Commons Sitting of 6 July 1915

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Aberdare Urban District Council (Tramways, etc.) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
As amended, considered;
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The. Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Sutton District Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Port of London Authority Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That, in the case of the Port of London Authority Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the said Bill upon Thursday next.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords],
London County Council (General Powers) (Suspended Bill) (recommitted) Bill,
London County Council (Celluloid, etc.) Bill.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Sir Swire Smith, knight, for the County of York, Northern Part of the West Riding (Keighley Division).
ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).
Paper [presented 5th July] to be printed. [No. 289.]
AFRICA (No. 1, 1915).
Copy presented of further Correspondence respecting Contract Labour in Portuguese West Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
Copy presented of Account showing the Receipt and Expenditure of Naval Prize, Bounty, Salvage, and other Moneys between 1st April, 1914, and 31st March, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ARCHBISHOP OF LEMBERG.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to say whether the Archbishop of Lemberg, arrested by the Russians in territory invaded by them and imprisoned in a Russian fortress last September, still lives; if so, whether he can give any particulars of the prison treatment in the case; and whether he will suggest to the Russian Government to concede to the Archbishop of Lemberg treatment similar to that accorded by the Germans to the Archbishop of Malines for an identical offence?
    True UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I have no reason to believe that Count Szeptycki is not being treated with all the consideration due to him.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the Noble Lord aware whether he is or is not?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am not personally aware. Naturally, I am only speaking from information.
    Mr. KING: Is he in Siberia, Russia, or in Galicia?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should like notice of that question.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what separation allowance widow Kate Scally, Mullingar, mother and dependant of Private John Scally, B Company, 7th Battalion, Leinster Regiment, Kilworth Camp, is entitled according to scale; when she became entitled to it; why she has not yet received it; and, as she is in ill-health and unable to work, when the arrears will be paid to her?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Mrs. Scally was found not to have been dependent on her son before his enlistment, and therefore was not entitled to any allownce from Government.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT, 1915 (DETENTION OF CIVILIANS).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how long the military authorities in Ireland are empowered and accustomed, respectively, to keep civilians in custody without trial; and under what law civilians so treated are then transferred to and sentenced summarily by one paid magistrate, remote from the scene of the alleged offence and beyond the reach of witnesses?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Whether in Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom, persons are only detained in custody for such time as is sufficient to make a full inquiry into the charges which have been brought against them. The answer to the last part of the question will be found in the Defence of the Realm Amendment Act, 1915, chapter 34, 5 George V.

  NATURALISED BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is any appeal possible on the part of a naturalised British subject of many years' standing from the decision of the military, especially in cases where such subject has never had any opportunity of meeting the alleged reasons for the treatment meted out to him?
  Mr. TENNANT: There is no appeal from an order made by a competent military authority under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Before issuing his
  178
  order a competent military authority would give attention to all relevant facts brought to his notice.
  Mr. HOGGE: Might I ask my right hon. Friend if the War Office acts on the principle that a man in this position, who has been treated by the War Office in a certain way, is not entitled to lay before them his side of the case?
  Mr. TENNANT: His side of the case would be placed before the competent military authority before any order was given, but after the order was given, then, as my hon. Friend is aware, there would be no appeal under the Act.
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask whether in those cases, or in any case, the man or the woman concerned is allowed to appear in person before the military authority?
  Mr. TENNANT: I should say not, speaking without full inquiry.
  Mr. HOGGE: Why not?
  Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend will give me notice, I will have that point inquired into.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House precisely what he has meant upon the two occasions on which he has used the word "competent"—does it mean military rank or judicial knowledge?
  Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Act of Parliament he will see that the whole of its provisions are governed by the appeal to the competent military authority, which is the body responsible for putting the regulations into-force.

  RESERVISTS.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the-Under-Secretary of State for War whether Reservists who were called up at the commencement of the War will be kept on active service until peace is declared, or whether they will be discharged on the completion of their twelve months' extra service; and whether it is proposed to give them a bounty on the completion of their service?
  Mr. TENNANT: An Army Order was issued on the 22nd June stating the conditions on which men due for discharge might voluntarily continue to serve until the close of hostilities. I will send my hon. Friend a copy. The issue of a bounty is not contemplated.

  WAR CORRESPONDENTS,
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any war correspondents and, if so, how many, had been permitted to accompany the Expeditionary Force in France?
  Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I have given him on previous occasions to similar questions. At present five representatives of the Press are at General Headquarters in France.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is there a limit put upon the number of newspapers which can be represented?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, obviously there must be a limit.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is that limit five?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am unable to say without knowing. It depends upon the French authorities.

  ROYAL FUSILIERS (10th SERVICE BATTALION).
  Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether the standard of efficiency of the non-commissioned officers and men of the 10th Service Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers is so high that already and under very restrictive administration nearly 200 commissions have been granted to men; whether he is aware that there are no less than 600 of the men of this battalion who are in every respect competent to receive commissions and who are of much more value than the many persons who are daily receiving commissions; and whether, having regard to these circumstances and also to the suitability of the men from a social point of view, he will cause the restrictions which at present preclude these men applying for commissions to be removed; and (2) whether, owing to the standard of efficiency attained by the non-commissioned rank and file in the 10th Service Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers and having regard to the circumstances that socially and in all other respects they are of the class from which the best officers are obtained, he will consider if the interests of the country will be better served by offering commissions to such of the rank and file of this battalion as are desirous of accepting them, and so distributing them over various regiments
  180
  rather than sacrificing these men as a unit to the exigencies of service in the field?
  Mr. TENNANT: Commissions have been granted to a considerable number of noncommissioned officers and men of the 10th Battalion Royal Fusiliers, and recommendations are still being received from the commanding officer of that battalion, who has instructions to submit the names of all soldiers serving in his unit who are candidates for appointment to commissions and whom he can recommend as in all respects suitable for such appointment, provided the efficiency of the unit as a whole does not suffer. I do not know what the number may be of those who are eligible for recommendation on these conditions, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it must be left to the commanding officer to decide whether any particular soldier shall or shall not be recommended at once for a commission.

  ARMY TRAVELLING INSPECTORS OF GOODS.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the amount of salary paid to each of the two Army lieutenants who have been appointed travelling inspectors of goods and material for the War Office; and what are the qualifications they have for that position?
  Mr. FORSTER: These officers are not employed as inspectors of goods and materials, but as supervisors over the large numbers of viewers who are scattered up and down the country at outlying contractors' works. One of these officers is paid £450 a year, and the other about £300 a year.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman say what are the qualifications of those two gentlemen?
  Mr. FORSTER: They are very well qualified for supervising the work of the viewers or men engaged in the technical part of the business.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these gentlemen are passing materials and goods which the viewers have refused to pass?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, I am not aware of that fact.

  DUTY ON SPIRITS (MEDICINES).
  Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in reference to the proposal to relieve hospitals from the payment of duty on alcohol used medicinally, he has consulted authorities on the temperance question as to the possible dangers of an increased use of tinctures and other forms of alcohol which must ensue if the cost of such medicines is substantially reduced?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I have not thought it necessary to take this step, as I have no reason to suppose that the grant of the concession will lead to abuse. The effect of the proposal would be not to relieve hospitals from the payment of duty on all spirits used medicinally—e.g., brandy—but only to exempt spirits used in the preparation of tinctures and other articles to be used for medical purposes.
  Mr. KING: Did not the right hon. Gentleman listen to the Debate, in which suggestions of that kind were very freely advanced; and will he, in order to prevent discussions and Divisions on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, try and consult some temperance authority?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend the Member for the Oswestry Division (Mr. Bridgeman), who has that particular Amendment in hand, is consulting various persons.

  GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES (APPOINTMENT OF SCOTTISH TRADES UNIONISTS).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether Mr. Joseph Duncan, of the Farm Servants' Union, has been appointed by him a member of the Committee on Food Supplies in Scotland; whether this is the fourth or fifth Government Committee to which this gentleman has been appointed in Scotland within a short period; whether there were other trade union leaders of more experience available to the Secretary for Scotland; and whether he will explain how the work of these Committees will be satisfactorily done if confined to a few hands instead of being distributed amongst those who have rendered great service to the labour cause?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Mr. Duncan has been appointed by me to one Royal Commission and one Committee, the former
  182
  in 1912 and the latter this year. He has done his work admirably, and I have every reason to be satisfied with his appointment.

  RIOTS IN CEYLON.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information regarding the recent riots in Ceylon?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): On the 28th May, the festival of Buddha's birthday, the hostility felt against the Mahomedans by the Buddhists gathered in Kandy for the celebrations resulted in serious disturbances, which took the form of attacks on Mahomedan mosques and shops. During the next few days the rioting spread to Colombo and to other parts of the Colony, and it became necessary to proclaim martial law in five provinces. The military forces in the Colony quickly succeeded in suppressing the disturbances. I have not yet received details of the loss of life and destruction of property which were suffered. Inquiry is being made on the spot into the origin of the rioting, with a view to the punishment of those responsible. I propose to lay Papers on the subject when I have received a full account from the Governor.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if German agency was apparent in any way to this affair?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have seen a statement to that effect in the papers, but, although I have received voluminous accounts from the Colony, there is no indication in them of any such agency.

  COMPLAINTS AGAINST SAILORS (IRELAND).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty for what offence Petty Officer Owen, of the ship "Drake II.," was recently degraded and put ashore on the Kerry coast; whether this officer has proved in Court to have spent his time ashore, in company with sailors John Rushby and Frank Morrows from the same ship, insulting everybody, calling Irishmen curs, striking them, and saying that under the feet of Englishmen was the proper place for Irishmen; and, as civil justice is now suspended in Ireland, how those men were dealt with on their return to the ship?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr, Macnamara): The person to whom the hon. Member refers is no doubt Percy Owen, engineman on board His Majesty's trawler "Drake II." He has not been degraded and put ashore, but his discharge has been approved on account of disciplinary offences, namely, drunkenness and leave breaking. As regards the incident mentioned by the hon. Member, Owen and two other sailors, hearing disloyal language in a public-house, had the speaker prosecuted, and he was sentenced to fourteen days' hard labour. This happened about a month ago. As there was no charge against the men on account of this matter, they were not dealt with in respect of it on return on board.
  Mr. GINNELL: Was not that sentence the result of the evidence given by the two men who assaulted the countryman?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know anything about the assault. I have said there was no charge against the men on account of that, and they were not dealt with in respect of it on return on board.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Since it is very desirable to prevent anything of this nature, will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions, in the case of sailors on shore leave, that prosecutions shall only be commenced on the initiative of their superior officers, and not on that of the men themselves?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.

  SAILORS' LEAVE (RAILWAY FARES).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty why the men in the Royal Naval Division at Blandford only get half-fare railway warrants to visit their homes before going to the front in cases where they have had Christmas leave; is he aware that many of them come from Scotland, the North of England, and North Wales, which brings the cost of their journey to £2, while, if they have made a separation allotment, their pay is only 5s. per week; and can anything be done to make less expensive their final visit home before sailing?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It has been decided to grant free railway warrants to men of the Royal Naval Division, when leave is granted them, to enable them to visit their
  184
  homes before going abroad, and instructions on the subject will be issued shortly.

  LARNE HARBOUR (WATER CHARGES).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to a complaint as to the charge made to the Admiralty for water by the Lame Harbour Commissioners, namely; 1s. per 100 gallons, for which they only pay the local authority 6d. per 1,000 gallons; and will the Government enforce against this body the right of supply of a vital requisite for His Majesty's ships without being thus victimised?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My attention had not previously been directed to the matter. I am instituting enquiries into it.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the prices charged to the Admiralty were precisely the same as those charged to other-users, and did not leave any profit or cover the interest on capital?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In this instance?
  Mr. McNEILL: Yes.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That I cannot say.
  Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman also ascertain whether this body has not provided berths for 2,000 of His Majesty's ships without charging any fee for light and accommodation, and if they have not given every possible assistance to the Admiralty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no doubt that is true, and I am quite sure they would not wish to make that up by charging too much for the water.
  Mr. HEALY: May I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the "Larne Times" showing that the question was only put after the Admiralty had made complaints to the local authorities?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I shall be pleased to receive a copy of the paper.

  CORRESPONDENCE OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CENSORSHIP).
  Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability,

  185
  with a view to reducing the work of the censors employed in examining mails, of allowing the correspondence of Members of Parliament to be free from censorship wherever it may be addressed, and not limiting it to their address at the House of Commons?
  Mr. TENNANT: The reason of the present limitation is that, in the case of letters to a Member of Parliament, the censors cannot be sure, without having a list of all the addresses at which Members of Parliament are residing or may in future reside, that a letter addressed to a Member of Parliament is not really intended to reach another and less desirable person, and in the case of letters from a Member of Parliament it is impossible to say without inquiry whether his signature on the envelope is genuine. The proposal would increase and not diminish the work of the censors.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If the letters are addressed to hon. Members at this House, will my right hon. Friend make exceptions in those cases? All my letters from the front have been opened.
  Mr. TENNANT: I think that is the rule at present.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Not to open them?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

  ALIEN ENEMIES.
  Mr. BUTCHER: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Professor A. W. Schuddekopf, of Leeds University, a German believed to be naturalised, whose son formerly held a commission as second-lieutenant in the 7th Service Battalion Leeds Rifles; whether, when the battalion volunteered for service abroad, Professor Schuddekopf informed the commanding officer that he (the professor) was a German and his wife a German, and that he refused to allow his son to fight against Germans; whether Second-Lieutenant Schuddekopf acquiesced in his father's views and intimated his unwillingness to serve abroad, and has since resigned his commission; whether the professor above referred to is the same Professor Schuddekopf who in May last published a letter in the "Times" and other papers publicly expressing his unswerving loyalty to the country of his adoption, and stating that
  186
  he felt bound to it not only by gratitude, family ties, and his solemn oath of allegiance, but also by a deep sympathy born of common work and intimate knowledge of the nation's life and character; whether Professor Schuddekopf still owes allegiance to the German Emperor; and whether, having regard to the hostile origin and associations and the action of Professor Schuddekopf and his son, he will order them to be interned?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I have made inquiry and find that the facts with regard to Second-Lieutenant Schuddekopf's resignation of his commission appear to be substantially as stated in the question. His father, Professor Schuddekopf, who was one of the signatories of the letter in the "Times," of 14th May, was willing that his son should serve for Home defence, but did not wish him to volunteer to fight the Germans abroad. I am informed that the professor owes no allegiance to the German Emperor. As regards the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, the matter shall receive consideration.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is it competent for an officer holding His Majesty's commission to select which of the King's enemies he shall fight against?
  Sir J. SIMON: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. This man belonged to a Territorial regiment, and only those Territorial officers who volunteer for service abroad are liable to serve abroad.
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked whether the Secretary of State for War has during the past six months released, with permission to remain in this country, any German alien enemies who had been sent to detention camps by order of the Home Office; and, if so, how many?
  Mr. TENNANT: Between the 1st January and the 13th May, on which date the responsibility for the release of civilian alien enemies was taken over by the Home Secretary, 1,289 such aliens were released from internment camps by order of the Secretary of State for War. Of these, the great majority had been interned by the various police authorities acting under the general instructions of the Government issued through the Home Office regarding alien enemies. Both in the general measure of internment which

  187
  took place at the end of October and in the subsequent release of selected cases the two Departments co-operated.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many have been actually released from these internment camps by order of the War Office, and how many are still at liberty—that is what I want to know?
  Mr. TENNANT: One thousand two hundred and eighty-nine was the number I gave.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Are they all at liberty?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I cannot answer that. I have not been able to trace what happened in the interval.

  SWEDISH CHARCOAL IRON.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total tonnage and value of charcoal iron imported from Sweden in each of the four last years and the total for that period; whether, having regard to the abundance of British ore, the necessity for this expenditure is due to any cause but the failure to use a pure charcoal fuel instead of coal or coke; whether he is aware that in converting a ton of peat densified by the Zohrab process into 8 cwt. of charcoal a much larger amount of sulphate of ammonia is obtained than from a ton of coal, and also a much larger amount of gas for lighting, heating, or power purposes; whether he is aware that the plant required for this is less expensive than that for coal, and that both densified peat and peat charcoal are smokeless; and, having regard to the needless outlay for charcoal iron and to the value of a substitute for coal as a precaution against strikes, whether the Board will give attention to the development of peat bogs and the utilisation of bog products?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I will circulate with the Votes a statement giving the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the other points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I have nothing to add to the answers given to him on the 22nd and 24th June. [See Written Answers this date.]

  PATENTS (TAXES).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficult position in which certain holders of patents are placed, inasmuch as taxes on their patents must be paid when due or fines are exacted, while certain trades are in cessation, the expenditure of local bodies is largely curtailed, works manufacturing under patents are commandeered for Government work, and the labour market is disorganised; and whether he will favourably consider applications for relaxation of the present charges in cases where exceptional hardships can be shown to have arisen?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the rules made on 21st August last, with a view to meeting the difficulties to which he refers. He may rest assured that the power given in these rules to extend the time for the payment of fees has been, and will continue to be, generously exercised in all suitable cases.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    OFFENCES IN IRELAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the declaration of Mr. Wynne, paid magistrate, when sentencing a man at Cahirciveen under the Defence of the Realm Act, on the unsupported evidence of the man's assailants, that in future any person in Cahirciveen infringing that Act would be imprisoned for six months with hard labour; will he say by w hose direction that sentence in future cases was pronounced; and whether, in order to prevent the creation of bogus eases, Mr. Wynne will be transferred to some other district and a successor appointed?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am informed that the statement made by the resident magistrate in passing sentence in the case referred to was to the effect that the magistrates looked on offences against the Defence of the Realm Acts as very serious, and that, although on this occasion the defendant was only sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour, persons convicted under the Acts were liable to six months with hard labour, which penalty might be expected to be enforced in future cases, if the offences were proved. This statement was made

    189
    with the full approval of the other magistrates on the Bench with the very proper object of insisting publicly on the gravity of offences of this character, and I see no grounds for taking any action in the matter.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will look into these cases with a view to ascertaining whether these prosecutions are not nearly always vexatious and run counter to the object aimed at?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am always ready to look into anything, but it is rather difficult to see how a thing can be vexatious if it is proved that the Acts committed are offences and liable to cause danger.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Did not every independent witness in this case swear that what the sailors said was untrue, and were they not dismissed from their ship for drunkenness?
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland from what extent of Ireland The O'Rahilly is now excluded under the Defence of the Realm Act, and for what offence?
    Mr. BIRRELL: An order has been served by the competent military authority on Mr. M. J. O'Rahilly prohibiting him from residing in or entering any part of Counties Kerry, Cork, and Limerick. The order is made in pursuance of the discretion vested in the competent authority by Article 14 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations in cases where persons are suspected of acting, or of having acted, or of being about to act, in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the Realm.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated what The O'Rahilly did, or is suspected of having done, or is suspected of being about to do? That is what I want to know.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That was a matter which came before the competent authority. They were of opinion that this gentleman was acting, or was likely to act, in a manner prejudicial to the welfare of the Realm.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what grounds? What has this gentleman done?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not the competent authority.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is not this a typical instance of vexatious proceedings, and is-it not typical of the bad old Tory regime in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not the competent authority.

  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.

    STATE INSURANCE SCHEME.
    Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the loss and anxiety caused by the delay in settling the question of the reimbursement by the Government of losses which may be occasioned by aircraft raids or by bombardment of coast towns by enemy ships; if the Parmoor Committee is assessing the claims which have already arisen on these heads en business principles; and if he will explain why the operations of this Committee cannot be extended to meet all future cases of loss as they may arise and thus save the necessity of any insurance scheme with its expensive machinery for the collection of premiums and the payment of fancy premiums by nervous individuals to meet risks which there is no means of calculating and which may be valued at 6d. or 5s. per £100 according to the opinion of the insurer?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): I hope to be in a position to make a statement in regard to the proposed scheme of national insurance against air raids at a very early date.
    Mr. FELL: Arising out of that reply, which is the same as has been given several times lately, is not the object of this question to save the expense and trouble of an Act of Parliament which would be required for the purpose of a new scheme, and, as we have the machinery of Lord Parmoor's Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman not say once for all that if the contribution will come out of national funds there will be no further trouble whatever?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: As there have been so many questions on this point, will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to let us know when the insurance scheme is likely to be introduced by the Government, as great inconvenience is caused to trustees and owners of houses in every part of England, owing to there being no decision of the Government?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is being pressed on as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The last time I asked the question I was told the Board of Trade were dealing with the matter. I shall bring the matter up on the Motion for the Adjournment if I do not get an answer.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Board of Trade and the Treasury between them are dealing with it.
    Mr. FELL: Is there any occasion for any scheme—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a series of speeches at this period.

  POST OFFICE (MOTOR MAIL-VAX SERVICES).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the advisability of temporarily suspending during the War the motor mail-van services in those cases in which the mails might be carried by railway with little inconvenience; and whether he has formed any estimate of the number of men and cars who could thus be released for the purposes of the War?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Advantage will be taken of any favourable opportunity that occurs to release motor mail-vans and their drivers for war purposes, but at the present time is not possible to say how far such changes will be practicable.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this with reference to a specific case where motor cars are being used?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The local officers of the Post Office have been considered in reference to a specific case.

  POST OFFICE MEASURES.

    STATEMENT BY MS. HEBBERT SAMUEL.
    General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General a question of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he is in a position to make any statement to the House with regard to the employment of men of mili-
    192
    tary age as postmen, and as to the employment of women as letter carriers, with a view to enabling men to join His Majesty's naval and military services?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, and perhaps I may be allowed, by leave of the House, to make a short statement with respect to several measures I propose to take in connection with the War.
    1. About 36,000 of the Post Office staff are already serving in the Army and Navy, and arrangements have been made that will enable a considerable further number to be released. Unless the circumstances of the district are exceptional, permission to enlist in combatant units is not refused to any sorter, postman, porter, or labourer, and every effort will be made to release clerks for the same purpose. I regret that it is not possible to give the same general facilities for enlistment in combatant units to telegraphists and to linesmen and other skilled workmen on the engineering staff of the Post Office, because many thousands of those classes are required at home for military and naval work. Deficiencies of staff are made good by the employment of men not eligible for military service, and by the increased employment of women for duties for which they are suitable. It is hoped that Post Office facilities for the public will not be seriously curtailed; but where some restriction is inevitable, I have no doubt that it will be accepted without complaint in view of the importance of maintaining the supply of recruits for the Army. Any readjustment of labour force which is now made is for the period of the War only, and it is clearly understood that measures taken in present circumstances will not set any precedent when the service is restored to normal conditions.
    2. In order that postmen and others who enlist may not be put at a disadvantage, I propose to suspend during the period of the War all competitive examinations for higher posts for which members of the male staff are eligible.
    3. I have arranged to give a period of special leave to postmen who desire to work in the harvest, and who are offered employment by farmers. They will continue to receive their Post Office pay as usual, but they will be required to defray the cost of substitutes. Except where the conditions of distance to be travelled or weight of load to be carried are such as to preclude their employment, the substitutes may be women.

    193
    4. I feel sure that the House would desire that the Post Office, as a Government Department and as the largest employer of labour in the country, should set an example in furnishing employment to soldiers and sailors permanently disabled in the War. The question has already been closely examined, and the Department will be prepared to cooperate to the farthest extent practicable with the authority for assisting disabled men proposed to be established by the Bill now before the House. I hope that many may be employed on delivering telegrams, and accordingly instructions have been issued that no more boys should be taken on as telegraph messengers on deliveries where disabled men can properly be employed; also that disabled soldiers and sailors should be given first consideration for employment as night telephone operators and in certain other capacities.
    5. The Post Office can, I think, be of service in assisting the supply of books and magazines to the soldiers and sailors at the front, in camp, in hospital, and detained as prisoners of war. I am therefore issuing an announcement to-day inviting the public to hand in at any post office any suitable book, or any magazine not more than a year old, without address or wrapping of any kind. The Post Office will bring such books and magazines to a central depot without charge, and will there transfer them to the voluntary organisations approved by the War Office and Admiralty, which have long been engaged, under considerable difficulties, in supplying the needs in this direction of the Army and the Fleet. I would express the hope that the public will respond to the offer of the Post Office by providing an adequate supply of suitable books and magazines to occupy and interest the leisure of the soldiers and sailors.
    General Sir IVOR HERBERT: Will the men who leave the Post Office be allowed to count that time towards the Post Office pension?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think that is so, but before making the statement I shall be obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice.
    Sir W. BYLES: I did not gather to what extent my right hon. Friend expects to be able to substitute women for men in the employment of the Post Office.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot give any statistics, but women will be em-
    194
    ployed to a very large extent to fill the places of men who have enlisted or who will enlist, as postwomen, as sorters and as clerks.
    Colonel YATE: When considering this question of allowing soldiers to count their service, will the right hon. Gentleman also consider very favourably the question of soldiers who come out of the Post Office, so that a certain proportion if not all their service as soldiers will be allowed to count towards a pension?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That will certainly be considered.
    Mr. MORRELL: Has my right hon. Friend considered the advisability of communicating with the Board of Agriculture the arrangements he is making with regard to the harvest, so that they may communicate with the farmers?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, I am doing so.

    Prisons (Scotland).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in 1914 704 prisoners were sentenced for prison offences to sleeping on a wooden guard bed; if he will state the kind of bed thus used and the maximum term for which a prisoner may be condemned to sleep on it; whether he is aware that in England no prisoner may be deprived of his mattress; and whether he will consider the making of a similar rule with respect to prisons in Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The figure stated by my hon. Friend is correct. A guard bed is simply the ordinary type of prison bed, made of wooden boards. The period of punishment is fixed by the governor, subject to the concurrence of the medical officer. No maximum term is laid down. I am informed that it is not the case that no prisoner in England may be deprived of his mattress. On the contrary, prison rules expressly permit of such deprivation as a punishment.
    Mr. WATT: Is it not hard treatment like that that we have received which has made us the great nation that we are?
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) what is the maximum term for which a prisoner in Scotland may

    195
    be sentenced to solitary confinement for a prison offence; and what was the average term for which the seventy-five prisoners sentenced in 1914 to such confinement were so sentenced; and (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in 1914 no prisoner in Scotland was sentenced to solitary confinement except at Peterhead, where seventy-five prisoners were so sentenced; and whether, in view of the fact that elsewhere in Scotland the punishment has been found to be unnecessary, he will order the abolition of the punishment?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Peterhead is the only prison for male convicts in Scotland. The convicts are chiefly employed on quarrying and working granite, in association, and the punishment of separate confinement means that they are required to work in their cells at a light form of labour instead of in association. The period of punishment is imposed by the Governor, up to a maximum of twenty-eight days for minor offences, and by the Prison Commissioners, up to a maximum of nine months, for serious offences, subject in each case to the concurrence of the medical officer; the average term during which the seventy-five convicts were so confined in 1914 was six days. The conditions in a convict prison are necessarily different from those in ordinary prisons, and it is not possible to draw general inferences from one to the other.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is likely that any real grievance exists in Scotland, which the Scottish Members have not discovered?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir; I think it is most improbable.

    National Insurance (Prosecutions for Non-Payment of Rates).
    Mr. WATTasked (1) how many prosecutions for non-payment of health insurance rates have been instituted in Scotland for the last year available; and how this figure compares with similar prosecutions in England; and (2) how many prosecutions for non-payment of health insurance rates have been instituted in England for the last year available; and how this figure compares with similar prosecutions in Scotland?
    The COMPTROLLER Of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. C. Roberts): The number of prosecutions undertaken by the Commis-
    196
    sioners in England and Scotland, respectively, for non-payment of contributions under the National Insurance Acts during the year ending on the 30th June was 129 and 5.
    Mr. WATT: May I ask why harsher rules are applied to Scotland than to England in the way of prosecutions?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: On the contrary, the number of prosecutions in Scotland is only five.

    Procurators-Fiscal (Perth and Dunblane).
    Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether it is contemplated to appoint a Depute-fiscal at Dunblane; and, if so; will he see that the party appointed confines himself to the duties of the office and does not engage in private practice?
    Mr. WATTasked whether, in view of the fact that the post of Procurator-fiscal at Dunblane is to be conjoined with that at Perth, it is proposed to appoint a Depute-fiscal at Dunblane; and whether he is aware that, if such an appointment should be made, there is a local feeling that the man appointed should be confined to the duties of his public office?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): In reply to these questions, I refer to the answer given by me on this subject yesterday. For the reasons then stated, the questions now asked are primarily for the consideration of the Procurator-fiscal. I am unaware of the existence of the local feeling referred to by my hon. and learned Friend.

