HC Deb 22 July 1924 vol 176 cc1277-86

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to provide for the regulation of wages of workers in agriculture and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act, and any expenses which are sanctioned by him of any agricultural wages board, or agricultural wages committee, or subcommittee established under the said Act, including any expenses incurred with such sanction by members of any such board, committee, or sub-committee in the performance of their duties, and any sums paid with such sanction to any such members by way of compensation for loss of time, in each case up to an amount approved by the Treasury."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith)

I think that this Resolution itself is explanatory of the object in view, and that when it is taken together with the White Paper which has been issued giving further details, there is sufficient information to enable the Committee to pass the Resolution, which it is essential should be done to-night. It is rather difficult to make a definite statement as to the exact amount of money that will be required in any financial year, because, until the Bill is through its final stages, it is impossible to say exactly what the cost will be. In the White Paper the costs under the old Wages Board have been shown, and an indication has also been given of the probable cost under the present Bill. We hope that it will not exceed £40,000, but the Bill will be changed somewhat in passing through Committee, and that sum may have to be varied; but I think I can give an undertaking that the sum in any financial year will not exceed £60,000. I hope the Committee will be able to give me the Resolution.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL

I do not offer any Opposition to this Resolution, if it be the wish of the Committee that it should be passed, but I want to utter my personal protest against the principle involved in this Resolution, of paying expenses to individuals who attend these Boards, and so on, of the kind in question. As I understand it, most of those who will be called upon to serve either on the Board or the committees or sub-committees mentioned will be engaged in the industry as employers, and therefore able to stand their own expenses, or they will be representatives of the workmen engaged, that is to say, they will be salaried officials of trade unions or other bodies and therefore they are not in need of expenses of this kind. The principle involved, in my view, is altogether pernicious and I rise in order that a protest may be entered against the payment of expenses of this kind, that amounts to a blank cheque which may be £40,000 or £60,000 a year and in all probability very much more.

Colonel GRETTON

I beg to move, in line 4, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words not exceeding sixty thousand pounds in any one year. I am not raising the question of the principle involved in this Resolution. I understand certain agreements have been come to which I am not prepared to-night to question. I think there is a good deal in what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I ask the Government to insert in the Resolution a limit to the expenditure they propose to incur. It has often been done in regard to administrative expenses incurred in Acts of Parliament and these financial Resolutions often contain maximum sum. The Parliamentary Secretary says he is not going to spend more than £60,000. Will he agree to put that sum in the Resolution? If he would do that the whole matter might be settled. If not, I am afraid we must take it a little further and request him to state why that sum should not be stated. The Minister ought to have enough confidence in his statement to put it in his Resolution. I agree that the English is not very elegant, but my words make the intention clear.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN

Will you, Sir, read the Resolution as it will stand after the insertion of the Amendment? It seems to me that it does not make sense.

The CHAIRMAN

It would read: That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to provide for the regulation of wages of workers in agriculture and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, not exceeding sixty thousand pounds in any one year, of the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act"— It is not necessary to read further.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

That is not sense.

Mr. E. WOOD

I am not sure that my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested the best place for the insertion of the Amendment. It would read hotter if at the end of the Resolution he added the words but so that the total provision thus made shall not exceed sixty thousand pounds. That might be more convenient from the point of view of drafting. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment. I gather that he was anxious to make some sort of compromise between the figures suggested in the White Paper. The estimated total charge in the Bill was £40,000, and a second figure set the full expenditure, under the Corn Production Act, at rather over £60,000. He said that changes made in the course of the Committee might mean that the expenses would be somewhat increased, but I should imagine that £60,000 would be a reasonable figure within which the Minister could undertake to operate the Act, if it is passed. I hope he will accept the Amendment in the form in which I have moved it.

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps it would be better to insert at the end of the Resolution the word, "not exceeding sixty thousand pounds in any one year."

Colonel GRETTON

I agree to that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: In line 11, at the end, to add the words but not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of sixty thousand pounds in any one year."—[Mr. E. Wood.]

