HC Deb 12 July 1905 vol 149 cc386-90
MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the full pay of Commander-in-Chief is still paid to Lord Roberts, although the office was abolished more than a year ago; and, if so, under what Vote is the salary taken or under what authority, and from what source is it paid.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.

Lord Roberts is still in receipt of a special non-effective allowance of £5,000 a year, which is paid under Vote 14 B., Field-Marshals.

MR. BUCHANAN

Under what authority has the Secretary of State allowed the large sum of £5,000 to be paid as half-pay to a retired Field-Marshal?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Under the authority of Parliament.

MR. BUCHANAN

Is not the half-pay of a Field-Marshal regulated by the Army Pay Warrant?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Yes; but this was a special allowance voted by Parliament.

MR. BUCHANAN

It has not yet been voted.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Yes.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

When?

MR. BUCHANAN

Is it not the fact that Vote 14 has not yet been submitted to the House, and that no statement has been made upon it?

MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER

None of these have yet been voted, but they stand in exactly the same position as the other Votes in the Estimates.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

Will this Vote be on the same footing as all other Votes in the Estimate? There never was before, and, I suppose, never afterwards will be, such a Vote. This is a Vote, as I understand it, for continuing the pay of an officer after he has been removed from his place. No work is done, and yet the pay is continued. I have no desire to criticise the services of a distinguished officer, but this is surely a most irregular proceeding.

MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER

Lord Roberts is giving his services on the Defence Committee.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Then why should not his pay be put on the Vote for the Defence Committee?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I was only answering the right hon. Gentleman's statement that Lord Roberts was doing nothing.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

But these are not the services of a Commander-in-Chief. He is continued in the pay of a Commander-in-Chief, but, whatever he may be doing, he is not doing the duties of a Commander-in-Chief. Why should he not be paid under the designation of the office that he holds?

CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)

Are the other members of the Defence Committee receiving £5,000 per annum?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

No, Sir. It will be competent for the House of Commons to reject this or any other Vote. This Vote was put forward by the Government because they thought it was suitable treatment to meet the case.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I think it right to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the explanation of the situation is that because Lord Roberts was treated almost with indignity by the right hon. Gentleman in being summarily dismissed from his appointment, this is a douceur, and the British taxpayer has to pay £5,000 a year until the end of his term of appointment—I think there are two years to ran yet—in order to atone for the discourtesy of the right hon. Gentleman?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I protest against the unjust and unfounded remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, for which there is absolutely no particle of foundation. Every step was taken with Lord Roberts' agreement and consent, and Lord Roberts was never made, and never could be made, the object of any discourtesy on my part.

MR. BUCHANAN

In view of the fact that not until this moment was the House made aware that under Vote 14 Lord Roberts is receiving this sum, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will secure to the House an opportunity of discussing Vote 14 of the Army Estimates?

MR. DALZIEL

Are we to take the statement of the Secretary of State for War that the House will have an opportunity of considering this matter as a pledge that the House will have an opportunity of discussing it, and that it will not be guillotined?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. It is not in my power to say what opportunities the House will be given.

MR. DALZIEL

You have just said it.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I said the House will have an opportunity of rejecting this Vote.

MR. BUCHANAN

May I ask the Prime Minister to say whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing Vote 14?

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

The hon. Member and the whole House have had the Estimates before them since they were laid some months ago.

MR. BUCHANAN

But there is no indication of this Vote.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

In those months they have discussed at quite unexampled length various questions connected with the Army Estimates. They have teen forewarned that it is really impossible to give more than another day to the discussion of the Array Estimates. They have insisted that it should be occupied in the first place by the Volunteer Vote and in the second place by the Secretary of State's Vote. If I am informed on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there is a desire that the order for to-morrow shall be altered, of course altered it will be. But I am not in a position to offer two days more for the Army Estimates in addition to those already given.

MR. DALZIEL

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that the Estimates are absolutely misleading in regard to this matter?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

The statement in the Vote is perfectly clear:—"Field-Marshals, one at £1,300, one at £2,000, and one at £5,000 a year."

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman out of what money this pay is being paid?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I suppose it is paid from the source from which the salaries of all the officials of the War Department are paid.

MR. BUCHANAN

asked leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the continued payment of £5,000 a year to the late Commander-in-Chief after his office had been abolished.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member can hardly bring this matter within the rules of urgency. This payment to Lord Roberts has been down on the Estimates certainly since March or April, and it cannot, therefore, be said to be urgent.

MR. BUCHANAN

said it was impossible for any one to know that Lord Roberts' salary was borne on Vote 14 until it was so stated by the Secretary for War that afternoon. The House was certainly not aware of the fact before this, and now they were told by the Prime Minister that they would have no opportunity of discussing it.

*MR. SPEAKER

The matter was brought to the notice of the House last year; I have a distinct recollection of the statement being made in reply to a Question.