CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Statutory Committee of Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.) (Hansard, 6 July 1915)

HC Deb 06 July 1915 vol 73 cc212-338 212

§ (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;
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.

215

§ 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 SCOTT
had 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.

246

§ 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.

249

§ 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 CHAIRMAN
called 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.

252

§ 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.

253

§ 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.

255

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.

259

§ 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.

263

§ 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.

264

§ 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.

277

§ 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. LONG
indicated 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"].

280

§ 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.

cc283-310

CLAUSE 2.—(Establishment of Local Committees.) 10,684 words

cc310-38

CLAUSE 3.—(Functions of Statutory Committee.) 11,371 words