PRIVY SEAL OFFICE. (Hansard, 1 March 1938)

§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
This Supplementary Estimate arises in precisely the same way as the Estimate which the Committee has just passed, and hon. Members will not require me to go over the explanation again.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
When the Labour Government, in 1924, appointed a Lord Privy Seal, we were anxious to know what were to be the duties of the office. I asked the then Lord Privy Seal what his duties were and his reply was, "God only knows." Why is it essential that this Minister should have £5,000 a year. At the moment he is sailing round the world. He is not doing any job that I know of, connected with the Government. I have asked each Lord Privy Seal appointed under the Labour Government what was his job as a Member of the Government and none of them could tell me. Time and time again the Labour Government had to find work for the Lord Privy Seal outside that particular 1039 office. I think I am in order in asking a representative of the Government to tell us what are the duties of the Lord Privy Seal which justify this increase of £1,850 a year.

The Chairman
The hon. Member is too late. That was settled by an Act of Parliament passed some time ago.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Surely we have a right to ask what is the justification for this increase. I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, that the House has already decided that this Minister was to get this increase but am I not in order in asking the spokesman of the Government to tell us what are the duties of the office?

The Chairman
I am afraid not.

Mr. Davidson
May I point out that the original estimate was £3,657 and the revised Estimate amounts to £507 over the £5,000. It represents an additional sum of £1,850. The Note states that the additional provision is required to meet the increase from £2,000 to £5,000 per annum. But this estimate would exceed the £5,000, by £507.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
The increase is from £2,000 to £5,000 per annum, but only a part of the year is affected by this Estimate. There are certain savings which offset the increase due to the increase of salary under the Act, and if the hon. Member wishes me to enlarge upon these I can do so.

§ Mr. Gallacher
In view of the fact that we do not know what are the duties of the Lord Privy Seal, are we not entitled to refuse this Vote?

The Chairman
I have ruled that the question of the duties of the office of Lord Privy Seal cannot be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I am not proposing to do so, but to suggest that we are entitled not to vote this money. It would be folly on the part of the Committee to vote this money even though an Act of Parliament has been passed to give the Lord Privy Seal an increased salary. Those who were responsible for the passing of that Act ought to dig into their pockets and make good the generous spirit then displayed by them. But it is clearly impossible for this Committee to vote money for an office such as this when nobody 1040 in the House of Commons either knows or is interested in the Lord Privy Seal or what he does.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
I have no desire to divide the Committee on this matter, but I want to get information. You, Sir Dennis, have said that the House has decided that this money shall be paid. If that is the case why is it being brought before us if we have no right to challenge it? We have a right; and that is why it comes before us. All that we are asking is for information, and if we do not get it we are bound to use the only instrument we have, and that is to hold up the business of the Committee and refuse to allow the Vote to go through. We have no desire to do that so long as we get fair treatment. We are told time after time that this is not the proper time to get information. When the Ministers of the Crown Act was before the House it was not permissible for us to make inquiries. Here the office of the Lord Privy Seal comes before the Committee and we are asking the Government to tell us what are the duties of the Lord Privy Seal.

The Chairman
The hon. Member may find an opportunity at another time, but that is out of order on this particular Vote.

