§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
§ ALLOTTED DAY.]
§ [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for the imposition of a general ad valorem duty of customs and of additional duties on any goods chargeable with the duty aforesaid and of a certain other duty of customs, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, to such amounts as may be approved by the Treasury, of—
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot)This Motion relates to the expenses for the Advisory Committee and I ask the Committee in the first, place to observe that it does not cover the larger expenditure dealt with in the Financial Memorandum to the Import Duties Bill which is the expenditure on the Customs and Excise Department in connection with the Bill. This Resolution merely covers the expenditure of the Advisory Committee, and that expenditure is reckoned at £6,000 for this financial year and an amount not exceeding £50,000 in the years 1932 and 1933. There is a provision which will be considered later that the Committee should be composed of some six members, and I think it will be generally agreed that those members should be paid by this House and that the expenditure of the Committee should come under review by this House. The actual duties to be per- 1850 formed by the Committee will fall to be considered later in the day and the schedule of time has been carefully drawn so as to allow an opportunity for discussing the functions and duties of the Committee. All we are discussing at the moment—the House having decided that there is to be a committee—is the question of whether it is to be a paid committee and whether it is to be paid a reasonable sum. I think in all parts of the Committee there will be general agreement that that should be so. Consequently, I ask the approval of the Committee to the Resolution standing in my name, and I hope that it will be possible for the Committee to pass on as rapidly as possible to the consideration of Clause 1, which raises many subjects of the greatest importance, for which the time before us may be by no means too great.
Captain CROOKSHANKOn a point of Order. May I ask, Sir Dennis, if you will put the question in such a way as to safeguard the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in my name?
§ The CHAIRMANI will first read the Resolution.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI presume that at the commencement a general discussion on the Money Resolution will be convenient to the Committee. We are not anticipating devoting a large part of this afternoon to dealing with this comparatively minor item, if the Financial Secretary's words mean anything at all. I am not, however, sure that this Money Resolution is quite so narrow or so unimportant as the Financial Secretary would have us believe, for although the suggestion is that the Money Resolution merely concerns expenditure of approximately £6,000, we must look forward to an expenditure in the month of March of £43,000, and during a full year to an expenditure of £550,000.
§ Major ELLIOTThis Motion does not cover that sum. This sum is limited to the expenditure on the Committee, and not the larger sum which will arise.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThis Money Resolution deals only with that portion of expenditure which is allocated exclusively for the Advisory Committee. Once the Committee begins to function, it will call forth a hoard of new officials, against which the right hon. Gentleman would 1851 have fulminated had he been in Opposition. While this may be a very small matter this afternoon, the significance of it is very great. The Government came into existence for the purpose of practising economy, but it seems to me that this is a curious method of applying economy, seeing that this proposal will involve us in further expenditure of a sum of £550,000 ultimately, while the present expenditure is confined merely to a sum of £6,000. I want to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who may be a good Scotsman, but who, I fear, if this Money Resolution and the Bill are any indication, is a very poor economist, on what the £6,000 referred to is going to be expended in the month of March? The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have made some sort of estimate as to the cost of the Advisory Committee and all the expenses which will be involved, and I think that we are entitled to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman what the estimate is. Has he made up his mind what salary the Chairman is to receive, and what salaries the members of the Advisory Committee are to receive? We are entitled to know that, because Members were very anxious to obtain similar information when our Government happened to be in office.
The present Government, or their immediate successors, who were pretty much the same, decided that the maximum amount permissible for the salary of a Member of Parliament was £360 per annum. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to tell us what salaries they intend to pay the chairman and members of the Advisory Committee, and we shall then be able to compare the practices of the present Government with their professions when in Opposition. When dealing with the Coal Reorganisation Commission I am not at all sure whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself made any reference to the salary of the chairman of the Commission. but I think that you, Sir Dennis, at that time on the Opposition benches did make some reference to the salary of £7,000 paid to the chairman of the Commission. While I realise that it would be unfair to attack you while you sit in the Chair, without an opportunity of replying, I cannot help 1852 recalling that you spoke for a large number of Members of the Conservative party when you said that there were many people in this country who would be quite ready to accept that position at half the salary. I want to know if your words had any weight with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if they are going to appoint this superman to carry on this function at a salary less than half of that paid to the chairman of the Coal Reorganisation Commission? I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), who professed himself a sound economist, saying that no economist would vote for such a salary as was then under review. I remember that the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) said that the salary of £7,000 was excessive and that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies said that it was in excess of what it ought to be. Are we, then, not entitled to know what salaries the Government have in mind for the chairman and members of the proposed committee?
