CLAUSE 9. —(Staff, Remuneration and Expenses.) (Hansard, 14 November 1917)

§ Mr. BILLING
I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "Treasury " and to insert instead thereof the word " Parliament."
This is another case in which I think Parliament should have something to say in reference to the salaries paid. I understood that we were going to have an opportunity of having something to say in reference to the other salaries, but it appears that that is not going to be the case. Under this Bill the Government are reserving the right to appoint as many officers as they like and, through the Treasury, to award any salaries which they think fit, and this House is to have no control. I propose this Amendment so as to give Parliament the opportunity of determining the salaries which these officials shall be paid, because there are so many of them, and one of the reasons why it is impossible to get such an Amendment carried is that the majority of the Members of this House are receiving salaries from the Government; at least the whole of that corner of the House and a great many over here. It is a very difficult thing when you have a house full of Members drawing salaries to get them to vote to defeat the Government when giving more 519 salaries. The result is that you are setting up a condition of bureaucracy which is going to be attended with very serious results. In a frantic, lonely effort to retain some little privilege which Parliament should retain, I submit this Amendment, and I trust that, if it is not quite in order in its present form, some Gentlemen of superior knowledge and experience will assist in carrying the idea into practical effect.

§ Major BAIRD
I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. The Clause is drawn according to constitutional practice, leaving these matters to be determined by the Treasury. This does not affect the control of Parliament, with which rests the voting of the money required to pay the salaries. Unless the money is voted, the salaries cannot be paid. It is always open to the hon. Gentleman, when the Vote comes up, to ask what salaries are being paid. It is customary for the Treasury to suggest the payments, and it is possible for Parliament to reduce them. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need be afraid of losing control.

§ Mr. BILLING
Do I understand that when the Vote comes up it will be possible to have officers removed? Is it not the general principle to reduce the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is £5,000 a year, by £5, or something like that? What I suggest is that Parliament should actually approve of the appointment of the people and the salaries they are paid, before they are employed. Some member of the Government should at least explain to the House of Commons the necessity of increasing the officials, what the duties are proposed to be, and what it is proposed to pay them. If this is not done we never have an opportunity of knowing. How can a Member of this House raise any question with regard to the appointment of half a dozen or a dozen of these officials if we have absolutely no knowledge of the fact that they are even appointed? It is only when the appointments are suggested, and the excuse is offered for the Government making the appointment, that we are able to cross-examine the Government as to the necessity for the appointments.

§ Lord H. CECIL
The Amendment, in its present form means that you would have to have an Act of Parliament for every 520 official, covering all the officials you appoint. You would have to have them all set out in a Schedule of another Act of Parliament. The votes show fully how the money is spent, and, so far as that is not so, the whole matter goes before a Committee of this House, the Committee on Public Accounts, and they report if they are satisfied that an official is superfluous. The usual way of raising the question would be to reduce the Vote by an Amendment of the salary of the official whom it was thought unnecessary to employ. Thereupon the House can debate the matter. It is necessary for the House to leave a great deal in the hands of the Government in such matters. The Government is the only source of official information on the subject.

§ Mr. BILLING
If this Amendment were carried, and it was necessary to obtain Parliamentary sanction, the Government would have to answer to Parliament for his actual appointment. All I am trying to do is to endeavour in some way to arrest the wholesale creation of officials who are quite unnecessary. Surely the—Noble Lord, from his experience of the Army, must appreciate, especially if he—as been in the War Office or the Admiralty, that it is quite a common thing to have five men doing one man's work. We want an opportunity of debating that. If the Noble Lord, with his extraordinary Parliamentary knowledge and great skill, would frame an Amendment so as to fulfil the spirit of mine, I should be charmed to withdraw in place of his. But if, so far as that is concerned, it will necessitate the drawing of a Bill, then, having regard to the extraordinary speed with which it is possible to press measures through this House, I do not think that that is so serious a matter as the indiscriminate and reckless appointment of an enormous number of officials without the sanction of this House.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The only way which I can thi:nk of that is open to the hon. Member is, when a Token Vote is brought forward, to vote against it on the ground that it is a Token Vote and that particulars are not given. I certainly agree with my Noble Friend that under the Amendment as drafted there would have to be an Act of Parliament for every appointment of a secretary. That is quite impossible. This House cannot determine whether a secretary in the first instance is to have £100 or £200 or £1,000 521 or £2,000. When the matter comes up on Supply and the Vote is put down it can be dealt with when details are given, but details are not given in a Token Vote because it is said that it would be giving information to the enemy. If this is going to be a Token Vote, the hon. Gentleman could try to throw it out on the ground that it is a Token Vote and that details should be given.

§ Mr. BILLING
Surely the right hon. Gentleman, much as I appreciate his advice, will see in what an invidious position it would place a Member to throw out a Vote which would practically deprive the Air Service of the wherewithal to continue the War. Such a matter as that, so trivial, would not demand even an Amendment. It would be like trying to kill ticks with a sledge-hammer.

§ Mr. BILLING
I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word " Parliament " [" provided by Parliament"], to insert the words " to the President of the Air Council an annual salary of £5,000."
The reason I move the Amendment is that the Government has practically assured us that the salaries are to be on the same scale as in other Departments, and I do not see why these words should not be inserted in the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is piloting this measure, or one of his Friends on the Front Bench, will say whether he has any objection to accepting this Amendment as it stands.

§ Major BAIRD
I have already stated to the House that it is the intention that the salary will be the same as to other Secretaries of State. But it may be that the scale of their salaries may vary, and it is only right that the salary in this instance should also vary. I do not think the Amendment is desirable.

§ Mr. BILLING
A Secretary of State's salary is identical with that of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, and, if they are the same, they should remain so. All I am anxious to do is to be assured that the salary of the Secretary of State for the Air Service shall never be less than that of other right hon. Gentlemen.

§ Major BAIRD
I will state for the third or fourth time that the scale of salaries to be paid will be the same as is paid to other Secretaries of State.