§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, to meet such of the charges for the withdrawal of the remaining half of the abatements of Ministerial Salaries and Civil Service Remuneration as have not been otherwise provided.
§ 12.55 a.m.
§ Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOODI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
In view of the late hour may I ask the Patronage Secretary how far he proposes to go? We have sat late on a good many occasions in this new Parliament, and although it may be a novel experience for new Members of this House, it is not a novel experience to those who have been here for some years. We are rapidly ageing, and we feel that the beauty sleep before midnight is a very necessary, and certainly a most desirable, thing. In my experience, although I have not been here as long as many Members of this House, I have never known a Government which has brought forward so many Supplementary Estimates in the early days of the first Session of a New Parliament. It is really becoming a very serious problem. We are wasting the time of the legislators, keeping them out of bed at a time when they should be in bed. We are about halfway through the Supplementary Estimates, and there are certain other items in the Orders of the Day which the Government propose to take. I am hound to say that I think this is treating the House with very grave discourtesy. After all, this House has a large number of new Members who ought to be treated tenderly. To the seasoned veterans this is of relatively small importance, but to the newer Members, who have to take time to become acclimatized to the atmosphere and methods of discussion, it is a, little hard to be kept so late to-night. I would like to ask the Patronage Secretary whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us how far he really, in all seriousness, thinks we ought to go. I shall not ask him how far he deserves to go. I ask him how far the House is to go to-night, in view of the lateness of the hour.
§ 1.2 a.m.
§ Caption MARGESSONMay I just say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman who is Leader of the Opposition this evening, that it was not the Government who kept the House sitting late last night? This is one of the few occasions on which the usual channels failed to work with any success. There have been coming and going between this said of the House and the other, but I regret abortive. We have been unable to come to any agreement as to the convenient hour at which the Government might get part of the business which was set down for consideration this day. In view of that, I am afraid there is nothing for it but to get ahead with a good will, apply our minds diligently to the matters in front of us, co-operating together for the good of the country as a whole. If we do that, and do not allow ourselves to be led away by too many irrelevant questions, the discussion which the Government set out at a quarter to four to accomplish, will be accomplished without very great expenditure of time.
§ 1.4 a.m.
§ Mr. BEVANI have not been in the House as long as my right hon. Friend, but I have been long enough to have taken part in a number of late sittings, and I have never felt that they have reflected credit upon the House of Commons. It has always seemed to me to be a grave reflection upon this Chamber that we are unable to discuss important public business at a reasonable hour of the day. The Government have a great majority. It is in full possession of the Committee. It is not necessary for the Government to put so many questions upon the Order Paper on a particular day, and it is, indeed, an abuse of the majority power to ask the Opposition to discuss these matters properly at a time like this.
The constitution of this House imposes an obligation upon the Opposition. The supporters of the Government are merely there to see that the business of the Government gets through, but it is the duty of the Opposition to see that the expenditure of public money is subject to the examination and scrutiny of the House. If the Opposition fell down on its task, Members of the Government and their supporters would be the first to complain, and the public interest would suffer. Is 823 it very proper to bring this important Supplementary Estimate and other questions before the Committee to be discussed in the early hours of the morning? What usually happens is this: The Opposition are jaded and tired, but that is not at all to say that the Opposition are defeated. We can fight with a good spirit and sustain the Debate for a long time, but everyone will admit there is not a Member of this House who can bring to bear his proper qualities of mind on a subject at a time like this. I would, therefore, suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, that it ought to be possible to get the business of this Committee discussed at a much more appropriate hour.
I am amazed that he has not been able to achieve an arrangement with the chief Opposition Whip. He is one of the kindest and most amiable men, and if the Parliamentary Secretary has been unable to arrange an accommodation it shows how utterly unreasonable he is. There is no other man in this House who would not be able to reach an arrangement with my hon. Friend, and if he fails it is because he is a belligerent and an entirely impossible person to deal with. We have, on many occasions in the last Parliament and in this been exposed to the belligerency of the Parliamentary Secretary. He moved the Closure just now quite unnecessarily.
§ The CHAIRMANOrder. The hon. Member has been in this House long enough to know that that is definitely against the rules.
§ The CHAIRMANAny reflection on the Closure when it has been carried.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that when the Closure has been moved and it has been carried by the House it is out of order to make any reflection upon the hon. Member who rose to move the Closure.
§ Mr. BEVANI have been in the House long enough to know that observations of the kind I have just made have been made on a great many occasions.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not showing proper respect for the Chair. I have given a perfectly definite ruling to him on a matter which is as well known and as definite as any rule of procedure in this House I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue the matter any further.
§ Mr. BEVANI am the very last person to be discourteous to the Chair, and I would indeed not desire to be so, but you will, I am sure, recognise, at a time like this—and this is the price we have to pay for this sort of sitting—Members are indeed in grave danger of going beyond the bounds of decorum. I would indeed ask in all seriousness—I know what is going to happen in a few hours' time if we are going to discuss these Supplementary Estimates—there may be irritations or scenes that all of us would regret—whether the Parliamentary Secretary could not arrange an accommodation. If we have an all-night sitting to-night that will not be the end of all-night sittings. We should have a kind of disarmament; we should see whether it is possible for us to arrive at a concordat. I hope Members will realise that it is a reflection on public business to ask us to sit to this late hour. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not allow personal pride to interfere in this matter.
§ 1.12 a.m.
§ Mr. EDEI want to support the Motion of my right hon. Friend. It is not the position that the Government is short of time. Everybody will agree that the last General Election was not held to meet our convenience. The Election should have been held at the end of the financial year and then the Government would not have complained of want of time. It cannot be said that we are not a generous Opposition. When the House met on the last day before Christmas my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) rose in his place and moved in as few words as possible that the House should meet a fortnight earlier. One of my hon. Friends who was equally economical of words seconded, and the Treasurer of the Household—we always get on better when the Treasurer of the Household is in charge—appealed to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) to keep the Debate going. There was a big job announced 825 to-day and I think the natural person for that job is the hon. Member. I hope that when the list of eligible candidates is gone through his valuable services to the Government on the Adjournment at Christmas will be remembered. What happened after speech after speech had been made? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir John Simon) explained that no-one really wanted to come back as early as that and that the Government did not want the time.
The other evening we had a Northern Ireland measure before us, which it is now proposed to take between now and the time when the milkman comes home, and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) rose and appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. We all know the close alliance between those four members and the Treasury Bench and the Parliamentary Secretary said that this Bill had to be passed into law by 31st March and that would not give them much time. He said further that there is a great deal of financial business to be disposed of and the programme is overcrowded, but he realised that the Committee would wish that the Second Reading should be taken at the most convenient hour when the Government could take it. He was not giving a definite assurance—and nobody ever expects a Parliamentary Secretary, especially this one, to give a definite assurance—but he would bear the hon. Member's remarks in mind. [Interruption.]The right hon. Gentleman will remember that self-praise is no recommendation. I did not notice that there were any cheers from the other parts of the Committee. I notice that this is one of the measures which he intends to take. I really cannot see with the best will in the world that he can congratulate himself that he can read into his recent announcement a confirmation of the statement he then made to the House.
I notice we have with us the learned Attorney-General. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman came into the House did he consult with the civil servants in their box, and did he hear of the legal points which proved too much for his junior. If he had done so we might have been further advanced in business than we are now. I can only imagine that, having lost too much time through not being fully equipped for legal matters, there must be some points on 826 which the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman will be valuable. There is another right hon. Gentleman who is not here. I notice in the Vote we are about to take the department over which the Lord President of the Council presides. After all, he has not now the difficulty of having occasionally to visit a great democratic constituency. When I get into my sleeper on the midnight train from Newcastle—
§ Commander BOWERYou have missed it.
