§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salary of a Minister without Portfolio and the Salaries and Expenses of the Cabinet Offices.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI wish to ask how much of this sum represents increase of salary to the Secretary, how much is allowances for private secretaries, how much for substitution of male for female staff, and for provision of additional temporary staff. I think we ought to know why exactly Sir Maurice Hankey's salary is being raised, what it is being raised from, and to what. I am sure nobody in the Committee would grudge Sir Maurice Hankey a single penny. There is probably no more valuable servant of the State to-day. Again, what is this additional temporary staff? Is it a staff doing the work in connection with the League of Nations? I understand that at present the work of maintaining touch between the British Government and our representatives on the Council of the League is not being done, as it ought to be done, by the Foreign Office and by this Cabinet Office. Has this additional temporary staff, in connection with the Cabinet Office, been enlisted in order to deal with the liaison between our Government and our representatives in Paris and Geneva, as the case may be?
In regard to Item C, what is the unforeseen expenditure on travelling in connection with international conferences? I see that already £2,000 has been voted 1904 for this travelling, and people are beginning to ask whether travelling at the public expense is being done quite as cheaply as it might be. One is hearing that on all hands on this and on all other Votes, and I hope the Treasury will watch this matter most closely. We are continually being asked for further travelling grants for all Departments. This Cabinet Department is a very small one. I speak with some knowledge, because I have served in it without any pay. I know what it is and how well it works—very largely because it is a small Department. I hope there will not be a great extension of this office. The whole secret of Sir Maurice Hankey's success was, I believe, because that office was kept small and under his own personal supervision in every corner of it. I therefore ask for a little explanation, what these items are, lumped together in £3,000, and why an additional £500, which is a considerable sum, is needed for travelling.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY rose—
§ Mr. BALDWINI wish to answer the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). I may, perhaps, be able to save the time of the Committee by making one or two remarks on this Vote. The word "additional" ought not to have been inserted. The staff is exactly the same, the only change is that there are fewer temporary women, and more temporary men. The increase in the period under review for the substituted staff comes to about £1,100 out of £3,000. The total extra cost there would be on this Vote in a whole year, and the substitution of ex-service men for women, would be about £1,400. I may take this opportunity of reminding the Committee of a fact, which probably they already appreciate, that the substitution of ex-service men for women is leading to considerable expense in Government offices—an expense which has to fall in with the prevailing opinion—and the Committee must be prepared to support the Estimate when it comes before it. Sir Maurice Hankey's salary was raised from £2,000 to £3,000 in conformity with the recommendations of a small Committee, which sat under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). Of this £3,000, 1905 £1,100 is due to that increase. The other £800 arises in salaries, which were not provided for in the main Estimates, for the Secretary to the Minister without Portfolio. The Minister without Portfolio has now become Secretary of State for War, and the former office lapses. The secretary who worked for him, and now ceases to work for him, will not appear on next year's Estimate. With regard to travelling, on this particular Vote I think it has been kept within bounds. There have been no fewer than seven conferences held in the course of the financial year at various places on the Continent, three of them at considerable distances from London, and some nearer. There have been one or two conferences held in the South of England, where our Allies have come over to meet us. The number of conferences has been greater than was estimated when the original Estimate for this Vote was in course of preparation. I need hardly tell the Committee that I have been exercised during the year in the number of conferences, not only on this Vote, but on other Votes, which are being held, and I am in process now of taking steps to get some control over the numbers that travel and the expenses.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILThen I understand it is not true that any part of this Vote is chargeable to the work of the League of Nations?
§ Mr. BALDWINNo. There is no additional staff; it is exactly the same as it was a year ago, and is occupied on exactly the same business as it was then.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £;3,000.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman intended any intentional discourtesy; that is not usually his way. Perhaps he did not observe that I had some point to put to him. I do not think it is the way to save time for a Minister to rise, directly one hon. Member, like my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, has put a couple of points, and to endeavour to damp down the discussion. I object altogether to this Vote. I understand at the present moment that there is no Minister without Portfolio; there is no such person, I am glad to say. I hope nobody is going to be appointed to that post, and therefore, if that is to be the 1906 policy, I would like to have seen—and I would like an explanation of why not— a saving which would just about have met this estimated expenditure of £3,500, namely, on the salary of the Minister without Portfolio. Already the number of Ministers in this Government, under-Ministers, is sufficient to carry a Friday Vote; just about, with the aid of a few faithful supporters. The chance of reducing that number should be taken by this House. The Committee has a chance here, and I suggest that it should support the reduction which I move, on the ground that the salary of the Minister without Portfolio would then find the greater part of this, no doubt, not needed expenditure. I have a further reason for moving a reduction, and that is because this business of travelling and exceptional expenses is not justified by the results. The more Peace Conferences we have, the more caravans of secretaries, and translators, and typists, and special aide-decamps, and so on, who flit from one capital of Europe to another, from one coast resort to another, from one villa to another, the more muddled your affairs become. We are a good deal worse off in regard to knowing what the policy of the Government is now than we were two years ago. This is a reason for refusing supplies for this perambulating circus, which is going about muddling the affairs of Europe.
