HC Deb 09 July 1957 vol 573 cc304-22

Considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1956, that the aggregate Expenditure on sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £9,399,195 11s. 6d., viz:—

£ s. d.
Total Surpluses 10,387,490 7 6
Total Deficits 988,294 16 0
Net Surplus £9,399,195 11 6

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 10 for Navy

SCHEDULE
No. of Vote Navy Services 1955–56 Votes Deficits Surpluses
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. Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines 343,429 1 5 — — 108,070 16 8
2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy — — 239,053 19 1 47,754 18 4
3. Medical Establishments and Services — — 84 5 8 19,270 14 9
4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services — 11,745 16 5 204,161 7 6 —
5. Educational Services — — 7,809 7 8 14,140 15 7
6. Scientific Services — — 666,395 10 5 56,592 2 4
7. Royal Naval Reserves — — 197,827 18 9 1,931 12 4
8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.: Section I.—
Personnel — — 306,894 19 4 278,063 17 9
Section II.—
Matériel 272,142 1 6 — — 3,874,076 1 11
Section III.—
Contract Work — 187,047 18 2 1,509,107 4 9 —
9. Naval Armaments — — 271,057 9 11 1,226,633 17 4
10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad — 34,173 14 6 53,370 1 9 —
11. Miscellaneous Effective Services — — 686,045 11 3 420,203 9 9
12. Admiralty Office — 2,532 18 6 57,389 15 4 —
13. Non-Effective Services — 26,700 12 10 125,961 17 5 —
14. Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair 3,892 1 5 — — —
15. Additional Married Quarters — 17,213 7 3 15,592 11 11 —
Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned 89,417 4 0 — — —
708,880 8 4 279,414 7 8 4,340,752 0 9 6,046,738 6 9
Total Deficits: Total Surpluses:
£988,294 16s. 0d. £10,387,490 7s. 6d.
Net Surplus £9,399,195 11s. 6d.

Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £1,620 15s. 4d. on Vote 15 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1952.

(2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.

8.35 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell)

I beg to move, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

The Public Accounts Committee, in its Second Report for this session, reported upon the exercise of virement—

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

On a point of order. It has been usual to take these Motions together, Sir William. Do you propose to do that tonight?

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

My intention was to give an opportunity to vote on each of the three Motions separately.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Thank you, Sir William. I hope that you will carry that intention out. I have the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings on 4th July, 1956, before me, and on that occasion I find that they were all taken together in our debate in order to prevent repetition, and then we were provided with an opportunity of voting afterwards.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is my understanding.

Mr. Powell

The brief remarks which I was going to address to the Committee are, in fact, equally applicable to all three Motions, and I was not proposing to trouble the Committee again when I came to the remaining two.

As I was saying, the Public Accounts Committee has reported on the exercise of virement between the votes of Service Departments. It reviewed the exercise by the Treasury of its powers to sanction virement provisionally, and saw no reason why Parliament should not sanction the virement which has temporarily been authorised by the Treasury in its Minutes laid before the House in February of this year.

The purpose of the Motion in respect of the Navy, and the following Motions in respect of the other two Services, is to give that Parliamentary sanction to virement temporarily authorised by the Treasury.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley (Rochester and Chatham)

While what the Financial Secretary has said is quite true, the House has only the opportunity of sanctioning the transfer of surpluses from one Service Vote to another to clear deficits incurred in another grant in the same Service. The Public Accounts Committee, as he has said, has considered the matter and, moreover, the matter has gone to the Treasury itself, the matter before us being its recommendations. On the other hand, the House of Commons is prevented from debating the matter in detail.

It is not for me to make any comment upon whether H.M.S. "Kent" ought to have been built in Chatham Dockyard, but we in this Committee can be concerned only with the method of transfer and the surpluses transferred. I could, of course, argue that we could meet these deficits by an excess Vote, but, supposing that we did that, we should, I think, be in the same position as we are now. We should not be afforded an opportunity of debating the details, because, if there was an excess Vote, it would come under the guillotine of the Finance Bill, and the House would be deprived of an opportunity of debate.

