GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY

HC Deb 15 March 1961 vol 636 cc1434-78

4.58 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

This is a Supplementary Estimate for the Government Hospitality Fund. It does not represent all Government hospitality. It is a separate fund designed to provide hospitality for overseas visitors of Ministerial status. As a matter of fact, as the Treasury witness said, it also includes hospitality for delegates from the Inter-Parliamentary Union; but it is for guests of Ministerial status. There are. of course, other sources of Government hospitality, and some years ago, in the summer of 1949, the Select Committee on Estimates reported generally on Government's hospitality, including both this Fund and other sources, in its Ninth Report. Indeed, if one looks in the Estimates for this year, the British Council, for instance, accounts for about £18,000 of official hospitality.

This Supplementary Estimate is very remarkable from many points of view. First of all, it represents no less than half of what the original Estimate was. The position at present therefore is that the Government Hospitality Fund estimates its out-turn—this is on page 113 of the Report—at £70,000 provided by the original Estimate, £35,000 for which it is asking today and £10,000 brought forward from the previous year. That sum of £115,000 compares, so far as Estimates and Supplementaries are concerned, with £55,000 only in 1956–57 and £70,000 in 1959–60. Therefore, there has been a very marked increase—a matter of doubling the Estimate, or nearly so—in a comparatively short period of about four years. Naturally enough, the Estimates Committee inquired about this.

I ought to say at once that I feel sure that I am speaking for both sides of the Committee when I say how grateful we are to the Estimates Committee for work it has done on this occasion and for the work it does generally. Further, I hope I am again speaking for everyone when I say that I believe this is the first case of what had to be a rather rapid examination of the Supplementary Estimates by the Estimates Committee; and the Report that it has produced on this occasion, while it is not perhaps as detailed as it would be if the Committee had had rather longer for the work, is certainly a most useful and timely contribution, and one, whatever our views on the merits, that we all appreciate.

As I say, the Estimates Committee examined the matter. The first question was to find out who was, in fact, responsible for the original Estimates. The Committee then came across a very curious state of affairs. Apparently the Minister of Works but not the Ministry of Works is responsible. The Treasury does not control the expenditure, and nobody except the Secretary of the Fund knows what expenditure is likely in the future. The Treasury prepares the Estimate. A bigger confusion is hardly possible.

The Minister of Works owes his very remarkable position to an even more remarkable accident which appears in the evidence. Some time ago when there was neither a Labour nor a Conservative Government in power, there happened to be a Commissioner of the Office of Works —a man who was very suitable for this job in those days in 1908. This curious statement appears in answer to Question 155. It was Mr. Harcourt, known to his intimates, I believe, as "Lulu". Mr. Harcourt apparently just fitted the bill. One does not quite know why, but it is perhaps rather late in the day to inquire. That, at any rate, is why the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works is sitting here today. This is a function which he exercises entirely on his own. His Ministry is not allowed to help him. He sits there and he directs, with the assistance of the Secretary of the Fund, who is now Brigadier McNab, what is going to be done about it. No doubt, Ministerial decisions are followed, but it is a very remarkable arrangement.

Question 154 in the Minutes of Evidence which appears in the First Report from the Estimates Committee says: So it is the Secretary of the Fund "— that is, Brigadier McNab at the moment— dealing direct with the Treasury, but the Minister of Works takes the responsibility for submitting this Estimate to the Treasury? The answer is: And far authorising the expenditure. If, for example. there is a question of a Conference to be held—supposing the Board of Trade are holding a Conference on some matter and want Government Hospitality money used for it, then it is for them to get in touch with the Minister of Works and get his authority. The next Question is a very natural one: Could I ask whether Mr. Clarke "— that is the name of the Treasury witness— thinks there is any sense in the Minister of Works having any responsibility in the matter at all? The questioner was giving voice to my own comments on the matter. The answer was: Well. I think it is absolutely essential for a Minister to be responsible in this field. because it is eminently a political subject. I suppose that is one point of view. We are dealing here with the entertainment of visiting Ministers, normally by Ministers in this country; so it has to be Ministers. Let us see what has happened about it. As to this Estimate, the Treasury witness was naturally asked, "How did you light on this figure?" In answer to Question 127 he said: We put it up in 1959–60 from £55,000 to £70,000 "— That was the figure in the preceding year— and we just felt that we could not put it up again. That is a very odd way of arriving at an Estimate. I understand what the witness meant, but it is certainly a curious method of doing it.

In that Report there is reference in paragraph 31 to a similar answer by the same witness when they had arrived at a figure on "the general ground of trying to keep down the level of the Estimate." One understands the desirability of keeping the expenditure down—that is a very right and proper thing to do—but whether the right way of keeping expenditure down is to keep the Estimate so low that it is extremely unlikely ever to meet the requirement, is another matter. That is the point that we have got to consider.

As I say, the total Estimate was £70,000. We are now asked for an additional £35,00, and we are told that it cost more than was expected. We are also told in the evidence that this was a question of there being more countries to entertain—for instance, additional countries in the Commonwealth, and others —more conferences and visits of all kinds, and it was not a question of any significant rise in price or in the scale of entertainment. I accept that. It was not disputed.

But when one looks into the matter there are certainly some difficulties. The increase is £35,000, and of that £5,000 is said to be accounted for by the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference. The £16,000 increase is said to be accounted for by three State visits, and the State visits are to be compared with the State visits which occurred in the previous year. On page 116 of the Report one finds what happened in the previous year. There was one State visit by the Shahanshah of Iran, and it cost a matter of over £4,000. In those circumstances, what they originally estimated for the three State visits was apparently £7,000. That seems somewhat inadequate by comparison with the previous year. But when we add the increase and we come to what is contemplated in the out-turn we then discover that for three State visits £23,000 is going to be the cost. That is just about double what the one State visit in the previous year cost. Goodness knows how those figures have been arrived at, or whether, indeed, there has been any serious attempt to estimate at all beyond just sticking to the figures for the previous year.

If one turns from that to see what happened in the previous year one finds that ten Heads of Governments, including the Ruler of Dubai, were entertained, and there were two Ministerial conferences, one of Commonwealth Finance Ministers and the other the N.A.T.O. Atlantic Congress. Then there were two other Ministers, including the Afghan Minister of Works, and a curious and unnumbered collection of Latin-American Ministers who appear to have paid a visit together. There were five Parliamentary delegations. Really there was quite a lot in the previous year, and one would have thought that this would have covered everything.

Then when one looks at the cost of all this there are some puzzling figures indeed. The item that has kept fairly steady is the cost of a visit of Commonwealth Finance Ministers. For some curious reason they cost only £4,500. But when we come to Commonwealth Prime Ministers they tot up to £26,000. Are the Finance Ministers naturally more careful of money and do they not spend it in so lavish a way?

When one goes down the list one sees the various people involved. Among others, there are five Parliamentary delegations. I am not saying that the hospitality is misplaced but only that it is extremely difficult to get any sense out of it. At the bottom of the page, very nearly the last item, to take an instance or two, we see that the Prime Minister of Japan cost £1,200. The Ruler of Dubai cost £917 and the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic £813. But the whole lot of the Latin American Ministers only amounted to £623. They seem to have done rather badly out of the Government's hospitality.

I am sure that all this is perfectly explicable. I am merely saying that we have not an explanation, or anything like one, in the accounts. One requires an explanation, and rather a full one, before one can understand how any proper estimate can possibly have been made of what was to be incurred under the £70,000.

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

Can my hon. and learned Friend say what the wines and cigars cost?

Mr. Mitchison

I am coming to that. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's sharp eye has noticed a significant difference. In the previous year, wines, spirits, cigars and cigarettes accounted for a considerable expenditure—between £15,000 and £16,000 in that year—but the significant difference in the out-turn this year is that the cigars and spirits have disappeared and that the wines and cigarettes and administrative expenditure amount to a little more than in the previous year when spirits and cigars were included. What has happened about the spirits and cigars? We should like to know about them. The right hon. Gentleman will find the difference between the out-turn indicated on page 113 and the other on page 116. I do not know who got them or how much. That is another matter.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Who gets invited?

Mr. Mitchison

I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his own speech in a minute or two.