Mr. W. R. SMITH

I would much prefer not to have any sum stated in the Resolution, because of the difficulty that may arise in the initial year of working of the Act. The whole thing is largely experimental, and one cannot say exactly what money may be needed in order properly to carry out the work of the Committees. Under the old Wages Board there were 39 district committees. Under the new arrangement it is fair to say that the number will be materially increased, and which procedure being somewhat different it may he that in the carrying out of the work of the committees, at least in the first year, there will be more orders issued. Every committee will have to issue at least one order, and possibly more, because other questions will arise, following upon the fixing of a minimum rate of wages. These have to be advertised. Under the old Board they could be grouped as an advertisement, but under the new procedure, as far as one can judge what the Bill will be when it emerges from Committee, they will have to be separate. Therefore, while it is true that the expenditure under the old Wages Board did not exceed in any one year much more than £62,0000, it is exceedingly difficult to say that at least in the initial year that sum will be sufficient for the purpose. It would be exceedingly regrettable if in the first year of the working of this body, it was handicapped in its work because of circumstances which the Committees themselves might not be able to control. The difficulty would arise merely because of this limitation. The intention is, as far as possible, to keep the size of the Committees down to a number that will lend itself to economic working, consistently with the efficiency of those bodies. While I hesitate to resist the appeal that has been made, and while it may be true that it would be safe to accept it, still the uncertainty of the position, from the standpoint of the changes that are likely to be made, makes it possible that in the initial year, the £60,000 might not be altogether adequate for the purpose. For this reason I would ask that the Amendment should not be pressed.

Viscount WOLMER

I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will press this Amendment. There is no difficulty in the point which the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned. If he finds that his estimates are not sufficient, and that these Committees are exceeding the sum which he anticipates, all he has to do is to come to Parliament and ask for a financial resolution. The important point, the point of principle for which my hon. Friend is contending, is that Parliamentary Control may be preserved. What is important is that the House of Commons should always preserve its financial control, and that we should not get into the habit of giving Ministers blank cheques to spend the money of the Nation as they please. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite, who profess to believe in popular control of finance, should be opposed to our attitude in this respect. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, and that Members in all parts of the House, irrespective of Party, will insist upon their doing so.

Captain BENN

I am amazed that hon. Gentlemen opposite can sit there with straight faces while these speeches are being made from their side. I am also in favour of Parliamentary control and finance. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture that this is a matter of not knowing exactly what is required. I would remind the Noble Lord that the Estimates would have to come before the Committee, and that this will always have to be discussed in supply, and brought forward by a Government which at present does not command a majority in this House. I would also remind hon. Members opposite that all through the last Parliament and the preceding Parliament, motions of this kind were moved with automatic regularity by hon. Gentlemen who, in the name of Parliamentary control, are resisting this proposal.

Mr. MACLEAN

Like the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Captain Benn), I am surprised by the desire which animates the party opposite to have a specified sum mentioned in the Financial Resolution.

Hon. Members below the Gangway and others in this House remember many financial resolutions, brought in by hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite, who formed part of the great Coalition in this House, in which no specific sum was named. The hon. and gallant Member who has moved this Resolution has moved it to appear in a certain place, and you, Sir, have suggested by a form of words that it should appear in another place to cover the point he has raised. I have followed both his Amendment in the form which he desired to have it, and also the form of words which you suggested which will come in at the end of the Resolution, and I cannot see that the wording either at the end as suggested by you or the wording as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member who moved it are going to fit in very well. I would rather see the particular Amendment down in black and white upon the Paper, and then the Members of this House will know just exactly what it means. While I am quite at one with the hon. and gallant Member in his desire to have a specified sum placed on the paper it is the form of words that I have my difficulty over. I do not think the words should appear in either of the places mentioned by the Chairman or the hon. and gallant Member, and I would they were placed on the Order Paper rather than have this sprung on us at this hour of the night. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) said there was no difficulty in the way at all if we specified the sum now and that if more money was required all that would be necessary would be to introduce another financial Resolution. Is not that trying to play fast and loose with the House? For the life of me I cannot see why you are going to play fast and loose in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that he does not know, and that the Treasury does not know what the extent of the sum will be at the present time. He himself is not certain that it is going to cost £60,000. He says "If it does not come to this bring in another Resolution." I would suggest the withdrawal of this amendment in the meantime leaving it to the Minister, and the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fix a sum and make a statement in the House what, in their opinion, it is likely to cost, and not to rush at the matter in this fashion and to say that in their opinion that £60,000 is going to be ample to meet the cost of these Committees. I would suggest, therefore, that the Amendment be withdrawn, and to leave it to the Minister to keep down the expenses.