I put it to the Financial Secretary, who is an eminent scholar, that the original intention in separating the Service Votes from the other Estimates was that Parliament wanted to be assured that there was a most careful scrutiny and control of Service Estimates. Today, the opposite is the case. When we debate the Service Estimates, we select the Vote and we debate that, and most of the other Estimates are not debated at all. To this extent, our practice violates the original Parliamentary principle upholding the glorious Revolution of 1688.

I know that the Financial Secretary himself cannot do anything about this, but I suggest to him that it might be worth looking at from the point of view of Parliamentary accountability. Is there not good reason for this matter to be considered further with a view to affording the House of Commons an opportunity to debate the details as well as consider it as we are in discussing the Motion tonight.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

It was on 4th July, 1956, at 11.20 p.m., that I made some observations on a similar Motion. I thought it was disgraceful that it should come up at that time of night. We are, therefore, making a little progress with regard to time, because it is now only 8.40 p.m. and many hon. Members will have an opportunity of taking part in this debate.

I have before me the Order Paper for last year, when the total surpluses were, on page 184, approximately £74 million, on the next page £17 million, and on the next page £44½ million. This year, the surpluses are equally great. On one page, we find the figure of £10⅓ million, on another page £26 million, and on another page a total surplus of £95½ million. In my view, the continuation of the use of virement to this extent is a national scandal, on which it is time that the House took a stand. For my part, that is what I intend to do.

This afternoon, had it been necessary for me to do so, I would have paid tribute to a very great gentleman whom it has never been my privilege to meet. For many years, I have followed the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Reports of that character are not produced without a great deal of work. They are excellent Reports, but I should like to ask how often they are considered.

I know that we are not allowed to analyse the figures which are before us tonight. It would be out of order for me to discuss how the millions of pounds of surpluses have been used to meet deficits and how all this is increasing. I know that the rule which prevents me from speaking upon those scandalous figures was agreed to 100 years ago, when the House dealt merely with hundreds of pounds. Now, we are dealing with millions of pounds and yet we must abide strictly by the Monk Resolution of 100 years ago.

I know that to remain in order I must abide by that Resolution of 100 years ago; but it is out-of-date. How can we carry out our duties in this House, how can we insist upon the Parliamentary control of national expenditure, if we continue to acquiesce in an out-of-date Resolution of the kind that the Monk Resolution is?

I have made a careful study of Erskine May, which I have with me in case I am challenged, and at the weekend I again made a careful study of the Standing Orders. I spoke upon this for a considerable time last year and do not intend to reiterate what I said. I do, however, intend to make a modern application of the issues at stake in order to clear myself, no matter what any other hon. Member does.

8.45 p.m.

In my view, it is time that the House made a critical examination of the ruling of almost 100 years ago so that we can modernise ourselves and bring ourselves up to date. I have before me the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, which contains the heading: Virement between Votes of Service Departments. If anybody wants to check this, it was published in the Session 1956–57, it was signed on 28th May, 1957, and I am referring to page 3. It states: … subject to subsequent confirmation by Parliament "— and I want to emphasise those words, because I am not prepared to sanction scandalous figures of this description— the application of surpluses on any Votes of a Service Department to meet deficits on other Votes of the same Department. Approximately £100 million are at stake, and all we have had put before us is this meagre report. That was all very well in the days when the Monk Resolution was agreed to but that was a hundred years ago. In those days the sums were counted in hundreds of pounds. We are now dealing with millions of pounds. Therefore, we ought to deal with the matter in a way different from that of those years. Does the Treasury consider it sound business to allow approximately £100 million to be juggled with in this way?

I heard the Minister of Labour and National Service speak on the television the other night, and I was impressed by the answer which he gave in that "Press Conference". His desire was obvious, and I hope it is the desire of all of us. It is certainly mine, as it must be of anyone who had the experience which I had of seeing the effects of inflation upon the millions of the German people during the time of the Army of Occupation.

