§ There shall be paid to the keeper of a victualling house for the accommodation provided by him in pursuance of the Army Act the prices specified in the Schedule to this Act.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEI beg to move to leave out the words, "the prices specified in the Schedule to this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "reasonable prices."
§ The Amendment seeks to alter the maximum prices in the Schedule and to increase the allowances to reasonable amounts. These amounts—6d. per night for lodging and attendance; 4d. for breakfast; 11½d. for dinner, and 2½d. for supper—are inadequate in view of the great increase in the cost of living, and are very much objected to by the people on whom the soldiers are billeted. If the words, "reasonable prices," in the Amendment are considered vague, at any rate, some concession might be made by increasing the maximum price allowed in each case. This has been done before, and in view of the fact that the prices are very little more than they were a hundred years ago, I think the time has come, at any rate, for a slight increase in the amount.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)I do not think we can accept this Amendment, if only for a technical reason, which I think will be apparent to the hon. Member on consideration. If he will look at Section 106, Sub-section (3), of the Act itself, he will see the prices for the time being authorised by Parliament must be paid. Parliament can only authorise prices by setting out in the Schedule, or in some other manner, the precise prices to obtain. It would, therefore, be impossible to adopt the words the hon. Member 885 proposes. With regard to the actual prices paid, I should suppose the Committee would think it more desirable, and no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman would find it more convenient, to deal with particular points when we come to the Schedule. If that be not so, and if it is desired to pass the Schedule without discussion I can, of course, say a word upon the point now, but assuming that not to be the case it is not possible to accept the Amendment for the reason I have given. We must act on the price list authorised by Parliament.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHThe point raised by my hon. Friend is certainly not met by the Amendment; I should like to point out that the authorised prices are exceedingly small and under no circumstances can they be deemed to be remunerative to those to whom they are paid. The right hon. Gentleman will probably agree with me that, during the last twenty years, the cost; of articles has gone up. These prices have been fixed for a very long time and consequently they do require revision. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some indication that this question is being considered at the War Office with a view to increasing the prices.
§ Mr. HUNTI should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that 4d. is certainly not enough for a soldier's breakfast consisting of 4 ozs. of bacon, 6 ozs. bread, and a pint of tea, with milk and sugar. Why should the War Office punish publicans more than the Government have done? The Schedule may have done very well in the year 1846 when things were very much cheaper than they now are under Free Trade, but at the present time I can only say that the man who has to provide these things is out of pocket. That cannot be the wish of the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly the prices ought to be revised. I think we should have some statement that these items will be reconsidered, and that something will be done so that those who are compelled to supply the soldiers shall not actually lose thereby.
§ Mr. ASHLEYThe right hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should discuss these prices when we reach the Schedule. I think it would be better to do so now, for we may never reach that Schedule. One of the most important points in the Army (Annual) Bill certainly ought not 886 thus to escape discussion. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will seriously contend that these prices are fair and just, not merely to the provider of the meals and accommodation, but also to the soldiers themselves. We may be told that there is no more money available for the purpose and that they have to do the best they can with what they have got. Probably the right hon. Gentleman cannot alter the prices, but he might at any rate give an undertaking to communicate with the Secretary for War with a view to these things being revised. Could not the list be made a little more elastic, so as to remove any injustice which may be proved to exist, and so also as to secure a little better accommodation for the soldiers themselves? Either the man who provides lodgings and food for the soldiers under this Schedule is bound to be out of pocket or else the soldiers will be given accommodation which we would not give to those confined in our public institutions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that there shall be further consideration on this matter before the Bill of next year is introduced.
