HOUSE OF COMMONS (Hansard, 24 February 1949)

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)
I beg to move, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £41,955, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid of the Kitchen Committee. I have no desire to burke discussion, but it occurred to me that possibly some other Members of the Committee might like to open the Debate so that I could then speak once and reply to what had been said. However, if it is the desire of the Committee that I should make some preliminary observations on this Vote, I will gladly do so.
I think that the main item to which attention should be directed is the provision of £28,250 as a grant to the Kitchen Committee. As the Committee may be aware, this is in respect of two years and not only in respect of the year 1948–49. Those who have seen the Report issued by the Kitchen Committee will be aware that that Committee has for some years now been very much exercised by the knowledge that, in spite of all its endeavours, and in spite of the fact that it has repeatedly raised the price of food and other services, it has, nevertheless, month by month, or rather taking the year as a whole, sustained a fairly substantial loss. On 5th November last, in reply to a Written Question, I indicated that the Government had come to the conclusion that it was reasonable that a contribution should be made from public funds. The Kitchen Committee's report points out that there are a number of considerations which have led, and must inevitably lead—

§ Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)
On a point of Order. As the right hon. Gentleman has been referring to this report, may I ask whether it will be within the scope of this Debate or not? 2144 I should have thought it was quite separate. We may as well know whether we are to discuss it or not.

§ The Chairman
I assume it is in the Vote Office. I do not know. If it is, I see no objection to the right hon. Gentleman referring to it.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)
Further to that point of Order. This is not the fundamental Estimate. This is a revised Estimate. Surely, therefore, we cannot refer to the report?

§ Mr. Tolley
There is no original Estimate before the Committee, is there?

§ The Chairman
If there is matter in the report affecting the Estimate, I assume it may be referred to

§ Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)
Further to the point of Order I understand that the report to which my noble Friend referred is a report which refers solely to the future practice of the Kitchen Committee, and makes certain recommendations, and that no part of it refers to this Estimate, which deals solely with past expenditure.

§ Mr. Haydn Davies (St. Pancras, South-West)
May I, as a member of the Kitchen Committee and, therefore, one who has signed this report, point out that the report is an explanation of what the Supplementary Estimate is for?

§ The Chairman
I can only say that if and in so far as the report in question refers to the matters which are the substance of this Supplementary Estimate, it may be referred to, but not otherwise. Quite clearly, we cannot enter into a discussion of a report that deals with matters which have no relation to the Supplementary Estimate before the Committee.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I can say quite easily what I desire to say without making any further reference to the fact that this report has been issued. It is, I think, within the recollection of all Members of the Committee that there has been a deficit, not only in the year just closed, from January to December, 1948, but also in the previous year. There are in the Palace of Westminster a number of different places where Members, the staff, and strangers who visit us, can obtain refreshment. We have to take into account the fact that the servicing 2145 of those various centres for refreshment is an expensive and uneconomical thing. It means extra staff to carry and to wait, and additional kitchen space. An ex-Member of this House, known to many of us, who afterwards became Lord Mayor of London, and who was not unknown in the catering and hotel world, in giving evidence before the Committee on Accommodation in January, 1945, committed himself to this assertion: I have never known an establishment where waste is so prevalent from a catering point of view as the Palace of Westminster. He was definitely stating that, as a caterer, he realised how difficult it would be to provide refreshments in the places where this kind of service is essential, without making a loss.

