CLAUSE 83.—(Appointment of Umpire, Insurance Officers, Inspectors, etc.). (Hansard, 1 December 1911)

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
What precisely is the meaning of these words? I imagine that all these appointments are ultimately made by His Majesty, but in practice they are made by the Government on the recommendation of a Minister. Is any different mode of appointment intended than in the case of an insurance officer? I understand that the insurance officers are to be appointed by the Board of Trade and the umpire by His Majesty. As to the deputy-umpire, I do not know 899 how he is to be appointed; he is a person we know nothing about yet. I am sure we are all anxious that these appointments shall not be in any sense political jobs, but that they shall be made by the Government through the Civil Service Commission. I understand that is the intention of the Government regarding insurance officers, but apparently the umpire is to be taken out of that category, and is to Be appointed direct by the Government. Is that the intention the Board of Trade has hi inserting these words here? We are very anxious in all parts of the House that these posts should be given to people according to their qualification, and not as a reward for political services. If it is intended that they are to be political appointments, we shall protest against the insertion of these words. Our view is that they ought to be appointed in the Civil Service, and apparently these words are intended to differentiate this particular appointment from the others. At all events, we may fairly ask for some explanation.

Mr. BUXTON
When we were discussing this and other cognate, matters in Grand Committee I gave a very emphatic assurance that in these appointments no question of political influence would be allowed to affect the selection. The original proposal was that the umpire should be appointed, with the insurance officers, by the Board of Trade direct. I put down this particular Amendment at the desire of certain Members of the Committee, who raised the question how far this officer would be independent of the Board of Trade. In order to make it as clear as I could, and to make him as independent as we could, I said I would introduce these words on Report. They emphasise the fact that he is not a Board of Trade official, and is an independent officer, and whereas the Board of Trade would have full power of dismissal in other cases, in this case they would not. The appointment will not be in any sense a political appointment.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
Does it affect the tenure of the appointment? We know he can be appointed by patent under the Great Seal, but still he will not be on a par with His Majesty's judges in respect of tenure of office. The real substance of the whole thing is, will he hold office during good behaviour, or will he be removable at the option of 900 the President of the Board of Trade or the head of His Majesty's Government? In the view of a good many Members, it is essential that he should have security of tenure and should be in an independent position, as independent as the Comptroller and Auditor-General or one of His Majesty's judges, considering the important duties he will have to perform.

§ Sir J. SIMON
This gentleman's tenure, legally speaking, would be that of everybody who serves under the Crown unless, indeed, some special provision was made to the contrary. The object here is to make it clear that this umpire is not an official of the Board of Trade. The Committee expressed a very strong desire that he should not be an official of the Board of Trade, and should not be treated as though subordinate to the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. That is our only object. Of course, you cannot limit the power of the Crown, to dismiss a Crown servant, but, in point of fact, if you put this umpire in the position of being appointed by the Crown solemn forms have to be gone through before he can be dismissed. He cannot be dismissed as a departmental man could. He may be dismissed in exactly the same way as an admiral or a general or a soldier. He may be dismissed because the Crown does not further require his services. But before any such step could be taken it is obvious that the strongest objection could be raised in Parliament if the power was abused.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated quite accurately what happened in Committee, but not quite completely, because the President of the Board of Trade said, after quite considerable argument, it was the intention of the Board of Trade in some way to make it clear on the face of the Bill that it was intended that this officer should be an independent officer. At all events that is our intention, and if the Committee will allow me between now and Report to consider whether we can put in some words to that effect—— It is quite true that the President suggested that instead of making the Board of Trade the persons to appoint they would make the Crown, and that part of their undertaking they have carried out completely by these words. But there was something to be put in on the face of the Bill which would show that this umpire, who is to have very large powers, was to be entirely independent. I do not see 901 that there is any statement in this Clause or anywhere to that effect, and the only form, I imagine, in which you could put any such statement would be in connection with this appointment and the tenure of his office. Therefore, my hon. Friend (Mr. Harry Lawson) seemed to me to be touching exactly the point when he wanted to know what the tenure of the office of umpire was. You cannot put in the Bill the words "and the umpire shall be independent." You cannot insult him in advance, but you can provide for the same thing by making him an irremovable officer more or less as the judges of the Supreme Court are. That is what I hoped the President of the Board of Trade meant when he made that statement in Committee. He has carried out part of it by making the appointment by the Crown, but he does not seem to have met the other part of it at all. I do not know whether it is still possible to do it.
There seems to me to be a little practical difficulty in the way. I would also call attention to the fact that deputy-umpires are to be appointed, but they are not to be appointed by the Crown, but by the Board of Trade, so that the President has taken away again from his undertaking by appointing deputy-umpires. I can quite imagine they will be necessary. It will be almost impossible for one umpire to do the whole of the work which will be thrown upon him under the Bill. But the same objection which will have been taken to an umpire appointed by the Board of Trade can be taken, and properly taken, to deputy-umpires appointed by the Board of Trade. Indeed, the objection is even greater because, presumably, the standing of the deputy-umpire will not be as good as the standing of the umpire. You might get a man of very commanding position to take the post of umpire. Certainly if you are going to have five or ten deputies or even more you cannot expect to get men at the same standing to take the deputy position. So that if the President intends to carry out the spirit of his undertaking he has to meet these two positions, the position of the irremovable character of the appointment of the umpire, and also the position as regards the appointment of the deputy-umpire.

Mr. BUXTON
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman thought I had not carried out my undertaking. The undertaking was that this officer should, if possible, be an 902 independent officer. The words I used in summing it up were these, For instance, the appointment might be by the Crown instead of by the Board of Trade, or in some way to make it clear on the face of the Bill that it was intended that this officer should be an independent officer. That I have done, and I certainly intended, as far as possible, to make him an independent officer. With regard to the power of dismissal, the Crown will have to be consulted, but the important part of it is that we have put it on the face of it that he shall be an independent officer.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the deputies? The value of the undertaking depends entirely on what he is going to do with the deputy-umpires. If they are to do the work instead of the umpire the same undertaking ought to be extended to cover their appointment as well as the appointment of the umpire.