There is another thing in the accounts which is particularly puzzling. The total for 1959–60, upon which this was founded, was just short of £72,000. No less than £24,000 of that appears as Other visits of various foreign representatives, missions, etc. I hope that it is a Ministerial "etc." It must be to be in the fund. It is surely rather a rude way of describing a Minister to call him an "etcetera." We particularly note the Afghan Minister of Works. With great respect to a friendly foreign Power he is not necessarily always a man of overwhelming importance, but some Ministers get relegated to "etc." and "foreign repre- sentatives. The ruler of Dubai gets a specific mention, but why do not the foreign representatives of Ministerial status, because that is what they must be? As to missions, a whole mission of Ministers, or at least a mission headed by a Minister, appears to have been left out. What does it mean? It is about a third of the total.

When we come to the out-turn of the year things get worse. The out-turn is going to cost altogether £115,000, the figure I gave first. Over one-third of that, no less than £40,000, is devoted to the somewhat cryptic item Various other functions and visits What does that mean? What are they going to do?

We are now getting on to the end of the financial year 1960–61 and this Report was ordered to be printed on 1st March. When the Government come here as they are coming now and ask for a Supplementary Estimate which amounts to 50 per cent. of what they asked for originally, and when all that they can say about the system of accounting is what I have read out in evidence—all that we desire to investigate is the arrangement which began with Mr. "Lulu" Harcourt and which culminates with the right hon. Gentleman before me —one does not wonder that the Estimates Committee asked for an inquiry. If ever an inquiry was needed I should think it was now.

As long ago as the last inquiry people said, "Is this not rather a funny way of doing things?" That is the Ninth Report which I mentioned a little time ago. The Government's answer was "Yes, it is a very funny way, but the odd thing is that it works." Now it does not seem to work. The Government, having estimated at £70,000, have now to come back and ask for an additional £35,000, even though they had £10,000 carried forward from last year. Though the sums involved are not as large as some with which we deal, this really is an administrative arrangement that looks remarkably odd and which clearly is not working at all.

I appreciate that there are difficulties about this, about foretelling what is going to happen, difficulty in estimating costs to a nicety, but surely something better could be done than simply to take the figure for the previous year because there is nothing else to take and to justify it, in the words of the Committee, by saying that one has done it on the general ground of trying to keep the level of the Estimate down. I hope that the Government are going to promise us an inquiry and that they will remember that what they are inquiring into is, in the words of the Treasury witness, a matter of Ministers, if I may put it that way, and that therefore it is one about which they should be particularly scrupulous and particularly ready with sufficient explanations.

5.18 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers (Aylesbury)

It so happens that I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee which looked into this subject. I wish at the outset to say how much all of us appreciate the remarks which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr., Mitchison) has just made about the operation we undertook. I hope that the selection of this Vote, which we went into in some detail, though not in as much detail as we would have wished had we had more time, and the selection of the other two Votes, which we did not examine in detail, will not be regarded as sufficient in themselves to dispose of the Report.

There are a number of points of broad principle which cut right across this and other Estimates, but with which I do not think it would be in order for me to deal today. I hope that some way may be found for an opportunity to discuss these general points of principle.

We recommended an inquiry into the operations of this Fund, and I confess that I find no fault with the arguments which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just advanced in support of the proposition that the facts laid before us warrant an inquiry. I would, indeed, add one more point to those made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. When in answer to a question about why the Estimate was not more accurate in the event, a witness—I am looking at the left-hand column, about two-thirds of the way down, on page 41—said: We do not like increasing the Estimate because, of course, that would make the departments which are really responsible for arranging the visits and so on feel perhaps that there was an easier situation. In other words, if we forecast that more money might be spent the Departments would spend it. That is certainly no satisfactory reason for keeping an estimate below a certain level when the facts available at the time the Estimate was compiled suggest that it should be considerably higher.

I was also glad that the hon. and learned Member said that he did not seek to challenge the scale upon which hospitality was provided by Her Majesty's Government. It is very important that outsiders, and especially the Press, who may read the report of this debate, should not draw the inference that we are seeking to diminish the scale of hospitality we provide for visitors from overseas. That is quite different from saying that at the time the Estimates are presented provision should be made for a satisfactory scale of hospitality.

It would be foolish for us, on the one hand, to say that there was no time available in which to report fully on this subject and that an inquiry was therefore desirable, and, on the other, to continue by pointing out all the things that the inquiry might produce as a result of a study of the subject. Nevertheless, there are one or two points that I should like noted for consideration by that inquiry, if it takes place. Like the hon. and learned Member, I hope that the Government will announce that an inquiry into the subject will be instituted.

Mr. Mitchison

The hon. Member is quite right in saying that I did not challenge the scale of expenditure. On the other hand, I did not say that I accepted it. I simply do not know. All I took note of was that there had been no substantial change—and that went beyond the preceding year, back into previous years.

Sir S. Summers

We were told definitely that the increases over the years were predominantly due to the increased number of visits which it had been thought proper to arrange.

There is one point which, although not of very great substance, is not clear to me, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify it, if not now, at some other time. If he could do that he would be rendering a service. I refer to the items which are part and parcel of the cost of providing Government hospitality but are not directly in the Vote. I should like to read an extract from the evidence which makes the position extremely confusing, to say the least. A question was asked about the effect of the figures to which I am now referring, and the answer was: These are purely calculated figures of what the allied services are. They do not represent other expenditure on Government Hospitality; they represent services performed by the other departments for the Government Hospitality Fund That answer seems to be a complete contradiction in terms. I do not want to take up time on it at the moment. I merely allude to it in the hope that we may have some clarification of the matter, because the sums deployed in other Departments are equivalent to almost half the total sum for which porvision is made under the direct heading of Government hospitality.

I turn now to the constitutional position, to which reference has been already made. It was made quite clear that if the Secretary of the Fund—if that is the right term—feels it necessary to consult somebody to decide whether a request put to him should or should not be carried out, in practice he goes to the Treasury. Before he can implement either his own ideas or ideas reinforced by advice he requires the authority of a Minister, and it is clear that the Treasury is regarded as the Department most likely to give constructive advice, based on precedents, and matters of that kind. Therefore, but for the point about having a referee between Ministers, there would seem no advantage in putting the Minister of Works into this position, especially if fm is to be denied the resources of his Ministry in discharging his rôle.

A point is reached when, superficially, it may be asked, "Why does not the Treasury do this?" I admit that there may be a need for someone of Ministerial status to stand up to a Department whose Minister wants something arranged through the Fund which is thought unreasonable in the light of other claims made upon it. Why, therefore, should not the Treasury be the Ministry responsible—especially as it is the source of wisdom on the subject and finally presents the accounts to Parliament? I am aware that it has been the expressed view of the Select Committee on more than one occasion—and I believe that this view is shared in the Treasury—that it is not normally desirable for the Treasury, as such, to sponsor expenditure. The Treasury provides the watchdogs and should be the screen through which other requests are passed before being presented to Parliament. Therefore, on the straightforward issue whether a Treasury Minister should be substituted for the Minister of Works, I would say "No".

Nevertheless, I hope that consideration will be given to adopting a rather different approach to this aspect of the matter, in which the Treasury might play a role less in conflict with the argument to which I have just referred. In cases where there is a universal interest and also an individual interest it is common for a 50–50 basis to be introduced in relation to the provision of money for a specific object. It is not unknown for a Government to say that they will make a grant £ for £, so that if some cause has raised £1 elsewhere it can look to a comparable £1 from Government sources. I have been wondering whether we ought not to introduce an element of self-interest into this Fund by asking Departments to take a share of the outcome of the opportunities they initiate for spending money through the Fund.

If that were to be the only aspect to be considered it might be next door to impossible ever to arrive at an estimate of the total. There must be some coordinating influence. But we need not violate the principle of Treasury screening if the Treasury were the provider of half the cost and the various Departments, according to what they wished to lay on, provided the other half. If that could be done we should get over the point made in the extract from the evidence which I read earlier, namely, that we had better not put the estimate up because Departments would spend the money if we did.

