HC Deb 26 March 1908 vol 186 cc1605-21

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out or moneys provided by Parliament of the salaries and remuneration of the Director of Public Prosecutions and assistant directors appointed under any Act of the present session to amend the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, and of the Expenses incurred in pursuance of such Act."—(Mr. Attorney-General.)

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London) moved to add at the end of the Resolution the words "such salaries not to exceed £4,000 in all." He said that he was going to advance arguments which he was sure would appeal to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was extremely difficult to discuss the Resolution when its terms were not on the Paper, and when probably only the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Resolution and himself had seen them. He thought everyone would admit that it was very inconvenient that such a Motion involving the expenditure of money should not be placed upon the Paper. That was no new thing, as the House had for some years objected to that form of procedure. In 1904 the hon. Member for Halifax, who now adorned the front bench, said that an Agenda Paper was of no value unless it contained the business that was going to be done, and in that view he was backed up by the Postmaster-General who spoke of the in-advisability of not allowing the House to know the terms of the Motion. It had been the custom of the House to bring forward Motions in this way, but he thought that when "the gilded duffers" as they were called by the President of the Board of Trade, were done away with, and the Party of all the talents and capabilities were put in their place, the first thing they would do would be to allow the House to know what was to be discussed. He was surprised to find that that had not been done in this case. Last year they pointed out the inconvenience of voting money in this way, and they asked the Government to be consistent with the statements and the speeches they made in 1904 and again in 1905, but it appeared that they had spoken in vain. Nothing had been done in that direction, and they were once more confronted with a Motion the terms of which were not on the Paper. On the Second Reading of the Bill he asked a question about the expenses, and he was told that the proper place to discuss them was in Committee on the Resolution, and consequently he reserved his remarks until the present occasion. The terms of the Motion not only included the money to be voted for the payment of the salaries of the director and assistant directors, but also the expenses to be incurred by the new Department. He did not wish to put a limit to the expenses of the new Department, because he knew it would be impossible to estimate exactly what those expenses would be. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought they would be large and that the department would transact a considerable amount of business. It was no use when setting up a new department to prevent it doing the work which it was set up to perform, and he recognised that it would be quite impossible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say exactly what the expenses would be. Consequently he had not alluded to those expenses in his Amendment. All he proposed was to limit the salaries. He had net limited the salary of the director himself, but what he had done was to put down a lump sum which could be applied to the salary of the Director of Prosecutions and to the salaries of the assistant directors. The sum he had put down was £4,000, and he did not think that was too small a sum. It would not be well in the initial stages to overload the Department with a number of fixed head officials whom it would be difficult to get rid of if it was found that the expectations of the two hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite were not realised, and if the business turned out not so heavy and excessive as was anticipated. If it was found necessary to appoint more assistant directors than the amount he had put down would permit, surely it would not be necessary to appoint them until next year. The new Department would not have any work to do until next month, and it would always be within the power of the Government to provide for an additional sum upon the Vote. He wished to point out to the Government that the Amendment, which had for its object to fix the sum voted, was identical with an Amendment moved on 8th June, 1904, supported by the hon. Member for Halifax, the Postmaster-General, the President of the Board of Trade, and the President of the Board of Education. The majority of those he had referred to had since been rewarded by being placed upon the Treasury Bench; he did not know whether that reward was in consequence of the action they took upon the date he had quoted. He specially appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had a perfectly unbiassed mind on this question. If the Government had rewarded those to whom he had alluded by putting them on the Treasury Bench it followed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to support this Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman was also one of those who voted on that occasion, and, therefore, he claimed his support in the division. He thought he had said enough to show that it was an excellent Amendment which should receive the support of all the Members of the Government who desired to be consistent, and he was sure they all did. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— At the end of the Question to add the words 'such salaries not to exceed four thousand pounds in all.' "—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)

