§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £235,388, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments."—[Note.— £150,000 has been voted on account.]
§ Mr. HAYWARDI beg to move, "That Item A (1) (Salaries to the Parliamentary Secretaries to the Treasury) be reduced by £2,000."
8.0 P.M.
I must admit that I have some little difficulty as to the way in which to approach this subject, in view of the discussion which has just taken place, and more particularly in view of the speech of the Prime Minister. I do not know whether, in moving this reduction, I shall be pushing a door which is already open. I do not know whether the reforming zeal for economy which has just been shown by the Government will find further expression in the reduction which I have 1654 moved. Whatever the case for the reduction which the Government have just accepted might be, I think there can be no question that there is an infinitely stronger case for their accepting the present reduction. Not only, according to the speech of the Prime Minister, but according to the speeches of most hon. Members who have spoken, the Minister without Portfolio has been performing onerous, responsible, and heavy duties of an official character. The Prime Minister catalogued various Committees which the Minister without Portfolio had to work upon, and indicated that other Ministers were so overloaded that it was necessary to have someone in that capacity to perform those duties. The Prime Minister never once sugested that one of the Patronage Secretaries to the Treasury should be called in to perform those duties. Why was that? The House perfectly well knows the predominating duties of the Patronage Secretaries to the Treasury are duties in respect of the party machine. Their official duties are of an unimportant character, and, as n matter of fact, they are not chosen for the post of Patronage Secretary to the Treasury on account of their qualifications for that post.
It is true they are gentlemen who stand very high indeed in the estimation both of the Leader of their party and of their party all round, and it is for that reason and that qualification for management and maintenance of the party machine that they are primarily chosen. As I had the opportunity of saying a day or two ago, when I had the honour to introduce a Bill dealing with this matter, during the War there was some kind of justification 1655 for an additional Patronage Secretary. There was this justification, that during that time the Patronage Secretaries were not performing duties of political character at all, but were performing duties relating to war work and public work of one kind and another. That has all ceased, and on the grounds of economy I hold, and I hope the Committee will be with me, that the time has come to revert to the pre-War practice. One might ask, where are the 180 Members who in their reforming zeal were so intent on abolishing the Office of Minister without Portfolio?
§ Mr. HAYWARDThere are several hon. Members belonging to the Anti-Waste Party here, but where are the 180 Members who were so desirous of getting rid of the office of Minister without Portfolio?
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONMay I interrupt my hon. Friend? I am sure he does not want to misrepresent the 180 gentleman who signed the memorial. That memorial had really nothing whatever to do with the Minister without Portfolio; we had not that in our minds.
§ Mr. HAYWARDWhether they had or not—
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—
§ Mr. HAYWARDI welcome most strongly this new-found enthusiasm for economy, and I am going to give hon. Members the opportunity of giving expression to this new-found zeal of theirs. It is not new-found on the part of my hon. Friend (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson), I admit. I do not suggest for one moment that the right hon. Gentlemen who at present occupy the responsible position of Patronage Secretaries to the Treasury are not exceedingly hard-worked. I believe if they are successful in carrying out their duties, no one could be more actively engaged than they. I gave the House one or two illustrations of the heavy duties which devolved upon them the other day. I have looked up and found some more. We have it from one authority that every day the Chief Whip "must perform wonders of affa- 1656 bility, of patience, and of firmness in view of the object which is the dream of a Whip's whole existence, to keep the party united, compact, and in fighting order." I readily admit that under the circumstances of the present day that is no easy task, and no enviable task for right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then I find it laid down that among his other duties the Chief Whip "nips revolts in the bud." Again, no easy and certainly no enviable task under present circumstances. Then there is the old definition of a Chief Whip's task as defined by Canning, which is "to make a House, to keep a House, and to cheer the Minister." I should like to make this observation, that the Minister must indeed be in a bad way if, in addition to the extraordinarily genial right hon. Gentlean whom I see opposite (Colonel L. Wilson), he requires a further Chief Whip to keep him sweet and cheerful. Those duties are very important, I admit. I admit they are even of public importance, but I maintain they are not duties for which the public and the taxpayer should be called upon to pay. As I admitted the other day there are official duties and ample official duties to justify the appointment of one Patronage Secretary, but not two, and in the interests of economy and in order to maintain that principle that no public funds shall be used for party purposes, I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £2,000.
