HC Deb 14 October 1915 vol 74 cc1557-65

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna)

I wish to ask the House to adjourn the consideration of the Lords Amendments until another day, I hope quite an early day, in order that the House may have an opportunity to consider what the proposal is which the Government is about to make to the House. I therefore should like to outline quite briefly now what the nature of the Amendments are that we propose to ask the House to accept and which we propose to ask the House not to accept, and then resume the discussion when we get to the individual Amendments, if that, of course, is agreeable to the House, and I think in the long run that will be found to be most convenient. In another place the character of the Bill was entirely changed. The Select Committee—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) in his place—in considering this question, had before them, in the first instance, a proposal for a much larger scheme. It was put forward by my right hon. Friend sitting near me (Mr. Hayes Fisher), and it was received by the Select Committee with a good deal of approval. His proposal, then, was for a complete reconstitution of the different authorities who now deal with pensions, and the absorption of their various functions by one new Government authority. I need not detail to the House all the institutions and authorities which now deal with pensions and allowances, but the existence of Chelsea and of Greenwich Hospitals, and the existence of the Royal Patriotic Organisation, cannot be left out of account. My impression is that in ordinary circumstances—that is to say, if we had no great war on our hands and the Departments concerned were not very much occupied—the Select Committee would have accepted the proposal of my right hon. Friend; but we came to the conclusion that we were not then in a position to bring before the House a large scheme to absorb all the functions of the different bodies who now deal with pensions.

We determined, therefore, to adopt a scale of flat-rate pensions, which were sufficiently generous to cover a great num- ber of those who will become entitled to benefits, and we proposed the humbler scheme of a new body to be founded on the Royal Patriotic Corporation, and to be primarily supported by voluntary funds, as is the case with that Corporation. We therefore propose to establish a statutory committee of the corporation, including in its constitution a considerable representation of the Corporation, but having also on its body a number of representatives of the Government. The whole Bill was framed on the principle that it would be a voluntary body, and that it would not be a Government authority. Whether we were right or wrong in that view is not now the relevant question. What I am endeavouring to bring to the mind of the House is that the Bill as introduced into this House, and as carried through this House, was not a Bill which was intended to found a new Government Department, which was not framed with that object, and its provisions would not carry out that object. The Bill passed through the House substantially in the form in which it was originally introduced. When it got to another place an entirely new set of ideas was brought to bear upon the measure. By amendment of this Bill, with a certain idea behind it, it was sought to constitute a new Government authority to deal with pensions. Here, again, I am not dealing with the merits of the proposal. It may be right or it may be wrong to set up a new Government Department to deal with pensions, but I shall submit to the House when the time comes that you cannot set up a new Government Department by amending a Bill which was framed upon the voluntary basis. The whole scheme and system of the Bill is not adapted to that purpose. If the House desires, and if Parliament desires to have a new Government authority to deal with, pensions, that authority must absorb the existing authority. We cannot have a Government Department at Chelsea administering pensions with considerable latitude and a Government Department under this Bill also administering pensions and dealing with the same people, and likewise with considerable latitude in dealing with public money. We shall have public money flowing out at every tap, and we shall have no co-ordination between the authorities who will be in the position of spending public money. Again I say, whether it is right or whether it is wrong, it is not relevant to my present purpose. My present purpose is to state to the House that, in the opinion of the Government, the purpose which was intended to be carried out in another place cannot properly be carried out by amendment of this Bill.

If we are to have a Government authority you ought to start with the intention of having a Government authority which will deal with Chelsea and deal with Greenwich, and set up one large authority which would have the whole control of the question of pensions. As I have said, I think on the whole if we had time there was more to be said for that scheme than for any other, and reconstitute the whole of your existing pension authorities. I do not think personally we have the time, and I do not think the scheme could be dealt with by the different authorities satisfactorily at the present moment. That is the argument which convinced the Committee of which I was a member, and I still adhere to it. I think the course we proposed was the right course, namely, to establish a voluntary authority which, so far as is necessary, will be assisted by Government Grants but which will not look to the annual Votes of this House for its ordinary expenditure. Having said so much, I should like to say that when the time comes we shall propose to ask the House to accept a number of the Amendments made in another place which are minor improvements of the Bill, and we shall ask the House to disagree with the main Amendment which reconstitutes and renames the statutory authority and strikes out all association with the voluntary side and makes the authority a complete Government authority. There are one or two Amendments which have strengthened the position of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and those I should be only too ready to ask the House to accept. I think though they go a little too far when they ask that the Board should have power to delegate to any district or local committee, whether appointed for any particular locality or not, any of its powers or duties under the Act. That is carrying the principle of recognition a little farther than I think I can ask the House to accept, and I shall accordingly move the rejection of that Amendment. But the other Amendments which invite the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and the new committee to have due regard to representation are Amendments which I think the House may reasonably accept.

