HC Deb 23 November 1916 vol 87 cc1681-97

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the salaries and remuneration payable to the President, officers, and servants of the Board of Pensions constituted under any Act of the present Session establishing a Board of Pensions."— [Mr. Gulland.]

Sir H. DALZIEL

This Resolution really provides for the salary of my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister, whom I am sure we all join in congratulating on the prospect before him. I do not see why he is getting only £2,000 while other Ministers are getting more than double that sum. Of course I cannot go into the details of it. There may be some private arrangement whereby it may be increased. But, speaking generally, I think if this office is going to occupy the position which we all expect and hope, it ought really to be placed in the same position as other Departments of the Government. We have voluntarily increased the amount which was paid to the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. We did that before war time, it is true, but we recognised that it was not quite the thing that some Ministers should be paid £5,000 and others £2,000. Therefore, if the work which my right hon. Friend is going to perform is of the important character which we believe it to be, I express my regret that all Ministers are not placed in the same position in regard to salary. I rose principally to ask a question in regard to the Resolution. It is provided here that the House can settle the salary of the Minister, but the Treasury is to have authority to settle that of the servants and other officers of the Department. I should like to know whether the decision of the Treasury in this matter will be put before the House in due course for its approval, because we had this very point in another matter some time ago, and the Government at that time, so far as I remember, recognised that that should be done. It is difficult to discuss every detail and every prospective officer. That probably will be the duty of the Treasury in co-operation with the head of the Department, but I think it is a reasonable demand to make that as soon as they are fixed in some form or other the House should be asked for its approval before the ordinary Vote which will come in course of time. I wish to ask if it is intended that there is to be a Parliamentary Secretary to the Pensions Board? It is stated in the public Press that an Under-Secretary is to be appointed, but I do not think there is anything in the Bill providing for it, and I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can tell us whether among the officials of the new Board it is intended to have a Parliamentary Secretary. I think the Committee is entitled to an answer on the point, if it is convenient at the present moment, because I presume his salary is being voted if you are going to have an Under-Secretary.

Sir C. HENRY

I fully endorse what my right hon. Friend has said as regards the salary of the President of this Board. I was surprisned when I read the Bill to find that it was only £2,000 a year. I consider that the work of the head of this Board will be just as onerous and responsible as that of any of the Secretaries of State, and, moreover, he will have a very large amount of money to distribute, probably not less, but rather more, than £30,000,000 a year. If I had the power I would move to raise the salary to £5,000 a year. I should also like to know the extent of the staff of secretaries and other servants of the Board which my right hon. Friend thinks he will require. I imagine it is the intention that an Estimate will be presented to Parliament, not only of the amount of money which will be required to meet the pensions, but also of the amount which will be required for administrative purposes. Although I am aware that, at the present juncture, no better Minister could have been found to be the President of the Board than my right hon. Friend, still the time may come when we shall not have a gentleman of his energy in the Ministry, and therefore I hope it will be understood that the idea that the President of the Board shall only give part of his time to this work is only of a temporary character—during the War—and that he shall be, so to speak, a whole-timer, and that these secretaries whom he employs under the Bill will also devote the whole of their efforts and energies to this enormously important work which the Bill undertakes. As regard the Parliamentary Secretary, I conclude that this is provided for in Sub-section (3) of Clause 7, which says that one of the secretaries of the Board can be a Member of the House of Commons. I hope it is the intention that one of the secretaries shall be a Member of the House of Commons, especially for the time being. This work being so important we should have proper Parliamentary representation. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a great burden on himself, and I hope it will not be considered that by paying him the sum of £2,000 we are making an adequate remuneration for the work which we hope will be done.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

With regard to the salary the Solicitor-General confesses that the first thing he did when he got into office was to cut off a large slice of his big salary and hand it over and pool it amongst the other Ministers. So I understand my right hon. Friend will have a much larger salary than £2,000 a year, because he is in the pool already, and it is a very great advantage in the Coalition that the men in the lower branches should be raised to the position of the Secretaries of State, so my feelings are not very much affected by the complaint that the salary is low. I rose principally to say a word with regard to the secretaries. We should have some indication of the amount of money that is going to be voted for and the number of secretaries, because it is very lax in the Clause in the Pill. It gives the Treasury power to fix the salaries. We do not know how many secretaries are going to be included in the Clause. Is it intended to have a Parliamentary Secretary attached to this Board. If so, the office should be included in the Bill, and not classified among the other secretaries, because it indicates that the Government intend to give him the right to sit in the House of Commons and be a secretary of the Department, and in that case there would be strong opposition to it. I have put down an Amendment, as also have other Members, to move the omission of the Sub-section, and I think it would be better for my right hon. Friend, before we get into Committee, to answer these questions: (1) Can he give us any further idea as to the amount of the cost in the Department in this respect? and (2) is it the intention of the Government within the powers of this Bill to create an office of Parliamentary Secretary to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his work?

