HC Deb 11 June 1936 vol 313 cc479-97

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

8.0 p.m.

Mr. TINKER

We are opposing this Clause because we are not satisfied with the information that has been given to us in regard to the Bill. The Bill has been before the House for a long time. It was introduced last December, and it has been brought forward on several occasions, but unfortunately it has been brought on late at night, and apparently, owing to the lateness of the hour, the Minister in charge has felt that no one troubled about it, and we have been unable to get the explanation to which we think we are entitled. Anyone reading Clause 1 will find that it is for the purpose of removing anomalies appertaining to Governors of Dominions. So far as I can judge, it means that, where they have served a certain length of time in the Civil Service, that is added to the time they have served as a Governor, and they become entitled to a pension.

Certain circumstances had arisen before the Bill was introduced which were felt by the Government not to give fairness to these Governors, and for that reason the Bill was brought in. No one would cavil at that, except for the fact that it means an additional burden on the State. The sum mentioned in the Financial Resolution was approximately £2,000 per annum, but there has been no mention, so far as I know, of the number of persons affected or likely to be affected, and therefore, while £2,000 may appear to be a small sum when we are dealing with millions, it may be a large sum when only a few people are affected. These Governors are in receipt of a decent pension now. I am not quite sure what it is, because we are not able to get the information, but a figure was mentioned of anywhere between £300 and £1,200 per annum. That is one of the points about which we are not satisfied. Assuming, however, a figure midway between these two, namely, £600, if an addition is made to that it appears to be rather a big item. Supposing that 10 Governors are affected, £2,000 per annum would mean a further £200 for each. It may be that one or two will get more, or there may not be so many affected. We want to be clear as to how many are affected and what will be the ultimate result when the Bill comes into operation.

It may be said, quite truly, that we want to deal fairly by these men who take up responsible positions on behalf of the Government, but it must also be understood that this means placing further sums at the disposal of well-paid men. We can think of other anomalies in the State, and, if it is considered necessary to remove some anomalies, we who speak for a much poorer section naturally feel that we have a right to make some comparisons. I know that I am on dangerous ground, but I want to put it to you, Captain Bourne, and to the Colonial Secretary, that this £2,000 has to come out of the taxpayers' pockets in some way or another. Every citizen in the country, either by direct or indirect taxation, pays a quota towards it, whether it be big or little, and we have a right to speak on behalf of all those citizens, because it is their money that we are using. Each of them has to find something, even though it be only 2d. a pound on tea. Therefore, I am attempting to link up Clause 1 of the Bill with this £2,000 that will be required, because it has some bearing on the anomalies which affect other classes of persons who are not so well off. I know that the discussion is strictly limited, and I am trying to keep within the rules of order, but I suggest that, if we can prove the existence of anomalies in other cases, we have a right to describe them to the House.

One illustration which I have used before is the anomaly of the old age pensioner whose wife has not turned 65. I shall not dwell too much upon that case; I only wish to show that the anomalies in connection with it are flagrant; but every time we bring them forward the Chancellor says, "You may be right; your arguments may be sound; but where can I get the money without introducing excessive taxation?" We are, however, finding this £2,000, and, although it may not appear to be a big sum as against the £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 that would be required to remove the other anomalies, still it is an addition to the burden of taxation, and, before we can agree to it, we desire that the whole matter should be examined by the Committee, so that we may be quite satisfied that it is proper and fair that these men should have it. We ought also to be shown why this class of persons should be treated differently from others. Is the anomaly in their case worse than those which exist in other cases? If so, let it be proved, but, if not, we have a right to ask why the other cases are not being considered at the same time.

I live at St. Helens, where we try to deal with our aged people better than is the case in some other parts of the community. Here is an example of the anomaly which I am trying to point out. Only this week in the local Press it is stated that 659 old folk aged 65 and over are on parish relief, their pensions not being sufficient to keep them, and it has been decided by the council to give them an extra 1s. a week each over and above what they get from the parish, in order to relieve them a little more. When the House of Commons is examining the case of people who are getting very large salaries, is it not at the same time going to take into consideration cases of this kind, which exist all over the country? After all, these aged people, according to their light and education, have done as much for the welfare of the State as the Governors have done. We claim that the state of society ought to be such that every citizen shall give his full value to the State, according to the lights and merits that Nature has given him, and, while these Governors, well educated and cultured men because of their position in life, give their service to the State, which we welcome, we question whether they are entitled to have these big salaries over and above what is required to keep them in the ordinary way of life, as against a vast number of poor people who can hardly keep body and soul together.

