HC Deb 26 February 1912 vol 34 cc1006-14

Motion made, and Question proposed.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Offices of the House of Commons."

Mr. FELL

May I ask the Minister in charge of the Vote whether there is included in this sum anything for the payment of Members, or for expenses occasioned by them?

Mr. REMNANT

I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman about the £300 under the head of Police and Miscellaneous Expenses (increase caused by the revised pay of the police and the effect of the weekly day of rest). I take it that the money is solely for the police attached to the Houses of Parliament. It is natural that this should be included here, for these police have been described as being on the sole charge of His Majesty's Treasury. Are these men for whom this £300 is now asked to be denied the one day's rest in seven until the Police Rates Bill has been passed? As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the Metropolitan Police Rates Bill refers only to those who are paid, or partly paid, out of the rates of the Metropolis, whereas these police are paid solely by the Exchequer, and are no charge upon any of the rates of the Metropolis. It would be a considerable relief to these men to know that their one day's rest in seven is not to be affected by the rejection of the Metropolitan Police Rates Bill. I want also to ask the hon. Gentleman concerning the revised pay to the police: Do the Parliamentary police get this 1s. 6d. per day increase on the same lines as the Metropolitan Police? If so, where is it? Is it for that that the £300 is asked? It seems to me that there must be something in addition to the £300. I should like the hon. Gentleman to give us some information about this important matter.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

I should like to ask about the £2 per day extra for the official reporting of the Debates of the House for each sitting of the House beyond 150. I think the Official Reporters have a very arduous task, and I am only too glad that they should receive adequate remuneration, for their labours. But I want to ask the hon. Gentleman who has settled that the sittings of the House are to be 150? Further, am I to understand that in the opinion of this Government the normal sittings of the House in one Session should be 150? I presume that somebody must have arrived at the figure of 150, and I presume that that figure must have been founded on the idea that that was the proper time for the House of Commons to sit—150 days, that is seven and a half months. If this be so, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he contemplates making any reduction in the number of these days; whether it is intended to revert to the ordinary length of Session?

Mr. BOOTH

We have payment of Members now.

4.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY

I began the few remarks I am making by saying that in our opinion the Official Reporters should be paid just remuneration for their arduous duties; and I further said that, apparently in the view of the Government, 150 days was the proper time for the House of Commons to sit. The hon. Gentleman opposite talks of the payment of Members. Why should they not get £2 a day extra for every day over 150? If it is understood that 150 days are to be length of the Session, Members, who have quite as hard work to do as reporters, should be paid in addition for overtime. I hope hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side will remember this, and will assist me in suggesting to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that somebody besides reporters should be paid for the labours for the Session when they are protracted. I hope the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary thoroughly understands the question I put to him. I want to know why are 150 days selected, and I want to know who fixed the 150 days, which is seven and a half months. I think that is an accurate calculation. It is an extremely long time; I want to know whether we are to sit for 150 days this Session? I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer these questions, because he has always distinguished himself by courtesy in answering questions in other posts which he occupied. I have not a word of complaint against the hon. Gentleman. I should like to know if he remembers that when our party was in power and his party in opposition they always inveighed against Supplementary Estimates. They said they were a mistake—showed want of business knowledge and acumen and want of foresight. I wish my powers of expression would enable me to use all the words so eloquently used by hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to these Supplementary Estimates when my hon. Friends on this side of the House were in power. Has the hon. Gentleman made any calculation or not as to whether it would be necessary to have Supplementary Estimates again at the end of the Session?

With regard to the question of the payment of the police, my hon. Friend (Mr. Remnant) asked a good many questions, so that I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more on that point; but I want to know what the £940 addition in fees is for. Payment of fees have increased £940 more than what was expected in the original estimate of the amount. To whom were these fees paid? My hon. Friend beside me (Mr. James. Hope) is very learned in these matters, and perhaps he can give us the information. It is a very large sum, and I should like to know very much who pays these fees, and how this estimate was so badly made at the commencement? I hope I have not put too many questions to the hon. Gentleman, because I want to deal gently with him, as this is the first occasion he is dealing with Estimates in his new office, and therefore I have rather limited my questions.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