Secondly, I want to ask who are to be these great men who are to be endowed with almost unlimited powers to raise Customs Duties almost to the sky, to impose burdens upon the working-class population of this country, and, very possibly, to endanger a goodly proportion of our entrepot trade, our shipping trade and other trades which have been so successful for many years past? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his concluding speech on Tuesday evening, said he was convinced that there were plenty of men who could fulfill the functions of the Advisory Committee. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said, they would have to be archangels, almost endowed with superhuman power if they were to be of any use at all. He also concluded that the Advisory Committee to whom the Government are delegating these powers would not only be persons who would make the law, but they would act as judges at the same time. Seeing that the powers of these men are to be so comprehensive that they can raise duties to 100 per cent., we ought to know before we pass a vote for their salaries who these men are to be, because that is very vital at this moment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when making his first speech on this subject, said that what the Government required 1853 was scientific, moderate Protection; they wanted a Protection that would be flexible and elastic. They wanted a Committee who would adopt a judicial attitude. I want to know, since the right hon. Gentleman told us so little, what guarantee we have that this Committee is going to be a Committee with a judicial attitude? I think in the past fortnight I have listened to as many speeches on this subject as any Member of this House, and I cannot forget an observation made by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) when referring to this Advisory Committee. He said:
I think we can take it for granted that the Committee will be composed of men who believe in protection as a policy. I hope that the chairman will not be a judge who will look at the thing from a judicial point of view in the legal sence, but will be a statesman of wide experience who believes in the principles on which the Government's policy is based. I would like to see someone like the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) as chairman of the Advisory Committee, someone whose personal character is above suspicion and is a believer in the policy, and one who means to carry it out thoroughly. It is no use trying any policy if you try it in a half-hearted and left-handed fashion; it must be carried out thoroughly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1932; cols. 1363-4, Vol. 261.]Surely if illustrious Members of the Conservative party are indicating already that they do not want a committee who will adopt a judicial attitude, but a committee consisting of pronounced Protectionists who will have no consideration for the consumers generally, at least we are entitled, before passing this Vote for their salaries, to know who these wonderful men are going to be. Further, I want to remind the Financial Secretary that the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), in his speech on Tuesday, told us not only what he wanted but what the Conservative party wanted, too. He said to the right hon. Gentleman that they wanted no Committee which would hinder them from getting the maximum of Protection, and he said they wanted a general clean sweep, and sudden action over the whole field. He added that the Committee would have plenty of assistance from enthusiastic Protectionists who had been studying the subject for a very long time. If that is the sort of Committee that we are likely to get, some Committee which will believe in Protec- 1854 tion and insist upon having Protection instantaneously in its most comprehensive sense, some Committee which will give us full-blooded Protection without examining industries and trades at all, then I think we are justified in refusing to pass this Resolution until we know the personnel of that very vital Committee.After all, we are not without some experience of advisory tariff boards. We have had such experience in South Africa, Canada, Australia, and the United States, and I do not think it would be out of place to remind the Committee of what that experience has been. I am sure that hon. Members will not wonder then at our hesitation to feel much enthusiasm for this proposal. The National Government of South Africa, in 1924, immediately on resumption of office, all its members having sympathy with Protection, established a tariff board.
Rarely is it made known that the board is contemplating the amendment of a tariff item; rarely is evidence invited; no public sittings are held; and the whole proceedings are in camera…. Critics, knowing that the board regards itself purely as an instrument of Government policy, right or wrong, deny the likelihood of its suspecting the existence of, and taking steps to seek out, evidence which might prove Government policy to be mistaken, and which would be presented if advertised public sittings were held.That is the experience of all the trades in the Dominion of South Africa. The tariff board is made up of men who believe in Protection; they ignore all else, and they ignore the effect, not only—
§ Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEThere is a professor of economics in South Africa who was a very keen Free Trader and who was a member of that board for five years.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThat may have been so, but that does not alter the fact that no public sittings are held, that the tariff board do just as they like, and that all experience has gone to show that they carry out the wish and the will of the Protectionist Government in that Dominion. The Canadian Government wanted to be much more precise and fair than their colleagues in South Africa, so they set up a similar tariff advisory board, and they provided for public sittings, for evidence to be taken in public, and for plenty of advertisement 1855 to be given when the sittings were to be held, but as the result of their experience over a period of four years, that it happened to hamper the Protectionist desires of the Government, at the end of four years that tariff board was dispensed with. The Australian experience was very much like that of South Africa. All that I need say in referring to the United States of America is that one of the illustrious politicians in that country said—
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think we can have a general discussion on tariff boards under this Resolution.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI shall hesitate to contest your Ruling, but as we are considering the passing of £6,000, mainly for salaries to be devoted to an advisory tariff board, it seems to me that the experience of tariff boards in other countries is strictly relevant to the point at issue.
