CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT.

HC Deb 31 March 1890 vol 343 cc308-31

*SIR JOHN COLOMB&c.) (Tower Hamlets, Bow,

Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to the increased responsibilities and duties of certain officials employed in the Customs Department during the last eight years, arising from recent legislation, Departmental changes, and developments of trade and shipping; and to move— That in the interests of the Revenue and the commercial and shipping transactions of the United Kingdom, it is expedient that special inquiry should be made into the organisation of the Customs Department, particularly as regards the position, the hours, and the overtime of the outdoor officers, upon which subjects the Royal Commissioners on Civil Establishments were unable to report, and therefore remitted to the Treasury to deal with. I do not, Sir, wish to weary the House, or to approach this question in a spirit of captious criticism, but rather to deal with it on broad and general grounds, believing as I do that inquiry is necessary and that it should be an inquiry which will go to the root of the matter. The Customs Department performs two great functions. First, the overhauling and minute examination of all ships, of all cargoes, of all passengers, and of all the effects of passengers coming into the Kingdom, and various other complex duties connected with bonded warehouses, the export trade, transhipments, and the gauging duties. This work is done by the practical or out-door staff of the Customs. The second function is the recording of the results of such overhauling and minute personal examination by the practical staff. This recording is done by the clerical or indoor staff. Now, the central superintending establishment over this duplex Organisation consists of a Board of three Commissioners, a Secretary's Office, a Surveyor General's Office, an Accountant General and Controller's Office, a Statistical Branch, and a Bill of Entry Branch. The superintending establishment is composed of 207 officials in the proportion of about 3 of the practical staff to 204 of the clerical. Two out of the three Commissioners were Treasury clerks; the third was a War Office clerk, while the Secretary was also a Treasury clerk. Thus, the general administration is almost exclusively in the hands of gentlemen without previous practical experience of Customs work. The rest of the Customs Department is organised in establishments at the various ports, such as London, Liverpool, and elsewhere, and each of these Departments at each port is divided into indoor and outdoor branches—or, as I prefer to call them, the clerical and practical staffs. The duties of the clerical staff of a port establishment do not materially differ from clerical work in other Departments of the State. But the duties of the practical staff at the port are heavy, complicated, peculiar, and various. The practical or outdoor staff are on duty by night as well as by day; they are exposed to all the vicissitudes of the weather. Rain or shine, fog or storm, in rough or smooth water, their work must be done. Upon the activity, vigilance, and accuracy of these officers, the Cus. toms Revenue depends. Upon their tact, temper, and judgment also depends the smooth working of the gigantic foreign trade of the country. In 1888, the aggregate tonnage of ships dealt with was 68½ millions of tons. The value of the imports and exports dealt with by the practical staff in that year amounted to £685,500,000. The net duty from weighing and gauging all dutiable goods and assessing Customs Revenue amounted to £21,000,000. Then they have the keeping of the accounts of goods in 308 bonded warehouses. They have charge of Quarantine Duties, the examination of passengers' baggage, of ships' stores, of dangerous oils and explosives, and of cattle, and they have to see that there is no evasion of the law with respect to indecent publications and to British trade marks. They have to verify statistics with regard to imports, and to enforce the law respecting copyright. They have also their duties connected with the bonded warehouse, including the examination and certification of the shipments of all bonded and draw-back goods, and the authorisation of all the deliveries from bonded warehouses. Taking the number of the examining staff, every examining officer overhauls annually, on the average, over 40,000 tons of shipping in the year, supervises over £400,000 of imports and exports, and assesses over £12,000 of Revenue. That justifies the statement that the duties of the practical staff are complex and various. In order to bring the ground for inquiry into as small a focus as possible, I will now confine myself to illustrating my point by taking the establishment of the Port of London as exhibiting the general conditions which I think should be inquired into. The establishment of the Port of London consists of a clerical staff of 92, and of an outdoor staff of 1,278; and I find that the average salary of the clerical staff is £293, whilst the average salary of the outdoor staff is only £140. Now, this exemplifies sufficiently one of the points which, I think, demands careful examination, namely, that the average salary of the practical or outdoor staff is less than half the salary of the clerical or indoor staff. This great discrepancy in the salary averages is a matter which, I think, in view of what I have brought before the House, demands serious and careful investigation. I can only account for it by remembering that the Treasury itself is a thoroughly clerical Department, and naturally has a fellow- feeling for the clerical branch of the Customs. As regards hours of work, those of the clerical branch are much the same, I understand, as those of the other clerical Departments of the State, but the hours of duty of the practical outdoor staff are longer—so far as my information goes—than those of any other Department of the Civil Service. I find that officers at the larger ports are often on duty and, perhaps, without rest, for alternative, continuous, periods of 24 hours, and that Sundays and Bank Holidays are included. I find that the Chairman of the Customs, commenting on that statement before the Ridley Commission, observes that— When on duty for 24 hours, the officers are allowed time for meals and for [such rest and sleep as the Service will permit. Well, I think that is a very mild qualification, and one that supports my argument for inquiry. I find that the information was laid before the Civil Service Commission by Mr. Hinks, the head of the Water-guard, that in each 21 days a man is in attendance 224 hours, or 10¾ hours in every 24, and is on duty, at most, every other Sunday. That was also a qualifying remark on the broad statement of long hours that was laid