§ Mr. EDEI am very sorry that the perpetual presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) whenever railways are mentioned has driven everything else but the Great Western out of my mind, but on the North-Eastern I used to see a berth reserved for the right hon. Gentleman who formerly represented Seaham. I wish he were here to tell us a few things about research and the British Museum. I imagine his relations with the British Museum are very much like those of Lord Melbourne with the Church of England. He said he was a supporter of it, but he imagined he must be a buttress rather than a pillar, because he preferred to be outside.
How long the Lord President of the Council will be able to keep outside the British Museum I do not know. There never was an Opposition that has been more kind to the Government than we have been; and there never has been an Opposition that was worse treated by the Government than we have been since we came back after Christmas. I gather from the announcement made today that we are expected to put up with the same treatment next week.
As Lord Balfour remarked on a celebrated occasion, there are limits to what human nature can stand. We have reached them to-night, and I hope that the Patronage Secretary will realise that in the end the business of this House can only be conducted by good will on both sides, that the demands made on us to-night are unreasonable, and that the way in which the business has been conducted to-day is no great advertisement of the prestige of the Colonial Secretary or of the Law Officers of the Crown.
§ 1.22 a.m.
§ Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITHI can only say, speaking personally, how much I regret that the negotiations through the usual channels should have broken down. On occasions like this the House indulges in a kind of self-torture. Everybody wants to go home, nobody has the slightest confidence that they will be able to serve the country by remaining here, but by some process of antagonism it becomes a point of pride to remain as long as possible. I wish that something could be done to achieve a more satisfactory conclusion. I cannot help feeling that we are here at this hour because an ex-Minister of the Labour party has quarrelled with his old colleagues. That is what has appeared from the Debate. I am only giving an impression which I gathered. It is not a very edifying spectacle that this House should have been engaged for so many hours in saying so much to so little purpose, and I hope that we may come to some arrangement to terminate this Debate at a reasonable hour, and perhaps get a new spirit and make better progress on another occasion.
§ 1.25 a.m.
§ Mr. SILVERMANI would like to support the Motion that has been moved. If it should be thought that by this kind of procedure there is any prospect of the Government getting any more Votes passed than they would have got by more reasonable arrangements, I am afraid that the hope will be an illusory one. No party has so many young Members as this, and if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury really insists that the House shall devote its time at this hour to the consideration of important matters, we are prepared to consider them to the best of our ability, to see that they consider them too, and to sec that no public money is spent without proper scrutiny. We are a young party. We have the future before us. We have plenty of time. If the Government is to be so unyielding, one would remind them of the aphorism that it is a splendid thing to have the strength of a giant, but it might not be so useful to attempt to use it like a giant. This is not the way in which public business ought to be transacted. It is not the way to fortify the declining confidence of the younger generation in Parliamentary Government. 828 No one watching these proceedings could possibly go away with any feelings other than of utter contempt.
The Government are attempting to force through matters which have always been regarded as the most important that the House does in the raising and spending of public money. To allow them to go forward in the early hours when it is obvious that nobody here is in a proper condition—[Interruption]—I do not understand why any hon. Member should regard this as a humorous thing. There is no harm in devoting the whole 24 hours to discussion of matters at times of emergency, but there is nothing here of that sort. The arrangements which have broken down have been conducted on this side with reasonableness and a willingness to accommodate the Government in every reasonable way. We may be a minority, but we are not willing to allow the majority to ride rough-shod over us, and the country will be overwhelmingly behind us in our attempt to compel the Government to see that the traditions of the House are properly observed, and that proper time is devoted and proper scrutiny given to the spending of public money.
§ 1.30 a.m.
§ Captain MARGESSONIn response to appeals made to me I desire to say a word. I agree that it is absurd that this great House of Commons should be doing work in this primitive manner. The proposition which I made, and on which we did not get agreement, was that we should within a reasonable space of time end the Committee stage of these Supplementary Estimates—not touching item two, the Estimates taken on Tuesday; not touching the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Bill; not touching the Unemployment (Northern Ireland) Agreement Bill. I suggested that we should take the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill Second Reading, which is a purely formal stage. What I proposed is really that we should conclude the Supplementary Estimates. We were not able to get agreement on the proposal and the Government had only one course open, and that was to continue. If we can get an agreement as to the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates, say within an hour or so, there is only left the Consolidated Fund Bill, a formal Second Reading.
§ 1.32 a.m.
§ Mr. GREENWOODIf the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw all his Estimates we would be prepared to give the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. We would not find anything to quarrel about. We have been several hours on a series of Supplementary Estimates and we have more to do than we have already completed. It may be that hon. Members waking from their sleep on the other side of the House may find a point to raise on the Supplementary Estimates. To suggest that we should get through all these Supplementary Estimates in about an hour seems to me to be asking this House to do the impossible. It means ten minutes per Estimate. Suppose that my hon. Friends were to have a division, that would swallow about a quarter of an hour. What the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is asking us to do is to give him these six Estimates pro forma.
I hate to see the Committee in this position. I do not mind sitting up all night and I am sure my hon. Friends do not. But it is very difficult to think of an hour for these six Estimates. I think the best thing for the Patronage Secretary is for him to carry on with his Supplementary Estimates and the responsibility is not ours—the responsibility is his. If he has got indigestion we cannot help it. He has overloaded his own programme. Here we are at half past one in the morning. We have been driven to face a situation we do not like. If the Patronage Secretary cares to go forward with this discussion he can do so. I do not think I can commit my hon. Friends behind me to give him six more Estimates.
§ 1.35 a.m.
§ Mr. GARRO-JONESI would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on declining the offer made. It appears to have been a very remarkable proposition. The Patronage Secretary endeavoured to reach an agreement through the usual channels after a long debate in which we showed we intended to discuss these Estimates. The Patronage Secretary moved behind the Chair and called out the Chief Whip of this Party to make precisely the same proposal—the same offer made and rejected earlier on. It seems to me that he then got up to claim that we should concede to him 830 more business than he had been able to secure in the ordinary method of debate. If I may say so without disrespect, that is a typical Mussolini method. We all know that after that campaign had proceeded for a short time it was part of the policy of this Government to give the Italian dictator more than he had been able to accomplish by conquest. This is an attempt to apply the same principle to the debates of this house.
I do respectfully suggest that those methods will no longer work. I have noticed this evening in the Library, where I have to spend some time on a matter on which I have to look through the proceedings for some thirty or forty years, that a study of the Debates shows that Members on the Opposition side who are most critical, active and combative, when they reach the other side of the House are transformed into the most polite Ministers on the Treasury Bench. That is the transformation the Patronage Secretary has not been able to accomplish. He is alone on that Bench in failing to realise that the best way for the Government to get the business through is to be conciliatory. I do not mean by giving a smile and an empty concession. We want definite concessions towards the policy we are working for. You cannot get your business all the time; you may get some of your business, but if you continue to maintain your present attitude we will do our best to see you will not get any of your business.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair.
§ Mr. GARRO-JONESMy use of the second person was purely of an impersonal nature. A short time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that he wished to raise a point which you in your discretion ruled out of order. I am not going to refer to this closely. The Committee will give me credit for respecting the ruling of the Chair. I will show that the right hon. Gentleman frequently moves the Closure and does so when there is no justification. I am reminded of an occasion in this Session on the Railways Agreement Bill on a Friday afternoon, when private Members' time had been taken by the Government. When four o'clock approached the Government was extremely anxious to get through the Bill. 831 I was extremely anxious to make some observations upon it, and I rose to do so at about ten minutes to four. I saw the right hon. Gentleman's expression change. Instead of his usual suave and conciliatory expression—
§ The CHAIRMANWill the hon. Member be good enough to say whether the case he refers to occurred in this Session or in the previous Session?
§ Mr. GARRO-JONESI did not propose to refer to the debate but to the occasion when the right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure.