§ The CHAIRMANI think that is a discussion which should come on the Bill, not on this Resolution.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI thought that to make reference to existing tariff boards would be strictly relevant. However, I have no desire to pursue that question further, except to say that, as a result of all the experience that has been, obtained in South Africa, Canada, Australia and the United States, no one need wonder at our hesitation at all events in not accepting such a discouraging innovation in this country. Moreover, when we note statements made by hon. and right hon. Members sitting in all parts of the House, but not on the Labour party benches, as to their feeling on the question of a tariff board, not only is hesitation caused in our minds, but a good deal of apprehension too. The right hon. Member for Hillhead again on Tuesday issued a warning to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he asked if we were to have separate investigations into each industry, and said that, if so, eternity would do. He asked if the Committee were going
to be snowed under and suffocated from birth by innumerable petitions from all the industries of the country concerned?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1932; col. 1482, Vol. 261.]That indicates that the right hon. Member for Hillhead is already irritated with 1856 the possibility of this Committee hampering and delaying action on Protectionist lines. Therefore, I think we are entitled to know, not only what salaries are to be paid to these supermen, but who these men will be. Now I want to deal with the duties of this Committee.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think the hon. Member can deal with those duties now within the limits of our discussion.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSBut surely, if we are dealing with the salaries of the Advisory Committee, it ought to be relevant to make reference to the duties to be performed by the Committee, and unless some reference can be made to those duties, it is merely a question whether we shall or shall not give the Government this Resolution for nothing in particular, and just allow it to go through.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member can refer to the duties of this Committee, but only in so far as they are specified in the Resolution. He cannot discuss those things which will appear in detail in the Bill.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI have no intention, of course, of resisting your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but the Money Resolution reads:
The expenses of the Committee to be constituted for the purpose of giving advice and assistance in connection with the discharge by the Treasury of their functions under the said Act.
§ The CHAIRMANVery well. It is only if the Act is passed that this Resolution will become effective, and it is on the Bill that those matters will be properly discussed, not on this preliminary expenses Resolution.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIt seems to me to be very difficult to be able to deal with this subject if we are to be limited to talking merely about the expenditure of £6,000 without making any reference to the duties of the Committee.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is the exact point. There is a difficulty in the hon. Member's way of discussing things which are more properly discussable on the Bill and which are not properly discussable on this Resolution.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThe Resolution distinctly states that the Committee has to discharge certain duties towards the 1857 Treasury. Are we not entitled to make reference to the duties which they are to discharge?
§ The CHAIRMANThe Resolution says:
In connection with the discharge by the Treasury of their functions under the said Act.We cannot discuss what those functions will be until we have the Bill before us which sets out those functions.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIf the discussion is to be limited to such a narrow point, I have no desire to waste the time of the Committee, but with regard to your ruling, Sir Dennis, if the duties of the Committee, involving as they do all kinds of interference with all sorts of trades and industries, are not to be discussed, then clearly the discussion is very limited.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member will see that he does not know what those duties are. At the moment he has not got the Bill before him; he has only got this Resolution.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThat is true, but we have had the Bill before us for several days, and it has now secured a Second Reading. We know, of course, that technically we are without a Bill and only have a Money Resolution before us, and to that extent perhaps your ruling is strictly correct. Although I am hesitant to accept it, I am obliged to do so in the end. What I was saying was that in attempting to trespass beyond the point where one is permitted to go, it was merely to emphasise that from three to six persons are to be paid salaries for performing certain functions involving all sorts of things with which I should have thought we might have been permitted to deal this afternoon.
