LICENSING (EXPENSES). (Hansard, 29 October 1908)

§ *MR. G. D. FABER (York)
said that his fundamental objection to the provision of salaries for the three Licensing Commissioners, viz., £1,200 for the Senior Commissioner, and £1,000 each for the two Junior Commissioners, was not disposed of by the fact that, under an Amendment put down by the Solicitor-General, these moneys would not be found out of the compensation fund, but out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, although it might lessen the degree of his objection. The Solicitor-General foreshadowed on the previous night that the point that would be taken would be that the Opposition had been saying that it was wicked and unfair that this money should be provided out of the compensation fund, and that now the Government had changed their front it did not lie with the Opposition to make any further objection. But if a footpad presented himself in the small hours of the morning, and said: "Your money or your life," because a man might pay his money to save his life, that did not mean that he any the less objected to the most unfair alternative presented to him. So in this Bill, because the Government presented the alternative that the salaries should not be found by the compensation fund, but out of moneys provided by Parliament, although they took less objection to the present alternative, still they had a fundamental objection to the whole matter.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The proper course for the hon. Member would be to strike out Clause 14. The effect of negativing this Resolution, as I understand the hon. Member wishes to do, would only be to put the cost on the compensation fund.

§ *MR. G. D. FABER
continuing, said he would prefer the lesser evil of the present proposal of the Government. On the broader question as to whether this was the time for saddling the country with a project of this kind, he would ask if the Treasury was so overflowing, or the liabilities of the country so small, that they could afford to throw away money here, there, and everywhere. Was not the task of the Chancellor of the Exchequer sufficiently difficult, with the revenue of the country falling by millions, with the liabilities of the country rising by millions, with the taxpayers up to their necks in taxation at present and when next Budget Day came, he should think, almost head over ears? Was this the time for putting forward burdens of this kind in the shape of salaries for Commissioners whom the country did not want? It might be argued on the other side that after all this was only a small matter. When the Prime Minister, in his speech introducing the measure, came to the point about the salaries of the Commissioners, he remarked that the moneys would come out of the compensation fund, and there were cheers on his side of the House, followed by ironical cheers from the Opposition, and then the Prime Minister, in deference perhaps to the ironical cheers, said that after all it would not be a large financial matter. It was, however the last straw that broke the camel's back, and to make the mere answer, when a peccadillo had been committed, that it was only a little one, might be a sufficient answer for the purposes of debate, but, he did not think it was a sound one. The difficulties that presented themselves to the Government in the matter of finance were almost greater than they could bear. They were well aware, from the vivid sketch of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of predatory beings prowling in the neighbourhood of henroosts, but he was not sure that when next Budget day arrived, the Chancellor would not find that the eggs in the hen-roost 516 had become addled and that the hens had flown, and that the only birds that were left were the predatory or amatory cocks.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is himself flying far from the subject.

§ *MR. G. D. FABER
said he would descend from the language of the hen-roost as soon as he could. When the Chancellor found that the eggs were addled and the hens had gone, and came to put his hand on the place where he imagined good eggs lay, he would find nothing worth taking. The Government seemed to have a perfect passion for the establishment of Commissioners with large salaries. There was the case of the Small Holdings Commission for England, and exactly the same in the case of the Scottish Commission, both with high salaries and—

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss this question. This is after all a formal Resolution, and the only question for him to decide is whether he prefers that the salaries shall be paid out of the compensation fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament.

§ *Mr. G. D. FABER
said that if these salaries had to be inflicted either on the taxpayers or on the compensation fund, if it must be one way or the other, then he said, and said definitely, that the lesser of the two evils was that the taxpayers of the country should pay these salaries, and that they should not be put upon the back of a well-deserving class of the community, the licence-holders, who were already going to be smitten almost to extinction under the different clauses of the Government's Bill.

§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
said he desired to move an Amendment to add, at the end of the Resolution, the words "such expenses not to exceed £6,000 per annum."

§ *MR. SPEAKER
I have put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," and no Amendment, therefore, is possible.

§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that that would not prevent him from saying that they should not pass a Resolution of that kind, which committed them to an indefinite liability. That was to say, they would have to pay out of the funds of the nation such a sum as the Treasury might choose to set aside for the benefit of the expenses of the central trio in London. The actual salary to be paid to these three gentlemen had already been defined in the Resolution. He did not know who was in charge of the Bill that afternoon—

§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,) Glamorganshire, Mid.
It does not matter.

