HC Deb 10 June 1921 vol 142 cc2264-87

(1) In order to meet the increase which has taken place since the outbreak of the War in the cost of living and travelling and in other expenditure necessarily incurred by coroners, the remuneration payable to coroners shall be revised in accordance with the following provisions of this Section.

(2) Every authority charged with the payment of a coroner's remuneration shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act proceed to revise the rate of the salary or of the fees, as the case may be, payable to the coroner, and in so doing shall have regard to the increase aforesaid, and to all the other relevant circumstances of the case, and if the authority and the coroner fail to agree as to the amount at which the salary or fees should be fixed the Secretary of State shall, on the application of the authority or the coroner, determine the amount, having regard to the increase and other circumstances aforesaid:

Provided that, as respects fees, the amount thereof shall in every case be revised so as to be increased by not less than 50 per centum.

The revised rates of remuneration fixed under this Sub-section shall be deemed to have been in operation as from the passing of this Act.

(3) The County Coroners Act, 1860, shall have effect as if the revision of a salary under this Act were a revision of a salary after a lapse of five years under that Act, and that Act shall have effect accordingly.

Sir J. BAIRD

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).

This Amendment is part of a general scheme which carries out promises made in Committee to the effect that we would see that this Bill secured what it proposes to secure, namely, a revision and not merely an increase of the salaries of coroners. The omission of Sub-section (1) is necessary in order to effect that, because Sub-section (1) provides only for meeting an increase. We propose that provision shall be made for a revision of coroners' salaries, and that, should a decrease be found necessary, a decrease can be made. We go further, and provide that in the case both of the coroner and of the paying authority there shall be an appeal to the Home Secretary.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

The question I have to put is, "That the words down to 'shall' ['shall be revised'] stand part of the Bill."

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not want to say anything on this Amendment, because, as I understand it, it is practically a drafting Amendment which is moved in order to prepare the way for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet which will come later. I presume that you have put the Question in that form in order to protect my Amendment to substitute "may" for "shall."

Sir T. BRAMSDON

I am afraid that I cannot agree to this Amendment, because I fear that it will interfere with the Home Office Amendment later.

Sir J. BAIRD

This is the Amendment. It is necessary that we should get rid of these words in order to carry out the original intention.

Sir T. BRAMSDON

I understood the Amendment was to leave out Sub-section (1), whereas this proposition is to leave out the words of the Sub-section down to "shall," but not the remainder of the Subsection.

Sir J. BAIRD

I take it that does not preclude the omission of the remainder of the Sub-section subsequently.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It does not preclude it, but if the Amendment be carried, it is not possible for the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) to move his words. The whole Sub-section would go out.

Sir J. BAIRD

What I mean is that I am in agreement with the hon. Member (Sir T. Bramsdon). I want to secure the omission eventually of the whole Sub- section. I take it the way you are putting the Question does not preclude my obtaining that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

No, on the contrary, if the Amendment, as proposed, be carried the Sub-section would go.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir F. BANBURY

I desire to move to leave out Sub-section (2). I understood I should be entitled to move my first Amendment, in Clause 1, to leave out the word "shall" and to insert instead thereof the word "may."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That would have been so if the Under-Secretary's Amendment had been defeated, but as it was carried without a Division the whole Sub-section falls.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am sorry there are so few hon. Members present because I want to draw attention to what is going on at present. First of all, this Bill has been moved by an hon. Member who is a coroner himself and who will receive benefit from the Bill. Letters have appeared in the newspapers, I think there is one in to-day from Mr. Swift MacNeill, who was a prominent Member of the House, saying that any vote by an hon. Member which has the direct effect of putting money into his pocket is a wrong vote. It has been said that in certain circumstances these votes are allowed. I brought this question to the notice of the hon. Gentleman two or three months ago and I understand he saw Mr. Speaker, who thought on the whole the vote might be allowed, but whether or not the vote is in accordance with the strict letter of the Orders of the House, it is utterly wrong—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I find, now that Sub-section (1) disappears, to omit Sub-section (2) would practically destroy the whole Bill and I do not think under the circumstances the Amendment is in order. Therefore I suggest that the right hon. Baronet should proceed with his other suggestion to substitute "may" for "shall."

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "shall" ["shall as soon as may be"], and to insert instead thereof the word "may."

I only found out by accident that the hon. Gentleman is a coroner. It is utterly wrong for an hon. Member to move a Bill which puts money into his own pocket.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER

This is appropriate to the Third Reading. It is quite in order to move to substitute "may" for "shall," but it is not in order to pursue an argument which no doubt will be perfectly legitimate on the Second or Third Reading.

