§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £608,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the salaries and expenses of the Customs Department."
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)drew attention to the recent appointment of a naval officer to the position of water-guard inspector at Gravesend. On 27th March he asked in the House the following question:—
If a naval officer has been appointed to the position of water-guard inspector at Gravesend; and, if so, whether this is a departure from the past practice of promoting an experienced assistant inspector to such. 1121 positions, which was an encouragement to capable men to enter the service and lit themselves for the highest duties of their profession.The reply he got was in effect that there was no regular custom, and that it was not the rule to make the appointment from the preventive officers themselves. He did not think the answer the hon. Gentleman gave him was very sympathetic, and remembering the last political experience of the hon. Gentleman and his association with Gravesend he was extremely surprised at the answer he gave. He could assure him that his answer had caused the deepest disappointment amongst his many admirers in Gravesend, because they had always looked upon him as a friend of the: preventive officer. There had been a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent among the preventive officers on the Thames for a number of years, and it had been based upon two things—(1) a lack of properly organised promotion, and (2) insufficient salary. There had been inquiry after inquiry, with the result that dissatisfaction still remained. The hon. Gentleman and his department must realise that for efficient service they must have contented workers. Probably the hon. Gentleman would reply that no matter what they gave to a civil servant his mouth would always be open for more. Surely the hon. Gentleman would not say that there was no assistant inspector among the preventive officers capable of filling this position. The preventive officer, as a rule, was an extremely intelligent and efficient man. There was very little encouragement held out to the preventive officer to go on in the profession he had entered, and the pay was small even when the maximum was reached. The only thing that lured him on was the chance of promotion, and if they took away the prospect of being promoted from assistant inspector to full inspector they were robbing the preventive officer of the main thing which induced him to remain contented. They could only make men efficient by good pay and due reward. It was all very well to suggest that these men would get their reward in heaven, and that seemed to be what the predecessors of the hon. Gentleman had suggested. Whilst most of them hoped for that reward they desired some instalment of it now, and preventive officers were no exception to the rule. 1122 He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to explain this matter, satisfactorily. Although the appointment of this naval officer might seem a small thing, the whole of the preventive officers had been moved to protest. It was a matter of principle which affected the whole of the service. Surely an assistant inspector could have been found qualified amongst the successful, experienced, and efficient preventive officers to fill the position which had been taken up by Captain Graham. He had been informed that this discouragement of the preventive officers would not tend to the improvement of the revenue. The hon. Gentleman was well aware of the claims of the preventive officers, and if he could defend his position, and make it clear that the Department had done what was right, no one would be more grateful than himself. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £608,600, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir Gilbert Parker.)
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid it would probably be for the convenience of the Committee if he dealt with this question at once. He had made it his business to go into the whole of the case. For some time past it had been felt necessary that there should be a slight reorganisation of the staff on the Thames, and that there should be some new blood brought in from outside. It was by no means a new departure; it had been done before in the Customs Department, and it was repeatedly done in the other Departments of the State. The heads of many of our great Departments were men who had not been trained in those Departments, and it was all to the benefit of the officers concerned. Hon. Members might rest assured that this appointment would not lead to any extension of the principle. He preferred that such appointments should be restricted to preventive officers; but they could not always find an assistant fit to be promoted. He thought this appointment would have the effect of improving the standard of the preventive officers on the Thames. As to the effect on the revenue, he could imagine no more grave dereliction of duty than that after such a reorganisation they should be practically threatened by these officers 1123 with a serious effect on the collection of the revenue. In this case it was felt that someone should be brought in from outside with standing and experience like this naval officer, Captain Graham. They sought for the best man they could obtain. If they could have found an equally good man among the assistant inspectors they would have given him the preference.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether the hon. Gentleman could state the nature of the reoganisation he proposed to effect. He did not wish to press for details, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could state broadly the lines on which the reorganisation was to be effected. They might be prepared to justify the choice of Captain Graham if they understood the circumstances more fully, but the reply which had been given was not satisfactory. He did not think it would give satisfaction to the preventive officers on the Thames or elsewhere:
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that the statement having been made that the preventive staff was to be reorganised, the Committee was entitled to know why reorganisation was necessary.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid he did not mean that the staff was going to be reorganised. Sundry changes would be made which would not affect the standing of the officers at present in the service.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the statement which the hon. Gentleman had just made gave additional point to his remark. The declaration which the hon. Gentleman had made was of very great importance. In this particular service there were a large number of men, and the Committee was entitled to know why none of the inspectors had been held to be good enough for the appointment now enjoyed by Captain Graham. If no reason was to be given why the Government had thought it necessary to get an outsider, beyond the general statement that the present condition of things was unsatisfactory, he would urge his hon. friend to go to a division, so that the rights of the staff might be protected.