before the Ridley Commission by the outdoor Department. I think it will be seen by every one who peruses the Report of that Commission, or reads the Appendix, that it is officially acknowledged that the hours are longer than in the clerical Departments of the Services. Then the outdoor staff have less chances of promotion than the indoor. They receive, on an average, less pay, and they are longer on duty, and yet they do all the practical work of the Customs Department. The origin of this state of things, so far as I am able to ascertain, began in 1882. In that year there was a great re-organisation of the Customs Department, and, as far as I can make out, it resulted in the rapid promotion and increased payments of the clerical heads of the Customs, and an increase of work and reduced chances of promotion to the outdoor practical staff. Previous to June, 1882, the clerical work of the warehousing branch of the Port of London was performed by an indoor special clerical staff of 269 officials with average salaries of £250 a year; but in Sir John Colomb 1882 the work was transferred as an additional duty to the outdoor services, performed by the practical officers, whose average salaries at that time were about £128 a year. In order to compensate the outdoor staff for the unpleasant effect of this amalgamation a new classification of the staff was not only promised, but actually approved of by the Treasury. In effect, that classification was to provide superior appointments and improvements in the status of the officials in the higher Department of the outdoor branch of the Customs. But the promise has not been kept. The classification was altered, and the benefits promised by it were withheld. In the revised classification the number of higher posts was cut down and a new lower and cheaper grade of outdoor officers—called "assistants"—was added at the bottom of the classification. The increase at the bottom was to compensate for the cutting off at the top of those good appointments and better prospects afforded by the original classification. I find that since 1882 the general Customs staff has been materially reduced, and I find also that there are now only 112 persons employed overlooking and superintending the outdoor Customs work for the whole of the ports of the United Kingdom. Since 1883 the practical staff of the Port of London has been reduced by something like 22 surveyors and 8 first-class examining officers; and I find on comparing the Board of Trade Shipping Returns of 1882 and 1888 that while, on the one hand, the clerical Department has been cutting down the superintendents and practical officers of the Port of London, the aggregate number of. tons of shipping entering the port has been 1,500,000 tons greater in 1888 than in 1882. Now, the result of all this, however satisfactory it may have been to the clerical Department, has been that the work of the practical Department has been increased, whilst the promotion has been retarded. I find that, taking the last decade and dividing it into two portions of five years each, in the five years ending 1888 there were 43 less promotions from second-class examining officers to first-class examining officers than there were in 1883; and I find that in the five years ending 1883 the promotions of inferior grades to assistant examining officers and examining officers and gaugers were 425, but in the five years ending 1888 the number of promotions had fallen to 311, so that the decrease of promotions for these two periods, and for that particular step of advancement, has been 114. I find that in 1888 there were only six promotions to first-class, while the average of such promotions in previous years was 28. So that, with increased duties, there has been a decrease of prospects of promotion in the Outdoor Department. In order, as it appears to me, to get the practical work done with less hands, and to avoid increasing the cost, the Department has had to resort to the plan of having temporary makeshift appointments—acting men and acting assistants who belong to the lower grade, and whilst doing the work of the higher grade, receive the pay of the lower. This is naturally a grievance to the lower grade officers, and my point is that on broad grounds of public policy it is a bad system that responsibilities assigned to a particular class of individuals should, because you have an insufficient number of such men, be imposed on men of an inferior grade. Thus inferior officers of the practical staff are employed on superior duty without extra remuneration, although the work has been increasing, a thing which, in itself, it seems to me, deserves very searching inquiry. There is a matter in connection with this subject to which I think I am justified in drawing the attention of the House. I am not going to labour the point, and I am not going to say that the statistics I give are such as justify a strong pronouncement of opinion; but they are curious and interest ing, because it does appear to me that as it is the practical staff that stands between this country and evasion by dutiable goods, and on their efficiency and their work depends the revenue of the country, there should be a very minute inquiry to ascertain whether all the changes which have occurred since 1882 to the detriment of the practical staff have not led to a decline, to some extent, of that revenue. During the past eight years, whilst these changes which have tended to diminish the number of the practical staff were occurring, there has been a great advance in our national business. The tonnage of the ships entering and clearing the ports of the United Kingdominl888was7,000,000 tons greater than 1882. That means a largely increased number of ships, and means a great increase of personal exertion in overhauling 7,000,000 tons of additional shipping. Then, if you take the Export and import Returns of 1882. and compare them with those of 1889, you will find that goods of the value of £2 1,000,000 more in the last named year than the former had to pass under the supervision and constant examination of the practical outdoor staff. The increase in the supervision of passengers and their baggage it is impossible to state, for the reason that whilst there is a record kept of immigration and emigration from and to places outside Europe, there is none in regard to European immigrations and emigrations. In the record that exists, I find that the emigration and immigration figures in 882 were 78,000 passengers, whereas in 1888 they were 129,000. or an increase of 64 per cent. It is fair to assume that in the unrecorded emigration and immigration the increase has been as great. Therefore, it will be seen that there has been an increase in the amount of work the outdoor Custom House officers have had to perform. But in