Surely the time has arrived when we ought to seize every opportunity to bring home to the Government, to bring home to the Treasury, to bring home to everybody, that we are not—or ought not to be—prepared to acquiesce in this juggling with millions of pounds of our fellow countrymen's money. At the same time as the Treasury acquiesces in this business, constant appeals are made by the Government to industry to increase output, to curb proposals for investment or expenditure in this direction and that direction.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

I am sorry to interrupt, but I think the hon. Member is getting very far away from the Question, which is a very narrow one.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I accept that, Sir Gordon, but if you would be good enough to look at the Official Report of similar proceedings last year you will find that I spoke on that occasion at considerable length, and was allowed, as any hon. Member was entitled to do, provided he did not go outside certain limits, to introduce examples of the kind I did. I quite agree that this Question is a narrow one, and, apart from the example I was giving to illustrate my argument, I intend to continue in the way I did on the last occasion, and to keep in order.

Approximately £100 million are at stake here. The money has been juggled with between surpluses and deficits. I know I am not allowed to question how the money has been used, but I am in order in dealing with the total amounts, and to show that on this occasion the total amounts at stake are approximately £100 million, and to point out that the Treasury is prepared to allow this sort of thing to go on until Parliament has an opportunity of confirming it. I am not prepared to confirm it. I am not prepared to confirm the continuance of this sort of thing while there is a serious inflationary situation.

I understand that these sums must be confirmed separately, because the words on the Order Paper are: That the application of such sums be sanctioned. That implies that if we really mean business we ought to have three Divisions tonight. My copy of Erskine May is rather out of date, but the words on page 501 of the thirteenth edition, under the heading "Navy, Army and Air Force", are: … the navy and air force have, and the army until recently had, the power of applying the surpluses … in cases where such expenditure is of public advantage. That is the qualification. Unfortunately, I have to accept the existence of that power, but not a word has been said today in evidence that the surpluses have been used to the public advantage.

We ought to have an explanation before we approve of these accounts. How does Parliament know that this sum of £100 million has been spent to the public advantage? If we are not to be informed on that point, how are we to perform our historic duty to retain Parliamentary control over public expenditure? I understand that it is the duty of the Committee of Supply to offer constructive criticism.

The Deputy-Chairman

Order. We are not now in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Ellis Smith

That is quite true, Sir Gordon, but if you would be good enough to be a little magnanimous you will shortly see the point that I am trying to make. How can the Committee carry out its duty if surpluses of millions of pounds are used to meet millions of pounds of deficits? The Treasury uses the power of virement and that, in my view, is a big contribution to inflation. The Government are constantly appealing for increased output and at the same time, authorising millions of pounds to be used in this way. The Treasury authorised the millions of pounds which were mentioned on the Order Paper last year, and it has authorised the millions of pounds which we are now discussing.

How much longer is this practice to continue? It is equivalent to the Treasury authorising a blank cheque without Parliament's signature. That is the logic of this operation. Parliament is now asked to authorise what the Treasury temporarily agreed to, subject to that authorisation. In plain language, it means that the Treasury has given the Navy, Army and Air Force a blank cheque and the right to use these millions of pounds as they wish, and now it is asking us to validate that cheque.

The House of Commons does not, or should not, vote money unless it is required. The Crown has asked for this money. Our own Money Resolutions in the House of Commons are tightly drawn. I remember the time when they were tightened up. Our hands are tied. We cannot move Amendments to Money Resolutions. Yet the military authorities can juggle about with money in this way. During the past twelve months we have had economies in the children's dinners, children's milk, the schools and hospitals —

The Deputy-Chairman

I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot go into that.

Mr. Ellis Smith

What I am doing now is contrasting the effect of playing about with millions, in the way the Government have done, with the treatment of the people to whom we belong. As long as the Treasury continues to use virement in this way, Sir Gordon, it is in order to compare the application of millions of pounds in one instance with another, provided that I do not go too far outside these limits. This is all subject to Parliamentary sanction and, as far as I am concerned, it does not obtain my sanction.

