MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL EXPENSES. (Hansard, 3 March 1930)

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The principal item involved in this Supplementary Vote is the expenditure incurred in connection with the investigation into the loss of the "Vestris." The total expenditure was £5,390, the principal details of which are set out in the White Paper. This expenditure was unforeseen when the original Estimate was framed, and as there is a saving in some of the other items the total amount required is not the full £5,398 but £4,300. In addition there is another item of £400, which arises in this way. Under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, certain fees are charged on applications and awards by the tribunal by which compensation is assessed in respect of land compulsorily acquired for public purposes. It was originally estimated that £4,000 would be obtained from that source, but the amount has only been £3,600, and the balance has to be found in this Estimate. Those two items make up the whole of this Estimate.

§ Captain CAZALET
In regard to the inquiry into the sinking of the "Vestris," I should like to ask who decides on the inquiry. I notice that a ship called "David Lloyd George" has been—[HON. MEMBERS: "Drifting!"] I do not know quite what actually happened —[HON. MEMBERS: "Lost its rudder!"]—but the question I want to ask is whether there will be an inquiry into the cause of the accident to the "David Lloyd George," because if there is it may be that many interesting facts will come to light. The question is: Who controls these inquiries? The next inquiry is regarding the "Vestris." I do not know what Court this is. Surely, there is room available in the large Government buildings where this inquiry might have been held without the additional expense of hiring a Court. How long did the inquiry last? Then, there is the item, shorthand writers' fees, £700. That really seems a very excessive sum to pay for a few shorthand writers. We feel there must be something wrong behind this £700.

§ Mr. THOMAS LEWIS
I wish to ask a few questions regarding this inquiry. I find it very difficult to understand these accounts. There is not much information as to how they are made up. I find I have three items with regard to the case of this inquiry. In answer to a question, the Board of Trade told me that the total was £7,115 8s. If you take the case as set forth, there is £3,300 for the Wreck Commissioner and the hire of the Court. There is £600 difference between the £3,300 and the Wreck Commissioner's remuneration. The Wreck 207 Commissioner's remuneration was something like £2,698 10s. I do not know whether the large sum total includes the legal fees paid to Sir Thomas Inskip, the former Attorney-General, and others, and that that brings the total cost up to £8,716 18s., whereas in the answer to my question it was given as £7,115 8s. I understand the Financial Secretary now puts the cost at £5,398. An explanation is due to the Committee of these varying sums. These are things which I would like to see examined, and I think there is need for a change in regard to them. I want to see the question of the Law Officers, in this connection, gone into. [Interruption.] There are many legal gentlemen on the other side, and I may tell them that I raise this matter largely because I had experience of another famous shipping inquiry—the "Titanic "inquiry. That inquiry lasted for 70 days, and what struck me about it was the manner in which the legal gentlemen engaged in it kept it going on for such a very long time. The fees obtained either by the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General were enormous—the Solicitor-General in, this particular case did not receive anything like the fees which were paid in connection with the "Titanic" inquiry. I should like to know what is the basis on which the law officers are paid in these cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Trade union rates!"] Yes, and a refresher too.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
On a point of Order. I have no wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but this Vote is concerned solely with the cost of the holding of the Court in question, and the costs of the Law Officers and other counsel are in the Board of Trade Vote, so that it would not be in order for me to attempt any reply on that point. The matter which the hon. Member is raising is one for the Board of Trade.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico)
If there is no requirement under this Vote to defray charges in respect of the Law Officers, then, of course, we cannot discuss the subject.

§ Mr. LEWIS
If that is your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, of course I must obey it, but I do not know why the Financial Secretary should have mentioned this figure of £6,398, if we are not concerned 208 with any item other than the £4,000. When the hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure, I thought I was entitled to ask him some questions about it. However, I am not going to haggle over the matter now. The hon. Gentleman says the item appears in the Board of Trade Vote but I have not been able to find it and I hope he will inform me as to where I can find the reference to these costs in the Estimates. I also wish to know on what basis is the Wreck Commissioner's fee of £2,698 made up. I think this inquiry lasted something like 30 days—or it may have been 40—and we should be informed as to whether the Commissioner was paid so much per day or a lump sum and on what principle is his fee based. Some steps certainly ought to be taken to see if these inquiries cannot be shortened, while at the same time the public interest is safeguarded.