addition to that, this House has imposed and placed fresh duties on the practical staff since 1882. The enforcement of the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 is one of these fresh duties. The new work created by the excellent Wine Duties Act of 1888 is another. Then there is the Registry of Fishing Boats Act of 1886, with respect to which new duties are imposed and increased labour is also thrown on them by the new system of gauging casks to the quart instead of to the integral gallon. There is also the testing of spirits for "obscuration." It is a curious fact that, in spite of all the increase of trade and business, the revenue from Customs Duty stagnates in a way not to be satisfactorily accounted for by the alterations made in the amounts of the duties. The Customs Returns, oddly enough, show that the revenue collected has, since 1882 fallen as the number of officers of the outdoor department has diminished. I do not base any strong argument upon the fact; I merely notice the coincidence. I have not been able to work out the variations due to alterations in duty, and there are various nice considerations to be taken into account before it would be safe to lay down the doctrine that the revenue has fallen, because the number of officers has been reduced, and the number of duties imposed upon the Department has increased. There is another odd fact. As the number of officers of Customs has been reduced, the number of seizures of smuggled goods has increased. It is interesting in this respect to compare the figures of 1882 with those of 1889. In 1882 the number of established Customs officers was 5,223. In 1889 it had fallen to 4,595—a decrease of 628. The revenue collected in 1882 was £22,175,937, whilst that collected in 1889 was only £21,888,603—a decrease of over a quarter of a million. The seizures of smuggled goods in 1882 numbered 1,698, and in 1889 they had risen to 4,354—an increase of 2,656. The convictions for smuggling in 1882 numbered 1,516, and in 1889 3,294—an increase of 1,778 cases. The number of seizures of tobacco and spirits had in seven years increased by 113 per cent. When it is remembered that goods seized are liable to treble duty, it is evident that in order to make smuggling profitable there must be at least some three successful evasions of duty to compensate for each failure. Therefore, we may approximately compute the number of cases of smuggling last year at some 10,000 cases, over 8,000 of which were not detected. The revenue from unmanufactured tobacco, which is most likely to be affected by an increase in smuggling, is tolerably stationary, in spite of the increase of population in the last decade. The consumption of tobacco per head of the population given in the Statistical Abstract is, of course, based only upon the consumption of tobacco which has paid duty. I find that in 1868 it amounted to 1–35 lbs., whilst in 1878 it was 1.44 lbs., showing an increase of 9.100ths of a lb. of tobacco per head. But this ratio of increase has not been kept up, for in the l0 years between 1878 and 1888 the increase was only l,100ths per head. It is certainly difficult to reconcile these figures with one's own observation as to the practice of smoking except by assuming that large quantities of tobacco reach the country without having paid duty. As a proof that smoking has increased I may mention the fact of the new institution of smoking concerts constantly given by almost all the political clubs in the Kingdom. I find also that the number of occasional dealers licensed in 1889 was nearly fourfold that in 1879. These facts seem to me to show that the consumption of tobacco is increasing, and is not practically standing still, as would appear from the Statistical Abstract. In conclusion, I would mention that the whole case of the complaints of the outdoor staff was laid before the Ridley Commission and was commented on by the Clerical Head and the Secretary of the Customs Service. The Commissioners reported that they "did not feel themselves in a position to report in detail," and for so declining to report they gave as a reason that It would require much more accurate and technical knowledge than could possibly be at our command, before we could give opinions adverse to those entertained by responsible heads of offices, who are so thoroughly acquainted with the character of the work," &c. And so the Commission left the question to the Treasury. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devise some machinery for an inquiry being conducted "with more accurate and technical knowledge" than the Commissioners possessed, and by which a thorough and impartial investigation may be made into the whole question. The House is aware that neither the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) nor the present Financial Secretary (Mr. Jackson) is responsible for the pulling to pieces of the Customs machinery in 1882. I fully recognise the difficulty of putting right a, huge and complex administrative machine after it was pulled to pieces by 'prentice hands eight years ago, and after it has been tinkered with ever since. I recognise also that the cry for economy in this House involves cheeseparing in the lower grades of Departments. I am fully alive to the fact that there are inherent evils and dangers to the administration of the Services by the modern system of multitudinous Commissions and Inquiries, which are often at cross purposes with each other. I apprehend that the ever-increasing demands on the time and attention of Ministers by the continually accumulating power of Parliamentary talk, is really shifting the practical duties of administration from their hands to those of permanent clerical officials, who in theory are their subordinates. It appears to me that as the time and attention of Ministers is more and more absorbed by this House than by the Departments over which they preside, so must the permanent clerical officials transfer to themselves more and more of the administrative functions of Ministers. For the grave evils I have ventured to bring before the House I blame not men but the modern system, and I bring forward my Motion on the ground of its importance, and because I am persuaded of its public necessity.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words- In the interests of the Revenue and the commercial and shipping transactions of the United Kingdom, it is expedient that special inquiry should be made into the organisation of the Customs Department, particularly as regards the position, the hours, and the overtime of the outdoor officers, upon which subjects the Royal Commissioners on Civil Establishments were unable to report, and therefore remitted to the Treasury to deal with,"—(Sir John Colomb,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