§ MR. WATTasked whether the appointment of Captain Graham was absolutely essential. The Financial 1124 Secretary had stated that he would have preferred the appointment of a man in the same service, and that it was only owing to exceptional circumstances that an outsider had been appointed in this instance. Was it not apparent on the face of that statement that no preventive officer was considered good enough for promotion, and that practically the apppointment of Captain Graham was a vote of censure on the preventive officers?
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)said he wished to join in the protest against the appointment of Captain Graham. The Financial Secretary had suggested, although the statement was not made in so many words, that this particular branch of the service had been conducted in an unsatisfactory way, and that, therefore, it was necessary to go outside to get somebody to take up this important position. Another ground on which he protested was that in the water guard service the scope for promotion was exceedingly limited. From communications he had received, he thought be was justified in saying that he spoke for the whole of the service when he said that they felt very sore indeed that an outsider should have been brought in to fill this position, thereby depriving them of the ordinary promotion. If an officer in the service had been appointed, each member of the staff would, at all events, have got a step up. The officers in this particular department did not desire to bring their grievances forward in a spirit of antagonism to the Board of Customs, but they thought that at this juncture their position deserved consideration. Besides the grievance in regard to promotion, they complained of the inadequacy of their present salaries. Before a man could be appointed a preventive officer he had generally to spend seventeen years as a preventive man. When appointed a preventive officer, his salary began at £95 a year, and he received annual increments of £5 up to the maximum of £150, so that it took twenty-nine years to reach that modest remuneration, which was less then £3 a week. Those hon. Members who had travelled in other countries would be able to contrast our Customs officers with the same classs of men abroad. One of the first things that struck the foreigner coming into England was the 1125 fact that in our Customs officers they had to deal with men who were absolutely incorruptible in the discharge of their duty. That was a thing which the foreigner was little accustomed to in his own country, or, at all events, in other countries which he visited. The bringing in of an outsider to fill an important position discouraged a most respectable body of men who on their merits were entitled to much better treatment. These men thought that a maximum of £200 after thirty years service would be a reasonable thing. They had not come to the House of Commons time after time urging their claims, nor had they communicated with Members representing seaports. They had in a quiet way on various occasions endeavoured to make known their legitimate wants and aspirations. He hoped the Financial Secretary would be able to do something for them.
§ *MR. MORTONsaid if the officers in the service had not ability enough to be promoted to such a position as that to which Captain Grahan had been appointed, they should not be in the service at all. Surely these officers, if they were capable, had a right to look for promotion in the Department when opportunities occurred He did not say that there was not good reason in this case for not promoting an officer in the Department, but no information had been placed before the Committee in justification of the course which had been taken. There was a strong feeling among the staff that there had been favouritism, and therefore some very good reason should be given on behalf of the Government why Captain Graham, who could know nothing about the service had been appointed. He hoped a satisfactory explanation would be given.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the hon. Member said that Captain Graham was an inferior man.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that what he had stated was that the Gentleman was not an inferior man, but that he was unacquainted with the office.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the Department thought that at the present time it was safer that they should not have a promotion from the ranks of the inspectors, but that they should have new blood introduced for the sake of the 1126 efficiency of the whole Department. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was not a single Department of the State where that had not taken place. The hon. Gentleman had said that they were destroying all ambition amongst the members of the preventive service. Did any one suggest that the bringing in of a new chief of a Department would destroy all ambition on the part of the assistants? In 1905, the late Government inquired very fully into this matter, and after that inquiry overtime pay was raised to the amount of £11,000 a year. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that the preventive officers had no reason to grumble so far as pay was concerned. Of course, all Government officials thought they were underpaid. A short time ago he received a deputation from the preventive officers and discussed fully with them the matters which they wished to bring before him. It ought to be remembered that a great improvement had been made in the status of those servants of the State during the last few years. He thought that the pay that was now given to them was quite equal to that paid to other Government servants of the same rank. As to the appointment of Captain Graham, he admitted that it was an unusual appointment; but here they had a large staff of men who must be subjected to a certain amount of discipline, though not so strict as that in the Army and Navy. He was sure that the Secretary for War would refuse to give any explanation as to the personal qualities of a man whom he had promoted. Captain Graham, he could assure the Committee, had not been appointed out of favouritism. His appointment was nothing in the nature of a job; and the work he had done so far was an absolute success. The object of the Department was to make for greater efficency.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that they had hoped to find a less subterranean reply to the speeches which had been made from the opposite side of the House. [MINISTERIAL Cries of "Oh."]By that expression he meant that he could not understand the hon. Gentleman even when he put his ears to the ground. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the efficiency of the Customs service and especially of the preventive officers.
§ MR. RUNCIMANasked if the hon. Member suggested that an assistant inspector should have been appointed to a position carrying a salary of £650 a year?