    East India Revenue Accounts.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he can now redeem the promise made on 6th August, 1914, that the East India Revenue Accounts would be discussed early in the present Session?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (for the Prime Minister): I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India in reference to my hon. Friend's suggestion. We do not think that any public purpose would be served by attempting to take the ordinary discussion on the East India Revenue Accounts under the present extraordinary circumstances.
    Mr. KING: Are we to assume, therefore, that no East India Revenue Accounts at

    197
    all will come up for discussion this Session, and that there will be no day for it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can only give the hon. Gentleman what the Prime Minister says on the subject. I suggest that he should speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India on the subject.
    Sir J. D. REES: Without questioning the decision, may I ask if there is not a statutory obligation to bring the Accounts before the Houses of Parliament?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am informed that there is no statutory obligation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC. (SALARIES).
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of salaries to the chairman and vice-chairman of the statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, constituted in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make better provision as to the pensions, grants, and allowances made in respect of the present War to officers and men in the Naval and Military Service of His Majesty and their dependants."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask this question, on which I wish to be quite clear, in view of the discussion in the Committee to-day. Does this money Resolution mean that the only money that is to be provided by Parliament under this Bill is money which will be required for the salary of the chairman or vice-chairman, if such are appointed? Does it mean, therefore, that if further money from the Treasury is required for the purposes of the Bill there will require to be a fresh money Resolution after this Bill becomes law?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is so. If it is suggested that any fund out of the public purse is to be placed at the disposal of the authority who is to administer this, of course that would require another Vote in Committee.
  Mr. HODGE: I am afraid the Members of the House generally have got so many duties thrust upon them that they have not the time or the opportunity of examining and analysing the proposals of the Government with that care which at other times they would display. It appears to me that this money Resolution does not go far enough, because in the Bill upon which it is founded, while provision is made for the payment of a salary to the chairman and vice-chairman of the body about to be constituted, it appears that any expenses incurred by the Committee must be a charge upon private or other charitable donations. That is not at all a good thing, and I think we ought to
  204
  have some undertaking from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the out-of-pocket expenses of those who constitute this Committee of Management ought to be paid out of public funds, and should not come from any funds which are collected from private sources. I understand that one of the things the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends doing is to raid the Prince of Wales's Fund. I do not think that will appeal to the Members of the House generally as a desirable thing. The work that is necessary in connection with any provision so far as disabled soldiers and sailors are concerned, ought to come entirely out of public moneys. It is the primary duty of the State to do this, and I trust, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us an undertaking that at a later stage he will make provision to cover the points I have now raised.
  Mr. ROCH: I understand from the ruling you have given that the Resolution we are now passing will only authorise under this Bill money from the public funds being paid for the chairman and vice-chairman. I think before we pass this Resolution we should have some kind of assurance from the Government that if the opinion should be expressed later on that under Clause 3 some further provision should be made to make those numerous powers there really effective, we should have some kind of understanding or undertaking that they will give effect to that expression of feeling. I shall be in the recollection of all who heard the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill that the strongest possible view was expressed as to the entire inadequacy of Clause 3 without some further help from the Treasury, and I really think in these days, with all the feeling of patriotism which we are all showing, it would be nothing short of a scandal if the Bill was allowed to be entirely inoperative for want of public funds. We are being enjoined on all hands to use thrift. This is the one direction on which thrift should not be exercised, and I therefore hope, with all the tales that reach us of waste of public money in many directions, we shall not have to exercise thrift and meanness in cutting down the effective operation of Clause 3 of this Bill.
  Mr. HOHLER: I entirely object to this money proposal. I see no rhyme or reason for the appointment of a salaried chairman or vice-chairman at this present

  205
  stage. Under the Resolution we should have no power, I take it, to propose any Amendment to try and do justice to those men who are concerned. Even under Clause I of the Bill, Sub-section (8), no provision is made to pay the secretaries a halfpenny. Who is going to find the money? It really comes to this, that the Government—and I am sure the House and the country would be with them—should have been jealous in regard to the men who have given their lives and their limbs and their health and they have had no war bonus of any sort or kind. They are the only people in this country who have not struck, because they have no cause except the good of the nation. Yet, forsooth, the Government are coming down to the House and proposing to us, in pursuance of a Report made by a Select Committee, a scale of pensions that we shall be bound to accept. How shall we ever raise this question again? Our endeavour will be lost unless we get a clear undertaking from the Treasury that money is forthcoming, and that there will be a sufficient supply of money.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to do that on this Resolution. It would be irrelevant. The object of putting the Resolution before the House is that the House should exercise economy in cutting down and not that it should take this opportunity of spending. All the Rules of the House are designed in that way, that the House should not extend and give more than the representative of the Crown offers. I do not think it is right to take this opportunity of pressing the Government to put a largo sum of money into the Resolution.
  Mr. HOHLER: Should I be in order in saying how inadequate and paltry this provision is? What I want to say is that it would be far better, in my judgment, to postpone the Bill than to offer a sum of money which, in my opinion, is contemptuous and inadequate. Shall I be in order in discussing that?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a good argument upon Second Reading. This Resolution, however, is of a very limited scope indeed—simply whether the chairman and vice-chairman shall receive a salary or not.
  Mr. HOHLER: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I say that if this provision is persisted in, I shall do my best to kill this Bill.
  Mr. HEWINS: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether, as a matter of fact, it is intended to finance this Bill out of the Prince of Wales' Fund?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I am astonished at the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holder). He speaks of the paltry and insignificant provision that is made in the Bill. Any provision that is made in the Bill is made solely for the purpose of giving this House an opportunity of discussing the working of it; it is not in order to find public money for the purpose of this Bill. That is not the real object at all. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely overlooked what has happened. The Government originally proposed a certain scale of separation allowances and pensions and allowances to wounded soldiers. This House, being dissatisfied with the proposals of the Government, appointed a Select Committee to reconsider the scale, and to reconsider the whole scale of Government allowances. The Select Committee reconsidered the scale and they considered other things too, and they submitted a scale of Government pensions and allowances to this House. That scale was accepted.
  Mr. HOHLER: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the scale was only accepted provisionally. We were told we should sec the Bill and have a chance of amending it.
  Mr. McKENNA: I stated the whole of the circumstances, and I had before me, not precisely this Bill, but a similar Bill in print. That scale was accepted by the House as a generous scale. I think the provision made by this scale, both for separation allowances and pensions and provision for wounded soldiers, is accepted as generous. One of the problems which the Select Committee had before them was the problem of the better-to-do soldier who had left his family, and whose absence, having regard to his income, left his home far worse off in proportion to the scale of his living than was the case in regard to the larger class of recruits. We had to consider the problem whether the case of such a soldier's dependants was a case to be met out of public funds, and we unanimously came to the conclusion that so far as public funds were concerned, at any rate in the first instance, we must give a flat rate which would be sufficiently generous to cover the whole mass of the

  207
  community. That is what we did, but we were not oblivious to the need of seeing how far, by voluntary effort, we could arrange a scheme to supplement the pensions and allowances and the grants to disabled soldiers out of voluntary contributions. We proposed, therefore, a scheme by which a new statutory Committee would be set up, and we contemplated, and I still contemplate, that at any rate, in the first instance, that scheme shall be financed out of private contributions, in accordance with the general scheme of the Committee. If we ask the House now to give a large Vote in support of this scheme, we should be directly contravening the principle which had the direct sanction of this House, that so far as public money was spent on separation allowances, it should be on a flat rate. There was no section of the House more ardent in support of that principle than my hon. Friends who usually speak from the Labour Benches.
  Mr. HODGE: We are in favour of that.
  Mr. McKENNA: This Bill proposes to supplement the flat rate in individual cases, but how can we come forward in the first instance and say that Parliament shall finance this Bill out of public money. It would be a direct contradiction of the principle that Parliament has already accepted. It is quite true that I have suggested, and I do suggest now, because I think it is the wisest course, that the Prince of Wales' Fund should hand over to this new body so much of its money as it chooses to allocate for the purpose of naval and military expenditure.
  Sir GODFREY BARING: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to go into these matters on this Resolution?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not relevant to this Resolution. It is relevant to the Bill but not to this particular Resolution.
  Mr. McKENNA: I apologise for being out of order. I have gone a great deal outside the terms of the Resolution, but I felt it necessary to do so in view of the misunderstanding on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holder). I will not carry the point further than to say that I think that this new statutory Committee would be the best body to administer so much of the Prince of Wales' Fund as the governing body think would be properly devoted to naval and military
  208
  purposes. We shall hope also to recover from the War Office the very large sums which the Prince of Wales' Fund has already expended out of their voluntary contributions, which we think should have been met originally by the War Office. If we get that contribution from the War Office then we start with a large capital sum, but all of it from private contributions. Following the principle of the Bill we should then hope that we can get a large sum of money from private contributions to finance that part of the Bill, but if when all is said and done we have not enough money we shall have to come to Parliament and say that our hopes have not been realised. But to come to Parliament in the first instance is to prevent private contributions and the whole principle of our scheme is that there should be private contributions.
  Sir C. K1NLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to refer to the Prince of Wales' Fund when the Bill refers only to the National Fund?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only question now before the House is whether the chairman and vice-chairman of the new body which is to be set up are or are not to be paid out of public funds.
  Mr. McKENNA: I submit after this brief explanation that it is proper that the salary of the chairman and vice-chairman should be paid out of Parliamentary funds for the purpose of giving this House some measure of criticism in regard to and some direct knowledge of what is happening in connection with the work of the statutory Committee.
  Mr. HODGE: What about the expenses of the Committee?
  Mr. McKENNA: The expenses of the Committee will be paid out of their funds, but by putting the expenses of one or two of the new body's principal officers upon the Parliamentary Estimates we secure an annual power in this House of reviewing the work of this Committee. I hope that the House will now accept this Resolution.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am not going to deal with the question of the desirability of the appointment of two paid officials instead of having this work done by voluntary workers. Assume that the Government think that they cannot get work of this kind done by voluntary workers, then, if that is so, it is a very simple matter for

  209
  a limit on the amount of expenditure to be put in the Money Resolution. It is a course which I have urged very often in this House. This is essentially a Resolution to which a limit should be put. We should know the amount of the salary which it is proposed to give to these two officials. It is desirable that the House of Commons should keep a very tight hold over these matters. That is the object of these Resolutions as to the amounts to be paid in connection with every new appointment. It is not creating a precedent. We pressed for it two or three times under the late Government and our request was granted, and I would press the Government very strongly that in this case we should know the amount which is going to be spent on the creation of new salaried officers, assuming that salaried officers are necessary.
  Mr. SPEAKER: You could have moved that in the Committee on the Clause, but of course you cannot move it now. I have already put the Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee."
  Sir FRANCIS LOWE: May I ask whether the only object of the right hon. Gentleman in paying this chairman and vice-chairman out of public funds is to bring the Committee under the review of this House? It seems to me that that is a very insufficient reason for paying these two officials out of public funds. If the rest of the Bill is to be financed out of private contributions I cannot see why the salary of the chairman and vice-chairman should not be provided in a similar way. If the Committee did anything wrong or improper it would be quite within the province of any one person to bring their action before this House for discussion and criticism. But if the whole principle of this Bill is to pay the charges out of private contributions I cannot see why an exception should be made in the case of the salary of the chairman and vice-chairman. I think that a little more explanation on that point is required before we pass this Resolution.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: It is of the utmost importance that the two officials mentioned should be officials under the control of this House and paid by this House. They have not merely duties to perform in connection with the voluntary fund, but they have also extremely responsible duties to perform in connection with the allowances which are made by this
  210
  House. They are to decide whether the separation allowance has been forfeited or not. They are to decide also as between two or more claimants which of them is entitled to draw it, and they are to determine any other questions that are referred to them. This House would do well to keep officials performing such important duties under its control by paying them. If you had not ruled it out of order I would have liked to refer to the Section" as to deciding between two claimants, showing how necessary it might be to consider this matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will get an opportunity in an hour or so.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask whether the object in this case could not be obtained by putting on the funds the salary of the secretary, or the assistant-secretary, which would be a much more satisfactory thing than putting on the salary of the chairman and vice-chairman? There are plenty of people in this country who would be prepared to take the place of the chairman or vice-chairman without payment of any sort, and would it not be possible to attain the object in view by transferring the payment by this House to the salaries of some such officials of the Department as the secretary and the assistant-secretary, while the chairman and vice-chairman will discharge their duties as honorary officials?
  Sir G. BARING: Might we have some kind of reply from the Government? We are all being exhorted by people in high places to exercise rigid economy. Is it really necessary, then, at such a time to appoint two new salaried officials under a Bill of this kind? What the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to do, I understand, is to secure that there should be some control by this House over the proceedings of the statutory Committee. That would be secured, as the hon. Member has stated, by appointing the secretary as a Government official and, if necessary, taking a discussion on his salary in this House. But I do think in the meantime, with the object of saving anything that is possible, that the right hon. Gentleman might consider whether it is really necessary to appoint these two officials at salaries which will have to be on a fairly generous scale.
  Mr. McKENNA: The officers of the Department, who must be responsible to this House, will have to be the head of the Department. It is no good having the

  211
  salaries of subordinate officers on the Estimates, leaving them to be discussed or criticised, while their superiors whose orders they obey escape scot free. I might mention that in the first instance certainly we do not propose to appoint two paid officers; we only appoint one, but we take power to appoint two because we do not know how far the work of this Committee is going to extend. We have to keep in view the question of disabled soldiers and sailors, and it may possibly be that the work will require two.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I was for many years the only salaried officer on the Scotch Education Vote, and the discussion was taken on the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland.
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think there is any analogy to the present case. The Secretary for Scotland was not in this House at the time.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Yes he was.
  Mr. McKENNA: I thought that he was in another House. If he was in this House at the time the House had ample opportunity for discussing it. In the present case the chairman and vice-chairman may not be in this House, and the House might have no opportunity of discussing the conduct of the really responsible person. You must have the really responsible person who is doing the work responsible to this House. We shall certainly have every regard for economy, and we do not intend to appoint two paid officials unless it is absolutely necessary.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I personally welcome very much the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman made a misleading comparison between the secretary of the new Department, which is to be set up, and himself in his former distinguished capacity as secretary for the Scotch Education Department. When the hon. Gentleman held that position he was called the secretary, but he was really the dictator of that office. He described himself in formal notes as "My Lords of the Council of Education for Scotland," but "My Lords of the Council" were only the hon. Gentleman opposite all the time. We do not want a similar situation in connection with the Committee being set up under this Bill.
  212
  We wish the chairman of this Committee to direct the policy of the Committee, and to give his whole time, or practically his whole time, to the direction of policy. Consequently, it is of the utmost importance that the salary of the gentleman who directs the policy of the Committee should be on the Votes, and subject to the control and criticism of this House.
  Sir J. JARDINE: I support the Resolution. We have just heard an explanation as to how far the Resolution is to extend as regards amount, and, by this means, we bring before Parliament year by year a large expenditure, not only out of Parliamentary funds, but out of other expenditure on public purposes. In that way we place on the highest officers of this Corporation the necessity of economy. The suggestion that the secretary, instead of the chairman or deputy-chairman, should be responsible to this House, would be entering upon a most unbusinesslike and unprecedented course.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Statutory Committee of Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.)
    (1) For the purposes hereinafter mentioned relating to pensions and grants and allowances made in respect of the present War to officers and men in the naval and military services of His Majesty and their wives, widows, children and other dependants, and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War there shall be constituted a statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), consisting of twenty-six members, appointed as hereinafter mentioned.
    (2) Of the said twenty-six members—ten (of whom one shall be chairman and one vice-chairman and not less than two shall be women) shall be appointed by His Majesty;

    one shall be appointed by the Treasury;

    one shall be appointed by the Admiralty;

    213

    one shall be appointed by the Army Council;

    one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board;

    one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland;

    one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland;

    six (of whom not less than two shall be women) shall be appointed by the General Council of the Corporation;

    two shall be appointed by the Governing Body of the National Relief Fund;

    two shall be appointed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association.

    (3) Four of the members appointed by the General Council of the Corporation shall be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation, but save as aforesaid it shall not be necessary that the persons appointed to be members of the Statutory Committee should at the time of appointment be members of the Corporation.
    (4) There may be paid to the chairman and vice-chairman, or either of them, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine.
    (5) All other expenses of the Committee (including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Committee.
    (6) Five members of the Statutory Committee shall constitute a quorum, and the Statutory Committee may appoint subcommittees consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Statutory Committee, and may delegate to such subcommittees, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers and duties under this Act. Subject to this provision, the Committee shall regulate their own procedure.
    (7) The term of office of a member of the Statutory Committee shall be three years; but a retiring member shall be eligible for reappointment: Provided that if a member required to be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation ceases for two months to be a member of the Corporation otherwise than as a member of the 'Statutory Committee he shall at the end of that period vacate his office as member of the Statutory Committee, and that a person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall continue in
    214
    office so long only as the person in whose place he was appointed would have continued in office.
    (8) The Statutory Committee may employ a secretary, assistant secretaries, and such other clerks and servants as they may require, and may establish a scheme of pensions for persons in their permanent employment.
    4.0 P.M.
    The CHAIRMAN: On Clause 1, with regard to the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), I rather think it has been put down for the purpose of such a discussion as the House, a few minutes ago, has been engaged in. There are other Amendments lower down on the Paper which propose to insert certain words, one in the name of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson), to insert the words, "Out of moneys provided by Parliament." It is quite plain that those words, if they had been in the Bill as it left the House on the Second Reading, must have been put in italics, and they must have been authorised by special Resolution before going into Committee. Therefore, it is not competent for me to receive such an Amendment without the necessary authorisation. I would suggest to the Committee—and perhaps it may be convenient—that the proper place at which anything might be said of that nature is when we arrive at the point of proposing that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. It will be perhaps for the convenience of the Committee that I should indicate that beforehand, and' relieve some Members from anxiety.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD' (Mr. Hayes Fisher): On Clause 3, will there be a general discussion following the lines of the speech of my right hon. Friend, on the advantages and disadvantages of having public funds placed at the disposal of a statutory body?
    The CHAIRMAN: I never like to use the words "general discussion" in Committee; a reasonably limited discussion would, I think, properly arise on Clause 3, dealing with what are the duties to be imposed upon this statutory Committee. Obviously, hon. Members are then entitled to ask, How are they going to carry on those duties? And I think it is right that, hon. Members should have an opportunity of putting questions which Ministers may answer.
    Mr. HOGGE: The point I and others had in our minds in putting these Amendments down is that we are not so much concerned about having an opportunity of general discussion as we are concerned in securing a Parliamentary pledge from the Treasury that, if necessary, subsequently, the money will be provided. If that pledge is given there need be no general discussion. That is really what we want. If that pledge be given we do not want to discuss the matter at length; we only desire to be perfectly certain that, if necessary, the capital, as a whole, will be forthcoming to finance this Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: When we have gone through Clause 3, defining the duties of this statutory authority, the hon. Gentleman is clearly entitled, supposing the funds indicated in the Bill are insufficient, to ask what is the proposal to deal with that matter. That is clearly the proper occasion on which to raise the hon. Member's point.
    Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "grants" ["grants and allowances made"], to leave out the words "and allowances."
    In moving this Amendment I wish to raise the question of the exclusion of separation allowance entirely from this Bill, but I am in some doubt whether the word "allowances" which is 'given here, without putting in the word "separation," includes anything beyond what we know as "separation allowance." I wish to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill if he can explain this point before I proceed any further. If it includes something more I do not want to omit the words "and allowances."
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The word "allowances" undoubtedly includes separation allowance as well as other allowances which might be made of an official character for other authorised grants.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: In that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "allowances" ["allowances made in respect"], to insert the words "other than separation Allowances."
    This Bill proposes to upset all existing arrangements as to separation allowances which have been in existence nearly since
    216
    the War first began. It is necessary to remind the House what actually took place. Before the 1st August only the wife of a soldier married on the strength had the allowance, but after that date every married soldier became entitled to separation allowance, and an enormous amount of work and responsibility was immediately placed on the War Office, for which they had no adequate staff whatever. It is hardly too much to state that if it had not been for the existence of the National Relief Fund and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, which had the nucleus of committees scattered about all over the country, there would have been very serious trouble indeed. Those committees at once got to work; they included the membership of a great army of voluntary workers, whose devotion to this work deserves all praise, and who, by giving their services, reduced the cost of administration to a very small amount. I think I am right in saying they amounted to scarcely a penny in the pound of the amount given away. Moreover, after eleven months' experience, these committees, with something like 900 branches scattered all over the country, have accumulated a very large knowledge of the practices of the War Office and of the different circulars that have been issued and a knowledge of dealing with all cases brought before them that no other body possesses.
    Instructions have been issued dealing with every kind of case which can possibly arise. To throw all this away in the middle of a crisis of this nature, and to place the work in the hands of people who are entirely inexperienced, strikes me as a most absurd proposition at the outset. It is not as if a case had been made out against the association. I happen to be a member of the executive council, and I know that the work has been done efficiently. I have acted as chairman of one of the local committees in London, and I can say that not a single case which had a legitimate claim on the funds of the association has been neglected or allowed to suffer from any unavoidable delay which occurred in the separation allowances from the War Office owing to pressure of work. Many applicants have expressed gratitude for the trouble taken and the sympathy shown to them. I am quite sure if the hon. Member for Black-friars (Mr. Barnes) were present he would support what I have said. He paid a visit with me to my own local committee, and personally investigated the work and saw a

    217
    good many of the applicants at the time. There is another reason why this work should not be transferred to another body—
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: On a point of Order. I would like to ask whether it is in order upon this Amendment to discuss the question of the setting up of a Committee, because after all it is to be set up for the purpose of deciding and recommending with regard to grants and pensions? It has nothing to do with the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association as such, and the separation allowances are fixed already by the Report of the Committee, and the new Committee would not in any way touch that point.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member had looked through the Order Paper he would, I think, have observed that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir Charles Nicholson) has a series of Amendments, of which this, I understand, is the first.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I know that.
    The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that this is an appropriate place to raise the question whether all reference to separation allowances should be struck out of this Bill and from the functions of the new authority.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I am not discussing that point. The point I am raising is whether we are going into a general discussion here upon the merits of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. I think it is not an appropriate place to do so.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is only reasonable in introducing his proposal that this particular matter should be excluded in toto from the affairs of the new body.
    Mr. WING: Will it be in order for every hon. Member to deliver a speech pushing his own shop?
    The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member trust me to deal with the matter? If all hon. Members were as brief as the hon. Member for Doncaster in explaining their Amendments we should make better progress.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: I have no wish to press the claims of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association any more than any other society which is doing a considerable amount of work for the relief of distress. I have only been pointing out that this
    218
    business has been satisfactorily done up to the present time by this association, and there is no reason why we should take it away from the association. There is-another reason why we should not do so and that is that, after all, separation allowances will not last longer than the duration of the War, and they will then automatically cease. That seems to me a very strong reason why the present arrangement should not be upset, at any rate, for the duration of the War, and why the society which has done the work so efficiently and so economically in the past should continue to deal with the separation allowances till they automatically come to an end with the declaration of peace. There is another and still more serious reason for leaving them as they are, and it is administrative. In the War Office it has been the practice for many years past to divide the two Departments, that is, into the men who are still serving with the Colours and into those who may have lost their lives or who have been discharged from the Army. Two entirely different sets of officials deal with each-kind of case. This Bill is an attempt to-fix the two together, and the result of that will be, I think, only to produce confusion. I would also like to point out that the Statutory Committee has no funds at all at its disposal for the purpose of supplementing allowances where necessary. There is no suggestion that the Government intend to place any funds at the disposal of the new body, so that they would have to rely on voluntary contributions. Although those might be obtained locally, it by no means follows that they can be easily obtained by a central body. On the other hand, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association has been supported and financed from the outset by the National Relief Fund, and this arrangement would mean that that support would fail or would be withdrawn. I trust that the Government will accept this Amendment, and strike out all allusion to separation allowances, and define the scope for dealing with pensions, whether to widows, orphans or dependants, or disablement allowances.
    Mr. HOGGE: I consider this is one of the most important points in the Bill. Hon. Members on the Front Bench must recognise from the number of letters and requests they have had from the Members of the House that there is a type of separation allowance which the War Office and the Admiralty cannot deal with at this

    219
    moment. It is impossible for them to do so. It is unnecessary in Committee to state the facts again, but may I give a typical case, and one which has occurred in the experience of a great number of lion. Members? It is the case of a lad who has joined the Army, and has not sought any separation allowance for his dependants, because his father was capable of maintaining the family, and allowing him to go into the Army. Since the lad joined the Army the father has died, and the weekly wage has ceased to come into the house. In spite of the fact that that lad is willing to make an allotment to his mother, so that she may get the separation allowance, neither the Admiralty nor the War Office have power to give it. If you rule out from this new body the power to deal with cases of that kind you are committing a very great hardship. I would prefer that the Select Committee should deal with a case of that kind, but do not let this House rule out the opportunity of getting the separation allowance which those people deserve, because of some technical reason which now prevents them.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: As vice-chairman of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, I must be expected to have some small affection for that body. I make bold to say that it is the only agency at the time when the War broke out which could have been chosen for the administration of the National Relief Fund. The association was not equally strong in all parts, and it was very weak in some parts, but in those parts where it was very weak the work was done by local relief committees, and it was very well done on the whole. In every place the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association has been greatly strengthened, and there are now something like 900 different working branches. I think it has earned the praise and commendation of all those who care for this work. One of those who worked hardest in this difficult and delicate work is my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson). It is not to be wondered at if he is in some fear lest that good work would be stopped by some change that might be contemplated in this Bill. After all, this Bill only gives power to the statutory Committee to deal with allowances, but it does not follow that the Committee would at once exercise that power, or that to any large extent it would in any way oust the pre-
    220
    sent body which is doing that work, and doing it effectively. That would be a matter for their consideration. The Bill does give them jurisdiction to deal with the very deserving case just raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). There is an operative Clause which I hope will have great effect in enabling that statutory body not only to deal with such hard cases as that, but to deal generally with all hard cases which, as I have more than once stated, will arise, no matter how generous may be the conditions of eligibility which apply to State funds. State funds always leave outside, and must leave outside, many deserving cases. Those deserving cases would be dealt with, I have no doubt, by the statutory Committee. The Committee will also have power to deal with separation allowances, but it does not in the least follow that it will make any great change, particularly at first in the way of distribution of the money placed at its disposal.
    Mr. PRINGLE: What is the attitude of the Government?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I thought I made it plain that I could not accept the Amendment.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of not upsetting the present circumstances under which these separation allowances are given? Would it not be possible to insert some Clause to say that the separation allowances will continue to be administered in the way in which they are administered at present, and that the statutory Committee will not interfere with them except when necessary? Will the right hon. Gentleman insert something of that kind, so as to safeguard the work which is now being so well and valuably done.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think there is a misunderstanding about the powers of this Committee to deal with the separation allowances. I have, read the Report of the Select Committee which considered this matter and they did not propose in any way that this Committee should deal with separation allowances where there are no difficulties. That is really the point. Where the wife is entitled to a separation allowance, and where she is getting it weekly from either the Admiralty or the War Office, there is nothing in this Bill to interfere with that allowance. The only

    221
    thing that is in this Bill is to give supplementary grants in addition to those separation allowances, or to give allowances where they do not now exist. That Select Committee was said to be, when it was set up, representative of the two sides of the House. We had the present Colonial Secretary upon it and also the right lion. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. That Committee sat for six days upon this particular question of administration. In the second paragraph of paragraph (4), the Report says:—
    "In proper cases to supplement out of voluntary funds of a national character those separation allowances and pensions paid by the State, the scale of supplementary giants should be fixed in accordance with settled principles uniform all over the country."
    Now it is the recommendation of this Committee that these supplementary grants out of any fund should be paid through this Committee and not, as the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson) pleads, through his organisation. I do not want to go into the disputed points with regard to this organisation, but let me remind the hon. Member of this fact: The Prince of Wales' Fund at this time is really fed out of contributions made by the working classes of this country out of their wages. So far as the upper classes are concerned and the middle classes, they have stopped contributing, and you will find in all our towns that the money now—I do not want you to rule me out of order, Mr. Whitley, after you have admitted the question of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association, because I am coming to that point.
    My point is that unless you change the stream of that money, or as Sir Charles Harris told the Committee, that conduit-pipe, from the Prince of Wales' Fund through the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association, that money will come to an end. I can speak for men in the North of England. They are holding meetings, and they say, "We have no representation on these committees." This vast sum of money, amounting at the end of December to £703,000, was handed over to these committees, or these associations, with no public representatives. The contributors—that is, the working man—say, "Unless we can have representation upon this Committee"—and they have made representations to me to that effect—"we will stop contributing." What the Committee have stated is that they recommend in future that all voluntary funds should be focussed in the statutory Committee, and that the statutory Committee should distribute any
    222
    supplementary grant, either dependant allowances or separation allowances, and that these should then go through those local committees which will really represent the public. That is the essence of the question. It does not arise here, but on a Clause later; but I do say that unless this Committee is set up for the purpose of giving these grants, then the money will be stopped.
    Mr. BIGLAND: It seems to mc that this Amendment is not a wise one, because as I know, as one who has taken a good deal of interest in this work, that these allowances must be supervised by the local committee. One point in this Bill I like so much is that the statutory Committee will work through the local committees. I know in my own Constituency of one works where the men subscribe large sums of money as subsidiary allowances to those made by the Government, and that committee must have knowledge of what is being paid in each family, so that it shall know how to hand out the money at its disposal. I think the Bill is wise in putting in the statutory Committee as against the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association, which undoubtedly has done a great deal of good work. The formation of local committee? would be a great deal obstructed if the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association were put in the front of this movement, and therefore I think, when we come to form our local committee, the fact that they are under the statutory Committee will have the best effect.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I think we shall all agree that what is desirable that this work should be carried out with as little overlapping and as little waste of energy as possible. I am not able to state what is being done at present in respect to borough councils, but no doubt other hon. Members can. The present system is that the Government have asked county councils to undertake two things: to set up machinery which will enable all questions to be settled which affect dependants other than wives of soldiers. They have asked them to assist in organising the National Belief Fund in their respective areas, and they have been asked, therefore, to set up two separate bodies. What happens? The Old Age Pensions Committee is called upon to examine into every case where an application is put forward by a dependant, other than a wife, for a supplementation of the separation allowance. When it is urged that this separation allowance is insufficient, or has not