If Departments had to provide up to half the cost the risk alluded to would not exist, because the brake of self-interest would apply. I hope, therefore, that the point that I have put, among other matters which are probably the concern of whoever is to be responsible for these matters, will be examined, because the system as it now operates is not satisfactory, and a better result may be derived after a study of the subject.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)

For many months now the group associated with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) have threatened us with a very close analysis—a serious investigation—of the subject of the control of Government expenditure. How often we have been threatened. Naturally, some of us anticipated a lively debate, with tense excitement in this Committee—but just look at it! Where is that party now? Perhaps later we may have some explanation of the absence of the rebellious group —almost an anti-Government group—associated with the noble Lord and some of his hon. Friends—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at the Order Paper? The first item is Government business; the second is our own business.

Mr. Shinwell

Of course I have looked at the Order Paper, and, if I may say so, that was a most irrelevant and unnecessary interruption. The noble Lord will no doubt have his say later, but I hope that he will then be supported by those hordes whom we expected to meet on this occasion and who were to make such a vicious attack on the Government on the subject of the control of Government expenditure. Of course, they may appear later on—who can tell? On the other hand, they may not—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to speak for long?

Mr. Shinwell

I may not occupy the attention of the Committee for as long as the noble Lord does, but when I do it is obviously with greater advantage to hon. Members. However, that is not the subject of this debate.

I know very little about the operations of the Estimates Committee and its various sub-committees, but their efforts deserve the highest commendation. It appears to me that the Estimates Committee and the various sub-committees of the Estimates Committee propose, but it is for this Committee and, subsequently, for the House to dispose, and that very rarely happens. Most of the effort of the Estimates Committee is lost in the course of time simply because very little attention is paid to its reports and observations, not only by the Government but by a very large number of hon. Members—

Sir S. Summers

Including the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell

Perhaps, but I am now about to dilate on one aspect—

Sir S. Summers

I made that observation because the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he knew next to nothing about the functions of the Estimates Committee—

Mr. Loughlin

That is his modesty.

Mr. Shinwell

I have such faith in the Estimates Committee that I take it for granted. I am ready to admit that the subject before the Committee appears on the surface to be one of hardly any significance, but what are the facts? The fact is that this is a fictitious statement on the subject of Government hospitality. Indeed, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) demonstrated that it was so.

Almost every Government Department has its hospitality fund. I know that because I have been in Government on several occasions—Labour Governments, of course; at the War Office, at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the old Mines Department, the Ministry of Defence—they all have funds of their own of which they can dispose for the purpose of extending hospitality. If I understood the hon. Member for Aylesbury aright as saying that some advantage would accrue from co-ordination, I would certainly subscribe to the proposal that there should be co-ordination of all Departments in the provision of hospitality extended either to overseas visitors or to people in this country, whoever they may be.

I am not very much concerned, quite frankly, about the amount proposed to be extended. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will not misunderstand me when I say that I am not very concerned about the expenditure of an additional £35,000, if it is wisely expended. I raise no objection at all to entertainment provided for overseas visitors, no matter where they come from —I think that it is all to the good—'but I do raise some objection to the manner in which hospitality is disposed of to people in this country.

I am a regular reader of The Times—I am one of the top people—but I also read other periodicals. I gather from The Times and from the Daily Telegraph—from what are called the "Society Notes", which refer to luncheons, dinners and receptions provided out of the various hospitality funds at the disposal of the Government—that many people are invited—

Mr. Ellis Smith

Including the Whitehall ladies.

Mr. Shinwell

I want to make it quite clear beyond peradventure that I make no complaint at all that I am not frequently invited to these functions. I utterly detest receptions of any kind. I am not interested in a glass of sherry—my tastes lie in a more spirited direction. As for the opportunity to engage in conversation at such receptions—well, it is hardly possible. No sooner does one engage in conversation with some foreign potentate whom one meets quite fortuitously—and who, if he happened to know whom one was, would step aside—than someone takes him by the arm and that conversation, however important it may be, is interrupted.

No—receptions are out. I want to say quite clearly to any representative of the Foreign Office or of any other Government Department, "Please don't invite me to any of your receptions." I add that I have no desire to be invited to any of their luncheons—they are usually a very poor show anyhow. Besides, one finds oneself with people on the right wing and on the left wing who are usually utter bores.

There is a well-known story for which the historian Macaulay is responsible—and this is not entirely irrelevant to the subject of hospitality. Macaulay wrote about being at some dinner in his day, when his neighbour on the left was a stern-visaged old gentleman with mutton-chop whiskers. Macaulay could not get a word from him, no matter how hard he tried, and came to the conclusion, as one does in such circumstances, that the old gentleman was one of those strong, silent men, but obviously very wise. Suddenly the butler placed on the table a tureen of dumplings, and the old gentleman said, "Them's the puddens for me." That is the sort of thing that can happen.

The fact is that the people one meets at these functions are usually utter bores. I remember an occasion when I had to dine—I think that it was at the Embassy in Washington. On my left was Mrs. Truman, and on my right was the wife of the Bishop of Washington. I engaged in conversation with Mrs. Truman but all she could talk about was her church in Alabama. After a while I thought that the other Lady, being the wife of the Bishop of Washington, would be more interesting. Hon. Members can imagine the nature of that conversation. I gave it up. That is why I do not wish to be invited to any of these functions. So I declare my interest in the matter.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan (Reigate)

We have had a most interesting chapter from the right hon. Gentleman's autobiography. Does he remember an occasion at Lancaster House when I was in The chair and he was a guest at lunch and he gave us a most interesting description at some length of his journey to Australia?

Mr. Shinwell

That is a demonstration of my versatility. I do not see why the hon. Member should complain about that. If at any time I should be invited to give a description of some of my tours, which, I assure the hon. Gentleman, are infrequent, I shall be glad to comply with any request that is made to me.

I read in the newspapers about the people—not overseas visitors—who are invited to these functions. I raise no objection to their presence and the entertainment provided for them, however lavish, although it ought not to be too lavish. But who are the people who are invited to these functions? Even this morning in The Times, I read a report of one of the functions to which certain people were invited. Usually, they are either plutocratic or autocratic nonentities or highly-placed civil servants object to civil servants having free meals—

Mr. Ellis Smith

There are a few Privy Councillors

Mr. Shinwell

That may well be, but I am not one of them. Concerning free meals- make this suggestion to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has a part to play in these affairs-1 recommend luncheon vouchers for them; but they ought not to be in excess of about 5s., otherwise they would be subject to taxation. I would rather give them luncheon vouchers than invite them to these dinners and luncheons when they are not required to be there.

I would not mind so much if the right people were invited to these functions. Whom do I mean by the "right people"? We talk about this being a democratic country and we heard a great deal earlier this afternoon about this being a democratic assembly. I want people who really matter to be invited to these functions. For example, how is it that so few trade union people are invited? What is wrong with them? Are they untouchables? [Interruption.] There is nothing out of order in that. As far as I know, I am not out of order while we are discussing the kind of people who should be availing themselves of the hospitality which is provided out of this fund. Surely, that cannot be out of order. If the noble Lord has a point to raise—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

On a point of order. I do not want to be a spoilsport, and I have been listening, as the whole Committee has been, with great enjoyment to the right hon. Gentleman's stories. They cannot go on indefinitely, however, can they, Dr. King, because of what Erskine May says on the subject—that is, that provided the increase in the Supplementary Estimate is not a sum equivalent to or greater than the original Estimate, the discussion must be confined to the specific reasons why the increase has taken place, and a general discussion of the policy of the Government on entertainment cannot be undertaken.

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King)

The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has said nothing yet which is not in order.

Mr. Shinwell

The noble Lord has been barking up the wrong tree. Later, he can declare his interest. I am sure that he would love to have a free meal

Mr. Ellis Smith

He does not need one.

Mr. Shinwell

He does not have £24,000 a year. He is not one of the "boys" now about to get a good job. However, I will not say more about that.

I come now to the real point of substance. I am serious about this. I do not object to these functions if they are made more democratic in their nature, if the right people—perhaps that is not a proper description; if a cross-section of the public is invited. There are people in the professions—medical, legal, teaching, nursing. and so on—and in the trade union movement who should be invited to meet these foreign potentates so that they do not get a wrong idea of what the country is like.

Very often, what happens is that somebody comes from overseas, he meets the highly-placed civil servants, the generals, the air marshals and the Lords of the Admiralty and what have you, or he meets some highly-placed Members of Parliament, even Privy Councillors, and he gets a wrong idea of what the people are like. It would be very useful from his point of view, it would enhance his knowledge of the country and it would illuminate his intelligence, if he met ordinary people who are representative of the country in industry, in the professions and in the trade union movement. I hope that that will happen in the future.

Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)

I, too, am listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. If it is his point that this is never done at all, it is my understanding that it is very often done. If it is his point that it should be done more, it would be helpful if he could describe what is done now by comparison with 'what he thinks should be done.

Mr. Shinwell

I am very sorry, but according to the reports I read in the newspapers—as far as I know, they are accurate and complete, furnishing a list of the people who are invited to attend —very seldom are trade union people invited. I am speaking not merely of trade union leaders, but of ordinary people. It might be very useful, if a potentate came from a foreign country—say from India, Russia or the United States, or it may be from Vietnam or some of the African dependencies and republics—if we invited a few miners and a few agricultural workers, just the ordinary people. That is the sort of thing I want to see. If that were done, I would raise no objection. I go further than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering. I would not object to spending more money on the entertainment of overseas visitors if at the same time opportunity were provided for them to meet a cross-section of our population.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)

That is an unfair point. When I was at the Ministry of Education and foreign Ministers of Education came to this country, we were careful to see that representatives of all types of schools were invited to meet them. At one luncheon in particular which I recall with a senior member of the Russian Ministry of Education, we had the headmistress of one of the leading London comprehensive schools and the headmaster of a direct grant school. Departments take a great deal more trouble about the matter than the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Shinwell

I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. If I am not fully informed, that is my misfortune. I am rather inclined to think, however, that I am not far wrong. There may be occasional instances when people of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are invited, but I go even further than he has indicated. I would invite, not only the heads of comprehensive schools, the headmasters and so on, but occasionally the less important people.

It is not altogether relevant. If I relate my experience of Government Departments. I always understood that it was customary for a Minister of Cabinet rank in a Government Department to treat only with high-ranking officials. They were the only people who were allowed to come into one's room and engage in conversation. I put a stop to all that. Had anybody written a memorandum or been associated with a memorandum or a report, I would want them to discuss it will; me. That is the sort of thing I should like to see done.

I say these things not because I am disturbed that I am not invited—far from it. I hope that what I have said will make it clear beyond any possibility of doubt that if any invitations come in my direction, they will find their way into the wastepaper basket.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Richard Nugent (Guildford)

I listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and I felt that he really was making an unfair point when he complained that at these receptions the people are a collection of bores. We are greatly entertained when we listen to the right hon. Gentleman here. Why does he wish to deprive these parties of the pleasure of his wit? We are all well aware that these parties are no sinecures. We go because we are expected to entertain somebody. The people representing our Government are asked there because they are expectd to make overseas visitors feel at home, to entertain them, to inform them of what is going on here in general.

I am with the right hon. Gentleman in supporting a generous allocation for Government hospitality for overseas visitors, and it is to that I wish to direct my remarks. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's experience of going to receptions of this kind must be the same as mine, and that one goes to them far more to do a job of work than to be entertained, because those receptions are simply a further extension of what one is doing in one's own Department. We are all very well aware of that. The idea that these parties are a sort of private junketings for the pleasure of Ministers at home is really a false image, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has very well made that point now.

The point I want to make now is not to complain about the increased Supplementary Estimate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) and his colleagues who have given us the benefit of their Report for drawing attention to the weaknesses which there are in the machinery.. Of course, what it really calls attention to is the lack of policy behind the Government Hospitality Fund. The whole thing proceeds completely ad hoc and with the idea of getting away with the lowest amount of expenditure possible. That is a very good principle in terms of saving the taxpayers' money, but in terms of Government hospitality I believe that there is something of very great importance involved.

We invite Ministers from overseas countries to come here for, I think, two reasons. First of all we wish them to enjoy themselves. We wish to strengthen the bonds of personal friendship between ourselves—our Ministers here—and them, and that means that they must be made to feel welcome, must be made to feel that we are extending to them our resources. That surely is of importance. Secondly, and what is of great importance, I think, is the question of prestige, so that our standards of entertaining here should be at least equivalent to what is done by our neighbours in other parts of the world.

Anything I have to say is not in any way critical of what is done by the officials who are responsible. They really are the most skilful and dedicated people who manage continually to make bricks if not completely without straw very nearly completely without straw, and anything I have to say is not directed to them, but more to my right hon. Friend to do something on the lines I am about to suggest. My comments are directed to our lack of policy, a sort of traditional lack of policy: we in this country do not feel that this kind of hospitality really matters. Our general attitude is that we ought to get out of it just as cheaply as we can.

Consider how we are treated when we go to other countries—to France, for instance, which is probably the host country par excellence, where meals, visits to art galleries, and to operas and theatres, visits of every sort and kind, are laid on on the most magnificent scale. Even quite simple things are laid on, but whatever is laid on is always laid on with real warmth and graciousness which leaves an impression on the visitor's mind which one never forgets. One feels that here is a country which has warmth of feeling, and all this is of great value which binds and strengthens bonds of friendship. In Russia one finds that whatever resources they have got are laid on for us, and though one may feel that one is disappearing under floods of caviare and that all the hospitality offered is almost more than one can take, one is left in no doubt whatever that whatever they have is laid on for us.

We travel round the different capitals and we find that this matter of Government hospitality is regarded as something of importance, and that they really set out to leave on the minds of visitors the impression that they are warmly welcome and that all the resources of the country they are in are there to entertain them.

When one turns to what can be done here, we see that £55,000 a year was provided and that it has gone up to £70,000. Really this is parsimonious.

Mr. Mitchison

Not £70,000 but £105,000 a year.

Sir R. Nugent

It has gone up in the Supplementary Estimate. I have no complaint about that. It may he that that should be the amount in the Estimate itself, and it may be that it should be more.

Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington, I have no prospects in this matter of further meals to come or receptions to come; nor, hike him, do I wish to be invited. What I wish to do is to see that we as a country have a record of performance and a prestige which is at least comparable with that of our neighbours.

I have recollections of receptions of visitors coming here, particularly at international conferences, where Ministers were put to every sort of shift and expedient in order to try to extend the exiguous allowance which was all the Minister of Works would allow them for those functions. That was not his fault. He had only a limited amount a year which he had to divide between the different Departments. I should not like to give all the details of all the things they had to do to try to put on a reasonable show, but I can recollect one of the conferences, it was the Conference of European Ministers of Transport, which took place about two years ago. That Conference moves round from capital to capital in Europe, and there, of course, comparisons are made, and it is mast important from the point of view of the prestige of this country that the receptions, the hospitality which we give here, should be at least comparable with what is put on in other countries. All that could be put at our disposal by the Minister of Works was so small that we could not begin to compare with other countries. We had to make every kind of shift and expedient to fill up the programme.

We do not make use of the resources we have got. Here in London we have probably the best theatre in the world, but the most we ever offer of it to our guests is occasionally to take them to Covent Garden. They are never taken to the Old Vic, they are never taken to Stratford-on-Avon or any other theatre. A few hundred pounds spent on theatre tickets would make a great impression on our guests from abroad. In other countries they automatically show us the best they have. The first point I would make, therefore, is that we should make our Government hospitality comparable with that of our neighbours.

The other point I would make briefly is on the question of wives accompanying Ministers when they are travelling abroad. Our general principle here is that when Ministers are invited abroad as guests of another Government the invitations are never for wives. It reminds me of the title of a current film, "Never on Sundays". As far as wives are concerned it is never at all. Our Ministers normally must travel alone. I can remember an incident when I was the guest of a Minister in France.

Mr. John Eden (Bournemouth, West)

On a point of order. I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting him, but would you give your Ruling, Sir William, on whether it is in order in this short debate on Class I, Vote 13 to talk about the expenses incurred by Ministers of this country travelling abroad, accompanied or not, as the case may be, by their wives?

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

I think that the hon. Member is correct in his point of order. I do not think that that is covered by the Supplementary Estimate which we are discussing, but I thought that the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), who has the Floor, would soon come back to the Supplementary Estimate. I am sure he will.

Sir R. Nugent

Thank you, Sir William. I have no wish to trespass either on the time or the rules of order of the Committee. My point is strictly related to expenditure on Government hospitality. The point was that I was advised that I should not take my wife with me even if I paid her travelling expenses because it would create the liability that if a Minister in France was invited back here our Government would have to ask his wife as well. Could anything be more ridiculous than that? What we are trying to do in Government hospitality is to improve relations between countries. [An HON. MEMBER: "What if it is a Moslem country?"] The point is that we are not a Moslem country. Why should we practise a policy in this respect which is really part of the Dark Ages?