(5.35.) MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

In rising to second the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I wish to say I am placed in an exceedingly difficult position by the concluding words of his speech. If I fancied anything I was likely to say in support of the Amendment tended in any way against the policy of economy which I understand both Front Benches practically concur in, I should be extremely loth to occupy the time of the House. But there is economy and economy, and if the case presented with so much detail by the hon. and gallant Member has anything in it, as I think it has, a ground for inquiry has been made out. It is true that many evils necessarily result from raising discussions in this House upon the administration of the various Departments; but I think that is an evil inherent in our system of Parliamentary Government, and it is no use deploring it at the present moment. Ministers are under the control of Parliament, to some extent at any rate, and evils in the Departments should be brought before the House in order that Parliament may understand what it is giving Ministers money for. Prima facie I would suggest that, if there were no such grounds presented as have been presented in support of this proposal, the fact that general inquiries have been deemed necessary by Royal Commissions in the other Departments would involve the possibility that such an inquiry might be necessary here. If it be true that, coupled with the reduction of the Customs staff, from various parts of the coasts and creeks smuggling has increased, some inquiry is necessary. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer contradicts that, and I am sure his means of information are more complete than can possibly be those at my disposal; but then we have before us the fact that there has been no increase of revenue proportionate to the increase of population. I see the Secretary to the Treasury says I am wrong in that. I know there is nothing more deceptive than a mass of figures; but I am bound to say it seems to me to be the case at the moment that there has not been the increase of revenue from tobacco and spirits which one would expect in view of the increase of population. Of course, if this was due to the-greater sobriety of the people—and I believe the masses of the working-classes are growing more sober year by year—it would be a matter of congratulation. But the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to show that there has been an increase of smuggling all round, and the increase in seizures and convictions seems to show that a business of no inconsiderable extent is carried on. Certainly I think some inquiry should be made into the hon. and gallant Gentleman's allegations. Since the Play fair inquiry, in 1875, the conditions under which these Civil servants work have not been inquired into. This evening, in reply to a question I put to him, the Secretary to the Treasury said some of these men are kept at their work continuously for a period of 24 hours.

*THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY, (Mr. JACKSON,) Leeds, N.

No, I did not say that. There is a confusion of terms. I said they were in attendance for duty.

MR. BRADLAUGH

But they are liable to be called upon at any time during the 24 hours. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman in his happy life ever had the disadvantage of being liable to be called upon in this way. Having been part of my life subject to a command of "guards, turn out," I am bound to say that a man who is liable to be called upon at any time in 24 hours, even if he has convenience for rest, is certainly not in a very enviable position. When we are told that in the case of the Harpy cutter no bedding is provided for the men who are on duty, it is quite clear that the authorities think that the men are likely to be called upon so often that the beds would not be much used if they were provided. I do not want to stand between the Government and the Votes they wish to take, and therefore I simply suggest that a prima facie case has been made out by the Mover of the Amendment for some inquiry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not ask for a Royal Commission or for an inquiry by the House—forms of inquiry which I expect would not be well received by any one connected with the Department. But surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer might himself undertake some inquiry, or undertake that special attention should be paid to this matter, so that Parliament should see there was no real grievance which was left unredressed. I understand by his manner that the Chancellor of the Exchequer assents to the view I am expressing. If that is so, I am loth to occupy the time of the House longer.