Dr. MURRAYI do not think I can say I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion to reduce this Vote, because no one should express pleasure in depriving any right hon. Gentleman of his salary. It hurts one's feelings to do it, but although it is a painful duty there are times, especially when one gets lessons in economy from 180 Members that one feels compelled to undertake this disagreeable duty. One would rather not do it, and I would not like to meet any of these right hon. Gentlemen in the Lobby. I do not see that there is any necessity now for these two offices. At one time they were supported on the ground that we had two parties supporting the Government. Now the Leader of the House said very definitely from that Box only a few days ago that there is only one party now in the House on which the Government rely. That statement, coming from the right hon. Gentleman, has been confirmed by one of the Patronage Secretaries to the Treasury, who not only 1657 says there is only one party supporting the Government, but that the Government itself is only of one party, and that party is the Liberal party. A Liberal Government! I hope the quandam Unionist Members will remember that. That being so, what reason is there in these hard times for the existence of two Patronage Secretaries? My hon. Friend has quoted someone who says it is part of the duty of the Whip to keep his party in fighting order. According to the practice of modern times, what they regard as fighting order is to run away from every position they take up. That is not the sort of fighting order we used to associate with British pluck and courage. The right hon. Gentleman has not kept the Prime Minister in fighting order, because on the question of the Ministry of Health he capitulated and discharged the Minister of Health, and on this question to-day of the Minister without Portfolio he has also capitulated. Therefore, I do not see that the Whips have managed to keep the Coalition in good fighting order. In fact, if fighting one another is a sign of good fighting order they are clearly doing something. But as far as that is concerned, I am afraid that the Government are falling between two stools.
Let us see what these gentlemen are doing. The only duty of one of the Patronage Secretaries is to go up and down the country collecting half a dozen bald-headed gentlemen together and calling them to the aid of the Coalition Government. The other Patronage Secretary has to collect together 10 per cent. of the Liberal party in the country. That is, no doubt, quite good work for the party, but I do not think it can be said that the Liberal patronage Secretary is pulling his full strength in the boat by merely bringing in 10 per cent. of superannuated Liberals from various parts of the country. He is not earning his salary, at any rate. I am glad to see present the leader of the Anti-Waste party with some of his followers. I hope they will give this Amendment their support. I may suggest, however, that the real Anti-Waste party sits on the Benches around me. We fought against waste when it was not a very fashionable thing to do. These things are only taken up by the Coalition economists when they become stunts. I except from that my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson), who, I 1658 believe, is a genuine economist, but the bulk of the Coalition economists are only moved to action because certain "million sale" papers create a stunt, and that causes them to send a memorial to the Leader of the House. I had hoped that they would have been able to collect the 180 Economists into one united party on the Benches opposite. According to the Leader of the House, and according to one of the Patronage Secretaries, there is only one party now sup porting the Government, only one party in the Government, and that is the Liberal party. Surely, then, one Patronage Secretary should be sufficient to collect the Coalition supporters of the Government into the Lobby, especially when it is known that by the use of one magic word, "dissolution," the Coalitionists are easily collected together.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONOn a point of Order. On this particular Amendment can we discuss the salaries carried on the rest of the Vote or must we first take a decision on this Amendment for reduction?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)At the present time the discussion had better be confined to the Amendment which has been proposed.
§ Captain W. BENNIs it conceivable we are not going to have a word of explanation from the Government? If so, we had better continue this Debate. The Leader of the House might perhaps shorten the discussion by intervening now.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIf by replying at once I could shorten the Debate I certainly will not hesitate to do so, but I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken a good deal of interest in this question, and I imagined he would wish me to wait until he had spoken I have been waiting for him.