§ Mr. MARRIOTTThe sum granted in this Vote is not a very large one. I am a good deal mystified by the salary for the Minister without Portfolio. My impression was—
§ Mr. BALDWINThat is not on this Vote at all. It comes out of the Appropriation-in-Aid.
§ Mr. MARRIOTTI beg your pardon; I withdraw entirely on that point. My mystification is dispersed on that matter. I would not for one instant suggest any opposition to the raising of the salary of the particular official who is concerned in this Vote, but I am a little bit mystified as to whether it is a special or general increase. On that point, perhaps, the Committee would feel more readily disposed to grant this Vote if they could be assured that there is no general increase in the permanent salaries to the permanent heads of the Civil Service. I do not know if this is meant to be a tem- 1907 porary Vote or a permanent one, but I imagine, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that it is to be a permanent increase of salary, and not a temporary one for the current year. Something has been said from more than one side of the House about the number of persons who are employed by the public offices who travel, and the travelling and subsistence allowances made to them. I am very anxious to find out whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the recommendation of the Select Committee on National Expenditure in reference to this very point; not so much in regard to the number of people employed, as to the manner in which they travel. Evidence was taken by one of the Sub-Committees of that Select Committee. I happened to be in the Chair at the time. I quote from the Report on the subject of the travelling and subsistence allowances of various inspectors, and so on:
The privilege of travelling first-class on railways is at present allowed"—I want to know whether this is the case—to all officers in respect of salaries rising to £600 a year, and virtually to all officers of salaries between £400 and £600 a year. The Committee suggests that this Regulation involves unnecessary expense to the Exchequer, and they recommend that in future no officer receiving a salary, exclusive of War bonus, at a rate of less than £1,200 a year should be allowed that privilege.The point I want to ascertain is whether as a matter of fact an increasing number of officials are permitted to travel first-class and to draw subsistence allowances corresponding to their travelling expenses. This is a matter which, of course, is not confined in its importance to this particular Vote, but it is raised by this Vote.
Sir J. D. REESI have not risen to support the reduction of the Vote, and I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury very fairly answered the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), who testified to various shortcomings and faults in the Department, of which, having served in it, I presume he was himself to some extent an illustration. Reference was made to an obvious feeling on the part of this House that males should always be substituted for females. I hope that is not the case irrespective of cost.
1908 Surely if a woman in special offices of this description—and after all comparatively few people are private secretaries to private secretaries—is doing her work well she should not be put aside in order to make way for a man, and I urge the Government not to carry out this feeling of the House, if indeed it exists, to the detriment of the women who are performing their duties in this case admirably, and to the satisfaction of those for whom they work. As regards travelling by train, I take it that the object of giving an official a first-class ticket is not that he may travel in luxury and comfort. The people with these salaries that have been mentioned would not take first-class tickets if they bought them out of their own pockets, but I take it the real object is that the officials, supposing there are two or three gathered together, as generally happens, particularly on journeys of this description, should have a certain amount of isolation, so that they can if necessary discuss their business with one another without the intrusive company of some person or persons who might make some evil or malevolent use of anything they might overhear in a railway carriage. If that is the case—and I believe I have rightly stated the ethics governing the case—the whole requirements of the officials concerned are quite satisfactorily met, even if there are only two or three gathered together, and at any rate where there are four or five, in taking a third-class compartment for them. There is no greater comfort in having red plush cushions. It is the space and the company, or the want of company, that makes people pay higher fares on the railway. In this respect I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) that a great deal of money might be saved, if only the Government would look to the real ethics of the case, the reasons why first-class tickets are given, and would lump them together in comfortable third-class carriages, which in this country are quite good enough for anybody.
§ Sir F. BANBURYHear, hear!