§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
It does seem an extraordinary thing that the cost of inquiries should be borne on two and possibly on three or four different Votes. We have here a Supplementary Estimate, but the hon. Gentleman in charge states that another part appears on the Board of Trade Vote, and it is quite possible that if our inquiries were pursued we would find other Estimates which bear a part of the cost. There are just one or two questions I would like to ask. The first is: Who is the Wreck Commissioner? Is it a permanent post or is a civil servant appointed to the office of Wreck Commissioner when a wreck of this importance takes place? On the other hand, if this is not a permanent post, why are there assessors and shorthand writers apparently attached to the office? That leads me to suppose that the office must exist at all times whether an inquiry is going on or not. I think it is due to the Committee that these points should be cleared up.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
There are one or two points with regard to this particular inquiry which I think the Committee is entitled to have cleared up. No Member of the Committee would grudge any legal expenses necessary to go into what was a serious disaster. My hon. Friend in front of me asked how long the inquiry lasted. I happen to have the Official Report, and I am able to tell him that it was 40 days. But I notice that the Wreck Commissioner is another example of a distinguished silk who has 209 got an occupation out of this office. The amount of fees put down for the remuneration of the assessors was £600 in the original Estimate. The assessors are five in number, and I would like to ask whether that is the whole fee received by these five assessors for the whole period of the inquiry, and why it was necessary to have an additional sum of £300 voted? Did the inquiry last longer than was expected, or was there some miscalculation in the first place? It is probably within the knowledge of the House that an inquiry took place in New York on this particular wreck, and I think the Committee should know whether the witnesses who attended the inquiry in New York had to be brought over to London to attend the inquiry here. If that was so, did these witnesses have their expenses paid the whole way from the United States? Undoubtedly, this was an expensive inquiry, but the sum of £3,300 for the Wreck Commissioner, etc., I presume, must have included the expenses of the many witnesses.
I would also like to know whether the passengers and the relatives of those who lost their lives were represented at the inquiry, and, if so, whether the fees of the legal gentlemen who represented them were accounted as part of the expenses of the inquiry, or whether they were borne by the individuals themselves. Another point is that the findings of the Court of Inquiry in the United States passed very serious strictures upon the conduct of the British officers and seamen in this ship, with which the people of this country did not agree in the least. I would like to know whether the inquiry in this country and the findings of the Court agreed in any way with the findings of the inquiry in the United States. I would also like to know whether the recommendations made by the inquiry in this country have been put into force by Board of Trade Regulations.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
We are not discussing anything under the Board of Trade now. The question is whether this money should be paid for the purpose named.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
I bow to your Ruling. I see there are down here Appropriations-in-Aid. The sum of £400 is brought in. But, reading the findings of the inquiry, I see that the Court ordered Mr. David Cook to pay to the 210 Solicitor to the Board of Trade a sum of £500 on account of the expenses of this investigation. On examining this Supplementary Estimate I cannot find that that sum of £500 is brought into the account of the inquiry. If not, what has happened to it? If we are being asked to pay for the expenses of this inquiry, surely the sum of £500 which the Court ordered to be paid in ought to be set on one side to pay part of the expenses.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10.
I want to ask whether the fact that there was an American inquiry increased the cost to this country. It is obvious that there was liable to be a certain amount of feeling, because there were inquiries going on in two countries. Was it thought necessary for this country to go into any special investigation and brief special lawyers in order to refute the statements made in the United States, and so incur extra expense to this country? A further point is: Does this Vote include the expenses of witnesses? If we turn over to page 11, we get very little information, and, because we get so little information, I propose to move to reduce the Vote by £10. It is extremely unfair at this late hour that we should be asked to vote a sum of £4,000 which is covered by the words "et cetera." The two items explained to us are the fees of the Wreck Commissioner and the hire of the Court. Why was it necessary to hire a Court. There are surely plenty of buildings which could be got for nothing. I suggest for that reason that it is well worth while moving to reduce the Vote, and I beg to say I do it also from a sense of duty, because the extravagance that exists makes it necessary for Supplementary Estimates to be examined as well as main ones. The assessor's remuneration has been referred to, but what is the reason for the high proportion of money paid to the shorthand writers? The sum of £700 is so high compared with the rest of the costs of the inquiry. It seems to me that the shorthand writers have got rather the best of the legal profession, and, if that is so, then I heartily congratulate them.