In our English life, nobody wants to go to the Poor Law for relief if he can do without it. There is a certain pride in our poor people, and the last thing they want to do is to take parish relief. Here we have over 600 persons in St. Helens who, although they are receiving a pension, have to get Poor Law relief in order to try to get the ordinary means of life, and the Council is now spending an additional £1,000 a year to try to give them something more. These are the points that we want examined when this Bill is being dealt with. I would urge the Government not to try to get these matters through late at night. The opposition has been created because we felt that there was something shady about it. I always feel, when a Measure is brought in at Eleven o'clock or later, that there is something rather fishy about it, and it always makes me all the more keen. If this Measure had been brought on earlier, it would not have been held up as it has been. Owing to the feeling that we have not had fair play, and that there is something hidden behind it, we have determined to have the whole thing examined and to get a full explanation before we allow it to go through.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. KELLY

I want to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in asking for some further explanation as to why we have this Measure at this time. The explanation that we had when the Money Resolution was before the House in December last was very unsatisfactory. The Government at that time were rather inclined to remind Members on this side that we were responsible for the previous Measure of 1929, and the representative of the Government on that occasion thought that the Measure had been brought in during the time that the Labour party were in office. He ought to have known better, as it came from the Conservative Government of that day. The Bill provides that, where a Governor has completed not less than three years' service as a Governor, and where his total service in a Governorship and in the Civil Service is not less than ten years, he is entitled at the end of ten years' service to a pension. The pension was increased under the Act of 1929 to, I think, something like £1,200 a year. We are now asked to concede a further pension to those with ten years' service, while at the same time pensions are being refused to people 60 years of age who will have rendered at least 40 years' service in the world of industry and commerce. That seems to be discriminating in favour of one small section of the community as against the general body. I would ask, too, for some explanation of what is meant by Clause 1 (2), which states that all service as Governor-General of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan shall be counted as though it had been rendered in the Civil Service of this country. Again under Sub-section (3) there is a pre-dating, an allowing of all the service prior to 1936 to count if it is served in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Why is this favour being shown to work in that part of the world? There is also the point that the Bill is retrospective to 1st January of this year. I hope this regard that is being paid to those who have been Governors of Dominions will also be shown to our people when they come forward for pensions or for benefits to which they have been entitled, but which have been refused to them up to the present. The number of people affected is small, but it is hardly fair that we should be asked to hand out pensions to these people while refusing them to the great bulk of the community engaged in industry and commerce.

8.17 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)

I am delighted to have the opportunity of doing my best to explain a Bill the Financial Resolution of which was prepared by one Secretary of State, the Second Reading conducted by another and the Committee stage by a third. The two hon. Members who have spoken have, quite rightly, stressed the importance of the fullest explanations being given when we are voting public money. But I should like to disabuse their minds on one or two things to start with. No doubt the short Title of the Bill is somewhat misleading. It talks about the Governors of Dominions. That is the title of a series of Acts which include matters concerned with the pensions not only of Governors-General of Dominions but of ex-Governors of Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories, and it is desired by this Bill to remove anomalies in regard to the pensions payable, not in such comparatively rare cases as that of the hon. Member of this House who was for a short time Governor of Kenya, but to those who go in as young men and have been all their lives in one or other of the colonial services and have been promoted from one Colony or Protectorate to another and some few of whom reach the top of the professional tree. The Bill is introduced for two purposes, first to do what we believe is equitable between Governor and Governor, between one civil servant and another, and secondly, to do what I regard as a much more important thing—to free the hands of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in tendering advice to His Majesty as to who should be made Governors of these Dependencies from the difficulty under which he finds himself on account of the existing pensions law.

To deal with the first point first, if a Governor has served for many years in the Colonial service, he gets a pension partly paid by the several Colonies in which he has served according to the rate paid in the particular grade that he has reached. A governor draws his pension through the Crown Agents on the account of many Colonies and it is always a complicated business. But when he ceases to be a civil servant in the Colonial service and becames a governor, he for the first time comes on the taxpayers of this country. Ambassadors and governors have always had their pensions, not for the whole of their service but for the final part, paid not by the colony but by the Votes of this House. Therefore in literally every one of these cases you are dealing not with a man who is in what, I think, the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) called "comfortable circumstances," but with men who have worked their way in the Colonial service up to the top. tinder the existing Act they get some pension as governors, but they do not get the full rate to which they are entitled under the Act of 1929 unless they have served as full governor for 10 years, and what they receive if they have not served 10 years from this House and the British taxpayers is a pension not at the governor's rate but at the rate of their last employment before they were governors.