§ Earl Winterton
May I ask a question? Old Members like myself who remember the situation in the old days realise that these so-called facilities for refreshments have been enormously increased in recent years. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would devote himself to telling us why they have been so increased. There are now far more places where one can obtain refreshments than there were 10 years ago.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
That may be so. I think that the reason is well known to all Members of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. If I may, I will make my speech in my own way and not as the noble Lord desires me to make it. If I have time and if I feel so inclined, I will presently address myself to the point which the noble Lord has just raised.
It is, I think, within the recollection of all Members of the Committee that the House does not meet for the whole of the 12 months in any year, Last year, I think the House did not meet for 17½; weeks. When it did meet, it met for only 3½; days a week so far as the catering arrangements were concerned. The House decided at the beginning of this Parliament—and decided, in my view, very properly—to pay the staff all the year round. Previously, when the House was up, and certainly during the Recesses, the staff were paid off and no one cared what they did or how they lived. The House in its wisdom in 1945, soon after this Parliament assembled, decided that the staff should be put on a permanent 2146 basis and that we should also arrange for some pension scheme for them.
I am told by those who know—I do not myself know a great deal about these things—that the prices charged in the various cafés and refreshment rooms of this House are as high as they ought to be. In fact some Members would say, and some visitors would tell us, that they are higher than they ought to be. We have to remember that the Members themselves form only a minority of those for whom we have to cater. The Press, I am sorry to say, frequently assure the public that any subvention that has to be made to the Kitchen Committee is designed to help Members of Parliament and that the taxpayer is having to find money so that Members of Parliament may have cheap meals. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are at the most 640 Members of this House, whereas the numbers who have to be catered for are 1,758. There are the members of the staff here, the officials, the members of the Press Gallery and, in addition to the 1,758 who are, if one may so describe them, people who are here constantly, there are the general public who come and go and for whom refreshments of some kind have to be provided. Therefore we have to treat this matter in a reasonable way.
It may well be that some Members would say that we ought not to provide these amenities for Members, or the staff or the public. That is a reasonable point of view, but I do not think that the House would carry on for very long if that view were accepted. Around the Palace of Westminster there are few places where food can be got for so large a number. Moreover, it must be remembered that this House frequently sits into the night and sometimes throughout the night. It would be quite impossible for Members, to say nothing of those who attend Members, to get fed unless something were provided for them. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will see that this is an obligation which we cannot avoid, and that the Kitchen Committee has done what it could.
I would add that, in the weeks when the House is sitting, an actual profit is made by the Kitchen Committee on the food which it supplies. What makes the deficit is the fact that we have at least 17 weeks in the year when the House does not sit, but when the overheads go 2147 on. Therefore, I hope the Committee will see the reasonableness of this revised Estimate, and agree to it without a Division.
I do not know whether the House desires me to refer to the other items in this revised Estimate. Those of us who were in the House when the former Clerk of the Hosue said goodbye, will remember that it was then decided that assistance should be given to him for his journey overseas; provision is made here for that. Further, the expenses of binding and obtaining new books in the Library have been greater than was at first thought, and there is an additional sum required under that head. Then the House decided to present a Mace and Speaker's Chair and to send a delegation to the new sister Dominion of Ceylon. That also means a Supplementary Estimate, which is provided for under this Vote.

§ Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)
I certainly do not want to comment in any way on the last three points raised by the Supplementary Estimate, which I think are agreeable to everybody, but my hon. Friends would like me to say one word on the first item—the proposed grant to the Kitchen Committee. I listened very attentively to the right hon. Gentleman to hear what justification he could produce for this, but I found it very difficult, because he seemed to me to base his case largely on what are inherent and permanent factors in the situation. He said that the House did not sit all the year round and that in each week it only sat three and a half days. At least he mentioned three and a half days, but I imagine he meant four and a half days.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I meant three and a half days. Members gather on a Monday and not a very large number of them are here for lunch. It is only later in the afternoon that the House begins to fill up. Taking it by and large, we can say that it is only three and a half days, although I would not quarrel if the right hon. Gentleman calls it four and a half.

§ Captain Crookshank
I did not, but the Report did. I thought the right hon. Gentleman had merely misread the Report, to which he had already alluded, 2148 because that says four and a half days. Those are permanent factors in the situation. I am surprised to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that as many as between 1,700 and 1,800 persons are entitled to have meals in the House, as is my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). It is indeed a startling fact, but that does not make it any more a reason why we should saddle this expenditure upon the taxpayers.
The whole point about a Supplementary Estimate and why it is introduced at all is that from the time when the original Estimates were made, certain factors had subsequently supervened, or could not have been foreseen at all, and, therefore, could not be assessed. None of that applies to this case, because there was no suggestion at the time when the main Estimates were introduced of any grant being made at all. This is a new service, and such factors as the long Recesses, superannuation and wages for staff were as well known to the Government a year ago when the Estimates were prepared as they are now. So here is a definite case where it lay within the province of the Government literally to cut its coat according to the amount of cloth available. They knew exactly where they stood in this matter. In spite of that, they have adopted this new policy of asking, through us, the taxpayers of the country to give a subvention to the meals provided in this House.
I find that policy extremely hard to justify. I cannot see why the matter cannot be put upon a proper basis. If the answer is that to do so will make the meals too expensive, I must say that that is a dilemma in which any catering establishment might find itself: either increase the charges or reduce the facilities. The ordinary common or garden catering establishment cannot fall back upon the taxpayers and say that the taxpayers of the country will make up any deficit. Either the establishment makes up the deficit itself, or it goes bankrupt and that is the end of it. I think this is a deplorable suggestion.
I want to put this thought into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman: if he likes to break up this figure of £28,250—I am not being correct down to the last penny—he will find that in fact it comes to just about the cost of dinner every night for every Member of the House while the House is sitting. It 2149 represents somewhere about 5s. per day per Member during the period of the Session. I do not think that we are entitled to ask the taxpayers of this country to provide us with that meal.