I should like to know from my right hon. Friend whether as a general practice our standards of hospitality here are comparable with those of our neighbours in Europe. Is it not possible, without going into the very considerable length of a personal delegation to the Prime Minister, for Ministers when they are travelling abroad to have their wives with them? The wives play a very valuable part in this business.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn (Stalybridge and Hyde)

I shall not take mare than a few minutes because I know that there are other important subjects which must be debated today and that there are several hon. Members who are waiting to debate them. But I am glad of the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) and his Sub-Committee on the able Report which they have been able to produce at such short notice. As one who had some small share in the parentage of the idea that these matters should be submitted to the Estimates Committee, I am naturally interested in the result.

I think that the Report is very valuable, not perhaps so much from the point of view of what is published in it this year but because of the effect that it may have on Estimates put forward in years to come. From this point of view alone the section on Government hospitality has been well worth while. The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that he hoped that this would not be the limit of discussion on the Report because there are other valuable points right through it.

If we had only had this small section on Government hospitality in it, the Report would have been worthwhile because it brings out very clearly two points. First, there is the crazy position we now have in the matter of estimating and the responsibility of the administration for the set-up. The Minister of Works manages the Fund and he is the source from which the expenditure is authorised. The Treasury accounts for the Vote but does not control the expenditure.

In practice, the Secretary of the Government Hospitality Fund, who is technically an officer of the Treasury, operates the Fund and he consults the Minister of Works as necessary. With the consent of the Minister of Works he makes suggestions for the Estimate and the Treasury lays it before the House of Commons. The Ministry of Works, as distinct from the Minister is not concerned with the matter at all.

Could we have a crazier set-up than that? If the Minister has to manage the Fund the Ministry of Works should have some say in the Estimate that is presented. It may be that the Minister of Works is not anxious to have the job given to him, but if he has to administer the Fund there should be some say in the Estimate.

The second point is the question of the Estimate itself. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) read from page 42 of the First Report from the Estimates Committee these words: The reason why we stuck to £70,000 was on the general ground of trying to keep the level of the Estimate down. As my hon. and learned Friend rightly said, one does not keep expenditure down merely by keeping the Estimate down.

We had a very shocking piece of estimating, because it was well known that the year would be one when there would be a larger number of visitors from abroad. There was no point in putting in a figure of £70,000 which was the figure for the year before. Underestimating to the extent of 50 per cent. is something which should not be tolerated in the House of Commons. I hope that one of the effects of this Report will be that more careful atten- tion will be given to estimating. I agree that in a matter of this kind it is not possible to estimate exactly what expenditure will be, but it is surely possible to get to a figure that is nearer the actual amount of expenditure than was the case in this Estimate of £70,000.

I agree with other hon. Members that it is a great mistake that we should under-estimate or be parsimonious in this matter of Government hospitality. It is important to give a good impression to visitors from abroad. It is always the policy of the British Government to be parsimonious to their own members, but that does not necessarily mean that they must be parsimonious when they entertain visitors from abroad. It is most important that we should give a better impression. There are other important points on these Estimates that must be debated, but I wanted to have the opportunity of congratulating the Estimates Committee and I hope that the experiment which was carried out this year will be continued in future years.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)

I suppose that anybody who made the point that we are spending a great deal of time talking about what is, after all, only a small amount of expenditure of about £120,000 might think that that was a good point. At the same time, the debate is extremely important because, as has been pointed out, this was an occasion when the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee looked at Supplementary Estimates—it had to do a great deal of work in a short space of time—and there are substantial lessons to be drawn from that exercise.

I should like to reinforce strongly the plea which the Chairman of that Sub-Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), made when he suggested that further time might be given to debate the whole of the report of Sub-Committee G. Those of us who had the honour of serving on that Committee are convinced that there are a number of lessons which might be learned from the exercise. We should like the opportunity to make that point which we believe to be in the interest of the House of Commons as a whole.

The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was perfectly right when he said that far too little attention was paid to these matters of expenditure. We think that there are ways in which Estimates are presented to the House of Commons which could well be improved and that the House should have the opportunity to know better the expenditure which it is sanctioning. I strongly hope, therefore, that what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said will be acted upon by the Government in due course.

I also agree that there is a clear need for hospitality, and for generous hospitality at that. By all means let us not be lavish, but let us be reasonable. I hope that it will not be supposed that in criticising the way in which the Estimates have been prepared I am not cognisant of the need for hospitality. Indeed, I recommend it strongly, but it has been clearly shown that this increase in expenditure could have been very well foreseen because the visits concerned had been planned.

The Report shows very clearly that a bad mistake was made in the way in which the original Estimate was presented. However small the amount, it is not satisfactory that Parliament should be expected to approve a Supplementary Estimate which is 50 per cent. out on the original Estimate. I do not think that this is an argument in favour of overestimating in advance, but I deplore the way in which this whole matter has been handled. Nevertheless, it has an advantage if it leads to economy and better estimating in the future.

The point about the Government Hospitality Fund that we have to decide is that if we are to continue to have a fund who should control it. The historical basis under which the Minister of Works is responsible for it has been very well and clearly described by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). It is something which began in 1908, and is perhaps the first example of muddle associated with the whole business. What is even more remarkable is that when one comes to read the evidence in detail it becomes plain that the Treasury is saying, on the one hand, that this is exactly the job for the Minister of Works and yet, on the other hand, the representatives of the Ministry of Works, when questioned, said precisely the opposite. It is clear, in my judgment, however, that the Treasury, as a controlling Department, should not be responsible. Indeed, I have come clearly to the opinion that the best thing to do would be to disband the Fund altogether.

A suggestion has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that perhaps the Fund could be administered in future on a kind of fifty-fifty basis. I think it would be very much better if we came to the opinion that in these modern days the Fund is unnecessary. It has already been pointed out that various Ministries are responsible for running their own hospitality fund. I suppose that all Ministries are. Besides that, there are bodies, such as the British Council, which do a great deal of useful and helpful entertaining of overseas visitors.

Incidentally—again in reply to the right hon. Member for Easington, who made a most amusing speech—I was made aware only last night of an occasion during yesterday when trade unionists from the Argentine were being entertained in this House. I am satisfied that there is a much better two-way traffic of people who are not ambassadors and Ministers than the right hon. Gentleman, I think—perhaps not intentionally—represented to the Committee.

When one turns to the operation of the Fund, it becomes most clear that the present situation is anomalous and can be cured only by the abolition of the Fund. As we understand it, for example, the persons who are entertained under the aegis of the Fund are those of Ministerial status or a party which is led by a Minister. That is plainly absurd. For example, a Minister of a tiny country may not be as important a person from the point of view of Britain, or may not be as important in himself as someone who is not a Minister but comes from a much bigger or a more vital country. To have a Minister as the criterion by which hospitality is judged in relation to the Fund seems to me ludicrous in this modern day and age. If we look at the schedules of the people who have been entertained the point is made extremely clear.

A further example of muddle in relation to the administration of the Fund is indicated by the employment of the Secretary of the Fund. According to the Civil Estimates for 1961–62—I refer to Class I, Vote 3, Subhead A.1, VIII—we have the item "Government Hospitality" which shows that the salaries of the Secretary and two other executive officers total £5,900. I do not believe that those are the whole administrative costs of running the Government hospitality service. That point was brought out during our examination of witnesses in the Committee. To have a situation where the total costs of the Government Hospitality Fund are shown in different parts of the Estimates seems to be thoroughly misleading and unsatisfactory. The position is very far from being clear to Parliament. The Secretary, no doubt deservedly, has recently had an increase in his salary, upon which I congratulate him, because I am sure he works extremely hard and deserves every penny of it.