I should like to know whether this increased pay for the police is applicable to all ranks or only to constables; and also whether, in view of the great amount of extra work put upon the police during last Session, any extra allowance has been made for late sittings of the House?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)

I thank the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) for the kindly tone in which he has spoken of me, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy his thirst for information. This Vote, as I think the hon. Baronet knows, is not a Vote for which the Treasury are strictly responsible. It is a Vote settled by the House of Commons Offices Commission under special Statute, over which Mr. Speaker presides. They settled the number of days after which the extra pay should be calculated, and it was the House of Commons Commission which made that recommendation. The £940 addition in fees is paid by the promoters of private Bills on the regular scale and the extra amount is in part due to the prolonged nature of the Session. As to the question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Archer-Shee) in regard to the increased pay to the police, it is paid to the police of all ranks, and does not include any special Treasury Grant from any Supplementary Estimate. As regards the very pertinent questions put by the hon. Member (Mr. Remnant), the increased amount we are asking is for the House of Commons police, and is for two purposes. Since the 7th August, 1911, the Metropolitan Police are paid at a higher rate, and consequently a higher rate is demanded of us for the Metropolitan Police. The other is for the increased allowance policemen now get owing to the gradual introduction of the weekly rest-day. Hon. Members will be glad to know, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, the rest-day is given. I am sure the whole House will welcome the giving of this small extra allowance to the police of the House of Commons on the one hand and to the Official Reporters on the other.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the remuneration given to the Official Reporters, and said it was settled by a Commission over which Mr. Speaker presides. As we are all agreed in this House that Supplementary Estimates are most unsatisfactory, and have always been the object of attack by hon. Members opposite when they were in Opposition, can we not have some information from the hon. Gentleman as to whether the same steps are to be taken in regard to the present Session as to the remuneration of the Official Reporters? The hon. Gentleman, I suppose, does not anticipate that the duration of this Session will be very long, or perhaps he does. At any rate, there is no indication as to the extra remuneration to which the Reporters may lay claim, and will the hon. Gentleman see that some steps should be taken by the Government next year so that if Supplementary Estimates are brought forward the number of days should be larger than 150.

Sir HILDRED CARLILE

One part of the explanation given by the Secretary to the Treasury seems to me to be unsatisfactory, and that is in connection with the Appropriation-in-Aid on the question of fees. The hon. Gentleman's explanation was that the fees were larger because of the length of the Session. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that as these fees are derived from private Bill legislation, and as notice of Private Bill legislation must be given at the very beginning of the Session, the explanation with regard to the length of the Session does not hold good. I have no doubt he has further information to give us upon the point, but I am afraid his present explanation is far from satisfactory.

Viscount WOLMER

There was one point upon which the Secretary to the Treasury did not touch, and that was as to the excessive hours of duty imposed upon the police during the long sittings. I asked a question of the Secretary to the Treasury last Session as to what remuneration was paid to the police on the occasion of these long all-night sittings.

The CHAIRMAN

That question should be raised on the main Estimate, not upon the Supplementary Estimate.

Viscount WOLMER

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the extra expenses for the police was allowed for in this Supplementary Estimate, and are we to understand that this item for the police has nothing to do with the extra sittings of the House?

Mr. MASTERMAN

I said any extra allowance given to the police did not come in this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

There is one question which I want to put to the hon. Gentleman, and I am afraid in doing so I display my own ignorance. I want to ask him about this Commission to which he refers. Is it a permanent Commission? I remember some years ago, when unfortunately I was not a Member of the House, I read of considerable dissatisfaction which was felt at the reporting of our proceedings. Some body was appointed to go into the question. That body is in existence to-day, and it meets from time to time to review any question that may arise in connection with our reporting. I think the hon. Gentleman spoke of a Commission or a Committee. Is this body reappointed every Parliament or every Session? I understand that body is responsible for this extra item. They asked for a larger sum of money for extra work for the Official Reporters. On the whole I entirely approve of that, but at the same time, of course, we want to get value for the extra money. I think there has been a very great improvement in the reporting of our Debates under the very able and assiduous supervision of Mr. Dods Shaw.

