CLAUSE 9.—(Continuance of enactments, commencement, repeal, and short title.) (Hansard, 27 July 1910)

§ Sir CHARLES DILKE
This Clause is the audit clause, and it used in former days to be in a most unsatisfactory condition. It is now in a most satisfactory condition. For the last two years the post of auditor of the Civil List happens to have been held by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. That has given such general satisfaction that I hope it is likely to be a permanent arrangement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that many years ago there were difficulties in connection with the matter, and I hope we may hear from him that the present arrangement will be made permanent.

§ Mr. BARNES
The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke), of course, speaks with full knowledge of the Civil List. He knows all about it, but the average man knows nothing about it, and I think we might be told a little about it before we close up the whole matter. Hon. Members reading the Clause will find that there are three or four references to previous Acts of Parliament. There are a good many lawyers in the House and probably they know all about it, but we laymen know little about it. I do not want to say a word against these Civil List pensions. I believe the amount added to the Civil List pensions for the year is £1,200. If I wanted to move an amendment to the Clause at all, I should move to double that amount. I rather regret when I see the annual statement of the Civil List pensions that the amounts are not more adequate to the services rendered by those who get on to the List, and I regret that some people I should like to see get on to the List do not do so—as, for instance, the late Mr. Cox, who sacrificed his life in the interests of science. Inasmuch as this is the only possible occasion on which the Civil List included in the schedule to this Bill can be discussed, I think it would be advisable if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could state briefly what amount is covered by the List, the amount given to pensioners every year, and such other information as he may think it desirable to give.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
In regard to the grant of £1,200, I think that is a grant that originated within the reign of Queen Victoria. I cannot trace it beyond the Civil List of 1837. It is the sum appro- 2282 priated to Royal bounty, out of which Ministers are entitled to make grants or bounty allowances like that mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes). There is a good deal to be said for increasing the amount. The reason for putting such grants on the Civil List was that it was undesirable that questions should be debated in Parliament as to the merits of the particular claimants. The other question put to me was about the various Acts of Parliament mentioned in the Clause. The first deals with the Civil List, and the second deals with the audit, which has become more effective in recent years. I should not be surprised if the saving, of which complaint was made to-night, was due largely to the greater efficiency of the audit. The fact that it has got into the hands of the Treasury has made it more efficient. The reference in the Clause to the Act of 1901 is to make it clear that the allowances to the Prince and Princess of Wales is not cumulative but have lapsed, and that the provision made now is a new one and not in addition to the one which existed before.

§ Mr. BARNES
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the amount of money paid annually under this Clause?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It is a matter of £1,200 a year.

§ Mr. BARNES
I understood that was the amount of the additions.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I cannot give the total amount now. If the hon. Member will put down a question on the subject I will be pleased to give it. This is merely the annual provision. It has no reference to the post.

§ Mr. BARNES
Is there any public document that gives the yearly amount paid?

§ Sir CHARLES DILKE
I should like an answer from the right hon. Gentleman as to the point I raised in regard to the audit. It would be to the advantage of the country if he could do so. At the present moment it is merely formal, because I see there is a note in the Estimates stating that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury is the auditor of the Civil List.

§ Mr. CLYNES
We admit the force of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's' argument that it would be inadvisable for the House to discuss the merits of particular claimants for pensions, but can he tell us who it is that now settles these things?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
They are settled entirely on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The responsibility is entirely his. With reference to the question of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke), I thought I made it perfectly clear that the arrangement will be continued.