    223
    come to hand, and that it is needed to advance it, you go to another body to deal with that question. My hon. Friend proposes that you should set up a third body for the purpose of dealing with this question of pensions for disabled soldiers. In my opinion it is not necessary to set up a third body but to unify existing machinery and have only one body which would have cognisance of all these questions. Obviously, from the very start, people who take an interest in the matter know the facts in regard to every individual case, and they are the best people to decide whether it is necessary to augment separation allowances and to deal with the question of pension with reference to the same soldier. I venture to suggest that not only should this Amendment be resisted—I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher) has resisted it—but I should hope that as we go on we shall be able to see to it that we are able to unify the existing machinery, so that one body wilt deal with all the questions of separation allowances, augmentations, and pensions.
    Mr. MOUNT: I am sorry to differ from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and from the majority of the speakers on this Amendment, but I should like to ask the Committee seriously to consider before they refuse to accept it. It means, as far as I understand it, that if this Amendment is rejected you are going to kill the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association. A good deal has been said by other speakers here as to the good work done in some districts by that association. I am not going to back up my own particular association, but I know there are many cases where extraordinarily good work has been done by it. You are going to take away a large part of their work. There is very little doubt that the result will be that these associations will wither and die. What has been one of the greatest assets of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association? I do not think it has been mainly that they have been able to be the distributing means of the pensions given, but because they have been able to set up a personal sympathy with the wives and dependants of men at the front which otherwise would not exist. You will not get that in a public body, set up by a county council or an urban district council, but you have had it in a very large number of cases through the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association and the women who have been taking a great deal of interest in it. The hon.
    224
    Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) referred to a very hard case, of which I have had instances myself, and where I know the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association have been able to assist in the past. You will make it more difficult to assist these cases in the future unless you leave them outside the Bill, and therefore I hope the Amendment will be carried.
    Mr. HOHLER: I really think the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson) is not desirable for the reasons given by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). I think it exceedingly important that, if there is an appropriate remedy for the case he made, this question of separation allowance in regard to such a case as was sketched, it is of exceeding importance; and, if we exclude it from the purview of this Bill, it is obvious we cannot raise that, and that a question which calls for remedy will remain under statutory sanction. There is another reason why the Amendment is unnecessary. We have heard a good deal about the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association. Speaking for myself, as I understand this Bill, it has, except as to sending a representative to the statutory body, no representation at all as a body. It may send a representative to the statutory body, but it is the statutory body with which we have concern, and no outside association will be effective at all. It may be, as I understand the Bill, that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association will say, "We do not like this hypothetical body and these hypothetical funds, and we will keep these grants," and they cannot be interfered with. As I understand the Bill, this is quite clear, that, speaking broadly, the question of separation allowances never come before the statutory Committee at all, unless there is a question of the forfeiture of the separation allowance, or the question of who is entitled to it, or unless under, I think, Sub-clause (b), a point is referred by the Admiralty or the War Office to the statutory Committee.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: Or supplementation.
    Mr. HOHLER: Yes, quite so. Therefore you do not interfere with separation allowances. They are paid under the warrant or regulation, or whatever it may be called, of the Government, or the Army, or the Navy. It goes direct to the recipient. The point of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh is very important and

    225
    I hope he has an appropriate Amendment. It had not occurred to me. I have an Amendment which I hoped would meet it, but it is not quite wide enough. It would not be desirable to add the words proposed "other than separation allowances," but to leave the Bill as it stands, so that we may endeavour to put our views before those in charge of the Bill as to what ought to be done. I venture to suggest that it is an undesirable Amendment.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. HODGE, and Mr. LESLIE SCOTThad given notice to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "care" ["care of officers"], to insert the words "other than their training for and transference to civil employment."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) appears to me to be a subject for Clause 3, line 38, paragraph (i), and not for Clause 1.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "constituted" ["shall be constituted a statutory Committee"], to insert the words "under the direction of the Local Government Board."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to insist that, in regard to the administration of this scheme, there will be someone directly responsible who can be addressed in the House of Commons. That is of enormous consequence. We are setting up a statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Corporation, and apparently that is going to be endowed very largely with private money. If you have that statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Corporation endowed with private money you are in danger of allowing a very large part of the administration to go away from the House of Commons and to be outside the scope of the House of Commons. Therefore I am putting in this Amendment in order to see that we have someone here to whom we can address questions, and points of grievance when they arise, in regard to the soldiers and sailors and those dependent upon them. I think the proper office is the Local Government Board. There is no one in this House who takes a deeper interest in these questions than does the present President
    226
    of the Local Government Board, and I therefore think this is the best arrangement.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: In regard to the object of the Mover of the Amendment, that of an opportunity of presenting to this House and fully discussing the work of the statutory Committee, I may mention that already the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed the House that on the salary of the chairman or the vice-chairman there will be such opportunity. I cannot accept the words of the Amendment. If the hon. Member looks at them he will see that it would be impossible to constitute this Committee under the direction of the Local Government Board. There are, he must remember, the committees that run in Scotland and Ireland, as well as those that run in England and Wales. The Local Government Committee only runs in England and Wales. I think it would be as well if a little time were given to see whether the work of this Committee should not hereafter be hitched up in some way to some Department. That requires a little time, and a little discussion between my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There has not been time lately for that discussion. Only this morning I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. He was quite of opinion that the Local Government Board was probably the best body for the supervision and oversight, so far as necessary, of the work of this statutory Committee. If Members will look at the Bill they will see all through that the work of this Bill is to be done by local committees—local committees brought into existence by lord mayors, mayors, chairmen of county councils, and so on. In fact, the whole of this Bill, as it were, is seamed with local government. I trust, therefore, the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. I can assure him that we have every desire to meet him so far as the motive is concerned which prompted him to put down the Amendment.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I am very glad indeed that my right hon. Friend has practically agreed to adopt the principle put forward, although not the actual words of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend began by stating that the Amendment in itself was not really

    227
    required, because of what had fallen at various stages from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Not for the one purpose of having discussion in the House, but I think some hitching up of this body to a Department of the State may subsequently be required.
    Mr. McNEILL: What I was going to suggest was that it was quite clear from the discussion upon the Money Resolution that the general feeling in the House was that it was a very objectionable plan having two salaried officials. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the same object is reached by, to use his own language, "hitching up" with some Government Department, with the consequence of giving an opportunity for that Parliamentary discussion which was the one and only object of the two salaried officials. Therefore I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that whatever the proper method may be, we should adopt the proposal in the hon. Member's Amendment, the principle of which my right hon. Friend has accepted, and should get rid of the salaried officials, who can become no longer necessary for that only purpose for which they were put in.
    Mr. HOGGE: I would say in reply to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that after all we are apt to forget, by not looking intimately enough into this Bill, that very serious duties will be laid upon this Committee for a very large number of years. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend quite realises that the whole care of disabled soldiers and sailors, their health and so forth, is committed to this body. It will be very responsible work. In regard to the suggestion about the salary of the chairman being on the Consolidated Fund, I do not think that that is the opportunity that the House wishes. At the present time the House is sitting in an abnormal way, and such an occasion as discussion on Consolidated Fund Bills, or any one of them, presents an opportunity for discussion. But in ordinary Parliamentary times that occasion is taken up by big Parliamentary questions. I want to make this suggestion to my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill in regard to the body that controls it. The Member for Attercliffe suggested the Local Government Board.
    The House will remember that we have already committed to one Member of the
    228
    Cabinet the duty of representing the Insurance Commission in this House. The Chancellorship of the Duchy is a Cabinet office which is well paid, and it has no duties attached to it. The House will remember that in normal times the Chancellor of the Duchy was made responsible for answering questions in the House on insurance. This is a similar kind of work. Either this Cabinet, or future Cabinets, might easily free whoever occupies that office, and make him responsible for replying in the House at Question Time to any points. I hope the hon. Member will insist upon that kind of representation in the House. We must know, when the War is over, that we are going to have in our constituencies great numbers of men who will come to us with just demands, which may have been overlooked, and we ought to be entitled to put these points in the House continuously. I think, therefore, it is essential that a Minister in the Cabinet should be responsible on that Front Bench for this body. I am suggesting the alternative, which the right hon. Gentleman might consider, in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy is responsible now in this respect for the whole of the insurance scheme—a duty laid upon him by the Prime Minister—that in future he may also have this duty laid upon him.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I object to this Amendment on the ground that, having formed a statutory Committee who are to exercise the distribution of voluntary funds, we do not want interference from one of the Departments of the State. The responsibility of that Committee will be very much weakened if you do any such thing as put it under the direction of the Local Government Board. If it is put under the direction of the Local Government Board, the initiative of the statutory Committee will be very much weakened. I sincerely trust it will not be hitched on to any Department of the State. We are not going to use the State money, except for these salaries; and in my opinion the independence of this Committee will be very much greater if it is not under the State.
    Mr. MORRELL: Before my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment, I would just like to emphasise the point raised by the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). What I think is really wanted in this institution is that it should be hitched on in such a way to the State that a Minister will be here to answer questions from day to day with regard to the work of the

    229
    Department. The mere fact of having a discussion once a year on the Consolidated Fund Bill, or on the Local Government Board Vote, is of comparatively little avail. What we really want is to be able to ask detailed questions and get detailed replies.
    Mr. MCNEILL: It appears to me that the objections taken by hon. Members opposite have not very much force, be cause the hitching up of this statutory Committee to a Government Department is merely a matter of Parliamentary arrangement, so as to give an opportunity for reply from day to day to questions—as in the example given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh in relation to the Insurance Commissioners. In the ordinary course there would only be opportunity given once or twice for discussion on some Vote or other in the Estimates. The arrangement made would be to meet the convenience of the House, and the particular Minister who happened to be at that time the Chancellor of the Duchy could answer the questions in the House. I rather gathered from what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh said that he considered there was some inherent connection between the Insurance Commissioners and the Chancellor of the Duchy. That is not so at all. Any Member might be able to answer those particular questions, or I suppose in regard to this matter—
    Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman was appointed Chairman of the Insurance Commissioners.
    Mr. McNEILL: Exactly, and in this matter, whatever the Department the statutory Committee was connected with, no doubt the head of that Department would answer questions here from day to day. I quite agree that would be very desirable.
    Mr. HODGE: In the former speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down he seemed to infer, from a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the paragraphs respecting the appointment of chairman were merely put down for the purpose of raising an annual discussion and having questions raised. That is not so. This Bill is based upon a Committee's Report. The work will be of such an arduous character as to require such great organising ability that there must be really a man at the head. I only say that so that it may remove misconceptions. Having sat upon one of the Committees to look into this matter I know how the thing
    230
    stands. If any Member goes through the Reports he will find that the duties of this Committee are very extended indeed. They are necessary and essential. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has met the Amendment of my hon. Friend who sits near me, and I am sure that after the very satisfactory way in which it has been received he will be prepared to withdraw it, depending upon the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has met us in this matter. We are working for Parliamentary control over administration of this kind. The hon. Gentleman opposite says there is going to be no public money in this matter except the payment of the chairman and the vice-chairman. We were told that £5,000,000 will be required to carry out the operations of this Committee. The hon. Gentleman opposite takes a very rosy view of the matter if he believes that Parliament is not going to be called upon for a very considerable part of that money. Therefore I believe there is need for Parliamentary control. In view, however, of the pledge I have received, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Before this Amendment is withdrawn I would like to make one point which is in danger of being overlooked. We are getting into a confusion between two different systems. I see a great deal in the proposal made by the hon. Member that there should be somebody to answer questions, as is done in the case of the Insurance Commissioners by the Chancellor of the Duchy. That is a matter of arrangement. It may be good or better or worse, but it is a completely different thing and quite another that it should be hitched on to a particular Department of the State, and if, say, it is done as suggested, and the President of the Local Government Board made responsible. He then must not answer the questions merely in the name of the Committee, as the Chancellor of the Duchy answers in the name of the Insurance Commissioners; he must answer on his own authority, as for a dependent Department, and as a subordinate officer of the Department for which he is responsible. These are two completely different things, and in asserting that there may possibly be a hitching on and a subordination of the Committee to his own Department the right hon. Gentleman has taken a completely different line

    231
    from that suggested by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. Either these costs will be greater or less, but do not let us confuse ourselves and think we are getting one thing when we are getting another
    Mr. RAFFAN: Might I have a promise that it is intended some Minister will answer questions?
    Sir H. CRAIK: And will be responsible.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Will be responsible and will answer questions?
    Mr. HOHLER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill will give some little explanation as to how the Amendment of the hon. Member would work. I quite agree as to the desirability of somebody who is responsible to Parliament answering questions upon important subjects of this kind. But the difficulty I feel is how any Government Department can be made responsible for the decision of this Statutory Committee, which is, in other words, the Corporation; how the representative of any Department for the Crown—the Local Government Board, for instance—can be made responsible for, or can answer questions upon, a subject which is under this Act deferred for decision to the statutory Committee, and which decision may or may not be unanimous. The difficulty is as to the practicability of working, and if the representative of the Local Government Board would indicate how it would work, it would certainly be of great assistance to me. Of course, I am aware that under the Royal Patriotic Fund Act, 1903, we generally had a Member of Parliament in this House—I do not know whether it is required by the constitution—sitting as a Member of that Corporation, and I myself have addressed questions on the Paper in regard to that. Of course, that is easier to deal with because the Corporation is not so unwieldy. But I should be very glad if some indication could be given as to how this would work.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PRATT: I beg to move, to leave out the words "of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation)."
    I put down this Amendment so that it might be made clearer than, at any rate, it has been made to me what is the relation between the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation and the statutory Committee.
    232
    The right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading said that the statutory Committee would, to a large extent, draw its members from the Corporation, and that he looked upon the Corporation as of the greatest importance. Now I would like to put to him two questions: Are the powers which the Patriotic Fund Corporation possess in regard to this Bill any more than the appointing of some six members to this statutory Committee; and, in the second place, is there to be any cash nexus between the Corporation and the statutory Committee? Do you propose to draw on the fund of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the purposes of this Bill I Then, again, in speaking of the Corporation last week, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was composed of a very popular and democratic body, referring to the lord mayors, mayors, provosts and chairmen of county councils who compose the council of the Corporation. I am not at all sure that, while these members are popular and are in a way democratic, they are representative of the interests which are at stake under this Act. I would, therefore, be glad to have it made clear what are the powers the Patriotic Fund Corporation have, if any, in addition to the appointment of the six members to this statutory Committee?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The hon. Member wishes to divorce the statutory Committee from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation—that is, to destroy the scheme of the Select Committee.
    Mr. PRATT: I explained that I put the Amendment down merely to get the point made clearer.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The hon. Gentleman has only put it down in order that there may be a little conversation. Then I may tell him I do attach very great importance to the connection between the statutory Committee and the Corporation, not only because the Corporation will appoint a good many members to the statutory Committee, but from the fact that the Corporation will meet, I hope, three or four times a year, that they will provide me with a popular discussion which will find its way into all the papers, and, if the hon. Member will look at Clause 5, Sub-section (4), he will see—
    "The purposes of this Act shall be included amongst the purposes for which the Corporation may solicit and receive contributions from the public and donations of property."

    233
    With His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, moreover, as President of the Corporation there will be some chance, at all events, of obtaining money for this new body. I am not so hopeful as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but at all events the statutory Committee will derive great advantage, to my mind, from being connected with the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, which is certainly not an unpopular body, and has the great advantage, as I think, of having His Royal Highness the Duka of Connaught as President of the Corporation, and his interest in the work that is done.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not object to my hon. Friend asking questions simply to get information. My hon. Friend and I looked at Sub-section (2) of Clause 5, which says:—
    "In addition to the persons whom the general council of the Corporation may co-opt under the Royal Patriotic Fund (Reorganisation) Act, 1903, the council may co-opt as members thereof any number (not exceeding thirteen) of persons having special experience in work of the character to be performed by the Corporation."
    Might I ask my right hon. Friend what number the council mentioned may co-opt to that portion of the statutory Committee which is set out in Clause 1, which says six shall be appointed by the general council of the Corporation? Where do the extra thirteen come in, and what are their powers? Are their powers related to the statutory Committee, or are these thirteen that may be co-opted related to some other work of the Royal Patriotic Fund that is not brought under it by this Act? That is the real question: to find out what portion of the Royal Patriotic Fund's work is brought inside the statutory Committee and what is left outside.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I can only answer that question by asking my hon. Friend to refer—or, perhaps, he will let me refer for him—to the First Schedule of the Patriotic Fund (Reorganisation) Act, 1903. The Corporation consists of twelve members nominated by His Majesty, the lord lieutenants of counties, the chairman for the time being of every council of a county, every person for the time being entitled to the style of Lord Mayor, the mayor for the time being of every county borough, every person for the time being entitled
    234
    to the style of Lord Provost, the provost for the time being of every Royal, Parliamentary or police burgh in Scotland with a population of or exceeding 50,000, and any number of persons, not exceeding seven, whom the council of the Corporation may think fit to co-opt as members, each of whom shall have been nominated as the representative of a charitable fund founded for the like purposes as the Corporation. In looking over these, almost at the last moment, I thought it would be a very good thing if we could strengthen the Corporation and infuse new blood into it by adding thirteen to that seven, because it is from the Corporation that many members of the statutory Committee are drawn The sole idea was to make it more democratic and more popular.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel YATE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "twenty-six" ["consisting of twenty-six members"], and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-eight."
    This Amendment is preliminary to an Amendment which follows later on, in which I ask the right hon. Gentleman that two members of the statutory Committee shall be appointed by the Officers' Families Fund Association. I raised this question on the Second Reading, and I do not wish to go over the ground again; but I would like to point out now that the Bill before us concerns both officers and men. We know that the interests of the officers require more care and watching than almost any other class in the country. The officers are losing their lives not only by hundreds but by thousands in the present War. They lead their men and are more exposed, so that there is a larger percentage of casualties amongst officers than amongst men, and I think the widows and orphans of those officers deserve special care and special treatment. We all know that a certain number of officers in the Army have sufficient means of their own to provide for their widows and orphans, but there are thousands of officers who have no private means and have no provision for their widows and orphans whatsoever. Those are the ones whose interests require the most special care. The Officers' Families Fund Association, not only in this War but in the South African War, has done most magnificent work in helping the wives and children of officers. With their great experience of what is required they know best how the officers and

    235
    their families can be helped, and without their help I do not know how the special interests of the wives and children of officers can be looked after.
    The Committee as constituted by this Bill is almost purely an official Committee. It will be formed largely of—at any rate, the quorum at the meetings will be largely —permanent officials who cannot give their whole time to the matter and will simply attend the meetings. We ought, I think, to make the best use of all the voluntary aid that can be given by the charitably disposed in this country— people who are now giving their whole attention to the care of these ladies and children. I trust, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment and my subsequent Amendment, and allow representatives of the Officers' Families Fund Association to sit on the statutory Committee, for without their expert judgment I do not sec how the interests of the wives and children of officers are to be properly looked after.
    Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. There are many Members, including myself, who have Amendments on the Paper to alter the number "twenty-six" to various other numbers. There is a great variety of numbers, and it is obvious, if the Committee determine upon one particular number, we should rule out all subsequent numbers which represent various ideas on the question of representation. Would it be in order for the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to leave the number open in order that we might have a discussion which would represent our ideas?
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill might leave the words of the Clause, "consisting of members," and omit the number. I do not think that twenty-six is necessary at all.
    The CHAIRMAN: The last point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is a matter of argument and not a point of Order. I shall now have to put the Question as follows: The Amendment proposes to leave out "twenty-six" and to insert "twenty-eight." I shall have to put the Question, "That 'twenty-six' stand part of the Clause," and on that Question hon. Members can advocate other numbers or the omission of that number altogether. If "twenty-six" is not left in, then the
    236
    first Question I shall put is the hon. Member's proposal that "twenty-eight" be there inserted, and then it will be competent to substitute some other figure.
    Colonel YATE: My Amendment solely concerns one point. If the right hon. Gentleman would answer that point, it might be settled once and for all, and it does not concern any of the other points. It is, of course, entirely dependent upon a subsequent Amendment which I have on the Paper, and if the right hon. Gentleman tells us what he is going to do perhaps the whole matter, so far as my Amendment is concerned, might be disposed of.
    The CHAIRMAN: I can quite understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has another Amendment on the Paper which is consequential, but other hon. Members have something to say on this Amendment and now is their opportunity.
    Mr. HODGE: On a previous Amendment I pointed out that this Bill was founded on the Report of two separate Select Committees. I find that the representative character of the Committee about to be set up is not so good as that recommended by these other Committees. For instance, before the War is over a great many men will be coming back from the front who, before they went away, were insured persons, and one of those Committees recommended that some person connected with the Commissioners of National Health Insurance should be upon that Committee, so that their assistance and knowledge might be at the disposal of the Committee in dealing with the men who come back and who may again become insured persons. Considering the hundreds of thousands of workmen and trade unionists who have joined the Colours and who will be coming back, one of those Committees recommended that a certain proportion of working-class representative should be placed upon this new body, but I cannot find that there is a single reference to any working-class representative being elected upon this particular body. I think that is a very serious omission. So far as the old patriotic associations are concerned the working-classes in the past have been very much ignored, and that seems to be a part of the present policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When I come to the report of the Disabled Soldiers' and Sailors' Committee, I find that they recommend a representative of

    237
    the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. They also recommend that employers of labour should be upon that Committee, as well as representatives of trade unions and other labour organisations. I do not find that the employers of labour are mentioned as being a part of this Committee, any more than the workmen's representatives If you realise that when the War is over and hundreds of thousands of these men will be wanting employment, what better class of men could you have on that Committee than employers of labour who can do something to help the Committee in this matter. Undoubtedly employers and trade union representatives working in concert on a Committee of this character would undoubtedly be of extreme value to that or any other body dealing with a problem of this character. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not make up his mind hurriedly as to what the constitution of the Committee should be, and that he will give us a pledge that something will be done for the purpose of meeting the objections I have put forward, thus giving effect to the representations of the Committee to which I have referred. That would give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of giving consideration to this matter, and probably meeting the wishes of those who are now criticising this proposal when it comes to the Report stage.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I think the hon. Gentleman's point might very well be met in Sub-section (2) which provides that, "ten (of whom one shall be chairman and one vice-chairman, and not less than two shall be women) shall be appointed by His Majesty." Would it not be possible to provide that out of those ten at any rate four or five should be representatives of trade unions, insurance societies, and other societies? If that does not meet the point there is another way. The same Sub-section provides that, "Six (of whom not less than two shall be women) shall be appointed by the general council of the Corporation." There, again, is an opening for the representation of trade unions and insurance societies. My own Amendment suggests that the number should be twenty-seven. Notwithstanding that we already have several officials upon this Committee, my own view is that there should be one member appointed by the Minister of Education, and I would like to give my reasons to the Committee. As hon. Members know, there are a very large
    238
    number of men now fighting at the front who belong not only to the working classes, but to the great middle classes. when they come back there will be a great number of orphans whose education will have to be provided for by the State. In many cases if they had been alive the parents would have been able to educate their own children and they would have brought them up to some particular trade, profession, or calling. In the present circumstances all that will disappear and the Board of Education will have to take upon itself a very great responsibility in regard to these orphans. As in the case of the Belgians, I have no doubt that we shall find our public schools coming forward in this matter as well as the county councils, who will, no doubt, be equally generous, but even then there will be a very large field to be covered by the State. Consequently I think it will be necessary, and it will certainly be advisable for us to have at least one member appointed by the Board of Education, and that is why I have put down my Amendment to insert "twenty-seven" instead of "twenty-six."
    Mr. RAFFAN: I think there is a general agreement that this body should not be unduly large so as to become unwieldy. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman either to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) or to substantially increase the number. It is apparent that if you have to make provision for all the interests which ought to be represented on this body, and at the same time have representatives of the Treasury, the Local Government Board, and other bodies upon it, it will be a purely bureaucratic organisation and not in any sense democratic. No one will suggest that these public bodies should not be represented by permanent officials, but I do suggest that they should not dominate the whole organisation, and that will be the position if the representation remains as is now suggested. I have an Amendment intended to provide that we should endeavour to keep in touch with the local committee who know the practical work of administration, including representatives of the Municipal Corporations Association and the Urban District Councils Association, and it is quite impossible to do that without proposing the addition of ten representatives to the existing number. There is also a natural feeling that there should be Members of this House upon the Committee, and if all the interests I have mentioned are to be

    239
    represented then the number cannot remain at twenty-six. I have an Amendment on the Paper that the number should be enlarged to thirty, and I do not think that would be unwieldy. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the larger number or the very admirable suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras to leave the number open so that we can make such addition as we think proper.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I was rather struck with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), because I thought that what he suggested was already provided for in the Bill. One of these Committees recommended that of the twenty-five, twelve should be appointed by the Crown and two should be representatives of labour, and the Committee were strongly of opinion that labour should be represented. My recollection is very clear as to the deliberations of the Committee, and upon that point we were absolutely unanimous and the representation of labour was accepted practically without any discussion whatever. I think it is absurd that a body like this, dealing with hundreds and thousands of the widows and orphans of working men, should not have adequate representation. I understand that certain difficulties have arisen, but they must be overcome, otherwise labour would not be properly represented upon the Committee.
    Mr. PRATT: I hope that the Committee will go further than the suggestion of the Committee of which the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has just reminded us. It seems to me that we should seek to get direct representation from the working-class organisation, and especially from the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress. I suppose that there is no body in the country which is more directly representative of a greater number of those who will be affected by this Bill than the Trade Union Congress. The trade unionists of this country have worked most loyally in every phase of the crisis through which we are passing. The country owes a great debt of gratitude to the trade union leaders and to the rank and file, and it seems to me that it is a matter of very great importance for the purpose of this Bill that there should be a direct connection between the largest body that speaks for the working classes
    240
    of this country and the Statutory Committee that is to be set up. I have an Amendment down by which I suggest that some six members of this Committee should be directly appointed by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress. There are many problems in which the interests of labour are involved; there is the important question of the training of disabled men after they return. It would greatly facilitate the work of this Committee to have a direct relationship with the great working-class organisation that I have named, and I trust whatever the size of the Committee and whatever number be ultimately decided upon that at any rate the number of direct representatives from the Trade Union Congress will be decided here to-day.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I only want to make one reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Hodge) with regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I know that the right hon. Gentleman is strongly in favour personally of labour representation upon this Committee. It is distinctly in the Report that labour representation should be not less than two, and I really do not understand why it has not been put in the Bill, because two women are mentioned. I hope the Committee will set its face against getting too many representatives, representing different interests. That would be a mistake. The Committee should be representative in the widest sense of the term. It should be impartial, and it should deal with all cases. If you are going to have officers represented on this Committee, then certainly the soldiers should also be represented.
    Colonel YATE: Are there not two members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: They do not represent the soldiers.
    Colonel YATE: Who do they represent?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: They do not represent the soldiers in the strict sense of the word. I think that it ought to be a very wide and impartial Committee.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I hope the Committee will consent to an enlargement of this statutory Committee. It is much too large for an executive body, and, therefore, the thing to be aimed at is to see that it is a thoroughly representative body. I am afraid that I cannot agree with my

    241
    hon. Friend (Mr. J. Samuel) that you can appoint impartial persons who do not directly represent anybody. I do not think that you can possibly get a satisfactory body in that way. I would suggest that the Committee should be made somewhat larger than it is, in order that there may be adequate representatives not only of employers and employed and of the Health Insurance Commission, which it is recommended should be represented, but of all the other interests proper to be represented. That would facilitate increasing the number of women on the Committee. If we do not increase the number of the Committee, it seems to me that it will be quite impossible to have proper representation of all the interests which ought to be represented.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I want to support very strongly the idea of having definite working-class representation upon this Committee. If you leave out working-class representation, and it is not included in the Bill—it is quite clear from the Report that it was intended there should be such representation—you will at once destroy working-class confidence in the statutory Committee. This Committee is going to deal with problems affecting working-class homes, men, women, and children, throughout the country. There ought to be working-class representatives upon it, and they ought not to number merely two out of twenty-six. That, in my opinion, is not a sufficient proportion. I would like to see not only working-class men upon the Committee, but I think it is equally important that working-class women should be represented, and therefore the very least for which we can ask is that there should be four trade union men and two women representing the working classes upon the Committee. That is a very reasonable and moderate claim. The working people are always far too moderate. They ought to have half the representation on this Committee, but we are so modest that we are asked to accept two out of twenty-six. That is altogether too few. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher) realises that, and that he is about to make a very generous concession.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not know that my concession will be generous or that I shall be able to do much to meet the wishes of those who criticise the composition of this Committee. Nothing has been more difficult than to constitute this Committee so as to make it thoroughly repre-
    242
    sentative of all the interests which ought to be represented upon it. There is always a danger, if you enlarge a Committee of this kind, that it may become a public meeting. Having served on many such committees, I know the extreme difficulty of coming even to any general decision upon questions of policy if the Committee is too large and too representative of too-many interests, and therefore liable to be too talkative. I myself detected a weakness in the Bill so far as the constitution of this Committee is concerned. If anybody will take the trouble to read the evidence which I gave, I think they will see how very anxious I was that there should be a considerable representation of the working classes on this Committee, and I certainly understood that it was to be constituted on the lines laid down in the second Report to which my hon. Friend has referred. It was there distinctly laid down, not only that there should be not less than two women, but that there should be not less than two representatives of labour. I do not know quite how it was that in the constitution of the Committee as drawn the two representatives of labour were omitted, but I am perfectly willing to enlarge the Committee to that extent, and to add after the words "not less than two shall be women" the words "and two shall be representative of labour," taking the words from the second Report of the Committee. Then on Report, if those words are not satisfactory from the trade union point of view, and I dare say that they are not, I am quite ready to accept other words. It will give us just a little time to consider the matter. At present I offer those words as an indication that we do desire to include representatives of labour directly and men in the composition of this statutory Committee.
    It does not end there after all. The Crown is to appoint ten representatives, of whom one shall be the chairman, one shall be the vice-chairman, and not less than two shall be women. There are six left, and I can hardly suppose in these days that those who advise the Crown will not advise them to appoint some representative of the trade unions of this country. I think, therefore, quite apart from the two who can actually be named in the Bill as component parts of the statutory Committee, that there ought to be a very good chance indeed, and a very fair opportunity, for them to obtain some more representatives of labour in the ten

