HC Deb 20 March 1919 vol 113 cc2394-8

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed. That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Ministry of Ways and Communications, it is expedient—

  1. (1) To authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament—
    1. (a) of an annual salary not exceeding five thousand pounds to the Minister of ways and Communications, of annual salaries not exceeding one thousand five hundred pounds to the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Ministry, and of such other salaries, remuneration, and expenses as may become payable under such Act;
    2. (b) of such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee to make contributions to pension or superannuation funds, and to make advances and other payments authorised under such Act;
  2. (2) To authorise the creation and issue of securities, with interest to be charged so far as not met out of other sources of revenue on the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Shortt.]

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN

May I ask how many secretaries it is proposed to appoint to this new department? I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech when he introduced the Bill, but I do not think that he made any statement on that point.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt)

Two in this House.

Captain BENN

Will that be the total number of secretaries to be paid under this Bill so far as the Houses of Parliament are concerned?

Mr. SHORTT

I understand so.

Colonel GRETTON

This Motion is one of considerable importance, and it should not be passed without some little examination. In the first paragraph of the Motion itis proposed to authorise the expenses of the Ministry itself. I think that we might have some little information as to what those expenses are to be. The only information that we have is as to the salaries of the Minister himself and the two Parliamentary Secretaries. We have just elicited the fact that there are to be two Parliamentary Secretaries only. Would it not be better to put it into the Motion itself and so register the decision of the Government and limit the expenses under this head? We ought to go a little further and the Government might inform the House what expenses this Ministry will entail upon the Consolidated Fund.

I think the total amount should be stated in the Resolution, the salaries during the first year, and what sums it is proposed to allocate to the Ministry, and to draw upon for expenses connected with it. These questions have not been raised in the House, and on previous occasions Motions of this kind have been amen led by inserting a total amount. These are times of vast expenditure and straitened national means, and I should like to see a sum inserted which will limit the power of the Ministry to call upon the Treasury for expenses. In order to raise the question, and to obtain a statement from the Minister in charge.

I beg to move to leave out the word "the" ["the Parliamentary Secretaries"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."

Mr. SHORTT

I am quite sure no one appreciates better than my hon. and gallant Friend that it is quite impossible to accept at this stagean Amendment of this kind. I am sure the Committee will remember that the extent and functions of the proposed Ministry will depend very largely on what happens to the Bill in Committee. It might be that two will be sufficient or that Amendments will be carried which will necessitate three. It is quite evident it would be impossible to tell until the Bill has gone through Committee what the size of the Ministry will be or what its expenses will be approximately. For example, it might be if some of my hon.Friends have their way, that in Committee railways will be eliminated, and that the Bill will be left to deal with docks only and roads. If that were so the Ministry would be considerably smaller. If in the Committee stage the functions of the Ministry are cut down, the expenditure will be accordingly reduced. If we inserted "two" instead of "the Parliamentary Secretaries,"the Bill might come from Committee in a state in which it would be impossible to go on with two Under-Secretaries. An Amendment might be moved in Committee that there should be a certain number of departments Hinder this Minister, each with a separate Minister at their head, and subject to the Minister of Ways and Communications. That would mean if you had three such departments that you would only have two Under-Secretaries, which, under those circumstances would be insufficient.

If it comes down to the necessity only of having two, then two will be the number that will be required, but it is impossible for us to bind ourselves when, quite possibly, when the Bill comes down from the Committee, the Money Resolution will be entirely insufficient. Really, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, these are matters which are raised on every Money Resolution, and I may remind him that theyare generally met with the same answer, that at this stage we cannot tell what will be required. Therefore, I think it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment.

Captain W. BENN

Could the hon. Gentleman tell us how the functions of the Under-Secretariesare to be divided? This is the only occasion when the House has effective control over the money part, and we are entitled to ask for a little more information. Can he tell us how the division of function is going to be made? What duties will each of theUnder-Secretaries perform? If only two are required, it would be much better to accept the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT

I am afraid that is quite impossible, and I am sure no one better appreciates that than my hon. and gallant Friend. If there are only two, their function will be to divide £3,000 equally between them. That is the most I can say at this moment.

Colonel GRETTON

I am sorry to speak again, but the position is not a satisfactory one. The Government has brought in this amount without any Estimate. My right hon. Friend referred to the proceedings in Committee upstairs. He tells us that the Committee upstairs practically determines what the expense is to be according to the functions which will be performed by the Ministry.

Mr. SHORTT

Subject to the Treasury.

Colonel GRETTON

Subject, of course, to the Treasury as regards expenditure. That position is a very unsatisfactory one. All the indications are that some or other of the proposed duties of this Ministry may be cut down, with a correspondingdecrease of the staff and the expenditure which will be required. The Government have put into this Bill everything they want, and they have drawn the Motion on the widest terms which will cover all the expenditure they require. However, I do not desire to press this Amendment any further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MARRIOTT

I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words: Provided that no new transport undertaking shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete the undertaking has been submitted to and approved by the Treasury; provided that the total expenditure authorised by the Treasury under this heading shall not exceed in any one year the sum of £260,000. I am one of those, like my hon. and gallant Friend, who think that the House ought not to sign, without further explana- tion, the blank cheque asked for in this Resolution. This Resolution will authorise an immense expenditure—

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.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.