§ Mr. Silverman
I return to the question which I raised on the last Vote. Here again the Committee is being asked to vote an extra sum, part of which has arisen because under the Ministers of the Crown Act the salaries of certain Ministers were increased. In this case there would normally fall to be provided by a Supplementary Estimate a sum of £2,250. But in this case, as in the last, the Committee is not being asked to provide the normal sum, but something less, and the reason given in this case is that there is a coincidence, the coincidence being that as you require in each case a further sum for the salary of the Minister, so it happens, in each case, that there is a saving in the salaries of other officials, this time in the Secretariat department, which was not anticipated and which presumably could not have been anticipated when the main Estimate was voted, although it is now said that the changes are in the normal course. If they are in the normal course they ought to have been budgeted for. A Supplementary 1041 Estimate does not provide for something which occurs in the normal course; if there is a Supplementary Estimate there is something abnormal about it.
What is this abnormality? This brings me to the question of the duties of the Lord Privy Seal. Is the Lord Privy Seal being asked to earn the extra proportion of his salary, the amount by which his salary is greater under the Act than it was before, by doing some of the secretariat work himself for which previously he got a secretary or office boy to do? Has there been some change in the duties of the Lord Privy Seal to correspond with the increased salary which he is getting, or has there been a saving in office expenses which has been set off against the extra money required for his salary? Is the Lord Privy Seal earning his salary by doing more work than he used to do? Has the services of other people been dispensed with? Was it found that the Lord Privy Seal had so little to do under the old arrangement that it was not proper to ask the Committee to vote the whole of the extra money required for his increased salary? Has there been a reorganisation of the Department which has made it necessary that the Committee should vote the whole of that extra money? Has the office been so reorganised that there is really something useful for the Lord Privy Seal to do which was previously done by somebody else?
Such an explanation would be satisfactory, but in the absence of such an explanation, the position will be that, by a mere coincidence, there has been faulty estimating in two separate Departments both of them affecting the normal changes in the secretarial duties and both of them arising in a year and in Departments where extra money is required because of the Ministers of the Crown Act. In view of the obvious doubt which surrounds the whole question, perhaps it would be possible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to deal with the duties of the Lord Privy Seal and any change in those duties which makes it unnecessary to have a Supplementary Estimate for the whole of the increase in his salary.

Mr. Davidson
I ask the Financial Secretary to give some more details to the Committee. It is strange that during the discussion of these Supplementary Estimates 1042 it was not until hon. Members on these benches practically insisted on repeating their cries for information that we received from a single Minister a careful and studied statement. In no business undertaking would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be allowed to get away with a proposition such as this, and carelessly to say to his co-directors that if they forced him to give details, then, of course, he would accede to their request. It is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's duty to submit those details. I warn him that if he insists on these methods, he will be forced, following the precedent in this Cabinet, to accept a more important and higher job in the future. This Vote deals with three or four different items. First of all, it shows that the original Estimate was £1,850 short. The Financial Secretary says that that is due to the increase in Ministers' salaries, and that we are dealing with an increase per annum. When did that increase take place?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
The increase took place as from 1st July, 1937. I thought I had made that point clear.

Mr. Davidson
That point was made clear. Added to that point, however, it says here that the extra amount of £2,250 is partially offset by savings due to changes in the secretarial staff, but not one word of how much was saved, not one itemised account of what the statement means. My hon. Friend was entitled to think that this meant that reductions had been made in another quarter in order to bring about this saving. Then we have a third statement: The sum of £1,000 has been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund and a corresponding amount of this Vote is required to enable repayment to be made to that Fund. Here we have three different statements with only one explanation given, namely, that an increase of salary took place. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should recognise that the public outside are keenly interested, and that while we may tolerate a certain degree of carelessness and bad workmanship in other Departments of the Government, at least I, as a Scottish Member, am going to insist on the financial aspect of the Government's affairs being kept clearly and well balanced. Therefore, I insist on a detailed account with regard to the three 1043 points that I have mentioned, and I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not think I am unduly pressing him for information, but we have our constituencies to face.
We have in Scotland severe critics of the financial policy of the Government. We have people who are earning, under the jurisdiction of this Government, from 37s. to £2 10s. a week, and they want to know. They have in their own homes and small shops to supply, for Income Tax purposes, legitimate balance-sheets showing clearly every item of expenditure, and I may add that I think the Committee is entitled to ask what part of this salary is being spent in Australia by the Lord Privy Seal at present.

The Chairman
That is not in order.

Mr. Davidson
I accept your immediate Ruling, Sir Dennis, but if I had the necessary time I have no doubt I could convince you of my correctness. I want those three points settled, and I want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to take his duties seriously and to recognise that on this side there are men returned from many constituencies by people who are interested in the financial affairs of the nation. As such, we desire this information, not because we want to keep him late to-night or to interfere with his arrangements, but because we want to see to it that he earns the salary that he himself takes, and does not fall into the habit that afflicts many Members opposite of taking their duties too lightly.

