HC Deb 09 May 1882 vol 269 cc341-52
SIR HENRY HOLLAND

, in rising to call attention to the inconvenience arising from the delay in nominating the Public Accounts Committee; and to move— That Motions for the appointment or nomination of Standing Committees be excepted from the operation of the Half-past Twelve Rule, said, that it would be impossible for him, in bringing this Motion relating to the Public Accounts Committee under the consideration of the House, to refrain from expressing, however imperfectly, for himself and the other Members who had served on that Committee with Lord Frederick Cavendish, their sense—their deep sense—of the loss sustained by the country and by the House. They could never forget that noble Lord's ability, knowledge, and mastery of the subjects which were brought before him as Chairman for many years of that Committee. Still less could they forget his honesty of purpose, his unvarying courtesy and friendliness, which endeared him to them all. He (Sir Henry Holland) must acknowledge with gratitude the invaluable assistance, always so readily accorded to him by the noble Lord when he succeeded him as Chairman of the Committee. More than this he would gladly have said, had not the loss been so recent, the wound so fresh; less than this he could hardly have said in bringing forward this Resolution—a step in taking which he might tell the House he had the full and entire concurrence of the noble Lord. In calling attention to the serious inconvenience arising from the delay in nominating the Public Accounts Committee, he must very briefly refer to the procedure with respect to Public Accounts. As the House was aware, when the Supplies for the service of the year had all been granted, the Committee of Supply was closed, and the financial arrangements were completed by Votes in the Committee of Ways and Means. Then a Bill was introduced to carry into effect the Resolutions of that Committee, which was known as the Consolidated Fund Bill, or Appropriation Bill. The Bill enumerated every grant made during the Session, and authorized the several voted sums to be issued and applied to each particular Service for which they were voted. How, then, was the control of Parliament exercised to secure that the Expenditure of the Annual Grants was made in conformity with the Votes and with the Appropriation Act? It was mainly secured by the joint action of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. The Comptroller and Auditor General acted under the powers vested in him by the Exchequer and Audit Act (29 & 30 Vict. c. 39), 1866. Annual Accounts of the appropriation of public money were made up in each Department of the Public Service. These were submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General for his Report, and were laid together with that Report before the House. His duties, which he exercised on behalf of the House of Commons, would be best explained to the House by a reference to Sections 27 and 32 of the Exchequer and Audit Act; and he (Sir Henry Holland) would venture to refer to these sections, as showing both the importance of those duties and their bearing on the question now before the House—namely, the inconvenience caused by the delay in nominating the Public Accounts Committee. By Section 27 it was provided that— Every Appropriation Account shall be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the House of Commons; and in the examination of such Accounts the Comptroller and Auditor General shall ascertain, first, whether the payments which the Accounting Department has charged to the grant are supported by vouchers or proof of payments; and, second, whether the money expended has been applied to the purpose or purposes for which such grant was intended to provide. And by Section 32, after providing, amongst other things, that the Comptroller and Auditor General should prepare Reports on the Appropriation Account of the Army and on that of the Navy, a Report on the Appropriation Accounts of the Customs, Inland Revenue and Post Office, and on the Accounts relating to the several grants included within each of the classes into which the grants for Civil Services were divided in the Appropriation Act, the Act went on to provide that— In all Reports, as aforesaid, he shall call attention to every case in which it may appear to him that a grant has been exceeded, or that money received by a Department from other sources than the grants for the year to which the Account relates has not been applied or accounted for according to the directions of Parliament, or that a sum charged against a grant is not supported by proof of payment, or that a payment so charged did not occur within the period of the Account, or was, for any other reason, not properly chargeable against the grant. Now, here came in the work of the Public Accounts Committee. This Committee was first appointed by a Standing Order of April, 1862, which was as follows:— That there shall be a Standing Committee, to be designated 'The Committee of Public Accounts,' for the examination of the Accounts showing the Appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the Public Expenditure, to consist of nine, who shall be nominated at the commencement of every Session, and of whom five shall be a quorum. By a Standing Order of 1870 the number 9 was raised to 11. The Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General were referred to this Committee, and they went through those Reports paragraph by paragraph. They called before them the Comptroller and Auditor General, or the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor General, the several accounting officers of the several Departments, and they had also before them the Assistant Financial Secretary, or some other high officer of the Treasury. That