Sir J. D. REESOn many railways they are even better than the first-class carriages, because they are not so stuffy, velvety, and upholstered with the same uncomfortable opulence. If the Government would only deal with them in that fashion we should have a saving on these Votes. In conclusion, I would add that 1909 I am glad indeed to find that no further expenditure is being incurred under this Vote for that already expensive and so far ineffectual institution, the League of Nations.
§ Mr. MOSLEYMy right hon. Friend did not quite reply to the original question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) in connection with the undertaking of Foreign Office work by this Department. He did reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) that the increase in salaries was in no way due to the undertaking of liaison work at International Conferences and work in connection with the League of Nations. Presumably, some of the travelling and incidental expenses in connection with International Conferences was due to the fact that the Cabinet Offices are to-day undertaking work which properly belongs to the Foreign Office, and that raises a very great question. Personally, I cannot vote for an Estimate which means the continuance of a system which I believe to be thoroughly vicious. The Prime Minister to-day surrounds himself with a staff of amateurs who improvise settlements in a European situation of peculiar difficulty and complexity, and the relationship between the expert Foreign Office staff and this band of amateurs is highly anomalous.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)We are not now discussing the original Vote, but only the Supplementary Vote.
§ Mr. MOSLEYMay I point out, with all respect, that under Item C we find "provision for increased fares and for additional expenditure on travelling in connection with International Conferences," and I submit that this additional item would not be necessary unless the Cabinet Offices were usurping the proper functions of the Foreign Office.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat principle has been agreed to by the original Vote, and the only question now is whether £500 more should be granted for that service, not whether the Vote should be there at all.
§ Mr. MOSLEYThe Cabinet Offices staff are to the extent of £500 undertaking additional work that should belong to the Foreign Office, and I submit 1910 that this raises the whole question, or a large part of the question, in connection with the respective functions of the Foreign Office staff and the Cabinet Offices staff.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI could not allow that matter to be discussed now. On the original Estimate £2,000 was granted for this purpose, and that is when the principle was settled. Now the only question is one of £500 excess payment for travelling and incidental expenses, and it would not be in order to discuss the desirability or otherwise of having a staff for this purpose or the work they do.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI notice that on the original Estimate this sum of £2,000, to which you, Sir, refer, includes sums other than travelling expenses, because it says, "Newspapers and miscellaneous expenses." I therefore submit that it is not only putting £500 on to the £2,000, but it really is more, because the travelling expenses were less than £2,000, and therefore this increase of £500 is relatively a very large sum. I submit to you on a well-known principle that where the increase is a relatively large sum then you can rediscuss the question of policy.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If the amount of the Supplementary Estimate is very large as compared with the original Estimate, then the Chair, in the exercise of its discretion, can allow a discussion on the original question, but I do not read into this Supplementary Estimate any such comparatively large increase. I do not think it is sufficiently large a sum to warrant me departing from the ruling I have already given.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI understood my hon. Friend behind me took the point of the travelling for the International Conferences. In your discretion, you may rule against him, but that was the point he took, that the travelling to these International Conferences showed that this particular Department in his view was interfering with the recognised functions of the Foreign Office.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is exactly what I ruled out of order. It is not in order to discuss the question whether this Department interferes with the work of the Foreign Office. That was 1911 settled on the original Vote, when £2,000 was granted, and the only question now is whether the Committee are willing that a supplementary £500 should be granted.
§ Mr. MOSLEYAm I entitled to ask to what extent this additional sum of £500 implies that the Cabinet Offices staff are taking over functions from the Foreign Office additional to those contemplated in the original Estimate?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANCertainly.
§ Mr. MOSLEYThen may we be told by the Financial Secretary to what extent the Cabinet Offices staff are taking over the functions of the Foreign Office beyond what was contemplated in the original Estimate, and which conferences the members of the Cabinet Offices staff attended instead of the representatives of the Foreign Office? At any rate this Supplementary Estimate represents a great aggravation evidently of a system to which we have already taken exception, and the evil is constantly growing. The cloud which was originally no bigger than a man's hand is to-day beginning to overshadow the whole European situation, and the Prime Minister, surrounded by a band of amateurs—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is going quite away from the point.
§ Mr. MOSLEYWill the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, be so good as to tell me to what this additional £500 applies?
