§ (1) His Majesty may, if he thinks fit, appoint any number of persons having experience in the valuation of land to act as Referees for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
§ (2) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to every Referee appointed under this section such fees or remuneration as the Treasury direct.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the words, "His Majesty may, if he thinks fit, appoint any," and to insert instead thereof the word "Such."
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question put, "That the word 'Such' be there inserted."
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think the Government act wisely in not attempting to say. It would be very difficult indeed to tell until the Bill comes into operation. There will have to be a good deal of consideration and discussion as to the mode in which they are to be selected, and that, of course, will be decided by the facts that arise. Then there is the question of how much they are to be remunerated, and that depends upon the question how they are to be selected, and all these matters will have to be decided after the Bill has passed and after discussion with the distinguished Reference Committee becomes an accomplished fact. The Government will then have to discuss the question of number and the mode of appointment, and that which will largely affect 1454 the question of the amount of payment will be whether they are to be paid by salary or fees. None of these matters can be considered now, but they will have to be considered then.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThat is rather a large order for this Committee to be asked to give the Government a blank cheque in regard to the machinery for appointing these Commissioners. I think the Government should give some distinct indication of their views as to the very important point of salary. The question of the number cannot now be conveniently settled. The Government might give us some idea as to their views on number, but we cannot tie them down very closely. I think, however, they ought to have some views of their own and put them before the Committee on the question of salaries, and whether the Referees are to be paid by salary or by commission. Have the Government no views on that point?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think I have fairly expressed the view of the Government. What I said was that it does not seem advisable at the present stage to decide the question of salary or fees. It may be that both methods may be adopted or only one. A great deal will depend upon the appointments which are made by the Reference Committee. The Reference Committee will make the panel and decide how the selection is to be made. Then when the panel is made up and the mode of selection is determined the question of payment will be decided. I think the Government will be well advised in not committing itself now to any definite opinion, much less to a definite statement, as to which is the better plan. Of course, the matter has been considered, and is now being considered, but no final con- 1455 clusion ought to be arrived at until after consultation with the Reference Committee. I think when the whole organisation is mapped out it will then be the most appropriate time to decide the question.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe hon. and learned Gentleman puts forward two very different propositions, and I do not quite understand which it is that he relies upon. As to the matter of number, I think me are agreed; but he says it is right that the Government should have an opportunity of consulting with the Committee of Reference. That is one suggestion in which there may be some reason. That would not take very long to do. In the same breath he says it would not be wise to settle the question of salary and how the salary is to be paid until these gentlemen are actually appointed. That is a very different proposition. I think some settlement should be arrived at before that stage. I think the Government might very well take counsel with this Committee of Reference, which is a very strong Committee, and it may be reasonable to ask that the consultation should take place before any definite statement is made; but I do not see why that should not have been done already. It seems to me that it would have been possible to ascertain their opinion privately and put some suggestions before the House. That might certainly be done before the Report stage. Friends of mine have Amendments down, and they hold strong views on the important question in regard to the difference between salary and commission. There are pros and cons on both sides, and I agree it is not a thing which can be settled without very careful consideration. I quite see that if you pay by salary it is extremely difficult to settle, because you cannot state beforehand how much work is likely to fall upon the Referee. If you pay by commission, you are giving a direct incentive to high valuations, and one of my Friends has an Amendment down to distinctly prohibit that form of payment. I admit there is a difficulty, but it has to be faced, and I submit that that is a point on which we are all competent to form some judgment, and we ought to have an opportunity of exercising it, and it is the duty of the Government to give us some considered proposal on these very important points of principle. I think my Friends will be prepared to leave the matter over to the Report stage and not to press the Government unduly to give their 1456 decision, because it is obviously a fair suggestion that they should consult the Committee of Reference. But on the Report stage they should be prepared to give us their views, and we should have an opportunity of coming to a decision upon it, and that it should not be left entirely to rules to be settled after the matter has passed entirely out of the hands of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. A. B. MARKHAMI hope the Committee are not going to divest themselves of all their powers in this matter and hand over to the Reference Committee a question of high principle, namely, payment by commission or salary. I think the whole principle of payment by commission is vicious and wrong, and it is highly vicious and wrong in this particular case where there will be a direct incentive to make high values. I hope the Attorney-General will consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that on the Report stage we shall have something definite before the House, and that the House will not divorce itself from this power to settle what is, after all, a question for the House.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI entirely concur with what my hon. Friend has said as to payment by commission, but I do not think there is the slightest fear of that mode of payment being taken out of the hands of the Treasury into those of the Reference Committee. The Treasury have to approve the rules. The provision with regard to rules is that they cover the mode of selection of the Referee. That mode of selection is certainly a matter material to the consideration of the mode of payment. All I would say is that it is desirable that the rules should be drafted before the appointments are made, and that those who make the appointments should have ample means of considering the mode of selection. In fact, they must see what the mode of selection is to be before deciding as to the mode of payment. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about considering the matter between now and the Report stage will not be neglected. Though I do not desire to make any definite pledge, I would say that I see some difficulty in taking private expressions of opinion in regard to this matter. I am disposed to think that those to whom we might apply would not care to give any expression of their opinion, because they would not have all the material facts before them. I do not think we shall be able to get any indi- 1457 cation of their views before the Bill has actually become law. So far as it is practicable, I think the Government should put themselves in the position of giving some indication to the House of their own view.