4.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the choice of members of the committee and the determination of their salaries. He informed the House, when concluding the Second Reading Debate that Parliament would ultimately be responsible for any decisions that were taken. He knows full well—and this is our great concern—that while Parliament in theory may be ultimately responsible for the decisions taken, really the Committee will be responsible, and not Parliament, since 1858 the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is an avowed Protectionist, who will be willing to accept every decision the Committee may make that is suitable to his particular point of view, while ignoring every other recommendation. I do not see where Parliamentary responsibility will come in at all. There are no safeguards of any kind. As this committee is to deal with the main industries that are consuming industries, as well as trades and industries that are producing industries, we are entitled to know what safeguards are to be applied for the general mass of consumers. We ought to know what guarantees and safeguards there are to be in regard to efficiency and price; what guarantee we are to have that useless directors will be turned off many companies; and what guarantee there will be that what are called nonessential or luxury articles are not articles generally consumed by working-class people. The Government have been very ungenerous in the information that they have placed at our disposal.
We shall oppose this Motion, although we know that there is not the ghost of a chance of success. We oppose it firstly, on principle, and secondly, because there is such a lack of information available for the Committee on which to take its decision. We think that the Advisory Committee might easily develop into such an advisory committee as they have in South Africa, Canada, Australia and the United States and, instead of becoming a real safeguard for all industries and consumers, might become the biggest burden the country has ever had inflicted upon it. The right hon. Gentleman will go down to history. I am not sure if he will go down as the dutiful son of a Protectionist father. I am confident, however, that he will go down in history as the Minister who first of all denied children milk, and who followed that up by denying their parents of wage values by a proposal which may ultimately be the deadliest blow aimed at the workers of the country.
Captain CROOKSHANKAfter that very cheerful oration from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) who says that he is fighting the Motion on principle, although after half an hour's speech I have not the vaguest idea of what the principle is, I rise to 1859 move my Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "moneys provided by Parliament, to," and to insert instead thereof the words:
the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of
§ The CHAIRMANI cannot allow the hon. and gallant Member to move the Amendment, because it is out of order.
§ The CHAIRMANBecause it proposes to charge upon the Consolidated Fund an indefinite sum. Perhaps I may add that if the hon. and gallant Member suggested that the sum should be defined in the Bill, he would then find himself faced with the words in the Motion:
to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, to such amounts as may he approved by the Treasury.Therefore, the hon. and gallant Member cannot in the Bill put in a fixed amount, because that amount might be more than was approved by the Treasury, and he would then be requiring a larger sum than had been asked for with the King's Recommendation.
Captain CROOKSHANKBut if the sum is put in the Bill, it would not be open to the Treasury to approve a larger sum. The Treasury is the servant of this House, and cannot enlarge the scope of the Bill.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Treasury might refuse to approve as large a sum as was in the Bill. I cannot alter my decision.
Captain CROOKSHANKI must bow to your Ruling, but perhaps I may make the point which I wish to put before the Committee, because I think that it is really fundamental to this Bill. You very properly stopped the hon. Member for Don Valley in dilating on the functions of the Committee in any detail. Those functions, as laid down by the Motion, are to give advice and assistance in connection with the discharge by the Treasury of certain Treasury functions. That raises the whole question as to whether the committee is to be an advisory committee in the ordinary sense of being a sort of servant of the Treasury, or whether it is to be an impartial tri- 1860 bunal such as I have always understood to be the policy enunciated by the leaders of my party in connection with a tariff Measure. I understood from the speech of the Lord President of the Council at Hull only last summer, in which he laid down the principles on which this Bill should be worked, that it should be a judicial committee and that the persons on the committee should be outside the scope of Parliament. It is for that reason that I tried to move that their salaries should be on the Consolidated Fund, which would have carried with it a corresponding Amendment in the Bill that they could only be removable by a Motion of both Houses, as in the case of the Judiciary.
In that case, therefore, the committee would be quite independent of the Government of the day and of this House. It would be able to make its recommendations, and the Government of the day would be responsible for the legislation or the orders which were brought before Parliament. The Government of the day always will be responsible; they cannot disclaim responsibility. If we accept the Motion, however, and find the money out of the Votes, it will be open to the Opposition to put down the Vote of the unfortunate committee every single Supply Day and initiate interminable discussions on the fiscal question, which we hoped that the passage of this Bill might make fewer instead of more numerous. Not only will that occur, but it will hamper the work of the committee, because they can only report their views to the Government and the Government have to bear the responsibility. It will be very invidious if this Motion is passed putting their salaries upon the Vote.