Dr. MURRAYI want to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman, but, before doing so, I should like to protest against the assumption of the hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), that it is only in third-class carriages that malevolent people travel. The only people I have discovered travelling in first-class carriages nowadays are burglars and war profiteers. I think it is some reflection on people who travel in third-class carriages to suggest that it is only these people who would be eavesdroppers, out for malevolent purposes, when great officials of State are travelling about. As a matter of fact, I think they would be more disregarded in third-class carriages than in first-class. The right 1912 hon. Gentleman talked about the private secretaries of the Minister without Portfolio not in future coming within the ambit of this Vote. It has been suggested by some hon. Members, and by the anti-waste papers and other organs, that it is a habit in the Government that when there is no further use for an official in one Department, a job is found for him in another Department. I want to know whether the officials, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred as not coming within the ambit of this Vote, have been transferred to some other office. I do not know whether they have been, but the doubt has arisen through the words of the right hon. Gentleman that they would not come within the ambit of this Vote.
§ Major WHELERI only want to reinforce the remarks made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) with regard to travelling allowances. I have asked the Financial Secretary questions as to whether he has been making any change in the system under which a large number of officials are given first-class fares, taking into account the increased cost of travelling to-day. He gave me an answer last year that the question was under revision, and therefore I would ask him whether any system has been adopted under which fewer officials travel first class to-day than travelled, we will say, first class a year or two ago. We do feel in these days, when so many of us are travelling third class, that there should not be a very large number of civil servants travelling first class.
§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHSI want to ask for information before we decide whether we will support the reduction moved. Do I understand the salary of the Minister without Portfolio is included in the Estimate until March 31st?
§ Mr. BALDWINIt was in the original Estimate for the whole year.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSDid I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Minister without Portfolio ceased after 31st March?
§ Mr. BALDWINHe ceased when he went to the War Office the other day.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSBut is the office to be continued or discontinued? Because the Leader of the House stated last week that this office was going to be discon- 1913 tinned. We are of opinion, as a Labour party, that as this office was started during the period of the War—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANAlthough the Vote includes the salary and expenses of the office of the Minister without Portfolio, that is in the original Vote. I do not understand there is any money in the Supplementary Vote for that purpose, so that that does not arise.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSPerhaps I can get the Minister to say whether this office is to be continued. If it is to be continued, then we shall protest against it, and go into the Division Lobby with the Mover of the Amendment, because we. think this office now ought to be dispensed with, and that we should endeavour, as much as we possibly can, to curtail expenditure in the interests of the taxpayers of the country.
Colonel NEWMANThis is the first Estimate of many which we are going to discuss in which there occurs a footnote such as
A further sum of £3,700 has been provided in the Supplementary Votes for War Bonus (H.C. 148 and 219) in respect of charges falling on this Vote.In nearly all the subsequent Votes we have that same footnote in very small letters. I do not think that is a satisfactory way of doing business. There is this War Bonus. I do not question its fairness or unfairness, but it amounts to an enormous sum in all. And we ought to have that particular sum in big type, the same as other amounts. If we had that we should have a full sum required of £7,200, and then the Committee would see, and perhaps a certain number of the general public would know, exactly what the Civil Service is costing us. Here we have £3,700 on the comparatively small sum of £35,525. I wonder how that sum of £3,700 is calculated. How can any Minister or any official tell that at the end of this month the War Bonus in this particular case will be exactly £3,700? This War Bonus is on a sliding scale, and varies according to the cost of living, from month to month.
§ Sir H. CRAIKNot for the upper officials.
Colonel NEWMANThe officials in this particular Ministry are not all upper officials. How can the official who made up that sum of £3,700 say that it will be 1914 correct on the 31st March next? Then I should like to know exactly amongst how many of this staff the sum of £3,700 was distributed. If I can get a satisfactory answer now, I shall not have to raise the question again on other Estimates.