(5.43.) MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)

It appears to me that there is one very simple and quite conclusive ground for the Amendment which almost precludes, and certainly does not require, any lengthened discussion. There seems to be no dispute about the fact that there has been an inquiry into the organisation of the Civil Service establishments, and that those who were charged with that inquiry have not been able, from want of time, to undertake an examination into the organisation of the Customs Department. It is, therefore, in point of fact a question of what has been recognised as a public duty, com- bined with the evidence before us that a portion of that public duty remains unfulfilled. I therefore think the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member is obviously reasonable in the purpose which it contemplates, and I gathered from different indications that the Government are not indisposed to accede to that opinion. It appears to me also that the hon. and gallant Member has exercised a sound discretion in avoiding any endeavour by the terms of his Amendment to limit the action of the Government as to the nature—the precise machinery—of the inquiry they are to make, and I would suggest, if it should appear that there is a general concurrence with regard to the purpose in view, that the hon. and gallant Member should show a further discretion by withdrawing his Amendment on the clear understanding that the Government are to discover for themselves and to state to the House what they deem to be the best machinery of inquiry. I think the hon. and gallant Member will feel—as I myself certainly feel, and strongly feel—that there ought never to be any interference by the House, through any vote or Motion, in a question of the administration of a Public Department, except where a necessity for such interference has arisen. No necessity for such interference can be said to have arisen when the object contemplated by the Amendment is one which Her Majesty's Government admit to be reasonable, and with respect to which they are prepared to provide adequate means for carrying it into effect. Upon that supposition I recommend the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment not to ask the House to come to a vote on the Amendment. I am bound to say I have another reason for wishing that the House should not come to a vote upon the Amendment, and that is that while I commend what seems to me the sound judgment of the Mover of the Amendment in respect to the discretion he allows to the Government, and in respect to the substantial justice of his object, I certainly should not like to be pledged to the general colour and tendency of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) has said that nothing would induce him to second the Amendment if he thought there was anything in it which would be adverse to public economy. Then the hon. Member said "but there is economy and economy." Will he forgive me for saying that that is a remark which I have often heard used in this House? No doubt the hon. Member used it with a good object. The fact is, every one who recommends anything extravagant in this House invariably takes care to have it well understood he does so in the interest of economy. There is good economy and bad economy, such an hon. Member will say, and he is in favour of good economy as opposed to bad economy, and on that account he recommends certain expenditure, having it in his mind to save the money in some other way not yet developed or explained. Such declarations ought to be received with some caution, and I am quite clear that if we go into this inquiry it ought to be undertaken without prejudice and without any general supposition that what is to be arrived at is a foregone conclusion. A considerable point of the Mover's speech was to show that whereas there has been an increase of duty in the Port of London between 1878 and 1888, the increased duty is performed by a diminished number of official persons. I should have thought that prima facie that statement ought to fill the mind of the hon. Member with a lively satisfaction. On the contrary, it is treated by the hon. Member as being a most grave circumstance. requiring a minute and jealous inquiry. Indeed, that part of his speech actually tended to the conclusion that if it could be shown that there was a diminished amount of duty done by an increased number of officials, that circumstance would have filled the hon. Member's mind with satisfaction and joy. I have not the smallest doubt that in the case of the constituents of the hon. Member, as in other cases, a very large amount of public duty is performed by a body of trustworthy servants at moderate remuneration. I do not question that, but I must observe that the case of the Customs Department is peculiar from one very important point of view. There is no other department of the State the duties of which have undergone so extraordinary a revolution in our time—I mean in the sense of simplification and facilities. It is nearly 50 years since, as Vice Presi- dent of the Board of Trade, I became minutely acquainted with the working of the Customs Department, and it is marvellous to compare its duties at that time with what they are now. A very large proportion of the duties of the Board of Trade at that time consisted in investigating the cases of difficulty which arose, and arose from day to day, under the Customs law, and required incessantly to be made the subject of appeal from the Customs Authorities to the Board of Treasury, which used the Board of Trade as its adviser. What has become of those appeals? The whole subject matter of them has been swept away. The change in our commercial system which has reduced the 1,200 articles of our tariff to something like 12, and which has established as the rule of trade in this country a system of free goods and free entry instead of universal duty, striking every commodity as it approached our shores, and entailing a system of examination, checks and counter-checks, such as are now totally unknown, has happily relieved the department of ninteen-twentieths of its former difficulties. I must say I believe also that the Department has been extremely well administered under its successive heads. Everything I trust that can be established in the nature of a substantive grievance on the part of the hon. and gallant Member's constituents will, I hope, receive a close and careful examination, but I trust this inquiry will not be undertaken with the belief that something must be very wrong indeed, on grounds such as have been laid before the House by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

