CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Chairman and v ice-Chairman of Statutory Committee to Sit in Parliament.) (Hansard, 20 March 1917)

Sir H. DALZIEL
I beg to move to leave out Clause 5. I may say that through a misunderstanding this Motion was not made in Committee when my right hon. Friend made the proposition, and many of my Friends who are interested in the matter did not know that it was coming on at the particular time it did. My right 730 hon. Friend stated on the Committee stage that his only purpose in having this Clause was to provide for the project he had in hand that the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) should be associated with him on the Statutory Committee. So far as that purpose is concerned, I offer no opposition. Personally, I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Dudley associated with this important Department, and I have little doubt he will do his duty there very successfully. He is one of the oldest Members of the House, and I am sure his appointment is very popular. But I want to know exactly what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions has in his mind. Is the hon Member for Dudley going to be Chairman of the Statutory Committee, or is he not? It would save a tremendous amount of speaking on my part if I knew exactly what the intentions are, but obviously my right hon. Friend has not yet made up his mind.

§ Mr. BARNES
I have made it up, and I stated my mind the other night, and I have nothing to add to that.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Well, the words on the Paper do not give me the information for which I am asking, nor does the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the other night. He said he had a project that the hon. Member for Dudley was going to be associated with him, but he did not say whether he would be chairman or vice-chairman, and surely we are entitled to know that. I think the House ought to know where it stands in this matter, and I do not see the need for any mystery about it. Why should we not know what the position of the hon. Member for Dudley will be? My principal complaint is, first that we do not know exactly, and, secondly, that as it is drawn, this Clause permits both the persons who may be chairman and vice-chairman to occupy seats in this House. Does my right hon. Friend deny that? I think, if I read the Clause, any hon. Member who doubts will agree with me. The Clause says: 5. A person who holds the office of chairman or vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee shall not by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to or voting in the Commons House of Parliament. That is the chairman and the vice-chairman. The Clause says, "Neither shall be prevented from sitting in this House." 731 That is why I offer opposition. In the first place, I say one is sufficient, and I say that if the hon. Gentleman occupies that post—and I can conceive him occupying no other—it is quite unnecessary to bring in the vice-chairman. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was chairman, and retired. There is a vacancy which has not yet been filled. The vice-chairman is Mr. Cyril Jackson. I maintain that this Clause as it stands at present gives authority to Mr. Cyril Jackson, as vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee, to sit in this House. To that I am opposed. I will oppose it in every possible way. In the first place, I object that a Civil servant should have the right to sit on that Bench with Ministers. Heaven knows that the Bench is crowded enough already—perhaps over-crowded! We have not yet gone so far as to bring in Civil servants and give them the right to sit on the Front Bench with their chief! There is another point. When Mr. Cyril Jackson's appointment was proposed in this House I was one of the few who criticised it, not because I had any feeling against him myself because I never saw him, nor do I know anything about him, but it was well known that he was a party organiser, and chairman of the Moderate party in the County Council. He afterwards retired, and got this post. That is past history. We were told that he was to be appointed at a salary of £l,500. The House accepted that. Then the House was told that as he was not taking any pension he ought to be paid £1,750. The House passed that with a protest. Here, however, you have a proposal to give him £400 a year more—for that is what it means. I think we ought to have some defence of this proposal before it is passed.

An HON. MEMBER
The cost of living has risen!

Sir H. DALZIEL
That may be so, but I maintain that we ought to have more information than we have yet got in regard to this Clause. If my hon. Friend can show me that the Clause does not do what I maintain it does do, I will listen with the greatest interest. I hope that he will be able to give me information on the varous points I have put. If I am not satisfied more than I am at present on the matter, I shall take the opinion of the House upon it.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I beg to second the Amendment. I also would have raised this in Committee had I been present in the House.

§ Mr. KING
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it necessary to have a seconder to an Amendment proposed by a right hon. Gentleman?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)
I will take the Amendment without a seconder, and then call upon the hon. Member.

