76 and 78. Mr. RUTHERFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the capital sum of £6,000,000 announced by him as a supplement to the flat rate of war pensions, grants, and allowances has been arrived at on the basis of a scale; if so, whether he will publish the scale or such figures and calculations as were before him when he fixed the amount; and (2) whether the Government is prepared to admit the principle 674 that national funds should provide the whole of the amounts necessary to cover the flat rate and the supplement administered by the Statutory Committee in accordance with an approved scale, and also admit the principle that in such administration there shall neither be taken into account nor deducted gifts or allowances from employers or from unions or local or other sources?
§ Mr. McKENNAI would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper now issued and to the reply given by the Secretary to the Local Government Board on the 3rd August. It would, I think, be impracticable to adopt the suggestion contained in the second part of Question 78.
Mr. RUTHERFORDIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be the strongest opposition to appropriating private benefactions in relief of State obligations and that this will meet with great opposition from the committee of lord mayors and provosts and municipalities, and also from the trade unions?
§ Mr. McKENNAThere is no intention of appropriating private benefactions for the relief of State obligations.
Mr. RUTHERFORDIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the Regulations that have just been issued it is quite clear that private benefactions and also trade union allowances will be taken into account and deducted from the amount of the State pensions?
§ Mr. J. SAMUELWas there any intention on the part of the Government of suspending the payment of supplementary grants and pensions when the funds were exhausted?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes; it was always intended to pay the whole of the supplementary allowances. The £6,000,000 is merely paid on account in order to meet the charges made upon the Statutory Committee. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford), the obligations of the State are a matter which has not been definitely determined, and the question in the form in which he puts it has no possible answer except the one which I gave.
Mr. RUTHERFORDWill the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter of principle involved in Question 78?
§ Mr. McKENNAI understand that the Debate to-morrow will cover this question. Of course I am not the authority to determine that point.
§ Mr. HOGGEBefore we debate this matter to-morrow, will the right hon. Gentleman produce the actuarial report upon which he based his sum of £6,000,000 apart from the figures which are known to be accurate from the casualty list up to the present moment?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a long way from the question on the Paper.
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is a question which should not be addressed to me at all.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe question is dealing with the scale which will be discussed to-morrow. That scale was arrived at upon actuarial calculations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's calculations are different from those of the Statutory Committee, and I want to know if we can have them to-morrow?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a very proper question after notice has been given, but not now.
77. Mr. RUTHERFORDasked whether the Statutory Committee have submitted to him their suggested scale for the administration of the supplement to the flat rate; and whether such scale is the same as his scale; and, if not, in what particulars it differs?
§ Mr. McKENNAI am not clear what scale my hon. Friend has in mind. If it is for the administrative expenses of the local committees, it has not yet been decided; if it is the scale for grants, the Treasury has approved the Statutory Committee's scale.
§ Mr. McKENNAYes, Sir; because the House will be called upon to approve the granting of £6,000,000.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat question does not arise.