§ Sir D. MACLEANThe point which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised is a very important one. As he says, this additional grant is not properly indicated on the Vote, and I hope that that suggestion will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend in the preparation of these Estimates. These most important matters should be properly spaced out, and not placed in such small letters as to escape the attention of busy Members of the House who are not experts on Estimates. What really is the increase with which the Committee is faced? My right hon. Friend will recollect what happened one early morning between 1.30 and 2 o'clock when we let through the Committee stage of a very large supplementary War Bonus. This £3,700 is part of that which has been allocated to this Department, and therefore the actual increase which this Department has received in the current financial year beyond the £28,525 plus £2,000 travelling expenses. The Committee is now really putting its seal of approval to another £7,200, because that sum of £3,700 is an allocated portion of a large sum of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 granted to the Civil Service as a whole. Under those circumstances I want to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions. First of all, how much more is Sir Maurice Hankey getting, and, as a consequence of that, is the usual course to be adopted of all the other principal assistants and all the rest of them going up in proportion, and what will be the result, so far as it at present can be calculated, of allowing this increase to be placed upon this Department? How many more are going to get increases of salary, and how much are they going to get, and what, taking the last original Estimate, is the total? Those are questions which are worth answering. Never was it more necessary for the Government themselves and their servants to show an example to the country. Unemployment is rampant, and it is not confined to what are called the manual workers. It is rampant among the professional and the clerical classes, those who are called black-coated workers, and yet these increases are to be given to civil servants, who suffer 1915 from no unemployment. I was abused in some Civil Service paper the other day simply because I pointed out, with regard to these increases to civil servants, that the House should exercise considerable care, because civil servants are in a special position. They do not bear the blast of unemployment. They are not in the open like the ordinary taxpayers are. I am not decrying their services in the least degree, and any additions which they ought to have they should by all means have. Many branches of the Civil Service have been grossly underpaid in the past. But for the abuse that one sometimes gets in these gazettes or magazines, it leave me quite cold. The factor which the Government ought to take into consideration is, not only are these things desirable, but are they necessary at the present moment, and cannot they be deferred until better times come? Everybody else has to do without. Turn where you like in all branches of ordinary civilian life, and you find that people have got to do without things until better times come. In these Supplementary Estimates, however, there is no recognition of the difference between the state of trade and business now and nine months ago. Everybody else has to cut down, and why should not all citizens bear their share, and why should not the Government lead the way? Sir Maurice Hankey may be worth £15,000 a year for all I know, I have no doubt he is a very useful civil servant, but why should not he and all the rest of them just bear with the present position until better times come and the country can afford to pay more?
§ Mr. STANTONThe same as Members of Parliament.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI agree with you. Speaking personally, I think one of the worst examples this House could show would be to add to the salaries or allowances of Members in the present state of affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] I am entitled to express my opinion, and I do so. That is the view I hold, and which ever way hon. Members vote on this matter, they will have to be consistent when the question of their own allowances comes up. We are passing through a crisis of real magnitude, and we must give a lead in these matters, and 1916 here is an occasion on which we are entitled to protest against the increase of these Supplementary Votes.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI rise, as an old civil servant, to join in what has been said from the opposite Benches with regard to this Vote. I would prefer to discuss this matter upon a general Vote, but as it is we can only discuss it on these small items, applied to particular cases. The principle is involved, however, and I will tell the Committee what the principle is. It is not the case that the salaries which have hitherto been paid in the Civil Service continue on the same scale. In almost all cases the higher posts in the Civil Service have lately been paid on a scale altogether different from what was the case not many years ago, and in addition to that we are now asked to vote a bonus in every case—
§ Mr. BALDWINOn a point of Order. There is not a penny of money in this Supplementary Estimate for bonus of any kind, and it seems to me that that topic is out of order. The question of war bonus can be discussed fully on the War Bonus Vote.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI was listening to the right hon. Gentleman and I understood that his objection was to any increase in the salaries of any of the civil servants, and especially of any civil servants mentioned in this Supplementary Estimate, and in so far as that was his intention he would be in order, if, however, he wishes to refer to any expenditure on war bonus, that comes up on an Estimate on page 36. The right hon. Gentleman will see that the original Estimate was £11,850,000, and a Supplementary Estimate of £800,000 has been asked for war bonus, and that will be the time to discuss anything in connection with war bonus. It is only in so far as this Supplementary Estimate proposes to make provision for increased salaries and for private secretaries, etc., that discussion would be in order
§ Sir H. CRAIKI bow to your decision, Sir Edwin. I was led into the course I was taking by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) which I thought you considered in order.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANHe did not refer, as I understand, to war bonus.
§ Sir D. MACLEANNo, I was not referring to war bonus.
§ Sir H. CRAIKThen I shall raise the question on the Vote for war bonuses.