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that the hon. Gentleman urged that the Secretary for War made his appointments without question; but he was sure that if certain promotions were made of Naval Officers, a question would be raised in the House of Commons. He was pressing this matter on the ground that he had not received clear and sufficient information on the point he had originally raised. He was not satisfied, and he was convinced that the majority of the Members of the Committee were not satisfied, that there had been a lack of efficiency on the part of the existing staff of the preventive service and that there was any reason why Captain Graham should have been brought in as the head of the Department over the heads of the other inspectors.
§ MR. MADDISON (Burnley)said that he knew the preventive officers were a worthy set of men. He had always understood that their grievance was that when they were moved from outlying posts to London, where the cost of living was so much greater, they were given no increase of pay. On the other hand he believed that, in regard to old age pensions, there were men doing more skilled work than those men in the preventive service. Allusion had been made to the subterranean reply of the hon. Gentleman, but; that was the first time he had heard such I a description applied to a reply by a Minister who had made his points clear. The hon. Gentleman had said that he approved of promotion by merit in the Department, and if he had been departing from that principle and assenting to a regular system of men being placed over other men's heads he (Mr. Maddison) would have gone into the division lobby against him. He would not consent to any man being deprived of any hope of promotion by another man being placed over his head, but the hon. Gentleman had made it as clear as it could be made that the Board bad carefully inquired into the administration of this Department, and come to the conclusion that it was desirable to introduce fresh blood. It was, therefore, thought advisable to appoint Captain Graham from outside 1128 the Department. His chief concern was for the efficiency of the Department; what he wanted was that the State should be served in the best possible manner, so that they got the best possible value from the heads of Departments. The hon. Member for Gravesend wanted the Minister to go into detail.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERI want a clear statement.
§ MR. MADDISONsaid a clear statement could never satisfy the hon. Member unless there was considerable detail about it. Supposing there had been insubordination and lack of interest in their work on the part of the officials, was the Minister who took a new departure obliged to justify it in every detail? If a readjustment was necessary it would be made with the minimum of inconvenience to the men displaced, however humble. It was said that the appointment of Captain Graham would be bound to end in a loss of revenue, but he would be surprised to hear that it was true, as an hon. Member had stated, that a man was kept in the service of the State who said he would take it out of the State by not doing his duty. He suggested that the hon. Member for Gravesend should withdraw his Motion for reduction. If there was any idea of interfering with the healthy How of promotion he would support the Motion for reduction, but as what had been done had been stated by the responsible Minister to be in the interests of the public service he could not support it.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that but for the remarks of the previous speaker, he would not have intervened in the debate. The question seemed to be a very simple one. Captain Graham had been appointed because it was desirable to get an efficient person at the head of the Department. He did not know Captain Graham, but he would take it that he was an efficient man; but if there was anything wrong in the Department it would be better if it were stated straight out.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he could not compliment the Financial Secretary on the kind of support which he had received from his own side of 1129 the House. He did not think it was justifiable for an hon. Member to impute that they on that side had not the same desire for the efficiency of the service as hon. Members opposite. [Mr. MADDISON: I never said anything of the kind.] They believed in forwarding the efficiency of the service by promoting someone who was in that service. Therefore their protest was justified. If there was anything wrong in this particular service in regard to efficiency, why was it not stated? He thought the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote should be prepared to tell them what was wrong and not allow any charge to rest upon individuals.
§ MR. RUNCIMANI made no charge whatever of the kind.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that brought him to the alternative. If there was no charge against anybody why did not the hon. Gentleman get up and state the reason for his action?
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid he had stated that there was no imputation against the staff, but that there was no man I more suitable for the post of inspector than Captain Graham, whom they had appointed. He thought he had laid it down in perfectly clear terms that it was not their desire to bring outside persons.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the hon. Gentleman's statement was vague. Men in Government positions were entitled to promotion in the natural course, and when that rule was departed from they were entitled to something more than vague generalities from the Minister in charge of the Vote. No doubt, Captain Graham was a very estimable man, but he had had no experience as a preventive officer, and the reason why he was appointed could not be discovered. Was it not the fact that there was a period in connection with this service when it was under serious consideration to abolish the coast-guard service and gather it in in some way with the water-guard service, and this was one of the steps leading up to that? Then finding that they were not on the right tack—
§ MR. RUNCIMANIf the hon. Gentleman wishes to save time, I can assist him 1130 by telling him that there is not the least truth in his suggestion.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was obliged for that explanation, because there were rumours to that effect, and the general opinion was that that was the only justification for the appointment. As that justification was now taken away by the hon. Gentleman's explanation, and no other explanation was forthcoming, he should join his hon. friend the Member for Gravesend in the lobby.
§ MR. LEIF JONESsaid the hon. Members who were dividing the Committee were not serving the men by the course they were taking. The hon. Member for Gravesend should be satisfied with having raised the question and obtained the hon. Gentleman's explanation. The Financial Secretary had admitted the position that promotion should be from the service, but had said that there were not many who could be promoted to the position to which Captain Graham had been appointed. He would be very unwise to allow himself to be drawn into saying what exactly were the reasons for the appointment of Captain Graham. The hon. Member for Gravesend acted also unwisely in reading the letter from his constituents in which they said the service would suffer from the appointment. That was a thing that every Member would agree they must set their face against. He could imagine nothing more dangerous than that employees of Government Departments should write letters to the House of Commons threatening that if certain appointments were made the public service would suffer. He supported his hon. friend and thanked him for the firmness he had displayed.