§ Captain BENNI have not had the advantage of hearing the speeches of my two hon. Friends, but I am very familiar with the arguments on which they base their case, and I cannot conceive that the Government has a shred of a case at all. What is the proposition? It is that £2,000 a year should be voted from public funds to the party funds of the party in power at the present day. It was agreed some years ago that certain offices, including one sinecure office of Patronage Secretary, should be main- 1659 tained for the purposes of the organisation of the party, and we are not proposing to interfere with that, although there might be something to be said for doing so in these days of financial stress. What we are endeavouring to do is to prevent an extension of this policy. The only justification the Leader of the House can put forward for the present proposal is that it was brought into operation by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) during the War. The answer to that is very simple. It is that two great parties were then brought together in a national emergency and one of the arrangements made between them was that the Chief Whip of each party should be placed in a position of equality in the Government. The real justification was that the Patronage Secretary was doing a great national service. The whole staff and machinery of the Whip's Office was diverted from party controversies to the question of recruiting. We arranged recruiting meetings, organised a big campaign, and the whole staff was turned on to the great national work of securing recruits. That was the justification for the creation of the two offices. But what justification can be put forward for retaining them now at a time when the country is approaching bankruptcy? I do not think that is putting it too strongly. There is now no public duty to be performed and the right hon. Gentleman who occupies one of the posts of Patronage Secretary is a most esteemed Member of the House. His duty is to organise the party in the country, and he does that much too effectively to suit us on these Benches. But that is not a duty for which we should pay for out of the public purse. I appeal to those hon. Gentlemen who felt stirred about the Minister without Portfolio, and had in many respects an excellent case, to give us the same support in this reduction which has been moved. As the Leader of the House has invited Debate, I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth), who has taken a very active and useful part in checking expenditure, to give us the opinions of those with whom he has worked and who have been so successful recently in appealing to the feeling of the country, as to whether this expenditure is justified. If it is not justified, I suggest to the Leader of the House that 1660 the right thing to do is to reduce this Vote as the Prime Minister did the other one. Then we should hear no more about it, and the hon. Member for Thanet will continue his useful and arduous task, which is growing, at the expense of those who agree with the opinions he holds. That would be a perfectly reasonable arrangement, to which no one on any public ground could take exception. Otherwise, the House of Commons will really make itself ridiculous because while by pressure it has insisted upon the dismissal of a Cabinet Minister who certainly in the past has done useful service to the country, it deliberately votes considerable sums of money out of the Exchequer for a service which is neither more nor less—
§ Captain BENNThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is to be congratulated upon his hope. We ought not to take any part in voting public funds for what is neither more nor less than a purely party purpose.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI think I was right to wait for the speech which we have just heard, and which the previous momentary incursions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman into the discussion on this subject had led me to anticipate. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) explained that he was discharging a duty peculiarly distasteful to him in proposing to reduce the salary of either or both of my friends the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Treasury. No one will feel that the task was distasteful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He performed it con amore. I should be more impressed by his arguments on this point if I did not know that, with equal enthusiasm, with equal cogency, and, indeed, with equal passion, he would support a Motion to reduce the salary of every other Member of His Majesty's Government.
§ Captain BENNCertainly.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThose scruples of conscience never troubled my hon. and gallant Friend while he was a Member of the Government.
§ Captain BENNThere was no opportunity.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThere was no opportunity for his conscience to work 1661 when he was a Member of the Government?
§ Captain BENNThe right hon. Gentleman has made a brilliant point, but the real point is, that he said that I supported the appointment of two Patronage Secretaries and their payment out of the Exchequer. I never had an opportunity of doing so, and I have never done so. I have taken the first opportunity of protesting against it.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested by his interjection that we should, all, or, at any rate, many of us, be better if our salaries were reduced, and I pointed out that his scruples of conscience did not trouble him when he was a member of the Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he was never in the House and never had an opportunity of voting either for or against two Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Treasury until after the War. We know, as I said the other day, that he was otherwise and very honourably engaged, and he is perfectly at liberty, without any past to embarrass him, to take what line of action he likes in regard to these joint posts. So is any hon. Member, of course, at any time at liberty to reconsider the position in relation to the present facts, and in a matter of this kind he is not to be held committed, nor do I seek to hold him committed, because he voted for the salaries of two Patronage Secretaires at one time, to continue to do so indefinitely and for all time. I would ask the Committee to look at the matter on its merits. The hon. and gallant Gentleman lends countenance to an observation which, I think, fell from both the hon. Members who preceded him in the Debate, that the Patronage Secretary has no duties but Parliamentary duties. That is not so. The proper performance of his duties is an essential part of the machinery of Government and of the working of this House. If anyone thinks that it is not, let him imagine what would happen if we were not fortunate in obtaining the right kind of man to fill this post. Every kind of difficulty in getting the business of the House done would arise at once. The work of the Patronage Secretary is as essential to the work of the Government of the country as that of any other Minister.