§ Mr. Haydn Davies (St. Pancras, South-West)
As a very humble member of the Kitchen Committee I should like to say a word in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). Perhaps I might first give him the figures of the 1,700 people entitled to use the rooms of the Kitchen Committee. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is listening I can give him the actual figures. These are the people entitled to use the Refreshment Department Rooms: Members of Parliament, 640; Press and Official Reporters, 200; Members' Secretaries, 346; permanent employees, 120; staff canteen, uniformed staff, tickets issued, 312; and the catering staff, 146, making a total of 1,758.

§ Captain Crookshank
I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman and I apologise to the Committee if my attention was distracted. When the hon. Gentleman says that 1,758 is the number of persons entitled, I would merely like to know entitled by whom?

§ Mr. Haydn Davies
By the Serjeant at Arms. The Kitchen Committee can only grant permission to use the Refreshment Rooms to people on the list supplied by the Serjeant at Arms.

§ Earl Winterton
The hon. Member cited "Members' Secretaries." They are quite unofficial persons. Can the hon. Member tell us why Members' Secretaries are entitled to have canteen facilities here?

Hon. Members
Why not?

§ Mr. Haydn Davies
Members' Secretaries are given a ticket of admission to the cafeteria and it entitles them to the kind of meal that hon. Members cannot have there, because they are not allowed to have that kind of ticket.
I would take up the last point by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough about the expense to the taxpayer. That is the biggest travesty of this Estimate that has ever been made. From the figures I have given, it will be seen 2150 that only one-third of those entitled to use the premises are Members of Parliament. The second point is that our prices are far too high. I think that Members of Parliament are paying more for their meals than anybody outside pays in a comparable place. We have found, as a Kitchen Committee, that as prices have gone up, our takings have gone down. We are now faced with this Supplementary Estimate and, as the Financial Secretary has indicated, the amount asked for is modest in view of what may he required next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite must face up to the fact that if they went a service provided, the Kitchen Committee will do it within reasonable limits, but when the House of Commons rises for a Recess, the telephone department, the messengers, the custodians and the Library carry on—all the functions of the House go on except the Kitchen Committee. We are therefore faced with the fact that the wages of the staff, agreed upon by the House, amounting to £18,900 in advance, have to be paid before we begin making a penny profit. It is therefore impossible for the Kitchen Committee to run any of their services at a profit at all. I have been looking at the figures over the last 100 years. Apart from three or four occasions, the Kitchen Committee have always received a subvention from the Treasury.

§ Dr. Morgan
The Tories never objected.

§ Mr. Haydn Davies
The figures are available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) says, no one on the other side of the House ever objected when those subventions were made when a Conservative hon. Member was Chairman of the Kitchen Committee.

§ Earl Winterton
That is not true. Constant objections have been made to the cost. This is not a party matter at all.

§ Mr. Haydn Davies
The noble Lord's memory is obviously longer than mine in connection with this House, but I have been going through the minutes of the Kitchen Committee along with the Chairman, and it is news to us that there were objections in the past to the subvention from the Treasury to the Kitchen Committee. In those days the staff were 2151 paid by the hours they worked. They were not paid for week-ends and they were thrown away during the Recesses. At the moment we pay the staff seven days a week for 52 weeks of the year. In addition we pay them a pension, which is a big drain on the Kitchen Committee.