Sir F. BANBURY

The argument I am endeavouring to advance is in favour of leaving out "shall" and inserting "may." My point is that no direction should be given by this House to a local authority to do a certain thing. It is an utterly wrong thing for an hon. Member to ask the House to give definite and mandatory instructions to a local body to do something which will put money into his own pocket.

Sir T. BRAMSDON

On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Baronet justified in making a personal attack upon me and saying I am personally interested in this Bill, when such is not the case? I asked Mr. Speaker about this, and he assured me that I was perfectly in order in bringing in the Bill and, according to Erskine May, a Member who represents a class is quite in order in bringing in a Bill and voting upon it. There are many cases, for instance, a railway—a Member might be a director of a railway—and Members have even voted for an increase in their salaries. The right hon. Baronet wrote me about the matter, and I thank him for his courtesy. I looked the matter up in Erskine May and I saw Mr. Speaker, and I afterwards communicated the result to the right hon. Baronet, and I am very much surprised that he should cast prejudice against the Bill by making a personal attack upon me which is absolutely unjustified.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not think the right hon. Baronet is out of order in his comment. I do not think a question of order arises. On the other hand, I am not prepared to rule that the hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Bramsdon) is out of order in bringing the Bill forward, much less, as I understand it, the suggestion that the Bill should not proceed.

Sir F. BANBURY

I never said there was. I said I had communicated with the hon. Member and he told me he had communicated with Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker had ruled that there was no objection on the strict rule of order to his bringing forward the Bill. All I was saying was that I did not think it was the right thing for an hon. Member to bring forward a Bill which actually put money into his own pocket. The hon. Member says he is the representative of a class—a representative, I presume, of the coroners' class. He is not a representative of the coroners' class. He is returned here by the electors of the country, who have nothing to do with coroners.

Sir T. BRAMSDON

I am bringing in this Bill as past President of the Coroners Society for England and Wales. Therefore I do represent the class of coroners.

Sir F. BANBURY

The hon. Gentleman was not returned to this House by the coroners. He was returned by the electors of his constituency. As to his allusion to railways, I should be the last person to vote for or bring in a Bill which increased the salaries of directors, and no Bill has ever been brought into the House which increases the salaries of directors, and no Bill has ever been brought in, for which I have voted, on railways or anything else, which would ever directly or indirectly put money into my own pocket. I ask the House to consider what it is we are asked to do. At a moment when everyone's salary is being reduced, when the working man is asked to take lower wages and Members representing the Labour party are being asked to use their influence to secure lower wages, the House is being asked, not to take money out of the pockets of the taxpayers even, but to order local authorities to pay increased salaries to a certain class of individual. Surely the people to judge whether coroners should receive increased reuneration are the local authorities and the ratepayers. The local authorities have been complaining for a very considerable time that they have had burdens placed upon them by this House, and they have been rightly complaining. We all know how heavy is the burden of the rates, and if this House passes now, in face of the tremendous burden which is put upon ratepayers and taxpayers, and in view of the fact that in many places the rates are 15s. or 16s. in the £, a Bill which increases the remuneration of coroners, it will be entirely wrong. I sincerely trust that hon. Members will unite with me in supporting this Amendment and in killing the Bill. The Bill had no business to have been brought in, irrespective of the question about the hon. Member who brought it in. At this moment of financial stress it is very improper to ask this House to put an additional burden upon the ratepayers, a burden which the local authorities do not want. I have had many communications from local authorities asking me to oppose this Bill. In many cases they tell me that they have already increased the salary of the coroner. Power is to be given in this Bill for an appeal to the Home Secretary. What has the Home Office to do with it? The local authority ought to be the master in its own place, and it ought not to be told that it must increase the salary of one of its officials. I shall divide on this Amendment, and I trust the House will support me.

Mr. DENNISS

I do not know whether the Government supports this Bill, but I hope they do not. I am astonished that it should be in order for a private Member to bring in a Bill which compels local authorities to raise the fees of coroners by not less than 50 per cent. In all the years that I have been in this House I have never heard of a more astonishing proposition. It comes as a shock to me. I have only just read the Bill, and I cannot see my way to support such a proposition. I understand that there was an Act passed in 1860, under which the coroner's salary was to be revised every five years. I do not know whether that is so or not. I suppose that the five-year period varies according to the date of the appointment. This Bill has been brought in to enable the coroner's salary or fees to be increased, although the five-year period has not arrived. If the Bill stopped there, one might reasonably support it. If in a proper case under existing circumstances the coroner's fees or salary are so insufficient as to be unjust, the local authorities might be allowed to reconsider them without waiting for the end of the five years. The Bill does nothing of the kind. It says that every local authority shall raise the fee of every coroner by 50 per cent. at once.