§ Mr. HOGGE
As I cannot second my right hon. Friend, I may be allowed to support him. I should have supported this proposal in Committee, for a very obvious reason. I hope the House will remember what are the facts in regard to the Statutory Committee. There are two posts in that Committee—that of chairman and vice-chairman. One or other of these posts can have a salary attached to it, but not both. The Prince of Wales was made chairman, and Mr. Cyril Jackson was made vice-chairman with a salary of £1,750. I always thought it was a stupid arrangement that a Civil servant with a salary of £1,750 should be able to preside over a Statutory Committee appointed by this House for certain purposes; that is to say, that a man whose conduct the whole committee could always call in question should have the right, and has the right now, to preside over the meetings of the Statutory Committee. What we ought to have had was a sensible arrangement whereby neither the chairman nor the vice-chairman were paid, and whereby Mr. Cyril Jackson should have been the permanent secretary of the Statutory Committee, just as we have a permanent secretary for each of our particular Departments.
The proposal in this Bill amounts to this: that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions desires, and naturally desires—as a matter of fact, is instructed by the Ministry of Pensions Bill—to keep in touch with the Statutory Committee and to co-ordinate its work. Obviously either the Minister of Pensions or the Parliamentary Secretary ought to be chairman of the Statutory Committee. Presumably the Minister of Pensions has sufficient to do at the Ministry of Pensions without taking upon himself the chairmanship of the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary can quite easily do that. 733 I agree with my hon. Friend that the Member for Dudley, who is Parliamentary Secretary, is showing a very great devotion to this subject of pensions, and a very considerable amount of energy and ability in the matter. I presume that I am as keen a critic of the pensions administration as anybody. So far as I am concerned, there is no man I should more readily see in the chair of the Statutory Committee than my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. But at the present moment he enjoys a Ministerial salary. If he becomes chairman of the Statutory Committee he does not lose that salary, but retains the post of Parliamentary Secretary, and goes down and presides, as the representative of the Ministry of Pensions should preside, over the meetings of the Statutory Committee. If this Clause in the Bill is carried by the House you open the door to this possibility. I do not say it will ever happen, but it is possible. We could have in the House of Commons a Minister of Pensions and a Parliamentary Secretary, and a separate chairman and vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee. You could actually have four Ministers on that Front Bench dealing with the subject of pensions. The Pensions Minister would never dream of that taking place, but that is a possibility of this Bill.
There is another possibility which ought to be guarded against. This is a purely impersonal remark, and I hope it will be regarded as such; but, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, suppose you have this Clause carried and put in the Bill and you have four men appointed. If these men ceased to be Members of Parliament they could still hold the other two posts as paid officials, and you would get two patronage posts for two men who might be in Parliament and lose their seats at any moment. That is an entirely wrong position. If my right hon. Friend will agree to the deletion of this Clause, I will put forward a suggestion with which, I think, we might all agree. That is that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley should at once succeed the Prince of Wales as chairman of the Statutory Committee and that Mr. Cyril Jackson should remain as the paid official; if you like, at some other time rearrange the secretaryship. That will content the House of Commons. We shall then know that the Minister of Pensions and his Parliamentary Secretary have got control of the two specific and principal parts of the pensions matter, and I think the whole 734 thing will be ended. I agree with my fight hon. Friend that this question raises a serious point with regard to a Ministry which is growing so large that, as has often been suggested in this House, they scarcely know each other and, in order to distinguish them from other Members of the House, it will soon be necessary for members of the Government to wear a brassard, or something of that sort, in order that we may know which is which. Here is a proposal to add another two. I hope what has been advanced by my right hon. Friend and myself will be sufficient to convince the Government as to the desirability of deleting this Clause.

§ Mr. BARNES
I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy that there is no mystery attaching to this proposal in the slightest, and I am sorry if I gave the impression the other night that that was so. The sole and only object underlying the Clause is that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should be put upon the Statutory Committee either as chairman or vice-chairman. It was put in in that form because we followed the 1915 Act, which says that either the chairman or vice-chairman may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine. Therefore, without this Clause, if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary were appointed to either one of these offices, he might have to submit himself for re-lection. It is because of that doubt that the Clause is proposed. I can assure my hon. Friend we do not want to create any further paid offices. The Parliamentary Secretary would be unpaid if chairman, and he would be unpaid if vice-chairman. Therefore, there is ho additional £400 involved or anything of that kind. There is no further payment either to him or anybody else. I have not the slightest knowledge of Mr. Cyril Jackson's political ambitions, if he has got any. So far as I can judge, I should say he has not got any. The only reason for mentioning the chairman or vice-chairman is that that is the wording of the 1915 Act, and therefore we must make provision to safeguard the Parliamentary Secretary, either in respect of the one office or the other. I think there is some disability attaching to a Civil servant sitting in the House.