§ *MR. MORTONdid not think the speech just made had helped the matter much. Though they did not protect the officers too much they ought to see that they had fair play. No one knew anything particular against Captain Graham, but that that gentleman knew nothing about the service. The question he wished to ask and have a reply to was whether it was the fact that there was no person in the service fit to take up this appointment. If the hon. Gentleman said there was not and that they were obliged to bring in a stranger 1131 to fill the office that was another matter. But the hon. Gentleman said just now that the War Office and the Admiralty appointed their officers, and that this House could not discuss the appointment of officers. This House could discuss anybody including the Prime Minister, and it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman was trying to take away the right of the House to discuss what it paid for. Some hon. Gentlemen thought the House had no right to criticise these gentlemen, but he himself remembered bringing a case before Sir William Harcourt—he hoped the hon. Gentleman
§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.)said he desired to call attention to the case of the out-door staff, whose duties were of a very important character. The conditions of the class whoso interests he was advocating contrasted unfavourably with the conditions under which the clerks worked in the same Depart-
§ would have the courage to take the same action in this case—and Sir William Harcourt made inquiries, and finding the case was properly stated compelled the officials at Gravesend to put matters back in their original position, and according to the Report used some very strong expressions. He wanted to see fair play and hear a good reason given for this appointment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 11; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 169.)
1131| AYES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Horn by, Sir William Henry | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire |
| Balcarres, Lord | Kimber, Sir Henry | |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Nield, Herbert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Gilbert Parker and Mr. Claude Hay. |
| Craig, Capt, James (Down, E.) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | |
| Forster, Henry William | Turnour, Viscount |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. | Hodge, John | Runciman, Walter |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hudson, Walter | Sears, J. E. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight | Idris, T. H. W. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea | Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Bethell, Sir J H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Layland-Barra't, Francis | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Boland, John | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Steadman, W. C. |
| Bright, J. A. | Lewis, John Herbert | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Brunner J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Lough, Thomas | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Macpherson, J. T. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Cameron, Robert | M'Callum, John M. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Maddison, Frederick | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Morrell, Philip | Toulmin, George |
| Clough, William | Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw) | Ure, Alexander |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Nicholls, George | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S. |
| Collins, Sir Wm J (S. Pancras, W | Nicholson, Chas, N. (Doncast'r | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent |
| Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd | Nolan, Joseph | Watt, Henry A. |
| Cox, Harold | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Cremer, William Randal | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire |
| Crooks, William | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Duckworth, James | O'Grady, J. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | O'Malley, William | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Everett, R. Lacey | O'Mara, James | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Radford, G. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Grant, Corrie | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Ridsdale, E. A. | |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
§ ment. He did not desire to disparage the staff of clerks, but the duties which they performed were generally of a clerical nature. It was the outdoor men who possessed the expert and practical knowledge; it was these men who came into contact with the public, and his case was that their practical, expert and technical 1133 Knowledge and experience in dealing with the public were not adequately recognised or adequately remunerated. The out door staff, compared with the clerks, did not obtain a fair proportion of the higher appointments, especially of the collectorships. The total number of the outdoor 8taff was 1,700, and of the clerks 500. Between March, 1891, and May, 1906, there were seventy-four appointments to collectorships. Of these seventy-four, eleven went to the 1,700 outdoor men, while sixty-three were given to the 500 clerks indoors. He took March, 1891, as the starting point in making that comparison, and he had a particular purpose in taking that date, because in March, 1891, the Treasury issued a Minute which contained certain promises to the outdoor staff, which promises, he submitted, had not been fulfilled. He relied very strongly on the undertaking given in that Minute. He was aware that successive Financial Secretaries to the Treasury had minimised that undertaking, but the words were tolerably strong. He did not desire to state the case at further length, but no doubt his hon. friends would amplify it, and he hoped the Financial Secretary would give a satisfactory reply.