*(5.56.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,) Hanover Square

I think it is desirable I should rise at once to state the course which the Government propose to take in regard to this Amendment. The Amendment was introduced in a conciliatory speech by my hon. and gallant Friend, and I may say at once that the Government will meet him precisely in the spirit indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who for many years has been endeavouring to reform the administration both of the Customs and of the Inland Revenue, and who is as responsible as any one, and probably more responsible than any one, for this desirable result—that the revenue in this country, both of the Customs and the Inland Revenue, is collected with less cost to the taxpayer than in any other country in the world. A distinction ought to be drawn between the efficiency of the Service and the position of the officers engaged in that Service. With regard to the officers engaged in the Service, one fact is clear, namely, that rigid good faith must be kept with them, and that they should have no reason to complain that the terms on which they entered the Service have been changed to their detriment. But neither are they entitled to claim that if there is a Service pretty similar to their own, which stands on a different footing, the terms of their own engagement must be altered to their advantage. There is nothing more dangerous than the levelling up of all Departments of the State by a system of comparison of the salaries received in one Department with those received in other Departments. The question is whether the duties of the officers are adequately remunerated. My hon. and gallant Friend supposes they are not adequately paid, but there are now600 applicants for the Service. I have had sufficient experience of the Civil Service to know that if the Customs officers are levelled up to some particular point, another class will at once wish to be levelled to the same point also. For the Government I can say that they will inquire into every possible real grievance that may exist; but I must deprecate the basis of a general levelling up of salaries advocated by my hon. and gallant Friend. One of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's main grievances was that there has been a certain reduction in the upper part of the Service.

*SIR J. COLOMB

The Outdoor Service.

*MR. GOSCHEN

Well, my point is that whenever any re-organisation or reform takes place involving a diminution of num-bersit must be asked, where is the diminution to take place? It will not take place at the bottom of the scale, where the young men are, nor in the middle, because the House naturally and rightly objects to pensioning men in the prime of life. Therefore, the reduction must take place in the upper branches of the Service; and if any such reduction is to be deprecated because it curtails the opportunities for promotion, there will be an end to all reform at once. I have heard the complaint made many times, and I think that it is impossible to recognise that Civil servants have any vested interest in the number of offices in the higher grades of the Service. If the State acknowledges that there is such a vested interest, then there will be an end to all reform. I therefore would beg hon. Members, when complaints are brought to them that promotion is slackened by any scheme of re-organisation, not to lend too ready an ear to that which is claimed as a vested right. I feel strongly on this point, for I regret to see the degree to which the minds of Civil servants have lately been disturbed. No one recognises more than myself the immense merits of the Civil Service. It is a Service of which any nation might be proud. In its honour, integrity, and loyalty it is unapproached; while the loyalty which it ever shows to the Executive Government of whatever Party is one of the most striking features of the Services. There is also another loyalty, and that is a strong feeling of loyalty among the Civil servants to the Departments to which they belong. I fear that this latter sentiment is being injured by the tendency not to think of the special Department, but to treat the Service as one vast Body. If that is done, loyalty to particular Departments will be destroyed, and I am not sure that the public interests will not suffer thereby. As to the proofs which exists that the Service is not efficient——

*SIR J. COLOMB

Sufficient.

*MR. GOSCHEN

I should be very sorry to think that the Customs officers do not believe their services to be efficient, or that there is any slackness as to seizures. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proofs will entirely break down under examination. But there is no evidence that an increased number of seizures means an increased amount of smuggling. The Customs officers have derived great assistance from the employment of steam launches, and this fact, together with increased vigilance, may account for the greater number of seizures. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that there has been a reduction in the amount per head of the Customs revenue; but he should not be too ready to speak of a reduced consumption of spirits per head. It is rather too soon to do that, and I am afraid my hon. Friend and the House may have a rude awakening as to any great falling off in the amount of spirits consumed per head. Again, if there has been a reduction it might be due to the increased temperance adopted during the time when wages are not so plentiful. It would not be wise to form any premature conclusions as to the revenue from spirits in a year of increasing prosperity. So far as spirits, then, are concerned, I think my hon. Friend's case has broken down. As to tea, it has been proved conclusively that a reduction in the amount of tea consumed per head is due to the substitution of Indian for China tea, the former being stronger and producing more cups to the pound. My hon. and gallant Friend has not established a conclusive case; but there are points to which the attention of the Government should be directed. I think that there ought to be a rigid examination of all those arrangements which the Customs officers hold to be objectionable; because, even though the officers are wrong, the Government' wish to remove the sense of injury. Too much importance cannot be attached to the advisability of having contented as well as an efficient Service. As to the 24 hours' question, the Government will make it the subject of inquiry how far the convenience of the men and the necessities of the Service can be made to agree. I propose that I myself, if the House will so far confide in me, should undertake to conduct a personal inquiry into the matter. I will enter upon it without any preconceived ideas on one side or the other, and will act simply on the principle that strict justice must be done between the interests of the taxpayers and the demands of the Service, and that the interests of the taxpayers and the contentment of the Service are equally secured.