Ought the Patronage Secretaryship to be duplicated at the present time—I am 1662 speaking only of the present time? Why was it duplicated during the War? The hon. and gallant Gentleman, not very charitably, suggested that the duplication took place merely as a condition of coalition, or because, as a condition of coalition, the party with which I am immediately connected demanded it. It would have been perfectly easy for us to ask, or for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley to say, if we thought that the Patronage Secretary ought to be drawn from our ranks, that that concession should be made to us. The right hon. Gentleman was not bound to appoint a second Patronage Secretary in order to grant that request. He had only to ask his own party Patronage Secretary to give place to one drawn from the other ranks. He did not do that, and he was quite right, because, for the smooth working of a coalition of that kind, and the effective discharge of the business of Government, it was necessary in the circumstances to have two Patronage Secretaries. At the present time it is still necessary. This is a Coalition Government. There are different sections of opinion represented, and, for the present at any rate, in my opinion, it is necessary for the proper working of the Government and the due conduct of its business that we should have the assistance both of my right hon. Friend and of my hon. Friend. I say in present circumstances. I do not say that it is an arrangement that should continue in perpetuity, but neither am I prepared, at this time, to name a date for its conclusion. This and other questions will be considered by us in the light of the need for economy and from the point of view of the public service. We shall consider it in that light and in the light of the requirements of the Government, and we shall review our decision from time to time as circumstances arise. For the present, I ask the Committee to grant to us the facilities for public business which they granted to our predecessors, and not to embarrass us by a vote which will be purely a vote of want of confidence in us.
§ Mr. HOWARD GRITTENAre the two Patronage Secretaries to continue to have the salaries that they have had hitherto? There was a rumour that their salaries were to be halved.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI ask the Committee to vote the salaries at the rate 1663 which has always been customary. The necessity for two Secretaries, and, indeed, the whole position, will be reviewed by us. We have a great many questions of organisation to consider, and when we have less to do, and can find an opportunity, we shall consider it. I do not ask the Committee to say that this is an arrangement which should be perpetuated, but I must respectfully decline to name a date for bringing it to a conclusion.
§ Mr. E. HARMSWORTHI cannot consider that the right hon. Gentleman's defence is a good one. I do not think the country is interested in the personal affairs of the Coalition Government or of a party. What they are interested in is national affairs, and national affairs at the moment are centred in finance. If the right hon. Gentleman had proved that, it is essential to the country that the whole working of the Government, whatever Government is in power—
Mr. CHAMBERLAINMay I put the case that the hon. Member's party formed part of a Coalition. It might have to be a Coalition of more than two parties to get a majority Suppose the Anti-Waste party and the Independent Liberal party came into a Coalition.
§ Mr. HARMSWORTHNo Member of the Anti-Waste party accepting such a position would accept a salary with it. To hark back to the real matter before the Committee the point is whether the country at present can afford even £2,000 more than is absolutely necessary. I do not wish to be factious in any way or to vote for anything which may appear factious, but I shall most certainly support the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) if he goes to a Division. It does not matter whether before the War the hon. and gallant Gentleman was a Member of the Government. There might have been three or four Patronage Secretaries and no one would have said anything. The question is now, when the War has wasted our resources, and the Government since the War has continued to waste our resources unnecessarily why we should have double the number of Patronage Secretaries with double the salaries. It may be a small amount. The Vote we were debating this afternoon was a comparatively small amount, but it is the moral effect of all 1664 these small amounts. The Government must itself economise and do without any unnecessary people before they can go to the Departments and demand that they economise and do without any unnecessary staff. This may be a small drop in the ocean, but they all count in their sum and also in their moral effect.