Department, it must be observed, acted throughout the year as referee in cases of doubt or dispute between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the accounting officers for the several Votes. By a reference to the past Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it would be seen that in some cases he might think it necessary to add to or diminish the balance submitted to him by a Department, and his reasons were fully stated, and considered by the Committee after hearing evidence. In other cases he pointed out irregularities, of more or less importance, which had struck him in the examination of the Accounts, and he made suggestions for the consideration of the Committee and the Departments. Now, as regarded balances, the Public Accounts Committee did not, except in peculiar circumstances, interfere with balances which the Comptroller and Auditor General had passed as correct, as the primary responsibility rested on him of testing the correctness of the balances. But where the Comptroller and Auditor General had altered a balance they did give a distinct decision. That decision was embodied in the Report of the Committee to the House, and upon that Report Parliament took such action as it pleased. If the decision of the Committee was challenged by the Treasury, or by any other Department, it could and ought to be challenged at the earliest opportunity in the House, either on some special Motion, or when the Estimates of the Department in question were under consideration. As regarded any irregularities reported, or suggestions made, by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee also gave their opinion, and such opinions were embodied in their Report to the House. He (Sir Henry Holland) trusted that this explanation of the procedure, which he had made as brief as possible, would show to the House the importance of having this Committee nominated, as was provided by the Standing Order "at the commencement of every Session," so that their Report might be in the hands of Members during the discussion of Estimates. In considering the Estimates of any Department, the House would naturally desire to know what criticisms, if any, the Comptroller and Auditor General on their behalf had made with respect to the Accounts of that Department for the previous year, and what view their Committee of Public Accounts had taken of those criticisms. Such knowledge might materially affect a vote on the Estimates; and, moreover, it was obvious that the proper and best opportunity for calling for any explanation from a Department, or for pressing upon it any improvement in the mode of keeping their Accounts, or the adoption of any suggestion made by the Comptroller and Auditor General and approved by the Public Accounts Committee, was when the Estimates were under discussion. But that opportunity was lost if the Report of the Committee was delayed, as it had been this year. Having thus disposed of the first part of his Motion, he (Sir Henry Holland) had only to point out to the House what other Committees were affected by the latter part of that Motion; in other words, what Committees came under the term "Standing Committees." Upon this he could not do better than refer to a passage in Sir Erskine May's book (p. 414), where it was stated as follows:— There is, further, an exceptional class of Committees, called Standing Committees. The only Committee properly so termed is one whose appointment, being by Standing Order, is permanent, the nomination only being renewed from Session to Session. Such is the Committee of Public Accounts, under a Standing Order of 3rd April, 1862. In the same category are the Committee on Standing Orders, the Committee of Selection, and the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, though not expressly designated as Standing Committees. Occasionally a Committee has been so called—not quite accurately—being re-appointed every Session, as the Library Committee, now discontinued, and the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee. Now, how stood the proceedings with respect to these Committees this Session? On the 9th of February the Select Committee on Standing Orders and the Committee of Selection were nominated. They escaped any block or opposition, because they were not moved by a Member of the Government, but by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John Mowbray). But they might be blocked another year, and the inconvenience caused by the delay would be so serious, that he had thought it desirable to ask the House to exclude them from the operation of the Standing Order known as the Half-past 12 Rule. On February 21st Notice was given to nominate the Public Accounts Committee, and the Motion was blocked by two Members from Ireland, because the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had been struck off the Printing Committee. That block had only just been removed, after much valuable time had been lost. It would be observed that in what he had said he had not discussed the question whether the Half-past 12 Rule had succeeded or failed in expediting Business, or whether it was desirable that it should be continued in force. He entertained considerable doubts upon the question; but if the Rule was to be continued, he asked the House to agree to his Motion, and thus to remove one distinct evil arising from its present opera- tion; and he trusted the House would consent to do this, whether they agreed to, or dissented from, the proposed Amendment of his Friend the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). Upon that Amendment he would not trouble the House, as it would be fully discussed by others. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, in a slightly altered form, the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