I feel that one point which has emerged very clearly from our examination of the administration of the Fund and other supplementary Estimates in general is that Parliament is continuously faced with what might be called an "open end" position. Remuneration is referred to specifically in a number of paragraphs in the Report of Sub-Committee G. I should like in particular to call the attention of hon. Members to paragraphs 11 and, especially, 12. In paragraph 12 it is said: The major increases in Civil Service remuneration affecting the Estimates in the financial year 1960/61 amount to some £27 million, of which f15 million (or more than half the total) is required to meet…retrospective …pay…awards. How on earth can Parliament know the bill with which it will be faced in the future if it is met with Supplementary Estimates to cover retrospective pay awards? I say nothing of the personal position of people who are awaiting those salary awards. In one case which was brought to our attention an award was backdated for three years. Let hon. Members consider the feelings of people employed by the Government who have had to wait three years for an increase in their salary. Let hon. Members consider the position when it is not known at any time how much money will be required in connection with expenditure for a certain Department where such pay claims are outstanding. Let hon. Members also consider the fact that there is no mention in the Supplementary Estimates of the fact that these pay claims are outstanding. Then one begins to see how unsatisfactory a picture in general we are getting in Parliament. With regard to the Government Hospitality Fund, salaries, as I have pointed out, come under a different subhead. That is unsatisfactory in itself.

Turning to the scale of entertainment, I repeat that I am in favour of generous and reasonable hospitality, but when one examines some of the detailed figures over the years they really begin to make no sense at all. The visit of the Shah of Iran, whom we were delighted to see in the United Kingdom and who as an ally of ours we welcomed especially, cost us £4,300. The visit of the President of the United States cost us £2,300. What is the scale for arranging these matters? In 1957–58 the visit of the Canadian Trade Delegation cost us £8,500; in other words, half the cost of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference of the same year. It seems very curious.

In 1958-59 the Baghdad Conference cost us £7,377, or nearly seven times the cost of the visit of the Chilean industrialists, more than three times the cost of the visit of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers and nearly seven times the cost, in 1959–60, of the visit of the N.A.T.O. Congress. There seems to be no rhyme or reason about these matters, and I think that we are entitled to ask what the scale is and what the desiderata are. How are these matters calculated? Certainly it is true that the whole subject is riddled with anomalies, and I think that is another reason for ensuring that individual Departments are responsible for their own hospitality.

The only surprise, in my opinion, is that the Government Hospitality Fund does not contain a token Vote. Many of the Supplementary Estimates contain a token Vote whereby the sum of, perhaps, £10 is put down which purports to represent, and obtains Parliamentary approval for, a very much larger expenditure in the future—sometimes a quarter of a million, half a million or several million pounds. It is a most unsatisfactory way of doing things unless there is clearly stated somewhere in the individual Estimate the total of the eventual expenditure. How can one expect Parliament to know what it has to spend when one has a token Vote of £10 or £100 without the full amount being given somewhere in the Estimates so that the eventual expenditure can be foreseen?

It is rather surprising, one might perhaps say with some irony, that there are no token Votes in this Estimate, because having regard to the way in which the costs of some visits were estimated—some estimates were wildly under the realised amounts—one would have assumed that it was normal practice to put in a token Vote. Those of us who have served on the Sub-Committee are only too grateful for the fact that this is one of the few Estimates in which token Votes do not appear.

To sum up, I hope that the Government will agree to an inquiry into the administration of the Fund. In my opinion, it is riddled with anomalies and its control is thoroughly unsatisfactory. If an inquiry is not thought to be appropriate, I hope that my noble Friend will not mind if some of us press for it. Indeed, since we are talking of saving money, perhaps one of the best ways in which that could be done would be if we were to agree to abolish the Fund. I think that would be right, and I hope that in due time we shall have the opportunity to talk again and to talk more generally about the recommendations of the Sub-Committee which met to discuss these Supplementary Estimates.

There is precious little sense in people doing that work, to which great tribute has most generously been paid this afternoon, if the Report subsequently is simply pigeon-holed. In my opinion, that would be an insult to the House in general and, in particular, to many hon. Members who have taken an interest in this debate this evening.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. John Eden (Bournemouth, West)

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has touched on a number of points which I had it in mind to mention myself, but since he has covered the ground so successfully, I will not follow fully the lines on which he spoke.

I want to say at the outset through you, Sir William, to the official Opposition, in the person of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), how much I certainly appreciate the fact that the official channels chose for a debate this afternoon a subject which was one of the matters questioned in the Report of this Select Committee. Although a facade is given on the Order Paper to the effect that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had something to do with the selection of the subject for debate today, I appreciate that this was, in fact, the decision of the official Opposition, who, I am glad to say, quite clearly wanted to draw attention to the Report of the Select Committee on this subject. I am therefore grateful to them for engineering it in that way.

I cannot say exactly the same thing or express the same sort of gratitude about the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who, quite clearly, is not part of the official channels of the Opposition, at any rate. It was certainly a most pleasant and agreeable speech, but I am glad to say that, in my experience so far of Government hospitality, I have been spared the somewhat dismal experience of seeing him like some wilting butterfly yawning his way from cocktail to cocktail, and I hope that if I am to share with him any sort of hospitality in the future, he will be in as lively and engaging a mood as he has been in entertaining the Committee with his anecdotes this evening.

Mr. Shinwell

The fact is that I do not drink cocktails at any time. My taste lies in a more spirited direction.

Mr. Eden

What was significant in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that, in his opening phrases, he devoted a certain number of sentences to making jibes at my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and others of my hon. Friends—

Mr. Shinwell

No.

Mr. Eden

—for the part they have played in trying to exercise their proper privilege as private Members in questioning the Government on details of that expenditure. And yet, in his speech, which was full of generalisations and longwinded accounts of his own personal opinions and his own personal feelings in this matter, he gave no indication that he for his part had the slightest concern about this great increase in Government expenditure.

Mr. Shinwell

The hon. Gentleman is now attacking me, so that any commendations I have made of him in what I said previously I now withdraw. The fact of the matter is that I was not complaining either about himself or the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). What I said was that both of them had played some considerable part in threatening to raise the question of the exercise of Parliamentary control over Government expenditure, and we expected a large number of their supporters, when, at the time, there were only three or four here. I understand that now they have summoned up the reinforcements.

Mr. Eden

What was particularly significant about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that it gave no indication at all whether or not he was concerned about Government expenditure, and, after all, this debate is one of the very few opportunities hon. Members have to question in detail the Departments concerned on the Estimates which they have presented to us for acceptance or rejection.

I must say that I felt that his speech was an indication of the reason why I should like to depart a little way from what has become the generally accepted practice in leaving the choice of subject for these debates entirely to the Opposition. I think there is good ground indeed for bringing other hon. Members into this select little circle of official channels to have some say in what are the subjects to be discussed and debated.

The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to myself and some of my hon. Friends who have staged a little exercise in which we have been assisted by a number of his own hon. Friends from the benches generally inhabited by them below the gangway. Although I do not see any single one of them in his place at the moment, I am nevertheless grateful for the fact that their names appear on the Order Paper and they have shown some indication of their appreciation of what we are intending to do; namely, to declare our belief that it is the right and duty of individual back-bench Members to question the expenditure—

The Deputy-Chairman

Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope he will remember that we are discussing Government hospitality on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Eden

I agree, Sir William, that we are discussing Government hospitality under Class I, Vote 13, which is the Vote which has been selected for discussion ostensibly on the decision of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In fact, as we all know, as a result of the practice which has grown up, this is the decision of the official channels of the Opposition. I was regretting by way of preamble to my remarks on Vote 13, that other hon. Members did not have the opportunity of debating the subjects in which they were concerned and interested, or rather that they did not—

Mr. Mitchison

On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is surely quite out of order. I accept with gratitude his thanks for the selection of the subject for debate, but, surely, the subject having been selected, the hon. Gentleman must adhere to it?

The Deputy-Chairman

What the hon. and learned Member says is quite correct. I was hoping that the hon. Member who has the Floor of the Committee would very soon come back to these Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Eden

Certainly, Sir William. I was not aware until I heard your Ruling that I had in fact left the subject under discussion. I was hoping to indicate that other hon. Members might have an opportunity at some further stage—perhaps next year or the year after or when it can be conveniently arranged—to be considered in the selection of these subjects for debate. I think that the most important point about the selection of this particular Vote—

The Deputy-Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Member will leave this matter of selection and come back to the Supplementary Estimates. He has had quite a long run on the matter of selection, probably longer than I should have allowed him, and I hope that he will now come back to the points we are debating.