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSI rise to make an appeal, not in a party spirit, to the Government to reconsider this matter. There is a feeling in the country at present that money is being wasted by the present Administration. The whole of the middle-class people are groaning under the burden of taxation, and the working people are suffering from unemployment, and it will not be long before they are unable to get the necessaries of life. It will not be long before their children's clothes will go to the pawn shop, and here we are voting £2,000 a year for a second Patronage Secretary. There cannot be more work to do than there was before the War, that is, the legitimate work of the Patronage Secretary in the House, and whatever work the second Patronage Secretary has to do is political work done for the party and not for the public welfare. If that is so, the party that employs him ought to pay the salary out of the party funds. I appeal to the Government to adopt the same course that they adopted with regard to the Minister without Portfolio. The Leader of the House has indicated that this is a temporary arrangement. If he would agree to continue these two Patronage Secretaries until the end of the present Session, I think my hon. and gallant Friand would withdraw his Amendment for the reduction. It must be apparent to the Government that they cannot go on spending money at this rate. Every by-election goes against them. You can go to any audience in the country, even an audience in St. George's, Hanover Square. I was talking to a friend the other day, a man who I should have thought would have voted Tory 100 times out of every 100 times he voted. He told me that he, his wife, and the whole of the household voted against the Government because of their extravagance. Whenever we indicate to the Government a way in which they can economise, it is always, "We will economise to-morrow." It is never economise to-day! They always put us off with one plea or another, and I believe they will not economise to-day.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHThe hon. and gallant Gentleman has conclusively proved that some more definite statement ought to come from the Government Bench than we have had. The Leader of the House has told us that there are two Patronage Secretaries, because there are two political parties in the Government. Surely it is obvious that if a second Patronage Secretary has to be maintained there, because of political exigencies, the political party concerned ought to pay the salary and not ask the taxpayers to pay it. There is no scarcity of funds. I believe there are two political funds in the Government, one run by the Prime Minister's section and the other controlled by the section headed by the Leader of the House. Supporters of the Prime Minister actually go about boasting that they have a fund of £250,000 accumulated for the next General Election.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)We are discussing public money, and not funds belonging to other people.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHI have no intention of discussing the fund. I am not wandering off on to that at all. I am only pointing out that there are these funds and it is these funds that should be drawn upon for the payment of the supernumerary secretary rather than the funds provided by the taxpayers. We have had the announcement to-day that one Minister is to be unshipped in order to prevent a hostile vote, or any large section of Members voting against the Government. It was decided to sacrifice the Minister concerned. He was to be thrown to the wolves and a definite date was given when his salary should come to an end. Why cannot we have an equally definite date with regard to the termination of this second salary? Why cannot we be told definitely that three months from now it will come to an end. It was easy to say that about another Minister, why cannot it be said about one of the two Ministers whose salaries are under review? We have heard a great deal about the memorial that was signed by hon. Members threatening to vote against the Government on the question of economy. The Government know the stuff that the memorialists are made of. They know that however many memorials they may sign, and however many protests they may make outside this Chamber, when it comes 1666 to voting they will all skedaddle and the Government will be perfectly safe with its mechanical majority. I invite the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the sake of consistency, seeing that the two things are happening on the same day, to give the assurance that just as the office of the Minister without Portfolio is to terminate in three months so this dual office of Patronage Secretary to the Treasury should also come to an end three months hence.
§ Mr. RAFFANI support the suggestion that has just been made by the hon. Member. If is extremely reasonable. It is in the nature of a compromise. It does not propose any vote of censure on either of my hon. Friends who are holding the position of Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, and as we have been assured that the position is a temporary one, the Government would only be following the precedent set earlier in the day if they adopted the suggestion to terminate this appointment three months hence. I cannot conceive that the Government will go to the extent of forcing this matter to a Division. If they do, they must march to inevitable defeat. I hold in my hand the document signed by 155 Members, impressing upon the Government the importance of economy, and two of the hon. Members who signed that document are in the House at the present time. I hope that they will not make any professions to their constituents which they are not prepared to carry out here by voting against the Government if they are called upon to divide. Perhaps we shall hear from them the eloquent speeches which they are capable of making.
There can be no doubt as to the feeling of the country on this matter. I am an elector in the St. George's Division, and when I was first informed that a candidate was to be put up against the candidate brought forward by the Government it seemed to me that that candidature could not possibly succeed. For a generation the Unionist political machine has been so powerful that it was practically impossible for any candidate holding other views to be successful, either in Parliamentary, County Council, or other elections. All that the party election, however, the Anti-Waste candidate forward and he was elected by an enormous majority. At the recent by-election, however, the anti-waste candi- 1667 date came forward with no organisation behind him, with a handful of political friends, and because he was able to go before the electors and say that he was standing on the ground of economy he was able to smash up the machine which has existed for so long. [An HON. MEMBER: "How did you vote?"] I am asked how I voted. I do not consider that there is any great difference between my views and that of the hon. Member, and I voted for him because he advocated the cause of retrenchment, which is one of the main planks of the party to which I have the honour to belong. He stood on the issue of economy only, and not on party matters, and the verdict given by that constituency is the verdict that would be given by any constituency.
In these circumstances the Government will be flouting the opinion of the country and the opinions of those who have almost slavishly supported them if they force this to a Division. It is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House saying that the fault lies with the House of Commons and not with the Government in regard to excessive expenditure. When appeals are made to them for a saving of this small character, which could easily be made, they will not agree to it. If a small economy like this cannot be effected it is hopeless to expect the larger economies which are essential if the finance of the country are to be stabilised and we are to be able to weather the great crisis by which we are faced. The Government will be most culpable if they do not accede to this very reasonable request for economy.