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

MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

in supporting the Motion, thought he could ask the co-operation of the Nationalist Members from Ireland, for on an occasion when the present Leader of the Opposition was in office and he submitted a similar Resolution in regard to the Chief Secretary's Office, they objected to it because details were not given. The objection raised on the present occasion was still better founded, because when the Prosecution of Offences Bill was before the House two days ago for Second Reading they asked the Attorney-General and the' Solicitor-General for some general indication of the amount of money which would have to be expended under the powers proposed to be conferred by the Bill, but they were put off at that stage of the proceedings without getting the information they desired. He supposed that was because the law officers had not the remotest idea what the expenditure was to be. He now asked the Government to state definitely, chapter and verse, the amount of money involved, the number of persons to be appointed, and, in short, the amount of legal patronage which would be in their hands under the measure. They all desired to see the offices of the Solicitor to the Treasury and the Public Prosecutor well manned and the duties well carried out, but au important question of principle was involved, as was shown by the attitude assumed only a few years ago when the Opposition Benches were occupied by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who took part in the debate in June, 1901, reminded the House that on a former occasion it took two or three days to get a Resolution of this character through the House of Commons because of the importance which the Irish Members attached to the principle involved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took strong exception to any Resolution of that character being submitted to the House without the amount of money involved being made known fully in detail. The Secretary to the Treasury, who ought to be the guardian of the Treasury, was very emphatic on the subject, and the Postmaster-General made two speeches denouncing in unmeasured terms the action of the then Government in submitting to the House of Commons a proposal which did not even appear on the Notice Paper. The Secretary to the Admiralty took part in the debate and assumed a similar attitude of opposition to the way in which the proposal had been brought forward. In these days, when they were supposed to have a Government pledged to economy, he believed the public would greatly resent the idea of giving a blank cheque to any Minister or to any public officer under the control of a responsible Minister in order that an unknown number of fresh appointments should be made, and an unknown amount of money expended in legal patronage. He would remind the House that in 1884 one of the most powerful Committees ever appointed by the House of Commons investigated the whole subject of the organisation of the Department of the Solicitor to the Treasury and the Director of Public Prosecutions. That Committee differed in toto from the conclusions at which the Government had arrived. That might appear a small matter to the Liberal Party, but he could assure them that the day was not far distant when the subject to which the Resolution referred would be one of immediate interest in all their constituencies. If they were indifferent to the expenditure of public money, they would have to pay heavily for that neglect when they again sought the suffrages of their constituents.

MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)

said his hon. friend was perfectly right to move the Amendment if only for the purpose of giving hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench the opportunity of explaining their position. Many of the members and supporters of the Government were strongly in favour of a different course of action from that now adopted when the Expenses Resolution with regard to aliens was discussed on 8th June, 1904. The debate which took place on that occasion was exceedingly interesting. The comments then of the Secretary to the Treasury, the Postmaster-General, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Halifax, and the President of the Board of Education, applied also to the present Resolution. The Opposition desired to know precisely what expenses were to be incurred, how many officials were to be appointed, and whether an Estimate had been submitted to the Treasury. They were entitled to ask how far hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench intended to conform on the present occasion to the attitude they took up in June, 1904. It was on those grounds that he thought hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should have an opportunity of explaining their attitude in regard to this matter.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSOX,) South Shields

, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that he was far from denying that the point raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite was important, but he did not think that the illustration was very pertinent. On the occasion referred to additional information was asked for as to what would be the increase of the staff of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that information could have been given without possibility of doubt. In this case they were dealing with an entirely unknown quantity. They were dealing with the approach of the operation of the Criminal Appeal Act, which had introduced a novel principle into our criminal jurisprudence, and the precise limits and the amount of work which that Act would throw upon the Department was not known. Hon. Members said that the Government should let them know what their present proposals were in regard to the increase of the staff of the Solicitor to the Treasury. He was in a position to tell them that, and he could also give a very close approximate idea of what the annual cost would be. Of course, it was impossible to say what ultimately the cost would be, and that was why the Government could not accept the Amendment, because it so limited their action that they could not appoint another clerk without the obligation of applying for a fresh Money Resolution before it could be obtained in Committee of Supply.

SIR F. BANBURY

said that that was not the case, because the Amendment applied only to the Director and Assistant-Directors of Public Prosecutions. It did not apply to the clerics or the ordinary expenses of the Department. The Government could put a limit to the number of Assistant Directors.

SIR W. ROBSON

said he was not dealing with the specified number of clerks, but with the principles. He would explain what the present staff was and how far it was proposed to increase the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There was in that branch of the Department one assistant solicitor who acted as Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, two chief clerks, one first class clerk, two assistant chief clerks, five professional clerks—that was, clerks who were not necessarily qualified solicitors, but who had from experience some knowledge of legal forms. They proposed to commence simply with a new Director, who would be the head of the Department.

SIR F. BANBURY

asked what his salary was to be?

SIR W. ROBSON

said he would like to be a little reticent as to that. The salaries of the heads of departments ranged from £1,800 to £2,500; and if they desired to have a Director who should have legal experience—a man of position and importance and competent to deal with a post of this kind, they must get a man who had had a considerable practice. Experience meant practice. If the distinguished gentleman who had been invited to serve accepted the post, it would be at a considerable sacrifice of income to himself. They could scarcely expect to obtain the services of a professional man with a large practice except at considerable cost. Within the range he had mentioned he could rot promise the House that they should get a professional man at a cheaper salary. So much for the new Director. Below him they would commence with three new professional clerks and some additional shorthand, and copying clerks.

SIR F. BANBURY

No assistant directors?