The Bill will not, of course, affect governors who under the existing Act get the full rate of pension, which varies from colony to colony. They do not come under this even if they have served more than 10 years. Equally they will not come under it if they have under three years' service, and in fact that sets a limit. There are some 40 odd colonial depencies, including protectorates and mandated territories, and the number of cases that are likely to arise is roughly about two a year. Quite a number, of course, have in fact the 10 years' qualification, but you often get this case, that a man fully worthy of promotion gets promoted, say, in the late fifties. After he has been Governor for four, five or six years, and is about 60, his health affects his efficiency. You cannot say that he is to be kicked out of the Service as medically unfit, and there is a tendency to keep him on as long as possible, but it is not always in the interests of his health or of the Service.

The existing law certainly creates difficulties there, and I want to take the particular instance which has necessitated, admittedly, the Sub-section in Clause 1, namely, the retrospective Sub-section. It is a very typical example, and I am sure that the individual concerned will not mind my mentioning his name and stating the full particulars. There retired after a long life in the Colonial Service, after the Financial Resolution had been passed, Sir Reginald Johnston, who ended up as Governor of the Leeward Islands. He spent most of his service as a young man in the Pacific Islands, Fiji and the like, and then went to the Falkland Islands, then to St. Kitts, and ended up as Governor of the Leeward Islands in the West Indies. He had between 20 and 30 years' service in the Colonial Service before he became Governor, and he served six years as Governor. From the various Colonies in which he served before he became Governor he accumulated pension rights amounting in all to £457 5s. 6d. per annum, and under the existing Act his pension as Governor, after six years' service as Governor of the Leeward Islands, amounts to £94 17s. 6d. a year, because it is calculated on his rate of pay as a Colonial Secretary in the last appointment he served as Colonial Secretary before he became a Governor.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS

Was he contributing anything towards the pension out of his salary?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

Oh, yes, up to the time when he became a Governor. If this Bill had become law that £94 17s. 6d. would have been £211. That is to say he would get, after six years' service as Governor, a governor's pension at governors' pension rates.

Mr. TINKER

What would be the total?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

The total would be £210 in respect of the last six years as Governor, plus £457 5s. 6d.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

That is nearly £700.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

Yes, and I state frankly that it is not at all excessive for a man who has wandered about the Colonies in the service of the Crown, having held responsible positions, and having had to live a life, particularly as Governor, in which he has had to entertain freely—and anyone who has been to these smaller Colonies knows what is expected of the Governor—to retire on a pension of £700 a year. I want to make it clear that the figure of £2,000 in the Financial Resolution is what we think is the maximum. You always have to give an outside possible maximum of the total of the year. We calculated that all these additional pensions will be for people whose pensions will range between £100 and £700 a year. The people who get the big pensions, get them under the existing Act because they will have served ten years as Governor. The Bill is designed to bring in and to treat more equitably the Governors of the smaller Colonies who do not, for one reason or another, last the full ten years. We believe that it is in the interest of the Service that they should be given pensions at the Governors' rate. The point which is more important, to my mind, is the freedom of selection of the Secretary of State.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Is the right hon. Gentleman making out a case to us on behalf of a certain official or Governor who will be retiring on a pension of not less than £700 a year? Is the right hon. Gentleman making a case for an increase? I want to be clear on the point.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

In the case of a Governor who would, under the existing Act, get a pension of £552 a year, I am asking the House to give a pension of £668. That is the difference.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

The right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the £500.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

That is what I am pointing out.

Mr. PRITT

Surely there must have been some reason in the past for the anomaly which it is now considered should be removed. Why is it that hitherto Governors have had their pensions at Colonial Secretary rates?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

The House has always been very apprehensive of giving pensions to people who, say, are appointed as Governor-General of Canada for five years or so. The origin of the ten-year limit was entirely in order to keep out of the pensions sphere the political Governor or Governor appointed by this House. Here the Bill is advisedly and expressly limited to the Colonial Civil Service, and Sub-section (2), with which I will deal in a moment, deals with that matter. I hope that I have made these points clear. I have made a clean breast of what I might call the retrospective case of the one individual who retired this year. There is the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) in regard to the Sudan.

