HC Deb 11 June 1918 vol 106 cc2041-7

Resolution reported, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses of the Central Emigration Authority constituted under any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment and powers of a Central Emigration Authority, and for other purposes relative thereto.

Resolution read a second time.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins)

I beg to move, after the word "Expenses" ["all Expenses of the Central Emigration Authority"], to insert the words "to an amount not exceeding in any year fifty thousand pounds."

When we had this Financial Resolution up on Wednesday last, I promised to consider whether it was possible to meet what was understood to be the general view of the House that a limit of expenditure should be put into it. I have con- sidered the question in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I should like to say at once that the view I expressed to the House on the first occasion this Resolution was before us as to the public expenditure for the first year of the Act was absolutely sound—that is to say, I think the expenditure for the first year will be exceedingly trivial—

Mr. PRINGLE

Ten thousand pounds?

Mr. HEWINS

Less than that. But when the Committee asked me to go beyond the first year I found we were launched into the region of considerable doubt, and, of course, any figure given under the circumstances must be more or less arbitrary. After, as I say, discussing the matter with my right hon. Friend, we came to the conclusion that if we asked the House to insert the figure of £50,000 it would provide for the necessary work of the setting up of the scheme, and, at the same time, if there was any large contract or other very large expenditure of money, the Secretary of State would be compelled to come to the House for a new Bill; therefore there would be every guarantee of the control of the House of Commons, with which general principle, as the House knows, I agree altogether. It was only the extreme difficulty in the way of forming an exact estimate that made me unwilling to put a figure into the Resolution. If we have a limit of £50,000 I think it will make it possible for the authority to go on without any undue delay, and at. the same time the House will have the guarantee that if any large schemes are floated, or adumbrated, it will be necessary to come to the House. The figure quoted in the Debates as likely have varied from £2,000 to £1,000,000. Possibly the figure I suggest will meet the view of the House.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I am very glad that the Under-Secretary for the Colonies has at last agreed, and after much pressure, to meet the general view of the House, and insert a sum limiting the amount of the expenditure of the new authority. But I am a little surprised that he should at all propose this Resolution to-day, after what has happened in the Committee upstairs—

Mr. SPEAKER

The House is not entitled to discuss what happened in Committee upstairs.

Mr. JONES

I will refrain from going into that; but I think I am entitled to say that, after what has happened to-day, it will be necessary to modify other parts of the Bill in consequence of the important Amendment carried. The House will remember that two views were put before the House. One, the wide view, referred to the scope of the operations, and the character and duties of the new authority; the other view was a comparatively narrow one. It seems to me that the limit of expenditure which the House will put into this Financial Resolution must depend upon what the Committee may determine on Clauses 1 and 2, which are not yet passed. Until the first Clause which sets up the authority is disposed of, and until we know whether the authority is to be an independent Department acting on its own, or a subordinate Department inside the Colonial Office, it is really impossible for the House to say how much money that body should spend during the year.

To-day the Committee discussed Clause 1, and made some progress with it. The constitution of the new authority is not yet determined. Until that is done I submit that it would be better to postpone this Resolution. Until Clauses 1 and 2 are disposed of there is really no need for the House to proceed with this. Assuming that we are going on, I submit that in proposing £50.000 the hon. Gentleman is taking a very large figure. He said that the House named various figures, but hon. Members were in complete ignorance of what his Department was to do, and the various figures mentioned were in the nature of conjecture. The Under-Secretary's own figure was £10,000.

Mr. HEWINS

For the first year.

Mr. JONES

The hon. Gentleman said that a figure like £50,000 was an altogether unreasonable sum. This is what he said in his speech: One hon. Member has mentioned £50,000 a year as the cost. There is not the slightest intention or expectation or desire to go anywhere near that, and if the expenditure in the first year is £10,000 it will be greatly in excess of what is considered likely. If there is not the slightest expectation of going near £50,000 why should we put that sum in the Financial Resolution? The hon. Gentleman's own figure was £10,000, and he might well have been content with proposing that sum to see how matters worked out, and when the proper time comes the hon. Gentleman might come to the House for a larger sum if necessary. I still think that the wise course, after the mysterious matter which occurred upstairs, would be to postpone the Report stage of this Resolution until we have passed Clause 2 of the Bill, when we shall know what the new authority is to be, and what are its duties, and then we shall be able to tell how much will be required. It will be open to the Committee to modify this Resolution, and put in a smaller sum sufficient for the duties of the new authority. It is true that the Committee will have that power, and it seems to me that it would be better for my hon. Friend to recognise the wish of the House not to place an unnecessary sum at the disposal of the new Department and be content with the £10,000 which is his own estimate of what this new authority would require.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS

Before we decide whether the sum of £50,000 should be put in, I should like the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to be good enough to inform the House what he has got in his mind. He has already received indications that his proposed new authority is strongly objected to on the ground of expense. He is taking a very large sum, and the objection on the ground of expense which has been put pretty strongly to him in Debates in this House and elsewhere has been appreciated by him, and we want to know whether he is going to pay any attention to the indications he has received? I should be extremely obliged if the hon. Gentleman would give us any indication of what the authority is which he is now proposing in this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER

The question of the nature of the authority hardly arises now.