The CHAIRMAN

That is a matter also for the main Estimate, but not for Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I was only pointing out that as more money was asked for we might have some guarantee that greater care was exercised. It is not a matter I want to press, as I admit there has been great improvement. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, with regard to this Committee or Commission, what its constitution is, how often it sits, also what is the basis of payment taken to be? It seems to be rather an anomaly that when the Session is unusually prolonged there should be an extra Estimate required for the remuneration. I never heard of extra remuneration for the long hours caused by all-night sittings, and we must look forward to many all-night sittings in this Session.

The CHAIRMAN

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but the whole subject is outside the question of this Supplementary Vote. It should be raised upon the main Estimate of the year. The reference to the Commission made by the Secretary for the Treasury was only permissible to explain how the 150 days is arrived at.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

When was this Commission appointed?

Lord HUGH CECIL

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the names of the Commission? I understand that this Estimate is due to decisions taken by a Commission over which Mr. Speaker presides. I suppose it is a Commission appointed in obedience to a Vote of this House or under an Act of Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to tell us who serve on this Commission in order that we may know who is responsible for these Estimates?

The CHAIRMAN

That question is not in order on this occasion, because it would raise the whole question of the power of that Commission, which is distinctly a matter for the main Vote of the year.

Lord HUGH CECIL

If we cannot discuss the policy of the Commission generally, I think we might be told their names, because that would be useful to us in making preparations later on.

The CHAIRMAN

The Noble Lord can discover the names of the Commission in the usual way from the ordinary sources of information.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Perhaps the right hon. Gentlemen will say what sources of information are available?

Mr. MASTERMAN

If the Noble Lord will put down a question I shall be glad to answer it.

Lord HUGH CECIL

My experience in regard to the putting down of questions is unhappy.

Sir F. BANBURY

I remember, on a similar occasion, the wrong answer was given to my question, and I am inclined to think the Secretary to the Treasury has read the wrong answer this time. The increase in the fees to which reference has been made cannot be due to the length of the Session because all Private Bills come under certain Standing Orders and comply with them before November, 1910, for the Session which is just over. Under these circumstances, how on earth can they have increased because the Session was a long one? I think the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake, and the answer he has given is a wrong one. I shall be glad if he will answer my question, and state whether or not I am correct in saying that the fees are payable for the last year in November, 1910?

Mr. JAMES HOPE

With regard to 150 days fixed with reference to the reporters, it is certain that under modem conditions it is rather too low. I wish to ask a question about the revised payment of the police. I take it that this is a general revision, or is it some special allowance granted for attendance at this House?

Mr. G. D. FABER

I wish to know if any provision has been made of any kind in regard to all-night sittings—

The CHAIRMAN

That is not in order on this Vote.

Mr. G. D. FABER

The point I wish to put is whether on an occasion when the House has had an all night sitting, is any provision made for meals—

The CHAIRMAN

Probably the hon. Member was not present a moment ago when I dealt with this question. The point he has raised is a matter to be dealt with on the main Vote, and it cannot be dealt with on a Supplementary Vote.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury answer my question?

Mr. MASTERMAN

I am afraid I shall not be in order. If I am in order I may say that the Commission settled this increase in the payment to the reporters last December when the 150 days was fixed. With regard to the question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, perhaps I did not explain what I meant clearly by the length of the Session. I should have said the anticipated length of the Session. There was an uncertain anticipation last Session because there were more contentious Bills dealt with, and that makes it more expensive as regards fees. The revised pay of the police merely consists of the amount we have to pay for the police, and this cost is more because they have been given more pay all over the Metropolitan area.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Is this increase sanctioned by the Commission done under an Act of Parliament or under the Standing Orders of the House?

Mr. MASTERMAN

Under an Act of Parliament.

Mr. REMNANT

What will be the increase in the course of this year?

Mr. MASTERMAN

I am afraid I cannot tell at the moment.

Sir F. BANBURY

I did not wish to convict the hon. Gentleman of error, but I think I have done so. I understand that the promoters of Private Bills anticipated that the Session would be a lengthy one and they brought in a large number of Bills at the proper time. That is the revised answer of the hon. Gentleman. May I point out that business would be expedited if the hon. Gentleman would give the right answer the first time.

Question put, and agreed to.