HC Deb 27 February 1934 vol 286 cc989-95

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.28 p.m.

Mr. J. REID

This is the appropriate time to attempt to raise the point which I raised incidentally the other night. It arises under paragraph (a) of this Clause, which makes provision for the various members, officers and servants of the appeal tribunals. I want to take as an example the position of the chairman, because I think that that will cover the point which I wish to raise. Under the Sixth Schedule, as it is drafted, rules are to be made by the board to settle the tenure of office of these people. Let us assume that a rule settles a three years' tenure of office, and that a chairman of an appeal tribunal comes to a decision which a Member of this House seeks to question. The Member puts down a Motion to reduce the Vote by, let us say, £10, because he does not agree that that chairman ought to be paid his full salary. The Minister will then have to defend that chairman because the salary is on the Vote, but he will have no control over the chairman because of the three-year security of tenure.

The provisions of Section 46, taken in conjunction with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule, may therefore lead to a very difficult situation. There is no appeal from an appeal tribunal to an Umpire or anything of that sort, as there is under Part I. Each chairman of an appeal tribunal is complete master of the situation within his own area. Accordingly, it is vitally necessary that Clause 46 should be preserved, in order that the Minister may be able to co-ordinate the rules and the decisions which are taken by various chairmen in various areas. He has to ensure that each chairman sets out with the same point of view and acts in approximately the same way. There are two ways of achieving the result. One is to make the tribunals into judicial bodies, which would mean the complete remodelling of the scheme of the Bill. I am not sure that that would be very desirable. The other way is to put them all entirely under the control of the Minister, so that the chairmen hold office at the pleasure of the Minister. The Minister could then give instructions to that chairman, and if the chairman did not obey those instructions the Minister could dismiss him, and if he carried them out, the Minister could defend him. I would like the Minister to give us his views as to the position of the appeal tribunals under Clause 46.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON

There has been a good deal of talk and correspondence about the position of the men who are now employed by public assistance committees in carrying out the duties of paying allowances and so on, and I should like to ask the Minister what is the intention of the board with regard to these men who have been employed for purposes of investigation, assessment and so on by the public assistance committees. Many of them have been doing these duties for a year or two. Is it the intention of the Minister that the board should continue to employ these people?

6.31 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)

The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is that the point to which he refers is fully dealt with in Clause 50, which deals entirely with the subject of employment of staff, and the point will be discussed on that Clause. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid), it is my intention that the position of chairmen of appeal tribunals shall be analogous to that of chairmen of courts of referees. In practice, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) knows, these appointments are, as a matter of convenience, made for a year. They are reviewed each year, and new appointments or re-appointments, as the case may be, are made at the end of the year. That is my view with regard to the chairmen of these tribunals.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. COVE

Does not Clause 50 merely deal with superannuation rights? I gathered that the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was to ask the Minister to tell us something of the policy of the Government, in relation to those people who are now employed by public assistance authorities, when the new régime is instituted and the Unemployment Assistance Board takes over the whole business. The right hon. Gentleman would render a very great service to these people if he could on this Clause, which I understand provides the money, make some statement as to the intentions of the Government with respect to them.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert)

I think I ought to say that I am not quite sure that that would be in order on this Clause.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON

It is quite true that Clause 50 deals with this matter, though rather narrowly from the point of view of superannuation, and there is also on the Paper an Amendment to the Fifth Schedule to deal with it. But it could just as well be dealt with on this Clause, which deals with the matter in a broader way. As long, however, as we can get a guarantee that a definite statement will be made, that is all that we want.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN

Perhaps I may be allowed to raise an entirely different point, which I think will interest any member of the Public Accounts Committee who may happen to be present, as to the position of the Treasury and the very curious difference between the powers of the Treasury under Part I and under Part II. We see that under Clause 46 the consent of the Treasury is required before contributions are made to the Unemployment Assistance Fund such as are necessary to enable the board to defray its payments and carry out its duties. This, apparently, is the first time in Part II that the Treasury appears. I would contrast that with the procedure under Part I. Under Part I the Statutory Committee makes a report, say with regard to amending the benefits, and that report cannot be brought before the House until the Minister has approved it after consultation with the Treasury. Under Part II the Unemployment Assistance Board makes grant regulations, which the Minister can bring before us without any consultation whatever with the Treasury. Thus the Treasury is confronted with this curious position, that we may have approved regulations containing scales for allowances which the Treasury has not necessarily seen. So far as this part of the Bill is concerned, there is nothing that necessitates consultation with the Treasury before an Estimate is about to be produced which we are to pass in order that the fund may have the money with which to implement the regulations. I freely grant that, in a sane world, there would be consultation with the Treasury at every point, but that the Bill should contain no demand that such consultation should take place is, I submit, a grave defect.