Sir H. DALZIEL
This is overriding it.

§ Mr. BARNES
We are quite willing to reconsider the matter, and ascertain whether or not it is open to that possibility. If it is, we will have the wording rearranged.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Take out the words "or vice-chairman." That would meet it.

§ Mr. HARDY
I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he is willing to reconsider this matter, because when it was discussed in Committee it came rather suddenly upon some of us, and I was not at all satisfied when the Clause was passed. We should be extremely glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary as chairman or vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee provided the work was carried on in co-ordination with the Pensions Minister. We consider the matter quite apart from the personal side. This is really a serious precedent. In order that you may have one particular person in a particular office, you are going to put in a Clause giving for all time the right to two people to come to this House without re-election. It is really a serious precedent, and I think it is a Clause which has not been at all clearly worded, and the position of chairman or vice-chairman is left very uncertain. It certainly ought to be limited to one of the two offices, and for myself I hope the Government may find some other means of getting what they desire, rather than putting a permanent Clause into an Act of Parliament.

§ Mr. P. A. HARRIS
This is not a personal question at all. On the contrary, it is a very great question of principle. I happen to know Mr. Cyril Jackson and his suitability for this position. I was on the county council with him, and, as a matter of fact, I was deputy-chairman when he was chairman of the council, and a more efficient and capable servant could not be found. But once having become a Civil servant, his position should be that of a Civil servant, and the representative of this House should be the chairman, and not junior to, and subordinate to, the paid Civil servant who represents this Department. I would suggest to the Pensions Minister that the proper and simplest course is to leave out the words "vice-chairman." That would meet the objection and criticisms of hon. Gentlemen, and make it clear that the paid permanent Civil servant is subordinate to a Member of this House.

§ Sir R. ADKINS
I think the best way would be if my right hon. Friend would allow this Clause to go out for the moment, and bring up a considered Clause in another place. I cannot personally approve the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. My own view is that any one representative of the (Statutory Committee who desires to be in this House should be eligible to be in this House. But I do agree there is no occasion to have two representatives of the Statutory Committee as such, apart from obscure Members like myself, who happen to be members of the Statutory Committee, and hear what is good for ourselves in this House. But there is no occasion to have more than one representative in the sense under consideration.

§ Sir N. HELME
I venture to press upon the right hon. Gentleman that that which has been expressed so generally could be met if he could allow Clause 5 to be deleted, and alter his Amendment on the Paper so that it would then read: During the continuance of the present Parliament any person who is a Member of this House who is appointed to either of those offices shall not by reason of such appointment vacate his seat as such Member. I think that would fully meet the case, and provide a means of dealing with the matter in a way that is so generally approved in the House.

§ Mr. KING
If we adopted the hon. Member's suggestion, it would mean that we should delete the Clause, and then add something to it. What we ought to do is to take the very good advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy and delete the Clause altogether. That is the only sensible and clear way of doing it, and I am surprised the House has not at once jumped to the position. The hon. Member began by saying there was nothing personal, and then he launched into an elaborate testimonial to a friend, one which I am sure was deserved. I know that Mr. Cyril Jackson is an admirable person in every respect. This is a personal matter, and the only way to deal with it is to leave out the Clause altogether. May I be allowed to rebut a charge that was made against me that I am a vegetarian. I assure the House that I am nothing of the sort, and do not intend to be as long as Lord Devon port allows me a little meat.

§ Mr. BARNES
If we delete this Clause, there will be considerable difficulty, and we shall run the risk of defeating the object which we all have in view. We have to make up our minds whether the Clause is to remain, and, if so, in what form. I should be disposed to strike out the words "or vice-chairman," and then it will read, "a person who holds the office of chairman of the Statutory Committee shall not by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to or voting in the Commons House of Parliament."

§ Sir R. ADKINS
Would not the effect of that be that if any person who is already a Member of this House was elected vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee, he would thereby lose his seat in this House?

§ Mr. BARNES
I have an Amendment to cover that point.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Suppose Mr. Cyril Jackson was made chairman of the Statutory Committee, that would enable him to sit in this House, and undoubtedly he would still be a Civil servant.