Sir T. BRAMSDON

That only applies to borough coroners.

Mr. DENNISS

It is immaterial whether it applies to borough coroners or county coroners. I will confine my remarks to the case of boroughs. I represent a borough, and I very much object, without the consent of the borough council, to vote for a Bill which says that they shall be told, at the instance of a private Member in a private Member's Bill, that they are at once to raise their coroner's salary, although they may have raised it the other day, by 50 per cent. at least, and as much more as they please. The House would bring a great deal more odium upon itself than it is incurring even at the present time, if it dared to pass that. I hope the Government are not supporting the Bill and that the Government Whips will not be put on. The House will lose its self-respect if it passes such a Measure. The right hon. Baronet was rather hard on my hon. Friend in what he said as to his position in bringing in the Bill; but on the other hand, no terms are too strong to condemn the Bill. To attempt to pass on a Friday afternoon an apparently insignificant Bill, which probably nobody has noticed or in which they have not taken an interest; a Bill of such a radical character, imposing upon every borough in the Kingdom the liability to increase their payments to coroners by at least 50 per cent., and to increase the rates accordingly, is altogether wrong.

The rates in the boroughs are high enough. The Bill provides that if a coroner is dissatisfied with the amount to which his salary is increased, he can appeal to the Home Office, and the Home Secretary shall have the right to override the opinion of the borough council and to set aside the state of the rateable value and of the rates existing at the time. It is a most objectionable proposal. If we could do away with all war bonuses and start afresh and have a proper revision of salaries, and put them on a different basis, that would be a different matter. If this is a war bonus, that is the strongest possible reason for rejecting the Bill. Under this Bill a coroner will be able to say, "You must raise my salary by 50 per cent at least, but I ask for more, and if you do not give it I shall appeal to the Home Secretary." I condemn the whole principle of the Bill, the manner in which it is brought in, and its object.

Sir T. BRAMSDON

I am sure the House will be good enough to listen increased by such increase or increases in respect of salary, fees, or expenses as the council or other body by whom such payments are made may determine to be reasonably necessary for that purpose. calmly to my explanation, and I assure them that there is no necessity for heat. The facts are very simple, and the proposals are very just. Coroners for counties are paid by salary. The salary is arranged according to the quinquennial valuation under the Act of 1860. Coroners for boroughs are paid by fees, and allow me to say—being a coroner myself—that they are the worst paid body of servants in the whole Kingdom. Coroners for boroughs are paid £1 6s. 8d. for every inquest which they hold. That is fixed by Statute. The last increase in the fees took place in 1887. If a coroner does not hold an inquest, he is entitled to no fee at all. Coroners hold a great number of inquiries, but get nothing out of these. Moreover, if a coroner holds an inquest which lasts three or four days, he only gets £1 6s. 8d. I have had inquests in murder cases, and arising out of fires in dockyards, etc., which have lasted from three up to nine days, and the only fee the coroner gets for that is £1 6s. 8d. Coroners and High Court judges are the only officials in the country who have not had an increase in their salary. Coroners could not get a rise because their fees are fixed by Statute, and the only way they could get an increase was by coming to this House and having the Statute altered. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has an Amendment to Clause 1 to insert: I cannot imagine the right hon. Gentleman putting down such an Amendment if he did not think that the time had arrived when the fees should be increased. The whole tenor of his suggestion is that they should be increased, but he leaves it to the local authorities to say what the increase is to be. My right hon. Friend evidently has in mind that the local authority would not give any increase at all, and therefore if this Clause is passed, though he expresses the view that there should be an increase, there would in the result possibly be no increase. That is a suggestion which is not fair in the circumstances. This Bill is not a permanent Bill, but a temporary Bill. The view taken by the Home Office is that these salaries shall be revised, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend who represents the Home Office (Sir J. Baird) provides as regards salaries that they may not only be increased but diminished. Therefore he wants to be fair, and I am prepared to agree to that. Then my hon. Friend has got the further Clause to the effect that if after the expiration of a year the circumstances shall be altered, then it shall be in the power of the paying authority to apply to the Home Office for a revision so that we might get down to normal times again.

The whole tenor of this Bill is temporary. It is meant to do justice to coroners who are very badly paid and to whom something like justice should be done. A very strong departmental committee appointed in 1909, of which I was a member, recommended that there should be an improvement in the pay and conditions of coroners, and had Parliament been able to find time a Bill founded on that report would have been the result; but, owing to the tremendous amount of Parliamentary work which has gone on from time to time, that Bill has not been introduced. I suggest that this is a fair suggestion. Coroners, with High Court judges, are the only officers whose case has not been considered. There are some cases, though they are not general, in which the conditions of coroners' service have improved during the last year or two. There cannot be any revision with a view to an extension of those, but there may be a revision with the view to a diminution. The whole tenor of this Bill and of the Amendment of my hon. Friend is that there shall be justice done to coroners. I do not come here on my own behalf. Nothing could be more invidious or more distasteful, but the Coroners' Society ask for some consideration, and to whom would they appeal more than to a man who has been past President of the Society?