MR. RYLANDS

, in seconding the Motion, said, that the delay in appointing Public Committees greatly interfered with the transaction of Public Business. If the Motion were agreed to it would do much to facilitate the Business of the House. He was, however, of opinion that it would not be convenient to discuss the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), which opened up a much wider question.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Standing Order of the 18th February, 1879, be amended, by adding, at the end thereof, the words 'Motions for the appointment or nomination of Standing Committees be excepted from the operation of this Order.'"—(Sir Henry Holland.)

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

, who had put upon the Paper the following Notice of Amendment:— To move to insert, after 'Committees,' Sessional Motions and Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, and Motions for leave to bring in a Bill, and the stages subsequent to Committee, said, he hoped the House would adopt the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). His Amendment was conceived in the same spirit, and in order to carry out the same object. In moving it, he would not trouble the House more than a few minutes. His Amendment was, in the main, identical with one of the Procedure Resolutions proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He hoped also that he should receive the support of hon. Members opposite, for several of them, in speaking of the 1st Resolution, had expressed general approval of the others. He did not object to the Half-past 12 Rule as a whole, but only to the abuse of it. At present it often happened that there was a prolonged and more or less irrelevant conversation on the earlier Business of the evening, in order to prevent some subsequent Bill or Motion from coming on before half-past 12. Again, it had over and over again happened that after a Bill had been read a first and second time, and had been carefully considered in Committee, a single Member put down a blocking Notice, and thus prevented the Bill from passing, all the time and labour of the House being thus thrown away. On one occasion of this kind, even the Member who had put down the block was convinced that the Bill should pass; but unluckily he forgot to take off the Notice, and went away to Italy without doing so. Fortunately, he remembered it just in time, and telegraphed from Milan. The authorities even then felt some difficulty how far they were justified in accepting a telegram. He would also venture to move an addition to the Government Rule, which he commended to the House—namely, that the Half-past 12 Rule should not extend to the consideration of Statutes which had to lie on the Table a certain time before becoming law. This provision was, of course, introduced in order that there might be an opportunity of discussing them. At present, however, the provision was a mere mockery. He hoped his hon. Friend opposite would not object to the Amendment, or rather addition, which he ventured to propose. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Amendment.

MR. MONK

seconded the Amendment, and said it was precisely similar to the Motion which he had submitted last year, and which had received the approval of Her Majesty's Government, but which had not, in consequence of some misunderstanding, been divided upon.

Amendment proposed, After the word "Committees," to insert the words "Sessional Motions and Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, and Motions for leave to bring in a Bill, and the stages subsequent to Committee."—(Sir John Lubbock.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he cordially agreed with the original proposal of the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). It seemed to him that the exception which was al- ready made in the Half-past 12 Rule with regard to money Votes was in spirit applicable to the case of the Public Accounts Committee, although it did not actually touch it, because the appointment of the Public Accounts Committee was a very important part of our financial system, and it was impossible that the control of the House could be exercised over our financial expenditure if there were any impediment in the way of the appointment of that Committee. He would therefore strongly urge the House to accept the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst; but with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), to make some distinction. The first part of the Amendment—namely, the insertion in the Motion, after the word "Committees," of these words— Sessional Motions and Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order —the House would do well to accept. In point of fact, the operation of the Half-past 12 Rule often tended to defeat the actual provisions which Parliament had deliberately made for submitting certain matters to the judgment of the House, and in the case of confirming or objecting to Statutes or Provisional Orders serious inconvenience arose. But with regard to the last part of the Amendment as to Motions for leave to bring in Bills, and the subsequent stages of Bills, he desired to express no opinion at that time, as it dealt with a question which would be raised hereafter by one of the Resolutions proposed by the Prime Minister. Moreover, a good many considerations were involved entirely outside those expressed in the first part of the Amendment. Without expressing any opinion on the subject, he would advise the hon. Baronet to withdraw the latter portion, and confine his Amendment to the first part only.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated the proposal he was going to make to the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). Everyone must feel that the latter part of the Amendment opened up a much larger question than that proposed to be discussed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). The Motion of the hon. Member for Midhurst referred to matters strictly connected with, and necessary to, the immediate and pressing Business of the House. The first part of the Amendment related to matters which were really killed by time. Statutes relating to the Universities and certain Provisional Orders were laid upon the Table of the House for a certain period, and, if blocked by the Half-past 12 Rule, Motions with regard to them were practically defeated, and there was no chance of that discussion which the House intended they should have taking place. It seemed to him that those matters came within the proposal of the hon. Baronet opposite; and if his hon. Friend behind him would be content for the present to make that addition to the Motion before the House, he hoped that it would be unanimously accepted, and that the larger question might be reserved for further discussion.