§ The CHAIRMANYes, but the hon. Member is referring to an incident. I am asking him whether that incident occurred in this Session or in a previous Session
§ Mr. GARRO-JONESIt occurred before Christmas—in December.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has not yet answered my question, but if it was in December then it was in this Session. The hon. Member may be right in claiming that he could discuss certain matters of debate of this kind, but if this is an incident of a certain kind which occurred in the present Session I think it would certainly be contrary to the spirit of the rule to which I have already referred.
§ Mr. GARRO-JONESWith great respect, the rule in regard to the prohibition of references to proceedings in past sessions refers only to questions or debates, and contains no reference to the proper conduct of Ministers in those debates.
§ The CHAIRMANI am not referring to that or to discussions in previous Sessions. I am referring to the rule which the hon. Member knows quite well, and which has already been referred to, namely, the rule referring to animadversions upon moving the Closure when the Closure has subsequently been carried. The hon. Member is now apparently intending to refer to an incident of that kind which he apparently thinks he is justified in doing. I think it would be contrary to the rule to discuss the incident which he is dealing with now.
§ Miss WILKINSONMay I ask whether comments on the face of the Patronage Secretary are, in fact, out of Order?
§ Mr. GARRO-JONESWith very great respect to the ruling of the Chair, Sir Dennis, if you had allowed me to proceed you would have found that I was in Order, because on the occasion to which I refer the Speaker, in his discretion, refused to accept the Closure. By so doing be gave an implied rebuke to the right hon. Gentleman far stronger than anything which could have come from these benches. This is what happened—
§ Captain MARGESSONrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
That is not all. I was really far more reasonable than a member of the Opposition has any right to be, because I had undertaken in the course of my remarks to sit down before Four o'clock. As the hour hand moved towards the fateful Four o'clock I assured the right hon. Gentleman that I would sit down by Four o'clock, but he conceived that either his eyesight or his hearing was far better than mine and he rose about half a minute to Four o'clock to move the Closure. I protested as loudly as I could, and the Speaker, in his discretion, saw that an erroneous procedure was being taken and declined to move the Closure. [HON. MEMBERS.— "Accept."] All interruptions will be thankfully received. I meant "accept." After that the right hon. Gentleman, in a belated effort to show more conciliation, sat down by me and said "I accepted your intention, but I did not think you could see that it was approaching Four o'clock." Well, I take this opportunity of saying that my eye-sight is as good as his and my hearing I think is even better.
I really want to bring this point, to put it vulgarly, down to brass tacks. The Patronage Secretary and his followers are going to be here for a long time unless they realize this—that we intend to secure something by Parliamentary opposition. It is the tradition of this House, not that we can carry great principles through by that method, but that we shall be able, by a process of attrition and a little gain here and a little response there, to make some impression on the Government's policy. That is in accordance with the best and highest Parliamentary traditions. I go further and say that that legislation—and I refer now not to this or any particular legis- 833 lation—which has been built up and composed on an amalgamation and on the policies of opposing parties has usually been better legislation than that put through by a party partisanship. [HON. MEMBERS: "National Government!"] That interruption enables me to draw a distinction between the principle that I have just suggested and National Government. National Government consists of an amalgamation in which both parties dissolve their real principles for some principle which will keep them in power as long as possible, but where one Party competes with another, then the effort to improve and modify a policy and to improve it by criticism and getting further information on the policy put forward by a Government which may be partisan results in better legislation.
Only the other evening I made some observations to the Under-Secretary of State for Air, and it made him very angry. I said that unless he proposed to bring further information on these Estimates to the House in the debates that were to come, we intended to oppose them bitterly and I gave him half a dozen points upon which I wanted information, namely, on the question of profiteering on armaments. I want to give my hon. Friends a chance, and therefore I will only say that it will not do to get angry
| Division No. 71.] | AYES. | [1.50 a.m. |
| Albery, I. J. | Dunne, P, R, R, | McKic, J. H. |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) | Eckersley, P. T. | Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) | Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. | Magnay, T. |
| Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) | Errington, E. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Erskine Hill, A. G. | Maxwell, S. A. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. |
| Balfour, Capt. H. H.(lsle of Thanet) | Everard, W. L. | Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) |
| Beauchamp, Sir B. C. | Fleming, E. L. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Bernays, R. H, | Fremantle, Sir F, E. | Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswlck) |
| Bossom, A. C. | Fyfe, D. P. M. | Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Gluckstein, L. H. | Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.) |
| Bower, Comdr. R. T. | Gridley, Sir A. B. | Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) |
| Bracken, B. | Grimston, R. V. | Muirhoad, Lt.-Col. A. J. |
| Briscoe, Capt. R G. | Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.) | Nicolson, Hon. H. G. |
| Bull, B. B. | Hannah, I. C. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. |
| Burghley, Lord | Hannon, Sir P. J. H. | Orr-Ewing, I. L. |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | Palmer, G. E. H. |
| Cartland, J. R. H. | Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan | Peake, O. |
| Channon, H. | Holmes, J. S. | Penny, Sir G. |
| Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) | Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. | Peters, Dr. S. J. |
| Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. | Horsbrugh, Florence | Petherick, M. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) | Plugge, L. F. |
| Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. | Hulbert, N. J. | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. | Porritt, R. W. |
| Critchley, A. | Keeling, E. H. | Raikes, H. V. A. M. |
| Cross, R. H. | Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) | Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. |
| Crowder, J. F. E. | Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) | Ramshotham, H. |
| Culverwell, C. T. | Latham, Sir P. | Rankin, R. |
| De Chair, S. S. | Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) | Hathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) |
| Donner, P. W. | Leckie, J. A. | Rayner, Major R. H. |
| Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. | Llewallin, Lieut-Col. J. J. | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) |
| Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) | Loftus, P. C. | Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) |
| Dugdale, Major T. L. | Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) | Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) |
| Duggan, H. J | MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Duncan, J. A. L. | M'Connell, sir J. | Rowlands, G. |
§ with us or to refuse to make concessions to us. You will find, if you will accept that principle of allowing us to make our fair contribution as an Opposition, that progress will be made, but not by attempting to get business through entirely by using your vast majority and stampeding us. You will find that policy will be unsuccessful in this Parliament ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that his whip does not crack over these benches. Sometimes he appears to think it does. I have frequently seen a cloud pass across his face when further hon. Members here rise at a moment when he thinks they should not, and I have seen him make gestures of impatience. That would be very bad in any Minister on the front bench, but it is particularly bad in the case of a Patronage Secretary. I am sure that others of my hon. Friends have observations to make and as I hope on a later occasion to express some further views to the House I will now sit down.
§ Captain MARGESSONrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 67.
| Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Salt, E. W. | Strickland, Captain W. F. | Ward, Irene (Wallsend) |
| Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Waterhouse. Contain C. |
| Sandys, E. D. | Sutcilffe, H. | Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. |
| Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) | Tate, Mavis C. | Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Smith, L. W. (Hallam) | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin) |
| Somerset. T. | Thomas, J. p. L. (Hereford) | Windsor-Clive. Lleut.-Colonel G. |
| Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) | Titchfieid. Marauess of | Wise, A. R. |
| Southby, Comdr. A. R. J. | Tree, A. R. L. F. | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Spens, W. P. | Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. | Young, A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) | Turton, R. H. | |
| Storey, S. | Wakefield, W. W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Stourton, Hon. J. J. | Wallace, Captain Euan | Major George Davies and Sir James |
| Blindell. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Ritson, J. |
| Adamson, W. M. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Rowson, G. |
| Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Seely, Sir H. M. |
| Banfield, J. W. | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Sexton, T. M. |
| Bevan, A. | Henderson, T. (Tradeston) | Shinwell, E. |
| Broad, F. A. | Holland, A. | Silverman, S. S. |
| Brown, C. (Mansfield) | Hollins, A. | Simpson, F. B. |
| Compton, J. | Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) | Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) |
| Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford | Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Dagger, G. | Kelly, W. T. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Dalton, H. | Kirby, B. v. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) | Lawson, J. J. | Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontyprldd) | Lee, F. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Davles, S. O. (Merthyr) | Logan, D. G. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | Lunn, W. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Ede, J. C. | Mainwaring, W. H. | Westwood, J. |
| Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) | Marklew, E. | Wilkinson, Ellen |
| Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. | Mathers, G. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Foot, D. M. | Mliner, Major J. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Frankel, D. | Paling, W. | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Garro-Jones, G. M. | Potts, J. | |
| Gibbins, J. | Pritt, D. N. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John. |
§ Question put according "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
| Division No. 72.] | AYES. | [1.59 a.m. |
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Greenwood, Rt, Hon. A. | Ritson, J. |
| Adamson, W. M. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Rowson, G. |
| Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Seely, Sir H. M. |
| Banfield, J. W. | Henderson, A. (Kinqswinford) | Sexton, T. M. |
| Bevan, A. | Henderson, T. (Tradeston) | Shinwell, E. |
| Broad, F. A. | Holland, A. | Silverman, S. S. |
| Brown, C. (Mansfield) | Hollins, A. | Simpson, F. B. |
| Compton, J. | Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) | Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) |
| Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford | Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Daggar, G. | Kelly, W. T. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Dalton, H. | Kirlby, B. V. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) | Lawson, J. J. | Strauss, G. R, (Lambeth, N.) |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lee, F. | Taylor, R, J. (Morpeth) |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Logan, 0. G. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Dunn, E. (Bother Valley) | Lunn, W. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Ede, J. C. | Mainwaring, W. H. | Westwood, J. |
| Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) | Marklew, E. | Wilkinson, Ellen |
| Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. | Mathers, G. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Foot, D. M. | Mllner, Major J. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Frankel, D. | Paling, W. | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Garro-Jones, G. M. | Potts, J. | |
| Gibbins, J. | Pritt, D. N. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John. |
| NOES. | ||
| Albery, I. J. | Beauchamp, Sir B. C. | Bull, B. B. |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) | Bernays, R. H. | Burghley, Lord |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) | Bossom, A. C. | Burgin, Dr. E. L. |
| Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) | Boulton, W. W. | Cartland, J. R. H. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Bower, Comdr. R. T. | Channon, H. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Bracken, B. | Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) |
| Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) | Briscoe, Capt. R. G. | Colville, Lt.-Col, D. J. |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 141.
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. | Latham, Sir P. | Rowlands, G. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) | Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) |
| Critchley, A. | Leckle, J. A. | Salt, E. W. |
| cross, R. H. | Llewellin, Lieut. -Col. J. J. | Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) |
| Crowder, J. F. E. | Loftus, P. C. | Sandys, E. D. |
| Culverwell, C. T. | Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) | Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) |
| Davies. Major G. F. (Yeovll) | MacAndrew, Lt.-col. Sir C. G. | Smith, L. W. (Hallam) |
| De Chair, S. S. | M'Connell, Sir J | Somerset, T. |
| Donner, P. W. | McKle, J. H. | Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) |
| Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. | Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. | Southby. Comdr. A. R. J. |
| Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) | Magnay, T. | Spens, W. P. |
| Dugdale, Major T. L. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) |
| Duggan, H. J. | Maxwell, S. A. | Storey, S. |
| Duncan, J. A. L. | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. | Stourton, Hon. J. J |
| Dunne, P. R. R. | Mellon, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Eastwood, J. F. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Eckersley, P. T. | Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. | Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C. | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Errington, E. | Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.) | Tate, Mavis C. |
| Erskine Hill, A. G. | Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) |
| Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) | Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Everard, W. L. | Nlcolson, Hon. H. G. | Titchfield, Marquess of |
| Fleming, E. L. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. | Tree, A. R. L. F. |
| Fyfe, D. P. M. | Orr-Ewing, I. L. | Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. |
| Gluckstein, L. H. | Palmer, G. E. H. | Turton, R. H. |
| Gridley, Sir A. B. | Peake, O. | Wakcfield, W. W. |
| Grimston. R. V. | Peters, Dr. S. J. | Wallace, Captain Euan |
| Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.) | Petherick, M. | Ward, Lieut. -Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Hannah, I. C. | Plugge, L. F. | Ward, Irene (Wallsend) |
| Hannon, Sir P. J. H. | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. | Waterhouse, Captain C. |
| Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | Porrltt, R. W. | Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. |
| Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan | Ralkes, H. V. A. M. | Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Holmei, J. S. | Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hltchin) |
| Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. | Ramsbotham, H. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G. |
| Horsbrugn, Florence | Rankin, R. | Wise, A. R. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) | Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln) | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Hulbert, N. J. | Rayner, Major R. H. | Young, A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Insklp, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) | |
| Keeling, E. H. | Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) | Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) | Sir George Penny and Sir James |
| Blindell. |
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ 2.7 a.m.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison)After the argument we have just had let me invite hon. Members to direct their attention to this small estimate. The purpose is to provide for the restoration, as from 12th July, 1935, of the remaining cuts in the salaries of Ministers and civil servants made in the autumn of 1931. It is well known that the purpose of the estimate is to restore the remainder. The method followed in presenting this Estimate is as follows. The departments covered by the Estimate have no supplementary estimates for any other purpose, and so this is the most convenient method of presenting this estimate of the money necessary to restore the cuts. I am sure there is no Member of the Committee who would like to oppose the granting of supply for this purpose, and I beg to move.
§ 2.9 a.m.
§ Mr. KELLYI would like to know from the hon. and Learned Gentleman who has just spoken why it is that we have so many of these votes coming to us apart from their particular departments. The Mercantile Marine service is a department connected with the Board of Trade, and, if that is so, why are we being asked to vote this in this particular form rather than under the heading of the Board of Trade. Then there are the customs and excise which usually come under the Treasury Vote and there is also the Board of Inland Revenue. Why is it we are asked now to deal with these departments in this way. I think we might have had from the hon. and learned Gentleman some indication as to the number of people who are concerned. For an expenditure dating from 1st July, under Acts which have been in operation since the autumn of 1931, there ought to be some indication of the number of people concerned. On page 75 there is a reference to further payments in respect of this service being made from savings anticipated on the original department Votes amounting to £178,000. What is that 839 being saved on? Is any service being handicapped by the fact that this money, after being voted, is not being spent on it?
§ 2.12 a.m.
§ Mr. SHINWELLIf the Financial Secretary will refer to the explanation of the charges contained in this supplementary Estimate, he will find the following words used:
… the remaining half of the abatements of the emoluments of Ministers and Civil Servants consequent upon the crisis in the autumn of 1931.I do not find that these words are used in any other estimate. In another of these supplementary estimates the words used are… the emoluments of Ministers and Civil Servants made in the autumn of 1931.May I ask why in this supplementary estimate these words require to be used? There is no justification for them having been embodied. The onus of proof that there was such a crisis in 1931 rests on the shoulders of the hon. Gentleman. Unless there was a general agreement that there was such a crisis—and there is not—these words should not have been included. I wonder whether these words were used because reference is made to the particular Department with which the ex-Prime Minister is associated, and whether they were inserted to satisfy the almost incurable vanity of the Lord President of the Council. Some explanation is called for why these improper and unnecessary words are used here and are not to be found elsewhere. I am ready to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he will furnish us with a satisfactory explanation.
§ 2.15 a.m.
§ Mr. BEVANI am glad my hon. Friend has raised this point. Hon. Members opposite may have the impression that we have raised a point that we have suddenly discovered.
§ Mr. MAGNAYWhat did the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) mean when he talked about the words being "embodied." Was it what he thought?
§ Mr. SHINWELLI am certain that there is no thought embodied in the words that are used. It was because of an absence of thought that I asked for an explanation.
