§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
§ Question again proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred and allowances payable in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to provide for the compilation of a National Register."
§ Amendment again proposed, At the end of the Question, to add the words, "Provided that the expenses for the year 1915–16 shall not exceed a sum of £50,000 for England and Wales; and of £25,000 for Scotland; and of £12,000 for Ireland."—[Mr. Clough.]
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment: To leave out "£25,000," and insert "£10,000."—[Mr. Pringle.]
414§ Question proposed, "That '£25,000' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ Mr. LONGI hope the Committee may be willing now to decide this question. We had a short debate on it last night. Hon. Gentlemen who, like myself, are familiar with the forms of the House must know that this is really a formal stage, and that every point raised here can with greater propriety, and with greater advantage from their point of view, be raised on the Clause which deals with the allowances to me made, and the way in which the money is to be expended. I hope, therefore, the Committee will dispose of this question and allow us to proceed with the consideration of the Bill.
§ Mr. DENMANI certainly do not want to delay proceedings, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the question I wish to put to him is strictly relevant to a Financial Resolution. Hon. Members who urge that the financial provision should be strictly limited must, I think, have forgotten one important consideration. This is not a Census Bill, as they seem to assume, in fixing a limit to the money to be spent. This is a Bill to provide a continuing register, so that the initial expense will be but a small proportion of the total expense involved. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what expense he anticipates will be incurred in the work of the inspectors. Evidently this Bill will be quite unworkable, unless you have, in those parts of the country in which there is a continual movement of the population, a very considerable body of inspectors to see that the person who moves from one borough to another gets a new registration form. Clearly, the expense of that will be very great, and I want to put two or three questions to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he propose that this army of inspectors shall be a voluntary, unpaid army, or does he propose that they shall be employed and paid by the local authorities, or will they be inspectors under the control of headquarters? I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer to those questions.
§ Mr. LONGThe hon. Member has asked me some questions, one of which, at any rate, I cannot answer. Nobody can say what will be the actual cost of the continuing register. We do not know how long it will be needed, or what precise work will be connected with it, and it would 415 therefore be absurd to attempt to make an estimate of the cost. The hon. Gentleman spoke of an army of inspectors. That idea is the creation of his own brain. We have never suggested an army of inspectors, nor is it necessary. Under the Bill we make it the duty of the people of this country to register, and we provide the the machinery by which they are to be registered. We also make it a duty—and it was a duty which they cheerfully performed in conection with the Insurance Act—to record their movements. I do not believe that that will involve any expense. As regards the continuing expense to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I need hardly say that I hope, in common I imagine with everybody else, the period will be short. The register is needed so long as the War lasts, and Heaven grant that that may be but a short time.
§ Mr. WATTMy hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough) has sought to put a limitation on the amount to be granted for carrying out the purposes of this Bill. A comparison has been made by the hon. Member and myself between the expenses to be incurred under this National Registration Bill, and the expense of the last Census. We have been told by the Minister responsible that the Census of 1911 cost £203,000, and the President of the Local Government Board in reply to a question, has stated that the expense of this particular measure will be infinitely less than that of the Census to which I have referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton has moved an Amendment seeking to limit the expense that will be incurred, and he has adopted what I think is a very fair figure indeed. He proposes to limit it to £87,000 for the first year. Let the Committee remember that the expenditure on the late Census was spread over three years. My hon. Friend proposes to allow £87,000 to be spent in one year, and in face of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this registration is going to cost much less than the Census, I venture to submit that £87.000 is a fair limit to impose. If the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that amount for the first year, may I ask if he will agree to any limit at all. On this question I have an appeal to make to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who in past years, when another Government was in power, sought on every occasion to limit the expenditure in connection with other measures. I hope 416 he will give us his assistance and support in this instance. I should expect him to do so, but if he does not I must infer that he has a higher respect for this Government than he had for the last, and that he can trust this Government, as he said yesterday, but that he could not trust the last. His long Parliamentary experience should lead him to the view that few Governments are to be trusted with a free hand in the expenditure of money. At any rate, I desire to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough)—first, that there should be a limitation of the amount of money that is spent under this measure, although I believe that £87,000 is a larger figure than is necessary.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYIn answer to the hon. Gentleman, may I say that whenever I have asked for a limitation to be inserted I have invariably accepted any limitation which the Government of the day offered to put in, and if the President of the Local Government Board will suggest any limitation I will agree to it.