SIR JOHN MOWBRAY

begged to join in the appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) not to press the latter portion of his Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that the object of passing the Half-past 12 Rule was to prevent discussions of a certain degree of importance being taken at a very late hour at night. Under the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London, the Statutes for the Universities would be exempt from the Rule. Very great difference of opinion might prevail on such matters, and they could not be properly discussed at a late hour at night. The House should be very careful before it allowed the clear definition put by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) upon his Motion to be swept away, and the operation of the Half-past 12 Rule interfered with in any case in which a great conflict of opinion might be expected.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he thought that the alteration of the Rule was necessary in such cases as those of the University Statutes, which, if not dealt with ipso facto, became law after lying a definite period on the Table of the House. He should be glad to see the Rule still further abrogated, for no Rule adopted by the House had so favoured Obstruction as this one. He hoped one day it would be altogether got rid of.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford had hit a blot; but he (Mr. Beresford Hope) did not think he proposed the best remedy. No doubt the grievance of the present system, by which University Statutes, school schemes, and so forth, became law after lying 40 or 60 days upon the Table of the House, had become intolerable since it had become impossible to save the discussion. A very much better system to adopt would be to provide that the Statutes should become law within a certain number of days, unless Notice were given within a certain time after the meeting of Parliament of opposition, and with due safeguards that due diligence would be shown in following up the Notice; but, if Notice were given, then to permit them to be discussed any time during the Session.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he hoped the hon. Member for the University of London would agree to omit the last part of his Amendment. As far as he was concerned, he should be glad to acquiesce in a proposal to meet at 10 o'clock in the morning, in order that their Business might be done by daylight, as it seemed to him that the life of a Member of Parliament was hard enough as it was; but it would be still harder if a Member was to be obliged to sit up to all hours in order to watch for certain Bills in which he was interested. That would be the case particularly with regard to Scotch Bills. With respect to them, they had been very unfortunate, because they were obliged to take Scotch Bills early in the morning, or not at all; and he objected to that mode of treating Scotch or any other Bills. He trusted they would be able to make some considerable improvement in the way of transacting Business, and he hoped the suggestion that had been thrown out would be accepted by his hon. Friend.

EARL PERCY

said, he thought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) was well worthy of consideration. It would be far better to sweep away the Half-past 12 Rule altogether than to adopt the last part of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London. He wished to ask the hon. Baronet what was the meaning of the term "Sessional Motions," and whether it was a term known to the proceedings of the House?

MR. BRYCE

said, a Return showed that since the Half-past 12 Rule came into force the House had sat a greater number of hours after midnight than it did in old times. Moreover, under that Rule, when there was an Order—say Order 2, 3, or 4—on the Paper, to which some Members were strongly opposed, they manifested quite an exceptional interest in the preceding Order, discussing it at inordinate length, in order to prevent another subject on the Paper from coming on afterwards. Thus time was wasted, for all the other Business of the House was delayed which came up after the Order, to which a Member or group of Members might be hostile. The Half-past 12 Rule was, in fact, a direct encouragement to Obstruction.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, that the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) would, if adopted, make a serious breach in the Half-past 12 Rule. He thought it would be wiser if they were content to accept the first part of the hon. Baronet's Amendment, stopping short at the end of the second line; and then they would include "those Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of an Act of Parliament or a Standing Order."

MR. GORST

said, that if they were to have an Amendment made in their Standing Orders, its language should be at least precise and intelligible. In looking at the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) one part of it was clear enough. They understood the term "Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of an Act of Parliament or a Standing Order;" but what was meant by the term "Sessional Motions" was not at all clear. They were familiar with the term "Sessional Orders;" but he believed that "Sessional Motions" were not spoken of in that excellent work, Sir Thomas Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. Before the House agreed to the Amendment its terms should be made clearer.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, he thought it better that the Motion should remain as it stood, and should not go on to specify particular cases, as the Amendment proposed. He should, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he entirely agreed with the Motion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland); but went much further, as he had a Notice on the Paper to repeal the Standing Order relating to the Half-past 12 Rule. He contended that that Rule had done more than anything else to interfere with the Business of the House. He was opposed, however, to repealing a Standing Order by words he did not understand; and, therefore, until he knew what the words "Sessional Motions" meant, he should not be prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock).

COLONEL MAKINS

said, he did not share the objection to the Half-past 12 Rule, which, as far as he was aware, had always worked fairly, though sometimes hardship might possibly arise.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, there seemed to be some confusion as to the term "Sessional Motions;" but the words were not required, because "Sessional Motions" were made on the first day of a Session, at 4 o'clock, before the Queen's Speech, and the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule did not apply to these Motions. He would suggest that the best way to meet the difficulty would be to withdraw the Amendment, and to propose another which would except from the operation of the Half-past 12 Rule any proceeding made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he would accede to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, After the word "Committees," to insert the words "and Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put.

Resolved, That the Standing Order of the 18th February, 1879, be amended, by adding, at the end thereof, the words "Motions for the appointment or nomination of Standing Committees and Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order be excepted from the operation of this Order."