§ Colonel SEELYI recognise the discretion with which hon. Gentlemen have approached this question. I may point out that this matter was fully considered at the time Mr. Buchanan was in office. He went into it very carefully four or five years ago, and some Amendments were then made. It is possible that, since then, there has been a rise in price of certain articles, but I cannot agree that that rise is due to the reasons suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt). I will represent what has been said to the Secretary of State, and I can undertake that we will keep a watchful eye on the Schedule, so as to give fair remuneration to the persons who are liable to billeting. When a great many soldiers are billeted in a town or village there is really very much less cost than in the case of an isolated traveller, and, of course, that fact is taken into account in the Schedule. I can only repeat that I will represent to the Secretary of State the wishes expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if there has been a rise in price since Mr. Buchanan revised the Schedule, any items thus affected shall be reconsidered.
§ Mr. YOUNGERThis is a very old grievance, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has promised to give it 887 consideration. He must be aware that the difficulty has been accentuated by the action of the licensing magistrates who, for many years, have not permitted the publican to increase his accommodation, and have thereby put him to the expense of providing elsewhere in the town the accommodation which is required. Where there are places through which troops are constantly passing from camp the people, knowing the publicans to be at a great disadvantage, have charged them extremely high prices for the accommodation required.
4.0 P.M.
It is years since this matter was brought before Lord Lansdowne, and it has been brought before successive Ministers of War every year since. There has been constant complaint about these prices, and it is high time something was done, and I am very glad indeed to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter consideration.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the question of introducing a fuller maximum price because it is provided that the maximum is to be not more than the price laid down in this Schedule, and even if he thought the people were not being paid sufficient he could not under this Schedule pay them any more. Ho would not have the power to do so, and I would ask him whether he would consider the question of either bringing in new prices ill the next Army (Annual) Act or amending in this one the maximum prices that are laid down for the various provisions
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI certainly want to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his Amendment, because I think the prices are too low. I think if the Under-Secretary will look at the prices which are put down here and then for a change go to a Rowton Home he will find that the prices at the latter are considerably higher than he wants to pay for billeting soldiers. It is quite possible that in very big centres he may be able to get the accommodation provided for these prices, but when you consider the case of billeting in out-of-way places, it will be found that it is impossible to get decent food at the prices which the Bill suggests. It means that the soldier gets an inferior quality of rations, as of course we may take it that the licensed victualler does 888 not have the same advantage as the hon. Gentleman in supplying the Army, and he probably cannot get home meat, so that he would get very inferior foreign meat. The time when soldiers are on the march is a time when they ought to be well fed. You have in your Army a large number of boys in time of peace, and when a boy has a very heavy day behind him, and a very heavy day in front of him, he should be well nourished. If he is not the consequence is he starts marching and being unfit, falls out. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I do not think he has marched as far as I have, and I say that the result is that you have these boys falling out, and very likely they are laid up. I do not for one moment think that sentiment will move the official representatives of the War Office. They cannot afford to be sentimental, but have to be businesslike, or try to be so. If they are businesslike they will find out that it is greatly more expensive to have a soldier falling out, and having to be attended in a nursing home owing to insufficient food, than feeding him properly on a march.