§ MR. J. M. ROBERTSON (Northumberland, Tyneside)said he recognised fully the force of the consideration that the demands of civil servants for increased salaries and the pressure that was brought to bear on Members of the House constituted a ground for great caution. The matter was becoming a very serious one from year to year, and would have to be dealt with in a more systematic way than had been the case hitherto. He believed that in view of the multiplicity and seriousness of the complaints from various sections of the service from year to year there would have to be a more systematic overhauling in order to see what could be done. He had some diffidence in taking up the particular matter before the Committee in reference to the demand of this section of the Customs Service. He had looked into the matter as carefully as he could, and he felt very strongly with the hon. Member who had just spoken that there was a very unreasonable disproportion between the salaries and prospects of the outdoor section of the Customs Service and those of the indoor 1134 section. In the majority of cases, in the outdoor section, the prospect was that of rising from £70 a year to £250 a year, while the prospect of the indoor section was that of rising from £70 to £600 a year. Why should there be such a difference between the remuneration of these two sections? Was it seriously suggested that the duties of the indoor clerks were more onerous than those of the outdoor officials, or that they needed to pay a higher salary in order to secure the efficiency of the clerical staff? It constantly happened that in the case of a consignment of goods the indoor clerk had merely to verify a certain form and check the details, while the outdoor officer had to examine the goods, in regard to the passing of which a very large sum of revenue was dependent. It could not be suggested that the work of the officer who checked a large consignment of cigars, for instance, was one calling for less capacity and experience than the work of the clerk indoors. He would say that it was entirely the other way. Surely it was in regard to the outdoor servant that the possibility of corruption was most likely to arise. He associated himself with what had been said in reference to the general incorruptibility of those employed in the Customs Service. In face of that fact it was surely obvious that that class of men ought not to be worse paid than the clerk employed indoors. He hoped the Government would recognise the ordinary principle of paying an adequate salary in positions of trust and thus guard against the possibility of corruption. He did not think that in this case the salary was adequate, and although he had made every inquiry he had not been able to satisfy himself that the claims of these officers had been reasonably met.
§ SIR F. BANBURYasked, in view of the way in which the Aliens Act was being administered, whether the immigration officers were doing any useful work. The Aliens Act was more or less a dead letter. It was not right that the money of the State should be spent in providing immigration officers to administer an Act which the colleagues of the hon. Gentleman would not allow to be properly worked. Either these officers should be allowed to do the work for 1135 which they were paid, or else they should be withdrawn from the service. He noticed that they had paid £3,000 to Customs officers as rewards for the recovery of goods said to be worth £1,800. He did not think that was a practical way of doing business. He did not approve of the system of rewards. If those officers were not paid sufficient salary they ought to receive an increase, and then the practice of granting rewards would be discontinued.
§ MR. HART-DAVIES (Hackney, N.)urged that there ought to be a proper inquiry into the grievance of these outdoor officers. All they wanted was that the matter should be fairly investigated by the proper authorities, and there was nothing unreasonable in that demand. At the present time, in comparison with other men in the same branch of the service, the outdoor men were not being treated fairly. He sincerely hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give them some assurance that the matter would be looked into in order that the claims of an extremely deserving class of the public service might be fairly considered.
§ MR. STEWART (Greenock)said he represented a constituency where there was a large number of these preventive men, and he desired to associate himself fully with the statement which had been male by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and others. No pressure had been brought to bear upon him in the matter, and if it had he would not have yielded to it. He had taken considerable pains to investigate the question, and he was wholly at a loss to understand why the onerous and responsible duties connected with the outdoor department of the Customs had been so lightly estimated as compared with the easy task of the indoor servants in the same Department. The hours which these men had to work were in themselves a sufficient claim for consideration at the hands of the Treasury. The ordinary indoor clerk came to work at a fixed time and retired at the usual time, but that was not so in the case of the preventive men. Vessels came into port at all hours of the night, and the preventive men had to leave their home at any hour and in all weathers in order to board those vessels, and yet their remuneration was 1136 lower than the salaries paid to those clerks who had comfortable and easy berths under the shelter of a roof If the matter was investigated he felt sure it would be found that the time had come for a reconsideration. At the present time the men who were responsible for the valuing of goods and the collection of large sums of money on behalf of the Crown were not treated so well as the men who had simply to total up figures and perform the ordinary clerical work of indoor clerks. He trusted that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give them some assurance that he was fully considering the matter. If they could have that assurance he was ready to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham)said he noticed that no less than twenty-one of these preventive men were being employed as assistants to immigration officers who were paid by the Customs Department. The immigration officers themselves were in the service of the Home Office. He thought the time was very appropriate now for inquiring into the whole system of the machinery by which the Aliens Act was being carried out. Personally he thought the Government might congratulate themselves that so little inquiry had been made by the House into the question of the working of the Aliens Act. That was no doubt due to the fact that the number of hon. Members who were anxious to see that Act carried out in a broad and popular spirit was very small. He asked the hon. Gentleman what the duties of these twenty-one preventive men were, and what their relation was to the immigration officers