§ Captain GEEI intervene in this Debate because we have heard so much about the opinion of the country, and we have heard so often the wonderful word economy, which ought to be called false economy. The hon. Member has talked about compromise. Compromise with what? Compromise with extravagance or compromise with economy? He admits that one of the Patronage Secretaries should be paid from the party funds and the other from the public purse. If it is wrong for both to be paid out of the public purse, then it is wrong for one to be paid out of public funds. I am surprised that we have not the Anti-Waste party going the whole hog. The fact of the matter is that their anti-waste cry is a cheap journalistic stunt.
§ Captain GEEThe hon. Member asks what about Hertford? On that occasion, for the first time in the history of British political life, a case occurred where the paid agents of an hon. Member of this House had to be turned out of a public meeting for interrupting the meeting. In other words, it is the first introduction of the Boss Croker system of America brought into British politics, and I do not think the Anti-Waste party has any right to speak, as it does, when three of them had to be arrested. I have been astonished that during the finance Debates of the last few nights the Anti-Waste party has been conspicuous by its absence. That party is really a coalition of two parties with two leaders. The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth) leads one section and the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) leads another, and it is quite common to find them going into opposite Lobbies. Last year the hon. Member for Thanet was again conspicuous by his absence during the sittings of this House. He was a leader who was never there to lead. This year in 160 odd Divisions the hon. Member has only been present at about 70, but he is to be commended compared with his co-leader the hon. Member for South Hackney, who during the present year out of 164 Divisions has been present at eight, and on three occasions voted with the Government and on eight occasions against.
The sooner the British nation knows the truth about these political journalistic stunters the better. Out of 80 days in which the House has sat this year, the hon. Member for South Hackney has been seen on 26 occasions. I am sorry he is not here, but no doubt he will read what I am saying, or he will get somebody else to read it for him and tell him. As a Unionist Labour Member, and not an Anti-Waste Member or one of the party of the hon. Member for South Hackney —[HON. MEMBERS: "He got you in!"]— the only difference between the hon. Member and myself is that when we were back to back fighting the foe during the Woolwich Election the Coalition Government was good enough for him. He volunteered his services to come down to help me. I did not ask him. I am consistent. The hon. Member for South Hackney is not. He now is fighting the Government which he got me in to support.
§ Mr. E. HARMSWORTHThat shows his independence.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Captain GEEYou remember the dump scandal. After several weeks' campaigning in the Press, when the right atmosphere had been created, certain patriotic gentlemen, some of them Members of this House, came along, not from any business idea, but as pure patriots, and said, "We will make an offer to the Disposal Board; we will give them out of purely patriotic motives £15,000,000 for the whole of their dumps." But, fortunately, the Coalition Government were not to be bluffed or frightened. We had business men running it, and through refusing to accept the anti-waste offer of £15,000,000, these dumps have realised up to date £300,000,000, and are not all sold yet. A more glaring charge which I have to bring against these insincere journalistic stunters is this. Those who read certain papers will remember that about four months ago we had the old scandal of the dumps revived again, but it was a particular dump, the Abbeville dump, on this occasion. They produced an advertisement for the sale of a lot of preserved meat. The advertisement said:
Not fit for human consumption, but fit for the manufacture of artificial manure.That was only half the truth. The remainder of the truth, which the anti-waste papers insincerely neglected to tell, was that that very dump had been sold by the British Government by contract, dated December, 1919.
§ Captain GEEI am dealing with the false impression created by the Anti-Waste party and the false economists. It was sold to a French syndicate for 10,500,000 francs, and according as the syndicate paid in the money they were allowed to take away the equivalent in meat, and during the year ending December, 1920, the whole of the 10,500,000 francs, with the exception of 138,000 francs, had been paid to the Disposal Board.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANAs far as I can understand the hon. and gallant Member is intending to show that, in his opinion, those who advocate economy are false economists, but he is going a rather long way round in order to do it. He is quite in order in expressing that 1670 view, but he must keep more to the point.
§ Captain GEEI shall be very brief. As I said the 10,500,000 francs has been paid, with the exception of 138,000 francs. A few months ago the story was reproduced in the stunt Press, and it was because of the half-truth published that a false impression was created in the minds of the people. The action which Members are taking against the payment of the salaries of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Treasury is false economy from beginning to end. During the War it was found that one quartermaster, one adjutant and one quartermaster-sergeant were not sufficient in a unit to deal from a business point of view with the work put upon them as a result of the War. It is identically the same with the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries. The work that the two of them have to do to-day cannot be compared with what they had to do in pre-War days. We talk about the War being ended, but we are still suffering from the aftermath of the War. It is real economy to pay the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries for the work they are doing, and false economy to hamper the Government.