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS

The hon. Gentleman has told us the very interesting fact that a coroner in a county borough is paid by fees. Are there any allowances additional to these fees?

Sir T. BRAMSDON

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for asking that question. There are no allowances. The £1 6s. 8d. includes stationery, clerk's fees, postage, and any other incidentals that may be necessary.

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS

The representations which I have received from certain friends of mine who are coroners left me under the impression that the proposals of this Bill were to allow these local authorities who desire to do so to increase the remuneration of the coroner, and that without the sanction of Parliament, however much they wanted to increase the remuneration of the coroner at present, they were not able to do so. To that I assent. The coroner is not overpaid at present, and he has not only to pay out of his fees a very much increased remuneration to his staff, but he has got to pay the cost of stationery and postage and the increased rates on his office as well as the increased cost of petrol, or hire of conveyances to get to the various parts of the districts for which he is coroner. If, therefore, the coroners' fees cannot be increased by the local authorities without the sanction of Parliament, I support the Bill, but I feel that I must vote for the Amendment to insert "may" instead of "shall" because of the principle of not forcing upon the local authorities payments which they are unwilling to make. In voting for the Amendment I am not voting to wreck the Bill or prevent local authorities from doing that which at present they cannot do without the Bill, but on the general principle I object to Parliament forcing local authorities to make payments.

Mr. ACLAND

It does not seem to me that we are doing what has been suggested by the last speaker, namely, by the action of this House forcing upon local authorities an increase in the salary of the county coroners. For an increase in fees I think a good case has been made out. If the fee is statutory it can be revised only by statute, unless fees are taken out of the Statute altogether. It has been said that the fee was fixed in 1887, and has not since been revised, and if the coroner has to include all expenses within the fees a good case seems to have been made out for a revision up to 50 per cent. With regard to salaries, I should be as much against the Bill as the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) if, as he suggested, I think inadvertently, there was a direction to the county authorities that they must and shall increase the coroners' salaries. But it is not so. The Bill says that the authorities shall consider the matter and that they are to take into consideration the rise in the cost of living and so on. I am reading the Bill with the Amendments put into it. The authorities are also to have regard to all other relevant circumstances of the case. If they could urge, as they might do, that they have recently revised the salaries in a satisfactory way, or if the work had so decreased that the salary fixed some years ago was still adequate, no increase would have to be made. In any case if there is any disagreement, if they hold that the present is not the time to make a charge on the county rates, they would be able to follow that course and there would be no increased salary forced upon them by the Bill. The matter would then stand referred to the Secretary of State for his decision.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I explain? If my Amendment is not carried, and if the Amendment of the Under-Secretary is carried, the Sub-section will read: Every authority charged with the payment of a coroner's remuneration shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, proceed to revise the rate of the salaries or of the fees, as the case may be, payable to the coroner, and in so doing shall have regard to the increase which has taken place since the outbreak of the War in the cost of living and travelling and in other expenditure necessarily incurred by coroners in the performance of their duties. Provided that as respects fees the amount thereof shall in every case be revised so as to be increased by not less than 50 per centum. So that the result will be that whatever they may think the authorities must increase the salary by not less than 50 per cent.

Mr. ACLAND

In the case of fees, the matter being statutory, it is proposed to revise it by statute. I think a case has been made out for an increase of fees. But where payment is by salary no increase is imposed by this House on the county authorities. I do not think it can be argued that with regard to salaries this Bill imposes the duty of making an increased charge on the county rate.

Mr. CAUTLEY

Having read the Statute I think that probably the last speaker is right, but he seemed to forget that in every case the coroner can appeal to the Home Secretary, and there is not the slightest doubt that if the revision happened to be downward or if no revision was made, an appeal would at once be made to the Home Secretary. I object very strongly to the Home Office fixing the salaries of the officials of local authorities. For that reason I shall feel bound to support the Amendment. May I say that I think the introducer of this Bill ought to be a little careful as to the way he votes on this matter? I would remind him to look at the Standing Orders, because I think he might make himself liable to considerable penalties if interested as a member of a class or as an individual—

Sir T. BRAMSDON

I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House when this matter was debated and, as I understood, satisfactorily settled.