If the right hon. Gentleman went to a Rowton Home, and he can go there if he doubts my statements for a moment, they will certainly charge more for the same food, or probably for inferior food, than the prices for which he expects the soldiers to get it in the army, and I would suggest that the ordinary licensed victualler, whose difficulty of living hon. Members opposite have made considerably greater during the last few years than it used to be, could not make anything out of these prices. The War Office suggests that he could give the soldiers breakfast for 4d. That breakfast consists of 6 ozs. of bread, a pint of tea and milk and sugar, and 4 ozs. of bacon, and I do not see how the publican is to make anything out of the 4d. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would like to take the contract himself, and even in a Rowton Home the charge is bacon 3d., tea 1d., bread and butter 1½d., so that the total is 5½d. I do not think any Rowton Home is supposed to be really extravagant, and at all events I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to cater for soldiers as well as an institution of that kind. The contrast is more striking when you consider that Rowton Homes are generally situated in great centres of population, where everything can be done cheaply, and these prices are to be charged on the march at the wayside inn. Under 889 those circumstances it is perfectly absurd to suggest that any licensed victualler can do it at the price. I do not want to go on thrashing the subject out, but I may point out that the dinner allowed to the soldiers, including cooking, is to cost 11½d. That does work out absolutely correct as to price without the cost of cooking, and taking the worst part of the meat in comparison with the Rowton Home. At a Rowton Home steak would cost 7d., but I do not think that you would get a pound of high-class beef for 7d., and the Rowton Home only gives a cut from the joint, which is only a slice, and their charge, of course, includes cooking, but does not include beer or mineral water, and so on. That is the very keenest price that can possibly be charged in a big centre of population, and it comes to exactly the same thing. In regard to supper, the price allowed is 2½d. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever tried a supper at that price. I have not, and I do not mean to, and I do not think if the right hon. Gentleman tries it he will get very much supper, especially if ho has got a night march afterwards. The supper includes six ounces of bread, a pint of tea, milk and sugar, and two ounces of cheese, and I think he would find it very difficult to get a really complete supper for 2½d. After all, publicans are not charity organisers, and you cannot expect them to do it for nothing, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that in a Rowton Home a slice of bread and butter and jam and a cup of tea would cost more than he suggests. Then I come back to the question of lodging; he suggests that the licensed victualler is to put a man up for 6d. a night, including attendance. Again I take as a suitable comparison that of the Rowton Home, and he will find that it will cost 7d. there. Therefore he is asking licensed victuallers to supply British soldiers with bed and bedding at 6d., and at a Rowton Home, which is run on the very narrowest margin of profit, they can only do it at 7d. In regard to the Amendment, I think that the words "reasonable prices" may be rather a wide term, and I certainly think that the prices should be left either to the discretion of the general officer commanding or should be altered to suit certain districts, because prices are high in some districts and low in others, but I certainly do not think it is fair to any publican to call upon him to supply food and lodgings at prices which he would have to do at a loss or else supply an inferior article.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)I think perhaps I ought to have an understanding about this matter. If we are going to discuss it in such detail as the Noble Lord has discussed it, then we ought not to have another discussion on the Schedule. On the other hand, if we are to have a discussion on the Schedule, we ought to postpone this Debate until we arrive at that stage. If it is understood that we do not discuss the questions over again, I am content that the discussion should go on.
Major STANLEYOn the point of Order, Sir. There is an Amendment on the Paper in my name to the Schedule to leave out "Lodging," and insert "Orderly Room," and I would ask whether it would be in order to discuss that on the Schedule if the general discussion is taken now?
§ The CHAIRMANI cannot refuse an Amendment to the Schedule, but this particular Amendment we are discussing is to leave out "the prices specified in the Schedule to this Act," and insert "reasonable prices." Anything that we do now, unless we specifically decide to leave out the Schedule, will not interfere with the consideration of an Amendment to alter the language of the Schedule, but what I desire is that we should not be discussing the same matter twice. I am quite willing to meet the convenience of the Committee about it.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEIf matters are not discussed now I suppose they can be raised on the Schedule if we have not discussed them before.
§ Colonel SEELYOn the point of Order, Sir, may I explain that before the Noble Lord and one or two other Gentlemen came into this House, it will be recollected that I suggested that we should take the general discussion on the Schedule, but I understood from hon. Members and the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that it would be more convenient to take the discussion now. I only rise to explain that to the hon. Gentlemen who were not in the House at the time.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI put down a very short Amendment on the question of oats, which I am interested in, and which I should like discussed on the Schedule.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Noble Lord's Amendment would not be excluded by anything which takes place now.
Captain FABERIt appears to some of ray hon. Friends and myself that we may never get to the Schedule, and as we may never come to that point, perhaps we had better discuss the question now. If you would allow us to do so, Sir, we should like to proceed in that manner.
§ Mr. GRETTONI understand that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to reconsider the Schedule, and he left over these matters for reconsideration. Of course, if that promise is carried out now for the purpose of this present Bill it might alter the views of the Committee whether it is more convenient to take the discussion now or on the report of the Schedule, when he has had time to look into the matter; if, however, his promise is only to affect some future Army Act it will probably be more convenient to take the discussion now.