With this explanation I would ask the House to take a few days to consider the whole question and make up its mind upon three alternative courses, and, as I hope, having made up its mind, accept the proposals of the Government. Recapitulating the three alternatives, they are, first, the withdrawal of this Bill altogether and to start with a new Bill which would deal with the whole question of pensions, including Chelsea and Greenwich. That is a course I cannot recommend, as I do not believe the work could be well done under existing circumstances. The second course is to accept the Amendments made in another place and to set up a new Government Department dealing with identically the subject matter which two Government Departments are already dealing with. That is a course which I also cannot recommend. The third course which appeals to me is to restore substantially the Bill into the condition in which it stood when it left this House and establish what is primarily a voluntary organisation assisted by Government Grant, and when we have got experience of its work to look forward at a later date to a new big Bill when we have more leisure and opportunity which will absorb all the functions of the pensions bodies.

Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL

I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that it is not the intention to accept the Amendments passed in the other place which affect the principle underlying this Bill. So far as the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation is concerned there was a definite statement made when the matter was under Debate in July by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board who was then in charge of this Bill, that so far as this Fund was concerned it was simply to be advisory and not in any way to interfere with the constructive work of the statutory Committee which was to be the governing body. Therefore I think the other place was under a misapprehension as to the constitution and powers of this Royal Patriotic Fund, because if they were going to interfere with the work of the statutory Committee I am quite certain the Members of the House of Commons would not have accepted that body as part and parcel of the advisory committee to this statutory Committee. That is really how I understood the matter was left. The other place now proposes certain Amendments. Having regard to the fact that the Government propose to strike out some of the Amendments which are affecting the principle of this Bill, then so far as some of us are concerned I think we are all prepared to accept the suggestion which the Chancellor has made and to adjourn the discussion of some of those minor Amendments which do not affect the principle and pass the Bill practically as it stood when it left the House of Commons. When the matter was under discussion on 18th November when it was proposed to set up a Pensions Committee, the Colonial Secretary, who first suggested that the Committee should be formed, stated that the wishes of the House of. Commons should exercise direct influence so that a representative Committee should be appointed. If the House of Commons is the body to have the direct influence then those Amendments which have been passed in the House of Lords have really struck at the very principle underlying this Bill.

We have had circulated this morning to the Members of the House a report of the working of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association for the County of London. I am not going to deal with the report, but I should like to say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will examine the constitution of the committees which are working London he will find that they contain the very vicious principles to which we object. If the right hon. Gentleman should like a practical or definite statement with regard to that, I should be very pleased to make it when the Amendments are under consideration, because I have a strong objection myself to the manner in which these committees are appointed. They are selected from one class of the community and there are the very vicious principles which we strongly object to, and for those considerations I am very glad the Chancellor is going to strike out some of these Amendments. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not delay the consideration of those Amendments, the matter is very urgent. I am receiving daily letters and having interviews in my Constituency asking me when these pensions for dependants are going to be made. We are informed they cannot be fixed until the committees are set up, and therefore I trust that the further consideration of these Amendments will not be delayed beyond Thursday of next week. I understand that the Finance Bill must be under consideration upon Tuesday and Wednesday, and I hope that the Lords Amendments will be considered on Thursday.

Mr. GOLDSTONE

There will be little objection in the House to the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the consideration of the Lords Amendments should be deferred for a few days, but I think there will be less satisfaction with, the suggestion that we should reject the main Amendment of the House of Lords. So far as my colleagues and myself are concerned, we incline to the view that that Amendment improves this Bill. It is another instance of the House of Lords, attempting to get thorough Parliamentary control. The proposal of the Government is to reinstitute a charitable body to administer funds which in part are State funds. Surely that in these days is a vicious principle to find forthcoming even under a Coalition Government. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, I understand, has not raised a penny from charitable sources since 1903, and I believe that as recently as two years ago it had to come to the State for assistance. I think there was a suggestion two years ago that they were in a position in which they ought not to be, and an appeal was made for some amount of State assistance. When this Bill was introduced it may have been the case that only pensions of a supplementary sort, to be found in the main by the charitably disposed, were in view. Under such circumstances a statutory body, drawn principally from corporations, such as the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, might have served the purpose. The scope of the Bill, however, has been enlarged, and now includes the duty thrown on the statutory body of taking care of disabled soldiers in the matter of training and employment. That is a most important work, and the statutory body will have to concern itself with some thousands of men. I am not at all sure that a body so constituted as the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation is a proper body to deal with the training and employment of thousands of disabled soldiers.

