HC Deb 10 March 1915 vol 70 cc1387-8
25. Mr. R. McNEILL

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many men who were employed in the Land Valuation Department on the 1st August, 1914, are now serving in His Majesty's forces; how many men of military age are still serving in the Department; whether permission to join the Army has been refused to any employé of the Department; and whether those who join the Army are assured that they will be restored to their former employment after the war?

26. Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state, approximately, the number of officials of military age who are now employed in land valuation; how many so employed have enlisted; whether enlistment has been forbidden to any of them; and whether in future the work of this Department can be carried on by officials outside the military age?

30. Mr. JAMES MASON

asked how many of the Government land valuers are of military age; and whether any and, if so, how many of these gentlemen have been refused permission to offer their services to the military or naval forces of this country?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Over 1,100 members of the Valuation staff are serving with His Majesty's Forces. This number represents a little under one-third of those of military age—a proportion which compares very favourably with that existing in other Departments in the Service.

Mr. McNEILL

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of question 25 which asks whether permission to join has been refused to the men?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Permission has been refused in some cases where it was impossible to carry on the business of the office without the assistance of those particular members. Of course, the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the Inland Revenue are bearing on their books the salaries of each of the members serving during the time they are away.

Mr. McNEILL

Having regard to the cost of this particular source of revenue, could it not stand in abeyance till after the War?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

Could you not abolish this office altogether?

Forward to