§ Mr. BEVANI was proposing to give the Committee reasons why we should attach importance to the point raised. A Government document is not a political document or a party document, and there should not be under any Government a document that is controversial or tarnished with any form of political bias. There is no need to refer to the crisis. It is only necessary to refer to the date. This is the sort of thing into which the National Government has drifted. It is beginning to identify itself with the country as a whole, as though the country believed this was a National Government. The chastity of a Government document is being outraged by political bias. A short time ago a White Paper was issued in which the term "National Government" was used. The then Leader of the Opposition raised the question of public money being used for national propaganda. What is going to occur if it becomes customary for every Government document to carry the language of a political manifesto? The constitution of this country would receive a vital blow. We are proud of the fact that our governmental pronouncements are of an official, objective and dispassionate character. But if you are to have printed on them the subjective point of view of a political party great damage will be done. This sort of carelessness cannot occur in party politics. It is an obfuscation of issues and principles of which the Lord President of the Council is a past master. He is unable to believe that he is not running the country. It is an illusion from which he has suffered many years.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think we had better keep to the particular Estimate.
§ Mr. BEVANIn this matter I would ask for your assistance. We are discussing an entirely non-party matter, whether a Government document should contain language which describes a political event in terms of a highly controversial nature. How this language can creep into the printing department I cannot understand—language that converts 841 a chaste official into a propagandist of the Government. Who is responsible? I do not know who the responsible Minister is. I ask the Attorney-General if he will look at this language. Even the Attorney-General is not exempt from his duties as a member of the Committee and ought to furnish himself with the matter before the Committee. Is it in accordance with the law of this country that such terms should be used in a House of Commons document upon which public money has been spent? Is it proper that language should be used in that document of a political and partisan character. This is not the first occasion upon which this has happened, and it is not really a very good thing for the Government that the impression should go forth that the taxpayers' money is being used to produce political manifestoes in the guise of Government publications. I would remind him that there are many taxpayers in this country who vote for the party to which I have the honour to belong. If their money is to be used to produce political manifestoes for their opponents then there is only one resource left and that is to refuse to pay taxes. We are inevitably driven to that. I do not want to use the language of exaggeration or to suggest that this transgression is grave, but unless we warn the Government this tender shoot will grow into a green bay tree. It is our duty to point out the disastrous consequences for the good practice of the British constitution if obscure officials lurking in Government Departments use the machinery of Government to conduct political propaganda.
§ 2.23 a.m.
§ Mr. SHINWELLMay I ask whether it is in order to move at this stage that the words to which I have referred may be deleted? They appear to be comment on a particular event. Can they be deleted if I submit a manuscript amendment to that effect?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am afraid I could not possibly accept an Amendment on a question not before the Committee. The question before the Committee is the one which I have put. It has been a long-standing practice that Amendments which can be accepted in Committee of Supply should mention a specific sum.
§ Mr. SHINWELLCannot an improper comment be deleted? Must we accept this?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThis is really a footnote to the Estimates and is of no value whatever.
§ Mr. SHINWELLMay I put a further point as to who is responsible for this supplementary Estimate and of the preparation of the language in which it is couched? Has the hon. and learned Member satisfied himself that the comment embodied here was strictly accurate? May I put a question to the hon. Member?
§ Mr. W. S. MORRISONCertainly.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThen the hon. and learned Member accepts full responsibility for this comment.
§ Mr. MORRISONWhen I said "certainly" I was replying to the question whether the hon. Member might put a question to me.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThis certainly puts an entirely different complexion on the matter. The hon. and learned Member in reply to a question addressed to him, in quite proper language and with every civility, seemed, I hope temporarily, to lose his temper.
§ Mr. MORRISONI should be sorry if that was so. I have enjoyed this as much as anyone. I think it would be a good thing if I were allowed to reply to questions at the end, so as not unduly to protract our sittings, for I am sure hon. Members do not desire to do that.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThe hon. and learned Member is introducing a note of levity not in my mind when I ventured to introduce the subject to the Committee. The hon. and learned Member is himself suffering from an illusion. The only question which has been so far addressed on this supplementary Estimate is one I ventured to put to the Committee at the outset.
§ Mr. MORRISONThe hon. Member forgets the speech of the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly).
§ Mr. SHINWELLIt is perfectly true that the hon. Member for Rochdale did raise a point somewhat different, but the point I raised is nevertheless one of 843 real substance. I desire to ascertain from the hon. and learned Member himself, since he is responsible for this Estimate whether the language now before us in this supplementary Estimate is language which received his acceptance before it was so submitted to the House of Commons. Surely that is an issue on which I am entitled to a quite definite answer from the hon. and learned Member.
§ 2.30 a.m.
§ Mr. EDEThis document purports to have been signed by the Financial Secretary. On page 2 his name is printed. Of course, the printer may not have followed copy on this occasion and it may have been someone else's signature, but while that signature remains—and the hon. Gentleman does not repudiate it—one must assume that he is responsible for the wording of the document to which his name is attached. I think the point raised by the hon. Member for 1Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is one that is worthy of some consideration. After all, after the next General Election there is no doubt that it will not be the hon. Gentleman who will be appending his name to documents of this kind, unless he has an equal facility with the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. R. MacDonald) and the junior right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) of making quite sure that no matter who is out of office they will be in. If we were to comment on some of the things which have happened under the National Government, so-called, such as the departure from the gold standard and other matters, in the same way as this matter has been introduced to-day, I have no doubt that they would feel very sore about it. I observe that the Attorney-General has just left the House, so that we are now deprived once again of all official legal knowledge to help us in our deliberations. I rely upon the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Henderson) to be able to produce for us an opinion rather quicker than the Law Officers of the Crown.
I want to suggest to the Financial Secretary that language of this kind, especially in a matter of this sort, ought not to be introduced into what is supposed to be the cold calm atmosphere 844 of a Treasury document. If we cannot have these things submitted to us dispassionately from that Department we may very well feel that political prejudices have been allowed to gain far too great a sway. I recall that a few years ago it was a great complaint that the Treasury was becoming too much a political department. Hon. Members who recollect the debates in pre-war days, when the right lion. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was promoting his various insurance schemes, will recall the complaint continually made against the Treasury. I sincerely hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to follow any example which his friends in those days so warmly reprobated. I hope we shall have his assurance that these words will not occur in future in the Department for which he is responsible. We realise that he is a new Minister in this Department and we would not desire to be too hard on him in his early days. Everyone has to sow his wild oats. We are told by Dr. Johnson that oats are the principal meal of horses in England and of men in Scotland. We do ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, now that he is a member for an English constituency and represents here a Department, the greater part of whose funds come from England, not to eat oats but to live on the pure milk of the Treasury wording.
§ 2.34 a.m.
§ Mr. SILVERMANI suppose it is the shortness of my experience in this House that leads me to be at issue to some slight extent with my hon. friends in this matter. They may understand with the utmost clarity to what these words, of which complaint is made, refer. In that they have the advantage of me because I cannot find anything in the document to indicate what was the crisis in December of 1931. I am bound to say that if we leave out of account the criticism that has been made upon the inclusion of the words in a document of this kind, as being inappropriate in such a document, then surely the Financial Secretary will agree that in no case ought such a document to contain words which are entirely meaningless? If there was, indeed, a crisis in the December of 1931 which occasioned the matter attributed to it here, then either the 845 matter should not be mentioned at all or, if it is, it should be stated with the utmost clarity what was the crisis to which the document refers. I recall that there was a governmental incident in the December of 1931—some kind of crisis in the convictions of a lifetime which used to be held by certain hon. Members who still sit upon those benches. Is that the crisis to which reference is made in the document? If it is—namely, the change of opinions, of convictions and of side, would the Financial Secretary explain in what way that causes losses in the Civil Service which this Committee is now called upon to make good? There is the remission of half the payments for Ministerial salaries and also the civil service remuneration. As to the civil service remuneration, there can be no great objection to that, but if there was an abatement of ministerial salaries, due to some crisis in ministerial opinions, how is that the concern of this Committee and why should we be called upon to reimburse a right hon. Gentleman for some crisis in his mind which does not appear to have greatly affected his pocket?