    243
    who will be appointed by the Crown. It is never desirable in a Bill to fetter too much the option of the Crown, though an indication can be given how that option is likely to be exercised. Again, six extra members are to be appointed by the General Council of the Corporation. I know something of the General Council of the Corporation, and there, again, I should be surprised if labour did not find some means of getting itself strengthened upon the Committee when those six members come to be appointed. If I make that concession, it enlarges the Committee from twenty-six to twenty-eight. I have been appealed to that somebody should appear on this Committee who would represent the Commissioners of Health Insurance. I am disposed to meet that desire. I believe that it is a desire somewhat largely shared, and I am willing to enlarge the composition of the Committee, and to have one member to represent the Commissioners of Health Insurance.
    Mr. HOGGE: There are four National Commissions; one for each country.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: There is a Joint Committee.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am told that there is a Joint Committee, and I really cannot accept four members to represent the Health Insurance Commissioners. The real danger of constantly enlarging this Committee is that you may turn it into a public meeting. Do let hon. Members recollect that it is really the local committees, especially in great places like Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, which will have the real power, and which will do the real work, and it is on those local committees that the trade unions and the representatives of the working classes should find their place. I have had some considerable experience of the working of these public bodies, and I am going to say something which I am sure will not give offence to my hon. Friends below the Gangway. It is very difficult for trade unionists who have very much to do to come up to London and constantly attend committee meetings which last many hours of the day. That has been found to be the case, and therefore I hope when the members are selected for this Committee, whether to represent trade unions or any other bodies, that a good deal of attention will be paid to the question whether they have the leisure to perform the very onerous duties which will be required of
    244
    them. As chairman of the Royal Patriotic Fund, I can say that the very best Commissioner we ever had was Mr. Shackle-ton. There was no man who did his duty more splendidly on that Committee than Mr. Shackleton, and there was no man from whom we learned more about the working classes and as to what we could best do for them. If you can send us some more Mr. Shackletons we shall be very much obliged, and the work will be very much better done. Turning to the speech of the hon. Member for the Melton Division of Leicestershire (Colonel Yate), I wish I could meet him, but I cannot. I cannot afford to enlarge this body, and I am quite sure that officers and officers' families need have no fear that their interests will be neglected by this body. There are so many members of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation who are drawn from the class of officers, both military and naval, that I am quite certain from my knowledge of the composition of that body that officers will find themselves even directly represented, and that in more respects than one their interests will be carefully watched.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: May I point out, in respect of the promise made regarding the selection of this Committee, that in paragraph (2) of the Report it is laid down that "in making these appointments regard should be had to the proper representation on the Committee of the several component parts of the United Kingdom"? That is a very important aspect of the question, because much of the money comes from the provinces, and the provinces should be represented on the Committee.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is a matter on which I have already, on the Second Reading, addressed the House. It is one of the points which those who have to decide on the men to be selected will require to bear in mind.
    Colonel YATE: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision with regard to not giving a representative of the Officers' Families Association on this Committee? The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out the advantage of getting first-hand knowledge, and no one knows what better to do for officers' wives than members of the Association I have named. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the point and give that Association one representative. He

    245
    has told us that the soldiers' cases will be dealt with by the local committees, but the officers' claims will be dealt with at headquarters, and it is, therefore, most necessary there should be some expert adviser on the headquarters' Committee.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I cannot add anything to what I have already said on this point. I have had a large experience in these matters, and I am quite confident that the interests of officers will be well taken care of. They will secure direct representation on the Committee. If hon. Members will look over the list of the members of the Executive Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation they will find that it is largely composed of officers, both naval and military. I am quite certain that the interests of officers will be very well looked after. I hope the House will bear with me when I say I cannot extend the Committee beyond the total of twenty-nine. I venture to urge that we should now bring this discussion to a close by accepting that figure on the general lines I have indicated.
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): An offer was made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, that the number should be settled at twenty-nine. If that meets with the general assent of the Committee, I respectfully suggest that the best way would be for the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division (Colonel Yate) to withdraw his Amendment. We can then negative the word "twenty-six," and I will propose the question that figure nine be substituted.
    Mr. HOGGE: Before the Amendment is withdrawn I think we ought to discuss further the general question of the constitution of this Committee, and so obviate proposals to substitute one number for another. Twenty-nine is not a number that suits my particular views, and I should feel bound to move another number, but I want to preserve the Committee from the discussion of proposals of that kind. If all the arguments could be taken on the one proposal that twenty-six be the number, we might expedite the whole business. I am sorry I was unable to put my points forward before the right hon. Gentleman replied. I observed that, in the course of the discussion, the right hon. Gentleman more than once stated that this Committee to be set up under Clause 1 should meet, perhaps, four times a year.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Oh, no. I was referring to the Corporation, and not to the statutory Committee. The Corporation only meet annually, and my suggestion is that in future it should meet four times a year. The statutory Committee will have to meet every week, and, very often, daily.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We had better get the real issue before the Committee. I take it the question is: that twenty-nine be the number, and the discussion can take place on that, if the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Yate) will withdraw his Amendment.
    Colonel YATE: But I do not want to withdraw my Amendment. I should prefer to see thirty instead of twenty-nine.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: At any rate, the proposal to fix it at twenty-nine is one better than that embodied in the hon. and gallant Member's own Amendment.
    Colonel YATE: Very well, under the circumstances I will withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move to leave out the word "twenty-six" and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-nine."
    Mr. HOGGE: I understand the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is that twenty-nine shall be the number of the Committee. I think he has come to that decision too quickly. It has been arrived at before many of us have had an opportunity of submitting our points, and I therefore suggest that before we agree to it the various objections which can be urged should be stated by us and dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. I have a very strong objection to a number of the people who are to be put on this Committee. I do not mind their being on in certain capacities, but I do object to their having a particular representative capacity, with a vote on the Committee. There is to be one appointed by the Treasury, one by the Admiralty, one by the Army Council, one by the Local Government Board, another by the Local Government Board for Scotland, and still another by the Local Government Board for Ireland. There we have six permanent officials of Government Departments who are to be members of this Committee of

    247
    twenty-nine, and by a later provision in the Bill we have the fact that the quorum of the statutory Committee may be made up of permanent officials only, and that it will be possible for the business of this Committee to be conducted only by people who are really not representative of those in whose interests the Committee is set up.
    The real interests in which the Committee is set up are represented by Members of this House. A good deal has been said about labour representation. I am not against that. On the contrary, I am quite willing to see it; but the only people representing the pensioners that are to be, are Members of this House. We are the only people who represent them, and there is no provision at all for the appointment of Members of this House on the Committee. That is an omission which I think should weigh very largely in determining whether twenty-nine is the correct number. I should have liked to have asked what is the view of the Government with regard to that. They have already told us that they are perfectly willing, on the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, to take certain action with regard to Ireland. But what is their view with regard to direct representation from this House? There are, normally, four parties here: the Liberal, the Tory, the Labour and the Irish. It would be a minimum of representation to have one member of each of these groups represented on the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman states that he is willing to enlarge it from twenty-six to twenty-nine. I take that to mean that he is willing to add one member representing the Insurance Commissioners, while the other two are to be devoted to Labour representation. He did not mention what body was to elect the latter. I will not, however, deal with that point now. It is one which must be dealt with by my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches. All I am doing now is to point out how the three (additional members given by the right hon. Gentleman are to be allocated.
    The National Insurance Commissioners are divided into four national committees, and one representative from the joint commissioners would be useless from the point of view of representing the national needs of the four component parts of the United Kingdom. I am not sure it would not be quite as well to keep that particular representation off, unless
    248
    you are going to make it complete. Then, if you are going to admit national insurance representation on the Committee, why not also admit representation of your old age pensions committees? The point which will arise over and over again in determining allowances, will be what other sums are being paid to the families of the people concerned, and the old age pensions committees are the bodies which can best give that information. These committees constitute a very intricate part of the social structure of the community in assisting poverty and distress in this country; yet there is no proposal from the right hon. Gentleman to introduce them on this Committee. I think the real fact is that the allocation of these twenty-nine members has been put down in the hope that it will meet every suggestion that can be made. But it is not complete enough. It really does not touch all the interests concerned, and I am not sure I should not be better satisfied with a very much smaller Committee, rather than a Committee of twenty-nine made up in this particular way. The points with which I want the right hon. Gentleman to deal are the question of the size of the Committee, the fact that the quorum can be made up of officials, the question whether old age pension committees cannot be represented, and, lastly, whether there ought not to be representation direct from this House.
    Question, "That the word 'twenty-six' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Word "twenty-nine" there inserted."
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): May we not now come to a decision on the size of this Committee? The question has been discussed pretty fully, and my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill has made a very considerable concession by extending the number. The various points raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh could be better discussed when we come to the question of individual representation as set out in the Clause. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that this House should be represented on the Committee. I do not think he can really seriously ask us to consider such a proposal.
    Mr. HOGGE: My suggestion is that Members of the House should be on the Committee.
    Mr. LONG: Who is to nominate the Members of the House? On what principle are they to be chosen? Are they to be selected from the various parties by the leaders of those parties? It seems to me that if there is to be any connection between this House and the constitution of this Committee, it can only be in the direction that the House would desire to have the work of the Committee brought before it. There should be an opportunity for the Committee's report to be discussed by the House, and that obviously can be secured without placing Members of the House on the 'Committee. I hope that suggestion will not be pressed.
    My hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Yate) is very anxious that there should be direct representation of the association connected with officers and their families. He has lost sight of the fact that there is already in the Clause provision for the direct representation of certain people, and he may rest assured that the officers of the Army will find representation in one, at all events, of those who will be appointed. There is no necessity for him to be anxious on that head—in fact, I can assure him there is no such necessity. I do not think it is desirable to add to the various bodies who are to have representation, because there is sufficient reservation to enable us to elect those who clearly ought to be on it and who have the necessary knowledge and experience.
    The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down raised a question which I do not think ought to be discussed now, namely, that of the quorum. That will be decided definitely later en. He is very anxious that steps should be taken to prevent what he calls an official majority on this body. I certainly hope that the work of this Committee is not going to fall into the hands of officials alone. It is possible that the representation may be so arranged as to make this more difficult, but I do not think his fear is well founded. Who are the people likely to be appointed? Whoever is called upon to make the selection will assuredly choose those officials most closely connected with this kind of work, all of whose sympathies are with those for whose benefit this Bill is now being passed. I do not think there is any reason to be anxious, even if on some stray occasion there is a majority of officials present to form a quorum. I have risen not to add anything to what my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill has said, because he
    250
    has already dealt with practically all these points, but to ask the Committee to come to a decision on the question of numbers, and to let us get on to what is really more important— the actual representation. There is a great deal yet to be done in connection with this Bill. It is of vital importance to the men and their dependants. By deciding this point now, no Member of the Committee shuts himself out from fully discussing the constitution of the Committee in its detailed form in the part of the Clause we have yet to discuss, therefore I would respectfully ask that we should decide this question now and proceed to a discussion of the other matter afterwards.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask if we adopt the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, whether we are not precluded from advocating additional representation? The question I raised as to local authorities having representation has not been answered, and if we accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request should I be in order in moving that they should be represented?
    Mr. LONG: It is quite obvious that if the hon. Gentleman can make a case for the substitution of local authorities for one of these bodies named in the Clause, and if the Committee accepts his view, he can make the change, That would be all right. All that he could not do would be to put on local authorities in addition to those persons enumerated in the Clause. If he desires to increase the number it must be done now. Once the word "twenty-nine" is inserted, the Committee having come to that decision, that would remain the number and no change could be made in it.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind saying a word about local authorities, then I shall be satisfied?
    Mr. ROCH: The right hon. Gentleman is well entitled to ask that progress should now be made with the Bill. I would venture to try and facilitate it by making a suggestion. There are a great many Members interested in the composition of this Committee, and there is a great feeling that it should be put on a broader basis than it is now. I would suggest to him that if he would extend a general invitation to Members interested in this question to see him between now and the Report stage, if he will give three-quarters of an hour or an hour to that kind of discussion as was done by the Minister of Munitions

    251
    in the case of his Bill, that would facilitate the composition of this Committee very much indeed, and would enable progress to be made. If that suggestion were adopted I believe there would then be a more or less short discussion on the composition of this Committee, for between these two stages of the Bill we might arrive at some agreement.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: In answer to my hon. Friend's question, I shall be only too glad to follow such a splendid precedent. I hope it may lead to equally good results. If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer can find time, I am quite sure we should be only too glad to see hon. Gentlemen as to the composition of this Committee between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and to hear the arguments addressed to us for some change in its composition.
    Sir C. KINLOCH COOKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he has to say to my suggestion that there should be someone appointed by the Board of Education?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am sorry I omitted to refer to my hon. Friend's suggestion. There again let me bring my experience to bear. If this new body should set up a school, such as the Royal Victoria Patriotic School, where we educate 300 girls, the statutory body will undoubtedly set up a separate sub-committee for the management of that school, and on that sub-committee members interested in education would find their representation.
    Question, "That the word 'twenty-nine' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "twenty-six," and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-nine."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMANcalled on Mr. Anderson—
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: On a point of Order. Would it not be in order to move "twelve" in the place of the word "ten," seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to increase the number, and to insert later on in this Sub-section words providing that two shall represent labour?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the Amendment the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) is about to move. There is no point of Order.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve."
    I am interested in two points in regard to the composition of this body. One is that there should be an increased number of women, and that some of the women should be those with knowledge of working-class conditions and rules. The women during the War, as a whole, have been rendering magnificent service to the country. Everyone will admit that. Those who have read the present issue of this week of the "'Times' History of the War," which includes the whole story of the many activities of women, will say that they have a right to be represented in a matter of this kind. But there are sometimes women who are apt to get on these bodies with a wrong point of view in regard to working-class people. I saw a letter which was sent to a working-class woman only last week from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association in Bow and Bromley. I am sure it cannot be typical of what is usually done. In this case the woman was told that her daughter had gone dirty to school, according to the nurse, and that unless this were remedied at once it would be reported to the War Office, with a view to having her allowance affected. We do not want women of that sort to be on this Committee. We want women with human sympathy and understanding. That ought to be guaranteed. The only other point I have to raise is the relation of the National Relief Fund to this organisation. I move here to increase the number from ten to twelve, but I shall also move to delete the two members of the National Relief Fund, which leaves the numbers exactly as they are. I do that because I am anxious to know what is going to be the relation between the National Relief Fund and this Committee, and how much more money is going to be taken from the National Relief Fund for military purposes.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must wait until we come to that.
    Mr. DUKE: Following on what the hon. Member has said, perhaps this is as convenient a time as any for considering the question raised by the first sentence in this Sub-section. I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to make it possible and even probable that more than one-fifth of the members of the body who are to be nominated directly by the Crown may be women.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): That is the Bill. It is a minimum and not a maximum.
    Mr. DUKE: I quite follow that; but when you introduce a minimum it is very apt, in official surroundings, to become a maximum. I do not quite like the way in which the minimum is put in. I am sure that if it stands where it does, without some assurance from the Front Bench that it will be a minimum, it will be a disappointment to many people in the country, and particularly a disappointment to the women of the country, who have borne their full part, not only in the sorrows of the War, but in the prosecution of it. There is great provision in the subsequent sentence for officials. If there is any characteristic which would be regarded in this country as sterilising what ought to be the sources of sympathy in the administration of this fund, it would be a regular, ordained element of officialism. We may have an opportunity of considering it when we have to say whether these successive Departments, or each of them, has necessarily a sort of mortgage upon a great work of national sympathy. That does not arise at the moment.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Hear, hear!
    Mr. DUKE: Quite so. I do not intend to stray from the consideration of the immediate matter. With regard to the Amendment, I would ask my right hon. Friends to consider whether, as besides the appointed official element there are to be ten members appointed by the Crown, it would not be possible to insert in these three lines now immediately in view some provision that those Members, or, at any rate, some part of them, shall be chosen from among persons not presently in the permanent service of the Crown. I am sure that it is very desirable to omit officialdom from the Clause, and if some limitation of that kind can be introduced here in regard to the nominations by the Crown and not by the Departments, in order that the nominated members shall be, at any rate as to some of them, not in the permanent service of the Crown, it would meet what many of us have in view.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. ROCH: I am sure many hon. Members will agree with the words that have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), and in
    254
    particular many will agree with him that this Committee ought not to be too official in its composition. This Committee has novel duties to perform, with a wide discretion affecting an enormous number of homes, and I am sure there will be a general feeling that it should not be a Government Department, which is one of the most difficult things to approach and to get to move on in any way. Therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the Bill will try to make this great Committee as unofficial as it can be made, and that he will accede to the appeal that a large number of women should be included on it. When we think that this Committee will have to deal with widows, wives and children, it will be a most moderate demand that a third of its members should be women, and I support the appeal of the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) that they should be the right kind of women—working-class women—and should not be the type of woman who is too often on these committees, a kind of professional social investigator who really often has too hard and dry a view to meet the problems which will arise under this Bill. I would ask, too, whether the right hon. Gentleman would give consideration to the appeal that the vice-chairman of this Committee should be a woman. After all, the chairman and the vice-chairman will be the people who will be largely responsible for the day-to-day attendance and familiarity with the work which will largely shape the policy of the Committee, and I think it would be a nice tribute to the women for the work they have done that one of their own sex—
    Sir G. BARING: Is the hon. Member entitled to discuss this point on the question whether the number should be ten or twelve? Would not his argument be more appropriate to a subsequent Amendment?
    Mr. ROCH: The hon. Baronet is always raising points of Order and disturbing the Debate. The Amendment deals with whether there should be twelve members appointed. I submit that I am entitled to discuss on that, that the chairman or vice-chairman should be a particular person.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not say that the intervention of the hon. Baronet is unjustified at all, but I think the discussion is in Order, because the whole object of leaving out the word "ten" and inserting "twelve" was to admit an additional number of women.
    Sir G. BARING: The hon. Member is quite wrong in thinking I often take points of Order. I seldom do. He was addressing an argument as to whether the vice-chairman should be a woman or not. I thought that would come more appropriately on a subsequent Amendment.
    Mr. ROCH: I am sorry if I said anything to hurt the hon. Baronet's feelings. I was just finishing and he was only prolonging the Debate by taking a point of Order. As it is in order, I should only like to repeat the point and make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that the vice-chairman appointed should be a woman. Women, very rightly, often complain that while their services are often taken on committees they are very seldom taken when there is a well-paid job, and when we bear in mind the problems which will have to be dealt with, and which will appeal largely to women, it would be a recognition of the work women have done that this highly honourable and not unlucrative post should be occupied by a woman.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think it would really serve the progress of the Debate if Members would only read the report of the Committee. There are already, out of the twelve suggested on this Committee, six mortgaged. There are the chairman and vice-chairman, two must be women, and by the addition that has already been made, two must be labour men. The report of the Committee definitely states that regard must be had to the representation of the component parts of the country. There are only six members left now for the component parts of the country. If you divide the country up into not less than four parts, you must have representatives from the different parts of the country, and then there are only two left for the Crown to make the best choice they can, and therefore the whole of the twelve are practically mortgaged.
    Mr. HODGE: I should like to say a word for the permanent official. I have sat on a great many Departmental Committees, and I should like to say that without exception I have always found them of very great service, and I have also found them take a very broad view of things. One is naturally inclined to think that a permanent official is always conservative in his instincts. That has not been my experience, and I thought, in justice to these
    256
    men, it was incumbent upon me to state my own personal experience as I have come in contact with them.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I was very glad to hear what the hon. Member said about permanent officials. I certainly have had considerable experience of officials working on the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, and they were by no means a sterilising influence No men could have done more fruitful work or more generous work or with a kindlier spirit and less officialdom than many of those who have served on the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation's Committee. After all, if my right hon. Friend (Mr. Duke) is afraid of sterilised officialdom only six of the twenty-nine members of this Committee are nominated by Departments and I can hardly think that any of the remaining twenty-three are likely to be officials.
    Mr. DUKE: If my right hon. Friend says that, that is the kind of assurance I want. What I had in view was that they are to be nominated practically by the Government instead of by Departments. When my right hon. Friend says what he has said, I am absolutely satisfied.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That would be six only out of twenty-nine, and although one would be appointed by the Treasury, one by the Admiralty, one by the Army Council, and one by the Local Government Board, it does not necessarily mean that they will be officials. I can give my right hon. Friend another assurance which he will be glad to have. It is the desire and intention of all those responsible for this body that on it women shall be well represented. The words, "not less than two shall be women," mean that there shall be two in any case. I think there is an Amendment by my hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) to substitute "some" for "not less than two." I shall be quite ready to accept that at a later period as indicating the intention of appointing more than two. As to the right sort of women we all have different ideas. We do not want them all drawn from any one class. I have had experience of some of the very best workers on the London County Council not all drawn from one class. The greatest care ought to be taken in the selection of any one of those who are going to compose this Committee, and I hope many hours will be spent in selecting these names and that much consideration will be given and much advice sought

    257
    from outside as to who shall sit on it. As regards the particular Amendment, I was myself going to move to insert "twelve" in consequence of my promise that I would move other words, A little later on I propose to move to insert, "and not less than two shall be women," and, following the words of the Report of the Special Committee, "and not less than two shall be representative of labour." If the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) means that he is moving twelve in order to cover the two extra members who are to be put on to represent labour, I will accept that Amendment; but if it was meant for some other purpose, I shall be glad if he will explain that purpose. I have already satisfied him and my right hon. Friend opposite that there may be not less than two women and that that is to be the minimum, and I am ready to accept the word "some," and I hope that many more than two women will find their way on to the statutory Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "of whom one shall be chairman and one vice-chairman."
    The only point in the Amendment is whether it would not be well to give the Committee a free hand in the appointing of their own chairman and vice-chairman. This is limited to a certain section of the Committee. I do not see any particular reason why the choice should not be over the whole range.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I could not possibly accept it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "not less than two," and insert instead thereof the wrord "some."—[Mr. Dickinson.]
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, after the word "women" ["not less than two shall be women"], to insert the words "and not less than two shall be representative of labour."
    Sir F. BANBURY: What does that actually mean—that there shall be two women who are representative of labour?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have made the concession that there should be some indication, following the Report of the
    258
    Select Committee, that not less than two should be representative of labour, and I propose to insert words to that effect.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: After the word "Council" ["one shall be appointed by the Army Council"] insert the words "one shall be appointed by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee."—[Mr. Llewelyn Williams.]
    Leave out the words "not less than two" ["six (of whom not less than two)"], and insert instead thereof the word "some."—[Mr. Dickinson.]
    Mr. PRATT: I do not move the first Amendment which stands in my name, to leave out the words, in Sub-section (2), "General Council of the," and to insert instead thereof the words "Royal Patriotic Fund," but I beg to move to leave out the words "Two shall be appointed by the governing body of the National Relief Fund," and to insert instead thereof "Six (of whom not less than two shall be women) shall be appointed by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress." My Amendment is to secure that the labour representation shall be direct from the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress. I made an appeal earlier in the discussion, and the response which the right hon. Gentleman gave us was to add two to the number to be appointed, making twelve. The point that I would urge still—and I do it with all respect to my trade union friends here, because I represent a large number of trade unionists in my Constituency—is that it would increase the confidence of the workpeople and trade unionists generally if they knew that they were to have direct representation through the Trades Union Congress on this Committee. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us a little more light as to the method of the appointment of the representatives of labour on the Committee.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know how the total would add up, if you insert the number "six"
    Mr. HOGGE: It does not alter the number.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would make the number thirty, and that is out of order.
    Mr. PRATT: Then I beg to move to substitute "five" for "six" in my Amendment.
    Mr. WARDLE: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary to limit the discretion of those who have to make the appointments. I think the hon. Member can rest perfectly assured that no names will be submitted which have not the confidence of the Trades Union Congress. Those who are so nominated will be direct representatives of labour. On those grounds it would be very unwise to fetter the discretion of those making the appointments, as would be done by this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that covers the Amendment of the hon. Member for Attercliffe.
    Mr. ANDERSON: No, I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "two shall be appointed by the governing body of the National Relief Fund," because I want to raise the question of the relation between the members of this Committee and the National Relief Fund. I understood from the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals embodied in this Bill are going to cost between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000. We seem to have a sort of guessing competition so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, as to where the money is going to come from. There is going to be some kind of magic wand waved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and millions of money are going to flow towards this statutory Committee. I imagine from the inclusion of two members of the National Relief Fund on this Committee that there is a proposal that that fund shall be raided, or shall be approached in some way for the purpose of securing large additional grants for the purposes of this Bill. I understand that already out of this National Relief Fund, raised very largely from working class subscriptions, in order to relieve distress arising out of the War, £2,000,000 have already been taken for military purposes. I do not object to any penny that has been spent on the soldiers or the dependants of the soldiers, but I do say that the Government ought to shoulder its direct responsibility and ought not to shelve those responsibilities on a private voluntary fund raised for the relief of distress arising out of the War. I believe that under this
    260
    arrangement the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to approach this fund for another million or perhaps two millions more money. [An HON. MEMBER: "Three millions."] Perhaps three millions. Later on, after the War, most people who can look forward to after the War will anticipate that there will be very considerable industrial distress. Most hon. Members will admit that. Under those circumstances, if we are going to have the whole of this National Relief Fund depleted in order to relieve the Exchequer, then I think we shall have the workpeople saying that the money which they paid in was going to a purpose which they never intended, and that, whilst they want everything done for the soldiers and sailors, they believe that that is a national responsibility, and that they subscribed their money for another purpose altogether.
    The CHAIRMAN: That would be a question to be discussed when we come to the Motion. "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill." It would be better not to discuss now the question of finance, which can be much better raised on Clause 3.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I must give the reason for proposing the deletion of the words I propose to be left out. I am trying to give reasons for suggesting that there should not be representatives of the National Relief Fund as such on this statutory Committee.
    Mr. LONG: I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but there are really two quite distinct questions. The proposal of this Bill is that the National Relief Fund shall have two representatives on the governing body. And there is a second question. There is an unpleasant suspicion, which lurks in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, and which I gather is shared by some other hon. Members, that the National Relief Fund is going to be raided, and that this proposal is a quid pro quo; that in return for being allowed to have two members of the National Relief Fund on this governing body we should estimate their value at, say, £l,000,000 each or £1,500,000 each. I doubt whether there are two members of that fund upon whom the members of that fund will put a value so high as that. Whatever the National Relief Fund may do—of course that is a matter for the National Relief Fund itself, and I am not qualified to speak for them—I would respectfully suggest that those

    261
    who think that to raid that fund is an easy matter will find a very unpleasant surprise waiting for them. Though the members of that fund may be a very harmonious collection of innocent people, and though some hon. Members might think that they look capable of being easily robbed, I think they will be able to hold their own. The inclusion of these two representatives of the National Relief Fund on this statutory body has nothing to do with the question of raiding the National Relief Fund.
    The Committee knows that in the earlier stages of the War, when the relief of the dependants of soldiers and sailors first became a matter of very general consideration, all sorts of practical difficulties arose, and some decisions, which were most unfortunate as I consider them, were arrived at throughout the country. There was a great deal of agitation and there was more than one reference to it in this House. There were public meetings, very excited meetings—or, at any rate, if they were not exactly public meetings, they were assemblies of people whose proceedings were reported in the newspapers—and there was a good deal of feeling. The National Relief Fund took the entire responsibility on itself of dealing with this matter in what they believed to be, not merely a humane, but in a just manner, and they put this question of relief on what I believe is now a very satisfactory footing. On the whole, although I do not say that there are not criticisms to be made as to the performance of their duties, I think they have done their work well, and they have certainly removed most of the grievances which were complained of in the early part of the War. Does the Committee think that when you are starting a new body like this statutory corporation, and laying upon it these immense burdens and entrusting to it this almost sacred work of providing for these men on sea and land who have done such great service for us, that it would not be an advantage to have among them two of those who have had experience of the National Relief Fund, who have gone through this storm and stress already, and to have the benefit of their experience and knowledge? Their presence, I believe, would be of the utmost value to the Committee, at all events at the commencement of its duties.
    I hope sincerely the Committee will not eliminate this provision, but will leave the representation of the National Relief Fund on this Committee as it is proposed in the Bill. I can assure them that the
    262
    presence of these two representatives on the Executive Committee will not in any way influence the final decision as to how the money is to be found. The hon. Gentleman knows that earlier in the proceedings to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an announcement in regard to this question, and I understood he said that if sufficient money was not forthcoming from other sources, of course he would have to apply to Parliament. Whatever may be the funds available, it would be most unsafe to rely upon the National Relief Fund, which was subscribed for special purposes and which has already very heavy claims upon it, and which may have very heavy claims to meet in the future. I would reassert that this provision as to the representation of the National Relief Fund on this Committee is not in any sense part of a bargain. The proposal is made because these representatives will have special experience, and I urge the Committee not to accept this Amendment. I hope that in the light of what I have said the hon. Member for Attercliffe will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have not actually put the Amendment before the Committee. In doing so, may I say that it is not prejudging the question on which I promised a discussion when we come to the end of Clause 3. If, however, the matter were debated now, it would alter my decision on that matter.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it in order to Debate it now?
    Mr. ANDERSON: I have no objection to individual members of the National Relief Fund going upon this statutory Committee. It is purely the financial question with which I am concerned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day told us this, among other things, that the National Relief Fund, very rightly and very properly as I think, made payments in the earlier stages of the War because of the lack of the machinery on the part of the War Office, and it made payments which legitimately were a charge upon the Treasury. I think it was a right thing at that time to make advances rather than women should be kept out of their money, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to me to suggest that the money which is owing from the War Office to the National Relief Fund is going to be diverted to this statutory Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: If I allow this now I cannot allow it later on. It can only be raised in a very limited degree here. I think that the hon. Member would be well advised to wait until later on.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "two" ["two shall be appointed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association "], to insert the words "(one of whom shall be a woman)."
    I move this Amendment for two reasons. The Committee will see that six shall be appointed by the general council of the Corporation, of whom not less than two shall be women. But here we have it stated that two shall be appointed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and there is nothing about the question of women. If the Clause is allowed to stand as it is, it will be open to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association to appoint either two men or two women. I think that it would be very much better to have it provided that one of these appointees should be a woman.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think that we may rely on the central committee of the association and that it would be well to leave it to them, so that they should not be trammelled in any way.
    Amendment negatived.
    An Amendment stood in the name of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield, to leave out Sub-section (4).
    Mr. ANDERSON: I do not press this Amendment.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can I raise the question of the amount to be paid to the chairman under the Financial Resolution?
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4). I move this Amendment for the purpose referred to by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
    Mr. HOGGE: Would my right hon. Friend give any indication as to the amount that is to be paid to this chairman? I am certain that the Committee would desire that the post should be adequately paid, so that the work should be responsible work, but that at the same time it should not be extravagantly paid.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I understood that the hon. Member was going to move this Motion, or I should have moved it myself. What I desire to be assured of by the Government is that there is any necessity for a paid chairman at all in this case. There is a very large number of thoroughly competent gentlemen who have undertaken without salary posts equal to this in gravity, and who are doing the work excellently. I think that there is a number of hon. Members who have left here during our time for another place, to whom certainly money would be no consideration, who would probably have time on their hands for such work as this. Not only on the ground of economy, which is exceedingly important at the present time, should this matter be considered, but also from this point of view: I am not at all sure whether the work would not be better done if you had some distinguished gentleman to act as chairman in an unpaid capacity. There is a liability, by paying a chairman in a case of this kind, to turn the work into a kind of office work, a bureaucracy to a certain extent, because there would be a very large number of permanent officials, and it is exceedingly probable that an unpaid chairman would do the work considerably better. The chairman of the Corporation at the present time is unpaid. Before we pass a matter of this kind we should be thoroughly assured as to whether this work will not be better done, or equally well done, by a voluntary chairman. This position, though it will continue for some time after the War, will not be an absolutely permanent post, and the gentleman appointed will only have to put in work for, perhaps, some four or five years. That being so, I imagine that there should be no difficulty in getting suitable people. If that is so, there is absolutely no excuse for appointing a paid official to a post of this description.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think that there are two questions before the Committee. The first is: Shall we get a proper man to do the work if we pay him? The second is: Is it wise, at the present juncture of affairs, to begin making new posts and paying new people new salaries? I doubt very much whether you will get a better man if you pay. Of course, if you are going to pay £4,000 or £5,000 a year to a man who might otherwise accept a judgship or something of that sort, you might get a very good man, but I do not suppose that such a sum is contemplated. Then,