Mr. PETHIC-LAWRENCE
I am very glad to reply to the points that have been raised. I think that a good many hon. Members have not quite appreciated what I tried to explain at the beginning. 211 By an arrangement of 1876, the division was decided on between the cost of holding the inquiry and the cost of prosecuting it. The deliberate intention was to remove the court and the Wreck Commissioner from the purview of the Board of Trade. That is why the cost of this inquiry falls under the two Votes—the Board of Trade, which bears the cost of the Law Officers and the witnesses, on the one hand, and this Vote, which bears the cost of the inquiry itself, on the other hand.

§ Major SALMON
What was the total amount?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The cost to the Board of Trade, which, of course, is outside this Vote, was, I understand, over £10,000. That is borne on the Board of Trade Vote, and the reason why it does not appear on any Estimate is that the Board of Trade has been able to meet it out of certain savings.

§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
Are these the only two Departments involved?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
That, I think, is the case. The total cost under this Vote was the sum I gave in the course of my opening remarks—£5,398. The cost to the Board of Trade is over and above that, and I think that that is the item to which the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. T. Lewis) was referring. Included in this £5,398 is the cost of the fee to the Wreck Commissioner of £2,698 10s. The Wreck Commissioner was, I understand, a very prominent King's Counsel with Admiralty experience, and the fee was fixed, as is always the case in these circumstances, according to the importance of the job. In the "Titanic" inquiry, I might point out to the Committee, Lord Mersey was paid a fee of 1,000 guineas. As to the amount paid to the shorthand writers, I do not think that any hon. Member who thinks about it will regard this as a very large amount. After all, the inquiry lasted 40 days, so that it works out at about £20 a day.

§ Captain WATERHOUSE
Surely, that amount includes the wages of 25 typists?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I think the hon. and gallant Member forgets what is involved. There is the shorthand for 212 the whole day, the transcription, and the duplication for the court. I do not think that £20 will be found to be too much. Now, with regard to the court, I understand that the figure quoted covers not merely the court itself, but the ushers, the lighting, the heating, and all those things. I gather that no better place could be found. I have already said that the witnesses do not fall on this Vote but on the Board of Trade Vote. There is just one further point in reference to the amount. The total cost falling on this Vote is about £5,400. In the original Estimate we allowed a sum of £1,500. The Committee has, therefore, to subtract that sum before arriving at the complete amount that has to be provided.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
I asked about the fees for the assessors. I understand that £900 was the total fee for the five assessors. Was that all that was given for their 40 days' work, whereas the Wreck Commissioner had over £2,000 for 40 days' work?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The assessors would only probably be wanted for particular matters. They are in a very different position, of course, from the Wreck Commissioner himself.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
Did they not sit continuously?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I could not say that.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
Was the cost of this inquiry raised by the inquiry in the United States?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I am sorry that I forgot that point. It is outside my concern, but I should think that it is quite likely that the Board of Trade expenses might have been increased by that.