Perhaps I have got the wrong crisis. Possibly there was some other crisis. If there was, I am sure that not only I, as a new and entirely inexperienced Member, but a great many people outside would be glad even at this late hour if the Financial Secretary would explain in some detail what the crisis was and how it arose. A great deal has been made already of the impropriety of introducing political partisan comments into an official Treasury document which ought to deal dispassionately purely with figures. The answer to that criticism may be that this is not a comment upon political events at all. I am quite prepared to admit it and that there is nothing whatever in this document to justify the criticisms which have been passed upon it. These criticisms have all assumed that the crisis referred to was some kind of political crisis. They are no doubt reading into this document matters which they think are referred to and which they think are meant to be read between the lines. The answer to that may be that no such criticism is justified because that is not the crisis to which reference is made. I do think in that case that the Financial Secretary, whose name is appended to 846 the document, and who appears as the financial adviser of this Committee—should never have put his name to so vague a document as this. Let us look at it again:
half of the appointments of the emoluments of Ministers and Civil Servants consequent upon the crisis in the autumn of 1931.Thinking again I remember there was a drought in that year. I know His Majesty's Government were greatly concerned about that. Many questions were asked, if one believes what was said in the newspapers in those days—I was not a Member of this House then—about the damage that was being done to the prosperity of the country by the failure of the Government to take proper conservation measures. Since then times have changed and there have been floods. Is that the crisis which is referred to? If that was not the crisis, if I have not yet got the right one, will not the Financial Secretary tell us what he had in his mind when he signed the document. What crisis did he mean? He could not possibly have foreseen the crisis which is taking place at this moment. I say in all seriousness that if financial documents, on which this Committee is called upon to raise and spend public money, can be so loose, careless and ambiguous in the explanation of its figures, what reliance can we place upon them? Here we have a vague phrase "crisis in the autumn", and that is said to explain a lot of figures. If we have no information to lead us to understand what the crisis was how do we know that the losses caused by the ambiguous crisis referred to are matters with which this Committee is concerned at all? These are extremely important matters. What we tried to point out to him a little while ago was that this is no time of day to be discussing important matters of this kind. I am quite sure that at other times the Financial Secretary would be the first to admit either that the words ought not to have been included at all, or that if they were included they ought to have been included in fuller detail so as not to mislead or confuse anybody. May I now appeal to the Financial Secretary, in view of the criticisms which have been made—well-founded I am sure he will admit—to withdraw this estimate now and re-present it in more proper form and with more details at a more proper time?
§ 2.45 a.m.
§ Sir STAFFORD CRIPPSI am sure that all the Committee are grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having given them an opportunity of debating what is really a very important matter, and also it is an opportunity to correct the views of the last hon. Member. He has not perhaps the advantage or disadvantage of some of us who were more intimately connected with the events of the period to which reference is made in this document. I think it should be made quite clear to the Committee that there were a series of events in the summer and autumn of 1931 to all of which the term crisis might be loosely applied by those who are ignorant of the true series of events. I will if I can, without unduly delaying the Committee at this hour, go through these events in a little detail, in order that we may get from the Financial Secretary an explanation to which of them he refers. The Committee will remember that the Labour Government was in office in the summer of 1931 under the aegis of that skilful politician who Snow graces the Treasury Bench opposite, and that during that summer, certainly at a period which could not be referred to with any accuracy as the autumn because it was in June, I think, of 1931, there was what was termed a financial crisis in middle Europe. The hon. Gentleman will remember the events connected with the Credit Anstalt and the Damstadt Bank. He will also remember the visit made at that time to this country by the German Foreign Minister who went to Chequers and there spent a week-end discussing matters, I think with the present Lord President of the Council and the Colonial Secretary.
At that time it was generally thought that the structure of financial capitalism in Europe was about to come to a somewhat speedy and, some thought, untimely end. That was indeed referred by many people as a crisis, and it is quite impossible that anyone either with the Scottish parentage or the legal training of the hon. Gentleman could possibly have referred to that as a crisis in the autumn. The Committee will remember that after these events, on the last day of the Session, I think it was 30th July—[HON. MEMBERS: "31st"]—I am much obliged for the correction. On 31st July, when this House was meeting, the then Chan- 848 cellor of the Exchequer made a statement from that Box to the effect that there was no critical condition at all so far as regarded the finances of this country, or indeed, I think, so far as the financial position of Europe was concerned. We have so far safely travelled to the end of July. Then in that customary way which behoves Members who have had a hard and long Session, many of us went away to take a short and well-earned—at least I hope wellearned—rest, and suddenly during the first days of August and, be it noted, still in the summer, there was certainly a political upheaval of considerable magnitude. I remember the political upheaval because I, unfortunately, was ill in Germany, and as a result of the political upheaval I returned post-haste to this country. When I returned I found there was a great deal of uncertainty as to what was to happen, and there were people who at that time were talking about going off the gold standard. There was a conversation, I believe, between Downing Street and the Federal Reserve Bank via the Bank of England, and there was certainly a great deal of uncertainty, to put it at its lowest, in the financial and political situation in the country.
But be it noted that we are still in the summer, and therefore, because of that precision which marks the hon. and learned Gentleman, he cannot be referring to these events. Then there was a hasty formation of this agglomerate which has afflicted the country, since called the National Government, in which, as an hon. Gentleman has already observed, a number of parties agreed to merge their individuality and policy on the principle that, if they do not hang together, undoubtedly they will bang separately. After that period of the formation of the first National Government, we begin to approach the autumn. There was a hasty and short Session of this House which preceded the General Election. I can only think of two things which could be regarded as a crisis in the autumn of 1931, because, be it marked, one must read his sentence as a whole. Therefore, we are dealing with a crisis which resulted in the abatement of the emoluments of the Ministers and civil servants. Now we have to ask ourselves what was it that resulted from the abatements of 849 the Ministers and civil servants. I do not suppose there is a person who would say it was not directly caused by the unfortunate election of the National Government. Therefore, I think we can rightly say that the crisis in the finances of this country to which the hon. Gentleman was referring was the National Government. If that, indeed, be the true meaning, I feel that the criticism which has been passed upon it by hon. Members is a little harsh. I agree that it is the most serious and continuing crisis from which this country has suffered in the last century.
Now that I have elucidated the matter for the benefit of the hon. Member who last spoke, I will pass to the point on which I really rose to address the Committee. I find in these Estimates an item of £1,200 for the Colonial Office, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether it, includes the return of the emoluments of the Colonial Secretary. It it does we can, of course, subject to your Ruling, raise the suitability of the present holder of that office—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Gentleman must raise any question of that kind on the main Estimates, and certainly not on this occasion.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI propose to raise the question of the desirability of the present Colonial Secretary getting a return of his full emoluments.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not a question for this occasion. It is a general question of policy whether salaries should be raised or not. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot argue the question of whether he should not receive it.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSOn that point of Order. The question raises two heads. I do not desire to raise any question in regard to civil servants' salaries, but as regards the Minister's salary a completely different question arises.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI must remind the hon. and learned Member, in regard to his contention, of the Estimates last year, in which the question of policy was discussed. It comes, therefore, under the Rule with regard to Supplementary Estimates that questions of policy cannot be raised upon them.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSMay I not point out to the Committee that it is undesirable that this sum of £1,200 should be provided for the Minister?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANNo; certainly not on this occasion.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSIf this Committee desires that a particular part of the £1,200 should not be voted, what action is it able to take as regards criticism of the Vote?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is open to any hon. Gentleman to move to reduce the Vote.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI wish to ask for your guidance as to the points which can be put forward in order to justify such a reduction. I do not desire to move a general reduction, but on one of the specific items—say £50 of the £1,200. I desire to object and to put forward certain matters as regards that specific item which we are here asked to vote. Let me assume that the part which will come to the Minister in the Colonial Office is £50. It is as regards that £50 that I desire to put certain observations before the Committee. I ask your ruling whether I am precluded from doing so, and from putting to the Committee my reasons against the £50.