I conclude with the following points. This country is in a serious economic position. The men I belong to have to estimate to a farthing in order to meet foreign competition. Yet the Treasury, but its use of the out-of-date procedure of virement, can allow the military authorities to use millions of pounds this year, approximately £100 million, to cover the sloppy estimating which has brought about the deficits.

At the same time, industry is making the best contribution it can, meeting the constant appeals of the Treasury. Here, I am not speaking critically of the military people, though I owe them nothing, having served under some of them; it does not matter on which side of the Committee they sit, because there is little difference in certain circumstances. Therefore, I am not speaking critically of them this evening. The people responsible for this serious situation, for this national scandal, are those in the Treasury, which comes to this House of Commons constantly with all kinds of proposals, and continually issues White Papers.

No one gives the Treasury more credit than I do, but I say that, as regards this out-of-date procedure, the time has arrived when somebody should make a stand. In my opinion it should be the duty of the whole Committee to take a stand on this matter, because it is scandalous that £100 million of our countrymen's money should be played about with in this way. No one in industry would hold his job many days if he behaved in this way. Accountants have to estimate to within a few pence. I am a member of a trade union which is subject to Government audit, and we have to answer for every farthing. Yet the Treasury, by the use of virement, can juggle with millions to this extent. It is for those reasons I have made these observations.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh (Islington, North)

I shall direct my few remarks to the Motion covering the virement in respect of the Army. I noticed the usual rather amused grin on the face of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury during the closing stages of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). It was a most inappropriate way to greet a most serious point. This annual procedure is becoming an annual Parliamentary farce, and the sooner that is said, and the sooner something is done about it, the better will be the conduct of Parliamentary business.

We are in this difficulty, that these sums are disposed from one Vote to another. We cannot discuss the basic principle of that transfer. We should be ruled out of order if we tried to discuss the detail of the transfer. When one has excluded both the principle and the detail, one is left with a very narrow territory upon which to manoeuvre to discuss a transfer of amounts totalling £100 million. I look back on the Rulings over the past few years and find that the only thing one can discuss is the accountancy of the operation and, in particular, the Treasury's own control of that accountancy. It is to that aspect of the matter that I propose to devote a few remarks.

9.0 p.m.

I could make a case that the whole of the accounts before us have got to the state of being nothing more than an elaborate fiction. We are in theory still governed by Mr. Monk's Resolution. That was precise. It laid certain duties upon the Treasury. But we find that by a review of the Parliamentary supply procedure undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee in 1933: … it is now the practice to mention only approximate figures (or, if the transfers are minor ones, no figures at all) in the March Minute…. That is the Minute that we are now discussing.

If we have reached the stage where we are discussing only approximations—

Mr. Powellindicated dissent.

Mr. Fienburgh

The Financial Secretary shakes his head. I shall be very glad to be corrected upon the point if I am wrong.

Mr. Powell

We are discussing the precise figures in the Minute of February of this year.

Mr. Fienburgh

The document which I have in front of me relates to the Parliamentary Supply procedure and says: The 'Monk' Minute is, in fact a provisional warning to Parliament additional to the substantive statement required by the Appropriation Act. As a result of a review by the Public Accounts Committee in 1933, it is now the practice to mention only approximate figures (or, if the transfers are minor ones, 110 figures at all) in the March Minute and to confine the Minute to a short statement of the facts … What we are in effect discussing is an approximation, according to that statement.

I do not intend to rest my case upon that point. I want to say a word about the Army methods of accountancy which give rise to the need of excessive employment of virement—and the Treasury cannot avoid some responsibility in this matter because it remains a Treasury responsibility to supervise and co-ordinate accountancy methods of the Services. I think that it was Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery who said that Army accountancy assumes that every man is a crook and, if he is not, it sets out to make him one. Because the whole of the Army's system of accountancy is based upon the need to prevent misappropriation from Votes which the House of Commons has theoretically approved and, further, to prevent the need for excessive virement from one account to the other there is more concern in the Army system of accountancy in exercising this tight control than in getting value for the money expended upon the supervision of accounts.