§ The CHAIRMANI really want an understanding whether we are to discuss it further now in detail. I simply want that understanding so that we do not discuss it over again in detail when we arrive at the Schedule.
Captain FABERMy hon. Friends around me and myself would like to give you an assurance that we would not discuss it on the Schedule when the time comes. I think it is fair for me to say that from what I hear from my hon. Friends. I should like to add my voice to the proposals that the maximum should be raised, and to the contention that the amount of money which is given for the food of these troops when on the march is not sufficient. It is evident that neither the soldier nor the licensed victualler is pleased at the amount of money which is paid for food. There are two reasons why it is unsatisfactory: first, that the licensed victualler cannot possibly do it at the price in a way to give himself satisfaction; and, secondly, the soldier cannot be pleased with the accommodation and food which the licensed victualler gives him for the price named. So neither of them is satisfied. That seems to me to be rather an incongruous and unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am in the position of being able to speak for both of them, because I am in the unhappy position of belonging to the licensed victuallers' trade, and in the more unhappy position of having been in the past a soldier and not being one now. I wish I could reverse the position, and he a soldier now instead of a licensed victualler, but unfortunately that is to be im- 892 possible. I know we have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman, and that it is simply a question of business with him, and that he has to do the best he can. But I hope he will see his way to raise this maximum, which is satisfactory neither to the licensed victualler nor to the soldier, who ought to be fed well, especially when he is young and is on the march with a hard day's work in front of him.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXI am sure everyone on this side of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, will be only too anxious to do all he can for the soldier and to raise this maximum if possible. I think he will give consideration to the arguments which have been used from this side, and which, I am sure, would be supported by hon. Members opposite if they could make the same use of the Debate that we can. A certain amount has been said about this being unfair on the licensed victualler. We do not want to do anything which is unfair to him. But the point which appeals to me is that under these conditions it is the soldier who will suffer, and if the soldier suffers you are making the Service more unpopular, making the conditions more uncomfortable and doing a very bad thing for recruiting. I know there are a great many publicans who have done their utmost in the past, and will no doubt in the future, in spite of these very low prices, do their utmost, even at a loss to themselves, to see that our soldiers are comfortable, and get all that they ought to have. I do not think it is fair that the State should put this burden on them. Every one knows that the right hon. Gentleman would be most anxious to meet this, and I am sure he will do his utmost, but I hope he will give us some assurance that this scale is not finally settled, but is liable to reconsideration, if not now, at any rate another year, so that we may feel that some result has been attained by raising this question.
§ Sir SAMUEL SCOTTI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how often these prices are revised—whether they are looked into every year or copied from year to year? I do not quite agree with some of my hon. Friends who ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait until next year to revise these Schedules. I should like them to go into it directly and revise it before it comes to Report. It has been shown that these prices are very inadequate. The calculations of the War Office place the board and lodging of a horse per night exactly at 2d. less than the board and 893 lodging of a man. I do not know on what basis that can be calculated, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a great deal has been said for the revision of the prices, and I hope he will assure us that he will go into the matter as soon as he has time, and bring up some revised prices before we come to the Report stage.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland)I quite agree that a good deal has been said which would lead us to be willing to go into the question of revising these prices, in particular the point raised by the Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine) as to the prices paid in Rowton Houses. It is four years since this matter was revised, and I think it is about time it was revised again. It will not be desirable, from our point of view, to revise it before the Report stage, but I give the assurance that we will go into the matter and see whether it would not be reasonable to bring up alterations in the Schedule on the next occasion when the Act is revised. Personally I do not think there is much in the idea that the soldier suffers. I believe the licensed victuallers do the soldiers uncommonly well. It may be more than we are entitled to expect from them, but that is a matter which I pledge myself we will consider. I can assure the House from what I have learned about the matter that the soldiers are welcomed and are done well, and whether the remuneration to the victualler ought not to be slightly increased is a matter which we will consider, as we have been asked to.
