would give a ruling which would guide us in these matters in future years.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put accordingly, and agreed to.