Mr. CHANCELLORI should like to ask whether it is intended that the whole of the expense of this registration is to come out of national funds or whether any part of it is to come out of local funds? Any attempt to limit the expenditure on the construction of this register would have an effect on the register itself. I can see nothing but unlimited expenditure because of the complications arising in the construction of this register, which are far greater than those met with in constructing the Census. What will happen? You will send to single houses in districts like that I represent ten or twenty of these forms, which are to be filled up. You will send them to persons unaccustomed to use their pens, and who dread putting their pens to paper. You impose upon them the filling in of a number of answers to questions, and you will find it practically impossible to get them to do that unless you send skilled persons prepared to fill in the forms for them, leaving them nothing but their signatures to add. Unless enormous expenditure is incurred in the endeavour to prepare this register it will be an absolute failure. If the right hon. Gentleman is willing to rely on the efforts of unskilled and untrained voluntary workers to save expense in collecting this information, the time it will take to collect the information—probably incorrect information—to check it, and for all 417 the various local governing bodies to go over it, collate it, and put it under the different headings and make it available for the purposes for which it is to be constructed—the time it will take and the expense that will be incurred will be enormous. I strongly oppose both the Amendments before the Committee, because I feel certain that any limitation of the expenditure will be absolutely fatal to the Bill.
At the present moment in London—I know nothing about the country—the local authorities have their staffs depleted through large numbers having gone to the front. Only the other day the town clerk of Shoreditch asked me if I could not do something to induce those who remained to stay, because unless they could get a badge or something to prevent the annoyance to which they were being subjected they were longing to enter the Army. Already the staffs are depleted while the work is greater than usual at the present moment, because in addition to the ordinary work, especially just now, there is the preparation of the rate demand and sending it out, and they have the quinquennial valuation to prepare, while they have only half the staff to do it. This work will never be done if you get a number of untrained persons, boys, girls, and others—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is really dealing with a Clause of the Bill, to which several Amendments have been put down.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANOn the Resolution before the Committee and the Amendment it is only broad grounds of dissent or support that should be discussed, not the details. The hon. Member is at present going into details. There will be ample opportunity for doing that, as he will see if he looks at the Order Paper, in the Committee stage.
Mr. CHANCELLORMy whole point is to show the inadvisability of limiting this Vote, and to ask the question whether the expense which must be incurred by somebody or other will all be borne out of national funds, or whether local authorities will have to bear the extra expense imposed upon them by the extra work they will have to carry out by means of an unskilled staff when their present staff is depleted in the way I have suggested?
§ Mr. J. A. PEASEI would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to put in some limitation if he can possibly do so. I believe it would be in the interests of the progress of this Resolution through Committee. The hon. Baronet behind me (Sir F. Banbury), on many occasions when I was on the Treasury Bench, asked the Government of the day to put in some limitation.
§ Mr. PEASEYes, on several occasions. I have not looked up the precedents, but I have one or two clearly in my mind, and some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have confirmed my impression, that on more than one occasion it has been done. If there were some limitation it would help the progress of the Bill. I do not want to occupy a great deal of time on the Committee stage of this Bill. Some protest was made on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is really with a view of trying to help the Government that I suggest that some limitation should be inserted. Of course, I shall not press it upon the Government if they cannot accept it, but last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in his opinion perhaps rather more than £50,000 would be required for England. If that is his view, could we not insert some figure like £100,000 for England and some corresponding figure for Scotland and Ireland? If we could do that it would help the progress of the Bill.