In fact, as was said in an article in The Times: The larger sum is often spent in pursuit of the smaller. The reason why estimating procedures go wrong so often in the Army, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South pointed out, is that the Army has no adequate system of cost accounting. Add to the deficiencies in estimating the cost of the close scrutiny; add to that an annual exercise, and this process of virement, and we get some rather distressing results.

In The Times some time ago there was reported the story of the annual spending spree which goes on in the Service Departments towards the end of the financial year, when they have deficits on certain accounts but they have not spent their Vote. What I am saying applies not to the Army in Whitehall but to the sub-allocations of Votes which reach the commands and districts. There is an annual spending spree when the end of the financial year approaches because, in part due to the reluctance of the Service Departments to exercise the right of virement—and here I disagree with my hon. Friend; they really are reluctant to exercise this right of virement, because it involves them in a lot of complicated explanations which the Treasury do not regard idly—they try to spend on the particular Vote instead of making a request for virement.

The instance was given some time ago of an Army district in Germany where the engineer rang up the battalion commander and said, "I have 10,000 Deutschemarks to spend before the end of my financial year. What can you use them on?" The battalion commander said, "We can use some for improvement to our married quarters." That was not done, because it was not in the running. On that Vote on which there was that excess, the officer would have had, in the long process to the War Office and the Treasury, to apply for virement in order to use that 10,000 marks for the repair of married quarters, because that was allocated to a different Vote. So the officers sought a way of spending the money, and they put asphalt down on the parade ground, which did not need it, as it was a perfectly good parade ground.

Mr. Ellis Smith

The situation now seems much more serious than I stated it to be.

Mr. Fienburgh

Between my details and the details given by my hon. Friend I hope that we shall persuade the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there is something which needs to be looked at.

The Army is in many ways a large industrial concern today. I know that the sharp end of it is a fighting instrument but the blunt end is R.E.M.E. workshops, stores, R.A.S.C. dumps, enormous works services and enormous capital equipment. Treasury sanction has to be sought for this, and there is often delay in getting it. What I am asking for in detail is that something should be done to look into the Army's method of accountancy. This may well apply to other Services. It is my argument that the system—lack of cost accounts and of up-to-date methods —leads to bad estimating, which would be bad enough in itself, but it leads to constant recourse to the process of virement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has pointed out, the more this exercise is applied the less detailed Parliamentary control there is over the use of defence funds.

This is now becoming an annual farce. The Monk Resolution was passed about 1879. It is avoided nowadays. Moreover this Committee of the House has been subjected during the last few years, through no fault of the Chair, to a large number of conflicting Rulings from one stage to another, from Committee stage to Report stage. I think the Financial Secretary will agree that, by careful selection, quotations can be taken from Rulings of the Chair which will suit practically any case. It is largely the luck of the draw whether one gets away with what one has to say or not. It depends sometimes upon whether there has been a change in the occupany of the Chair from one stage to another. We are dealing with a sum of over £100 million, but the procedure has been reduced to the level of a ludicrous farce.

If an hon. Member now wishes to raise a detailed point of military expenditure it is almost impossible for him to do so. The Estimates have become the occasion for a general debate on Vote A. The Supplementary Estimates very rarely provide an opportunity, while the Excess Votes rule out detailed discussion. The virement process tops off the whole thing like the froth on a bottle of beer and makes it impossible for us to raise detailed points.

As the years have rolled by, a financial and accountancy procedure which was designed to help this House to control the expenditure of the Services has become so distorted, lost and confused that it beats any attempt by hon. Members to do that very thing. I challenge any hon. Member here who may have a constitutional point of a financial nature, or a general point, to raise it without doing three weeks' homework on Army procedure in advance and having constant consultations with the Table Office.

Something should now be done seriously about these matters. A Select Committee is now looking at the Estimates debates procedure. We had a foretaste of its report when we debated the interim recommendations by way of the suspension or the removal of the intervening Motion during the Estimates debate.