§ SIB F. BANBURY
said it was a serious matter that an hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should say it did not matter. In the minds of true economists the voting of unlimited money did matter. He might be met by the statement that it would be impossible to put a definite sum in the Resolution, because it was not known what the expenses of the Commission would be, and his answer to that would be that the Government ought to know. He quite agreed that this particular cost should be put upon the taxpayer, but he thought the taxpayer should be safeguarded by the House of Commons; he had always understood that that was the first duty of the House of Commons. It used to be the old difference between King and Commons that the King wanted to spend the money and the Commons wanted to prevent him doing so, but the situation now seemed to be reversed. The most democratic House of Commons that the country had ever, unfortunately, seen was the House of Commons that, more than any other, considered the expenditure of money a small matter. Why should it not be possible to estimate what the cost would be? After all, the amount of the salaries having been determined, the remaining expenses would only be the cost of the offices and their administration, i.e., the salaries of the clerks required to carry out the work. It did not seem to be a very large and serious matter. The Solicitor-General flattered him the other day 518 by saying that if he (Sir F. Banbury) was one of these Commissioners he would have no difficulty in separating certain accounts. He thought, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had offered him the post, he would have had very little difficulty in finding out the expenses of the office. They saw before them an array of talent on the Treasury Bench. Was it conceivable that the one right hon. Gentleman and the two hon. Gentlemen on that Bench were not able, with all the resources they had behind them, to tell what the expense of a few clerks would be? He suspected that they were afraid the expenses would be much larger than the House had any anticipation of, that they knew that the central trio was going to be a sort of new Star Chamber, and that the expenses of it would be extremely high.

§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)
said he desired to join in the appeal of the hon. Baronet that before they passed this Resolution authorising so large an expenditure they should have more information laid before them. He did not quite agree with the hon. Baronet that the office expenses would be limited to a few clerks' salaries. The amount of correspondence entailed would be enormous. There would be correspondence with every bench of licensing justices in the country. Then there might be questions of the revising of the schemes sent up by licensing justices, and numerous private persons and societies might appeal against those schemes, in so far as they were able to know of them, which was doubtful, and that would entail correspondence. Then there might arise questions of the jurisdiction of the Commissioners towards recalcitrant magistrates, which might involve a further and very considerable expenditure. For instance, they knew that the magistrates had to give full information as to their schemes and the conditions of licensing in their area. Supposing they refused to give that information, what means had the Commissioners of enforcing it? It might be by legal proceedings, which again would be very costly. Therefore he did not know that the estimate was altogether so simple as the hon. Baronet imagined. There were a number of contingent 519 charges, and he thought they were entitled to ask the Under-Secretary for the Home Department to say, roughly, what he calculated the expenses of these Commissioners would be, because there was a great deal of certain expenditure, certain clerical expenses, and certain postal expenses, and a great deal of indefinite legal expense. Another consideration that occurred to him was how, in practice, these sums would appear in the Estimates of the year. Would a separate class of Estimates be created, and would it be possible to make quite sure that when that class was on they would appear first? Then, again, what Minister would answer for them in the House? Before they committed themselves to this expenditure they must know what means they would have of checking and revising it, and he suggested that they would vote this money with greater readiness if they knew that. A further consideration which occurred to him was as to whether it was necessary that this Commission should be paid at all. There were many men with the greatest knowledge of licensing questions, and he should have thought that one could get Commissioners who would undertake the duties without payment. He thought it would not be impossible to find a gentleman to fill the position of Commissioner, who would command the confidence of the House, and who would do the work unpaid. But if there was to be a body of Commissioners at all, the House should have an opportunity of revising and checking the payments, and it was not clear that such an opportunity would be afforded. He thought, too, that the House should know something more of the personnel of the Commission.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
That question is not relevant. It can be raised in Committee on the Bill.

§ MR. JAMES HOPE
said he would put it in this way—that the House would more gladly accept the Resolution if they had greater assurance as to the status and description of the gentlemen the Government had in their mind.

§ EARL WINTERTON (Sussex, Horsham)
desired to support the view of 520 his hon. friend that this Resolution ought not to be passed without some further details from the Government. They all recognised that this was merely a formal Resolution, and that the details would be settled in other parts of the Bill; at the same time more information should be given. He thought that both sides of the House in future should oppose money Resolutions in which the actual details for which they were voted were not put down. They ought to object to the present Resolution also on the grounds of the Bill itself, because, although the probability was that a large sum of money was not intended to be spent on the expenses of the Commission, still the possibility was that the sum might be very much larger than the Government intended. The Commission to be appointed could not be described as a democratic body; it would be purely bureaucratic, and they knew that bureaucratic institutions had the habit of spending far more money than they ought, or than was intended. He appealed to distinguished Radicals, financial purists, and economic experts below the gangway opposite to say whether they did not agree that it was not right that the House should pass a money Resolution in which the details did not appear. When he said that the expenses of this bureaucratic Commission were likely to grow out of proportion to their needs, he had in mind the education committees of the county councils, whose expenses had grown enormously, there being a multiplication of unnecessary letters and telegrams, accompanied by red tape. He would put it to the Solicitor-General whether he did not think that these bureaucratic Commissions had a tendency to spend money out of all proportion to the amount that it was intended by Parliament should be spent. The hon. and learned Gentleman had shown Members of the Opposition great courtesy and consideration during these debates, and he trusted he would give them some information, if only on the general ground that Resolutions like the present ought not to be passed without their hearing some details from the Government.