employed by the Home Office. He would like to know further whether it would not be desirable in future, as likely to lead to the better working of the Aliens Act, to have all the men employed in the carrying out of the statute under the same office and the same chiefs. He did not believe that any Member of the Committee wished to see a number of men employed whose services were not required. If the Act had been administered in the way it was asserted on that side of the House to have been administered those assistants were absolutely useless. The Report of the Committee on the employment of reserve soldiers and sailors recommended that the 1137 Government, in selecting men to carry out its work, should, whenever possible, engage those men. He was glad to see from a footnote that there were at present 752 pensioners of the Army, Navy, and Royal Irish Constabulary in the Department. He wished to know whether it had been the policy of the Customs Department to engage men who had been in these services, and, if not, whether the hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of adopting such a policy in future.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that the claims of the outdoor staff in the lower ranks of the civil service were entitled to consideration. Looking at the question from the point of view of business men, he thought they would be of opinion that the outdoor staff were under paid and that they suffered from disabilities which ought to be remedied. He supported their claims to consideration on grounds which had not been put before the Committee up to now. He believed that comparisons between the indoor and the outdoor staffs were bound to be fallacious. He supported the claims of the outdoor staff entirely on their own merits. The claims were well founded in themselves, and they did not need to be contrasted with the conditions in any other branch of the service. A suggestion was thrown out two years ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when a similar discussion took place, that questions as to pay, increments, maximum, and the general conditions of employment in all these Government Departments should be left to a small Committee of men appointed by the Government of the day—a Committee perfectly independent of approaches from the outside by people who had votes to give—in order that these matters might be taken entirely out of the arena of politics and possible debate in the House. That was an excellent suggestion, and he had hoped that something would have been done before now to prevent the time of the Committee when considering the Estimates being wasted in such discussions. So long as that suggestion was not carried out hon. Members must be excused if they from time to time brought forward the case of any particular body of men. Having regard to the increase in rents, rates, cost of living, and the expenses necessary to keep 1138 up a respectable appearance, it was practically impossible for a man with a wife and family to carry out his duties to the State upon a wage of less than £3 a week. He hoped the Financial Secretary would consider the claims of these men.
§ MR. SEAVERNS (Lambeth, Brixton)called attention to the case of the assistant clerks in the statistical department of the Customs. He had no desire to make any attack on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or on the officials of the Customs. His desire was to enlist the personal interest of the hon. Gentleman in this particular class of clerks, and to ascertain whether in his opinion their present status was a satisfactory and proper one. He had had an opportunity of consulting with some of these men personally, and they seemed to him to be a deserving and exceptionally intelligent body of young men. Their grievances were two. The first was that they were obliged to work an excessive amount of overtime in order to carry out their duties in the department. His hon. friend had given in answer to a Question some particulars as to the overtime actually worked in that office, and he had distinguished between compulsory and optional overtime. The hon. Gentleman would agree with him that the overtime was very excessive. He understood that for all practical purposes the entire overtime was compulsory. The difficulty in connection with the matter was that the overtime interfered with what the young men desired to do in the way of preparing for superior examinations, and that was a grievance which deserved sympathetic attention. Their other complaint, which he looked upon as more serious, was that having gone into the office on the understanding, and the virtual promise, that after four years service they would be eligible for promotion to the second division, that understanding had not been carried out. His hon. friend had stated in answer to a Question that in no single case had there been any promotion to the second division among these clerks, although the class had been in existence for ten years. According to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury there were in the department 63 clerks eligible for promotion. He submitted that that state of things did not conduce to enthusiastic work 1139 on the part of the clerks. If his hon. friend would look into the matter sympathetically he would be very much obliged.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that he had been looking into this matter and found that the whole of the expenditure on the Aliens Act under this Vote was returned by the Home Office, and the discussion should take place on that Vote.
§ SIR F. BANBURYasked whether it would be in order upon this Vote to discuss the administration of the Aliens Act.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the administration of the Aliens Act was under the control of the Home Office and could not be discussed upon this Vote.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the men employed in the administration of the Aliens Act were paid by the Home Office. A certain number of men accustomed to Customs work were lent to the Home Office for services in connection with the immigration of aliens The hon. Gentleman must remember that the first estimate of the expenditure in connection with the administration of the Aliens Act was £70,000 per annum, and the authorities were trying to keep the cost well within that sum. A question had been asked as to the employment of reserve soldiers and sailors. They had always made it a habit in the Customs Department to employ as many reserve soldiers and sailors as possible; and at present there were 730 men so employed; but it was impossible to appoint a very large number of men who might be called out for service on the outbreak of war. More over, they did not wish to interfere with the ordinary promotion of the Civil servants who had devoted the whole of their time to the service. They had, however, attempted to employ as many reserve soldiers and sailors as they possibly could.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYHow many reserve men have you employed?