(6.12.) MR. FORREST FULTON (West Ham, N.)

I desire to express a very earnest hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his inquiry, will call before him officers from the Outdoor Department as well as from the Indoor Department.

*MR. GOSCHEN

Yes.

MR. FULTON

The outdoor officers complain most that they have to do all the work, while the indoor officers and the clerks from the Treasury secure all the plums of the Service. Nearly all the higher offices have been filled in that way, and this, I think, is a distinct grievance under which they believe they are suffering. I have been brought into close contact with many of these officers; I think them a very reasonable body of men; and I know they will be satisfied with such an inquiry as the right hon. Gentleman offers, provided they have an opportunity of placing their grievances before him.

(6.14.) MR. RALPH NEVILLE (Liverpool, Exchange)

I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the promise he has given us, and I am quite certain that it will prove extremely satisfactory to my constituents. In Liverpool I think there has been one great abuse, namely, the appointment of officers of one grade to the active duties of those of a higher grade without any payment of the higher emoluments. Though occasionally unavoidable, it is obvious this practice is easily abused, and one result is that by it you are not keeping faith with a body of public servants who took office in the belief that they would have certain chances of promotion. Ever since I have had the honour to represent Liverpool in this House, outdoor officers have frequently complained to me of the extreme length of the hours imposed on many of them. Some of the men who are employed in watching and in boarding vessels are often on duty for 24 hours at a stretch. It may be true that those duties do not require any great amount of intelligence, but they make great demands on physical strength through lack of shelter, for the men have to be on deck in all weathers, and no adequate provision is made for their rest in the short intervals during which they are off duty. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that too much is expected of some of these men; and I am glad that they are to be afforded an opportunity of stating their grievances. At the same time, I hope it will be clearly understood that the men are not to suffer in any way for stating what they believe to be their grievances. There is a feeling that men who have brought forward grievances have been treated with harshness, and certainly an inquiry which was set on foot at Liverpool was followed by men being removed to other ports, much to their own disadvantage.

(6.18.) MR. J. R. KELLY (Camberwell, N)

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give us an assurance that the inquiry shall extend to the case of the messengers, who believe rightly or wrongly that they have a serious grievance? When the warehousing system was altered in 1882 there were 16 first-class messengers and 20 second-class, and a great majority of the latter entered the Service believing that as vacancies occurred among the first class messengers they would be filled up by men of the second-class. It is true these messengers receive but small salaries. The second-class men get £70 a year, with an annual increment up to £80, while the first-class get £80, with an annual increment up to £90. Their complaint is that now when vacancies occur in the first-class only every alternate one is tilled up from the second-class. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give this matter his attention. I should also like to know if the inquiry will extend to the case of those who are employed in the Statistical Department? It will surprise the House to learn that out of 120 gentlemen employed in that Department as many as 54 are writers, and, therefore, have only temporary engagements. Mr. Giffen, in referring to these men, expressed a strong opinion that they were called upon to discharge duties which should be fulfilled by persons on the permanent staff; and a former Secretary of Customs pointed out that there was no difference between the work done by these writers and that done by the Lower Division clerks. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inquire whether it is right and in the public interest that a great portion of the responsible work done by this Department should be done by gentlemen who only hold a temporary position.

(6.24.) MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I desire to express the genuine satisfaction with which I have heard that a personal investigation is to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in whom the Civil Service generally will place confidence. But I do venture to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that it will still be necessary to re-assure a large number of men in the Customs, who are very doubtful whether they can give evidence with safety to themselves, whatever tribunal may be constituted. Some time ago an officer was drowned at Harwich, and at the inquest evidence was given by certain Customs officers as to the number of hours he and others had been on duty. Soon afterwards those who gave this evidence were summarily removed to other ports, which involved the breaking up of their homes. This was done by orders of the Board of Customs. I do not say it was the result of their giving evidence, but it certainly was the sequel; and in the Customs generally there is a strong feeling that that is likely to be the kind of treatment meted out to men who venture to give evidence with regard to matters of internal administration. I have been assured that owing to the long hours and the insufficiency of the staff for certain duties—chiefly water-guarding, landing, and export duty—officers are required to give a record of daily work, which it is impossible for them to perform; and those who have made inquiries for me have said that the statements can be proved if opportunity is afforded. Mr. Horsfall's Committee in 1862 recommended a limitation of the number of hours that men should be employed; and since then the tendency has been to increase rather than diminish them. I do think there should be a searching investigation into these matters.