Mr. T. THOMSONThe sum of money we are discussing is small, but there is a vital principle at stake and the psychological effect on the country if the Government would accept the Amendment would be far-reaching. During the last all-night sitting the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had the unpleasant task of refusing quite small concessions to the widowed mother and the orphaned son who had to bear the responsibility of maintaining a home. The Financial Secretary was exceedingly sympathetic, but he said that in these days we must economise. These poor people who feel that they have a real claim to consideration would be more contented if they knew that the Government were not only paying lip service to economy, but were setting their own House in order by cutting down expenditure to something like a pre-War standard. Charity begins at home. I think economy should also begin at home. It is false economy to begin on social services. To-day I arranged for an interview with the Minister of Health with the idea of getting a relaxation of the very rigid line of economy now being drawn with regard to housing. It was 1671 pointed out that there were thousands of unemployed. The Ministry met our request with a refusal, which meant that men out of work cannot start on the road-making and other work required in connection with housing schemes. At the same time as one Department is refusing to sanction useful work required for the unemployed the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries are retaining the full amount of their salaries.
§ Mr. WATERSONI am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents Woolwich (Captain Gee) has so quickly left the House, because had he been here I would have taken the opportunity of saying that his attitude this evening is, in my judgment, very base ingratitude. When one recalls the history of his entry into this House one has the impression that instead of being a member of the Coalition ranks he was a member of the Anti-Waste party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] One got that impression because of the many speakers sent down to help him in his election. I am glad that the speeches on this Vote have not introduced the personal element into the Debate. I cannot recall a single remark which has brought in the personal aspect. This appeal to the Government to reduce expenditure by £2,000 can be taken in a better spirit probably than the Debate on the Vote of which we have just disposed, because whatever may be said when the Report of the Debate is read to-morrow the conclusion will be reached that there was much of the personal aspect in our previous discussion. Whatever may be said about the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, I think the Committee will fully agree that both of them are extremely affable and charming men in every way. One of them happens to represent the county town of a shire of which I happen to represent a division. I do not join in the discussion from that point of view, however. I want to say, first, that I think economy must be effected. It is false economy to economise on those things that make for the social welfare of the country. What excuse will the Government have before the constituencies of the country when they ask the working classes to get back to something like pre-War conditions? One cannot take up a daily newspaper without being confronted with fresh evidence that this company and that indus- 1672 try have determined that the workers shall have a drastic cut in their wages. Whq? Because they are anxious to bring back industry to this country, and to get industry going as it was going in pre-War days.
I suggest to the Government that the offer put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) as to a compromise should be accepted, and that as soon as this Session ends, one of these secretary-ships should cease. That is a very fair offer. If I had the opportunity myself of deciding as between the particular official concerned in this Vote and the Minister who is shortly to leave his office, according to the decision accepted earlier in the day, and to say which of them was most useful to the community, I should say that we could best spare one of these Secretaries. Here is an opportunity of cutting down the expenditure of the country, and I hope the Government will take it and will give a lead to the people. It is no use asking the workers of the country to agree to wages reductions if the Government is not going to make the slightest attempt to bring about a reduction in its own expenditure. I submit that if it is really essential to have two Patronage Secretaries in order to keep the Government, and its machinery well oiled and well managed, why not have another one and make it three. My hon. Friend who represents the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) would be very proud to have the opportunity. Why not have a Patronage Secretary from the Anti-Waste party? We have heard from the hon. Member for Woolwich (Captain Gee) that in the majority of the Divisions they are found voting with the Government. If there is an argument in favour of having two Patronage Secretaries, it is only right and proper that they should have another, for the third section of the Coalition, and spend another £2,000 a year. If my right hon. Friend is really earnest and sincere, he should give a lead to the workers of this country who are being asked to reduce the cost of their living and to sacrifice the ordinary necessaries of life. Let him show by practice and by precept that the Government is doing something to cut down its own expenditure. Here is a glorious opportunity for doing so. It will be to the credit of the 1673 Government if they are prepared to accept the proposition.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHAre we not going to have any reply from the Government?
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHOn a point of Order. I wish to ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury was entitled to vote in the last Division, seeing that it was a matter which personally affected him?