Mr. CAUTLEY

I do not want to press the point upon the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I did not attempt to rule as to whether the hon. Gentleman might or might not incur any penalties. I should be very sorry if the hon. Gentleman took anything I said as encouraging him to get into a position which might be a danger to himself.

Sir J. BAIRD

I think there is some misunderstanding in regard to the intervention of the Home Office. There is already a right of appeal, which operates in the case of the quinquennial revision of salaries. Let me say something as to the attitude of the Home Office to this Measure. Although coroners are paid by the local authorities they are judicial officials, and to that extent they are connected with the Home Office. They have come to us and pointed out that there has been no alteration in their fees, in the cases where they are paid by fees, since the year 1887. I do not think it would be easy to substantiate the view that a payment which was adequate in 1887 is adequate for similar services to-day. Yet the fees cannot be increased unless this House increases them. It is not a question of the local authorities doing it, for they have not the power to increase fees. Our attitude to the coroners was that though we were not able, in view of the parliamentary situation and the business to be got through, to bring in a Bill dealing with their case, yet it appeared to us that they had a claim for consideration. They are the only people analogous to civil servants who have not had any increase of salary since the War, except in the case of the local authorities which, owing to the operation of the quinquennial period, have revised the salaries of coroners. The Amendment which I shall move later, if this Amendment be not carried, will provide that any increase in salary which may have been granted shall be taken into account in the revision which would take place if the Bill be passed with my Amendment.

I would draw attention to the latter half of Sub-section 2 which the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) did not read when he quoted my Amendment. It has been suggested that the local authorities will be obliged to increase the salaries. This is a misconception. Under the existing laws the local authorities have only power to revise the salary once in every five years, and that may operate very unfairly in the case of many men. The Bill provides for a new revision, not necessarily in the direction of increasing the salaries, but in order that in considering whether an increase or a decrease shall be decided upon, regard shall be had to the cost of living and to travelling and other expenses necessarily incurred by coroners. Under the Statute by which this quinquennial revision is now held the local authorities have no power to take these matters into consideration, but the revision has to have regard to the number of inquests held, and the man's salary therefore depends upon that, and the cost of living and the other expenses do not come into consideration at all. The Bill provides that all these relevant circumstances shall be taken into account, and that is the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London appears to have overlooked.

Sir F. BANBURY

I did not read the remaining words of Sub-section (2) because I thought I had already spoken on them. The remaining words are as follows: If the authority and the coroner fail to agree as to the amount at which the salary or fees shall be fixed, the Secretary of State shall, on the application of the authority or the coroner, determine the amount. That is what I am objecting to.

Sir J. BAIRD

That is nothing new. There is already an appeal to the Secretary of State.

Sir F. BANBURY

Why have the Bill at all?

Sir J. BAIRD

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for asking that. We have supported this Bill, subject to amendment, for two reasons. First, there has been no revision of the scale and there is no power to revise the scale unless the House decides it should be revised; and secondly, the revision of salaries can only take place once in every five years. It having been brought to our notice that the cases of a great many coroners are extremely hard, we said if a private Bill was brought in we should favourably consider it, provided it was amended in such a way as to meet what we considered necessary conditions. A certain number of Amendments were carried in Committee, and the main point raised upstairs was that, while there was no difficulty or objection as to having a revision, it should be a revision and not an increase. It was pointed out that it would be wrong to seek to impose on local authorities the duty of increasing salaries or fees. We said that the revision must be a revision in the real sense of the word, enabling the scale of salaries to be revised either upwards or downwards. That was one point made upstairs which I am endeavouring to meet by the Amendment on the Paper. Another point was made as to whether this was to be a temporary Measure, and not a permanent Measure. I have a further Amendment on the Paper in regard to this, which provides that if at any time after the expiration of one year from the passing of the Act, it appears to the Secretary of State that a substantial reduction in such cost of expenditure has taken place since the date on which the remuneration of any coroner was revised, the Secretary of State may, on the application of the authority charged with the payment of the remuneration, authorise the authority to make a further revision. We have in this attempted to meet the legitimate demands for safeguards which were brought forward upstairs. I hope the House will agree that there should be a less rigid machinery for revising the salaries than that which exists at the present time—for that is what the proposal amounts to—and that they will not insist on inserting the word "may" instead of "shall" because with the proviso contained in the subsequent Amendment I have indicated, I venture to think the interests of the ratepayers are amply safeguarded and the local authorities have it in their power either to increase or diminish the salaries as they may think desirable. We are not creating any new right or conferring any new advantage. A certain number of hon. Members appear to have considered the Bill apart from the Amendments, but these Amendments greatly alter the aspect of it. The Bill as originally produced was one we were not prepared to accept as imposing an obligation on the local authorities to increase the fees, and all we say now is that some consideration should be had for those men who have not had their remuneration revised for 38 years. Conditions have altered very much in that time, and we consider the time has come when a definite revision should be undertaken, but we say the present machinery for revising is too rigid having regard to the exceptional conditions in which we find ourselves. Let me again remind the House that these men have had no increase whatever since the commencement of the War despite the increase in the cost of living, and that they are on an analogy with civil servants who have had substantial increases. I hope the House will hesitate before refusing a reasonable opportunity for having these salaries revised.