Sir S. CRIPPS

The right hon. Gentleman was going to tell us about the difficulties of selection.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

There are few more responsible tasks for any Secretary of State than the selection of the top men in these Colonial administrations. Owing to the operation of these particular pension scales there is a tendency for him to appoint as Governor a man who will last for 10 years and cut out men who, perhaps, will only last, in his opinion, for five years, in full health. Take Colonies like West Africa with a tropical climate which, of course, is much better than it was in the old days. It is very undesirable to select as Governor a man who is not in robust health, or to keep him there after he has reached a certain age. It may be that the man you would appoint would be a very good man and make a very good Governor for five years, but you have to consider that in order to get his equitable pension as Governor he has to stay on for 10 years. Such a man does not get appointed. It is limitation on the freedom of choice of the Secretary of State that the law should be what it is to-day. I profoundly regret that it was not removed long ago.

The case of the Sudan is somewhat novel. It is a service quite apart from the Colonial service, and there have been practically no cases of interchange. In recent years there have been cases of interchange, and I do not mind in the least giving the name of the individual for whom the Sub-section is really designed. It is Sir G. Stewart Symes, who is Governor-General of the Sudan. When I first met him he was in the service of the Sudan under General Wingate. Then he became District Commissioner in Palestine just after the War, then Chief Secretary for Palestine, and afterwards Governor of Tanganyika. Then he went back as Governor of his old country at Khartum and he is still serving. When he went from Tanganyika to Khartum the Chief Secretary in the Sudan service took his place as Governor of Tanganyika. It is most desirable in a case like this, where you have men who have put in distinct service in the Sudan and Tanganyika, that there should not be the statutory bar which exists at present to the usual continuity of pension rights, and Sub-section (2) will enable these Governors to get the benefit of the existing Governors' pension rights. I do not think that there is much more information I can give the Committee. There are only about 14 Governors. They are a very limited class, but they are among the most responsible servants of the Crown, as they are responsible for about 50,000,000 people. I am quite sure that they are a most deserving class of civil servants, of whom this country has always been proud. I cannot speak too highly of the quality of the Colonial service, especially of those who reach the top during their career.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. LUNN

I feel sure that if we had had the speech to which we have just listened on the Second Reading of the Bill we should have completed the Debate upon it on that occasion. On the 20th February we had no explanation whatever of what the Bill intended to do, and we have been waiting ever since for the explanation. We have changed the Colonial Secretary every year for a number of years, and I will admit that the present Colonial Secretary knows the colonies perhaps better than anyone since 1931. I am not saying anything about his general policy; we shall have to postpone our congratulations until we have heard his speech on the Estimates. Personally, the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given to-night is one which I cannot contradict and with which I cannot disagree. He has stated the position very fairly and very squarely. A Blue Paper was published two days ago which said that certain information could be obtained as regards Governors and their pensions. I could not get the information in the Vote Office, but in the Library I saw the position as it was in 1935. The right hon. Gentleman has said that on an average two Governors retire every year. Last year there were three, Sir Donald Cameron, Sir William Peel and Sir Reginald Johnston. Without a doubt these three men have been capable Government servants and, indeed, we have heard many compliments as to the long and admirable service to the Colonial Empire of Sir Donald Cameron.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I would like to point out that he would get the maximum pension under the existing Act. He was Governor of Tanganyika and Governor of Nigeria for more than 10 years, and as they are both first-class governorships, he would get the maximum rate.

Mr. LUNN

These men have not been appointed casually to these positions. They have been living in the tropics to a large extent all their lives or they have been in the Colonial service, and they have rendered good service to the State. I do not intend to oppose these pensions. I want pensions to be given to a great many more people, and I want to see better pensions paid to millions. These men spend the greater part of their life in climates in which most of us would not like to live and they have not great prospects of living long after they get their pensions. I feel that this Bill to amend the Acts of 1911 and 1929 so that these men will receive Governors' pensions after being Governors for three years, is not a very serious matter. As I said on the Second Reading, I do not wish to divide on this matter. I am not complaining about anything that may be said or has been said in the matter, and I think hon. Members have been perfectly justified in criticising the attitude of the previous Colonial Secretary in not giving information. We now have that information and it is such that I shall not vote against the Bill to-night.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. BATEY