§ Major SALMON
I should like to ask if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury considers it a satisfactory position, with regard to the safeguarding of the public purse, that we should have placed before us an Estimate that only gives us half of the amount involved. If it had not been for hon. Members of the Committee trying to probe this matter, we should never have known that there is a further £10,000 involved. The Committee should at least be fully seized of what is the total amount involved. It seems to me 213 extraordinary that this procedure should be allowed to go on and the House and the Committee not be fully seized of the particular amount involved. I have no detailed points to raise, but I do wish to say that I consider this a big question of principle which I venture to raise on this matter. I was surprised to hear from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he considers the expenditure of £10,000 by any Department whatever, if it happens to be saved under any other head, is therefore quite satisfactory expenditure. It seems to me a very loose way of thinking for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who should be guarding the public purse.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
On a point of Order. May we be informed what the Motion is before the Committee at the present time?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The Motion before the Committee is the Motion for Miscellaneous Legal Expenses that has been read out.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
May I ask if you took my Amendment for a reduction? I moved it twice during my speech. [Interruption.] Very well, if it be the pleasure of the Committee, I will withdraw it.

§ Captain AUSTIN HUDSON
There are only three points which I wish to raise. To some of us it is extraordinary that this rather large fee has been given to the Wreck Commissioner. I think I am right in saying that the "Titanic" inquiry lasted 73 days, and the fee which the Wreck Commissioner got then was £1,000. The inquiry into the "Vestris" lasted 40 days, and the Wreck Commissioner gets £2,600. The £700 for shorthand writers works out at £17 per day. I cannot help thinking there has been considerable extravagance in that respect. How much of this £3,300 was the cost of the Court? We have heard very little about the actual cost. It seems to me that this inquiry has been very extravagently conducted. I do hope that before we let the Estimate go through we shall have a little more information on the subject.

§ Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN
The Appropriation-in-Aid has been hardly 214 mentioned. My hon. Friend thinks it has nothing to do with the "Vestris." That is exactly what I want to know. There is £400 under-estimated for sundry as well as legal charges. Does it mean that they bought less land, and what is it bought for? I want an explanation of what these charges are and why they have not charged the proper fees.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The trouble is there is so much noise in the Committee. An explanation is given, and it is not heard, and hon. Members say I stated nothing about it. It is dealt with in the White Paper. Whereas the Appropriation-in-Aid under this particular Acquisition of Land Act was put at £4,000, it only reached £3,600. Really, I must not be blamed for the arrangement of 1876. Neither must this Government nor the late Government be blamed for what was decided at that time. It was decided that it was desirable to take this in two Votes, and, accordingly, we have taken it in two Votes. I explained that the Board of Trade bore its share of the cost. The particular case for which I was responsible is that which falls under this head. With regard to extravagance, I am not in a position to judge. All this expenditure was incurred by the late Government. I am not attempting to ride off. The late Government chose the man, and they chose the fee. The Government had to have a first-class man to conduct the inquiry. We have to pay the fees to get the type of man worth having.

§ Sir BOYD MERRIMAN
With regard to the suggestion of extravagant fees, might I, in fairness, ask whether, at the time that Lord Mersey held the inquiry into the "Titanic," he was not a retired Judge drawing a pension? Was he not asked to come out of retirement, and did he not get a special gratuity for the job?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWFENCE
That is so.

§ Captain WATERHOUSE
Here we have an increase of no less than 350 per cent. The original estimate was £200. The inquiry lasted for 40 days, and that is £22 a day for these stenographers. The average wage is £2 2s. per week. If it is £3 a week, it means 18 stenographers taking down one inquiry.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The hon. Member cannot have any idea of the work of reporting verbatim. He is confusing someone taking a few shorthand letters with the whole afternoon to write them out and shorthand reporting. He was present at one of the Committees upstairs with me and every quarter of an hour a fresh shorthand reporter had to come in, because a quarter of an hour's verbatim reporting is quite as much as one man can do. It is very highly skilled work. The ordinary stenographer takes 100 or 120 words a minute; this work goes up to 200 words or about that a minute. It is highly skilled work, and there is a great deal of work subsequently reproducing the notes. He had really better inquire and not draw upon experience which does not cover really important work.

§ Captain WATERHOUSE
I hoped that I was asking someone who understood, and, if the hon. Gentleman does not understand it, he has not the right to be on that bench.