    265
    if you are going to pay £500 or £1,000 a year, I do not think that you would get a better man than you would get as an unpaid person from among the large number of people in the country who are desirous of doing something to aid the country. If this important post were placed at their disposal there would be many competent people who would discharge its duties efficiently. I believe you would get men who would do the work well if you offer the post as an honour instead of as a means of getting a living. If you put in a paid chairman you at once create a post, and every man will say to himself—it is only human nature—"I am getting £500 or a £1,000 a year for doing this work; the longer this work continues the better for me." That is not what we want. We want to get a man who will do the work with a feeling that when the work is over he shall be prepared to retire. You may have a man who says, "I gave up something; I was earning something at the Bar, or at some other profession. I gave it up in order to take this post. This work has lasted longer than I originally anticipated. It has continued for three years. I have lost my opportunities in the other walk of life in which I was." In those circumstances we should consider seriously whether we ought to create a new paid post. Only a few days ago the Prime Minister told us in the Guildhall that it was necessary for us to practise economy. In the few remarks which I made I ventured to ask the Government to set us the example. Are they setting us the example in the present case?
    Mr. HOGGE: Yes.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Is the chairman of the Royal Patriotic Fund Association paid at the present moment?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: He is not.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then, if he is not paid, is it setting us an example of economy to set up another official who is paid to do similar work? The idea that in a patriotic and more or less philanthropic institution like this it is necessary to pay the chairman is absolutely wrong. Naturally a paid man does not want to do anything which is disagreeable. He might lose his job. You do not want that. You want to have an independent person who, from his position in the country, and the fact that he has leisure at his disposal, is prepared to come forward and
    266
    help. I have not the slightest objection to the secretary being paid; that is quite a different thing. Therefore I trust that the Government will allow this Sub-section to be deleted. In the event of their refusing to do that I presume that it will be in order for me to move words providing that the salary shall not exceed such and such an amount, but I hope that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who is now in a position of responsibility, will see that it is advisable for reasons both of economy and of efficiency to delete this Sub-section.
    Sir CHARLES HENRY: Will the chairman and vice-chairman be chosen by the statutory Committee or appointed by the Crown?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: They will be appointed by the Crown.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I wish to support the view of my hon. Friend. I am not formulating any accusation against bureaucracy or officialism. Bureaucracy and officialism are right in their right places, but not out of their right places. I am quite content that they should prevail withing a certain limited range, but surely it is a good thing in public administration that there should be someone bringing from the outside world into the administration a mind which is entirely free from the traditions and rules and regulations that guide the bureaucracy and the officials. That is precisely the influence which an unpaid chairman is likely to bring in. If you have a paid chairman you all know what that means. He attends at the office during the whole of the office hours. He becomes himself a bureaucrat. He guides in its smaller points the whole administration. He takes part in and becomes responsible for and is a portion of the machine. That is just what we do not want the chairman to do. I know what are the failings and what are the good points of the bureaucrat. He ought to be secretary to a permanent official for the whole day, during which he ought to make himself acquainted with each detail of the machinery, but he ought to have a chairman coming in from the outside with larger views, which he brings in from the outside, who is not in the habit of constantly attending the office and of mixing himself up with all the petty details of official work. He is going to have large questions brought before him when his presence is available—settling the principles, and principles only, upon which the administration should be guided, and not

    267
    troubling himself with those details which, instead of keeping him a free man, able to exercise a wide judgment, and influenced by outside opinion, would make him more or less a part of the official machine. You cannot have those two influences brought together unless, over and above any paid official, you have a chairman, who comes in only occasionally to fulfil his duties.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill will not accept the change of having a secretary instead of a chairman responsible. The main connection betwixt the House of Commons and the man who receives the salary will be that he will be a person responsible to this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I think that he ought to be the head of the Corporation. I do not think it ought to be the secretary. I think the duties are so responsible that he ought to be a man who is paid, and who is tied by the terms of his appointment—
    Sir H. CRAIK: I would point out one thing, that if the chairman is paid he cannot be a Member of this House, and cannot therefore be responsible to this House.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: He is the connecting link between the expenditure of this money and the House of Commons. By voting this money the House will have that control over this Corporation which I think is advisable in a matter of such very great magnitude. His duties also will be judicial, or quasi judicial. He will have very difficult points to consider, and I think that the man who is appointed ought to be at least of the standing of a County Court judge or a chairman of Quarter Sessions. A disciplinary duty is imposed upon the Committee. Under Clause 3 they will have—
    "(e) to decide, in any particular case, whether any pension or grant or separation allowance has, under the regulations subject to which it was granted, become forfeited."
    There has been a rough estimate suggested that a capital sum of £5,000,000 may possibly be allotted to this Corporation. That gives us some idea of the amount of grants which might be made; and under the review of this Committee will have to come the question whether any persons, I suppose by their conduct, have forfeited their pensions. I do not think that should
    268
    be left to any man who is just giving his leisure to the duties of the office. It ought to be his business in life, and he ought to feel his responsibility to this House, from receiving the salary which we shall have to vote year by year. There should be a paid official, and that the business of this Corporation should come before us is, I think, absolutely necessary. I hold the view that the proper man to be responsible is the chairman.
    Mr. DUKE: I trust that the Government will take serious account of what has been said with regard to the character of the officer who is to be appointed to this very distinguished position, and the House, I am sure, will insist that the supervision of this most responsible work shall be in the hands of some great man. It is a task which requires a great man, and does not require an official at £1,000 or £1,200 a year. If you are going to create a post at £1,000, £1,200, £l,500 or £2,000 a year you are going to stamp the office with inferiority. To my mind you should take care that this is a post which should attract great men. There are men in another place and in this House who, I feel sure, will be proud, whether rich or poor, to devote themselves to this work. I do not attach too much importance to the pecuniary question. I cannot disregard the view, which is heard very insistently from outside, that if economy is to be exercised, we must be consistent. If this is a post for a great man and if we cannot afford to pay a large sum in respect of those duties, is it not better that His Majesty's Government should face the situation, and make this a post for which there will be competition among the great men of this country, who would devote themselves to the public services without regard to reward.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duke) to the fact that the Committee, of which the leader of the Opposition and others were members, and which sat upon the question of pensions, recommended that the chairman should be paid. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is finding fault with the Government—
    Mr. DUKE: I am not finding fault.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: You are finding fault with the fact that it is proposed to appoint a paid chairman. If a man has to devote all his hours to a particular work, why should he not be paid? Why are directors

    269
    or railway companies, insurance companies, and similar bodies paid? If you take any branch of life, you pay the man who devotes his services daily and continuously to the duties imposed upon him—you compensate that man for loss of his time. Considering the thousands of cases that will come before the Committee from all parts of the country, anyone who has read the evidence given in the Report can see what an enormous work will devolve upon this Committee. They will have reports from every committee of every town in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and they will have to decide upon many questions. They must sit practically continuously, if they are going to do this work. We have now a very large number, if not thousands, of cases, for the decision of the Committee in regard to pensions. The chairman who presides over such a Committee as that must devote an enormous amount of time to the work, and, having the recommendation of the Committee that he shall be paid, I do not see how you can go behind that decision.
    Sir G. BARING: There are many men in this country who would not only devote to this work hours, but days and weeks of their time without any remuneration. There are many even now throughout the country who are devoting a great part of their time regularly and without pecuniary reward to the work of local government in this country. I believe my hon. Friend opposite has himself played a distinguished part in the work of local government.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I have devoted myself to that work for thirty-two years, but there is this difference, that one sits for a few hours and returns home. But, in this instance, a man would have to devote the whole of his time to this work.
    Sir G. BARING: And there are men who would devote the whole of their time to the duties of this Committee, just as they are devoting their time to local government, without payment. It is said that the chairman of the statutory Committee should be made responsible to this House for the conduct and administration of the Committee. How is that to be effected? The chairman, in presiding over the Committee, might be out-voted, and the vote of the majority would decide any particular question. What would be the position of the chairman who, having been
    270
    out-voted on a particular matter, was yet held responsible to this House? It is impossible to make the chairman responsible to this House in the way suggested. I think one of the weaknesses of the late Government, the Government which I supported for many years in this House, was that they had such an affection for paid officials. I have often voted against the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London when he was advocating economy, but there comes a time of repentance, and I think that when we are in the middle of one of the greatest Wars, one of the greatest crises through which this country has ever passed, this is the time when we should have the most severe and rigid economy, and I venture to say that—now Ministers are exhorting all classes to exercise economy—here is an opportunity for the Coalition Government, this strong Government, to show their regard for economy. I hope that the Committee will cut out this provision of the Bill for the appointment of a paid chairman, and possibly a paid vice-chairman. I am sure the work can be done efficiently without paying either the chairman or the vice-chairman, especially in view of the fact, as I have stated, that a number of men are doing very responsible and laborious work in connection with the local government of the country without any remuneration whatever. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) said that men of much eminence could be obtained to do this work, which I hope will not last for a very long time, without any honorarium. If the hon. Member goes to a Division, I am prepared to tell with him.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I will.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: No one is a more sincere advocate of economy than myself, and I should like very often in State matters to see done what I was able to do as chairman of the Finance Committee in the London County Council; but, after all, I am not sure that we would not be indulging in false economy if we prevented the Government, which is responsible for carrying out this Bill, from having a choice between a paid and an unpaid chairman. What does the Bill say? It says that the chairman and vice-chairman, or either of them, may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine. It is possible that we may obtain an ideal chairman quite willing to do this work without any pay. So much the better for the State. You may

    271
    find him among those men of large ideals and vast experience, popular men in every sense of the word, of whom the right hon. Member for Exeter has spoken, and he would preside with skill and dignity over this very large Committee. I hope that we may be able to find such a chairman who does not require to be paid and would be quite prepared to give to these duties the whole of his time and energies, provided that he has a vice-chairman under him who will give to the office, day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, year in and year out—not for a very short time, I can assure my hon. Friend, but for years to come, almost the rest of his life, and for the rest of every man's life in this House, even that of the youngest Member—the whole of his time and energies. That is what is required. The hon. Member asked if the chairman of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation was paid. I occupied that distinguished position, and I was not paid, but there is a difference. Even when we started to reorganise that fund all that was required was one day per week, and now the work is very well done with half a day more. That is a very different case. You would get many men to give you one day or two days or even three days, but there are very few men in this country who would undertake hard work of this kind and keep office hours and have great responsibilities thrown upon them, and, as I have said, spend the whole of the rest of their lives in one occupation and in that occupation only. There are very few men who are both willing and capable of doing so. There are willing men but not capable, and capable men but not willing. The hon. Member referred to the work done by the Local Government Board on county councils and the like. That is quite true, but the reason for that is the reason given by the hon Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel), namely, that it does not involve work day in and day out and six days per week. I looked very carefully into the functions that are to be allotted to this body and as to what will be required of the chairman and vice-chairman of this Committee. I say that for several years to come the duties will require a man to go down fairly early in the morning, keep office hours, and stay until fairly late in the evening, and to devote himself to that work for, as I have said, some years. I say, therefore, with every desire
    272
    for economy I do not believe we shall effect economy by limiting our choice.
    As regards the salary fanciful sums have been mentioned, such as four or five thousand pounds. I do not think anything like that sum would be needed to be paid to the vice-chairman. Some hon. Members mentioned five hundred pounds or a thousand pounds, but we may have to go a little better than that; it may have to be fifteen hundred pounds or two thousand pounds, and personally I put two thousand pounds as the limit which we should have to attach to this office of vice-chairman to get a really good man for the position. I am speaking now of the vice-chairman. I am suggesting that you could obtain a very good chairman fulfilling the high ideals laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Exeter in all probability without paying him at all, but only if you were to give him a paid vice-chairman, who would be responsible for running the office day in and day out, year in and year out. I am sure hon. Members recollect my forecast of the enormous sums that will have to be administered by this body. I do not share at all the views of those who think that a large sum of money will not have to be spent by this body. I am quite certain that they will have to spend large sums since you put upon the body the work of making provision for disabled and discharged soldiers coming back from the War, and in my opinion there is a life-work in that itself. It will require very great experience, very wide knowledge, and great assiduity in the discharge of the duties.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should be prepared to accept a statement from the right hon. Gentleman who is for the moment in charge of the Bill, that the vice-chairman should be paid, provided that the chairman is not paid. He has given us excellent reasons why the vice-chairman should be paid, and why the chairman should not be paid. I should certainty divide if I cannot get a promise to that effect.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I cannot speak for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have stated my ideal, and I would certainly use all my influence to obtain a chairman you will not require to pay on the condition that there is a vice-chairman who will be paid, and who will discharge the regular duties in regular office hours and will be mainly responsible for the very large expenditure. That is not only my

    273
    ideal but the ideal of those who have largely helped to frame this Bill. I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend a distinct assurance, but I can tell him that that is the ideal that at present animates both myself and those responsible for the Bill. We shall seek for a chairman who is not paid and we shall look for a vice-chairman who will require to be paid, but I think we must take the power in this form:—
    "There may be paid to the chairman and vice-chairman, or either of them, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine."
    I hope after that explanation that the Committee will decide not to limit the powers, but allow this Clause to go through.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid I cannot accept that assurance. The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot speak for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course that is so. But all I am asking is to pay only one man instead of two, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is or ought to be the guardian of the public purse, would probably be willing to accept my proposal. With regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that everybody connected with the Bill is desirous of only having one paid man, may I point out that I propose that the chairman should not be paid? It seems to me that there is a determination that he shall be paid, and under those circumstances we shall have to go to a Division. The right hon. Gentleman, in very wise words, showed us the necessity of paying the vice-chairman and the great wrong which would occur if we were to pay the chairman. He said, "Here is a post which will entail the presence of the chairman or vice-chairman day in and day out and every day." That is exactly what we do not want the chairman to be. We do not want to have an official at £2,000 a year or something of that sort whose sole means of earning a livelihood is this £2,000 a year. I do not want to say anything which in any kind of way would be offensive to the right hon. Gentleman or to any Government, but I say this of all Governments, that they are not to be trusted in these matters. They may give the position to some person who has rendered them a service in some kind of way and who is perhaps out of a job at the moment. That is not the sort of man we want. We want an independent
    274
    person who shall come down and exercise independent judgment upon the facts as they appear before him. We do not want a man who may be afraid that, if he gives a particular ruling, he will provide an opportunity afterwards for some Member in Committee of Supply to bring the matter up, and some Member, recollect, not conversant with the start of the matter, who would merely bring it before the Committee to ventilate some grievance of a constituent. Under these circumstances I say we do not want a paid man. I think there is very considerable feeting, not only here, but in the country generally, against the creation at the present moment of fresh posts. I suggest that the Government should agree that the vice-chairman only shall be paid, and otherwise I must divide the Committee.
    Mr. LONG: I think my hon. Friend has not altogether apprehended the statement made by my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill. I can confirm everything he said with regard to the intention of the Government in reference to this part of the Bill. Our views are the views of the hon. Member for the City, and our ideal will certainly be the selection of a chairman, of some man whose experience in public business and general training and knowledge and position would fit him for the post of chairman and without any salary. At the same time, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher), speaking with rare knowledge and unequalled experience of this work, for to him the credit belongs of the work performed by the Royal Patriotic Fund for some years, has told us what is likely to be the work devolving on the paid official of this Corporation. My hon. Friend is afraid of the creation of fresh posts. So far as I know, I think there is no division of opinion upon that aspect of the case. We all think that at this moment particularly there ought not, if possible, to be any new paid appointments created. I will not refer to my hon. Friend's criticism of the use made by Government of their patronage. I think the nature of that criticism depends to-some extent on the quarter of the House from which it comes. No doubt there is justification for some of his words, but I think in respect of that matter I can allay his alarm. The Committee are aware that these appointments are to be made by the Crown. I know already that this matter has been considered, and I can answer for it that the Prime Minister will not make his recommendations to His Majesty with-

    275
    out the most careful examination of all the facts of the case and of all the records, with a sincere desire that no more shall be paid than is necessary to secure proper performance of the duties. My hon. Friend asked that we should pledge ourselves that there should not be a paid chairman. I hope that he does not mean to divide the Committee. I do not give that pledge, for I certainly will not give it, and for this reason. I do not believe the House of Commons has been asked to deal with a matter of more possible importance than the work which is connected with this particular Bill. It involves the happiness, the comfort, and the liberty of, I am afraid, thousands of people who will be the representatives of our great Armies on sea and land, and it is of vital consequence that that work should be done in the most efficient way possible.
    I believe, with my hon. Friend, that the proper course will be to secure, if we can, the services of a competent man as an unpaid chairman. I believe the wise course will be to have as a vice-chairman a competent man to be paid a decent salary on the old rule that the labourer is worthy of his hire. I believe that without a paid official, undesirable as it is to create new paid offices, it would be impossible to expect this work to be properly done. But when I say, as I admittedly say on behalf of the Government, that it is -our intention to secure if we can good administration, with decent remuneration, but to avoid extravagance, a chairman unpaid, but a vice-chairman to be paid an adequate salary, surely it is not too much to ask, that the suggestion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer early in the afternoon shall for the present be maintained, and that the Government should be given a free hand so that they may do what is best to see that this work is properly done. Everything the Committee desires, and my hon. Friend desires, will be acted upon if we can do it. My belief is that the final appointments will be found to be an unpaid chairman, with a permanent official, and that to that official will be given a salary, which even my hon. Friend with his well-known views of public economy will not find to be extravagant. I am confident that to have an unpaid official would be most unwise in the interest of the Corporation. There must be one paid official, but I agree that the Government ought to undertake, if possible, to secure a chairman of the kind
    276
    I have described, unpaid, and only to pay a salary to the vice-chairman.
    Mr. RADFORD: I have listened to what has been said by the President of the Local Government Board, and I feel for once that we are living under a Coalition Government, and that I am going for the first time in my life into the same Lobby as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I should like to be allowed to remind the President of the Local Government Board of what happened in the case of the Metropolitan Water Bill, which he will remember. There was in that Bill a Clause, very similar to the Clause here, empowering the Metropolitan Water Board to have a paid chairman. Everything was arranged, the best of arguments were produced, just as they have been produced to-day, and Ave held the first meeting of the Metropolitan Water Board, of which I have the honour to be a member, to propose to elect a chairman at a salary of £2,000 a year. We had even a Noble Lord—I think it was a Noble Lord—on the doorstep who was ready to be elected chairman at a salary of £2,000 a year. The Metropolitan Water Board, in whom the discretion as to the payment of the salary rested, debated the matter on an amendment which was the first thing they tackled in their duty, and decided after a long debate not to pay a salary to the chairman. The result was that the Noble Lord on the doormat went away. He did not desire to be elected as chairman without a salary, and we elected at least as competent a chairman as the Noble Lord who disappeared. He held office, and the Metropolitan Water Board carried on its business well enough for many years without a paid chairman at all. If the career of the Metropolitan Water Board has not altogether been a success, it is not due to any want of ability of the chairman, but to defects in the Bill in which it had its origin. I suggest that if the hon. Baronet goes to a Division he will receive a large amount of support from unexpected quarters, and I hope he will persevere with his intention to divide the House on the question, and that he will not consent to the Amendment which is offered as a compromise—that the vice-chairman should be paid and the chairman not paid. I should like to divide against both the proposed Amendments, and I think many others on this side of the House will take the same view.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I only rise as a result of the compromise which appears to have been arrived at between the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and the Front Bench. I can understand the payment of the chairman and the vice-chairman—
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have not arrived at a compromise. I was going to do so, but as the right hon. Gentleman got up I was not able to do so.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Perhaps I had better say what I have to say first. I can understand the chairman and vice-chairman being paid, though I object. I think it will not work. I cannot understand one being paid alone. If you want an official you should make him a paid official, as a paid secretary.
    Mr. DUKE: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the case of the London County Council, which has a chairman? I think the first was Lord Rosebery, who was unpaid. There was a succession of distinguished chairmen, but originally it had a paid vice-chairman.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Yes, I was that paid chairman, and that arrangement came to grief and was never renewed. That is a very strong argument in my favour. I do not think you can have that sort of thing. You have a large number of men and women in the work unpaid, and if you make one paid you put him in a different position from all the others. You are not going to pay the labour people or the women who are going to do the same sort of work, but you are prepared to pay the vice-chairman. I think this is a grave mistake, and I hope, if the Government do settle to have no paid officials at all, they will insist that this body will be a body consisting altogether of unpaid members with a properly paid official secretary and a properly paid staff. I rose because I am afraid of a sort of arrangement being come to which will land us in that position.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should have preferred that the secretary should have been the paid official. That there must be a paid official I think everybody is agreed, but in the circumstances my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) has stated, as I understand it, there must be one official paid. In my opinion that should be the vice-chairman. I do not want to quarrel as to whether there is to be a vice-chairman or a secretary. I think there should be a secretary, but if my right hon. Friend thinks a vice-chairman I am prepared to
    278
    give way to his superior knowledge. We then come to the chairman. I say he should not be paid, and my right hon. Friend says he should not be paid and that he will do his best to get one who will not be paid, but that he cannot say that in any eventuality, if he could not get a chairman who would not agree to be un paid, that he would not pay a salary. Is that a correct interpretation of my right hon. Friend's words?
    Mr. LONGindicated assent.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Very well, then. I have known him a long time; I have always trusted him, and I have not found him to betray me, and I look to him to get a chairman who will not be paid.
    Mr. LONG: I should like to say this I think the sense of the House is clearly in the direction of a reconsideration of this question in regard to the control of this body. The majority are clearly, in my judgment, in favour of such a plan as is indicated by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City. I am confident that the Government do not desire to impose on the House or the Corporation any hard and fast system of their own, and I will undertake to consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we will consider this between now and Report in the hope that we can bring up a proposal then.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next seven Amendments on the Paper deal with the matter of finance, which I think it would be agreed, will be taken on the Question, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HOHLER: May I just put my Amendment—In Sub-section (4) after the word "determine" ["Treasury may determine"], to insert the words: "Provided always that no payment shall be made to the chairman, vice-chairman, or either of them, until funds are provided which, in the opinion of the Treasury, are adequate to pay the supplementary grants to sailors, marines, and soldiers, in accordance with the scale framed by the Corporation under Section 3."
    I will not discuss it further. My point, which I trust will be accepted, is that until in fact the funds are in existence, I do not say now, and we pay supplementary pay to soldiers and sailors under the statutory Committee, the chairman

    279
    and vice-chairman shall not be paid, because then, I think, we shall get some guarantee that the funds will be forthcoming. I beg to move.
    The CHAIRMAN: My fear about any of these Amendments is that if hon. Members move them the discussion will broaden into the financial question.
    Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. If that is your view I will adopt it, and wait until Clause 3 comes.
    Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. I wanted to raise the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), whose authority I have: To leave out in Sub-section (5) the word "other" ["other expenses"], to which I do not think the ruling you have now given would apply. What you have asked us to do we are quite prepared to do, and on Clause 3 to raise the question of where the finance is to come from, but this raises a separate point as to what allowances are to be made to members of the Committee other than travelling expenses, which I think is perfectly clear.
    The CHAIRMAN: I read that Amendment carefully, and it seemed to me to be consequential on the Amendment the House has just negatived to leave out Subsection (4). I think that clearly is the case. The word is necessary now in view of the decision at which we have just arrived.
    Mr. HOGGE: On that point, are we quite clear that is the Amendment. The Sub-section reads, "all other expenses of the Committee (including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine)!" One may very well understand that a Committee drawn from all the United Kingdom might reasonably have travelling expenses allowed to it to come to a central meeting. What I wanted to ask was what was intended by "other allowances to members of the Committee," without raising the question of where the money was to come from.
    The CHAIRMAN: It certainly still appears to me to be an Amendment connected with the Amendment with which we have just dealt, but I will put the Amendment.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the word "other" ["other expenses"].
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The word "other" is consequential on the Subsection we have just agreed to keep in.
    Question, "That the word 'other' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. DICKINSON: My Amendment in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "the funds at the disposal of the Committee," and to insert instead thereof the words "moneys provided by Parliament," is to say that all other expenses are to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. I understand you to rule that that is to be raised on Clause 3.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I gave the ruling on that Amendment earlier in the afternoon on a similar one which stood on the first page of the Amendment Paper. These Amendments, "out of moneys provided by Parliament," cannot be introduced into-the Bill without the previous authorisation of a special Resolution. The Resolution passed by the House does not cover that point. Therefore the hon. Member cannot introduce his Amendment.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (6), to leave out the word "five" ["five members of the statutory Committee"], and to insert instead thereof the word "nine."
    The general feeling on the Second Reading was that five was a very small proportion of the total membership.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am prepared to-accept an increase to seven. There are occasions when this Committee will have an immense amount of work to do, and it may have to meet in August and September. If you put in nine to constitute the quorum you may find a difficulty in getting it in these months, and there may be business sometimes which, though urgent, is not perhaps of first-class importance, and which could be done by the seven. The work of the Committee might be hampered if we put in the number proposed by the Amendment.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I am prepared to-accept the seven.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word "seven."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (6), to leave out the words

    281
    "wholly or partly" ["consisting either wholly or partly of members of the statutory Committee"].
    It is desirable to discover whether these sub-committees of the statutory Committee will or will not be largely composed of members of the statutory Committee. We do not want sub-committees who are not directly responsible to the full Committee.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think we shall have to keep in these words "wholly or partly," so that the choice may not be unduly limited.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend not give us a little better assurance than that? Does not he see that the statutory Committee might appoint on these subcommittees co-opted or other members, who are really not responsible to that statutory Committee, and that it is desirable that the statutory Committee should undertake the full responsibility for these sub-committees?
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I think the point is a very important one. There may be subcommittees set up which would consist entirely of co-opted people, and that would be very undesirable, because, in the first instance, there would be no one present at the sub-committee capable of reporting the transactions of the sub-committees at the next meeting of the statutory body. I think it is desirable that there should be a special rule adopted so that you shall have people specially selected for the purpose of carrying out the main purposes of the Committee. We want these important duties discharged by people who have been in the first instance set up on the statutory body. I think the Amendment is of such importance that we shall desire some better assurance than we have had from the Front Bench as to the intentions of the Government.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend mentions the possibility of all on the subcommittees being co-opted members. But the result of this Amendment would be that all the members would be members of the sub-committees. There might, too, be occasions when we want to add to the representation for special purposes.
    Mr. HODGE: Would it not be well, in view of the end of the Clause that to these sub-committees can be delegated full powers, to leave the Clause as it is, with this proviso: that none of their decisions
    282
    can become operative until such time as they have had the sanction of the full Committee, or at any rate of a regular meeting of the Committee?
    Mr. HOHLER: Would it not be far better to leave some discretion to the statutory Committee that you are going to set up?
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I beg to move in Subsection (7), after the word "years" ["shall be three years"] to add the words "one-third of the whole number of the members of the Committee shall retire every year."
    Under the Bill the whole of the members of the Committee will retire at the end of three years. My object, and the object of the Members who debated this matter on the Second Reading, was that some kind of continuity in the work of the Committee should be preserved. Therefore, I suggest that one-third of the members of the Committee should retire each year. I have taken these words from the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. The members of municipal bodies, to the number of one-third, retire each year. I think it would be an advantage, especially in the early years of these Committees, that there should be some continuity of their membership.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: At one time I was rather in favour of this Amendment, but I am not now. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that there is an absolute necessity to obtain continuity in this work, but my experience of those who have worked on these bodies is that you find some who go after a short time. Their enthusiasm evaporates, and they go of their own accord. If they do not, if they do not do their full share of the work, I hope they will be asked to go. On the other hand, there are many who have stayed on these bodies for a long period. Some of the very best of those with whom I have worked have done this work for nine or twelve years, and I should be very sorry that they should, as to one-third, have to retire every three years. I think it is much better that we should keep it as it is, and have a rule by which we can re-elect or not re-elect, as the case may be. I believe thus we shall best obtain the necessary continuity, and best ensure that those who really care for, and will do the work, will remain, and do that work, possibly even for a lifetime. I hope my

    283
    hon. Friend 'will not press this Amendment. On the face of it there is much to be said for his view; but from real practical experience there is more to be said for mine.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said I have no desire to press this Amendment against the views of the Government.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. RAFFAN: As to the representation of local authorities such as county councils and borough councils on the statutory Committee, the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say that he will be willing to consult with Members before the Report stage as to the composition of the statutory Committee. If that is confirmed I do not desire to press the matter now.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have already said that.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. WING: What about my Amendment, Mr. Chairman?
    The CHAIRMAN: I called upon the hon. Member and he did not rise.
    Mr. WING: I gave way to the hon. Member who has just spoken.
    The CHAIRMAN: We cannot go back upon the Amendment.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Statutory Committee of Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.)