§ Sir H. CRAIKWe are all as anxious as possible not to prolong this Debate but to get to business. I am surprised that a suggestion like this should have been endorsed by one who lately held the position he did, and by one who knows ordinary financial business so well as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). It is all very well to fix a limit on a salary or a distinct piece of expenditure. We all know this work must be done. We cannot measure the amount of work involved. As the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has pointed out, there is this point of uncertainty in the whole matter that we trust that a great part of this work will be carried out by voluntary workers. If there is a likelihood of it being carried out by voluntary workers, if you fix a limit there must either be a danger of crippling the work or you must put in a figure which will look enormously extravagant. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will hold to the present form of 419 the Resolution, and also that the Committee will uphold his hands by not discussing further matters for which there will be opportunities of discussion later on.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI rise at this time not with a view to prolonging the discussion of this matter, although I think it is more advantageous that the question of finance should be discussed on a Financial Resolution rather than on a Clause dealing with finance. If it is limited now, I promise, so far as I am concerned, not to enter into a discussion of the limitation when the Clause is before us. I have to recognise and welcome the action of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in taking the action he did. In this matter of Financial Resolutions I have been a disciple of his. On many occasions during the lifetime of the late Government I had the pleasure of supporting him in respect of limitations of Financial Resolutions. I remember that on those occasions he was always willing to withdraw his opposition to a Financial Resolution if the Government, in response to his request, itself offered a limitation. I am quite willing on this occasion to take up exactly the same attitude. I am glad to find that irrespective of what Government is in power the hon. Baronet and I are agreed upon matters of financial economy. It is extremely important that we should set a limitation before we begin our discussion in Committee. There will be a number of Amendments introduced in the course of the Committee stage which will have the effect of limiting the expenditure under this Bill, and of making it a more efficient and workable measure. If we have a limitation upon the expenditure before the Financial Resolution is reported to the House, that will be a lever for those who are advocating those Amendments to get the assent of the Government to them. I do not wish to enter into arguments on the merits of any particular proposal, but I will refer, for example, to the Amendment designed for the purpose of excluding females from the purview of this Bill. Obviously, if there is a limitation in the Financial Resolution the Government will have a greater temptation to accept that Amendment and so make the Bill less ridiculous than it is in its present form. There is another Amendment which I have in my mind, but which I have not been able to put in such a form as to place it upon the Paper. I will mention it for the information of the right hon. Gentle- 420 man, in the hope that he will give it his consideration. It is a practicable Amendment, and he will find it is an economical one and will make for efficiency. I have the idea of suggesting that the machinery of national insurance should be used for this purpose. Some 15,000,000 people are insured under he National Insurance Act—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now going into detail again. I must ask him to keep simply to the broad issue.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am quite sure that if my right hon. Friend were advised of the virtues of my proposal he would immediately accept it. Such a proposal would tend to economy. I have indicated the general lines of that proposal, and if it is worked out it will be found practicable. The main object of desiring a limitation at the present time is the absolute need for economy in regard to all expenditure. There was a very interesting and instructive Debate in another place yesterday upon this question. We are all advocating economy, but it is more important that the Government should show an example to the country. Here we have an opportunity in the House of Commons of showing how to introduce economical methods by limiting the expenditure upon a particular matter of legislation. I do not suggest that the figures in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough) are exactly the best figures to adopt, or that the modification I suggested in regard to Scotland is precisely the correct figure, but I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman that those figures are well worthy of consideration and that he might at least indicate what in the view of the Government would be the cost. In the course of their deliberations upon this matter I should have thought the Cabinet would have considered the cost. I understand that when a measure involving expenditure is before the Cabinet the question of the cost is always one of the questions taken into consideration. Surely in the course of their deliberations some figures were put before the Cabinet as to the cost which would be involved in obtaining this register. In these circumstances it is not asking too much that the figure which was the estimate, and upon the faith of which the Cabinet assented to this Bill, should be inserted as the limit in the present Resolution. If that is done, I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will facilitate 421 the progress of the Bill and will, to a large extent, conciliate those who look upon it with critical and suspicious eyes. I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will respond to the appeal, which comes not only from a discredited corner in the House, not only from a corner which has been attacked in the columns of a newspaper which we understand is subsidised by Unionist headquarters, but also from other quarters of the House which usually receive a more favourable response from the Front Bench.
§ Mr. THOMASI do not know whether I come within the category of this corner or whether I am being criticised or not; but at all events I most certainly am going to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to limit the amount. I make this appeal for various reasons. It is useless to talk of saving money if you are not going to have efficiency. I voted against the Bill, but having entered my protest I am going to make it as efficient as I can, and I do not believe in merely opposing a thing for the purpose of killing the effect of the Bill; on the contrary, I am going to see if it cannot be put into better shape. In the first place, what Minister could fix an amount? The present abnormal situation, with the, depleted staffs in the municipalities and the limited staff from any central organisation, must of necessity make labour very dear. On the other hand, if amateurs are going to deal with (his question—I hope they are not—the Bill is never going to be effective. I understand that if the Bill is necessary it is necessary because of the urgency, and what is waited is wanted at once, and on those grounds it will be false economy to put in an amount of money which may be wasted. It will be far better to trust those who will spend the money to spend it wisely and well, having regard to the abnormal period in which we are living, but at the same time, now that the register is decided upon, let it be a complete, comprehensive register, obtained under the most expert advice, administered, I hope, in the best spirit, but at the same time do not let it be crippled on any ground of false economy.
