HC Deb 06 June 1887 vol 315 cc1204-15

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee do consist of Nineteen Members."—(Mr. W. M. Smith.)

MR. MASON (Lanark, Mid)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to defer the nomination of this Committee until Thursday, seeing; that there are a large number of hon. Gentlemen interested in the subject who are not now present.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I regret that it is not in my power to accede to the request of the hon. Member. As the House is aware, the Motion for the appointment of this Committee has been on the Paper for a long time, and for a long time it was blocked by a Notice of opposition. Although it was the desire of almost the whole of the House that this Motion should be proceeded with, it was not in our power to reach it in time. We have now an opportunity of going on with it; it has the general sanction of the House, and it is absolutely necessary to proceed with the business of appointment of Members of the Committee with the least possible delay.

MR. MASON

Under the circumstances, I have now to move that the number of Members of the Committee be increased to 25. I am sorry that we should have to go on with the Motion now, but I can understand the desire of the First Lord of the Treasury to proceed while the Motion is not blocked. My reason for advocating the increase of the number on the Committee to 25 arises, in the first instance, from a promise given by the First Lord of the Treasury that the number of the Committee would be 25. This he stated in answer to a Question from an hon. Member; and I do not know on what grounds the Government have departed from that intention and reduced the number to 19. I am of opinion that 25 would be a better number, and my judgment is supported by precedents. On looking back over the Parliamentary history of the past century, I find a number of Committees nominated with similar objects to this. There was a Committee in 1786, another in 1790, and others in 1807, 1817 and 1828, and on the last occasion in 1848. I took especial care to look up the precedent of the appointment of the Committee of 1828. It was appointed, I have no hesitation in saying, by the most eminent statesman of the century, Sir Robert Peel, and the number he nominated at that time, in a much smaller House than we have at present, was 23. I have no doubt that the experience and authority of this statesman will weigh considerably with Members on the other side of the House. I do not think I am asking that the Committee should be unduly enlarged when I mention the number as 25, when we consider the House is so much larger, and the questions with which the Committee will have to deal of so much greater magnitude. I look upon this as, in no sense, a Party question; and I am perfectly well aware that there are Members on the other side as sincerely anxious for economy as Members on this side; and that being the case, I may appeal to the Government to increase the size of the Committee, and that for several other reasons I will now allude to in as succinct a manner as I possibly can. I dare say the House is aware that I raised this question a year and a-half ago; it was the first thing to which I put my hands on entering Parliament. Doubtless, the question has been accelerated by the adhesion and support of an eminent noble Lord, whose influence was sufficient to induce the Government to adopt the idea of a Finance Committee for the purpose of cutting down the Estimates. I thank the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) for the support he has given in bringing this question to the front much more rapidly than if the movement had not had his support. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler),in one of the debates upon the Budget, made the statement that he believed the Army and Navy cost us for every £1 sterling spent on them 30s.—that is to say, that we only get a £1 worth for every 30s. spent; and that being so the Estimates should be cut down at least £10,000,000 a-year. I do not know any Member of this House more competent to give a sound opinion—he has been Secretary to the Treasury, and knows how the money goes—the object then is to cut and carve upon this enormous sum of £10,000,000 wasted annually on these Services. I believe it was the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) who said a large portion was as much wasted as if it were thrown down the gutter. That being the case, I we naturally turn to the composition of this Committee, and consider it in regard to the work it has to do. I look over the names and ask myself the question, how have they been selected? Are they the names of the best men we could get for the work? I do not think so. I do not complain of the nomination of Members of the Government, nor so much of Members selected from that side; but I think there might have been a much better nomination from this side. I quite understand that the Ministers of the day ought to be on the Committee; they are proposed as a matter of course, and include the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary to the Treasury. But I cannot see any reason why ex-officials and ex-Ministers should be Members