I wish to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the very full explanations he has given. Had they been given on the last occasion when this matter was before us, the passage of the Bill might have been easier. Nevertheless, there is still difficulty in understanding the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about clearing up same difficulties which he felt ought to have been cleared up long ago. When he was moving the Second Reading of the 1929 Act he said: Clause 3 is to clear up technical defects in the existing Acts under which no pension can be granted to an ex-Civil Service Governor who has not completed 10 years as Governor and has not reached the age of 60 and for whom no further employment is available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1929; col. 2412, Vol. 225.] In the 1929 Act we were dealing with ex-Civil Service governors and now in 1936 we are dealing with precisely the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the reason why the matter was not cleared up in 1929 was that then the real object was to get au increase in the pensions for governors. I wanted to bring a copy of the 1911 Act into the House, but I could not find one, and I would like in passing to say that when a Member wishes to lay his hands on an Act of Parliament for the purposes of Debate he ought to be able to get it. The 1911 Act deals with this question very fully. It not only decides that the governors should have 10 years service before they claim a pension, but that they must be 60 years of age. It laid down that the pension should not be more than £1,400, which was raised in the 1929 Act to £2,000, and that where the Governor is drawing a pension for something else, his governor's pension must be reduced.

The Bill now before us reduces the ten years mentioned in the 1911 Act to three years. This thing has not been done in a hurry, and we have had long years of experience. The original Act was passed in 1911, and 18 years after, in 1929, it was amended; and at that time it was not thought necessary to reduce the period of ten years which the Governor must serve before receiving a pension. This Bill proposes to reduce the period to three years and the big pensions that were fixed on the basis of the ten years period still stand. That is one of the things against which we are glad to have the opportunity of making a protest. We wish to use these pensions to Governors for the purpose of making a protest, because we believe that so far as pensions are concerned the working class of this country have the first claim to consideration. We want justice to be given to the working class first.

I agree that the right hon. Gentleman tried to give as much information as possible on this first Clause. In connection with this Clause the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) raised the question of the Sudan. Clause 1 (2) reads: A person who has served as a Governor on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, and who, before his appointment as a Governor, has served in the office of Governor-General of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, shall be treated, for the purpose of the preceding Subsection, as if his service in that office had been service in the permanent Civil Service of the State. What do the words "served in the office of Governor-General of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan" mean? Do they mean any person who has served as an office boy in that office? The wording is not very good, because one would say that the period which a person served as an office boy in the office could be taken into account in calculating the period for the purpose of a Governor's pension. Subsection (1) contains the words: Where a person who has served as a Governor was immediately before his appointment as a Governor employed in service in the permanent Civil Service of the State, then, if he has completed not less than three years' service, etc. Surely that should read: when he has completed not less than three years' service. It seems to me that the Bill has been drafted in a hurry. Further, Subsection (5) provides that it shall come into operation on 1st January, 1936. That is retrospective legislation and this House of Commons is always condemning retrospective legislation.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. PRITT

This Bill illustrates a question of principle which is not the less important because it is with us always. I am capable of understanding the point of view of the middle classes and I understand the point of view of those who hold that an ex-Governor should not be asked to live on less than £700 or £800 a year in his retirement, whether the money be subscribed by the British taxpayer or by the grateful negroes of the various Colonies where he has served. But there are two reasons which will compel me, if the Committee is divided on this Clause, to vote against it. First, I feel it my duty to object at all times to the principle that some people are worth many thousand times what other people are worth, when, in my view, there is little if any difference between them. The second, which is almost more important, is the consideration that when poor people require to have an anomaly cleared up they are lucky if it is cleared up in 15 years—unless of course it is to be cleared up against their interests. But the moment you get the case of a, small group of highly placed persons you can have an anomaly cleared up for them, I will not say in five minutes, because this Bill has taken six months, but at all events very quickly, on the small assumption that the Minister in charge of the Bill shall know something about it—which in this instance is the case to-day, and which was not the case a little time ago.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS

I am at a loss to understand this Clause 1. Like previous speakers, I cannot see why certain people in the State should receive pensions after serving for only 10 years. Clause 1 apparently means that if a person has served three years as a Governor and seven years in the Civil Service he is to be entitled to a pension. The Bill does not say what is to be the age of retirement. It does not say anywhere that the person retiring must be 60 years of age. A man may receive very quick promotion, and at the end of his promotion, if he has served three years as a Governor and seven years in the Civil Service, he can receive a pension as though he had served as Governor for 10 years.