Major C. LOWTHERI hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will go to a Division, because I think what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles said in a previous Supplementary Estimate is very true in regard to this one also. The Secretary for the Treasury expressed painful anxiety to cut down these travelling expenses. He said they caused him considerable anxiety. The sum itself is not enormous, as sums go in these days, but it is only by rigorously looking after these small amounts that we can get into a proper atmosphere of economy again. If we are careful of the pence the pounds can take care of themselves, and it is necessary that we should get into that economical frame of mind. Not so long ago railway wages were discussed and a very wise principle was laid down, that the increases should be dependent upon the cost of living. At the present moment the cost of living is on the decrease and I think civil servants might set a good example by realising that fact and not pressing claims at the present moment for increases of salary. They might at least wait until the country is in a more stable financial situation. It is in order to reinforce the protest which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baldwin) makes very strongly to the spending Departments that I shall support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the Lobby.
§ Mr. MILLSAfter the Debate on the Air Ministry Estimate yesterday involving a sum of nearly £24,000,000, when the speakers were not by any means bitter in their criticism of the expenditure, I cannot help thinking that to-night we are rather in the position of straining at the gnat after having digested the camel somewhat easily. But I join issue with the Secretary to the Treasury on the same grounds as the hon. Member who represents Labour on the Front Bench. We object to the continuance of an office which has no longer—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have already ruled that out of order, and I cannot allow it to be re-opened now.
§ Mr. MILLSI only hope that in the reply the Secretary to the Treasury will give us some idea as to whether or no the statement of the Leader of the House is to be acted on in good faith—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must not raise again a point which has already been ruled out of order.
§ Mr. MILLSIf I am again out of order I will try again and see if I am more lucky this time. If we are to be confined to travelling expenses, the question as regards first and third class expenses does not interest us much, because the third-class carriages on some lines are very much better than the first-class on others. The real point, after all, is the principle of allowing in the mass the increased allowances for travelling, for, if we are to judge by the results, there appears to be no justification whatever for it. There have been no results worthy of the name, and it is because we go from conference to conference, and yet the mess appears to be greater than ever, that I, for one, will support the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).
§ Mr. ACLANDI would like to give my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Baldwin) a ray of encouragement, because I am perfectly certain his is a genuine desire to cut down these very large bills for travelling expenses which he finds in all Departments. I believe that if approached in the proper way a very large proportion of the civil servants would consent to have the class in which they are entitled to travel altered from first to third. I can give my right hon. Friend a small personal experience in this matter. The other day I was out, in my capacity as a Forestry Commissioner, inspecting an estate which we wanted to buy. We went 20 or 30 miles by train after doing our day's work. I automatically took a third-class ticket, but the two officials, the district officer and the divisional officer, with whom I was travelling, took first-class tickets, also quite automatically, and I had to change from the third to the first class in order to travel with them, which I did not like at all, because I could not afford it. Then we got into talk about this subject. They said they would be perfectly happy to travel third class in future if the same regulation applied to officers of similar 1919 grade in other Departments. They realised that the country could not be expected to afford first-class travel for officers of that grade. They said, "Of course it is more comfortable to be able to write your reports in a first-class carriage," and no doubt that is why all inspectors have the right to travel first, but, they added, "We realise that although it may mean a little discomfort we must write our reports at home instead of in the train." I think my right hon. Friend will find a real disposition to welcome a definite revision of the rules as to the class by which a man is entitled to travel.
8.0 P.M.
There is one other point I wanted to talk about, but I will not. It is of course the question that the position and authority of the Foreign Office is constantly undermined by operations of persons in this Department who really make it impossible for the Foreign Office to do their work in a proper and efficient manner as they used to do before offices of this kind were born or thought of.
§ Mr. STANTONI just want to state that as one who felt he had a grievance some time ago and who happened to be upon the Committee dealing with the salaries of Members, and having gone into the whole matter and fought it right through until we had a majority on that Committee, we thought, looking around and knowing what was going on outside in the country, realising that hundreds of thousands of men who risked their all at the front were to-day out of work and doing very badly, we should endeavour to set a good example, although we felt we were entitled to something. Is that good example to be lost on this Committee and on these higher officials? I do not question the amount of work they do, but as an old trade unionist, and as one fairly able to judge what is fair between one mind and another according to services rendered, I hardly think that this House takes that serious view of the position that it should. I fail to see why this amount should be voted and voted so readily to this Minister or to any Minister. With regard to the question of first-class travelling, I suppose everyone requires convenience. I can understand Government officials demanding necessary convenience when they travel, 1920 but what is good enough for one man who is British is good enough for another. Arrangements could be made for these people to travel, but I do not know that an example of that kind has been set even from the other side of the Committee. Although this amount is not so very great it is not so very small, and, at any rate, it demands the consideration of everybody. I do not think it is fair or right that these people should ignore what has been done and the sacrifices that have been made by certain Members of this House, and not a small number of them in regard to their salaries. I do not think it is fair, and I shall go into the Lobby and back up the people who are for economy on this question, although I am not frightened or scared at the "Daily Mail." I shall vote as I think fit without fear of being black-listed or listed in any other way. I do not think it is fair that these increases should be granted, and that there should be this wanton extravagance in official circles when other people are trying to set some example to try and get this old country back into its former position.