of a Committee intended to inquire into and consider transactions and expenditure that grew up unchecked under the very noses of these officials and Ministers. Why should they be appointed to sit as judges upon delinquencies which occurred under their control? In my opinion, shared I know by many others, these Gentlemen should be called as witnesses to give evidence, not to make a Report. There is another reason which I think should commend itself to the judgment of the House in favour of making a slight alteration in the nominations. With the Navy Estimates in view, I look down the nominations and look in vain for the name of a single Gentleman who has any practical knowledge of ship-building, and yet we have several such among the Members of this House. There is the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Pearce), a member of the largest ship-building firm on the Clyde; and, again, we have in the hon. Member for the Jarrow Division of Durham (Sir Charles Palmer) a representative of the large shipbuilding interests on the Tyne. Both these hon. Members are eminently capable of giving a sound opinion on the Estimates framed by the Admiralty for the building of ships, 13 of which I believe are to be built this year. There is not in these nominations the name of any Gentleman capable of giving a close, practical scrutiny to these Estimates. Take, for instance, such an item as £300,000 or £400,000 for the building of a ship; when this comes before the Committee there is no one to say whether this is an over-estimate or not, as either of the hon. Gentlemen I have referred to could were they on the Committee. A ship is said to have a certain displacement, tonnage, and engine power, and the cost is given say at £400,000,and these Gentlemen could, tell you whether the ship should cost so much. No doubt, they would be able to say where the money would be wasted, and could show how the cost should be reduced probably to £300,000. But there is no Member nominated capable of putting his finger on the estimate and saying, with authority and experience, whether it is right or wrong. This is clearly a mistake. Then, again, with regard to materials, there is no Member in these nominations with practical knowledge of the value of metals and materials largely required in Army and Navy stores. Nor is there anyone, so far as I know, who knows anything about the manufacture and value of clothing or equipments required in either Service. Neither do I think, looking at the Committee as a whole, have you that element of a commercial and business character you require for the work to be done. I except the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), who is a business man. The Report from a Committee thus constituted will not be worth the paper it is printed on. Another point I wish to notice is this. The House is now composed of fully half new Members; have you this half of the House represented on the Committee? No; you have only four or five, and I say this is not dealing fairly with the House. But my great objection is that I do not consider the Committee is of such a nature as to enable us to get the Report we wish for enabling us to cut down the Expenditure of the country. A Royal Commission has just reported upon the system of patterns for warlike stores, and I would have gone into this Report a little more fully, if it were not so late, to show that this Commission has practically recommended what this Committee might be expected to do. They want a Commission appointed to assist the Government of the day. My original idea when I raised the question in the House was practically this—that a Committee should be appointed each, year, that it should consist of 39 Mem- bers divisible into three sections, 13 to examine the Army Estimates, 13 the Navy, and 13 the Civil Service Estimates, presided over by Ministers of the day; and that its functions should be to assist the Government of the day, whether Tory or Liberal, to scrutinize the Estimates—going over them to see that we really get value for the money. That is really the question before us. It was objected last year that this would be to dictate a policy to the Government; but we do not wish to do that; it is to simply help the Minister of the day to see that money is not worse than wasted in the Departments. I do not intend to take up the time of the House further; I will simply move this increase in the number of the Committee, and I trust the Government will yield to the request I make. I know of Gentlemen quite willing to serve, and I am sure their additions would strengthen the Committee. There is another point I just wish, to notice, a point somewhat personal to myself, and I do not dwell upon it. It is in a measure forced upon me by constant inquiries from my constituents, who are somewhat surprised, knowing that I raised this question, to find that my name is not among the nominations. I do not complain personally, but simply in my representative character, and when I am asked why it is I have not been nominated, I can only answer that I really do not know. It is usual, however, to put on a Committee the name of the Member who raised the question; but I do not dwell upon that, but move the Amendment.

ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)

I second the Motion pro formâ,not that I quite agree with the proposal, but it enables me to make some remarks on the composition of this Committee, though I care not a brass farthing whether the number is 25 or 21. I am, however, strongly of opinion that the number ought to be larger than 19, unless you get rid of some of the names on the list, as proposed. Let me say, at the outset, that naval men do not fear inquiry; they court it; but we say, if there is to be an inquiry, let it be an honest inquiry, and let the Committee be thoroughly qualified to undertake the work. I find fault with the composition of the Committee on two grounds—that men are put on the list who cannot by any possibility know anything on the subject they are called upon to inquire into; and I find fault with the list for its sins of omission. First of all, I think the object of the Committee ought to be clearly defined. We are told it is to inquire into the Army and Navy Estimates. I did my best to enlarge the scope of the inquiry, but the Government did not fall in with my views. I wanted an expression of opinion as regards the Navy—first, as to what force we really require for the defence of the Empire; next, as to what it will cost; and last, what is the amount of money you can afford to spend on it each year? whereas now the Committee is simply to cut down totals, and not to inquire into the efficiency and requirements of the Service. I have no sympathy with that kind of inquiry. And now I will, in a few words, tell you of what I complain in the composition of this Committee. First we have an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer—of course a very able man—an economist, though a new-born economist. Then we have three military officers, and I find no fault with their nomination—they have a right to be there. Then we have the First Lord of the Admiralty—quite right. But then we have an ex-First Lord of the Admiralty, who did more to injure the Service, towards the ruin of the Service, than any other man in the House. I do not want to see him on the Committee, but if he is to be put on, then let us have more men to check him by their votes. Then we have an ex-Secretary of the Admiralty who assisted that ex-First Lord in his villainous work. [Cries of "Order!"] I will withdraw the expression, if it is un-Parliamentary. I only speak in a naval sense——

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to withdraw that expression.

ADMIRAL FIELD

Certainly, Sir. I withdraw it, and apologize to the House for having used it, but I only used the word in a political sense. There is the name of an ex-Secretary to the Admiralty who assisted a First Lord in what we naval men consider was ruinous work to the Service. We have on the Committee the Minister of War, the Secretary and ex-Secretary of the Treasury—good men, very properly placed there. And then we have two barristers! What do they know about the Army and Navy Estimates? Very competent men they doubtless are in their proper place, but that is not on this Committee. Then there is an Indian civilian; what does he know about naval and military administration? Then we have a Scotch doctor, no doubt a very able man, and he has signalized his advent to the House by being down upon all officers in either Service in the discharge of their duty. Then we have three nondescripts, not likely to bring much useful knowledge to this inquiry; and at last we have one naval man. Three soldiers to one naval man! And now for the sins of omission. One would have thought that of Members of the late Administration in the Admiralty, that at least the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty would have been put on the Committee; at all events, he has some knowledge of naval matters, being a naval officer. If you will not increase the number above 19, then eliminate one of these names, and substitute the late Civil Lord, who would bring special knowledge of the Admiralty Department, in which he did good work. When we appointed the Committee to inquire into the charges against the London Corporation—a very capable Committee—we included two assessors, because of their presumed special knowledge on the subject under inquiry, to sit but not to vote. Then, I say, why not appoint assessors in this case, even if you do not give them votes? The Financial Secretaries to the War Office and the Admiralty are men specially informed upon these Estimates, and largely responsible for the form in which they are presented to the House, and they should certainly be present to assist the Committee in their investigations. I will not detain the House further. I am not satisfied with the composition of the Committee, and I think I have shown sufficient reasons for that dissatisfaction. I do not care from which side they are selected; but if this inquiry is to be a reality and not a sham, then get men well qualified for the work they have to do.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word ''Nineteen," in order to insert the words "Twenty-five."—(Mr. Mason.)

Question proposed, "That the word "Nineteen" stand part of the Question."