§ Mr. GARRO-JONESIs not my hon. and learned Friend in Order when he proposes to deal with the matter in this way?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think I had better deal with the point of Order raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think he is trying to argue that Ministerial salaries should not come under the general rule.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSWhat I desire to argue is, in regard to that portion of the £1,200 which is detailed in the Vote, that it should not come to the Minister.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIn other words, I think I am quite correct. The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to argue that Ministerial salaries should not come under the general policy which has been approved by the House. If I have misunderstood him, perhaps he will make it clear.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSWe are being asked to-night to vote a- substantial sum, 851 £1,200. I have certain objections to voting part of that specific sum, and I desire to put those objections before the Committee.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to raise the matter of the granting of Ministerial salaries. He is entitled to inquire why the Colonial Office wants £1,200, but he is not entitled to debate policy.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSWhat I desire to show is that, so far as the Colonial Office is concerned, in the sum of £1,200 there ought not to be included a return of the remaining half of the abatement of an emolument in a particular case. I desire to submit to the Committee that it is not an emolument which should be returned. It might be an exception to the general rule or not; but this is the first occasion upon which the House has had an opportunity of passing its opinion as to whether that particular sum should be paid or not.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension. This matter was debated last year and the policy was approved by Parliament. He has not an opportunity of arguing a matter which has already been settled, and it should not be re-argued, as that is contrary to the rules of the House.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI do not desire to reargue the principle, but I do desire to argue that in this case the principle should not apply, because of certain events that have taken place since Parliament decided on the principle.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member should defer his argument until the main Estimate comes before us.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSIf I am not allowed to criticise the purposes for which this money is being used, am I to understand that it is impossible to raise under any of these subheads any objection to any item in them, because at some earlier date Parliament has passed a principle which would cover them, but which has not yet been implemented by Parliament because the sums have not yet been voted? If that is the case, it would seem to me to be a waste of time to ask 852 Parliament to consider these Estimates, because apparently they are not allowed to exercise their judgment whether the payments are proper.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think the hon. and learned Member is correct in that statement. It is open to the Committee to ascertain from the Minister how these sums are made tip, and whether they are made up in accordance with a policy which Parliament has decided. What the Committee cannot do on this occasion is debate the policy under which they are granted.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI do not desire to argue the policy, but the individual who is affected by the policy.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is the point I have ruled that the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot raise. He can raise the point whether the people in fact get the sums to which they are entitled under the policy, but he cannot argue the case of any individual.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSIf that is your Ruling, I am obliged for it. I should be obliged if the Minister would give us details of all these subheads; otherwise it is impossible for us to say whether it is strictly in accordance with the decision of Parliament already given. There have been changes of office, and so on, and we should like to know how these sums have been apportioned between the different Ministers and various matters of that kind. I should also be glad if the Minister would tell us in detail how far these sums relate to Ministerial as against Civil Service salaries. Will he divide at least the £50,000, so that we can know how much was Civil Service and how much was Ministerial remuneration? We can then judge whether our consciences are satisfied in voting these sums.
§ 3.5 a.m.
§ Mr. LOGANI have here a notice which says that this is in accordance with a Treasury Minute dated 27th November, and continuing until autumn 1931. If it is not possible for the amendment to be moved, I contend that we ought to have documentary evidence that this is on record. Some time ago we had a similar matter which had to be taken back and a new resolution brought to the House the following day, because an error had been made. I contend that a Minute 853 is a record, not a comment, and that the words "consequent upon the crisis" constitute a comment and not a Minute. I require proof that this is a record of that Treasury Minute, and I ask that the Minute shall be produced as proof that this is a record of it. In no Government Department or public authority would criticism be allowed to be inserted as a Minute.
§ 3.9 a.m.
§ Mr. W. S. MORRISONFirst with regard to the Minute. I think the hon. Gentleman will find a reference to it in the Estimate or in the note attached to it. It is Command Paper 526, dated 27th November, 1935, and can be obtained in the Vote Office. Therefore there is no necessity for me to produce it here, as the hon. Member has had it circulated to him, and I think he will excuse me at this hour—
§ Mr. LOGANI want to be confirmed in accordance with my beliefs. I am not asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to read a document similar to what I have in my hand. I want the original. I want the document from which this has been printed. I do not believe that this is a Minute.
§ Mr. MORRISONI was saying that I hoped the Committee would not send me out on this cold morning for the document.
§ Mr. MORRISONI have not the least doubt that the hon. Member knows what he is talking about. I would rather leave the matter this morning and get through this complicated Estimate. So far as I have been able to discover, the discussion has ranged, not so much around the Estimate itself, as on the words "the crisis" which are to be found in this document. I think that, if hon. Members consider this as a financial document, then what is meant is a financial crisis. It is a financial document and it will be obvious to everyone, except some hon. Members opposite, that the crisis of 1931 is a perfectly well understood expression standing for certain definite events which took place at that time. These have not been without repercussions upon the hon. Members themselves, on the elections which followed, 854 and on the great democracy of which they are always hailing the wisdom and discernment. That democracy had no doubt as to the crisis. If hon. Members object to the term, I can earnestly assure them that no one will be puzzled as to what is meant.
A more serious note was the protest made by one hon. Member who accused me of introducing Government propaganda into the colourless body of a Supplementary Estimate. Hon. Members on this side need no converting by this document, and hon. Members opposite are incapable of being converted. The term appears in some way to irritate the majority of hon. Members opposite. Conscience does make cowards of us all. Hon. Members may see, not only a financial crisis, but a financial crisis with which they were to some extent connected. That is a feeling which does not effect any great section of the people, and hon. Members opposite need not bother about it for that reason. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was good enough to remind me that oats are good for horses in England and for men in Scotland. He may remember it was also said "where can you find such horses and men?" In every Estimate put forward on this occasion opportunity is taken for the restoration of cuts. I was asked about the savings. It would be impossible for me to enumerate all the savings in all the departments mentioned here. Savings themselves do not necessarily mean what is usually called economic savings. The duties performed in one year by a Department may no longer be necessary, and, therefore, money is saved. The savings mentioned here have been attended by no loss to the public in regard to the efficiency of the services. I think hon. Members feel no objection to the principle of restoring these cuts now. Hon. Members have had their fling at me for the use of this word "crisis," for which I take full responsibility.
§ 3.18 a.m.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI had not in my hand the Treasury Minute when I last spoke. Since then I have received a copy, and, as I read the Minute, there has been no authorisation by Parliament, in any sense, to account for the restoration of these cuts. Might I draw the attention 855 of the Committee to the terms of the Minute dated 27th November, 1935:
- "(1) My Lords read again their Minute of the 20th November, 1934 (Cmd. 4748), dealing with the method of provision by Parliament in the financial year 1934 to meet the charges arising out of the withdrawal as from 1st July, 1934, of half the abatements of the emoluments of Ministers and Civil Servants consequent upon the crisis in the autumn of 1931.
- (2) They then proposed the presentation of a single Supplementary Estimate from which advances could be made to any Vote on which there was a prospective excess due solely to these charges, a course which was approved by the House of Commons.
- (3) Similar circumstances having arisen in connection with the Estimates for the current financial year, in which the provision for the remuneration of Ministers and Civil Servants was necessarily based on the emoluments in force at the end of the last financial year. These emoluments have since been increased under the terms of Treasury Circulars 14/35 and 15/35 of the 24th May, 1935, in consequence of the withdrawal as from the 1st July, 1935, of the remaining half of the abatements mentioned in paragraph one above.