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
This is a customary Debate, of the kind that we get from time to time, but it is rather amusing, so I thought I would consult the Civil Estimates for the present year, which the last speaker has not taken the trouble to look at. The Lord Privy Seal in the original Estimate was to have £2,000, and the private secretary to the Lord Privy Seal £1,250, which is more in relation to the particular job than most private secretaries have. There appear these figures, "£800—£30—£1,100" which means that he starts his job at £800, goes up by annual increments of £30, and reaches the maximum of £1,100. He has, in addition, an allowance of £150.

Mr. Davidson
Are you suggesting that after being presented with the document 1044 containing the Supplementary Estimates by the Government, I should also consult the document you are reading?

The Chairman
I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address questions through the Chair. I will also go a little further and say that certain of the discussions we have had just lately and a discussion on the manner in which the accounts of the National Exchequer are presented are outside what can be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. Davidson
May I apologise if I have gone outside the convenience of Debate? I merely tried to ascertain from the hon. Member through you what he is asking me to read. If I asked him any question I can assure you I meant no disrespect to the Chair.

§ Mr. Williams
The document from which I was quoting was sent to the hon. Member about 11 months ago. It was sent in separate parts and this is the bound indexed volume, and sets forth all the information for which the hon. Gentleman has asked. The document at present before the House is merely supplementary to it; and anyone debating it ought to study the larger document first.

§ Mr. Buchanan
On a point of Order. Are we now having a lesson on Supplementary Estimates, or are we discussing the Estimates?

The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman had better leave that to me.

§ Mr. Buchanan
But what are we discussing? Are we discussing how to read Supplementary Estimates or are we discussing the Supplementary Estimates dealing with certain Departments?

The Chairman
We are discussing one Supplementary Estimate, and if the hon. Member will leave it to me, I will do my best to keep order.

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
As I was pointing out, there is one appointment with a starting salary of £800 rising to £1,100. If there is a change during a particular year there is an automatic saving of £300. If that is taken into account, then clearly the speech of the hon. Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Davidson) need not have been made. I suggest that it is a good thing when Members are engaged in discussing Supplementary Estimates if they at least took the trouble to read the documents placed at their disposal.

§ Mr. Ede
I can only say that if the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) had been the Lord Privy Seal I should not have risen, because I am sure he would have been well worth the money, if only because he would not then have been in the position of being schoolmaster to his own Front Bench. It would be a good thing if the same course were adopted with regard to the last Office that we were discussing, namely, that of the Lord President of the Council. I understood last year, when we were discussing the matter under the Bill that was passed, that these two offices would normally be filled by what one might call—

The Chairman
Order!

§ Mr. Ede
I want to suggest that this is an office that is redundant as it is at present—

The Chairman
That is quite out of order, as I have already told the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Gallacher
A colleague sitting here has said that we do not want to oppose the Vote, and I concur with him. We do not want to hold up the business, but I want to ask one thing of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and in the most earnest manner, and I know that I can trust his word. Can he assure me that the money for which he is asking is being well spent—

The Chairman
Order!

§ Mr. Silverman
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has told us that if a certain change takes place that would account for a saving of £300. It is a great pity that he was not in the Committee during the discussion on the previous Vote, because he would then know that no particulars have yet been given as to what the saving consists of. On the previous Vote some indication was given as to the manner in which the saving was arrived at, and it has been said with regard to this Vote that the savings in salaries were due to normal changes in staff. If they were normal, a Supplementary Estimate ought not to be required. Will the Financial Secretary now tell us what are the actual changes in the secretarial staff, what is the 1046 saving effected, and which of them could not have been budgeted for on the main Estimate?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
There is no mystery here of which I cannot dispose. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) did get very near to the truth when he spoke of the private secretary. The private secretary to the late Lord Privy Seal was an officer at the very top of the scale, and the new Lord Privy Seal has taken a private secretary who, while he is an officer of the same grade, is at the minimum of the scale. That disposes of the point.