      CLAUSE 2.—(Establishment of Local Committees.)
      (1) For the purpose of assisting the statutory Committee in the execution of their duties, a local committee shall be established for every county and county borough.
      (2) The constitution of a local committee shall be such as may be determined by a scheme framed by the council of the county or borough and approved by the statutory Committee; so, however, that every such scheme shall provide—

      (a) for the appointment by the council of the county or borough of at least a majority of the local committee; but the members so appointed by the council need not be members of the council; and

      284

      (b) for the appointment by the council of the county or borough, from amongst the members of the local committee appointed by the council, of a chairman; and

      (c) for the inclusion of at least two women among the members of the local committee.

      (3) The scheme, in the case of a county, may provide for the division of the county into districts, and the appointment of a sub-committee for each such district, so, however, that every borough and urban district within the county having a population of not less than twenty thousand, and in the case of the county of London the city of London and each metropolitan borough, shall be a separate district.
      Such a sub-committee may, but need not, contain any members of the committee by which it is appointed; and a committee may delegate to a subcommittee any of its powers and duties under the Act.
      (4) Any expenses of a local committee (except so far as they may be paid by the statutory Committee) shall be paid out of funds at the disposal of the local committee.
      (5) In the application of this Section to Scotland "county borough" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh whose lord provost or provost is, as such, a member of the corporation, and "borough" or "urban district" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh.
      (6) In the application of this Section to Ireland a reference to a borough or urban district having a population of not less than ten thousand shall be substituted for the reference to a borough or urban district having a population of not less than twenty thousand.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "duties" ["in the execution of their duties"] to insert the words "the county boroughs and district councils having pension committees under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, shall be invited to allow such pensions committees, and such pensions committees shall be invited to consent to serve as local committees for the purpose of this Act; failing such allowance and consent."
      This is a very important Amendment. The matter was debated on the Second Reading. It is a question whether it would not be advisable to give an

      285
      option to the councils to select the old age pensions committee instead of providing a new scheme. Sub-section (2) places the responsibility to constitute a scheme upon the local authorities. It is very essential for many reasons that the local old age pensions committee should be the body, otherwise you will have certain complications. At the present time the whole country is divided into districts for old age pensions committee purposes. As I said on the Second Reading, in my own county of Durham we have twenty-seven such committees in operation. It would be very unwise, seeing the multitudinous work of the county councils and borough councils, to create another set of committees to do this work, because the old age pensions committees at the present time have to decide upon the matters affecting the allowances to mothers, sisters, or fathers—those who are entitled to dependant allowances. They have to appeal, or to apply to the old age pensions committee for a recommendation to the War Office, or the Admiralty, so far as the allowances are concerned.
      It is stated that there is some objection to the old age pensions committees. I really myself cannot see why! The old age pensions committees are composed of members of the county council. They create sub-committees, or district committees throughout the county. These are composed of members of the borough and district councils. The committees are really co-opted members, men from the outside who are experienced in the work. The council have to formulate a scheme under this Clause. In that case again they would really have to appoint the old members of the old age pensions committee—if they liked; and therefore it would be much better to give an option, subject to the reconstruction of the old age pensions committee—because I believe there are no women on the old age pensions committees. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] There are no women upon the committees of which I know. It may be that the old age pensions committees would have to be reconstructed to suit the representation that is intended upon these committees. I think, therefore, that the option should be given to a committee of the council to make that selection.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: This was a matter of severe controversy on the Second Reading of the Bill. I then said that whilst I
      286
      had the greatest admiration—from practical experience again—of the work done by the old age pensions committee, and by a great many of the pensions officers, I did not think, and I do not think now, that the old age pensions committees and the pensions officers, are the best persons, or that the committees are composed of the best people, or that the pensions officers are the best officers to guide these committees in doing this particular kind of work. We want committees composed of many other elements than those on the old age pensions committees. I am familiar with them. I think they do their own work, the work to which they are suited, admirably. But I would not cast this work upon them. I point to the particular Clause which casts upon these new committees the duties of providing for the employment and the training of officers and soldiers and sailors who have been wounded and disabled. Theirs is a very big work. I do not think for a moment that the old age pensions committees are so constituted throughout the country that they could adequately and properly discharge this most important function.
      I think this is a Committee that should be composed of a great variety of elements. One of the elements you should look for in that Committee is an element that is in touch with the needs, the work, and the lives of the soldiers and the different organisations associated with them. For my part, I hope we shall not limit the choice of these new bodies to those who are doing, admirable work on old age pensions committees. I have already been informed that the pension officers attached to the old age pensions committees have more work already than they can possibly perform, and just at this moment the Board of Customs and Excise is not well able to add to the number of their pension officers. Therefore at the present time this proposal would put undue pressure on the local committees and the pension officers, and work which, I think, they are not too well qualified to perform, considering all the work they have to perform already. I hope we shall give a far wider choice. No doubt in many places a great proportion of the Committee will consist of those who have done the excellent work which many of the members of pension committees have done. There is nothing to prevent a very large selection from the old age pensions committees, and I think in many places we are likely to have that large selection.
      Mr. G. THORNE: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, I do not suppose my hon. Friend will desire very strongly to press the Amendment. I have put down an Amendment somewhat on the same lines, but giving an option rather than making it compulsory, and also providing for the difficulty in reference to the appointment of women. This Amendment is one which has been suggested by the Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations. They have given very careful consideration to this matter and they strongly urge this Amendment. I regret the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept this principle, but, in view of what he has said, I do not think it wise to press it further, and, consequently, as he has stated that the focal authorities will have ample power of practically utilising all the members of the pensions committee who are willing to serve, perhaps that will largely meet the case.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: I hope my hon. Friend intends to press this Amendment. The reasons adduced by the last hon. Member seemed to be most inadequate. Clearly, if the pensions committee is to be drawn on for a considerable number of its members, why not use the pensions committee as a nucleus, reform it, add elements not now represented, and allow it to do the work? The right hon. Gentlemen, in appealing for the withdrawal of the Amendment, suggested that pension officers would not be suitable for the work, or were inadequate for the purpose; but it appears to me that the old age pension officer, in the main, with his knowledge is equipped for the work under this Bill. I would point out that it is not necessary for the local authority to accept its pension committee. If it does not desire to constitute a new committee, why throw upon it the onus of the constitution of a new committee, and give it all the trouble of selecting a new committee when it may have an old age pensions committee already in being quite capable of doing the work? There was another reason which occurred to me while the right hon. Gentleman was stating the objections of the Government to accepting this Amendment. He pointed out that this Committee would have thrown upon it the onus of arranging for the training of those who may be in receipt of relief. I desire to separate that work entirely from any committee which is set up for so different a purpose as the giving of relief.
      288
      The people who are giving out these small amounts will be disposed, I imagine, to clear off their books as many cases as possible in the shortest possible time, and they will be disposed, if they are responsible for the training and the employment of the people they assist, to get rid of them, no matter what the wages may be offered. I want to suggest that there should be a committee for this purpose of training and equipping for industrial work entirely distinct from the body for dispensing relief.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Outside this Bill?
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: Not necessarily outside this Bill; inside this Bill, as suggested by Amendments from these benches, so as to give us a Committee more in touch with industry than the particular sub-committee under the scheme outlines in the Bill. The two functions are so different that they ought to be discharged by two entirely different sets of people. The reasons of the right hon. Gentleman, so far from convincing me of the desirability of dropping the Amendment, rather suggest to me the necessity of adhering to the Amendment and giving the locality the opportunity, if it so desires, of getting its old age pensions committee strengthened for this purpose, and that we have constituted under the Bill a separate Committee for the equipment of training institutions, and for the placing in employment of those assisted as soon as they are sufficiently strong to undertake it. The issue is so clear and so important that we should press this Amendment, in my opinion, to a Division
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: I believe that the evidence before the pensions committee was so strong that the pensions committee came to the conclusion that the old age pensions committee was not the best committee to be selected. I know that in many cases there has been great objection to the officers, although I personally have not come across it. Still, the Committee itself was very strong upon this point: that it was better to set up a new committee in each district, and, as the Government are not prepared to accept the option of allowing the old age pensions committee to act, I desire to withdraw my Amendment. [HON. MEMHERS: "No."]
      Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. My Amendment, which comes next, raises the same point. I wish to discuss that; does this preclude me?
      The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member had allowed this Amendment to be withdrawn he could have moved his, but the Committee has refused leave to withdraw it, and therefore it must be settled either in the affirmative or the negative. If settled in the negative I cannot allow a discussion again on the hon. Member's Amendment.
      Mr. HOGGE: I do not mind so long as we can discuss it on the original Amendment. May I also add my quota to what has been said with regard to this? I hope that this will be persisted in. If hon. Members will look at what is suggested as the alternative in the Bill, it is that the local authorities, such as the county borough, shall appoint an ad hoc Committee on which ad hoc Committee there shall be a majority of the councillors in that particular borough. Is not that exactly the position of their own pension committee? On every local pension committee now there is a majority representative of the councilors; they are there already.
      Mr. HOHLER: I do not see that they are bound to appoint any members of the council at all. If you look at Clause 2, Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), you will see they can appoint any persons they like.
      Mr. HOGGE: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend, because it strengthens my argument. The proposal of the Bill may take away from the representatives of the people in a locality, such as a county borough, the right to determine those questions which are to be determined under this Bill. I will tell my right hon. Friend quite frankly, because I believe it is fair to be frank in these matters, why I do not think the alternative in the Bill is a good one. I am frankly afraid of the interests of our disabled soldiers and sailors, and those people who are getting extra allowances and grants, falling into the hands of any irresponsible committees. I do not like the way in which a great many of these things are done. I do not illustrate that at all, but I only state it quite frankly to show my attitude of mind. On the local pension committee you have now a majority of representatives of our city councils and borough councils. That committee has power to co-opt other people, including women who are interested in the administration of old age pensions, so that it is quite easy for this Bill we are now discussing to give that committee power further to co-opt persons you think should be on but are not on. Objection has been
      290
      made with regard to the pension officer, and, quite rightly, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said the men who were doing that work were very largely occupied. Of course, the reason for that was that those were the wrong men to make pension officers. Those men were Inland Revenue and Excise officers, and for the purposes of the OM Age Pension Act were made pension officers; but if you find these officers cannot do the work of this Committee, because they are so busy on account of the demand made upon them, it is easy to get somebody else. There are plenty of officers in our city and borough councils who could do this work effectively.
      8.0 P.M.
      If anyone will tell with me, I shall divide the House on this point, because I feel it is not sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to get up again to-day and say what he said on the Second Reading. He promised us, and I think he was perfectly frank in his promise, that he would consider all these points in Committee. What has my right hon. Friend done? He has said to-day that he still holds the view he held then—that is to say, he has not considered it again. I do not mean to be offensive, as my right hon. Friend knows. My right hon. Friend has not shown the Committee why the old ago pensions committee cannot do this work, and why it is necessary to set up an entirely new Committee. I would also point out that there is the question of funds involved in this. Sub-section (4) says that any expenses of a local committee shall be paid out of funds at the disposal of the local committee. If we are going to set up an entirely new Committee, it may raise a question in a locality of funds which are required for other purposes being diverted for the machinery of this Committee in that locality. Now, on the other hand, you have an old age pensions committee, which is a working institution, which has not got so much work but that it could have fresh duties added to it, and which, therefore, would avoid all questions of further expense. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he could not add to the old age pensions committee in the various localities the type of person whom he thinks at the present moment is left out of the old age pensions committee, and so strengthen that body as to be able to achieve both purposes? If this House is keen over economy they are quite as keen in regard to increasing the machinery in

      291
      the country for carrying out Acts of Parliament, for in all conscience we have enough. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to some simple plan for enlarging the old age pensions committee to carry out this work.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to be discussing a proposal standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne). If that is the desire of the Committee this Amendment might now be negatived.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, you will then allow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton to move his Amendment?
      The CHAIRMAN: Yes, that Amendment deals with the question of the old age pensions committee with three additional members who shall be women.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to propose, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "county and county."
      The suggestion here is to bring in the large urban districts with a population of over 20,000. That was provided for in the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and my Amendments in this direction do not go quite so far as the Committee suggested, although they are strongly urged by the Association of Municipal Corporations, who have given this matter their very careful and anxious consideration. The Amendment is one which I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept, because he promised to listen to the representations made from representative bodies. The effect will be that you will have the borough counties represented and also urban counties having a population of not less than 20,000. This suggestion seems to me so reasonable and one which, I think, is so much desired by local authorities that I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it.
      Sir NORVAL HELME: I wish to support the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. The principle upon which this Amendment is intended to act is to secure the services of those with local knowledge and definite acquaintance with the residents in the various districts who know the men and the interests that are to be provided for under this Bill. I speak for the non-
      292
      county boroughs of which the borough of Lancaster is an example—within my own Constituency. Lancaster is an ancient corporation which goes back for 700 years, and we have all the arrangements which qualify us to deal with purely local matters. Therefore I ask the Government to recognise the local interest taken in this matter, and the advantage that would come by the responsibility being cast upon those who really are local men and able to deal and obtain information in detail from those amongst whom they live, so that we may do our part to bring about an equitable decision in all cases, some of which would present great difficulty in the absence of local knowledge.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. I should like to explain that non-county boroughs will strongly resent the provision in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2, which provides that the county council will have the responsibility of creating a scheme for the non-county boroughs. The non-county boroughs strongly resent that, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the suggestion made in the Report of the Committee, which reported that every county and every borough and urban district council should frame a scheme. I represent a borough that has a population of over 70,000 people, and they now appoint their own old ago pensions committee, but they resent very strongly that the county council should draft a scheme for them. Therefore J hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, which would mean that every county and every borough which is not a county borough, and every district council, will have power to create their own scheme under this Bill.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: Then we shall have to divide the Committee, because it is really serious.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: We cannot accept it now, because I am afraid it would seriously affect the areas provided for in the Bill. The proposal in the Amendment will require a very great deal of looking into to see how far the areas in the Bill will be altered. Our idea was to get as large an area as possible from which the people might be drawn. They would form themselves into a committee, which would be divided into subdivisions where you would have sub-

      293
      committees possessing a good deal of local knowledge and experience. It is not very easy to decide at once on this Amendment, but if I were to accept it I am sure it would entail a great deal of alteration of the areas which have been shown under this Bill. I will, however, promise to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he could accept any reconstitution of these areas on the Report stage, and I will lay before my right hon. Friend the views which have been expressed. I will myself approach this question in order to see whether it is possible for us to alter the areas. If the hon. Member does not press this Amendment now he may get a different answer after it has been thoroughly well considered.
      Mr. G. THORNE: After what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, of course I shall not press my Amendment.
      Sir NORVAL HELME: Will the right hon. Gentleman confer with those who are interested in this matter?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: There will be ample time between now and the Report stage for a conference to take place, and my right hon. Friend, I am sure, will be very glad to receive representations. All we want is to get the best scheme we can.
      Mr. G. THORNE: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (c), to leave out the words "at least two women among," and to insert instead thereof the words "as many women as will constitute at least one-fourth of the total number of."
      I do not think this Amendment is on the same footing as that dealing with the statutory Committee. This is a local matter, and therefore it is more desirable to put in some words of definite guidance in dealing with these local committees without dealing with the central statutory Committee. You will have local authorities and all sorts of views, and you might have these words interpreted in the narrowest possible sense. I know it is the strong wish of the organised women of this country that there should be a definite statement that at least a very substantial part of these committees should consist of women, and that the proportion should be at least one-fourth of the total. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept this Amendment.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. We propose to accept the words "some women," and I think that will meet all the necessities of the case. I am sure those who constitute the local committees I will be ready to avail themselves of any local knowledge and skill that can be obtained in carrying out this work.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: It is quite clear that women are far more interested in this work than the men, and I do not think it is right to leave this question to be determined possibly by the narrow prejudice of a particular council in a particular locality. It is quite a different thing when you are dealing with a council. I know that it would be a very great disadvantage to the organised women of this country if something a great deal more definite than "some women" should be put in this Clause.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I hope that the hon. Member will not insist unless he desires to prevent the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras [to leave out the word "two" and to insert instead thereof the word "some"], because the Question, as put from the Chair, was that the words "at least" stand part of the Clause. If the Amendment follows the usual course, the words "at least" will stand part, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will therefore be unable to carry out the suggestion which he made.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: I was going to appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment. When you fix the number of women—take the Education Committee—there is sometimes very great difficulty in getting suitable women, and committees, to my knowledge, have had to go about hunting for an appropriate woman to sit upon the committee and to devote her time to the work. There are many cases where the number suggested has not been made up, and they have had to work the scheme with fewer women. I would suggest, therefore, to my hon. Friend that he should leave it to the discretion of the committee, because I am quite certain that if you put in the words "some women" the committee will select women to sit upon the committees.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. Dickinson: In paragraph (c) to leave out the word "two" and insert the word "some."
      Mr. DICKINSON: I think my Amendment would be better if I moved it simply to make the words read "for the inclusion of women among the members of the local committee."
      Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Word "some" there inserted.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: We do not want the word "some" now.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is done now.
      Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), paragraph (c), after the word "women," to insert the words "and two men representative of working-class industrial organisations."
      I do not think that I need take up the time of the Committee in seeking to press this Amendment. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will accept it.
      Mr. HOGGE: I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider the effect of his Amendment. He is, as I know, an adherent of the old age pension committee in reference to this Bill, and he is probably looking at it from that point of view, but let him look at the committee to be set up. It may be appointed locally, and it may consist of quite a large number of people. If he allows the Amendment to be carried, there will be only two labour representatives, whereas in ordinary circumstances, the local councils being constructed as they are, a great many more labour men may be on the committee.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: May I offer the same advice to the hon. Member? Both of us have the same view, but the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) has had the word "two" cut out, and the Bill will indicate that more than two women should be on the committee. If, therefore, the hon. Member puts into the Bill the words "two men representative of working-class industrial organisations" it would be rather an indication that two would be satisfactory. I think, from his own point of view, it would be best for him to leave those words out.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: It would be perfectly satisfactory to us if similar words were applied here as have been accepted in the case of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, and it seems to me that as the Government are so much enamoured of the
      296
      words which they have accepted with regard to women they can have no possible objection to accepting words which will give a similar representation to working class industrial organisations I would like to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will accept a modified Amendment, giving the same concession in the case of working men as he has been so pleased to give in the case of women.
      Mr. HOHLER: I really do not think that this Amendment is required. Women are specially mentioned, because, broadly speaking, they are not represented on councils, but I do not know that there need be any anxiety with regard to the representation of labour.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not want to commit myself to any form of words, but I can assure the hon. Member that I will bring up some words which will ensure that there will be an indication in the Bill itself that it is expected that every scheme framed by a local committee shall include representatives of industrial organisations.
      Mr. HODGE: I accept the explanation, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), at the end, to add the words "(d) for the inclusion of adequate representation of the local branch of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association."
      There is no doubt that this body is thoroughly well acquainted with the work which has got to be done. The Government has already recognised their knowledge and the experience which they have gained as valuable, because they have allowed two representatives of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association to be placed on the statutory Committee. If the presence of those members is valuable on the statutory Committee it is equally valuable, if not more so, upon the local committees. I move the Amendment in order to ensure that there shall be some members of that association present on the local committees.
      Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that there should be adequate representation of local branches of this association in all cases where the association is doing considerable work.

      297
      But it is obviously part of the scheme of the Bill to encourage district working, and we might have some districts where branches of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association scarcely exist. We have been placed in great difficulty, in towns of considerable size, where there are scarcely any persons in any way connected with this association, and if you put this in as an absolute direction it may cause further difficulty. There is no desire on the part of local authorities to exclude the association where it has been doing a considerable part of the work. I hope the Government will be able to express sympathy with the general view, without of necessity accepting these words, which, in my opinion, are too crude.
      Colonel YATE: I trust some mention of this association will be made here. I do not agree with what has just been said by the hon. Member who last spoke. This society has been doing splendid work for months past, and to it are due the thanks of the pensioners for whose benefit the labour has been extended. The association has a real right to be represented on these local committees, and it ought not to have to ask to be appointed as a matter of favour. I trust that that right will be recognised by the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will see his way to make some provision to secure it. Any interruption of the labours of its branches would be the greatest calamity to the women and children who are mostly concerned in the passing of this Bill.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I should naturally like to accept the Amendment because I have a great affection for the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. But I am bound to point out that that association has not got branches everywhere, and if we put these words in we should have to limit their operation to places where effective branches exist. Then the question would be opened up who is to decide whether a branch is effective. I would ask hon. Members to look at the general composition of this body. We put in a mandatory Sub-clause that women shall be included. We have another mandatory Clause that representatives of the working classes shall be included. But we have put in nothing mandatory in favour of any particular association or society. Perhaps it will suffice for me to say that I believe no local body will be properly constituted unless it contains a great many members of any effective branch of the
      298
      Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and where a branch is working effectively and harmoniously there need be no alarm that they will not be invited to help in that particular locality. I think we had better leave it at that. With all the good will in the world for this association I do not think I can accept this Amendment.
      Sir J. SPEAR: Would it not meet the case if the word "some" were introduced? It is very important that this association should be represented. They have a right to claim representation, and the introduction of the word "some" would, I think, secure that right.
      Sir C. NICHOLSON: I regret the decision the Government have come to, but, as I do not want to press my Amendment to a Division, I will ask leave to withdraw it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. G. THORNE: The next four Amendments standing on the Paper in my name are consequential on a matter which is to be considered on the Report stage, and I do not, therefore, propose to move them.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "and in the case of the county of London, the City of London, and each Metropolitan borough."
      I hope my right hon. Friend will consider whether the Government cannot meet me in this matter. The effect of the words which I propose to delete is to make it obligatory on the County Council of London, when it draws up its scheme, to declare that the divisions for the purposes of local administration shall be coterminous with the divisions of the City of London and of the Metropolitan boroughs. There is no reason why that obligation should be put on the county council. I can show, I think, there is every reason why we should leave the option perfectly open to the county council as to the areas it shall adopt. That, at any rate, was the course adopted under the Old Age Pensions Act. My right hon. Friend has a very great knowledge of that Act. He had a great deal to do with the scheme, and he has had much to do with the administration of the Act in London. I respect his opinion, therefore, very highly. But I think that on this occasion I can lay before the Committee reasons why it is not advisable to make this new departure.

      299
      What happened under the Old Age Pensions Act? The county council had power to make its own scheme, and the scheme made was not in accordance with the divisions of London and the Metropolitan boroughs. There are twenty-nine Metropolitan boroughs, but it was found desirable to divide London into thirteen districts for the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Act. The reasons were obvious. The boroughs differed very largely from one another, both in size and population—they ranged from 500,000 inhabitants to less than 20,000—and they differed also in rateable value. For these reasons the council came to the conclusion that it would be better to divide London into thirteen areas and to so arrange them that the wealthier and the poorer communities were able to co-operate with each other. The policy proposed under this Bill has never received the approval of the London County Council, and the one committee which has, I believe, been consulted with regard to it—a committee, the majority of the members of which are Moderates—has decided unanimously against this provision of the Bill. Although the county council has not had an opportunity of considering this point, representatives of it waited on me yesterday and stated their views, and I am pretty certain that the county council will strongly resent the option of arranging the best district suitable for the purposes of this Bill being taken away from it. I hope we shall not institute, for reasons which I must say I entirely fail to appreciate, the new system of administration contemplated by this Clause. I am not going at this moment to discuss the Old Age Pensions Act, but I do suggest that the considerations which applied to the institution of districts in London for the purposes of that Act apply absolutely equally to the questions which will come before the county council when it has to deal with this scheme. I therefore hope the Government will agree to omit these words.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is quite true, as my right hon. Friend says, that I was very largely responsible for the organisation of the old age pensions committee for London, but I must say that we came to a decision which was very unpopular at the time with the Metropolitan boroughs when we grouped those boroughs as the authority for old age pensions. Why did we do it? Because we had to put members of the London County Council on each of
      300
      those sub-committees. One of the main reasons for that was that it would have been impossible to find members of the London County Council to go on twenty-nine different sub-committees, neither was it necessary to have, as we thought, an old age pensions committee in every single borough. I cannot say that that was a popular decision. I believe it has worked well, but I do not think it is popular to this very day. I am quite sure from what I know of the Metropolitan boroughs that it would be most unpopular to group them for this particular purpose. The part of London to which I belong—Chelsea, Fulham and Hammersmith—are grouped together for old age pension purposes, and I believe that works fairly well. But I am quite sure if I were to propose that Chelsea, Fulham and Hammersmith should combine in one committee to carry out all the various duties put upon the members of this committee, I should be proposing something very unpopular, not only with the Metropolitan boroughs but with the people who inhabit those parts.
      What happened not only during the Transvaal war, but what has happened even during the months of this War? It has been the habit and custom of the people to look to a particular committee set up and working in their own boroughs, very often working with their headquarters at the town hall, particularly in the poorer districts. The people there have become accustomed to go to the town hall to inquire into the many little grievances they have and the many sorrows they have in connection with these grants, pensions and allowances, and all that kind of thing. People from outside have been imported into a certain borough, and they have a habit of working in certain streets, and giving up the best of their time to this work. We should disturb this work very greatly and be making a mistake to adopt this system. We should find we had done something which was not only unpopular with the borough councils themselves, but very unpopular with the wives and widows of those for whose advantage the statutory Committee is mainly set up. I hope my right hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I am quite sure that if I were to accept it I should be adopting a very unpopular line, therefore I must adhere to the arrangement within the four corners of this Bill.
      Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I would say, in support of this proposal, that it does not mean that all the borough council

      301
      areas should be the areas for the committee, but simply that this matter should be referred to the London County Council, so that they might make the same arrangement as they have done as regards the old age pensions committee or any other arrangement. Possibly there is a good deal to be said for what the right hon. Gentleman stated with regard to the borough councils in respect of working the committees; but there is another side to it. I believe he himself admitted that the old age pensions committee worked remarkably well in particular districts. I believe these committees would work well if the matter is placed in the hands of the London County Council to make their own areas, as was done in the case of the old age pensions committee.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: I should like to back up the remarks of the Mover of this Amendment. The county council has to devise a scheme. They have been doing similar work in connection with old age pensions, which has given satisfaction to everyone. Areas and population are different in character. Take the City of London, for instance. That would be an area where very little of this work would have to be done. The greater part of the population are caretakers, and very few of their people have gone to the War or been killed in the War; whereas in other areas a very large amount of this work will have to be done. I think you might leave a great body like the London County Council to divide up the work for which they are responsible. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will listen to the appeal of my right hon. Friend, because I believe it is the unanimous wish of the London County Council that this discretion should not be taken from them.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I shall not withdraw the Amendment, and I shall ask leave to bring it to a Division. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I do so because I am asked to do so by the representatives of London. It is perfectly true that this question has always been a question of dispute between the representatives on the county council and the various Metropolitan borough councils, but that is the very reason why I think it is not at all fair that under the conditions in which we are now proceeding, conditions which my right hon. Friend perfectly realises, that we should have these questions which, are of great importance so far
      302
      as London is concerned, and which are felt very strongly indeed by at any rate one party—and I believe that all parties would be agreed—it is not at all fair, in the circumstances in which Parliament is sitting now, that we should have this matter raised against the opposition of the representative body of London, and not in other parts, because you are giving this option to every other county council. You are not laying them under any obligation at all. It is because my right hon. Friend thinks that it is the best way of doing it that he proposes it now. I submit it is only fair that these questions should be left to the representative body. I shall not withdraw the Amendment, and perhaps before the Report stage the county council may be able to operate upon the mind of my right hon. Friend.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: It would be very curious indeed if an appeal on behalf of London were rejected, inasmuch as both the hon. Members who are sitting here doing their best for this Bill are London Members. I confess that I thought the statement of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board was convincing as to the necessity of keeping the borough area, particularly inasmuch as we have already determined the constitution of the Committee. So far as I can see there is no reason why the views of those who are deeply interested in the administration of London affairs should not, so far as opportunity offers, be heard. My right hon. Friend and myself are agreed, if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) will let the matter stand as it is, that if there are those who have authority to express their views upon this matter, and desire to do so to us, an opportunity will offer for a fair and reasonable consideration of what is best for London in this case between now and the Report stage. I give my right hon. Friend the assurance that that consideration shall be given.
      Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to go to a Division upon this Amendment, because it is analogous to other points of the discussion, which I understand are to be discussed between now and the Report stage, and upon which I certainly will take pains to confer before the Report stage. I hope we shall not be put to a Division during the Committee stage on the question of county versus borough. We may, perhaps, although I hope not, be driven to some