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid he could not say at the moment. In reference to the rewards to Customs Officers, the smuggled goods consisted mainly of tobacco, some of which was sent to the 1140 lunatic asylums, and the rest to Kew Gardens for use in the glass houses. As to the question of outdoor men, he confessed that he found a difficulty in explaining the present situation. A certain amount of blocking had occurred owing to the increase in the number of duties imposed since 1901. An increase of tariff led not only to an increased cost of collection, but to an increase in the number of the staff employed. Therefore, in 1901 there was a temporary boom in the promotion of the clerks, and also a temporary slump in the examining officers' promotion owing to the introduction of a certain number of young clerks. These two changes had done something to make a great difference between the indoor and outdoor staffs. At present the disparity between the two was greater than had been anticipated, but he hoped that by some arrangement they would succeed in reducing that disparity. He could not, however, make any definite announcement of policy. He could assure his hon. friend that he was doing all he could to examine into the case of the statistical clerks. Most of these clerks were young men; and lately they had sent in a memorial to the Treasury which contained this sentence—
We have no reason to doubt that your Lordships are aware that you have committed a breach of faith.He must point out that if any class of public servants were to begin their claim for improved conditions of service by levelling a charge of bad faith on the part of the Treasury whom they memorialised, it was obvious that they prejudiced their case; and he would suggest to his hon. friend that he should convey to those memorialists an intimation that if they wished to have their claim considered sympathetically they should withdraw that charge of bad faith.
§ MR. SEAVERNSsaid that the case as placed before him was, he thought, put with great moderation.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the memorial to the Treasury contained a sentence which alleged a breach of faith, and he renewed his suggestion to the hon. Member that he should ask his friends to withdraw such a statement.
§ LORD BALCARRESsaid that a suggestion had been made that some Committee or permanent Commission should be set up before which those complicated questions in regard to wages and conditions of employment in the different Departments of State should be impartially considered and decided. That was a subject which ought to receive the attention of the Treasury. The hon. Member for Glasgow had said that no pressure had been brought to bear upon him in regard to the question, but every Member knew that there were lots of people who brought pressure to bear upon them in regard to such matters. Although no pressure might be brought to bear upon hon. Members, a good deal of unconscious pressure was exercised upon the House. He did not represent a constituency which was largely supported by Government expenditure, so that he was absolutely impartial, but if he had 200 or 300 men in his constituency who were receiving Government pay there would be an unconscious pressure upon his mind to get up and urge the Secretary to the Treasury to make concessions to them. They never heard of questions being raised about bluejackets' wages or soldiers' wages. Why? He did not know how many bluejackets there were, but he believed there were something like 120,000, and they were as good servants to the State as anyone else, but they did not hear this kind of question raised on the Vote for their wages. Again the question of the pay of the Army had never been raised except by the Government. There was something unwholesome in the fact that they had to discuss the rates of pay of those portions of the public service who had votes while they were not called upon to deal with the same class of question in regard to soldiers and sailors, who had not got votes. He thought that some effort should be made by the Treasury to take the matter out of the hands of Members of Parliament and to remove from their shoulders the responsibility of saying "No" or "Yes" to the requests with which they were too familiar. He thought the Civil Service would gain rather than lose by having their case considered, not on the floor of the House of Commons, but by a body of men who would understand their position far more clearly than Members of the House of Commons. Members of 1142 the House would welcome the removal from their shoulders of that responsibility just as much as they did the removal from their sphere of action by the Postmaster-General of questions of patronage in regard to sub-post masterships. He hoped that before the session ended the Secretary to the Treasury would give them an assurance that the subject was under the consideration of himself and his colleagues.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYurged the claims of the abstractors in the customs to better conditions of service.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 6. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,469,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the salaries and expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid there was an extraordinary increase in the cost of publishing and providing copies of poor rates for income-tax purposes. For this purpose £24,000 was put down as against £4,000 last year. He supposed there was some explanation, but if a satisfactory one was not forthcoming he would move to reduce the Vote.
§ MR. RUNCIMANexplained that the increase was due to the quinquennial assessment coming in 1907–8.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in consequence of the heavy charges and work, he did not propose to take a quinquennial assessment.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the quinquennial assessment would be taken in 1908–9, and therefore he did not think it was necessary to take this money now, because if it was not used this year it would have to be surrendered and go into the Exchequer, balances, unless the hon. Gentleman followed the policy of the Secretary of State for War, who devoted £100,000 to the new Army scheme. He did not think 1143 the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was sufficient, and unless a better one was forthcoming he would move a reduction and divide the Committee, as he did not think it was proper that such a demand should be made.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid if they did not need the money they would have to surrender it, but he thought the money would be needed.
§ SIR F. BANBURYmoved the reduction of the Vote by £20,000 so as to grant only the sum which was taken last year.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,449,300, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir. F. Banbury.)
§ *MR. MORTONthought some explanation should be given in regard to the
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he desired to call attention to what in his opinion 1144 question raised by the hon. Member for the City of London. But he required a little information with regard to the increase of £8,900 under Head E, Commuted Allowances, etc. How had that increase occurred during the present year? He desired, also, information as to the increase in Superannuation and other charges under Head T, of £13,169. It was very difficult to see how they were to practice economy in the face of such considerable increases.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid the explanation of the first Question of the hon. Member was to be found on pages 41 and 42 of the Estimates. The increases under Head T were due to natural causes.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 10; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 170.)