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I have listened with great interest to the two speeches the House has heard; but I am sorry to say I do not see my way to accept the Amendment the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mason) has moved. Our object is to obtain a Report from the Committee as rapidly as possible, and all experience has shown that large Committees cannot deal with a subject so rapidly as smaller ones. The hon. Member has referred to a precedent of some years ago, when a larger Committee was appointed; but if he had gone to the last and most important appointment of such a Committee for many years, that of 1849, he would have found that the number was only 13, when originally appointed, though it may have been increased afterwards. I will venture to appeal to business men, whether a large body of men sitting and examining witnesses on questions of this kind, do not, must not necessarily, occupy a great deal more time in arriving at the facts of the case than a smaller body of men. The hon. Member remarked upon the absence of the names of certain Members, and he has done justice to the Government for the nominations on this side; with the other side we have had nothing to do; but in reference to his remarks, I would say that the knowledge of those Members he referred to can be best availed of by calling them as witnesses rather than by placing them on the Committee. With regard to one of the Gentlemen, I think he is a contractor for the Government at the present moment, and, therefore, it is scarcely desirable that he should be appointed to sit in judgment upon questions in which he is more or less interested. We desire to obtain for service on the Committee Gentlemen trained to affairs of business, who will present a Report for the guidance of the House on questions of very great importance. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Admiral Field) has gone through the list and has shown reasons why some of the names put on the Paper should be placed on the Committee, and I think, myself, it is only right that every view of the case should be represented. The hon. and gallant Member is well able, on his part, to defend the interests of the Service with which he is connected; but the names on the list were, in a great measure, inserted at the instance of Gentlemen representing the Services; and, so far as the Government are concerned, we are practically responsible for only a few names, which we intended to represent the calm, sober judgment of Members who have not expressed any opinion on the questions involved, possessed of sound judgment, and capable of devoting time to the consideration of these important matters. I hope we may be now allowed to proceed with the nominations of the 19 Members; and if it should appear desirable that other names should be substituted for some of these, no doubt we can make the alteration on a later day.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 31: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 187.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Lord George Hamilton, Lord Randolph Churchill, Mr. Edward Stanhope, Mr. Childers, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Caine, and Sir William Crossman, nominated Members of the Committee.

Question proposed, "That Mr. Jennings be a Member of the Committee."

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I think, Sir, it would be desirable if the Government would allow the names of two Members to be withdrawn, in order that two naval men might be substituted for them. I do not like to propose that Mr. Jennings and Captain Cotton should withdraw; but I think that perhaps Mr. Picton and Sir William Plowden might do so to make room for two more naval Members.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the better course would be to allow the Committee to be appointed as it stands, and then, if the hon. Member who has just spoken can, by making representations to the hon. Gentlemen who conduct business of this character on his own side of the House, induce any hon. Member to withdraw from the Committee, the Government will be perfectly ready to substitute another name. The hon. Gentleman is very well aware that there is an understanding as to the appointment of these Committees, and in the absence of the hon. Gentlemen themselves it would not be courtesy for the Government to depart from that understanding. As regards the two or three Members mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, we could not accept any change in their absence.

MR. GEDGE (Stockport)

As my hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Jennings) is not here, I wish to say that this is a subject to which he has given great attention, especially from the point of view of economy, and I think that it would be a great mistake if the House were not to have the advantage of his services on the Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question, "That Mr. A. Gathorne-Hardy, Mr. James Campbell, Captain Cotton, Admiral Mayne, Dr. Cameron, and Sir William Plowden be Members of the Committee," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That Mr. Picton be a Member of the Committee."

ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)

I object to that name, Sir; and I should like to move, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) has said, that the name of the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty should be substituted for it.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman can object to a name, but he cannot propose another without Notice. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman object to the name?

ADMIRAL FIELD

Yes, Sir; I do, very strongly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question, "That Colonel Nolan and Mr. Sexton be Members of the Committee," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum."

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E. R., Hoderness)

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether this Committee will have in its power the decision of matters of policy, or whether it will only deal with the method in which the money has been expended? The answer to this question may make a great deal of difference respecting our views with regard to the composition of the Committee.

MR. W. H. SMITH

In answer to the observation of my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that the Committee was never intended in any way whatever to lessen the responsibility of the Government of the day. When the Government accepted the suggestion of my noble Friend the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the Committee should be appointed, my noble Friend said that he intended to reserve to the Government the full responsibility of policy; and I, in assenting to the appointment of the Committee in principle, reserved to the Government full responsibility. The duties of the Committee will be carefully to examine the Estimates item by item, and to report whether the money voted by Parliament has been wisely and economically applied, and whether the country has got a good and full return for it.

Question put, and agreed to.