§ Mr. Osborne (Louth)
Out of the American subvention.

Hon. Members
Oh!

§ Mr. Haydn Davies
If the hon. Member wants to bring the American loan into this Debate, Major Milner, it is then for you to decide whether it is in Order or not. However, the fact remains that in the old days the staff of the Kitchen Committee—and of the House—were paid by the hours they worked, and when they did not work here, they had to go off and find employment elsewhere. The House of Commons agreed with the Kitchen Committee in their decision to pay these men and women a living wage and to give them a pension, and the House must know that that means, before we begin the year, a loss of £18,900 which we have to pay the staff while the House is not in Session.
If the House wants to go back to the bad old days, the Kitchen Committee will have to do so, but if they still want to go on, they must grant us this Supplementary Estimate, which covers two years, not one. I hope that hon. Members have all read the supplementary report, because that will raise much bigger issues in the future. On behalf of the Kitchen Committee, I can say that we have gone into this and done everything in our power to try to make it work. It is an all-party Committee and there is general unanimity on it. On this Supplementary Estimate, I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, that not one Member of his party on the Kitchen Committee objected to the request when we made it; it was unanimous. Now we find a strange thing, that he is objecting to a Supplementary Estimate to which his party on the Committee agreed. I support the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. Butcher
I think the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies) was a little unfortunate in introducing 2152 party bias into this House of Commons matter. If I recollect aright, everybody in the House was in perfect agreement that the staff—to whom we are under a considerable debt and to whom we are much obliged for the way they look after us—should have proper remuneration. I was interested in his break-up of the numbers of people who are entitled to meals, to each of which we are now asking the taxpayer to make some contribution. First, he dealt with the 640 Members of Parliament.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we might as well get this straight. We are not asking the taxpayer to pay a contribution to anyone's meal; we are asking the taxpayer—it is quite plain—to bear a proportion of the salaries of the staff during the weeks when the House is not sitting. I should know, because I dealt with this Estimate in the Treasury. We are not paying the full deficit. We are paying only a subvention in respect of those weeks when the House is not sitting, and it is only during those weeks that any loss occurs.

§ Mr. Butcher
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but he is not usually given to splitting hairs. What he fails to realise is that there are between 1,700 and 1,800 people entitled to have meals in this place, and if the prices for those meals were higher, he would not be applying for a Supplementary Estimate tonight. Now let us come to the numbers.

§ Mr. Butcher
I cannot give way again. There are 640 Members of Parliament, every one of whom has received an increase in salary from £600 to £1,000 a year during the lifetime of this Parliament. At the time when hon. Members were giving their services entirely free and the accounts of the Kitchen Committee did not balance, there was no real hardship in asking the taxpayer for a subvention.
Now we come to the 200 Pressmen. Is it really right, on whatever grounds the right hon. Gentleman asks us, that we should be asking the taxpayer to make a contribution so that the expense accounts of the newspaper representative, whom we are glad to see amongst us, should be lighter than they would be if 2153 they had to pay their proper share of the upkeep and overhead charges of the Kitchen Committee?
Then we come to the 340 Members' secretaries. Why should any subvention be made towards discharging their expenses in this matter? Then, of course, there is the question of catering for the permanent employees of the House. That is rather a different principle, because the principle which applies in normal works canteens is involved. As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation I was deeply concerned to think that out of the number of people for whom provision in terms of food is made in this House, 640 Members of Parliament have enjoyed increased salaries, and 200 Press men should not be the particular care of the Financial Secretary when he is presenting Supplementary Estimates, nor indeed should Members' secretaries—their remuneration should be such that there is no obligation to pay towards their meals.
Let us face up to the fact that 1,100—I think my arithmetic is right—of these people ought to be carrying their full share of these overhead expenses. I believe that it can and ought to be arranged. I do not think that it is right to say that the prices charged for food in this place are as high as prices in comparable places outside. [Interruption.] It is a matter of opinion. Everybody is entitled to his opinion. I believe that at a time when Members of Parliament are receiving an increased salary, when economy in national affairs is of paramount importance, the Kitchen Committee should be urged to adjust its accounts so that this subvention would not be necessary. I hope that the Supplementary Estimate will be taken to a Division.