§ Mr. LONGI was rather astonished at the appeal made to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when I remembered that the precedents to which he referred, as far as I know, all occurred in the pre-War period, and that since the War the Government, of which he was a distinguished Member, passed something like fifty Acts of Parliament, many of which 422 we never saw in print, many of them being of the most far-reaching importance, and during the whole of that time, when I sat on the Bench where he is now sitting, it never occurred to me or my colleagues to do anything else than to give the Government the utmost support we could, which more often consisted in sitting silent, and never consisted in making demands which we knew they could not possibly gratify without departing from the ground they had taken up. This is not so much a matter for me as for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer heard the Debate last night and appealed to the Committee on no account to fix a limit to this Resolution. The grounds upon which the limitation is recommended are really only these. The right hon. Gentleman told me, and others have told me, that it would facilitate the passage of the Bill. I have some little experience in passing Bills through this House, and it has always been my aim and object to conciliate my Friends without giving away any of the principles for which I stood. But may I point out what we are doing now? We do not know for what period we are legislating. Will the Committee consider that, even at the eleventh hour? Who knows here to-day, when he talks of the duration of the War, how long it will be? Who knows what will be the difficulties to which this country may be exposed before the release from our agony comes? I ask the Committee not to hamper the Government when they are doing their best. We may be wrong, but we accept the full responsibility for what we are doing. We believe the Bill is essential to the proper preparation of this country for difficulties which it may have to face. We believe the expense will be small. Everything indicates that this will be the case. The hon. Member (Mr. Chancellor)—I do not know whether he was speaking from his own experience, or whether he was entitled to speak for the corporation—told us that staffs are reduced by the War. Of course they are. He told us they would have difficulty in carrying out this Bill. I do not know how far he is entitled to speak, but I am entitled to speak, if anyone is, for the local authorities of the country.
§ Mr. LONGIt is quite possible that the borough of Shoreditch may require assistance, but I have been in communication 423 with local authorities all over the country. I have had communications from lord mayors, mayors, chairmen of urban district councils, and their officials, and it is a remarkable fact, if this difficulty is going to occur in connection with the staffs, that no single communication has reached me pointing in this direction, and that every communication I have received points in the opposite direction. They have assured me that they can carry out these duties, and can command, not volunteers who know nothing of the work, but expert volunteers who understand it perfectly well, well trained, well educated men and women who are prepared to do it, because of the War, for nothing. I appeal to the Committee to let us have this Resolution and to get on with the Bill. I welcome the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Thomas). That is the spirit in which I invite the Committee to approach the further consideration of the Bill. Those who oppose it and do not believe in it had their innings upon the Second Reading. They made their case, and the House did not agree with them. I appeal to the Committee to take the decision of the House, if I may put it without any offence, like men, and let us get to our work and enable the Government to do what the country requests of them. In answer to the question as to the division between the Imperial Exchequer and the local exchequer, the reason why the words are put in as they are is because there is to be an arrangement between the Treasury and the Local Government Board, and we thought it desirable to have the power to be able to say, "If you are excessive in your demands you must pay the difference yourself," but it is our intention to defray the whole of the expenditure from the Imperial Exchequer.
§ Mr. COWANI would remind those who are in favour of limiting the expenditure that it is, after all, expenditure on a war emergency measure. At a time when we are speiding £3,000,000 a day on the War it does not seem worth while to haggle and to waste the time of the House for the sake of effecting a small and very problematic economy in connection with carrying out work which the House has almost unanimously resolved to be urgent and necessary. I think we may reasonably appeal to the patriotism of the House, and those who are honestly opposed to this Bill, to allow that which the House has decided ought to be done to be 424 done, and to trust the Government in regard to this small expenditure where they trust it in regard to the disbursements of enormous amounts of money.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. CLOUGHI do not wish to press the Amendment to a Division, in view of the additions which were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, with regard to the amount in the Bill. I am very sorry that the President of the Local Government Board has not responded to the appeal of my right hon. Friend in undertaking to put some figure into the Bill. This is a course that has been adopted at the invitation of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) several times before. I shall not press the Amendment to-day, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it into very careful consideration, with a view to putting in some limitation when the Motion comes up on the Report stage to-morrow.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main question put, and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred and allowances payable in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to provide for the compilation of a National Register.
§ Resolution to be reported To-morrow.