SIR W. ROBSON

said that they had already an assistant - director on the staff. They were taking over the present staff, which consisted of eleven men, not including the existing head, but including the assistant chief clerk, first-class clerk and assistant professional clerks. These were all to be retained. It was proposed to add to them a new Director, three more professional clerks and some additional shorthand and copying clerks.

SIR F. BANBURY

asked what were the salaries of the clerks.

SIR W. ROBSON

said he had not inquired into that. They were of a well-known class. He thought that the hon. Baronet, who was a man of sound business experience, would admit that that was a very proper staff, and the salary he had indicated was a very proper sum. What was desired, however, was that the Government should not have any limitation of number of staff or money, because the work might come very suddenly and they might find the Department placed in a difficulty in an emergency in which they would have to employ a staff on a larger scale. The intention of the Government was to make the initial expense on a modest scale. For some little time he hoped to retain the assistance of Lord Desart. The new Director would be appointed without any suggestion or suspicion of political interest—a purely professional man. It had been said that possibly they might save au Assistant Director on the Civil side by appointing the present Assistant Director as the new Director on the criminal side. Of course, the appointment of the new Director would be a very great relief to the present Director, who would have more time on his hands than at present. He could not lay too much stress upon that, because, speaking for himself, he knew the enormous increase that had taken place in the amount of work in the Department in connection with the business of the Admiralty and the Education Board. Therefore, he did not think there would be very much saving on the Civil side. In regard to another point raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was thought desirable in 1879 to appoint a Director of Public Prosecutions in order not to leave the initiative in criminal prosecutions always in private hands. The system of criminal prosecution in this country did not compare favourably with that in some Continental countries. Sir John Maule was the first Director of Prosecutions appointed, but all he did—whether it was all he was bound to do was another matter—was to decide what cases were fit to be dealt with by a Public Prosecutor, and having decided that he proceeded forthwith to send the papers to a practising solicitor. That went on for five years, but it was found not to be very satisfactory, and then came the appointment of the Committee of 1884, with whose Report he was not disposed to quarrel. As he had pointed out, there had been an immense increase in the work of the Civil branch of the Department within the last few years. The work of the Charity Commissioners had also been put on the Solicitor to the Treasury; and when he came into office he was surprised at the amount of important and detailed work which came before the Department. A few years back a step was taken by the late Government in the interests of economy in regard to the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the arrangements in regard to which were found not to be very satisfactory. Therefore they established a branch of this office at the Law Courts and a great deal of work was carried out there. All these things taken together made the situation very different from what it was in 1884. He did not complain of the criticism as unjust, but after all it was one which could be met by a fair explanation, and he hoped the House would negative the Amendment and allow the Government to obtain the Resolution.

SIR F. BANBURY

said the hon. and learned Gentleman had made an extremely able and temperate speech, but he was careful with his astuteness and knowledge of the Law Courts not to allude to the first question he asked him, which was one of the most important points of his speech. He had asked him why it was that he himself and other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House had in 1904 drawn attention to the fact that these Motions were not put on the Paper, but were left at the desk in the clerks' hands. Under such circumstances, unless one knew the ropes he was perfectly unable to know what was going on, and consequently he could not draw the attention of the House to it. He had asked the hon. and learned Gentleman why he had allowed that course to be pursued on that occasion, and whether in the future he would take care to see that, as far as he was concerned, it should not happen again. He did not ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to bind the whole Government, but he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be present in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman took the very line that he was taking, in a speech made in 1904 on the subject. He supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman, not having an answer to his question, brushed the matter aside and gave them an extremely interesting speech to take off their attention, hoping that that would cause them to forget the Question that had been put; but having some little experience of legal gentlemen he was always exceedingly careful to see that they did not get the better of him, and therefore he watched the hon. and learned Member to see whether he answered his Question. As he had not done so, perhaps he would answer it now. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had given any reason why his Amendment should not be accepted. It provided that until next year, so far as Directors and Assistant-Directors were concerned, the amount should not exceed £4,000 in all. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of dealing with that point, gave them a long and interesting resume of how the clerks were to be appointed, what they would have to do, and where they would come from. He said, however, that there would be only one Director and Assistant-Director, but if the work was heavy they might have to appoint a larger staff, and it would not be desirable to stop the work, if Parliament was not sitting, by not appointing additional clerks. But his Amendment dealt with that point. The hon. and learned Gentleman might appoint fifty or sixty additional clerks so long as he only appointed one Director and Assistant Director, and he thought the sum as limited by his Amendment was ample. If it was necessary, not only to have another staff, but to have another Director and Assistant Director, they could increase the number of the latter next year, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman did not accept the Amendment he must divide the Committee upon it. He was quite certain that the hon. and learned Gentleman would do his best to carry out the intentions of the Government, as approved by Parliament. The intentions of the Government might be all very well, but they were sometimes changed, and circumstances over which they had no control compelled them to do sometimes that which they did not like to do. Therefore, it was not enough to say that it was the intention of the Government to do so-and-so, and they ought to put some limit on the expenditure which the House was going to sanction. He did not think it would be desirable to limit the expenditure in the office as a whole, but he did think it would be possible to limit it in regard to the salaries given to the Director and Assistant-Director. It was one of the charges made against them at the last election that the control of the House of Commons over the expenditure was departing, and that it was going into the hands of the Cabinet; and it was said that if the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power they would revive that control. That was exactly what he was trying to do. He moved the Amendment in no hostile spirit, but he thought they ought to know what they were going to spend in the coming year.