1143| AYES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Claude Hay. |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H. | Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) | |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hunt, Rowland | |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare. |
| Bilker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Radford, G. H. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Barnes, G. N. | Hodge, John | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Hudson, Walter | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Benn, W (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo | Idris, T. H. W. | Runciman, Walter |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Bethell, Sir J H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Kekewich, Sir George | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Boland, John | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Bright, J. A. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Steadman, W. C. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh | Lewis, John Herbert | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Lough, Thomas | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Cameron, Robert | Maclean, Donald | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Macpherson, J. T. | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Cleland, J. W. | M'Callum, John M. | Toulmin, George |
| Clough, William | Maddison, Frederick | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W | Morrell, Philip | Watt, Henry A. |
| Collins, Sir W m J (S. Pancras, W | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd | Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Cox, Harold | Nicholls, George | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r) | |
| Crooks, William | Nolan, Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Duckworth, James | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | |
| Everett, R. Lacey | O'Grady, J. |
§ was nothing less than a scandal, namely, the inquisitorial proceedings of the Inland Revenue Officers in regard to the Returns made by income-tax payers 1145 in the form of a statutory declaration. The tax had to be paid months before it was due, and in many eases it was paid year after year through the same office. The action of the Inland Revenue Department in this respect was not only offensive, but seemed to impute, if not to assert, that those who made returns by means of statutory declarations were, in fact, liars. Another aspect of the question was that of economy. An immense staff was required to address these demand notes, and it was felt by many income-tax payers who took the utmost pains to make a careful return and who invited the authorities to in spect their books in order to see no error had crept in, that the proceedings on
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid it would be in the recollection of the hon. Gentleman that the supervising officers of the Inland Revenue had forwarded a memorial asking for a Parliamentary inquiry into the conditions of their service and their pay. He believed that last year some trifling 1146 those demand notes, were not necessary. He thought it was high time now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated a new method of collection that he should proceed on the principle, not that most men were liars, but that most income-tax payers made a true return. In order to draw attention to the matter and to ensure that there should be some record he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,469,200, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 7; Noes, 69. (Division List No. 171.)
1145| AYES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. Watson Rutherford. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hunt, Rowland | |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton | |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) |
| NOES | ||
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. | Hodge, John | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Hudson, Walter | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Idris, T. H. W. | Runciman, Walter |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S Geo. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Kekewich, Sir George | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Rmf'd) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Boland, John | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Steadman, W. C. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Lewis, John Herbert | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Cameron, Robert | Lough, Thomas | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Maclean, Donald | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Macpherson, J. T. | Toulmin, George |
| Clough, William | M'Callum, John M. | Verney, F. W. |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Maddison, Frederick | Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent |
| Collins, Sir W m J (S. Pancras, W | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Watt, Henry A. |
| Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grimst'd | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire |
| Cox, Harold | Nicholls, George | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax |
| Cremer, William Randal | Nicholson, Charles N(Doncast'r | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Crooks, William | Nolan, Joseph | |
| Duckworth, James | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | |
| Everett, R. Lacy | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Radford, G. H. | |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
§ concession was made to them in matters of service as to which they had made strong but respectful representations. Would the hon. Gentleman entertain the representations which had been made, or would he refuse to re-open the matter?
§ MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow)said that, as he understood, these officers 1147 were examining officers who were working an hour a day longer than others in the Department, and while their work was harder their pay was much less. They asked for a Parliamentary inquiry, and, as far as he could make out, they certainly deserved one. They had no Minister to look after them and their interests, and he thought their pay was certainly not sufficient for the hard work they did. As he understood, promotion in other sections of the service was more rapid than it was among examining officers. He thought that those officers had a very strong case, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would see his way to allowing the inquiry.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid he did not know exactly the form of inquiry which the hon. Gentleman referred to.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYA Select Committee.
§ MR. RUNCIMANreminded the hon. Gentleman that his predecessor in office had had this matter under his consideration; he had gone into the whole of the claims put before him, and had arrived at a decision. He knew that the hon. Gentleman would be delighted to divide the Committee on the matter, but he would point out that there could not be anything worse for the organisation of the Inland Revenue than to have every year fresh demands for reconsidering decisions. It would lead to nothing more nor less than the absolute disorganisation of the service. The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that his predecessor had gone fully into the case, and if it was suggested that because he had been newly appointed Financial Secretary he would upset the decision of his hon. friend, they were much mistaken. He certainly could not hold out any hope of reopening this case immediately after a decision had been arrived at.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the grievances of these men had been acknowledged on both sides of the House. He was glad to have it on record that the request to reconsider the matter had met with a blank refusal.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid it had met with no blank refusal, and the hon. 1148 Member had no right so to represent what he had said. He could not imagine anything more detrimental to the public service than pulling up the system by the roots every twelve months in this way. There was no justification whatever for the statement of the hon. Member that he had met these men with a blank refusal.
§ Question put, and agreed to.