Mr. Eden

I had actually left that point, and probably the reason why it was not clear to you, Sir William, was that I was not able to complete my sentence. The significance of this particular Vote 13 of the Supplementary Estimates lies in the fact that it shows a 50 per cent. increase over the year, and that is a point which has been made, but not sufficiently emphasised yet in the course of our debate. It is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, dramatic in itself, but it is a very substantial increase. A further point was made during the course of the references to this particular Vote in the Report of the Select Committee; namely, that this increase 'was due to Changes in circumstances, not of a policy nature.

It is right that we should try, when commenting upon the increase, to examine how or why it has had to take place. The Treasury witness was extremely helpful to the Select Committee, and although some of his observations have been quoted as drawing attention to the fact that the question of Government expenditure on hospitality should be the subject of an inquiry, it should be on record that he went out of his way to assist the Committee in its discussions.

In this respect, he presented us with a useful innovation by dividing up the various Votes into categories. Class I, Vote 13. falls into category C, which is referred to in paragraph 9 of the Select Committee's Report, from which one assumes that the 50 per cent. increase over the original Estimate is …due to changes in circumstances not of a policy nature; I shall not pursue that matter for long. but even that in itself could be questioned. It might be assumed that it was a policy decision or, as the witness said. a decision "eminently" of a political nature, to bring further visitors into this country, and it might also be assumed that this increase was, to some extent, due to rising cost, which is in category A. Categorisation of these facts is a useful exercise of real assistance by the Treasury, and I hope that the Treasury will take careful note of the recommendations in the Select Committee's Report that further categorisation should be introduced to see how much more accurately it can be done.

My final observation on Vote 13 is to quote the words of the Treasury witness on page 41. He said: There is quite a question here, as to what the right policy is: whether the right policy is to attempt to live on a reasonably even keel, and if you find that there are certain things happening which push the cost up, to go for a supplementary; or whether to have a bigger figure and take account of these things in advance. Neither of these courses is the right thing to recommend to Departments when preparing their Estimates. Departments should, as far as possible, present this Committee with an accurate estimate, properly worked out.

One of the troubles about hospitality is that it is so difficult to forecast accurately in advance. It is much more difficult to bring under any form of control. If these observations apply particularly to Vote 13, I hope it will not be assumed that, whilst giving one's appreciation of that fact, one necessarily approves this sort of process being done in other cases. The more accurate the estimating in the first place, the better are the interests of this Committee served.

6.32 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean (Bute and North Ayrshire)

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) that, whenever possible, it is naturally desirable for a Minister to make as accurate an Estimate as possible. I also agree that in this case it is about as hard as it could be for the Minister to know what he is going to have to spend in any given year.

The Supplementary Estimate is half as much again as the original Estimate. It seems to be a glaring discrepancy, but I think that this is a case where it is essential to have fluidity, and it is very much better that the Minister should have to ask this Committee for more money than that he should have asked for much more in the first place, and then have exposed himself to the temptation of working out ways of spending it all before the financial year in case he might not get as much again next time.

Hon. Members have said a lot about the anomalous nature of this set-up, which dates back to 1908. It does, at first sight, seem extremely anomalous, but on the other hand, speaking from much experience of Government hospitality, both as a civil servant getting free meals—to which the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) objected so much—and later, as a Member of she House of Commons, my view is that the Fund works extremely well and that the Government are not really spending a great deal of money. That is what matters.

I want to return to the question of fluidity. I read the other day that Her Majesty the Queen has invited the President of the Republic of India to visit this country. That is an invitation which I hope the President will accept. It will be a very great occasion, which will do a great deal to improve our relations with that very important member of the Commonwealth.

That visit is something which presumably comes just as much as a surprise to the Minister of Works as it does to me. It is something which could not be foreseen. It is also very difficult to foretell how long an official visit should last. There has been a lot of talk about the visit of the Afghan Minister of Works, the visits of various Latin American Ministers and the money spent on those visits. But the fact is that some visitors stay longer, and others may have more expensive tastes.

Mr. Mitchison

It was felt, as far as I can judge, that they had been rather badly done by.

Sir F. Maclean

That may be because they have simple tastes.

Mr. Mitchison

Have all Latin American Ministers simple tastes?

Sir F. Maclean

I have never been there, so perhaps the hon. and learned Member has the advantage over me on that matter.

I was also a little disturbed at the suggestion that the Fund should be abolished altogether, and that each Department should attend to its own hospitality. Some Departments do this job extremely well. Certainly the Army Council entertains on a very fine scale, and rightly so. But there are a lot of cases where one or two Departments would have to get together, and it would be difficult for them to decide which should undertake any given responsibility. The thing is done very much better under the present set up, which works extremely well.

I am glad that no one who has spoken so far in the debate has seriously challenged the scale of expenditure. I should be glad to see that scale increase, because there is no doubt that official hospitality, like private hospitality, serves an extremely useful purpose in that it makes negotiations and contacts easier and friendlier. There is no doubt that other countries do these things extremely well, and it is most important that we should give as good as we get.

Anyone who has been to the Soviet Union, or any of the other Communist countries, will know how lavish the hospitality of those Governments is. I have never been there, but I imagine that the same is true of China. One knows how many delegations from different countries are to be found wandering about the Soviet Union and being very hospitably treated and forming a very favourable, or more favourable, impression on account of that. Government hospitality is a very important weapon in the cold war, and it has the advantage over other weapons that it is both agreeable to use and to have used against one, which is more than one can say for most weapons.

We should congratulate not only the Sub-Committee, but my right hon. Friend and his Department on the excellent work which they have done. Within the last year or so we have had some notable visits to this country. There is no doubt that the visit of the President of the French Republic was a great occasion and that it did an enormous amount of good in this country and in France. I hope that my right hon. Friend will go on from strength to strength, and I am sure that we should not begrudge him the very modest sums for which he asks.

6.41 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope)

It would not lie in the mouth of any Minister to complain in any way of a debate of this sort, and I certainly welcome this one very much. I have found it a great help, and the more carefully the Committee goes through Supply the better for the country. It does no Minister any harm to listen to that close examination, and I am extremely grateful to all those hon. Members for the trouble which they have obviously taken to study the matter before the debate. I add my humble words to those tributes already paid to the Estimates Committee for the great service it has rendered in conducting this examination.

The Estimates Committee complained of our failure to make an accurate shot at this Estimate, but I draw attention to the remark with which it followed that complaint when it said that it appreciated that the Government hospitality Vote was concerned with a matter in which accurate estimating was peculiarly difficult. It is more than just difficult, and the Estimates Committee hit upon the exact phrase—" peculiarly difficult." I presume that by that the Estimates Committee meant what is, in fact, the case—that it is very difficult to get at any sort of criterion by which one can tell whether one will be accurate.

Before giving the reasons for that, I want to say that the sum of £70,000 was thought to be realistic at the time. Whatever certain answers may have been taken to suggest, it was not a deliberate under-estimate. There was never any question of that, but I see nothing wrong in those concerned with public expenditure trying to keep it as low as is consistent with their duties.

Mr. Mitchison

I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has read the evidence of the Treasury witness who clearly said that the reason why the Treasury stuck to the figure of £70,000 was on the general ground of trying to keep the level of the Estimates down. That was quoted and accepted by the Estimates Committee.

Lord John Hope

It was a realistic estimate which was formed on what I maintain to be the absolutely correct ground of trying to keep it as low as possible, and realistic.

What are the reasons why making accurate estimates of this kind is so peculiarly difficult? These estimates have to be made about fifteen months ahead of the incidents or visits concerned, and very much can happen in that time. Not only can there be visits which at the time were altogether unexpected but the details may change considerably as the months go on. That is inevitable. For instance, it may be decided long after the estimate has gone in that there should be a gala perform- ance in connection with a visit, and that might account for another £3,000. It is easy for events to pile up on events when one is trying to plan so far ahead.

One cannot be certain in every case how long a delegation will stay, or of how many people it will consist. That applies as much to visits of Heads of State as to delegations of a different sort. It is possible not to know whether the visiting Head of State will bring with him eight or ten people, or twenty or thirty, and yet an attempt has to be made to be accurate in the estimate even before one is anywhere near knowing what, in fact, is to happen.

Mr. Blackburn

While we appreciate all the difficulties which the Minister is pointing out, does not the fact remain that the Government knew that the number of visitors from abroad was to be greater than in the previous year when they had estimated for £70,000?