§ Mr. SPENCERI did not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman when he was dealing with the salary of Sir Maurice Hankey. He said it had been increased from £2,000 to £3,000 by a Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Paisley, and he went on to say that £1,100 of this £3,000 was due to that increase. I fail to see how the increase of £1,000 is going to take £1,100. If it is for Sir Maurice himself and part of his staff, that alters the whole situation. The right hon. Gentleman did not make that clear, but he may do so later on. I have only two criticisms to make. I feel disposed to vote against another Supplementary Estimate on the ground of absence of adequate information. I am thoroughly convinced that very few Members of this House, unless they have had a very lengthy experience, are in a position to judge exactly what is involved in these Supplementary Estimates. One hon. Member of the Front Bench said that these sums are not enormous. Enormity is purely a question of relationship. I do not know whether these sums are enormous or not. If I take a ticket at Whitehall and they charge me a shilling instead of 1½d., the question of relationship is not large in relation to £300 or £400, but it is a very great sum 1921 indeed in relation to 1½d. Upon this Supplementary Vote we have no information whatever, and one certainly is not in the position to decide whether these sums are fair or not. I should have thought it would have been advisable to have said, in the first place, how many extra conferences have been held; neither have we been informed how many of the staff it is essential should travel to these conferences. I do not know whether this extra £500 covers the travelling expenses of Cabinet Ministers or whether it is confined strictly to the staff who go along with them. Probably that information might be given later on. There is a further point, and it is this. I think it is very essential indeed in regard to these Estimates that we should have some standard by which we might be guided. It might be useful to this House on questions of this kind to state exactly what the 1914 standard was. If we had a standard of comparison of that kind we might be able to judge, using our own imagination in the light of present-day circumstances, whether the charges were reasonable or not. But we have nothing of the kind, and it seems to me that £500 is a very large expense for what I should conceive to he the staff of the Cabinet. The sum involved, £2,500, would procure at least 30 tickets for first-class travelling between London and the Midlands for a whole year. From that point of view it does not seem that as far as travelling is concerned the extra sum of £500 is a small sum. It seems to me an enormous sum. I think the right hon. Gentleman should give us some further information, and I make the suggestion that on all these Supplementary Estimates we should have far more information than hitherto has been given. One would have thought that Friday would have taught the Government a lesson as far as information is concerned, but the lesson of Friday seems to have been lost on the minds of Ministers.
§ Mr. BRIANTI regret it is not possible by some omnibus Resolution of this House to lay down a definite rule with regard to this question. In my opinion, it is time to do away with this remnant of snobbishness that, somehow or other, classes have to be separated. Although this matter is a comparatively small one, I hope this House will raise its protest against a certain class of officers taking steps to separate themselves from others.
1922 I know that many public bodies are beginning to set an example which the House might well follow. They are simply giving third class fares, and anybody whose dignity and importance is such as not to allow him to mix with his fellows is allowed to travel first class provided he pays the difference himself. Even the Colonial Secretary himself is well content to travel by the ordinary boat instead of taking a battleship, and if the Colonial Secretary is not to have the pomp and circumstance to which he is accustomed, and which he so much enjoys, I think the ordinary civil servant should be prepared to accept a lower class. Most of us have found it necessary, even if we travelled second class before, to take third class tickets now. Even if we travelled first class, we are now well content to travel third class as well, and what is good enough for Members of this House is good enough for officers of the Civil Service. We have no right to grant to the man who has the happy privilege of being a direct-paid servant of the Government facilities which we will not allow ourselves, and therefore I shall vote for the Amendment.