I understand from your Ruling that it is out of order for me to move this Amendment on the Money Resolution, but, of course, it is not out of order for the Government eventually to introduce another Motion to carry out the sense of the country with regard to the nature of this Committee. I invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to indicate why this decision has been made. There are two alternatives. Either we have an advisory committee generally following out the known lines of policy of the Government of the day, or of the majority of the Government of the day; 1861 or we have an impartial tribunal whose views cannot be impugned by anybody partly because of the personnel and partly because their salary is on the Consolidated Fund and therefore taken out of the purview of the criticism of this House. These are the only two alternatives, and the Government have apparently come down on the side of putting the Advisory Committee on the Estimates. From such study as I have made of this question, I have come down on the other side.
I consider that it would be better to be a judicial committee outside the range of political issues and irremovable like the judiciary. We remember the trouble there was in regard to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the comings and goings there were about the fresh appointments. If we put this committee on the Consolidated Fund and outside the purview of the House and only removable by direct Motion of both Houses we avoid another accident of that kind. We shall also enable the committee to think out a reasonable and reasoned line of general policy for a period of years instead of being, as it otherwise would be, liable to possible expulsion with a change of Government. I hope that, as it is out of Order to move my Amendment and to have a Division on it, the Government will explain why they have come to this decision instead of adopting the line of policy advocated by the Lord President of the Council.
§ Mr. DAVID MASONOn a point of Order. There are certain Amendments to the Bill to be moved later for making the decisions of the Treasury subject to Parliament. Would it not be in order for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to move an Amendment fixing the maximum to which the Treasury might go?
§ The CHAIRMANI think that it is quite possible that some Amendment of that sort might be in order, but I cannot say until I have seen the Amendment. I am bound to point out that it is asking rather a lot of the Chairman to expect hire to select Amendments on a point of this kind if they are in manuscript. At present I have not got one before me.
§ Sir PERCY HARRISThe hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has raised some valuable points which were in my mind and have been worrying very many of us who approach this subject from a different angle. We have to accept the fact that the Bill has had a Second Reading by a very large majority, and our purpose now is to make the Bill work so that it will not do more damage than is possible. The right hon. Member for Spark brook (Mr. Amery) thinks that it will do an immense amount of good and wants to make it better. We are therefore very much of a mind. The nation would be more satisfied if the Advisory Committee bore a judicial character and was not a mere wing of the Treasury under the direction of the Minister of the day. On the other hand, although we want to see it judicial, we do not want to see it entirely independent of Parliament. We want the House of Commons to keep as tight a grip on finance as in the past, and, although we want the committee to be judicial, we do not want it to be independent of and out of control of the House of Commons. I want to raise the question of the sum of £50,000, which is the figure contained in the Financial Memorandum.
§ Major ELLIOTWe are not now dealing with a sum of money, but are merely deciding the principle.
§ Sir P. HARRISBut if we pass this Motion we are committing ourselves to a certain scale of expenditure. When a department of this kind is set up, we must take the only figures available, which are the figures in the Financial Memorandum. I understand that the suns is £50,000, and that suggests something more than a mere committee. In the Bill we are told that there is to be a committee of from three to five members. If this Parliament was voted in for anything, it was voted in for economy. There was general agreement that the National Government was first brought into being in order to face the unpopular work of cutting down expenditure. One of the earliest things this new House of Commons is going to do, if £50,000 is to be accepted as the figure, is to create a new Department, a new organisation and a new staff. The wildest dreams as to the salaries of the gentlemen who are to constitute this committee would not 1863 go beyond £6,000 or £7,000, and therefore the figure in the Memorandum suggests that behind the members of this committee there will be a, Government Department. Will that Department be on a Civil Service basis? Already I have had letters asking me to do what I can to get jobs for various men out of work, though nothing could be more undesirable than that hon. Members be subject to such pressure. On what basis is the staff of this committee to be appointed? Is it to be a permanent basis? Are the officials to be appointed by the Treasury? If so, are they to be appointed from the Civil Service, and on what terms?