Mr. W. R. SMITH

I look upon this question as being of much importance, but I would like to put a point that has, perhaps, not occurred and which perhaps, the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) had in his mind when he spoke. If the Committee do decide to put the £60,000 limit in this resolution, I am advised that that sum will have to go into the Bill in the Committee stage and then, if by any chance the work of the Committee requires another sum beyond that, a further Bill will have to be introduced into the House in order to sanction that demand. My advice is in that direction, and I think, if I may say so, the advice is very sound. I would like to ask my hon. Friends opposite, is it really worth while? Is any advantage gained by putting a limit on the sum? Is it really worth running the risk? I don't want to resist the appeal that has been made from any desire or intention or thought that this amount of money will be exceeded. But, with a thing so experimental, I put it to the Committee, is it worth while insisting on this Amendment which may result in putting us in a difficulty? I quite understand the position of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. There have been consultations in regard to this Bill which have resulted in a large measure of agreement. I should be very sorry to have to press this matter to a division, and I will put it to my right hon. Friend whether in the light of circumstances he will insist on including these words in the resolution, seeing that they will also have to be inserted in the Bill itself, and if by any mischance the limit should be exceeded, then another Bill would have to be brought in. Is it worth while pressing the Amendment at this stage?

Mr. E. WOOD

I will at once respond to the hon. Gentleman's appeal. I can assure him, that so far as I can speak for my hon. Friends on this side, we have no desire to impose any unreasonable obligations on him by way or complicating the machinery of the Bill or making it obligatory on him to bring in another Bill, should the estimate of cost be accidentally exceeded. My hon. and gallant Friend and I have been making such careful inquiry as we could as to the probable outside figure required to cover the cost, and we have every reason to believe that £60,000 would be sufficient to cover all possible liability under the Bill. If on further consideration, the hon. Gentleman comes to the conclusion that that is not enough and that he will probably want more, I am sure so long as we secure the main principle we are contending for—control over the expenditure by this House—we shall be willing to agree to the insertion of a higher figure? Does he think that £70,000 would be a sufficiently high figure? The main question with which we are concerned is that we should not give a blank cheque to the Government, but that we should lay down a limit within which economic administration may have reasonable sway and that meantime we should reserve Parliamentary control over this expenditure.

Mr. BLACK

May I point out that four months of the financial year have already expired and therefore the chances of exceeding the limit are reduced?

Mr. SMITH

I think perhaps I can accept £70,000 as a reasonable limit.

12.0 M.

Colonel GRETTON

I do not want in any way to hamper the administration of this Bill, and I am willing to accept £70,000, instead of £60,000, to be inserted in the Resolution as the limit. We shall have to trust the Treasury and the Department to keep down the expenses of administration within proper limits.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, "In line 11, at the end, to add the words but not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of seventy thousand pounds in any one year."—[Colonel Gretton.]

Mr. BECKER

Now that the sum inserted is £70,000, is there an undertaking that that sum will not be exceeded and that there will be no Supplementary Estimate required? These are sad days for the taxpayer, but can we understand from the right hon. Gentleman representing the Ministry of Agriculture that this sum of £70,000 is really going to cover the whole amount required, and that there is not going to be any jiggery-pokery and the taxpayer being required to find more than the £70,000?

Amendment agreed to.

Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to provide for the regulation of wages of workers in agriculture and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act, and any expenses which are sanctioned by him of any agricultural wages board, or agricultural wages committee, or sub-committee established under the said Act, including any expenses incurred with such sanction by members of any such board, committee, or sub-committee in the performance of their duties, and any sums paid with such sanction to any such members by way of compensation for loss of time, in each case up to an amount approved by the Treasury, but not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of seventy thousand pounds in any one year.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.