*(6.28.) SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

During the time I have represented Liverpool in this House I have become cognisant of many grievances of Customs officers. Some of the complaints, no doubt, are perhaps exaggerated, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to look into them he may find them to be empty grievances. But some of them are, undoubtedly, substantial. grievances, and one of these has to do with the matter of promotion. Therefore, the undertaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to personally preside over this inquiry will give general satisfaction.

(6.29.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I hope that the inquiry of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will embrace the ports of Ireland, and particularly Belfast, which has witnessed marvellous development, which is now the third port in the United Kingdom, and which probably will compare very favourably with any similar port in respect of the cost at which its revenue is collected. I do, therefore, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire into the condition of the Customs officials in Ireland, and to give them every facility for laying their case before him.

*(6.30.) MR. LAFONE (Southwark, Bermondsey)

I do not wish to deny that the officers have grievances of which they may complain; but there is also a grievance among merchants, labourers, and others, which arises from the short hours during which outdoor officers are on duty during part of the year. During four months in the year their hours of duty are from nine to four, and thus the waterside labourer was restricted to earning 2s. 11d. a day, under the old wage rate of 5d. per hour. I trust this grievance on the other side will not be forgotten in this inquiry. I do not think there is a single trade in London in which the hours are so short. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Committee will take into consideration these extremely short hours during four months in the year during which Customs officials allow the landing and storing of goods. I suggest an extension of hours with increased pay, if necessary, as the present system is a source of great inconvenience and loss to merchants, shipowners, and labourers.

(6.31.) MAJOR BANES (West Ham, S.)

I only wish to express the hope that this will not be a merely Departmental inquiry, but that every facility will be afforded for every officer to fully ventilate his grievance. For over 40 years I have had practical experience among them, and I know they have substantial grievances of which they complain. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will appreciate the advantage of having contented servants instead of discontented slaves. There is a growing sense of injustice among the men as year by year they have found their work and responsibilities increase, while they have fewer chances of promotion. I am convinced that if they are allowed to state their case fully the right hon. Gentleman will be inclined to give them redress, and so I hope that full opportunity will be given.

*(6.32.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)

I have no intention of prolonging the debate; I only wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the inquiry to include the messengers of the Customs Department? I am strongly in favour of economy: but I would not have it practised on the lower salaries ranging from £70 to £100 a year. It is fair, however, that all who have grievances should have them inquired into, although I do not suppose inquiry will settle the matter entirely, for I never yet heard that public officers were ever perfectly satisfied. Of course, however, after fair inquiry, there should be less ground for complaint.

(6.33.) MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

I do not represent a river side constituency, but a large number of my constituents are engaged in the Customs Department, and I think that I, in common with all Metropolitan Members, may congratulate the Government on their intention to hold this inquiry. But I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to look with too optimistic a spirit on the fact that there is a large increase in the number of prosecutions for bringing in goods without paying duty. The offence of smuggling seems to have greatly increased, so much so, that recently there were as many as 200 prosecutions at Liverpool, and the goods "run" were chiefly tobacco. Concurrently with this there was a diminution in the staff; and I cannot understand how, with a decreased number of officials, there should be an increase in the number of discoveries of cases of smuggling-. I also find that since the staff was decreased several warehouses in Liverpool are not watched while goods are landed, and it is practically left to the honesty of traders to declare that goods are not smuggled. I trust when this investigation takes place the question will be included whether there are a sufficient number of Custom House officials to protect the interests of the Revenue and the taxpayers.

*(6.35.) MR. GOSCHEN

With the indulgence of the House I will answer the questions that have been put to me. Certainly Irish officials will have the same opportunity as other classes of hiving their complaints inquired into. As to the character of the inquiry, and the suggestion that it shall not be Departmental, I can only describe it as one in which I shall sit as a Judge; and I shall have the assistance of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, and men with practical acquaintance of the matters under investigation and impartial judgment. But I must say, in answer to the hon. Member opposite, that the inquiry will be confined to the class mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. It would be impossible for me to extend the inquiry into all the other branches of the Service, and upon this particular Service inquiry was recommended by the Commission, and this is one of the grounds upon which I undertake it. These, I think, were the main questions asked. I am glad that the House is satisfied with the undertaking I have given; but may I venture to express a hope that Members will not too much encourage communication between members of the Civil Service and politicians in relation to the conditions of service, for it has a tendency to undermine proper discipline in the Service.

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

May I inquire whether inquiry will be directed into the allegations as to the insanitary conditions of work said to prevail in certain classes of the Service?

*MR. GOSCHEN

I presume that will fall within the scope of the inquiry.

*MR. MORTON

And in reference to my question as to messengers.

*MR. GOSCHEN

It is not contemplated that these should be included in the inquiry. I may say that there arc no posts in the Service for which there are so many applications, which seems to indicate the conditions are not very unsatisfactory.

(6.40.) Question put, and agreed to. Main Question again proposed.