If the committee are to be a judicial committee, something like the committees set up under the safeguarding legislation, no staff or organisation will be necessary, but if the committee take the form of a Government Department we must assume that a large staff will be appointed, that officers will be going about the country collecting information, and that before long we shall be committed to the very thing we want to prevent—the creation of a new Government Department involving large expenditure. I think we are entitled to know a little more about the mechanism of the committee, and particularly to know whether it is to be a judicial committee. Is the spirit of the suggestion of the Lord President of the Council to be carried out? I should be more satisfied in my mind as a Free Trader if I knew that men were to be appointed with a judicial training and a judicial outlook, who would inquire impartially into all the issues that are at stake, not only giving consideration to those who want tariffs, but also looking after the interests of the consumers and of the general public. After all, their interests are just as important as the interests of those who are looking forward to acquiring advantages under the Bill. I hope the Financial Secretary will give us a statement explaining the character of the appointments, the conditions, what the staff will be, and whether a new Department is to be set up.
§ Major ELLIOTI shall do my utmost to respond to the appeal of my hon. Friends, but it will be clear that it is not possible for me to give all the detail 1864 which has been asked for in the very limited discussion which is open to us at the moment. We are discussing merely whether in principle the committee should be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and on that the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) very properly comes in. The points raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will come in more reasonably when we are discussing the actual composition and duties of the committee under Clause 2 of the Bill. To state the salaries, who are to be appointed and so on, would be as much out of place now as the giving of similar information on the early stages of, say, the Coal Mines Act would have been; then he would have regarded it as a most unreasonable demand. We are not being asked to approve now payments of £6,000 or £7,000 or of any thousands of pounds, but to establish the principle that if such a committee is set up we should be able to pay it out of moneys provided by this House.
The hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough suggested that their salaries should be put on the Consolidated Fund and not on the Votes. He seemed to consider that thereby it would be possible to make the committee a permanent one, not subject to alterations by successive Governments. But no Parliament can bind its successors. Anything done by a Parliament can be undone by a succeeding Parliament, and if they were put on the Consolidated Fund another Parliament would find it equally possible to take them off. We suggest that the method proposed in the Bill is a reasonable one, and we shall be prepared to defend it when we come to the Bill. It would not be in order to go into all the details now; we are fettered in discussion at the moment. All we are asked to do is to assent to the principle that these gentlemen should be paid, and paid by the Vote of the House. No other method will give them greater security. With the assurance of the Government that it is their desire to make these appointments as nearly judicial as possible, I ask the Committee to pass this Resolution, and let us get on to the wider issues raised by the Bill itself.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSONThe Financial Secretary has made 1865 a most disappointing reply to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). The hon. and gallant Member realises, naturally, that if we put the salaries of the advisory committee on to the Consolidated Fund it would be open to another Parliament to take them off, but that is not really the point at issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Financial Resolution, laid great stress on the point that the members of the committee ought to be independent of political influence and that their findings should be judicial. It is utterly impossible to constitute this body as a semi-judicial body and expect them to give findings which will be regarded as not subject to political influence unless we put their salaries on to the Consolidated Fund. Otherwise, they will be open every year to criticism when the Vote is put down, as obviously it will be —I should not blame the Opposition for putting it down—on various Supply Days.
§ Their actions can also be criticised on the Public Accounts Committee and on the Estimates Committee, and in many ways their findings will be continually subject to political influence. That is the one thing we do not want, and I am bitterly disappointed that at the very beginning of this Bill the Chancellor should proceed practically to nullify the one thing which he said was essential to it.
§ Mr. WALLHEADWhen we come to discuss the character of this committee later, shall we be ruled out of order on the ground that we have already passed a Resolution which brings it into being?
§ The CHAIRMANNo, the hon. Member is wrong. The Resolution does not bring the committee into being. It merely authorises the expenses of the committee if the committee should be brought into being.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 50.