Hon. Members on this side have been asking for a good many years that miners should be entitled to pensions at the age of 60. Some of the men who now sit on these benches and many of the men who are working in the mines to-day started work at the age of 12. I did so, and when I started work in the pits I did not see daylight from Sunday evening at teatime until the following Saturday at half-past 1 o'clock. I went down the pit in the morning in the dark and I came up again in the evening in the dark. In those days I aspired to become a professional footballer, but I could never do my training except when the moon was up and then one could hardly see the ball. Starting work at 12, I have worked for 48 years in the pit. There are many other men in that position, but we cannot get pensions. But the ex-governor is to have a right good salary and is to get a pension of anything up to £700 a year, after serving 10 years.

I say, emphatically, that we shall oppose this Clause. We are not prepared to agree that these rights should be conferred on a man who has served 10 years in a capacity which is certainly not as laborious as that of the miner and which, though it may be important, is not any more important than the getting of coal. I know that certain people will smile at that statement, but if there were no coal-getters, if there were no workers at the bottom end of the scale, the people at the top would not have any jobs at all. We feel that there should, at least, be consideration for these facts and this is one of the few opportunities which we get for expressing that point of view.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. De CHAIR

I support the Bill and I regret the attitude of the Opposition on this point. I feel that their attack is based on a misconception of the Government and Conservative attitude. Because the Government desire to give this increase of pensions to these governors, it does not mean that they are preferring the governors to people in industry, such as the miners. Everybody would like to see pensions for miners, but the question of cost must be taken into consideration and surely it is rather "dog-in-the-manger" attitude to argue that because you are not willing to spend several millions a year in raising Old Age Pensions, you should refuse to give this increase of existing pensions which is only going to cost £2,000 a year. I feel that the governors of our colonies and protectorates are particularly deserving of recognition. They serve, heaven knows, under most uncomfortable conditions in the tropics and in climates which are often detrimental to their health. I do not think it unreasonable to ask that they should receive this consideration.

A previous speaker asked why this legislation was not amended in 1929 when it came up for consideration. I think the Colonial Secretary made it clear that the House was anxious not to make the pensions applicable to Governors of a political character who are sent out to the Dominions and only serve for five years or so. I imagine that the reason why some change of this nature was not introduced in 1929 was because it was felt that it would apply to the Governors of Dominions who have probably private means and for whom it was not thought that pensions were so necessary. This Clause specifically ties down the provision to Governors who have served not less than three years as Governor and in addition have been members of the Civil Service. The point raised by the last speaker would be of unusual application because very few people would attain Governorships after only seven years in the Colonial service. Although I see the point of that argument, I do not think that it is likely to come up very often in application. The general principle overcomes the difficulty which the Government previously had, and will enable the House to give the pension to those Governors who have served in the Civil Service and are eminently deserving of it.

9.6 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I would not have intervened if the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) had not spoken. He is a member of that group of Tories known as the Young Men's Christian Association which always gives lip-service to very desirable improvements of the conditions of the working-class, but gives its votes for the improvement of another class. The hon. Member said that we must remember that, after all, this is only a very little sum—£2,000—which is for a small group of people. This House is always giving away sums to small groups of people, and that is precisely what we object to. We want to see the sums going to the masses of the people. If all those people who are in similar positions to Governors, who, I am sure, deserve everything they can get, were prepared to live on a standard of life similar to that in the coal mines, there would be plenty for pensions for coal miners. However unpleasant it is to be a Governor of a Colony, it is more unpleasant to work thousands of feet down in a coal mine. Also, the mortality rate among coal miners is higher than it is among Colonial Governors. The accidents from the explosions that take place in pits are more frequent than similar accidents in Governors' houses in the various Colonies. If we are to compare it on the basis of the unpleasantness of one job or another, everybody will agree that the coal miner has it every time. Therefore, we rule out the question of unpleasantness.