3.0 P.M.

Colonel GRETTON

Probably the House will agree that a case has been made out for the revision of coroners' fees which are fixed by Statute, and if that were enacted in a separate Clause, I think there would be little difficulty in getting it through the House, but the Clause does not confine itself to a revision of fees. As drafted, it is a mandatory Clause to compel the local authorities, whatever their opinions on this matter may be, whatever the particular circumstances, or however recently the salaries may have been reconsidered or raised, to proceed to a revision of the coroners' salaries. We should certainly improve the Clause by the safeguards proposed by the Government, but as the Clause stands it is mandatory on the local authorities to proceed to a revision, and what does that mean? If the local authorities think they are not prepared to revise these salaries, the remaining machinery is set in motion, and the officers can proceed to appeal to the Home Secretary and have a revision made by the Home Office. I strongly object to this kind of compulsion on the local authorities, and if this Clause were made permissive, as the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) proposes, this objection would be removed. The Clause has two vices, that it compels the local authorities, whether they will or not, to proceed to a revision, and that it superimposes upon their decision an appeal to the Home Office in a matter which is essentially a matter which should be arranged locally. After all, these officials are appointed, and if they do not like their appointments they are usually gentlemen who have other sources of income, and somebody else may be asked to carry on their duties. There is after all in these things a law of supply and demand, and I do not think it right to compel local authorities to take action which may not be necessary and which may be entirely against their judgment. I am willing to vote for the Clause if the right hon. Baronet's Amendment is inserted.

Mr. A. J. LAW

I rise to support the Bill, and I do not think it matters much whether the word "may" or the word "shall" is in the Clause, because if we alter the word to "may," it is hardly conceivable that any local authority, knowing that the coroners' salaries have been stationary for so many years, would

not reconsider the salaries and deal with them accordingly; but if the Clause remains as it is, and mandatory, it will then not be open to them to refuse to take into consideration these cases. I am greatly surprised to hear from the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Baird) that not since 1887 have coroners' fees been raised, but in regard to county coroners, the quinquennial period, I suppose, has been taken advantage of, and if so, there is all the stronger case for this Bill, that they have not seen their way to revise the county coroners' salaries, and more particularly during the War. Other civil servants and others in different enterprises have had their salaries revised, and the cost of living has duly been taken into account, and therefore I think there is the strongest case for a Bill of this kind, and I am surprised it has not been brought in before. Whether we retain the word "shall" or alter it to "may" does not make much difference. In either case I support the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 74.

Division No. 159.] AYES. [3.12 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. Greig, Colonel James William Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Baird, Sir John Lawrence Hallas, Eldred Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. Robertson, John
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Irving, Dan Spoor, B. G.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) Swan, J. E.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Kennedy, Thomas Waterson, A. E.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Wignall, James
Dawes, James Arthur Kenyon, Barnet Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Doyle, N. Grattan Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) Wilson, James (Dudley)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Lawson, John James Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Mills, John Edmund Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Evans, Ernest Morgan, Major D. Watts
Forrest, Walter Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Galbraith, Samuel Murchison, C. K. Major Entwistle and Mr. R.
Glanville, Harold James Myers, Thomas Young.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
NOES.
Barnett, Major Richard W. Gilbert, James Daniel M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Bell, Lieut-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Macleod, J. M.
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) Gretton, Colonel John McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Brittain, Sir Harry Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Macquisten, F. A.
Brown, Major D. C. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Manville, Edward
Burdon, Colonel Rowland Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil) Molson, Major John Elsdale
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Neal, Arthur
Butcher, Sir John George Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Colfox, Major Wm. Philipps Hopkins, John W. W. Parker, James
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page Hurd, Percy A. Perkins, Walter Frank
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) Johnstone, Joseph Polson, Sir Thomas A.
Dockrell, Sir Maurice Lindsay, William Arthur Raeburn, Sir William H.
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.) Lloyd, George Butler Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Fell, Sir Arthur Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Ford, Patrick Johnston Lorden, John William Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Roundell, Colonel R. F. Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur Thorpe, Captain John Henry Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W. Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander Wise, Frederick Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Cautley.
Stewart, Gershom Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Proposed word there inserted in the Bill.