SIR W. ROBSON

was understood to say that, with regard to the first Question of the hon. Baronet, it related to some question of Parliamentary procedure, and he had humbly to confess that he knew nothing of that subject. As far as Parliamentary procedure was concerned he consulted his right hon. friends who were much better able than he was to deal with matters of that sort.

SIR F. BANBURY

asked if the hon. and learned Gentleman would reply to his Question?

SIR W. ROBSON

said, as he understood the hon. Baronet required a pledge that in future some Parliamentary offence should not be repeated, all he could say was that he would endeavour to ascertain what that Parliamentary offence was, and as far as he could he would endeavour not to repeat it. Prom the hon. Baronet's remarks it appeared that he did not read the Resolution in the sense in which he saw it was taken. It related to expenditure which might be resorted to in regard to salaries, and the hon. Gentleman said that certain salaries should not exceed £4,000. He would point out, however, that under the scheme of the Government, so far as additional expenditure was concerned, £4,000 would be very much in excess of what they desired. He, therefore, did not want to give a pledge beyond the necessities of the case. The Treasury were very vigilant on the matter of departmental increases of staff, and that, was, in the view of the Government, a sufficient reason for not accepting the Amendment.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said the last remark which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member was not encouraging as showing any inclination to meet the very clear case which had been advanced from that side of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought the Amendment of his hon. friend was not sufficiently drastic, but he would have great pleasure, if the present Amendment were rejected, in moving to limit the salaries to £3,000, and then perhaps he would be carrying out the intentions of the Attorney-General. He rose chiefly to call attention to what he considered was a very serious matter, viz., a question of Parliamentary practice, affecting public expenditure at large, in reference to which the hon. and learned Gentleman could not give them any assurance or indication of what the Government intended to do in the future. It was to be regretted—indeed, it almost amounted to a scandal—that no Cabinet Minister was on the Ministerial Bench to deal with a matter affecting the Government as a whole. The case was made even more serious by the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the guardian of the public purse, himself supported the cause which they were advocating that afternoon, and voted, no longer than four years ago, in support of the view he was now bringing forward. It was treating the House of Commons with the greatest discourtesy for Cabinet Ministers not to be present to explain the reasons for their change of policy; they simply ran away and hid themselves behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. He hoped his hon. friend would carry the Amendment to a division.

CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)

thought after what had fallen from the Attorney-General, it was obvious that the Bill was going to be a very expensive affair to the country, and that it would cost much more than was anticipated. He thought that, in view of the quotations from the speeches of distinguished Gentlemen opposite, in regard to the bringing forward of Money Resolutions, they had been treated with very scant courtesy. Surely it was not too much to demand that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have carefully thought out the details of what would be necessary when the Bill became law, for the first year at all events. It was not fair that the Government should attempt to smuggle through a large Estimate like this, that they should ask for a blank cheque on the Exchequer, without a single member of the Committee having the slightest knowledge of it. Debates had taken place on kindred subjects before and the present Financial Secretary on a similar Vote, in 1904 said— The Committee had no information as to whether it was meant to add a typewriter or an office boy to the office now under discussion.

The question now was of much greater importance. It was the question of the cost of a Director of Public Prosecutions and certain Assistant Directors to carry out the provisions of the Bill. Surely it was not too much to ask that some member of the Government should put a limit on the sum the Committee was asked to vote. Surely it was not too much to ask the Government to say that the cost of working the Act this year should not exceed £30,000 or £40,000. The complaint was that there was no limit put upon the Vote now asked for. The Attorney-General had appealed to the Committee not to press for a precise limit, but it would not be going too far to say that the salary of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be for this year £4,000. It could always be revised if it was found that he had more work to do than was at present anticipated. But no assurance was held out that the Government would guarantee that for twelve months the cost should not exceed a certain amount. He objected to the indefinite manner in which the Government without any notice attempted to smuggle large Votes through the House without putting them on the Paper, and as a protest he should certainly support the junior Member for the City of London in the lobby.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 49: Noes, 273. (Division List No. 55.)

Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the salaries and remuneration of the Director of Public Prosecutions and assistant directors appointed under any Act of the present session to amend the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, and of the Expenses incurred in pursuance of such Act."

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Forward to