That Select Committee of the House is still discussing the estimating and financial control of this House over the Armed Services. I suggest that the Financial Secretary would be doing a service to this House, relieving the Chair of its annual burden and relieving hon. Members who try to take this matter seriously of an intolerably difficult task, if he would suggest to the Leader of the House, or his side of the House, whichever is the appropriate quarter, that this whole business of virement—what is debatable upon it, how it is handled by the House of Commons—should now be referred along with the other matters to the Select Committee already sitting, in the hope that in future we shall have a more reasonable, tidy and sensible approach to this very expensive business.

Question put and agreed to.

II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 3'1 st day of March, 1956, 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 £8,481,349 9s. 1d. Viz:—

£ s. d.
Total Surpluses … 26,515,975 6 8
Total Deficits … 18,034,625 17 7
Net Surplus … £8,481,349 9 1

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

  1. (1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Army Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £1,179,464 4s. 7d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed

SCHEDULE
No. of Vote Army Services 1955–56 Votes Deficits Surpluses
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. Pay, &c., of the Army 4,006,130 3 8 1,614,162 7 4 — —
2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army, Home Guard and Cadet Forces — — 1,397,592 9 3 41,619 13 11
3. War Office 116,551 13 9 — — 33,803 13 9
4. Civilians — 1,498,410 3 1 2,424,347 6 7 —
5. Movements 721,049 16 1 1,025,310 17 7 — —
6. Supplies, &c. — 1,346,940 12 5 2,917,236 11 3 —
7. Stores — — 10,770,886 4 0 2,654,448 12 9
8. Works, Buildings and Lands — 1,115,667 1 5 5,436,606 6 7 —
9. Miscellaneous Effective Services 3,305,237 18 5 849,151 8 7 — —
10. Non-Effective Services 319,219 7 3 — — 18,898 13 2
11. Additional Married Quarters — 2,000,000 0 0 820,535 15 5 —
— Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned 116,794 8 0 — — —
8,584,983 7 2 9,449,642 10 5 23,767,204 13 1 2,748,770 13 7
Total Deficits: Total Surpluses:
£18,034,625 17s. 7d. £26,515,975 6s. 8d.
Net Surplus £8,481,349 9s. 1d.

Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. Powell.]

III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1956, 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 £76,660,356 6s. 4d. viz:—

£ s. d.
Total Surpluses … 95,460,215 17 9
Total Deficits … 18,799,859 11 5
Net Surplus … £76,660,356 6 4

Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.

(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.

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorized:

  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 £3,090,938 12s. 10d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.
  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.

SCHEDULE
No. of Vote Army Services 1955–56 Votes Deficits Surpluses
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. Pay, &c., of the Air Force — — 680,591 17 0 25,684 5 11
2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services — 31,407 0 4 244,771 14 8 —
3. Air Ministry 106 869 17 9 — — 2,129 13 0
4. Civilians at Out-stations 493,440 13 0 371,428 14 0 — —
5. Movements 96,886 5 6 — — 221,487 8 8
6. Supplies — — 15,816,866 1 10 1,248,038 9 8
7. Aircraft and Stores — 12,229,378 5 1 69,932,704 19 2 —
8. Works and Lands — 563,202 18 8 6,254,882 8 2 —
9. Miscellaneous Effective Services — 906,028 5 9 245,821 16 1 —
10. Non-Effective Services 193,010 12 7 — — 78,175 16 5
11. Additional Married Quarters — 3,800,000 0 0 709,061 7 2 —
— Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned 8,206 18 9 — — —
898,414 7 7 17,901,445 3 10 93,884,700 4 1 1,575,515 13 8
Total Deficits: Total Surpluses:
£18,799,859 11s. 5d. £95,460,215 17s. 9d.
Net Surplus £76,660,356 6s. 4d.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. Powell.]

Mr. Ellis Smith

Is not the Financial Secretary going to say more about this?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.