Lord John Hope

It is impossible to know by how much.

Mr. Blackburn

But why use the same figure?

Lord John Hope

This is an arguable proposition and I do not know which is the right answer—whether it is better to estimate over-high, in the belief that one will at least keep within the figure, risking a surplus, with all that that means, or being realistic within the framework and keeping as low as is reasonable and then asking for a Supplementary Estimate when events have caught one up. That is an arguable matter and what has been said today and what was said in the Report of the Estimates Committee will be carefully considered.

I ask hon. Members to believe that this is not an easy problem and that the right answer is by no means self-evident. Abuses are possible whichever error is committed. Quite understandably, some hon. Members compared the cost of certain visits with certain others and said that there was no rhyme or reason why the expenditure in one case was so different from what it was in a comparable case, but what looks like a comparable case hardly ever is. For instance, during the debate a comparison was made between the visit of President Eisenhower and that of the Shah of Iran, the expenditure on President Eisenhower's visit being very much lower.

I will not weary the Committee with a lot of these examples, but this example is interesting. President Eisenhower stayed at the United States Embassy, he was here for a very short time, there was no gala performance at Covent Garden and he stayed at his castle at Culzean in Scotland. In addition he used his own transport, that is, his own car and his own aeroplane. None of those factors obtained with the visit of the Shah.

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) compared the cost of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' visit with that of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers. The reason why the visit of the Prime Ministers was so much more expensive than that of the Finance Ministers was that the former comprised a total of 100 people who were here for two or three weeks, whereas in the latter case there were twenty-four people and they were here for six or seven days. One must obviously go into these details before one arrives at a hasty conclusion and says that there is muddle and apparently irreconcilable differences in the expenditure. I am not suggesting that the Committee indulged in that, but it was clear from the debate that hon. Members had not realised, indeed it was not easy to do so, where these differences lay and why.

Mr. Mitchison

May I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I thought these differences were almost certainly explainable in the way he has indicated. All I said was that we had not the information about them. That is what the Committee said, and for that reason it asked for an inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman can save a lot of time and trouble if he simply says that he will accept the demand for an inquiry.

Lord John Hope

All I can properly say is that in the ordinary and accepted way the request for an inquiry is being considered. I do not think that a Minister at this Box can accept such a request.

Mr. Mitchison

Why not?

Lord John Hope

It has never been done, and I do not propose to do it now.

Mr. Mitchison

The right hon. Gentleman knew that this debate was coming on. He has had every opportunity to consult his colleagues. He is the responsible Minister. Surely he ought to be in a position to say whether or not he can accept these recommendations. This is an unprecedented Report. This is the first we have had of its kind.

Lord John Hope

It is an unprecedented debate. I was anxious to listen to it before making up my mind whether to accept a suggestion from a Report of the Committee.

Mr. Mitchison

The right hon. Gentleman's position is quite unprecedented except by his predecessors, including "Lulu" Harcourt who started it all.

Lord John Hope

The more unprecedented it is, whether in terms of "Lulu" or not, the more reasonable it is for me to be given a minute or two after the debate to think things over. I do not think that the hon, and learned Gentleman will be disappointed at the end of the day by what is done.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

The right hon. Gentleman ought to take his courage in his hands and say that he will accept the recommendation.

Lord John Hope

I am always prepared to respond to reasonable requests by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), and I will do my best to help.

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked about the discrepancy between two entries concerning cigars and spirits. I will let him know the details, but I think I am right in saying that it is different phraseology covering the same items.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) asked if I could clear up this item on allied services. He was good enough to say that he would not press me for an answer now, and I will give him the full details later. However, here again I think I am right in saying that this heading is a fairly constant one and includes overhead charges, including Lancaster House, but I will let him know the full details to his question.

I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury gave the right answer to the question, should this Fund be administered by a Treasury Minister?

The answer he gave is hard to argue against. I am sure he is right that a Treasury Minister would not be the right person. I believe that other hon. Members made the same point. My hon. Friend referred to the various Departments sharing the cost. I wonder whether that would help Government hospitality in terms of efficiency and excellence? I do not believe that it would. Other Departments have their own entertainment bills. When it is a question of the Government entertaining, it is better that it should be centrally controlled. Who should control it is a matter of opinion, but it should be centrally controlled. It is a technique of its own, and we can attain and maintain the right standard only by having the same people doing it all the time.

Sir S. Summers

My suggestion was not that the Departments should take over the cost of their hospitality but that they should share it. It would still be possible for the Treasury to co-ordinate what is done.

Lord John Hope

If they share the cost, they would have to take a share in making the arrangements. For one thing it would mean that the wretched Financial Secretary would have to look through dozens of submissions on one small Vote. That would be difficult, and I am not sure that we should get the right result in the end.

The speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was commented on in a lively and constructive way by many hon. Members, and I do not think that I am called upon to repeat any of those comments. It is not for me to decide who is to be asked to any function. That is decided by the Department concerned.

Mr. Shinwell

That is what I want to get at. Who is responsible? Who decides who should come and who should not?

Lord John Hope

The Department concerned. If it is a trade delegation, it is decided by the Board of Trade, and so on. Although it is not my responsibility, the right hon. Gentleman was inaccurate in what he said about the exclusion of trade unionists, but I will let that pass.

Mr. Shinwell

If I am challenged about my comments, not on the exclusion but on the non-invitation of certain people, I shall have to table Questions to every Department and ask how many trade union leaders and trade union people have been invited to any of these functions. I will specify them and give the Government a great deal of trouble. Will the Minister at least say that he will use his influence with the various Government Departments as regards hospitality extended to people in this country to ensure that a cross-section of the community is invited to these functions, excluding me at all times.

Lord John Hope

I will do my best to see that Ministers are aware of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and especially of his last request. As regards Questions to Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman can table as many as he likes. They will not concern me.

My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and other hon. Members paid tribute to the officials who help to run the Hospitality Fund, and particularly to Brigadier Macnab. I add my thanks to, and indeed my admiration for, the staff for what they do in this respect. It is a very difficult job. and I think that they do it extremely well, and always with the greatest Good humour.

The hon. Member also asked whether we could not make our Government hospitality as good as that of other countries. I think that we do. I always thought, long before I had anything to do with it—so I claim no credit—that the quality of our Government hospitality, by Governments of both parties, has been extremely good in comparison with that of foreign countries. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) said that if the Minister of Works had to administer the Fund he should have something to do with the estimates. The question is, does he have enough to do already in terms of his executive responsibility? I honestly believe that he does. I know that every time a request comes in from a Government Department in respect of an entertainment I try to apply my judgment whether it is a reasonable request. I sometimes enter into correspondence or conversations with the Minister concerned to make sure, and it doer not seem relevant to suggest that I need go beyond that, although as the Minister concerned I must constitutionally bear my share of what is done.

I have tried to answer the many very interesting questions which have been raised, and any that I have ignored I shall follow up in writing. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) for the support he gave at the end of the debate, and his remarks will be greatly appreciated by all those concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) was pretty tough in his strictures. He is entitled to be, and I do not complain of that, but his conclusion that the Fund should be abolished was needlessly pessimistic. He need have no fears that any investigation would bear out that that was a wise course—I hope not, anyway.

Mr. du Cann

It was meant to be not pessimistic but economical.

Lord John Hope

It is possible to be both, and in this case my hon. Friend is worrying too much. I do not want to give the Committee the impression that I think I need simply make an Estimate in the air, so long as I am sure it is high enough. That would be contrary to any sound principle of Government finance. Equally, I agree that I must be careful not to make an Estimate so low that I know quite well that at the end of the day I shall have to ask for a Supplementary Estimate. I will continue to do my best to be realistic, as I and my predecessors have done, bearing in mind not only what the Estimates Committee has said in its most helpful Report but also what the Committee today has said in our very valuable debate.

Mr. Mitchison

Will the Minister answer a Question in about a week's time asking whether the inquiry recommended by the Committee is acceptable to the Government?

Lord John Hope

As soon as possible.

Mr. Mitchison

I am sorry—the noble Lord has not yet quite sat down—but will he indicate when "as soon as possible" will be? Will it be "now" or "very shortly"?

Lord John Hope

Very shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund.