§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the Salaries and Pensions of every Lord of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect. to the number and duties of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary."—[Sir Refus Isaacs.]
§ Mr. MARTINI beg to move, as an Amendment, to add the words, "provided that the sum paid in salaries in any one year to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under this Act shall in no case exceed the. sum of £10,000."
I endeavoured in a general way on the Second Reading to point out the objec- 1628 tions to the principle of this Bill that are so manifest. I did not care very much what judges were appointed in the House of Lords. It is the gross waste of public money in connection with this Bill which, after all, I feel bound to prevent as far as possible. It is true that in speaking upon the Bill itself I submitted that if these judges were to be appointed, £6,000 per annum each was much too large a salary, and it may perhaps be suggested that I am inconsistent now in proposing that the salary of the judges shall he confined to £5,000 per annum. But I can allow no personal charges of inconsistency against myself to interfere with my protest against the passing of the Bill. The Government have not seen fit to explain to us why, while last year, in endeavouring to pass this Bill, they attempted to oil its way through this House by themselves reducing the salaries of these two Lords of Appeal-in-Ordinary to £5,000, because the salary of the present Lords of Appeal is £6,000 a year each. That was the proposition last year. The salaries were to be £1,000 a year less in each case. There are 1629 already more judges in the House of Lords than are necessary for the business that comes before them. There are now between twenty and twenty-five judges available in the House of Lords, most of them receiving pensions from the Government.
§ The CHAIRMAN:This appears to be a rediscussion of the Second Reading of the Bill, or else to anticipate some discussion in Committee. The Financial Resolution simply empowers the Committee on the Bill to consider the proposals inserted in the Bill.
§ Mr. MARTIN:I am trying to justify the proviso which I wish to add. I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I was directing my argument to the fact that the present Lords of Appeal each receives £6,000 a year, and this general Resolution provides money for other purposes of the Bill. If I am not in error, the result of passing that general Resolution is that the Bill would provide £6,000 a year for each of these judges. My proviso is that only £5,000 a year shall be allowed. Surely it is a proper question for the Committee at the present time to consider whether or not they will adopt my proviso. I have to go into the question of the number of judges to show that the addition to the Resolution which I propose is a proper one.
§ The CHAIRMANThis appears to be a xediscussion of the Second Reading of the Bill, or else to anticipate some discussion in Committee. The Financial Resolution simply empowers the Committee on the Bill to consider the proposals inserted in the Bill.
§ Mr. MARTINI am trying to justify the proviso which I wish to add. I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I was directing my argument to the fact that the present Lords of Appeal each receives £6,000 a year, and this general Resolution provides money for other purposes of the Bill. If I am not in error, the result of passing that general Resolution is that the Bill would provide £6,000 a year for each of these judges. My proviso is that only £5,000 a year shall be allowed. Surely it is a proper question for the Committee at the present time to consider whether or not they "will adopt my proviso. I have to go into the question of the number of judges to show that the addition to the Resolution which I propose is a proper one.
§ The CHAIRMANThis is not the time to consider the salaries. The Financial Resolution simply empowers the Committee to consider the question which the hon. Gentleman is now raising. We cannot go into the details of the Clauses.
§ Mr. MARTINMy Amendment is not cut of order then?
§ The CHAIRMANNo.
§ Mr. MARTINIf it is not out of order, surely I can support it?
§ The CHAIRMANIt depends on the manner of the support.
§ Mr. MARTINI can say nothing about the manner, but really my object is to prevent a waste of public money. I am willing to furnish some money, but not to give the right to get any money they may think necessary. If I am out of order in that, I shall have to sit down. I think I have the very best argument in the world for asking the Committee to confine the Government to £10,000, which is like dropping a capital sum of £300,000 for no 1630 purpose whatever, except it means some arrangement between the Front Bench opposite and the Government Front Bench. The Opposition are always talking about hordes of officials, but they never fail to vote in favour of any addition, especially if they happen to be in some profession. I understand there is an arrangement between the Front Benches of both sides by which one of the new Lords of Appeal will be a Tory, and the other a Liberal, and that is the— reason[HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] I might be able to give the names, but that would be betraying a confidence. I suppose that is the reason so far why we have been unable to wake up any hon. Members opposite with regard to the throwing away of this money. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) and other hon. Members are quite accustomed to move Amendments of this kind, asking to have the money placed at the disposal of the Government, limited in some way. I do hope in spite of any such arrangement if there be one, I shall have some support from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who make such large claims to be economists. Last year, when this measure was before the House, we had a very large measure of support from the Labour party, but on the Second Reading this year we had no help from them whatever. I think there is a misunderstanding in the Labour party. The Government appointed a very able Member of that party, the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), on a Commission, which is still sitting, with regard to the question——
§ The CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member is dealing with the Bill as a whole, and had better keep to the Amendment.
§ Mr. MARTIN:I was really trying to follow your ruling. I have been trying to do that all the time. My point is simply that the Government shall not have an unlimited amount of money for the purpose of appointing judges to the House of Lords. I was endeavouring, when called to order, to interest the Labour party. I hope and expect, before the discussion is over, some Member of that party will join me in supporting this very simple provision that the amount should not exceed £10,000 per annum. That is a large sum of money. One thing certain is that once we pass this Resolution providing the money, the Bill will never be repealed, but these Gentlemen will be there for all time to come, and this sum of 1631 £12,000 per annum, which the Government propose to waste in this manner, will be a permanent annual charge upon the nation. When that is appreciated, I am satisfied the Committee will agree that even at this late stage in the Session, when there is so much pressing legislation waiting to go through the House, I am justified in urging the necessity of imposing this limit. Apart from the arguments which have induced me to come to that conclusion, I think from their own standpoint the Government ought at once to accept this very moderate proposal. It is all they asked for last year. A very noticeable feature in the proceedings of the House at the present time is that in connection with a large part of our work we have no explanation from the Government of their reasons for taking any particular course. We have certainly had none in this case. I expected that as soon as the Order was read the Attorney-General would explain why he wanted an unlimited amount this year, when last year he was willing to do with £10,000. This afternoon, when a similar Resolution was before the Committee, a Minister of the Crown gave more or less elaborate explanation of the reasons for it. Why has that not been done in this case? I am in great difficulty in arguing the question, because I really do not know why the Government have departed from the more righteous course which they pursued last Session of limiting the salaries of these judges to £5,000.
§ The CHAIRMAN:I would point out that the hon. Member has already repeated the same statement four times. As he is aware, that cannot be allowed in our Debates.
§ Mr. MARTIN:I will endeavour not to transgress again. I have dealt so far with the proposed amount, and given my reasons. There is another and perhaps a better reason for economising in this way. We know very well that this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer is depending a great deal on chance. He has taken the chance of an increase in different items of revenue, instead of imposing additional taxation to raise the immense amount of money required by this Government to pay the nation's expenses. In that contingency am I not right when it has not been shown that these judges are necessary at all, to call upon the Government for an explanation? If it is doubtful that the revenue 1632 will be sufficient to meet the charges it is most important that we should be very very careful indeed in giving the Government this unlimited money that they ask for. The people of the country have been told that the Government cannot take off the taxes on tea and sugar, because they need all the money that these taxes wilt bring into the Treasury. They come down to this House knowing that there will be a deficit at the end of the present financial year, and propose to spend another £12,000 per annum. No provision has been made for it. This House is not, and can never be justified, in passing a Financial Resolution until they are satisfied that the money wilt be in the Treasury when it is wanted. We have no proposals as to how this money is to be raised.
§ The CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member appears to think that on each Financial Resolution he can discuss the whole Budget of the year.
§ Mr. MARTIN:I do not say that.
§ The CHAIRMAN:Unless the Member is able to make his remarks more applicable to this particular Resolution, I think he must not continue them.
§ Mr. MARTIN:I do not wish to continue longer than necessary, but I feel very much the importance of opposing this. When we are asked to pass a Resolution of this kind we are entitled to put on some limiting Amendment. If it was clear that there was going to be a large surplus this year there would not be the same reason for scrutinising so closely this financial transaction of the Government. If the Budget had shown us that there was going to be a large surplus——
§ The CHAIRMAN:I must call upon the hon. Member to resume his seat.
§ Sir F. BANBURY:On a point of Order. Do I understand that an Amendment has been moved?
§ Mr. MARTIN:I moved an Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMAN:No Amendment——
§ Mr. MARTIN:I meant to move it.
§ The CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member for St. Pancras no doubt intended to move if he had had time, but he did not succeed in doing so. The time of actual moving is at the end of an hon. Member's speech.
§ Mr. WATT:I rise then to move as an Amendment, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "Such provision not to exceed the sum of £10,000 in any one year."
§ As my hon. and learned Friend has said, there is no limitation of the finance in this Resolution before the Committee, and my hon. and learned Friend desired to limit it to £10,000 in any financial year. This figure was the figure the Government put in to its own Bills in previous years. The Committee may not be aware that this is the third attempt at this Appellate Jurisdiction Bill. On the two former occasions it met with such a reception that the Government thought it unwise to pursue it further. In the two previous Bills the salaries of these Lords of Appeal were fixed at £5,000 each, and on these occasions the Labour Members voted against that proposal, but now, no doubt on account of the greater cost of living, the salaries are raised to £6,000. But that does not cover all the cost. Each of these two Lords of Appeal is to be provided with a secretary or amanuensis. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 4th of June, what were the salaries paid to these amanuenses, and I was told by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that each judge of the Court of Appeal had a clerk with a salary of £400, but that the clerks were not entitled to a pension, for which the Committee no doubt will feel thankful. So that there will be £12,000 per year paid to these two new Lords of Appeal and £800 to their amanuenses. I should like the Committee to know the amount of the present salaries paid to the Lords of Appeal and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I find that £175,312 18s. 8d. are the figures at present paid to the Noble Lords who administer the law in the House of Lords and in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. How many cases are these Noble Lords called upon to decide?
§ The CHAIRMAN:This is clearly an attempt to discuss stages of the Bill out of their proper order, which cannot be allowed to continue. The hon. Member, in his remarks, is dealing with the Second Reading or the Committee stages of the Bill, but not with the Financial Resolution.
§ Mr. WATTAm I not entitled to point out, in trying to limit this Financial Resolution, what Noble Lords who administer the law are already paid?
§ The CHAIRMAN:On many occasions both Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committee have ruled you cannot have a Committee stage, corresponding to the Committee of a Bill, on a Money Resolution. I doubt if the speech the hon. Member is now delivering could be delivered as pertinent to the latter case. It is certainly not pertinent to the Money Resolution.
§ Mr. WATT:It is certainly difficult to steer one's course between the rocks on the Committee stage of a Money Resolution. As I said, I am moving to limit the figure paid to these gentlemen. In corroboration of what I have said, may I mention in the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill of 1912, dealing with the finances of that measure, there was in Clause 6 provision made that in the case of any Lord of Appeal appointed after the passing of the Act, his appointment shall have effect as if the amount of the salary mentioned therein were £5,000 instead of £6,000 and Section 7 provided that any Lord of Appeal so appointed should have effect as if the amount were £3,500. So that in the two Bills of 1911 and 1912, not only were these salaries to be limited to £5,000, but the pensions were to be smaller in proportion. The Committee are being asked to pass tonight a Financial Resolution which will permit the Government to pay the two Lords of Appeal to be appointed—one a Tory and the other a Liberal—£6,000, and after so many years' service give them pensions greater than in 1911 and 1912.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM:I do not think there is a single hon. Member of this House who, if he had to explain the facts of this Bill to his constituency would dare to vote in favour of it. Whenever the two Front Benches in this House agree to put through a measure, the independent Member is always right if he votes against them. This is an attempt to get through this measure with the smallest amount of discussion. The point I wish to raise is that without any limitation of the amount to be paid the House is going to vote on this question, and it will be possible for the Government under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876 to vote sums of money giving pensions of £3,500 a year to those particular judges you are now going to appoint if they serve for even twelve or eighteen months. I cannot think that the House really recognises the fact that the present Government has actually granted to judges in the 1635 House of Lords who have not served two years, annual pensions of £3,500 a year, and the Labour party voted for granting these judges that amount. The Labour party cannot justify their votes to their constituents, and we should insist that the amount of pension a public servant receives for the discharge of his duty should be in some way commensurate with the time he has served. For that reason, I think that there should be this limitation without which the House parts with all its control, because under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, it entirely lies in the discretion of the Government to say whether these pensions shall be given or not. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
§ Sir F. BANBURY:The hon. Baronet has told us that the two Front Benches are in agreement upon this matter. I am not authorised to speak for this Front Bench, but I have not seen any hon. Member show the slightest desire to support this particular measure, and, as far as I know, there has been no agreement such as the hon. Baronet suggests.
§ Mr. WATT:The right hon. and learned Member For the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) is most enthusiastically for it.
§ Sir F. BANBURY:The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not present, and therefore I cannot say what his views are. I rose because the hon. Gentleman opposite challenged those of us on this side of the House who are desirous of preserving the economy which used to distinguish this House to say whether or not we would support his Amendment. I am not certain that I shall be able to support the Amendment in the exact form in which it has been moved, because I am not sure the limit is not too small. But I have always maintained, and shall maintain, that it is not right for this House to give a blank cheque to any Government, and especially not to this 1636 Government. I have no confidence in the n financial capabilities of this Government, and I have been asked three times to-night to give them a blank cheque. I object to that, and, therefore, if the hon. Member had proposed a proper limiting Amendment, providing an adequate sum, I should certainly have had to vote for it.
§ Sir F. BANBURY:The hon. Member said the present judges had a salary of £6,000. There are to be two appointed, and twice £6,000 is £12,000. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises the amount to £13,000 a year, in which case I shall certainly vote for him. I am not at all sure that as a protest I shall not vote for the Amendment as it stands, although I do not think the hon. Member has put down the right amount. In case I do that I should like to make my position clear. I have no objection to the appointment of more judges, as I know that the legislation of the present Government is Such that a great many more judges will be required in order to unravel the mess we get into in this House. Therefore, it must be perfectly understood if I vote with the hon. Member it is not because I object to the appointment of additional judges, but merely upon the ground that I decline to give a blank cheque to any person, whoever he may be.
It being Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House; Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.