§ SIR S. EVANS
said the particular question before the House was a very 521 narrow one. It was whether the expenses of the Commissioners, whatever they might be, ought to be borne out of funds provided by Parliament, or whether they should be part of the compensation levy. The amount to be spent was not unlimited. First of all, the salaries of the Commissioners were restricted by the very terms of the clause, to which they would come later. There were certain maximum sums, and the amounts allowed to the chairman and other members of the Commission would not exceed those mentioned in the clause. With regard to the members of the office staff, before they were appointed they must be approved by the Secretary of State, and the remuneration to be given must be sanctioned by the Treasury. In addition to that, the whole of the salaries and the whole cost of the office would be a matter which could be discussed in the House of Commons on the Estimates. The Minister who would have to answer in the House for the proceedings of the Commission would be the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and Members would be in a position to make any criticism on the proceedings which took place in the office of the Commissioners. Whatever Government was in power, it would take care that the persons appointed were persons possessing the confidence of the House generally. If the hon. Member for Sheffield could suggest any suitable gentleman who would be willing to fill the office for a nominal sum, he had no doubt any suggestion coming from him would receive the gravest consideration of the Treasury.

§ MR. JAMES HOPE
Will the Commissioners be able to incur expenses?

§ SIR S. EVANS
I think so; yes.

§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)
asked whether the Solicitor-General intended the House to understand that the payment of the salaries and expenses of the Commissioners was to appear as part of the Home Office Vote. If they followed the form of the Home Office Vote it was obvious it would be impossible on the Home Secretary's salary to discuss the action of the Commissioners 522 who would be independent of the control of the Home Secretary. Therefore, he wished to know whether in future in the Home Office Vote there would be a separate heading under which would come the salaries of the Commissioners and their staff. [Sir S. EVANS was understood to indicate assent.] That, of course, made it clear that the conduct of the Commissioners would come under the review of Parliament. So far as concerned the question at issue, it was of course obvious that his hon. friends were in this position: if they successfully resisted the passage of the Resolution then the payment of the salaries and expenses would have to come out of the levy—a course which they undoubtedly did not desire. On the other hand, he thought his hon. friends were justified in calling attention to the questions which they had raised. The Government were unnecessarily creating a new body of officials to do work which could have been done in almost the same time without their appointment. The Government and their supporters had cried "economy" while in opposition, but since they had come into office they had indulged in extravagance which was altogether unjustifiable, and the extravagance was not less on this occasion, because the sum involved happened to be comparatively small. His hon. friends could only make a protest, but if they were to enforce it by a vote they would be rightly exposed to the charge that, whatever their intentions might be, the result of their division, if successful, would be to cast an additional burden upon the levy. He strongly advised his hon. friends not to press the Motion to a division, but simply to protest against this addition to the public expenditure, which they believed to be the worst form of extravagance, namely, spending public money without any just cause or reason.

§ *MR. BARNARD (Kidderminster)
said the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had elicited from the Solicitor-General what he wanted to know, namely, that these Commissioners would be responsible to Parliament. It seemed to him that there was no reason whatever for opposing this Motion, because the Opposition, if successful, would be more 523 in the interests of the supporters of the Bill than of its opponents. To his mind, the temperance party would be the more likely to object, because if the Motion was not passed, the charge would come upon the levy. For his part, he gladly welcomed the Government's putting this charge upon the Exchequer, and he thought it was a step in the right direction.

§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)
said the Solicitor-General would doubtless bear in mind that it was the exception to put a Commission of this class into the Home Office Vote, and it was only fair to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that there was a separate vote for Special Commissions, in which, under ordinary circumstances, this one would appear. He presumed the hon. and learned Gentleman was satisfied that he could put this Commission in the Home Office Vote.

§ SIR S. EVANS
said that Special Commissions and Royal Commissions came under a separate Vote, but he was advised that as this Licensing Commission might be regarded as permanent, at least for fourteen years, there would be no difficulty in putting it into the Home Office Vote in the same way as the Prisons Commission was dealt with.

§ SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)
said that this new fangled system of officialism which had taken the place of common law had been adopted to a much greater extent by the present Government than by any of its predecessors. As to what the expenses were likely to be they had a valuable lesson in the working of the Crofters Commission in Scotland. It had been stated that the crofters cases had been settled at an average cost of 1s. 6d. per case. That statement caused great astonishment to those who knew that the cost of the Crofters Commission was vastly greater than that, and it turned out when an explanation was offered, that all the Prime Minister meant was that the legal cost, so far as the Courts of law were concerned, was 1s. 6d. a case. What had been the expenses of the Crofters Commission, which was analogous to the body they were now setting up?

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The illustration seems to be very remote from the matter now before the House.

§ SIR HENRY CRAIK
said he only mentioned it to show how much larger than the estimate the cost of a Commission generally was. The cost of the Commission instead of being 1s. 6d. a case turned out to be over £4 for each case. From that example they might see what was likely to be the cost of the Commission established under this Bill.

§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)
said it appeared to him they were getting in this discussion hardly adequate information from the Government. It appeared to be setting up an entirely nebulous body which was almost unprecedented, and he did not think it would come under Parliamentary control. He would like a little more information, but the hon. Gentleman appeared to know very little about it himself. Perhaps his colleagues knew a little more. It appeared to be a characteristic of the Bill that there were details in it which members of the Government knew nothing whatever about. They were endeavouring to find out what was in the Bill and what it was brought in for, but the Government could not enlighten them.