§ Mr. BALDWINI think I can allay the anxiety of my two hon. Friends who spoke last. These figures for travelling expenses include travelling and all charges of subsistence at hotels, or wherever the officers may be during their absence on that travelling. With regard to the number of Cabinet officers, I should like to assure the Committee that the usual number who travel to these conferences is four. They are all high and confidential officers, and it is essential for the conduct of business that they should all travel together and keep in touch with the Ministers throughout their journey. When you have regard to the fact that conferences have been held, two in Paris, one at Lucerne, one at Boulogne, one at Brussels and Spa, and two to meet our Allies at Lympne, I do not think these figures are excessive.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYDoes this £500 cover the whole of the extra expenditure of the extra conferences?
§ Mr. BALDWINYes, that is so.
§ Mr. BALDWINTogether with the money voted in the original Estimate for Cabinet officers to travel to these conferences. There were one or two questions raised which I ought to touch upon. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) raised a point which is really a question of policy, with which I cannot deal. The question was, how far the policy of holding these conferences interferes with the kind of work the Foreign Office used to do? That matter cannot be discussed on this Vote, though it is a proper subject on other occasions. Of course, the representatives of the Foreign Office attend in their official capacity all these conferences to which I have alluded. I do not think there is any doubt in the mind of the Committee as to what I said about the Minister without Portfolio. With regard to whatever may happen next year, I would remind the Committee that the Vote on Account will shortly be taken for the Civil Service. The Vote for the Cabinet Offices will appear there, and if the question be asked then as to whether any provision is to be made for the Minister without Portfolio, that question will be fully answered. I do
§ not think there is any further point for me to deal with, and I hope the Committee will now come to a decision.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYAm I to understand that this post is not filled at the present moment?
§ Mr. BALDWINNo, it is not.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYSurely, there will be some saving in the salary for about three months?
§ Mr. BALDWINNot so much as that, but there will be a saving.
§ Sir D. MACLEANWhat is the salary of Sir Maurice Hankey and what effect will that have on his subordinate staff?
§ Mr. BALDWINI said the first time I spoke on the subject that his salary had been raised from £2,000 to £3,000. If my recollection serves me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a long answer to a question on these high-grade salaries in the House during the present Session.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £500, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 158.
1925| Division No. 15.] | AYES. | [8.20 p.m. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Gritten, W. G. Howard | O'Connor, Thomas P. |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Grundy, T. W. | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Royce, William Stapleton. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hartshorn, Vernon | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Briant, Frank | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Irving, Dan | Spencer, George A. |
| Cape, Thomas | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stanton, Charles B. |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Swan, J. E. |
| Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Kenyon, Barnet | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty) | Lawson, John J. | Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers |
| Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Lynn, William | Wignall, James |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Williams, Ancurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Mills, John Edmund | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne) | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Mosley, Oswald | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Myers, Thomas | Mr. G. Thorne and Dr. Murray. |
| NOES. | ||
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Coote, William (Tyrone, South) |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Briggs, Harold | Cope, Major Wm. |
| Amery, Lieut. Col. Leopold C. M. S. | Britton, G. B. | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) |
| Armitage, Robert | Bruton, Sir James | Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) |
| Atkey, A. R. | Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Curzon, Commander Viscount |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H. | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Campbell, J. D. G. | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. |
| Barker, Major Robert H. | Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Carr, W. Theodore | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington) | Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston) | Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Churchman. Sir Arthur | Dockrell, Sir Maurice |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Clough, Robert | Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) |
| Blair, Sir Reginald | Coats, Sir Stuart | Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. |
| Fildes, Henry | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) |
| Foreman, Sir Henry | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Renwick, George |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Forrest, Walter | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Lloyd, George Butler | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Gange, E. Stanley | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Lorden, John William | Rodger, A. K. |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Lort-Willlams, J. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Lynn, R. J. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel sir Henry | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John |
| Greer, Harry | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Gregory, Holman | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Guest, Major O. (Lelc, Loughboro') | Magnus, Sir Philip | Taylor, J. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Hallwood, Augustine | Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms | Vickers, Douglas |
| Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Matthews, David | Waddington, R. |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Moles, Thomas | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. | Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H. |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Morris, Richard | Weston, Colonel John W. |
| Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n.W.) | Morrison, Hugh | Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H. |
| Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Murchison, C. K. | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Nield, Sir Herbert | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. | Wise, Frederick |
| Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. | Parry, Lieut-Colonel Thomas Henry | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H. | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato |
| Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Perkins, Walter Frank | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Perring, William George | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Johnson, Sir Stanley | Purchase, H. G. | |
| Johnstone, Joseph | Randies, Sir John S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Rankin, Captain James S. | Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward. |
| Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel |
Question put, and agreed to.