Sir J. BAIRD

I beg to move, in Sub section (2), to leave out the word "aforesaid" ["the increase aforesaid"].

This Amendment speaks for itself, and I hope the House will see fit to insert it. It seems to me to be necessary from the drafting point of view. We have eliminated Sub-section (1), which embodies what is contained in my Amendment which follows this, and which comes in better here, and, I think, is better expressed. It gives reasons why there should be a revision. We have now decided it is to be optional on the local authorities, and I hope the House will consider my Amendment simply as a drafting one.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have no objection to this, because, as I understand, it is more or less of a drafting Amendment; but my hon. Friend, I think, will agree that if we have these words inserted, we shall have to leave out the words "and if the authority and the coroner fail to agree," because that is consequential on my Amendment, which makes it permissive.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Sub section (2), after the word "increase" ["the increase aforesaid"], insert the words which has taken place since the outbreak of the War in the cost of living and travelling and in other expenditure necessarily incurred by coroners in the performance of their duties."—[Sir J. Baird.]

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words and if the authority and the coroner fail to agree as to the amount at which the salary or fees should be fixed the Secretary of State shall, on the application of the authority or the coroner, determine the amount, having regard to the increase and other circumstances aforesaid. This is consequential on the Amendment which was carried just now, which made it permissive.

Sir J. BAIRD

I should hesitate to differ from my right hon. Friend as to what is consequential and what is not consequential, but I should not have thought this Amendment was consequential. If it be carried, it takes away a right which the coroner now possesses. That is surely not consequential. My right hon. Friend must have overlooked that. Let me be quite frank. These words retain the right of appeal now possessed by the coroners who draw salaries, and they confirm the right of appeal of coroners who are paid by fees. That is the new point—the appeal is extended. The effect of the carrying of the proposal of my right hon. Friend would be to remove the right of appeal from the men who have had it ever since they have held office. I cannot believe that that is his object. We desire simply to leave things as they are so far as the salaried men are concerned, but the Bill does confer upon coroners who are paid by fees the same right as the similar class of men who are paid by salary. I do not think there is any grave anomaly in that. I hope the right hon. Baronet will not press his Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I point out that if these words are not left out the Amendment we have just carried falls to the ground? The Sub-section will then read: Every authority charged with the payment of a coroner's remuneration may, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, proceed to revise the rate of the salary or of the fees, as the case may be, payable to the coroner, and in so doing shall have regard to the increase which has taken place since the outbreak of the War in the cost of living and travelling and in other expenditure necessarily incurred by coroners in the performance of their duties … and if the authority and the coroner fail to agree as to the amount at which the salary or fees should be fixed, the Secretary of State shall, on the application of the authority or the coroner, determine the amount, having regard to the increase and other circumstances aforesaid. What we have just decided—I venture to submit on a point of Order that I am correct—is that the local authority "may" have the discretion and the right to do this, but that they shall not be compelled to do so by the Bill. Unless my Amendment be carried the vote which the House has just given is rendered null and void, because the local authority might say: "We do not intend to revise the salary of our coroner," who can then appeal to the Home Office, and the Home Office will give a decision, and it will not be that of the local authority. It is therefore absolutely essential that the House should pass this Amendment as consequential on something the House has already decided.

Sir J. BAIRD

May I suggest that the appeal can only take place in the event of the salaries having been revised. If the salary is not revised there is no appeal.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am sorry to interrupt, but I beg to point out that this does not take away the right of appeal by the coroner. It does not repeal or alter any Act of Parliament which is in existence at present. All it does is to say that in a new Act of Parliament, and under new circumstances, the local authority "may" do something. Any right which coroners have at the present time is not interfered with if my Amendment is carried. All the Amendment does is to confirm the present position.

Colonel GRETTON

If my hon. Friend who represents the Home Office thinks that the Home Office will carry out what, he argues, is contained in the Bill he will have to add further words to make the matter clear. The House has clearly decided that the local authority may or may not, at its own discretion, revise the salaries. If he contends, as he probably may do, that in case they do not revise the salaries the appeal will not lie, you require words put in front of the words now being considered, to make it clear that if the salary or fees are revised, as the case may be, and the local authority and the officer fail to agree, the decision—after revision—can be appealed against.

Sir T. BRAMSDON

I think it has been explained to the House that the coroners in the counties have a quinquennial revision of their salaries. This Bill proposes that there shall be an immediate revision of salary if, of course, it passes into law. Under the existing law coroners, if they find that things are not satisfactory, have the right of appeal to the Home Office, and the local authority has a similar appeal. We want to guard against being unfair in this rearrangement.