§ Sir R. ADKINS
May I suggest that the Clause should read "a person who holds the office of chairman or vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee, and who is not paid in connection therewith, shall be entitled to sit in this House." Suppose the hon. Member for Dudley (Colonel Sir A Griffith-Boscawen) was elected chairman or vice-chairman, or any other Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench, and they were paid in respect of their Ministerial functions, they should not be deprived of their right of sitting in this House.

§ Mr. HOGGE
We really want the Law Officers here in order to be sure what we are doing. I do not see why this Clause should not go out altogether. The vice-chairman is paid, and he does all the work of the Committee, and therefore you cannot stop his salary. I see the Solicitor-General for Scotland on the Front Bench, and I hope the Minister of Pensions will appeal to him on this question of law. So long as the vice-chairman is paid, and he must be paid, there is no necessity for this Clause.

Sir H. DALZIEL
What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) said is quite true, and all we want to make sure of is that a paid Civil servant shall not sit in this House. If my right hon. Friend will assure us that 738 if any other alteration is found to be necessary he will put it in, I shall be content if he takes out the words "or chairman."

§ Mr. BARNES
I think the best way would be to do what has been suggested.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I have allowed this conversation to go on in order to enable the House to arrive at a decision. Would it not be more satisfactory to allow the Clause to read, "a person who holds the office of chairman or vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee shall not if he does not receive a salary in respect of that office by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to or voting in the Commons House of Parliament."

§ Mr. SHAW
I do not know whether the question is personal or not, but there seems to be a certain personal element in it. Perhaps the difficulties would be lessened by the following words, "A person who holds the office of chairman, and who is a Member of the Commons House of Parliament, shall not during the continuance of the present Parliament, by reason of his office, vacate his seat." That covers completely the question of any Civil servant, and reserves the appointment of a Member of this House to that office.

§ Mr. BARNES
We have already suggested a similar proposal.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I think the best course would be, first, to withdraw the Amendment in meeting the Clause.

Sir H. DALZIEL
I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. HOGGE
Could my right hon. Friend not agree to take out the words "or Vice-Chairman?" The right hon. Gentleman knows that the post of vice-chairman is really the post of secretary of that committee, because he does the work and is responsible for it. It was stupid when the War Pensions Bill was passed to have made this arrangement, and we should have had a chairman and vice-chairman unpaid and a paid secretary, but the House decided to go in for a paid vice-chairman. Cannot my right hon. Friend take out the words "or vice-chairman"? That would settle the whole thing.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I have to put some question to the House. If the hon. 739 Gentleman will move to leave out the words "or vice-chairman," the discussion can continue.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I beg to move to leave out the words "or vice-chairman."

§ Mr. P. A. HARRIS
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Sir R. ADKINS
I thought that we had really agreed to put in the proviso that a person, if receiving a salary in connection with either of these posts, should not be eligible, and under a previous Act of Parliament a person in either of these posts might conceivably be receiving a salary. After all, the Statutory Committee ought to be allowed to exercise a free choice within the limits of the Act of Parliament which created them, and as we have already secured by the words which my right hon. Friend is prepared to move that any person receiving a salary as chairman or vice-chairman shall not be eligible to sit in this House, I would appeal to the House not further to curtail the rights of this committee in the choice of its chairman or vice-chairman. I would appeal to the House to allow the committee within those limits to do what it thinks best with regard to its own members, and to be content with the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, which makes it quite clear that no paid official of the committee shall be eligible to come into this House while he is still paid.

Sir H. DALZIEL
I really do not see why the House of Commons should be spending its time in considering the position of the vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee. It seems to me that we are endeavouring to legislate for somebody for whom the House of Commons is not called upon to legislate. The intention is that the chairman of the Statutory Committee shall not lose his seat because of the fact that he occupies that office without salary. That is the purpose. Why, therefore, begin to deal with the whole position of the vice-chairman? It is entirely unnecessary. Some time ago my right hon. Friend said, "Take out the words or vice-chairman," and I agreed. That has now been departed from. I suggest that the simplest thing would be to take out those words. We have not even yet been told who is going to be the chairman. If we had known from the beginning that the hon. Member for Dudley (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) was going to be chair- 740 man, the thing would have been more simple. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes out the words "or vice-chairman" and accepts the Amendment. That will be the end of the Debate.

§ Mr. BARNES
Evidently that is the sense of the House so far as I have been able to gather it, and I will move to make the Clause read: A person who holds the office of chairman of the Statutory Committee and does not receive a salary in respect of his office as such shall not by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to or voting in the Commons House of Parliament.