The other argument of the hon. Gentleman justifying this discrimination in favour of this particular class is that there are very few of them and that, therefore, we can afford to make this small contribution. That is a typical Conservative argument; you can always afford to do a lot for the few. We do not accept that. We believe that you must start by doing things for the mass, even if you can only do a little for them. Of course, as long as you preserve the existing system, you can do very little for them. That is why we want to get rid of it. Even with the existing system you can do a little more; you can reduce the pension age a little and improve the old age pensions a little; you can take

away the means test a little and do various other things for the benefit of the people. I cannot see any conceivable justification for giving to these Governors, however great their services may be, an increase over what was decided in 1929 to be sufficient. There are no circumstances, such as a rise in the cost of living, which should induce us to give this money to this selected class when the far wider class is being neglected by the Government. If the Government were bringing this forward as part of a general scheme of pensions for those people who had served the State in their various capacities, I should not stand in the way of it, but when it is brought forward as an isolated example of generosity, and when economy rules everywhere else, the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if he finds that those of us who have continually pressed for some increase in the living conditions of the great mass of the people in this country think that this is a piece of favouritism with which they cannot agree.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 89.

Division No. 231.] AYES. [9.11 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke De Chair, S. S. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Albery, I. J. Denman, Hon. R. D. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Donner, P. W. Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Assheton, R. Dugdale, Major T. L. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Atholl, Duchess of Duncan, J. A. L. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Eales, J. F. Liddall, W. S.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Entwistle, C. F. Lindsay, K. M.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Errington, E. Little, Sir E. Graham
Beit, Sir A. L. Erskine Hill. A. G. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Bernays, R. H. Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) Loftus, P. C.
Birchall, Sir J. D. Foot, D. M. Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Blaker, Sir R. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Fyfe, D. P. M. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Boyce, H. Leslie Ganzoni, Sir J. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Bracken, B. Glucksteln, L. H. McCorquodale, M. S.
Brass, Sir W. Goldie, N. B. MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Gridley, Sir A. B. Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Macmillan. H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Butler, R. A. Grimston. R. V. Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Maitland, A.
Cartland, J. R. H. Guy, J. C. M. Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Castlereagh, Viscount Hamilton, Sir G. C. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Hanbury, Sir C. Markham, S. F.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.) Hannah, I. C. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Mayhew. Lt.-Col. J.
Clarke, F. E. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Colfox, Major W. P. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Horsbrugh, Florence Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Craven-Ellis, W. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Hudson, R, S. (Southport) Moreing, A. C.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hume, Sir G. H. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Crowder, J. F. E. Hunter, T. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Davies, C. (Montgomery) James, Wing-commander A. W. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Joel, D. J. B. Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Dawson, Sir P. Keeling. E. H. Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. Ropner, Colonel L. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Palmer, G. E. H. Rowlands, G. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Peake, O. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Penny, Sir G. Salt, E. W. Titchfield. Marquess of
Perkins, W. R. D. Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) Touche, G. C.
Pilkington, R. Savery, Servington Tree, A. R. L. F.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Selley, H. R. Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Radford, E. A. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Turton, R. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M. Shepperson. Sir E. W. Wakefield, W. W.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Ramsbotham, H. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) White, H. Graham
Ramsden, Sir E. Somerset, T. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Reed, A C. (Exeter) Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Spens, W. p. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Reid, W. Allen (Derby) Storey, S. Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert-
Remer, J. R. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J. Ward and Captain Waterhouse.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Strickland, Captain W. F.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Muff, G.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Oliver, G. H.
Adamson, W. M. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Parker, J.
Ammon, C. G. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Parkinson, J. A.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Hardie, G. D. Potts, J.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Price, M. P.
Banfield, J. W. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Pritt, D. N.
Batey, J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Benson, G. Hollins, A. Riley, B.
Broad, F. A. Jagger, J. Ritson, J.
Bromfield, W. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Rowson, G.
Burke, W. A. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Salter, Dr. A.
Cassells, T. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sexton, T. M.
Charleton, H. C. Kelly, W. T. Simpson, F. B.
Chater, D. Kirby, B. V. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Compton, J. Kirkwood, D. Sorensen, R. W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Daggar, G. Lawson, J. J. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Dalton, H. Leach, W. Thurtle, E.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Leonard, W. Tinker, J. J.
Dobble, W. Leslle, J. R. Walkden, A. G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Logan, D. G. Watkins, F. C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Lunn, W. Watson, W. McL.
Gardner, B. W. McGovern, J. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Garro Jones, G. M. Maclean, N. Williams. E. J. (Ogmore)
Glbbins, J. Marklew, E. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Marshall, F.
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Messer, F. TELLERS FOR THS NOES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Milner, Major J. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.
Grenfell, D. R. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.