I believe the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that there should be considerable funds forthcoming from the Prince of Wales' Fund. The Committee of Management of that Fund, so my information goes, is not disposed to find the funds which the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped to receive from that source, and I am in agreement with that decision. Following on that decision, it is obvious that more funds must be found by the State. I doubt whether anyone in this House will say that the care and training of the disabled soldier is a matter which should be divorced from State duty and control. This surely means that we cannot allow such an important work to pass into the hands of any corporation which will be outside the complete control of this House. That was the intention of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman now in charge of the Bill will remember that I moved an Amendment with a view to securing that a full and complete report should be made directly to this House. When this House parted with the Bill the report of this great statutory body was to be made as a kind of annexe to the report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, as though this important statutory body was a mere subsidiary body to that corporation. That ought to show to the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as we on these benches are concerned, the Bill as it left the House was not satisfactory.

The great work of caring for the demobilised able-bodied soldier must be linked up with the work of caring for the disabled soldier. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may tell us that there is not time, but there must be time for the preparation of a scheme for dealing with the demobolised able-bodied soldier. Sir George Murray's report is quite explicit on this matter—that you must not divorce the work of training the disabled soldier from the work of the training and employment of the demobilised able-bodied soldier. I foresee the possibility, or it may be the necessity, of linking up these two classes of work. Imagine the linking up of the work of the training and employment of the demobilised soldier with the work which it is proposed shall be done by the statutory body. Is it not perfectly clear that this must be a Government care, and not the care merely of charitably disposed organisations, no matter how efficient, or how well-disposed they may be? Having regard to the possibility of an extension of the functions, the necessity indeed for that extension, and the clear evidence that you must not separate these functions, in my view the argument is unanswerable that this is a work which must be under the direct care and control of Parliament, and that therefore the body shall be one set up by the Crown acting through Ministers. For these reasons I think the House will be well advised in resisting the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we should disagree with the main Amend- ment of the House of Lords. To reconstitute this particular organisation and place it in a superior position to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and similar bodies will do those bodies a grievous injustice, and give them a setback in their work. It would be better to place all these bodies on an equal footing, inviting them to send their most representative people to take part in the work of the statutory body, constituted in the main by the Crown, and under the ægis of the Treasury, with someone on the Front Bench constantly to answer the questions which will inevitably arise in the administration of the large funds that will be under its control. It is quite clear that to accept the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to go back on the best traditions of the House and on those canons of democratic control to which we ought to adhere.

Colonel YATE

I wish to express my great regret at the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) in depreciation of the good work done by the various committees of the London Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association—remarks which I consider most uncalled for and utterly unjustified.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

I said distinctly that I was mot going to criticise their work. It is not that; but I do strongly criticise the constitution of these committees, and I will give my reason if the hon. Member wants it.

Colonel YATE

I did not understand that, and I am glad to hear the explanation of the hon. Member. As regards the work of these committees, no one can say a word against it. As to their constitution, the secretaries and presidents are mostly ladies, and the work done by them constitutes a debt which can never be repaid. I thought it was a most unjustified remark which the hon. Member made in depreciation of the work done by the ladies concerned. With reference to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not quite understand which Amendments are to be withdrawn. Is Clause 2, Sub-section (3), the one that is to be withdrawn, or is Clause 6 to be withdrawn as well? The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so general that we have no information to go on as to what the actual proposals of the Government are.

Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON

I do not wish to cover the ground taken by my hon. Friend (Mr. Goldstone), with the greater part of whose speech I entirely agree; but I gather that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to leave out the power of devolving the functions on existing organisations. I hope that that will be reconsidered. I have no doubt there will be many local organisations perfectly willing to do the work, and I am equally sure that there are a large number of people who are entirely unwilling or incompetent to do it. They have not the time to do it, hut are perfectly willing to entrust the work to the local charitable authorities, which are doing it for them, as they think so well, at the present time. Under these circumstances, it would be a great mistake to strike out of the Bill this power, which, after all, the local authorities need not exercise unless they think fit to do so.

Mr. CURRIE

I wish to make two practical suggestions. The first is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, since he attaches great importance to the element of voluntary support to this fund, should bear in mind that anything he does to weaken the position of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association will very likely end in a diminution of the amount of private benevolence towards the fund. The second is that anything he does to damage the association will probably land the Government in very serious difficulties in the actual carrying on of the work in the meantime.

Mr. AINSWORTH

I have been requested by members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association to ask the Government to consider whether they could not allow that association the right under the Bill of appointing somebody to act as their representative. We all know the admirable work which they have done in the past, and we may be quite sure that that work will in the future be excellent in itself and thoroughly acceptable in all parts of the country.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher)

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.