Their Lordships consider that it will be convenient on the present occasion to follow the procedure laid down by Their Minute of 20th November, 1934. They propose, therefore, that there should be presented to Parliament a single Supplementary Estimate from which advances can he made to any Vote where there is prospective excess expenditure due solely to the withdrawal of the remaining half of these abatements of emoluments. A schedule of such Votes and of the anticipated amounts required in each case will be appended to the Estimate for the information of Parliament.The Appropriation Account of the general Vote will be prepared by the Treasury and will show the net amount issued to each Department; the Department will account for the amount issued to it together with its own Vote, and will be required to satisfy the Treasury and the Comptroller and Auditor General that the relevant expenditure was at least as great as the net amount issued to it from the general Vote.That is not a procedure that Parliament has ever approved. There was this procedure adopted in 19.34, but the procedure adopted in regard to this Estimate is a procedure adopted by their Lordships because they considered that it would be convenient on the present occasion to follow the procedure of 1934. The procedure on the present occasion has never received the endorsement or approval of this House.856 Therefore, unless I have overlooked some step in the procedure, is not this the first Vote as regards these particular salaries which has come forward in order to implement, not a decision of Parliament, but a decision of the Lords of the Treasury which they took on the 27th November, 1935? You will notice Captain Bourne, that this says:
In accordance with the terms of the Treasury Minute"—not in accordance with any decision of Parliament. Quite clearly this Treasury Minute is not something, on the face of it, which has been authorised by Parliament. Is it not, therefore, in Order to raise the question as to those specific sums which are mentioned here in the Vote?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI adhere to my original ruling. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot raise the details of these salaries, but he can, if he likes, raise the question whether the procedure laid down by the Lords of the Treasury is the most convenient one. The question of policy was decided last year, both in the Budget and in the Finance Bill. The Finance Bill is now an Act, and is not an arguable matter.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSFurther to that point of Order. Will you enlighten me as to the Resolution which, I presume, is the only way in which Parliament, if it authorises it in any Budget, can give authority for these specific sums? As I understand it, although a statement may have been made by the Chancellor in the course of the Budget debates that there was going to he a list returned, I do not remember any Resolution being passed by this House to cover that. Am I not right that all that has happened since then is this passage in the Treasury Minute—which covers the further period from 1st July, 1935, to the end of the Financial year, I presume—and that, in fact, Parliament has never passed any Resolution or any Clause in the Finance Act which authorises this increase in salaries? The only thing was a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the Budget, and this Treasury Minute is to implement that statement. This procedure has never been approved by Parliament, and therefore these returns of salaries have never had any approval of any sort or kind by any vote of this House.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member is wrong there. Provision was made in the Finance Act last year to raise the necessary money. The Finance Act was passed by the House, and, therefore, by implication, the policy was approved.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSFurther to that point of Order. Am I to understand that the passage in the Finance Act providing the necessary money closes to this Committee completely the discussion of how that money is to be expended? As I understand the Ruling now, if this money was approved in the Finance Act —and I would say respectfully that I regard this as an extremely important matter, involving the control of finance by the House—if once the money is voted by the Finance Act, no question can be raised as to whether this expenditure is right or not. If that is so, the whole system of Supply in this House might almost as well cease, because Supplementary Estimates are surely for the purpose of ascertaining whether moneys are properly spent? This money was not approved by the Finance Act, because the fact that it is in the Supplementary Estimates shows that it cannot have been in the Finance Act. I do submit, in all humility, that here is a case where money not provided by the Finance Act is being expended for a service which was not specifically mentioned in the Finance Act, and which has never been specifically passed by any Resolution or action of the House. This is the first occasion on which it has come before the House, and, if we are not now to have the opportunity of debating it, the result will be that this expenditure can be made by the Government and nobody can have the opportunity to criticise it.
§ The DEPUTY- CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member is wrong. What I have ruled is that the policy on this occasion was settled in the Finance Bill. The question whether the Estimate carries out the policy is, of course, open to discussion.
§ Mr. EDEI would ask you, Captain Bourne, with very great deference, does the Finance Act do more than authorise the raising of the money? I was not in the House when the last Finance Act was passed, but my recollection of previous 858 Finance Acts, when I was in the House, is that they deal with the raising of the money, and that the spending of the money is carried out by a quite different procedure altogether and by other Acts of Parliament or by specific Resolutions. I may remind you that, when these cuts were originally imposed, they were imposed at about the same time as a second Finance Act was passed, called the Economy Provisions Act or some such name.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt has always been the practice of the House to decide the general financial policy, and in this case provision was made in the Budget speech of last year and approved by the House, and that approval was signified in the Finance Bill. I must adhere to my Ruling that that matter cannot be raised. I have now given my ruling, and lion. Members must abide by it.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSMay I ask for an explanation on this very important matter? Are we to understand that every matter which is mentioned in the Budget speech is automatically confirmed by the passage of the Finance Act, which does not mention that matter at all?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think I prefer to leave the Ruling as one of a general kind until the occasion arises.
§ 3.29 a.m.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI do not feel competent to express any opinion on the legal aspects, but, with great respect, there does seem to be some doubt in the minds of hon. Members. We might have had the assistance of the learned Law Officers, but it is not in relation to that aspect of the question that I rise. I am frankly astonished at the attitude adopted by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He made some effort to contribute to our entertainment, and seemed to enjoy himself at that Box, preening his feathers, and creating only one impression in my mind, which was that he sought to treat the Committee with scant courtesy. When I raised this question earlier in the debate I did so without any levity in my mind. My submission to the Committee is that language of this sort is unprecedented in a Government document of this kind. I think that hon. Members have a great 859 regard for the ability of the hon Member opposite, but he ought not to take advantage of the opinion held of him in this House to ride off in the flagrant way he did on a substantial issue of this kind. The very lowest we were entitled to expect from the hon. Member was a submission that this language had been used in other Government documents; in short, to advance a precedent. He did no such thing. On the contrary he added fuel to the fire, insult to injury, by dilating on the association of Members on this side with an alleged crisis. He spoke of a financial crisis, but there was no specification whatever, nor did he venture to inform the Committee as to whether that financial crisis was attributable to the conduct of the National Government or some other Government.
On that head we are entitled to information if in the opinion of the hon. Member, language of this kind is competent in a document of this sort. I take exception to the language used, and also particularly to the attitude of the hon. Member. It is not the way to submit a Government document, and it is not the way to expect acceptance by the House. For my part, not because of the Vote concerned, because there is no exception taken on this side to the restoration of emoluments, but because we object to the language used which ought in my view to be removed, and as the hon. Member has not seen fit to remove it, I am prepared to advise my friends on this side to vote against this Supplementary Estimate on the ground that the language is unprecedented and uncalled-for.
§ Mr. BEVANI had expected quite frankly the hon. Member to rise in his place and admit that a mistake had been made by the inclusion of this language. If he had got up and said that this language had crept into this document inadvertently and expressed no definite intention by the Government, I am quite sure we on our side would have been merciful and chivalrous to a fallen foe, but instead of that the hon. Member has actually done himself less than justice because he has said that indeed there was a crisis and he inferred that we were responsible for the crisis.
§ Mr. BEVANI am going to accept that challenge. I will assume for the sake of argument that it as a crisis of the gravest possible kind, and I will assume that this party was responsible for that crisis. I will make the further assumption that the crisis inflicted injury upon the country. But that does not justify the Government in reducing a Treasury document to the level of a political charge at a political party. That is the issue. Why use the language? All the Treasury document need do is merely to make a reference to a decision arrived at in 1931. That is all. But it proceeds to comment upon the events of 1931.
§ Mr. DONNERIt is a statement of fact.
§ Mr. BEVANIt is a statement of fact that the Conservative party is reactionary, but we would not put it in a Treasury document.
§ Mr. W. S. MORRISONWhere will the hon. Member find it n this document?
§ Mr. BEVANI did not say it was in this document. I said it was the hon. Member who in justifying the use of the language gave it all authority and defended it because there was indeed a crisis and that this party was responsible for the crisis. I must say that hon. Members amaze me by the complacency with which they view the violation of chaste Government documents in this way. As I said earlier, this is not the first time they have offended. Although we have not succeeded in elucidating from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury any honourable laments, we have not heard him say, as he could have said without loss of dignity, that the use of this language is undesirable. I do hope that this Debate will have been noted in other quarters and that a repetition of this excessively undesirable practice will not occur.
§ Original question put, and agreed to.