1867| Division No. 65.] | AYES. | [4.55 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Essenhigh, Reginald Clare |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Albery, Irving James | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W) | Falle Sir Bertram G. |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston) | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst |
| Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) | Chotzner, Alfred James | Ford, Sir Patrick J. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Christie, James Archibald | Fraser, Captain Ian |
| Apsley, Lord | Clarke, Frank | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Clarry, Reginald George | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Gibson, Charles Granville |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Colfox, Major William | Gillett, Sir George Masterman |
| Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley | Colville, Major David John | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Balniel, Lord | Conant, R. J. E. | Gluckstein, Louis Halle |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cooke, James D. | Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Cooper, A. Duff | Goff, Sir Park |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Courthope, Colonel Sir George t., | Goodman, Colonel Albert W |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) | Craven-Ellis, William | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Crooke, J. Smedley | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter |
| Bird. Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) | Grimston, R. V. |
| Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.) | Cross. R. H. | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Crossley, A. C. | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Blindell, James | Dalkelth, Earl of | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Borodale, Viscount | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Davison, Sir William Henry | Hanbury, Cecil |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hanley, Dennis A. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Harbord, Arthur |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Denville, Alfred | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Hartland, George A, |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R | Dickie, John P. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Donner, P. W. | Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) |
| Browne, Captain A. C. | Doran, Edward | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) |
| Buchan, John | Drewe, Cedric | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Duckworth, George A. V. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Burghley, Lord | Duggan, Hubert John | Hillman, Dr. George B. |
| Burnett, John George | Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Dunglass, Lord | Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) |
| Caine, G. R. Hall- | Eden, Robert Anthony | Hare-Belisha, Leslie |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Edge, Sir William | Hornby, Frank |
| Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) | Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waite E. | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Ellis, Robert Geoffrey | Howard, Tom Forrest |
| Carver, Major William H. | Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Eimley, Viscount | Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Hume, Sir George Hopwood |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Marc) | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Moreing, Adrian C. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Iveagh, Countess of | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H. | Morrison, William Shephard | Skelton, Archibald Noel |
| Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Moss, Captain H. J. | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D |
| Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Muirhead, Major A. J. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Ker, J. Campbell | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Kerr, Hamilton W. | Newton, Sir Douglas George C. | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Kimball, Lawrence | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Soper, Richard |
| Knatchbull, Caption Hon. M. H. R. | Normand, Wilfrid Guild | Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. |
| Knebworth, Viscount | North Caption Edward T. | Spencer, Caption Richard A |
| Knight, Holford | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Hebert H. |
| Knox, Sir Joseph Quinton | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) |
| Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Palmer, Francis Noel | Stewart, William J. |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Patrick, Colin M. | Stones, James |
| Latham, Sir Herbert Paul | Peake, Caption Osbert | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Leckie, J. A. | Pearson, William G. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Leech, Dr. J. W. | Peat, Charles U. | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Perkins, Walter R. D. | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.) |
| Levy, Thomas | Pertherick, M. | Templeton, William P. |
| Lewis, Oswald | Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Liddall, Walter S. | Potter, John | Thomas, James P. L. (Herford) |
| Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillp Cunliffe- | Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton |
| Llewellin, Major John J. | Procter, Major Henry Adam | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Lloyd, Geoffrey | Purbrick, R. | Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) |
| Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n) | Pybus, Percy John | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Loder, Caption J. de Vere | Ramsay, Capt A. H. M. (Midlothian) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Loder, Caption J. de Vere | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Mabane, William | Ramsbotham, Herwald | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) |
| MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick) | Ramsden, E. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| McCorquodale, M. S. | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Reid, Dravid D. (County Down) | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) | Watt. Caption George Steven H. |
| McKie, John Hamilton | Remer, John R. | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour |
| Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| McLean, Major Alan | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. | Weymouth, Viscount |
| McLean Dr. W H. (Tradeston) | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renell | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Macmillan, Maurice Harold | Ropner, Colonel L. | Williams. Charles (Devon, Torquay |
| Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Ross, Ronald D. | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S. |
| Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Runge, Norah Cecil | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U. |
| Margesson, Capt, Henry David B | Russsell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Marsden, Commander Arthur | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Martin, Thomas B. | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Salmon, Major Isidore | Withers, Sir John James |
| Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Salt, Edward W. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Millar, Sir James Duncan | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart | Young Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw- | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard | |
| Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) | Savery, Samuel Servington | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mitcheson, G. G. | Scone, Lord | Sir George Penny and Commander Southby. |
| Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) | Selley, Harry R. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Grundy, Thomas W. | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Briant, Frank | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil | Maxton, James |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfiled) | Harris, Sir Percy | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Buchanan, George | Hicks, Ernest George | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Cape, Thomas | Hirst, George Henry | Price, Garbriel |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Hopkinson, Austin | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cove, William G. | Jenkins, Sir William | Thorne, William James |
| Cowan, D. M. | John, William | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Daggar, George | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Kirkwood, David | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Edwardes, Charles | Logan, David Gilbert | |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Lunn, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McEntee, Valentine L. | Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves. |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Mckeag, William |
Resolution reported accordingly, and agreed to.
§ Resolution to be reported forthwith, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th February.