§ Question put, "That Item A (1) be reduced by £2,000."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 115.
1673| Division No. 194.] | AYES. | [9.21 p.m. |
| Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W. | Hartshorn, Vernon | Newbould, Alfred Ernest |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Hayday, Arthur | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hayward, Evan | Polson, Sir Thomas A. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hogge, James Myles | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Briant, Frank | Holmes, J. Stanley | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Cairns, John | Irving, Dan | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Cape, Thomas | Johnstone, Joseph | Sexton, James |
| Clough, Robert | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Sueter, Murray Fraser |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Swan, J. E. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Kenyon, Barnet | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Kiley, James Daniel | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Lawson, John James | Waterson, A. E. |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Glanville, Harold James | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Morgan, Major D. Watts | |
| Halls, Walter | Mosley, Oswald | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Myers, Thomas | Colonel Penry Williams and Dr. |
| Murray. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge) | Neal, Arthur |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Gee, Captain Robert | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Armitage, Robert | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Percy, Charles (Tynemouth) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Green, Albert (Derby) | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Pratt, John William |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Prescott, Major W. H. |
| Blair, Sir Reginald | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Purchase, H. G. |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Brown, Major D. C. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Haslam, Lewis | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Seager, Sir William |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.) | Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n.W.) | Seddon, J. A. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Hopkins, John W. W. | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere | Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Jameson, John Gordon | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Taylor, J. |
| Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Waddington, R. |
| Edge, Captain William | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Wallace, J. |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Lindsay, William Arthur | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Waring, Major Waiter |
| Evans, Ernest | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Wise, Frederick |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Matthews, David | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | |
| Forrest, Walter | Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Mr. Parker and Lieut.-Colonel Sir |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh) | J. Gilmour. |
| Gardiner, James | Murray, John (Leeds, West) |
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is quite clear that it is a question of public policy and not a matter of personal interest.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI wish to direct the attention of the Committee to a subject which I think transcends in importance every other question in finance before 1675 the public to-day, that of the National Debt. It is little realised, the overbearing and very heavy burden of the National Debt, a burden which falls on every taxpayer. The amount of the National Debt absorbs some 8s. in every £ of direct taxation levied this year. The point to which I am anxious to direct the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is this. During the last few weeks the Government have issued a long term 6 per cent. loan. They very properly decided to issue that loan, as has been their custom in the past, without consulting the House of Commons. I do not suggest for a moment that the Government should come to the House and ask whether the terms of the loan should be at the rate of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., but the Committee are entitled to press their views upon the Government on such an important matter. In regard to that loan, the Government had such little confidence in British credit that they pledged the taxpayer to pay 6 per cent. on an unlimited amount for the very long period of 40 years. It may be that the rate of interest to-day for Government stock is 6 per cent., but is British security to be so low that for the long period of 40 years no Government in this country will be able to borrow at a lower rate than 6 per cent.?
The experience after all former wars has been that during the war, when capital was wasted, the rate of interest naturally rose, but gradually, as peace conditions returned, the rate of interest fell, conversions were effected, and the interests of the taxpayer were safeguarded. The Government, by their policy, offered 6 per cent. for 40 years. The point I am anxious to put to the Financial Secretary and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this: If they are forced, as they will be forced, to borrow in the next 12 or 24 months and to offer to the public, it may at 6 per cent., but not for such a long period, then do not pledge the credit of the British Government for such a high rate of interest for 40 years. I am encouraged in that suggestion by the views expressed by the late Leader of the House. Speaking in June, 1919, on the subject of the Victory Loan in the City of London, he said:
Though, indeed, the rate"—1676 that is, the rate of interest—is attractive, though I feel sure that ten years hence people looking back on what we are doing to-day will say it was a rate higher than it was necessary to give, it will seem a rate "—
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Member will forgive me for one moment. I understand, from communications that have passed, that the hon. Member wants to raise some large questions of policy which may occupy the whole of the evening. It is absolutely necessary, as I said earlier to-day, that we should get the Railway Vote in order that we may be able to fulfil our obligations. If that is acceptable to the hon. Member, I will move the Adjournment of this discussion in order that we may proceed with the Railway Vote, undertaking to give an additional day in Supply, when I will put this Vote down.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI am sure hon. Members associated with me in this matter are anxious, if possible, to fall in with the views expressed by the Leader of the House. He will agree that the subject of the National Debt is all important. We understand that the Government will give another day for the Debate on this important point, and in view of that I will resume my seat.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.