Mr. CAUTLEY

If the hon. Gentleman who represents the Home Office reads the words again he will find that the result will be just the contrary of what he expressed. He stated that the words in question proposed to be left out only became applicable if there was a revision. It is just the contrary, because the words are if the authority and the coroner fail to agree as to amount, then there is an appeal to the Home Secretary. Where there is no revision appeal to the Home Office becomes operative. As I understand the feeling of the House, as the result of the last Division, it is that the whole procedure of revision is to be permissive. The second point is that there is a great objection in forcing upon local authorities a decision of the Home Office as to the amount of salary to be paid to the coroner. It is extremely desirable that these words should be left out. It is desirable in the interests of the coroners themselves, because as the Bill now stands, if the local authority are anxious to consider the question of the revision of the salary of the coroner, that authority will look at this Bill if these words are left in and say: "We cannot take any steps towards what we desire without having in front the prospect of an appeal to the Home Office." Necessarily it would follow that the local authority would dislike the salary fixed by the Home Office. The majority of the House, too, dislikes that idea. At any rate, the local authorities are anxious to keep these matters in their own hands, and, for the most part, they are quite willing to do what is right and fair in any grievance which may exist. The local authorities will be very anxious to act upon this Bill, and will the more readily act upon it if these words will be left out. Both from the point of view of expediency, and in order to carry out the wish of the House expressed by the last Division, I think it is necessary and desirable that these words should be left out.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put and negatived.

Mr. DENNISS

I desire to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "fifty" and to insert instead thereof the word "five."

As I understand it, under the Act of Parliament in all boroughs the coroners are paid by fees. The amount of the fee is specified in the Act of Parliament, and I believe it is £1 6s. 8d. It is necessary that in this Bill some amount ought to be fixed. We have already decided that it shall be in the discretion of the borough authority to increase or not to increase the fees of the coroner, and the Sub-section as it is would compel them, whether they liked it or not, to increase those fees 50 per cent. That would negative all the Committee have done in the previous Division and the last Amendment which was carried without a Division.

It may be for technical reasons necessary that the increase should be specified. If you put in 50 it cannot be less. If you put in five you can give the borough municipal authority power to make an increase of anything under 50 or over 50, thus leaving it to their absolute discretion. If you leave it at 50 we are in fact stultifying our previous Amendment. If we put in five then they may make it 10, 15, 20, or 50, and this will be entirely at the discretion of the local authority.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I point out, Mr. Speaker, before my hon. Friend moves his Amendment, that after the two Amendments which have been carried the following three lines should be omitted: Provided that, as respects fees, the amount thereof shall in every case be revised so as to be increased by not less than 50 per centum. Otherwise they render nugatory the decision of the House. I admit it is difficult under the circumstances to foresee everything, but the leaving out of these lines is consequential upon the decision just come to by the House.

Mr. SPEAKER

The words are in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Oldham is in possession. Somebody ought to move to leave out those words.

Mr. DENNISS

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words Provided that, as respects fees, the amount thereof shall in every case be revised so as to be increased by not less than 50 per centum.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. G. BARKER

This Bill is based upon the principles of equity and justice. It states, in the first place, that In order to meet the increase which has taken place since the outbreak of the War in the cost of living and travelling and in other expenditure necessarily incurred by coroners, the remuneration payable to coroners shall be revised in accordance with the following provisions of this Section. It states further: Provided that, as respects fees, the amount thereof shall in every case be revised so as to be increased by not less than 50 per centum. My object in rising is to call attention to the fact that this very just and righteous principle, which I take it the House is about to sanction, has been denied to the miners of this country. It may seem rather ironical, but it is a fact that miners have to die so that coroners may live. During the last 10 years there have been no less than 12,000 inquests held on the bodies of miners, and it seems to me strange that the House should be so very careful to see that the coroners who hold the inquests on the bodies of the miners should have fees by which they can live while at the same time the Government deliberately take away from the miners this very same principle as conceded during the War in the shape of a War wage. That which is proposed to be given to coroners is to be taken away from all the workers of this country. The same fate as has overtaken the miners is being prepared for the agricultural labourers, and the engineers and all the other workers of the country are threatened with the same thing. If this House is to legislate, it should legislate righteously and equitably for all the people of the country. We have here a piece of down-right class legislation. The House which has been denouncing class legislation and increased expenditure is now engaged in increasing the fees of men who are very much better able to meet the cost of living than the miners and other workers. Therefore, while agreeing with the righteousness and with the principles of this Bill, I say that the same principles of equity and justice should be meted out to all the other workers of the country. I notice that coroners only are mentioned. No- thing is said about the minor officials or the jurymen who have to give their time at very much less remuneration than the coroners receive. Therefore, while agreeing with the principle of the Bill, I say that its application is very unjust to other portions of the community.