      303
      such Division later on, but while there is any chance of agreeing upon this part of the Bill it would be made more difficult by the emotional result of the Division.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I accept my right hon. Friend's assurance, and will not press the Amendment to a Division at present, but I urge that he should give the consideration to the wishes of the London County Council.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, after the word "district" ["shall be a separate district"], to insert the words "and in the appointment of every such subcommittee some of the members appointed shall be women."
      There are no words in this Sub-section which lay down that women should be on the sub-committees. I think that is a mistake. It is perfectly clear that if there is any portion of the work in which it is most necessary to have women it is on the local sub-committees of the district.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "Such a sub-committee may, but need not, contain any members of the Committee by which it is appointed; and a Committee may delegate to a sub-committee any of its powers and duties under this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "Such a sub-committee must contain some members of the Committee by which it is appointed."
      I move this because it seems to me extremely ridiculous that it should be possible to erect a sub-committee which could have all the powers and duties given to it under this Act, and yet that it should not contain a single member of the appointing Committee That is so ridiculous a position that surely my right hon. Friend, if he does not agree to my form of words, will agree to put in some words of his own to ensure that all these sub-committees, at any rate, must include some members of the Committee by which they are appointed.
      Sir R. ADKINS: I support this, although if the Government have any special reason I might possibly be content to have at least one member of the Committee by which it is appointed. I am speaking only from the point of view of administrative counties. In nearly every Department I can think of now, where we
      304
      are appointing sub-committees on education, school attendance, and old age pensions, we find it very desirable to have at least one, and generally two, members of the appointing committee on each of its district committees in order to maintain continuity and to have first hand evidence in case any difficulty arises. In many cases you will not want many members of the Committee, but I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, or words to a similar effect, in order just to keep the link between the appointing Committee and the district committee.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I really dare not accept this without giving it a great deal more thought. Take the county of Lancashire, with which the hon. Gentleman is very well acquainted. There I should think the members of the Committee have quite enough work to do without one or other of them attending and serving on every sub-committee which may be appointed. In Lancashire and Yorkshire there are enormous areas and there are a great number of sub-committees, and they must find someone willing to serve on each one of those sub-committees. I believe that if the hon. and learned Gentleman or myself were working on a statutory Committee we should endeavour to put some member on each sub-committee, so as to link it up with the statutory Committee, but I believe neither he nor I would like to be absolutely bound to find someone to work on the sub-committee. I could not accept this, at all events, until the Report stage, and until I have had an opportunity of thoroughly looking into the matter and seeing whether I was providing myself with a working scheme, or merely breaking it down
      Mr. RAFFAN: I hope the right hon. Gentlemen will very seriously consider this matter, and will be advised by practical experience. I have had very long experience of county councils, and I can assure him that their members will always be very glad to serve on a committee of this character. I happen to be a Lancashire representative, and I should be extremely surprised to find that in any part of the county it was difficult to get a member of the county council to act. Certainly in my Constituency the local members of the county council would be very disappointed if they were not appointed. As the right hon. Gentleman has not considered it, I hope he will give us an assurance that if he finds generally that those

      305
      engaged in county council work think the Amendment should go in, he will let it go in on the Report stage.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: If hon. Members who are accustomed to work on this class of committee can assure me that this will be a good working scheme, I shall be glad to accept it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words, "Provided that if the council of any borough, district, or county in which a committee is appointed under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, so decide, that committee shall be the local committee for the purposes of this Act instead of a local committee established in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Section, but in that case if the committee does not comprise at least three members who are women the council shall add to the committee not less than three additional members who shall be women. The committee shall have for the purposes of this Act the powers contained in the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, in regard to the appointment of and the delegation of powers to sub-committees."
      During the course of the discussion certain of my hon. Friends strongly urged that if the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept an Amendment a Division should be taken. I think it is very undesirable to have Divisions on matters of this kind where it is possible to avoid them. This Amendment emanates from the same source as the Amendments which he has already promised to consider and to receive a deputation upon. I suggest that he will be willing to allow this particular suggestion to be considered later, so that those who are interested in it and have given it careful consideration may have an opportunity of expressing their views, and he will possibly be able to satisfy them, and we shall have got thorough unanimity.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I thoroughly understood all this evening that the hon. Member's Amendment would form part of the subject, and a very important part, of the deliberations which were set on foot. The question to which he will have to address himself is how far the old age pensions committees are certain to contain all the elements that ought to find themselves on a really sound working committee which is to carry out all the functions under this Act. That is the question
      306
      he must be prepared to argue, and we shall be prepared to give that matter very serious consideration.
      Sir RYLAND ADKINS: There are a number of Members associated with local government who are very much opposed to the old age pensions committees being the local authority under this Act. The Parliamentary Committee of County Councils Association have their meeting to-morrow and we will consider it, and then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will see me, as well as my hon. Friend, to see if we cannot get a scheme which will satisfy us both.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I shall naturally be very anxious to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman, because they appear to approach very nearly to my own.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "except so far as they may be paid by the statutory Committee) shall be paid out of funds at the disposal of the local committee," and to insert instead thereof the words "approved by the statutory Committee shall be paid by the statutory Committee."
      I think the Committee ought to understand exactly what is in the minds of the Government with regard to the funds to be at the disposal of the local committees. It is said that the Government anticipate that the charitable funds which are to be used by the statutory Committee are to be collected by the local committees. It seems to me to be impossible to contemplate that that will be a useful arrangement. So far as one can foresee, the whole of the expenses for supplementary pensions will have to be borne by whatever funds are at the disposal of the statutory Committee. Whether it is taken from the Prince of Wales' Fund or whether it is taken from Grants by Parliament, or whatever course is adopted, I think it is perfectly clear that the money available for these supplementary pensions will, as a matter of fact, be money which is in the possession of the statutory Committee. Therefore it seems to me that the statutory Committee ought to pay all the expenses. That is the reason why I move this Amendment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us exactly what it is that he proposes, because if the proposition is that these local committees are to collect their own money and to dispense it as far as they can in their own localities, then

      307
      I think it is a serious matter that we ought not to assent in this House. Of course if it is merely a question of petty expenses that would be met by my Amendment, which proposes that the expenses of a local committee shall only be expenses approved by the statutory Committee. I cannot understand how the local committees are to collect this money. I should think that it would be the simpler course, and the course which experience has proved to be most successful, if this statutory Committee is the one body which spends money and authorises the spending of money in every part of the Kingdom.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If this discussion goes on I presume that it will be limited to the specific point of detail in connection with this particular subject, and not range over the general question of finance, which I understand will be discussed oil the next Clause. I am not ruling the Amendment out of order.
      Mr. DICKINSON: The whole question as to where the money is to come from is undoubtedly outside this Amendment. The subject of the Amendment is whether the local committees shall have the spending of their own money or whether the statutory Committee should do it.
      9.0 P.M.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: I believe there is great substance in this Amendment, because my experience of provincial towns is that the whole of the money that is collected and handed over in supplementary grants to soldiers and sailors is sent to London. Therefore there will be no money with which these local committees can pay the expenses. The statutory Committee is going to focus the whole of these grants of moneys within their control and they must send down to the local committees money to cover the local expenses, otherwise there will be no money to pay the local expenses. I think that we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is expected that these local committees are going to collect money for this fund, because if they do collect money for it, as they have been doing, through the local mayors, the whole of the money in most towns is sent direct to the Prince of Wales's Fund. I cannot see, therefore, how any money collected will be left to pay the expenses.
      Mr. GRETTON(indistinctly heard): I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not
      308
      accept this Amendment without some consideration. I have had some experience in administering the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. If the matter is left to the local committees I think it will be found that there will be much greater tendency to increase expenses and less check on administration than there would be if they had to draw upon funds collected locally to meet their expenses. Of course, there is strong argument on the other side that all the money should not go into the central fund, but that a part of it should be kept locally and that expenses should be charged locally in the interests of economy.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I quite agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Gretton). It is quite true that some of these local committees, even in quite recent times, have spent money somewhat undesirably in official expenses. I have known cases where the official expenses have run up into a very high figure indeed. This Subsection, as I read it, will protect the statutory Committee. It provides that—
      "Any expenses of a local committee (except so far as they may be paid by the statutory Committee) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the local committee."
      There will be a check by the statutory Committee on the local expenses of the local committees. If the local committees want to run their machines on a very extravagant scale, and if they want to do things which are not usually done by other committees, then they must do it out of funds which they themselves collect. They will have power to collect money, and if they want to go into very high official expenses, high salaries, high rent for offices, etc., expenses not approved by the statutory Committee, that money will have to be found by the local committees, and not by the statutory Committee. That is how I read the Sub-section.
      Mr. HOHLER: I agree that there is great substance in this Amendment. In my view it is quite insufficient to read Clause 2 alone, you must read with it Clause 4 Under Clause 4 you ascertain what are the functions of the local committee. As I read Clauses 2 and 4, and the Sub-sections, I think it is quite clear that the local committees, out of the funds at their disposal, can make grants and can make supplementary grants. I find that in so far as they can solicit funds they can spend them as they like, and in so far

      309
      as the statutory Committee is concerned, all that they require to do is to collect information for the statutory Committee and to distribute any supplementary grants made by the statutory Committee, the distribution of which has been delegated to the local committees. Apart from that, they can collect funds and pay exactly what they like. Any funds they collect are free in their hands, and there is nothing which requires or enables the statutory Committee to give them any money at all. The statutory Committee, if they think fit, can use the local committees as a distributing medium under Clause 4 of the Bill, Sub-clause (c), which enables the local committees:
      "To distribute any supplementary grants made by the statutory Committee, the distribution of which has been delegated to the local committee."
      Apart from that, I do not see that there is any control over these local committees. In other words, whether it is from the Prince of Wales's Fund or not, if they have not paid it over, they can distribute the money just as they like and as they please without any control at all.
      Mr. RAFFAN: May I refer to the encouragement which may be given to local committees to raise funds for the purpose of making, themselves, additions to the allowance made by the Central Committee. If that occurs you will have different scales in different parts of the country and there will be the gravest dissatisfaction. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that all that he seeks to safeguard is safeguarded by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. Under that Amendment nothing is paid to the local committee except under such scale as the statutory Committee may determine. If he sets the local committees to work collecting funds I am quite sure that they will not be content to raise the mere amount that is necessary. They will go on to raise considerable funds which will not be sent to headquarters. The result will be that you will have varying scales and a great amount of dissatisfaction. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept the Amendment to-day, he will give the matter further consideration, so that that which, in my view, is a very great evil indeed, may be avoided.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I do not want to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but I would ask the right hon.
      310
      Gentleman to give the matter further consideration between now and the Report stage.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I will give a little more attention to that point in the interval.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 3.—(Functions of Statutory Committee.)
      (1) The functions of the statutory Committee shall be:—

      (a) to decide any question of fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant, other than a widow or child, may depend;

      (b) to frame a scale of supplementary grants in cases where owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the pension or grant or separation allowance payable out of public funds seems to the committee to be inadequate;

      (c) out of funds at their disposal, to supplement pensions and grants and separation allowance payable out of public funds, so, however, that no such supplementary grant shall be made except in accordance with such scale as aforesaid;

      (d) out of funds at their disposal, to make grants in cases where no separation allowances or pensions are payable out of public funds;

      (e) to decide, in any particular case, whether any pension or grant or separation allowance has, under the regulations subject to which it was granted, become forfeited;

      (f) to decide, as between two or more claimants to any pension or grant or separation allowance, which, if any, of the claimants is entitled thereto;

      (g) to determine any other questions in relation to pensions or grants or separation allowances which may be referred to the committee by the Admiralty or Army Council;

      (h) to administer any funds which may be placed at the disposal of the committee by the corporation or by local committees or by any society or other organisation having funds applicable to the making of grants

      311
      of the nature of those which the committee are authorised to make, or otherwise;

      (i) to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment.

      (2) The statutory Committee may refer to any local committee for their consideration and advice any question pending before the statutory Committee, and may request any local committee to collect and furnish them with any information they may require with respect to any matter, and may delegate to any local committee the distribution within their area of any grants made by the statutory Committee, and may pay or contribute towards the payment of the expenses incurred by the local committee in respect of any of the matters aforesaid.
      (3) Paragraphs (8), (9), (10), and (11), of the First Schedule to the Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903 (relating to funds, accounts and audit), shall apply in respect of the statutory Committee in like manner as they apply in respect of the Corporation.
      (4) The statutory Committee shall in each year make a report of their proceedings which shall be included in the annual report made by the Corporation to His Majesty.
      Mr. HOHLER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "be" ["The functions of the Statutory Committee shall be"], to insert the Words: "To deside by way of appeal from the Admiralty or War Office whether any officer, sailor, marine, or soldier, widow, child, or dependant is entitled to any and what pension, grant, or separation allowance under the warrant, order, or regulation made by the Admiralty or War Office to give effect to the report of the Pensions Committee."
      We now come to a very important part of this measure in regard to the functions of the statutory Committee. In my judgment they are far too limited. Of course, I realise that the supplementary scales are entirely a matter within their own province, but the object of my Amendment is to confer upon the statutory Committee real powers in regard to the grant of pensions by the State. I fully appreciate the argument of those who say that these pensions ought to be controlled by the State, but after a great crisis such as that through which we are going, the question
      312
      as to who are entitled to payment on the terms of the regulation made by the Admiralty ought to be decided by the statutory Committee. At present the power which it is proposed to give them is of a limited character. They have no power to decide as between the Crown and the subject, whether the subject is entitled to a pension or not. That remains wholly in the discretion of the Department, either the Admiralty or the War Office, administering the pay warrants from the Crown. The only powers given are under paragraph (a):
      "To decide any question or fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant other than a widow or child may depend."
      In other words, it would be left to the uncontrolled discretion of the Admiralty or the War Office without any appeal to say in the first instance that A B is entitled to a pension, and then it may be that a question of fact will arise as to the amount' of the pension.
      I have not myself seen these pension warrants or regulations issued by the Admiralty to give effect to the pension scheme. I assume that there will probably be a different scale, say in regard to dependants. This only deals with dependants, because the widow and children are exempt from all jurisdiction by the statutory Committee. I suppose that when these pay warrants are presented to Parliament we shall find there is some scale set up, a different scale we will say for a mother, a father, and a sister. All that the statutory Committee will have to decide, as between the Crown and the subject, is the amount of the pension to which the dependent is entitled. The only other function which it is proposed to confer upon the Committee is in paragraph (f)—
      "To decide as between two or more claimants to a pension or grant or separation allowance, which if any of the claimants is entitled thereto."
      Therefore, in every case the right to a pension depends solely on the Crown. I propose to confer a greater power on the statutory Committee. I submit that it should have this power conferred upon it as an independent body, independent of the Crown and of those who are administering these great Departments, and that, if a pension has been refused, it

      313
      should be granted by way of appeal if in the opinion of the committee it has been improperly refused.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I hope that my hon. and learned Friend is not going to press this. The suggestion which he has made was never any part of the proposals of the Select Committee which this Bill was intended to carry out. If this proposal were passed as it stands on the Paper it would give an appeal to the statutory Committee in respect of pensions, allowances, and grants fixed by the Royal Warrant. This was never intended by the Select Committee. I do not think that it was intended by the House, and I do not think it was intended by my hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that that would be the result, and I hope, under the circumstances, that he will not press his Amendment.
      Mr. DICKINSON: The Amendment is not the same Amendment as that which I put down almost immediately afterwards, but it raises almost the same question, and I may be allowed to make my remarks now and thus avoid making them later on. I share the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend that the limitation in paragraph (a) with regard to the question of pensions to dependants is far too strict. The proposal in this Bill is that the ascertainment of the facts alone is to be left to this particular Committee. The decision as to the amount will remain, as I understand, with the War Office and with the Admiralty. The Admiralty up to the present have settled it themselves, but the War Office have found enormous complexity in regard to the soldiers. In my opinion the decision of the amount of pensions to be given amongst dependants is a matter much better left to the statutory Committee. I do not quite know why the War Office or the Admiralty are much concerned about this question; it is a question of what pensions are to be allowed to widows and children in the country by reason of the death of men from whom they obtained some measure of support, and I should think that those who have lost relatives by this War would have their case very much better dealt with by the statutory Committee.
      Mr. FORSTER: I agree with a great deal of what my right hon. Friend says, but I think the proposal which he has on the Paper very much better raises this
      314
      question than does the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
      Mr. DICKINSON: If I am free to move my Amendment later, I will not pursue my observations further.
      Mr. FORSTER: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, whether my right hon. Friend who has an Amendment lower down on the Paper raising this question would not be prejudiced if my hon. and learned Friend withdraws the Amendment which is before the Committee?
      Sir R. ADKINS: Would it be possible, if this Amendment is withdrawn, to discuss the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, empowering the statutory Committee to hear appeals in respect both of pensions and allowances—appeals, that is to say, from decisions of pension officers and local pension committees. Some of us want to raise, in whatever form is most convenient, and which will take up the least amount of time, the question whether this statutory Committee ought not to be the final Court of Appeal, even in individual cases, under proper regulations. We want to raise that question some time during the Committee stage.
      Mr. HOHLER: From what the Financial Secretary for War has said with regard to my Amendment, I gather that he thinks it would overrule the order and regulation made by the Admiralty or War Office. As I read it, that is not my Amendment at all; my Amendment is that the statutory Committee should decide by way of appeal from the Admiralty or War Office "whether any officer, sailor, marine, or soldier, widow, child, or dependant is entitled to any and what pension, grant, or separation allowance under the warrant, order, or regulation made by the Admiralty or War Office to give effect to the report of the pensions committee." Therefore it will be found that I use that phrase, "order or regulation." The jurisdiction which is given the Committee does not enable them to overrule the Admiralty or the War Office except by appeal, but upon the terms of the warrant. It is simply and solely to decide whether or not the pension had been properly or improperly refused. It is the same thing in regard to allowances. I understand that is an exceedingly important point. As I understand, one of the objects of the Bill and what the House desires is that there should be some tribunal independent of the Department to

      315
      decide the rights between the Crown and the subject. You should have co-ordination and system so as to bring the people into line, so that A may not suffer as against B or vice versâ.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the point of Order which was raised by the right hon. Member for St. Pancras in regard to his Amendment, and on the point whether the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not a better method of dealing with the whole question than that of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, I have to point out that I certainly think it is. It raises a wider issue because the scale and regulations have to be laid upon the Table of the House at a certain date, and all sorts of subjects will be introduced for debate, and, if approved, adopted. Of course the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chatham raises this specific question of appeal, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman withdrawn his Amendment, a course which I respectfully suggest, he might save time and enable the Committee to discuss the wider issue.
      Mr. HOHLER: If I could get anybody to divide with me, I should not withdraw my Amendment. I would rather have it negatived, for I feel very strongly on this Bill, which I do not like at all. I want some authority to decide between the Crown and the subject.
      Mr. DUKE: My hon. and learned Friend represents a large constituency interested in this matter, and I think it is well worthy of his consideration whether it is not more advantageous to the class of people for whom he speaks to have to deal with a responsible Government rather than to have to deal with a committee.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: On the point of Order. If this Amendment of the hon. Member opposite is negatived, will it still be open to my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras to move his Amendment?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would not shut out the Amendment of the right hon. Member for St. Pancras, because it seems to me, in regard to the general convenience of the Committee, that the issue which it raises is too wide a one for me to take a narrow view.
      Mr. HOHLER: In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "be" ["committee shall be"], to insert the words, "among other relevant matters."
      The object of my putting down this Amendment is to ask my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench whether it is absolutely wise to insert in the Clause what the precise functions of the statutory Committee shall be, or should there be some words which will allow it to go further than the specific duties with which we are concerned? I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether the wording of the whole of this Clause 3 commits them to those duties and those duties only, and whether in that case my words would be ruled out?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I scarcely think that these words are necessary. Under the Sub-section I imagine that the statutory Committee would deal with the terms of that Sub-section itself, or with anything relevant to them. I do not think it is necessary to add those general words.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section 1 (a), to leave out the words "any question of fact on the determination of which," and to insert instead thereof the words, "in accordance with scales and regulations approved by Parliament."
      If this Amendment is carried, I propose to move a new Clause providing that the regulations are to be laid before Parliament, and to lie on the Table in the usual way. My desire is to put this question of the pensions to dependants in the hands of the statutory Committee, who will deal with it subject to such a system of regulations as are approved by the Government or the Department and approved by Parliament. I make this proposal because I think this question of pensions to dependants stands on an entirely different footing from that of pensions to wives and children. The pensions to wives and children have been already settled by the Report of the Select Committee. The question as to whether they are to have any more is left to the statutory Committee, who will provide the extra amount out of money that is to be placed at their disposal in whatever way it is settled that they shall have the extra money. The question of pensions to dependants is one of very much greater difficulty, because there is no scale laid down, and in my opinion

      317
      there can be no absolute scale laid down, because it depends so entirely upon the circumstances of each case. There can be regulations laid down, or a rough scale laid down, to guide the Committee. That is the course followed by the pensions committee and the appeals committee. Certain rules and regulations have been approved of by the War Office, and as far as possible those regulations are complied with. In the case of dependants the circumstances of the family have to be considered in almost every case.
      I have three cases here for instance. In one of them a soldier contributed 20s. per week to his family, and under the regulations now laid down that family is considered to be dependent upon him to the extent of 14s. per week. In another family in which the wages of other members of the family are somewhat higher, they are considered to be dependent to the extent of about 9s. per week. In another family where the wages of the male members were equal to his, if not superior, they would be considered dependent upon him to the extent of 5s. per week. That system by which those dependants' allowances have been settled is all very well when you are considering the actual loss that the family suffers by reason of the man having gone to the front, but I do not think they are in the least any guide as to what should be the proper pension for that family. For instance, if a soldier has been the mainstay of his mother, or brothers or sisters, they probably now are getting a very considerable amount, but it is clear that that amount ought not to be the basis on which a pension is to be given. I mention that as an example, and to show that the actual problem is one which needs consideration of all the circumstances of the family. Who is going to give that consideration? As far as I can see, the best authority to do so will be the statutory Committee, acting in conjunction with the local committees all over the country. Very much the same system has been already in vogue, and although in the earlier stages it did not give satisfaction it is now in much better order and working satisfactorily. The circumstances are looked into, and the local needs and conditions are reported upon, and then the matter is dealt with in accordance with the information so acquired by the central authority.
      I think the ultimate settlement of this question must be left to the central authority, because the circumstances differ
      318
      in different parts of the country. The conditions of living, the rate of wages, the amount of rent, and other things may differ, and you have to adjudicate with a knowledge of the circumstances all over the country. I believe that the best authority to do that would be the statutory authority. If you do not do that you have got to leave the matter, as the Bill leaves it, exactly in the position it is now in, namely, that the War Office and the Admiralty have to settle the amounts. I do not see any reason why either the War Office or the Admiralty should be troubled with this particular question, namely, the proper settlement of the amount of money that you are going to allow to the dependants, the brothers and sisters, all over the country. That is the reason why I raise this point, and I hope the Committee will give it due consideration, because I am sure it is a very important question of administration. I cannot help thinking that the Government have not realised the complications that will arise by having this kind of dual authority. If you are going to have matters investigated by the War Office you will have to initiate some system of official examination. There are no detailed proposals in this Bill by which you can gather what is going to be the official system. If you are going to leave the matter to the War Office and the Admiralty, I suppose it will be done through the pension officers, or that they will have to institute some system of examination in order to protect the taxpayer. The one simple system would be—leave the whole thing to the statutory Committee, subject to regulations to be approved by Parliament.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know that he will be surprised if I say that his proposal is one which would make the statutory Committee award pensions from public funds in these cases. That is quite outside the Report of the Select Committee, and is, if I may say so, quite outside the purpose of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to supplement, by means other than by votes of Parliament, scales laid down and submitted to this House. That is the purpose in the case of dependent relatives, other than the wife and child, and that is the case in which my right hon. Friend proposes to let the statutory Committee determine the ward of the amount. He will recognise, and no one more readily, that this is the only place in this Bill

      319
      where the statutory Committee would make an award of a grant, or pension, or allowance from public funds. That is quite a novel principle and, he will see, is very far-reaching, and I think goes far beyond the supplementary purposes of the measure. On the Second Reading I think I used the word "scales" rather inadvisedly, because cases of these other dependant relatives are so very varied that it would no doubt be impossible to frame a scale; but what we have done since that Debate is to frame a series of regulations and instructions, the result of which would be that these cases at the end of the twenty-six weeks' separation allowance, when it comes to a question of the pension to be paid, if any, or the gratuity to be made, will fall into a definite category.
      We shall get a report, and we are only too ready to receive all relevant information from those who have close acquaintance with the condition of these poor people. We shall then apply the regulations and make an award of public funds under those regulations. We will give an undertaking, and I think I can say the same for the War Office, that when we have come to a common agreement as to the regulations and instructions under which these payments are to be made, they shall be laid on the Table of the House. I think it is only fair and constitutional that the House should have an opportunity of examining the regulations under which these grants will be made, and that will be done. I hope, however, my right hon. Friend will not ask the House to part with these rights, or to leave persons to award public money in a way which is not done anywhere else, though I admit most gratefully that we are always ready, and must be always ready, to receive any advice, any assistance, or any information which bears upon a case, and which will enable us to make our award more absolutely in accordance with the justice of the case. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be accepted.
      Sir R. ADKINS: We all feel the cogency of what has been said, that this is the only Amendment on which it is possible to raise in connection with the statutory Committee itself the question of appeals from local pension officers and local committees, which might have been done under the elastic terms, "In accordance with scales and regulations approved by Parliament," and I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I try in half a dozen sen-
      320
      tences to explain what the grievance is. I do not agree that this system is working satisfactorily in all parts of the country. You get no appeal on any question of a grant, or pension, or separation allowance on behalf of the beneficiary. What you have is a reference to my right hon. Friend and his Committee, when a pension officer and his committee differ as to the amount. That is an appeal of one official against the committee, or the committee against the official. The people who are waiting to know what is the amount by which they ought to benefit have no right of appeal at all. Those of us who take the view I am trying to express want you thoroughly to recognise the supremacy of Parliament, and the fact that the War Office and Admiralty and the grants which they ultimately pay should be subject to the control of Parliament. We say there ought to be some tribunal or committee to which the individual himself or herself can appeal from the decision of this local tribunal, even if the pension officer and the local committee agree. People are not satisfied with having no means of appeal whatever, if the local officer and his committee happen to agree. Probably after a very little while it will only be necessary to appeal on questions that raise new points. A statutory Committee of this kind might well have among its duties the decision of questions of facts upon which an appeal ought to lie, and I hope before—
      Dr. MACNAMARAmade a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
      Sir R. ADKINS: It gives an appeal, or might be construed to give an appeal, from the local committee to the statutory Committee, but as the Bill is now drafted there is no indication that other things besides pensions, mentioned in the title of the Bill, should come within the perview of these local committees, and that there should be a definite appeal from them to the statutory Committee. I do not want a categorical answer now. I only want the Government between now and the Report stage to consider first of all that they will deal with the question of appeal, and secondly, that they will so deal with the question of an appeal that the poorest man and woman in the land will know that there is some appeal beyond the local officer, who is often a very inadequate official, or his Committee. We want an appeal that will effect the general principle, some body of weight,

      321
      such as the statutory Committee would provide, and I beg my hon. Friend to give the Committee an assurance, and to explain how and why, seeing that it is laid down, there is an appeal which will not satisfy the public, and with regard to which, I know of my own knowledge in the Midlands and in Lancashire, at all events, there is greater dissatisfaction.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have not had the advantage of hearing the whole of this Debate, as I was obliged to leave the House for a short time, but there are very few points with which I have greater sympathy than this question of appeal. My own, what I call larger, scheme did not commend itself to the Government of the day. There were many difficulties in the way of putting that scheme into force. I have always held the view very strongly indeed that these people, who have their whole fate decided by a tribunal, ought to have some opportunity of appealing practically to a higher, a larger, and a wider tribunal. Often in the working of the Royal Patriotic Fund we have had to reject a case. We have had to say that the death of the man was not really due to war service, and that, therefore, the widow was not entitled to a pension. New evidence has then come up, because there has always been an opportunity of reviewing that case, and of giving more special attention to it, perhaps, than we gave on the first occasion. I am sure as time goes on we shall discover many cases in this country which have been turned down in one place or another, and where that poor, unhappy woman finds herself without any pension of any sort or kind. The authorities on evidence sufficient for them, but not perhaps sufficient for a court of appeal, have decided against her. We have decided to consider many matters between now and the Report stage, and I can only tell my hon. Friend that this is one of them very dear to my own heart, and I will see whether in consultation with hon. Friends of mine we cannot give some appeal from the local committee to some larger body.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to say so, is mixing up two different points. The dependants' allowance is quite a different thing from the pensions which will be decided by this local committee. Now we know that in the past with the pensions committee that a difference between them and the pensions officer has come either
      322
      to the War Office or the Admiralty for settlement. What I understand will be the functions of the new Committee will be that they are to consider and make recommendation on the questions referred to them by the statutory Committee. The local committee is empowered by Clause 4, paragraph, (a):
      "To inquire into any case referred to them by the statutory Committee, and to report to the statutory Committee their advice and recommendations in respect thereto."
      I contend that the functions of this local committee will be to inquire into the pensions of the applicants or dependants, and that they will make the recommendation to the statutory Committee as to the amount of the pension. They must make their recommendation as to the amount to which the people are entitled. That would come before the statutory Committee in London, and they would consider the recommendation of the local committee. The point of difference, I contend, is this: That when the statutory Committee make their recommendation to the War Office or the Admiralty there is no appeal if the War Office or the Admiralty differ from the recommendation of the statutory Committee; but there is, in my opinion, an appeal from the local committee to the statutory Committee. Anyone there can make a representation to the statutory Committee to the effect that the recommendations have not been in accordance with the evidence brought before the local committee. If the statutory Committee make liberal pensions, they may be cut down by the War Office or the Admiralty. That is the point raised by my hon. Friend opposite that there should be some appeal from the decision on these points. I myself rather agree that you cannot subordinate the War Office or the Admiralty as to what they may decide in matters arising out of the payment of public funds. But I do contend that there is a very striking difference between the dependants' allowance we decide now and the pensions under this Committee.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word 'fact,' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), after the word "fact" ["any question of fact"], to insert the words, "referred to them by the local committee."