Mr. ROBERTS

Is not the sum now proposed excessive, in view of the changes which have occurred in his own mind. On these grounds I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his proposal at the present time.

Mr. PRINGLE

I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will appreciate the action of the Under-Secretary in putting in a limit to meet the views so generally expressed on a previous occasion. I think we are entitled to consider, in relation to the Amendment, the question of the reasonableness of the amount the hon. Gentleman is proposing. I do not desire to discuss the merits of any particular scheme or authority for the purpose of carrying out the Bill, but obviously the question of the reasonableness of the amount of the limit depends altogether on the authority which will be set up. Undoubtedly the limit which is now proposed is one which was announced by the Government on the basis of a particular authority, and if another authority is set up that limit will be altogether extravagant, and might tend to promote extravagance rather than economy. If you have too high a limit, the Department will be inclined to say, "The House of Commons has fixed this limit and we are entitled to work up to it." If the ultimate decision of the House is in favour of an authority much smaller, obviously the limit which we are now discussing is one which the House should not accept, and the Government should suggest an alteration. In view of the circumstances which have been brought to the notice of the House, and upon which I do not now wish to dwell, it is not at all unreasonable to ask the Government to postpone the decision upon this Resolution until to-morrow, and then it will be quite possible to go on with the Bill in Committee and no time will be lost. On the other hand, the limitation which is now being fixed by the Government may be placed in the Bill, and you may have rather an encouragement to extravagance. In these circumstances I hope the Government will respond to the view which seems to be prevalent in the House.

Mr. BOOTH

I would like to point out that the Under-Secretary by this proposal has only brought himself into line with what the Leader of the House said. This is not a new decision of the Government, because on Thursday week the Leader of the House indicated on the Financial Resolution that he would be prepared to put in a limit. That evidently commended itself to the House, and it was on account of that expression of opinion that no Division was taken. I hope we may take it that a limit will always be put into these Financial Resolutions unless it is impracticable.

Mr. MORRELL

I am sorry that the Leader of the House has not given us any guidance on this occasion. It is impossible for us to keep out of our mind what happened upstairs in Committee. Twenty-one Members of this House gave, I suppose, two hours' study to this Bill this morning, and I think there is not one of those who would not feel, if he were asked to vote now, that he was giving his vote under very unsatisfactory conditions. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] We certainly do not know how we stand or how the Government stand, or what is the intention of the Government. Under these circumstances it is reasonable to ask that the Government should take a little more time to consider the matter, and I do not see that they will be in any way unduly delaying business by so doing. That is a reasonable request, especially having regard to the fact that the Government has absolutely changed its policy since this Resolution was first introduced. When it was first introduced we were told that the expenses in the first year would not amount to more than £10,000 at the outside. Then we were told that no limit would be accepted at all. Now we are told that £50,000 will be required, although that limit is not really to be reached. Altogether there has been a constant change on the part of the Government, and in these circumstances I appeal to the Leader of the House to let this Vote be postponed.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law)

I quite recognise the importance of the principle which was involved, but my hon. Friend has done all that he promised to do when the subject was last discussed. He went out of his way to say that he would endeavour to fix a limit, and, as he has now fixed a limit, I should be disappointed if the House did not feel that he has done what he could to meet it, and did not allow this Resolution to be passed. With regard to the amount, I hope my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is probable the expenses will never reach anything like the figure that he has put down. What I meant by saying that a limit like this should be put in wherever possible was that the House, as far as possible, should have some knowledge of the amount to which it was committed, or the limits within which it was committed, and I am sure the House will agree that nothing could be more foolish than to put the limit so low that possibly a year or two afterwards we had to come and ask for a Resolution to be taken for a purpose with which the House was entirely in agreement. The point of principle about which the House was anxious has now been met, and it would really be rather hard on my hon. Friend not to agree to the proposal which he has made.

Mr. BIGLAND

As one of the twenty-one Members referred to, I should like to say that this amount, in my opinion, is a very reasonable one, and I sincerely trust that the Government will pass this Resolution to-day. I see no object whatever in leaving it over till to-morrow. The Committee is not to sit again till Thursday, and, if we left the matter over till tomorrow, we should again discuss a matter on which our minds are very well made up. The amount of work to be done by this authority, whatever is the nature of the authority, will be so great that a considerable margin of money must be allowed to cover the expenses. I sincerely trust that the Government will press this Resolution to-day.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolution, as amended, agreed to.