No one knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer the elaborate precautions that are taken to prevent Members of Parliament from initiating any expenditure whatever, but in this case we are to go to the length of approving regulations which involve expenditure without any consultation with or approval from the Treasury. When the Treasury is asked to give its consent to an Estimate after we in Parliament have laid down the scale, clearly the Treasury cannot control the expenditure and control in these circumstances is purely fictitious. I raise this point, not because I want the unemployed to receive less benefit, but because it is fundamentally important for the sake of the unemployed that any promises made to them under the regulations should be capable of being implemented by the money being there. The only security that the money is there is that the Treasury, before the regulations are passed, shall have been consulted about them. No doubt the point has been considered, and the Chancellor will be able to explain to us why there is this singular differentiation between the procedure of Part I and that of Part II. As it stands, I think it needs explanation, and, if the point is one which the Chancellor has not had the opportunity of considering, perhaps he would kindly look into it before Report and let us know whether it is his considered desire that the procedure should be as laid down in the Bill.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN

May we take it definitely from the Minister, as regards the question of the transfer of officers and the question of salaries and other items, that if we let this Clause go those questions can be dealt with on the Fifth Schedule?

Mr. BUCHANAN

The Minister says that the intention is to review the appointments to appeal tribunals each year, and he drew the analogy of the courts of referees. Are we to understand that all that procedure will be carried out? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is the practice now, as regards the appointment of chairmen, to consult the Trades Union Congress and other bodies. At any rate, there is some consultation as to these appointments, not merely of the chairmen, but also of members of the court, and I was wondering whether it is the intention to continue to follow that procedure in full. Is it the intention of the Minister, while not binding himself to take any nominee, to consult other interests than merely his own interests in regard to these appointments? Further, as the Minister knows, while at the present time the chairman of a court of referees is not always a lawyer, in 99 cases out of 100 a lawyer does occupy the chair, and I should like to know whether in the case of these tribunals it is the intention of the Ministry in the main to appoint solicitors to this particular job? A third question that I should like to ask is with regard to the rates of remuneration. I take it that the rates of remuneration for these chairmen of appeal boards will be the same as in the case of chairmen of courts of referees. I should be grateful if the Minister could see his way to give me an answer on these three points.

6.42 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON

All of these questions will really come up on the Sixth Schedule, but I can give the hon. Gentleman some answer now to the questions which he has raised. It is not my intention necessarily to appoint lawyers. It is perfectly true, as he says, that the chairmen of courts of referees are usually lawyers, for the very good reason that the points which they have to decide are largely legal points. A lawyer would not be disqualified for the post of chairman of one of these tribunals, and I think it will probably be the case that the practice which prevails on this matter in regard to the chairmen of courts of referees will also be the practice in regard to the appeal tribunals. The only obligation which the Sixth Schedule puts upon me is that: Of the two other members of an appeal tribunal, one shall be appointed by the Unemployment Assistance Board from a panel of persons nominated by the Minister to represent workpeople, and the other shall be appointed by the board to represent the board. With regard to the chairmen, I do not bind myself at all to consult anybody or everybody, but I shall naturally take such steps as I can to secure the men whom I think best suited for the work which they are to undertake, and, therefore, I shall not be impervious to suggestions which may be made to me. The question of the chairmen's remuneration will be better dealt with when we come to the Schedule.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) is disturbed because it appears to him that the allowances that will be payable under this part of the Act will be governed by regulations. The regulations, of course, are not dealt with in this Clause but in Clause 51, and the hon. Member does not find in that Clause any specific mention of the Treasury. But it must not be assumed, because the Treasury is not specifically mentioned there, that it is left out. The Minister has to present the regulations to this House either in the form recommended to him by the board or modified by him, and in the ordinary normal procedure a Minister acting on behalf of the Government necessarily speaks after consultation with the Treasury. The hon. Member may rest assured that before any regulations are presented to Parliament they will have been the subject of consultation with the Treasury.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN

Before we reach Clause 51, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the simple fact that we have already passed Clause 17, which compels a Minister to submit an Order that he proposes making to the Treasury and to consult them before he submits it to the House. Clearly, in interpreting an Act, if in one case the Minister is statutorily compelled to consult the Treasury, and in the other there is a very deliberate omission, readers will naturally conclude that there is some purpose in that omission. Either omit it in both cases, on the justifiable theory that the Minister will take sane precautions in consulting the Treasury, or else put it in in both cases on the ground that you must lay down by Statute what should be the correct position of the Treasury.

Mr. LAWSON

I can assure the hon. Member that he does not need any assurance from the Government upon that point. There is no danger whatever of the Department getting past the Treasury in these matters.