§ Mr. CAVEIs it proposed that the appellant, or whoever goes to the Court, should pay the fees, or that he should have the assistance of the tribunal without payment of fees? Of course, that would have a bearing on the question of remuneration.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThat probably would have to be considered by the framers of the rule.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI do hope that the Attorney-General will be able to say more with respect to this matter before the Report stage than he has indicated in his reply. We have on the Paper several Amendments dealing with the question of the Referees. We are leaving the most important part, namely, the appointment of the Referees to a Committee or to a Treasury official. There is, I regret to say, a tendency to place matters of this kind in the hands of officials. I would ask the Committee to look at the importance of this question. The Referee is to have absolute power as to the payment of costs. Supposing he is a salaried official, then, of course, it does not matter to him who has to pay the costs of a particular litigation, but, if on the other hand, his fees have to be charged as part of the cost of the trial, as frequently happens in the case of Referees, he will be interested in the time of the settlement. His interest will be to give costs against an appellant. I do not think that is a desirable state of things myself. Surely it is a question for the House to determine. If the Referee has an interest in a particular job the House ought to determine how the remuneration is to be met, and the question of payment should not be left to the Committee of Referees subject to a certain kind of consent on the part of the Treasury. The Government will be bombarded with applications for appointments as Referees in different parts of the country, and it is perfectly right that the Committee of Reference should be the people to choose the applicants who should be appointed. I do hope that the Government will see their way to let the House on the Report stage have an opportunity of determining the very important question of how the Referees are to be remunerated.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe important point which emerges in this matter is whether the Referees are to be paid by salary or commission. I think there will be a general feeling that, although there are objections to both courses, obviously the objections to payment by salary are more objections as to machinery which can be adjusted. I quite understand that it is extremely difficult to know beforehand how much work is likely to fall to the Referees, and therefore to fix a salary which is to be enduring, but it does seem quite possible to fix a preliminary salary which might be varied after we have had experience in the matter. The objections to payment by commission are objections of principle which cannot be got over. I think everybody will admit, without imputing any motives to anyone whatever, that you cannot take out of the purview of any question of this kind what is the interest of the person himself. He may be the most honourable man in the world, but even if he does not act in his own interest there is always a suspicion which is repugnant. There is an Amendment standing lower down on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. G. D. Faber) to insert the words, "Provided that such fees or remuneration shall in no case be fixed on a sliding scale according to the value ascertained." I hope when that Amendment is moved the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think it would be undesirable to introduce any form of words here. I do not mind saying now that nothing could be more undesirable than that anything in the nature of payment by results should be adopted. It is no reflection on the honour of anyone to say that no man ought to be put in that position. I agree that that ought not to be the method of payment. I think I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this question will be carefully considered.
§ Mr. PRETYMANMay I take it that it will be provided for in the rules?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt must be in the rules.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThat payment shall not be by commission?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance now.
§ Mr. CAVEI would point out to the right hon Gentleman that in the lower 1459 part of the clause there are the words "as the Treasury shall direct." This matter, therefore, is entirely in the hands of the Treasury.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf it is entirely in the hands of the Treasury, I have no hesitation in saying that it would be a most undesirable way of payment.
§ Mr. MARKHAMThere is one point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has lost sight of. The President of the Institute of Mining Engineers is not on this panel. Mining is a very much larger industry than agriculture, and surely the President of the Institute of Mining Engineers ought to be a member of this panel? I make that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Amendments made, in Section (1), after the word "persons" ["number of persons"], insert the words "being persons who have been admitted Fellows of the Surveyors' Institution or other persons."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
§ In Section (1), after the word "land" ["valuation of land"], insert the words "as may be appointed for England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively by the Reference Committee shall form a panel of persons."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, at end of Section (1), to insert the words, "in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, and persons having experience in the valuation of minerals shall be included in each panel."
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYHaving put off the question of mineral claims, might you not do the same with regard to this? It would seem to be rather prejudging the question to put these words in there.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not want to prejudge that question. I have inserted this Amendment at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Durham and others. It does not really prejudge the question; but it will be considered on Report.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThere is one point in reference to the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. G. D. Faber) to insert at end of Section (1) the words, "all such appointments to be 1460 yearly but renewable, provided that the holders of such appointments, or the firms of which they are members, are not to act as valuers for private individuals in Crown matters during their term of office." The first part, I think, has already been dealt with by the Attorney-General, but I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us his views as to the latter part of the Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe suggestion as to not acting as valuers for private individuals in Crown matters is to ensure that they are absolutely impartial. I will consider that point.
§ 9.0 A.M.
§ Mr. PRETYMAN moved, at the end of Section (1), to insert the words, "Provided always that the Treasury shall cause an account of all appointments of Referees with salaries to be laid before each House of Parliament within twenty days after their appointment respectively if Parliament shall then be sitting, and, if Parliament shall not be sitting, then within twenty days after the next meeting of Parliament." This Amendment, which was put down by my right hon. Friend (Sir Edward Carson), follows exactly the precedent of the Income Tax Act, 1842. The reason for this is most obvious. It is most desirable that this House, and the Members of this House, should have cognisance of the appointments made.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThis is not the kind of case provided for by the Income Tax Act. That Act referred to special Commissioners who received permanent appointments, and I can quite understand that it would be most desirable to have a provision of the kind in the case of these Commissioners. The Referee is a totally different class of person. You do not appoint Referees with salaries. You have a panel from which you draw. A valuer is chosen from that panel, with a fee for the special case, and the appointment is not a case in which we could possibly notify Parliament of the appointment of the Referee chosen to decide in every individual case. I think that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) must have had something else in his mind; such as, for instance, that the Referee was a salaried person, an official of the Crown. That is not true at all.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSIt seems reasonable that the Treasury should have some control over the amount which the Treasury is to allow.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEParliament must decide the scale of fees. The right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that these Referees are salaried persons like the Special Commissioners, and that their appointment ought to be notified to Parliament. Obviously, the kind of transaction which takes place here, the selection of a Referee, is not such a matter as could be notified to Parliament.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.