      323
      The object of this Amendment is to get a little information, not that I desire unduly to press the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the following page of the Bill—page 5—and note the functions of the local committees, he will observe that the first function is—
      "(a) to inquire into any case referred to them by the statutory Committee, and to report to the statutory Committee their advice and recommendations with respect thereto."
      Clause 3, Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), states that the functions of the statutory Committee shall be—
      "(a) to decide any question of fact on the determination of which …."
      and so on. Would it not save an enormous amount of trouble to give the central Committee the advantage of the local information? If the local committees were left to determine the facts that would be accepted by those applying for this Grant, only referring to the statutory Committee from the local committee such as were not agreed upon by the people who made the application? That is to say, the statutory Committee would form a Court of Appeal in those cases which are not agreed upon. There may be some other reason for the paragraph (a) of Clause 4, but it struck me that it did not quite cover the point raised by my Amendment.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: As I read my hon. Friend's Amendment it means this: That the local committee shall take the opinion of the statutory Committee on any question of fact in any case they care to refer to them. As regards cases they do not wish to refer to the statutory Committee then the local committee's finding will be final in regard to that matter. If that is the meaning of this Amendment, I think it will be seen on consideration that we could not accept it, because this point of fact must come to the statutory Committee. It cannot be left to the local committee.
      Mr. HOGGE: I do not think you are right, but I do not press my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (b), leave out the words "a scale of" ["a scale of supplementary grants"], and insert instead thereof the words "regulations for."—[Sir Charles Nicholson.]
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) paragraph (b) after the word "grants" ["a scale of supplementary grants"] to insert the words "including grants in aid of education, training, and emigration, provided such emigration be to one of His Majesty's Dominions oversea." I do not know whether it is necessary for me to move this Amendment, because if regulations are included in the Bill on a certain scale it will be open to the Committee to move regulations which cover this particular point. No doubt we will be told that these points are covered generally in the Bill, but I prefer to see them put in seriatim. I remember the Unemployed Workmen's Act, 1905. Though I was not in the House at the time, I took some part in connection with that Bill, especially that part which dealt with emigration. Regulations were inserted, and by these certain moneys were allocated for emigration expenses. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill whether, if he cannot accept my Amendment, he will see that the point will be covered before the Bill becomes an Act?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I know the very great interest that my hon. Friend takes in emigration and particularly in emigration to our own Dominions. But it is quite unnecessary to add these words. The grants will include grants for emigration and education. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation now constantly makes grants for education, the training of apprentices, and for emigration. I am quite sure that this body will do exactly the same thing, always provided they have the funds at their disposal, as in all probability they will have.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the word "exceptional" ["exceptional circumstances of the case"].
      I suggest this Amendment on the ground that this word "exceptional" is very restrictive, and that the statutory Committee ought to have power to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case. As I understand it, if you leave in the word "exceptional," they would only be able to take into account circumstances in which that particular case differed from all other cases, and I venture to think that

      325
      is not desirable. The great difficulty we have had with regard to these allowances and so on is that what might be adequate for one district is not adequate for another, owing to the differences in the standard of earnings and living. I think if the word "exceptional" stands there it would be very difficult—perhaps impossible—to take into account all those circumstances which do not relate to one exceptional case but rather to a district of rather wide application, and which ought to be taken into account with regard to all the cases of a district. I, therefore, hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to the omission of the word "exceptional," and so leave it to the statutory Committee to take into account all the circumstances of the case which they consider to be germane.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I cannot accept the Amendment. The word "exceptional" was put in as a guide to the Committee. After all, this House has accepted the general scale of pensions laid down by the Government after great deliberation. After listening to the Debates I came to the conclusion that the House accepted that scale as liberal and generous, and we must accept that scale and adopt it as a general rule, and as a general rule the flat rate will be the prevailing rate. In exceptional cases this Committee is set up for the very purpose of supplementing that flat rate and adding something to the scale laid down as being in most cases adequate. That must be the guiding principle. We must look to the enormous expense that will grow up under the present scale of pensions, supplemented by this Bill. We must look to those who have to pay these pensions as well as to those who receive them. We must look to the fact that most of the taxpayers will never get the scale of pension. They will get the old age pension of 5s. a week. They will never get this scale of pensions, to which they will have to contribute. We must not make the burden too heavy. The word "exceptional" is a guiding word to the Committee that they must find exceptional circumstances before supplementing the State pensions, which were considered by this House as generous. I hope one of the first acts of the statutory Committee will be to set on foot a set of principles on which they will be guided.
      10.0 P.M.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be compe-
      326
      tent to the statutory Committee, under the words as they stand, to take into account circumstances affecting a particular district rather than a particular individual or family? That is the point I want decided. If they are to take into account the circumstances affecting a particular district I am content.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), leave out the word "scale" ["in accordance with such scale as aforesaid"], and insert instead thereof the word "regulations."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
      Mr. MOUNT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (d), after the word "grants," to insert the words "or allowances."
      I propose this Amendment in order to make it quite clear that this Committee may have the power to make weekly allowances to men who are not entitled to them from any other sources. I specially want it for the purpose of the class of men to whom the hon. Member for East Edinburgh referred earlier in the day—the case of the son who enlists while the father is alive. The father dies and the son then becomes the support of his mother. Under the present system the mother is not allowed to get any allowance even though the son makes an allotment. I hope under this statutory Committee some allowance may be made, and move my Aendment to make it clear that there is power to make that allowance.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am quite willing to accept these words, although I think the word "grants" would enable the Committee to make them in weekly sums if they desired to do it. I will accept the words in order to make it clear that there is some alternative to the grant of a lump sum.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. HOHLER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (e).
      My object is to introduce a new Clause later on which prevents the pension of an officer, a sailor, marine or soldier from being liable to forfeiture. I submit that when a soldier, sailor, or marine has earned his pension he is absolutely entitled to it. Of cousse, we have not seen these Regulations, but the forfeitures in regard to which these pensions are liable are

      327
      generally when a man is sentenced for some offence involving hard labour. Speaking for myself, I have never seen the justice why sailors and soldiers should be worse treated than civilians. Two men are jointly indicted, one a sailor and one a civilian, for causing, say, bodily harm. They are both sentenced to six months' hard labour and they both serve their sentence, but the sailor, in addition to the sentence, in virtue of some Statute or some regulation or order under which the pension is granted, forfeits his pension. It may be, if he is a very young man, that it is of very considerable value. It may well be worth, at the age of forty, if it is £50 a year, £700 or £800. I consider it a grievous injustice that he should lose his pension; he has earned it, and ought to be entitled to keep it. Equally with the civilian he should be treated evenly before the law, and there is no reason why he should lose his pension when the civilian does his sentence and loses nothing more.
      Mr. FORSTER: I understand my hon. and learned Friend wishes to leave out this paragraph in order to bring in a new Clause to say that no pensions granted to a soldier or a sailor shall be liable to forfeiture. I do not know whether it would be convenient to dispose of this question at once instead of dealing with it piecemeal. Neither the Admiralty nor the War Office could accept a proposal such as this, because the conditions under which pensions are forfeited are laid down in the Royal Warrant. There must be some conditions which enable pensions to be withdrawn from those who have clearly proved themselves unworthy of their enjoyment. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would be able to make out a case for saying that under no circumstances of any sort or kind is a pension to be forfeited. Cases of gross fraud are happily rare, but there are cases where those who have earned pensions have acted in a way which justifies the forfeiture of their pension. My hon. and learned Friend will see that the War Office and the Admiralty could not accept such a sweeping proposal as to say that under no circumstances can a pension be forfeited, and I hope he will not press his Amendment.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that this Committee will have the power to decide whether a pension shall or shall not be withdrawn?
      Mr. FORSTER: This Committee would only deal with the question of forfeiture in respect of allowances which they have themselves granted. I intend later to move an Amendment to make that quite clear. This Committee will have nothing to do with the question of the forfeiture of pensions granted to sailors and soldiers under the Royal Warrant. The Committee will only deal with the forfeiture of pensions to soldiers, sailors, and officers which the Committee have granted out of the funds at their disposal.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I should like to make it clear that there are cases where a man entitled to a pension has had it taken away from him. In one case I know of the wife was an excellent woman, who had lived with her husband for many years and brought up a family, and when the pension was taken away the wife was left absolutely starving and the children were thrown on the rates. I think, in a case like that, there should be some appeal from a decision which takes away a man's pension and leaves his wife and family in the condition I have described.
      Colonel YATE: Would it not be possible to have some restriction under which pensions granted by this Committee should be forfeited, and to say that they should not be forfeited except under those special restrictions? Will the right hon. Gentleman insert restrictions to that effect?
      Sir R. ADKINS: I think we are all agreed that no pension ought to be forfeited unless some crime has been committed. Is it really necessary to keep this matter open? Is it not possible to lay down that the only way in which a pension can be forfeited is after some conviction in a Court of Law? Nothing short of an actual conviction for crime ought to deprive a man of that which is merely deferred pay. I think we might lay down in the Statute or the Regulations the conditions under which a pension should be forfeited, and then we should take this very invidious duty away from the statutory Committee.
      Mr. HOLT: I wish to protest against the idea that a man has a right to hold his pension to all eternity no matter how he behaves, and it should be paid only on condition of general good behaviour. If a man, after receiving his pension, chooses to behave in such a manner which would have caused his dismissal in time of service his pension should be stopped. Take

      329
      the case where a pensioner becomes an habitual drunkard. Is it contended that the State should continue to pay a pension in that case? I think such a pension ought to be stopped at once, because one of the implied conditions of any pension is that the pensioner should conduct himself as a decent and respectable member of society. I think the authorities at the War Office are the proper people to decide this matter. I want to protest against the idea that because a person has behaved very well in the past he is entitled to draw an annuity for the rest of his life and at the same time behave himself in any way he pleases. That is an absolutely intolerable idea. Take the case put forward by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). It is clear that if a man is going to misconduct himself in that way the pension ought to be paid to his wife. What is the good of paying a pension to a thoroughly disreputable fellow, leaving his wife and family to come on the rates through his misconduct? The best way is to consider whether a man deserves to get his pension, and if he does not we should consider whether it should be paid to his wife or dependants, or whether it should be forfeited for The benefit of the State.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: This Bill does not interfere at all with the regulations under which pensions are forfeited in connection with the War Office and the Admiralty, but the power is given to the statutory Committee to revoke pensions and forfeit them for a time or season owing to bad conduct on the part of the recipient of those pensions. That is constantly done by the Royal Patriotic Commissioners, who, instead of taking the pensions away altogether, frequently hand them over to the wives or some other person in order that the children may have the benefit of the pension That is the course we propose to adopt.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. FORSTER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (e), after the word "whether," to insert the words "as respects the wife, widow, child, or other dependant."
      I am moving this Amendment and another a few lines further down in order to carry out the intention which I expressed a few moments ago. The effect of the two Amendments is that all the pensions granted to soldiers and sailors by the War Office and the Admiralty are
      330
      untouched and untouchable by the statutory Committee; but, with regard to the grants, pensions, and allowances made by the statutory Committee, they retain the full right of settling the conditions under which they may cease to become payable.
      Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Futher Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (e), after the word "allowance," to insert the words "and as respects an officer or man any supplementary grant."—[Mr. Forster.]
      Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (f), after the word "decide," to insert the words "on application from the local committee."
      Might I ask whether the statutory Committee would use the local committees for determining what seems to me to be a purely local thing?
      Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he could accept these words or some other words which would indicate that, before the central or statutory Committee decided between two claimants, the local committee would be consulted?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not think that it is necessary to put in these words. Obviously the only evidence which the statutory Committee can obtain is through the local committee.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HOHLER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (f), at the end, to add the words "or in what proportion they are entitled."
      It seems to me that these words are required. I do not know otherwise what is really the object of the Clause. There might be two or more claimants to one of these supplementary pensions and they might be both dependants, and in that sense entitled. I do not know why it has been limited to a decision as to which of them is to receive the pension or allowance.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: We should like to consider this point. I am not quite sure, if the words were added here, that they might not commit us to something more than would be desirable. If my hon. and learned Friend has in mind that it might be desirable to give from these grants other than moneys provided by Parliament something to one dependant less than the

      331
      maximum usually given and something to another dependant, it might be wise for the statutory Committee to have that power. If the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment now, we will consider it between now and the Report stage.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (i), after the word "Service," to insert the words, "and the widows and children and dependants of deceased officers and men."
      I am not quite sure that this is the right place, but I have put the Amendment down in order to obtain the views of the Government whether or not they will insert in this Bill some provision which has been asked for by many societies connected with women, by which the statutory Committee shall be able to deal with the question of the training and employment of women. There is no provision in the Bill at present by which the statutory Committee can assist in any way the training of widows, or children, or dependants, and I have been asked by one or two societies to try and get it inserted. The only place where I can see it proper to introduce the provision is where the Committee do provide for helping in the training and employment of disabled officers and men. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is or is not willing to agree to the insertion of words of that character in this or some other place?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: This would enormously enlarge the powers conferred by Sub-section (i). I cannot accept these words. The object of the Sub-section is to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they leave the Service. It refers to men alone, and not to their widows, children or dependants, and I certainly should not propose to enlarge that particular Sub-section. Whether or not it might be desirable to amplify the powers given to the statutory Committee to give something more than the supplementary grant in the case of widows, children and dependants, is a matter I will consider if the right hon. Gentleman will put words on the Paper with that object, but I am quite sure that this is not the proper place for them.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this matter before the Report stage, especially in the case of widows and children, because it
      332
      would be infinitely better for them and for everyone concerned that they should be trained for remunerative work rather than that they should always have to be supported.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I want to say one or two words upon the Amendment which stands next in my name, although I do not propose to press it.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member cannot make a speech without a Motion before the Committee.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then I beg to move in Sub-section (i), after the word "Service," to insert the words "and if necessary for the dependants of such officers and men."
      There must be something done for the dependants of disabled soldiers and men as well as for the dependants of those who who are not disabled. As far as I can see, Sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) refer only to the dependants of officers and men who have died in the War, but here we have a Sub-section which refers to the case of the dependants of disabled officers and men, and I think that something should be done in regard to them in the same way as something is done for the dependants of those killed in the War.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I cannot accept these words because I am afraid they would very much enlarge the duties, and consequently the amount of money which would be required by this Committee.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), paragraph (i), to leave out the words "including provision for their health, training, and employment," and to insert instead thereof the words "other than the training for and transference to employment."
      The point to which I wish to give expression on behalf of the party to which I have the honour to belong, is that at the conclusion of the War it is anticipated that there will be a very large number of men who will come back, and there may be difficulty in finding them employment. There is no doubt at all that a good deal will depend upon the way in which the men are disbanded as to what is likely to be the state of the labour market in this country. We think that work of such great magnitude as this might easily be—should be—taken up by a committee

      333
      altogether separate from that set up under this Bill—a committee entirely under the responsibility of the Government—and that the Government themselves should find the money for the training and transference to employment of those men who have been fighting in the War. It is a very important thing, and I trust those responsible for the Bill will give some consideration to it, as we are anxious that the Government should accept the full responsibility, when the time comes, and should not shunt it on to an organisation of this description.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: So far as I can gather the lion. Gentleman desires that a separate committee should be set up after the War, or towards the end of the War, dealing with all cases of discharged soldiers and sailors who are not able to return to their ordinary occupations in civil life owing to wounds or disease.
      Mr. C. DUNCAN: Owing to the state of the labour market.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: That very much enlarges it.
      Mr. DUNCAN: I agree.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: My own opinion is that there should be one large committee, very representative, in every county and big borough, which would be charged with the care of these soldiers and sailors. I still hold to that opinion. I shall change that opinion if I find that very inadequate funds are placed at the disposal of the statutory Committee. For many reasons it would be infinitely better to have only one committee. It is very difficult to man one committee thoroughly, and it is likely to be very much more difficult to man two committees, say in Liverpool, Glasgow, Birmingham, or any big town or big military or naval centre. It is best to put upon the statutory Committee this great duty of looking after those who are disabled through wounds or disease and who cannot, from one cause or another, find an occupation or return to those civil occupations they have left. We are not dealing with the Old Army. We are dealing with New Armies which are mainly civilians, recruited from civilian life, drawn from civil occupations, and desiring to return to their occupations when they return to this country. This Amendment, if persisted in, would limit the operations of the statutory Committee to a very great degree, because it would place the duty on them of making provi-
      334
      sions for these men after they left the Service, and debar them of training them for or transferring them to other civil employment. I am sure the hon. Member does not want to restrict the actions of the Committee that way, provided the Committee prove themselves to be the potent instruments he and I both hope they will, and that they are possessed of sufficient funds with which to carry out these important duties. If the Amendment was carried, while the Committee would be bound to make provision for the care and training and general health and welfare of discharged soldiers and sailors, they would be limited to minimising them or instituting or providing them with adequate pensions on which they could live. I do not think the hon. Member means that; I am sure we all want, if we possibly can, to provide these men when they return with an arm or a leg off, or injured in some way, and unable to carry on their former occupations, with training, by which they can shift from their former occupations to a new occupation, and so, with the help of their pensions, support themselves in a fair measure of comfort, but they ought to have some occupation in industrial life in which they can pass the rest of their life.
      Mr. DUNCAN: I do not desire to press the Amendment unduly, but I ought to say that in my judgment this problem of disbanding the New Army is altogether out of proportion to any activities of any committee with regard to the Armies of the past. I am confident that if the committee takes this job on they will never have the funds to do it, and for that reason I think the Government ought not to shirk its responsibility, but ought to face it and meet it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, after the word "health" ["including provisions for their health"], to insert the word "housing."
      I am quite conscious that this also may involve money, but we are going to have presently, I presume, as soon as we have disposed of the remaining Amendments on this Clause, a discussion on the question where the funds are to come from. It is perhaps the most important discussion that we have yet to cover on this extremely important Bill. But there is one point which, I think, deserves very careful consideration. It always seems to me to be a pity to mention the exact things that

      335
      one must do. Here we give them the concern of the health and the training—it does not say what for; presumably for further employment—but we commit no other duties to them. A man who comes home totally disabled has a pension of 25s. a week. If he is partially disabled he gets the difference between what he can make himself and the 25s. which is given a totally disabled soldier. It is perfectly obvious to those who are acquainted with the men in the Army that there is a large number of cases where a man, isolated from any other help, will be unable to maintain himself on that pension and will therefore become a source of anxiety and further cost to his friends. We have already, in connection with pensions for soldiers retired from the Service, homes provided, and it occurs to me that a very excellent way of helping these disabled soldiers would be to group them together, according to their capacity for work, in homes, where their joint allowances or pensions from the Government would allow the community to make provision for them collectively in a much more comfortable way than they could if they confined the duties of this Committee simply to the health, the training, and the employment of these men. In these days we have the whole question of garden cities cropping up. There are hon. Members of this House who are interested in that particular kind of co-operative building effort, and we have examples, which are probably well known to the right hon. Gentleman, where old age pensioners are given an opportunity to spend their old age in comfortable surroundings. Has the Committee taken into consideration the fact that the same thing will apply to these disabled soldiers and sailors who are coming home, and will the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee an assurance that in addition to health, training, and employment the statutory Committee will complete the whole cycle of what requires to be done for these poor fellows by undertaking also any schemes of housing which will enable them, having regard to the collective pensions or allowances, to make more adequate and better provision for these disabled soldiers and sailors?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not think the hon. Member can really expect me to acecpt this enormous enlargement of the duties of the statutory Committee. Just think what this Committee have to do. In addition to providing supplementary
      336
      pensions, they have to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training and employment, and now the hon. Member suggests that they should find houses for all these disabled men on their return from the War.
      Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. It is really an important point. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman or his Committee to find particular houses for individual men. I say that if a soldier comes home absolutely disabled he is entitled to 25s. per week. If he is partially disabled he is entitled to the difference between what he can earn himself and the 25s. pension. There are a great number of these men, and if they are left in isolated circumstances with that small amount they may become a further burden upon the community. Would the right hon. Gentleman take 200 or 250 of these men and put them together in a particular home where their collective pensions would enable him to make provision for them in a way which would be more comfortable and much more humane, because, as he knows, a great many of these men who have come home are marvels of the surgeon's skill, and it will indeed be a tremendous effort for them to get through the rest of their days? In these cases will he take powers in this statutory Committee to make provision for them?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: Those powers the Committee already have. The soldiers and sailors who come home helplessly disabled get 25s. pension and 2s. 6d. for each child, and under the words of Subsection (1), of Clause 3,
      "to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men,"
      they can make the provision which the hon. Member desires, perhaps of a temporary nature. If, however, the hon. Member insists upon putting in the word "housing," it would indicate to the statutory Committee that they were required to house all the disabled officers and men who applied for houses. That would be a very extensive task to put upon them, and it would be very heavy in addition to the other obligations put upon the statutory Committee.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I hardly think that that objection can be sustained because the word in the Bill is "employment," and following the argument of the

      337
      right hon. Gentleman that word would seem to indicate that the statutory Committee have to find employment for every one of the wounded soldiers. The word "employment" there does not involve any such liability. Therefore the word "housing" would not involve any further liability, and would only apply to cases which the Committee themselves consider suitable for the special kind of institutional treatment.
      Mr. McKENNA: This is a matter which may take some time. We have other work to do. Perhaps it would be more convenient to adjourn the discussion now. I, therefore, move to report Progress. [HON, MEMBERS: "No."]
      Mr. HOGGE: May I appeal to my right hon. Friend? I have sat here with others all day. Our Friends in charge of the Bill have also given very close attendance. I do not think that anybody in the House could be accused of attempting to delay the measure. It is an extremely important measure, and though we have not got to the end of it we have done extremely well.
      Mr. McKENNAindicated assent.
      Mr. HOGGE: This measure is one of more importance than any other in which the Government are interested at the present time. It is much more important than the National Register. I think that the Government should, therefore, continue the Committee stage of this Bill instead of proceeding with the National Registration Bill to-morrow, for this Bill gives the dependants' widows and children of soldiers notice that we at any rate are making them secure in their position, before going on to number anybody else who may be sent out to fight. You will get your National Registration Bill in plenty of time, but let us finish the practical work first.
      Mr. McKENNA: I quite agree that there is much force in what the hon. Gentleman says. Would it meet with the general acceptance of the House to sanction the Resolution on the National Registration Bill to-night and to go on with this Bill to-morrow?
      Mr. HOGGE: I think that that is a very fair offer, and so far as I am personally concerned I accept it, but I do not commit anybody else.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: It seems to me that the offer is a perfectly fair one, and so far as we on these Benches are concerned we shall acquiesce.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I think that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is very reasonable, but I hope that in accepting it we shall have in the time at the disposal of the Committee some real explanation of the finance of the National Registration Bill, which we have never so far received, as our future action on that may be determined by the explanation which we receive.
      Mr. WATT: Perhaps we might finish this particular Clause before we report Progress. I have sat here all day waiting for a particular Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. I have sat here for hours and now it is put off until to-morrow. I should like to go on and finish this Clause to-night.
      Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will agree to let Progress be reported, the Bill will be taken as the first Order tomorrow.
      Mr. PRINGLE: We are going to have the National Register Bill taken as the second Order tomorrow, and we do not know how long the present Bill will take. Are we to be faced with a suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule?
      Mr. McKENNA: No.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Wednesday).

    NATIONAL REGISTRATION [EXPENSES].
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question again proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred and allowances payable in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to provide for the compilation of a National Register."
    Mr. LONG: An appeal has been made by the hon. Gentleman behind me just now to make a statement to the Committee as to the expenses of the Bill, though this is not really the time to do so. It is done on the Clause itself, for which this Resolution is only the authorisation. It is really a formal stage which authorises the expenditure connected with the registration to be made out of the public Exchequer instead of out of the local rates.

    339
    The suggestion in the Bill is that the cost should be divided between the Treasury and the Local Government Board, the scale to be settled between those Departments. The expenditure usually incurred in connection with the Census is somewhere about £200,000, spread over a period of four years, and is mainly expended in paying collectors and distributors; whereas in this case there is every reason to believe that a great part of the work, if not the whole of it, will be done by voluntary agency. Therefore the cost will be infinitely less than what has been customary in the case of the Census. All that we ask to-night is that the Committee will authorise the moneys to be paid out of the Exchequer, and when he Committee stage is reached Members can then discuss the whole of the question of the scale and whether or not the payments shall be made in the manner suggested and authorised by this Resolution.
    Mr. CLOUGH: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words, "Provided that the expenses for the year 1915–16 shall not exceed the sum of £50,000 for England and Wales, £25,000 for Scotland, and £12,000 for Ireland."
    The right hon. Gentleman has not given us any indication as to how much less the cost of the register will be than the cost of taking the Census. I think it only fair that we should put into the Resolution some limit beyond which we ought not to go. The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that the total cost of the Census is £200,000, spread over four years. We got the particulars exactly yesterday at Question Time. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the total cost of the Census in England and Wales in 1911, and in reply he said that the cost of the Census in the year 1911–12 was approximately £147,000. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) got in his supplementary and asked:—
    "Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the National Registration Bill will cost as much as the Census of 1911?
    Mr. W. Long: I should think it will cost infinitely less."
    Therefore I propose that he shall have a limit of £50,000, which, at any rate, is not infinitely less than £147,000. Then I asked the same question of the Secretary for Scotland, and he replied:—
    "The total cost of the Census of 1911 in Scotland was £37,243."
    340
    My hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) intervened once more, and asked:—
    "Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the expense of the National Registration Bill will be smaller in amount compared with the Census of 1911?
    Mr. McKinnon Wood: I should hope it would be considerably smaller."
    Consequently, I gave them a limit of £25,000, which is considerably smaller than £37,000, but even that is, perhaps, a little too generous. I asked the same question of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he replied as follows:—
    "Mr. Birrell: The expenditure involved in the making of the Census of Ireland in 1911 was £18,946 4s. 10d."
    My hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) again asked a supplementary question:—
    "Mr. Watt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how that compares with the expense to be incurred in connection with the National Registration Bill, and will he say whether the expense of the latter is to be considerably or infinitely less?
    Mr. Birrell: I shall be very much disappointed if it is not considerably less."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, July 5, col. 19.]
    Consequently, I have given a limit of £12,000 in the case of Ireland. I consider I have been very generous indeed in all these limits, and if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the limit of even a few thousand pounds more than this, I should be willing to fall in with any such bargain. But until we hear what he has to say I beg leave to move.
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. Under the Resolution the money that is to be expended has to be provided by the Treasury. I certainly should not expect anyone to go to the Treasury and say that the object of the limit proposed by the House was that we should expend anything like £25,000 for Scotland or that £12,000 should be spent in Ireland. I am not sure that £50,000 would be sufficient in England. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) thinks it will. I beg my hon. Friend to leave it to the Treasury without any suggestion of limits, which I think, both at one end and the other, are quite mistaken. Perhaps later we shall have an opportunity of giving him a more exact account of what the cost will be. We do not yet know definitely what it will be. We shall be glad to tell him later, and I can assure him I shall exercise the utmost economy.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "£25,000," and to insert instead thereof "£10,000."
    I am very much impressed by the reasoning of my right hon. Friend, especially in regard to Scotland and

    341
    Ireland. He has suggested, and I think with absolute fairness, that my hon. Friend's limit in regard to Scotland is much too ample and generous, and this in a still greater degree applies in the case of Ireland. In these circumstances, having received that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think we are bound to bring forward an Amendment to my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I propose, that for £25,000 in the case of Scotland, £10,000 be substituted, and for £12,000 in the case of Ireland, £2,000 be substituted.
    I think I can justify up to the hilt these figures. My hon. Friend, in the course of his very interesting speech, quoted the figures of the Census of 1911. In the Census of 1911, so far as my recollection serves me, the figures for Scotland were one-fifth of those relating to England and in relation to Ireland it was in somewhat the same proportion. In these circumstances the figure of £10,000 for Scotland seems to me to be quite adequate and to be a much better approximation to the case than that mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. We know this Bill is not to apply to Ireland at all. The Clause applying it to Ireland is merely a make-believe Clause, and under these circumstances it is quite reasonable to allow £2,000 for Ireland. There may be a little notepaper used by the Lord Lieutenant, and sundry other things may be done at Dublin Castle, but the authorities of Ireland will never be asked to do anything in the matter.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-five thousand pounds' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    Mr. SHERWELL: I infinitely prefer the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) to that moved by my hon.
    342
    Friend (Mr. Clough), but I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) should even suggest that this Committee should vote any sum for expenditure in Ireland which he was convinced already will not be incurred. I confess to a feeling of disappointment that we have had no information given to us or any reason advanced beyond that of giving a blank cheque to the Chancellor of the Exchequer why we should encourage my hon Friends to withdraw either of their Amendments. It is certainly an unfortunate thing at a time like this, when every official of the Government is urging on the country the necessity for the exercise of thrift, that the Government should be responsible for a proposal which will really allow them to spend any amount of public money which the Treasury will think fit to allow. I certainly suggest that we ought not to allow a Motion of this kind to pass unless we have a much clearer indication of the sort and amount of expenditure that is proposed.
    It being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.