§ Mr. McEntee (Walthamstow, West)
As Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, let me say at the outset that this is not a new question. I have here the figures for a period of 56 years ending with the present year. On only nine occasions during the whole of those 56 years did the Kitchen Committee make a profit. In the other 47 years it made a loss. During my 22 years in this House, I have never heard any Member on any side raise objections to the subventions which came from the Treasury to the Kitchen Committee.
2154 I have also a letter addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1936. I should like to read all of it, but time will not permit. It referred to a special report which pointed to the need for a renewal of the annual subvention, and suggested that the cost of the necessary staff and equipment should be defrayed by the Treasury, as in other Departments of the House. Did any hon. Member ever hear any objection raised to those who serve the House in the Library? Is it any less necessary that Members in the House should be fed than that they should have books?

§ Mr. Osborne (Louth)
They can get food outside.

§ Mr. McEntee
Is it any less necessary that they should be fed than they should be handed a slip of paper by a messenger to tell them that somebody is waiting for them outside; or is it any less necessary than that they should be reported—and very well reported—by the Official Reporters in the Gallery? I make no apology for the Kitchen Committee or its work. In 1936 the Chairman of the Committee reported to the House: I am asked to press for early consideration of this request and to point out that if the Treasury prefer to grant a subvention rather than to defray the cost of the staff and equipment an annual sum of not less than £5,000 will be necessary. The following year, in 1937, in the time not of a Labour Government but of a Conservative Government, the report of the Kitchen Committee asked that tipping should be abolished. That alone, it was said, would cost £3,000. The report went on: Your Committee, therefore, are of opinion that the time has now come either for the restoration of an annual subvention on a sufficient scale to cover their present difficulties or for the Treasury to defray the cost of staff and equipment, as in other Departments of the House. In 1938, again, there was a Conservative Government with a majority of Conservatives on the Committee and a memorandum, signed by 289 Members of the House of Commons, in agreement with the principle that waiters and other servants employed in the House should be guaranteed a regular and reasonable wage and that tipping should be abolished, was considered. The Committee resolved: 2155 That the Committee agree with the principle, but at present the receipts are not sufficient to enable us to carry it out. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) made a fine speech, to which I would like him to refer again. On 12th December, 1944, he said: I think it is most important that it should go out from this House that we are not in the least ashamed of the fact that we are anxious to make this House a place where visitors from Allied countries, the Dominions and all over the world can be properly entertained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 1180–1.] He also spoke of the staff, but I have not the time to read it.

§ Earl Winterton
I might have slightly altered my opinion if, at that time, I had read the Lynskey Tribunal's report.

§ Mr. McEntee
If I heard aright, the noble Lord has altered his opinion, which was right in those days and is no less right today.
At the beginning of this Parliament the question was again raised in the House and I paid tribute to the speech which the noble Lord made at that time and to many other Members for their desire to see that the staff were properly dealt with and properly paid. A report was made to the House by the Kitchen Committee in which it was proposed that substantial reductions should be made in charges for meals in the Members' dining rooms, and for Members only in the strangers' dining room, and that a House lunch should be provided at a cheap price; that payment of gratuities be abolished in all departments under the control of the Kitchen Committee and that a notice to that effect be circulated; and that, subject to the consent of Mr. Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms, notices be posted in the rooms that a revised scale of charges be operated.
All that was carried out by this House, and every hon. Member in this House agreed to it. What did it cost? It cost £6,400 to abolish tipping. It cost the Committee £11,000—it was reported in 1946 and every hon. Member knows it, it is in the report issued by the Kitchen Committee in 1946—to pay the staff all the year round and not one solitary Member protested. I should have been very sorry indeed if there had been one protest. Members of this House and those who get their meals here had lived 2156 on the staff sufficiently long—[Interruption.]—when we put into effect those conditions which all hon. Members approved, and now that the opportunity comes to back up that decision, we get this opposition. We were also asked to put our staff on the superannuation fund. We did so, and it cost £3,500 to do it. That means £11,000, plus £6,400, plus £3,500 to do the three things we were asked to do, and I hope that hon. Members will not go back on the staff and on their own sense of decency.