HC Deb 02 June 1965 vol 713 cc1697-9
9. Mr. Sheldon

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will improve the system of costing in his Department.

Mr. Healey

Costing methods are constantly under examination in my Department and everything possible is being done to improve them.

Mr. Sheldon

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the directly attributable cost of our forces east of Suez which I received from his Department was given at £320 million and that I have been unable to obtain from him the cost of our overheads despite repeated Questions? Is he further aware that these, together with the costs themselves, are unlikely to be less than £500 million, a figure of extreme importance? Is he still further aware—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is time that the House realised that these questions related to the Minister's state of mind are out of order. Whether the Minister is aware or whether he is not aware merely relates to that. If the hon. Member wants action taken he should ask a question about that.

Mr. Sheldon

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that accurate costings are made available to the Government so that they can make accurate decisions based on those accurate costings?

Mr. Healey

We do our best in this matter. I must explain to my hon. Friend that it is a great mistake to imagine that one can attribute overheads in a defence budget in the same way as in a business. The purpose of attributing overheads in defence costings is to try to find out what will be saved if one cancels a certain task or commitment. The purpose of attributing overheads in a business is to fix an artificial profit target for a department in that business. One cannot assume, for example, that a slice of our pension expenditure has any relationship to any particular commitment. I think that if my hon. Friend pursues this matter with me and my officials he will finally come to recognise that there is this fundamental difference between the purpose of attribution in an operation like a defence budget and in a normal commercial business enterprise.

Mr. Hooson

Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the costing system has been improved since the former Government were in office, particularly in regard to the Ferranti affair?

Mr. Healey

Yes, Sir. I can give that assurance. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that when the Public Accounts Committee investigated the cost of foreign bases two years ago it was unable to get any figures whatever from the Ministry of Defence as to their cost. This is no longer the case.

Mr. Rankin

On a point of order. I wonder if you would give us a little more information on the Ruling which you just gave about hon. Members asking the Minister if he is aware or is not aware as reflecting on his state of mind, Mr. Speaker? Is it not common form in the House that every hon. Member who asks a question is supposed to initiate it by asking if the Minister is aware or is not aware? If we must follow that form in asking questions, are we indeed reflecting on the Minister's state of mind?

Mr. Speaker

I am troubled about the state of this. To ask whether a Minister is aware of something may be a method, fairly improper, of introducing facts on which the purpose of the question is founded; namely, to ask for information or to initiate action. However, a question devoted to asking about a Minister's state of mind in regard to knowledge is wholly out of order. Yesterday we had two or three such questions which consisted of nothing but asking whether the Minister was aware. That occupies the time of the House and I should be pleased if the House got rid of the practice.

Mr. Dell

Is my right hon. Friend saying that if there were a cut in commitments, for example east of Suez, there would be no cut in the defence overheads of his Department?

Mr. Healey

Of course I am not saying that. In fact, we do attribute overheads to the cost of commitments east of Suez, but my hon. Friend earlier suggested that it would be possible to attribute all overheads to specific geographical commitments. That is not the case. To give an example, my personal Ministerial salary is an overhead, but I would consider that it should be increased rather than reduced if we cut our commitments.