Captain FABERI should like to ask whether there is really any probability of the prices being raised. Are we being put off with a mere excuse, or do we really understand that they are to be taken into consideration with any chance of their being raised. If not, my Friends and myself will go to a Division.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHIt is perfectly true, and we do not deny that the soldiers are done very well by the licensed victuallers and are taken good care of, but it is very hard on the licensed victuallers that a higher price is not paid for what they give to the soldiers. In the Army Act it is provided that the prices paid to an occupier other than a keeper of a licensed house shall be such as may be fixed by regulations made by the Army Council with the consent of the Treasury. It appears that these prices can be altered 894 at any time. I should like to ask whether the prices paid for the licensed victuallers do not come under the same regulations, and cannot be altered by the Army-Council. There are a great many matters of expenditure of public money which do not come under the supervision of the House, and no doubt this is one of them. We should all be agreeable to leave this to the Army Council and the Treasury.
§ Mr. YOUNGERIt appears to mo that the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Samuel Scott) is one which the War Office could not accede to, because I think it would be impossible to impose an extra charge on the Treasury on the Report stage of any Bill of this kind. Under these circumstances, we are once again left after all these years in the same position that we found ourselves in on a previous occasion. We are always told it will be another year, and again the right hon. Gentleman tells us the same story we were told before. It is very hard lines on these people that nothing has been done all these years.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEWe all very much appreciate the conciliatory tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, but at the same time, as the matter is one which has been going on from year to year and has been raised even by Ministers themselves when in Opposition—I think this very Amendment was moved six years ago—we ought to have some more definite pronouncement. The only one which I think is really satisfactory would be to accept the Amendment, which does away with the Schedule, and leaves it to the War Office to pay reasonable prices. There are any amount of payments made by the War Office which do not have to be put before the House. This Schedule, of course, is part of an old system under which particular amounts paid for billeting were always laid before the House of Commons. It is not necessary that they should be. The Amendment is a reasonable one, and I must ask the Committee to divide.
§ Colonel SEELYI think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has perhaps omitted to bear in mind the point which I put before the Committee at the commencement, that the particular Amendment, though we might divide on it as a matter of principle, is one that we cannot accept, and that view was accepted by the Noble Lord (Marquis of Tullibardine) because, under Section 106, Sub-section (3), we are 895 bound to lay down the prices to be charged, and we could not, therefore, leave it vague under the Act. It is now four years since a revision was made, and I think the time has come when we must revise it again, and when I say that I am sure no one will believe for a moment that I only say it to get out of a difficulty. I mean what I say, and I will carry it out.
§ Colonel YATEI should like to ask if a change cannot be made now, and whether we must wait until the Army (Annual) Bill of next year?
§ Colonel SEELYNo; it will be possible now.
§ Sir SAMUEL SCOTTI hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his Amendment to a division. Under Section 106 it is absolutely essential that some prices should be put down in the Bill, and if the Amendment is carried it will be necessary to considerably amend Section 106.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEAs the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out this feasible point, I will, of course, withdraw the Amendment. But I hope some Amendment to the Army Act may be made by which it will not be necessary to bring before Parliament every year this Schedule, which is not at all necessary.
§ Mr. CARLILEI should like to ask what is included under the expression "accommodation" in Section 1061 The only thing which is to be specified by Parliament is the accommodation. We ordinarily associate with the expression "accommodation" the room or space which is available for the person to be accommodated. It does not usually apply to all sorts of food and things of that sort which are contained in this Schedule. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in referring to (hat Sub-section, he is correct in supposing that it covers all these details mentioned in the Schedule?
§ Colonel SEELYI think if the hon. Member looks at Sub-section (1) he will find that that point is fully met. My legal advisers advise me that the legal view I put before the Committee is the correct one.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.