Colonel YATE

I desire to support what has been said by my hon. Friend opposite. I hope that the Paymaster-General will be able to tell as whether this £2,000 a year is to be given to him as Minister of Pensions, who will have nothing else whatever to do, and will be disqualified from holding any other office? I also hope that he will tell us the number of secretaries to be appointed and the cost to be incurred. It is given very vaguely in this Bill. I am absolutely opposed to the idea of appointing a lot of inexperienced clerks to take up the work at the present time, and also secretaries who have had nothing to do with it before. We require the continuance of trained experienced men to do the executive work or the Department. It will be utterly impossible for the present Board proposed by this Bill to do the work of assessing pensions at the rate of 1,000 a day, as has to be done at the present time. No provision is made for the enormous work which has to be done beyond the casual remark in the Bill that secretaries ace to be appointed. I hope-that the Paymaster-General will give us a full and explicit statement in this respect, and also about the special secretaries in Parliament.

Mr. HAZLETON

I have a great deal of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in the fact that he is only to get the miserable salary of £2,000 a year under this Bill, while so many of his colleagues in the Cabinet have got a salary of £5,000 a year. But I think that, as the pensions provided for the rank and file under this Bill and under the existing Regulations are so moderate, perhaps the same ought to apply to the Minister who presides over this Department. I do not suppose that it is the intention of the Government to have, in addition, an Under-Secretary in this House representing this Pensions Board, because, as I understand, not only have we the Minister himself here, but three of his colleagues on the benches below are also Members of this House, and it would be putting a strain upon public finance if an additional secretary were to be appointed, when we have four Ministers representing the one Board already upon the Treasury Bench. The point which I wish to put is this: When this Board is set up, you will, no doubt, find it necessary to appoint additional members of your permanent executive staff to carry out the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I do not suggest that there are any special, peculiar, particular difficulties in the case of Ireland which will arise under this Bill, but I do represent to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be very desirable if we had on the permanent staff one or two officials acquainted with Irish conditions who might be at his elbow and in a position to advise him upon those conditions if and when they arise, as they are bound to arise, in the administration of this very complex and difficult Department. While I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to give a reply now, I would ask him to bear the point in mind when it comes to the appointment of his staff, so as to facilitate the smooth working of his Department.

Mr. SCANLAN

I think that the House is impressed with the enormous scope of the duties undertaken by the Paymaster-General as President of the Pensions Board, and I wish to ask, Will he devote his whole time to the pension business? As Paymaster-General he may be doing many things, and it is a physical impossibility for any Minister, however brilliant his capabilities, to do this pension business effectively and to do anything else, and I think that the Committee would be profoundly disgusted if there are added on to the duties of the Chairman of the Pensions Board other duties such as may appertain to the office of Paymaster-General or Labour Adviser. My right hon. Friend is taking on a full man's work if he takes on the task of dealing with pensions, and I think that it will never be forgiven if the duties of Paymaster-General and Labour Adviser are added to these other duties. It cannot be done. The country looks to get one man who will devote himself exclusively to the question of settling pensions. My hon. Friend above the Gangway spoke yester- day of the position of the Pensions Board in giving decisions on individual eases. The more I consider that, the more I am convinced that there is nothing of consequence to the Pensions Board except individual cases. Any man who goes to his constituency finds that, to the warworn soldier who comes back and is entitled to a pension, nothing matters except his own pension. It is all the world to him and his wife and family. It is utterly impossible for the President of the Pensions Board to do the work adequately and at the same time be Paymaster-General and Labour Adviser. Let minor people do these jobs, but for the office of the Chairman of the Pensions Board let us have a man giving his whole time. I am sure that the Committee will be with me in insisting that we shall have an answer on this point.

The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. A. Henderson)

I have every reason to be grateful to the House for the consideration which it has shown to me in the questions that have been submitted. More than one hon. Member, especially the last speaker, has manifested a great amount of concern lest I as a Minister should be overworked, and he has reminded the Committee that I occupy the position of Paymaster-General. I do not know whether he has over taken the trouble to inquire as to the duties of this very important office, or as to the amount of time which is required for the occupant of the office to discharge its duties. If he had taken the trouble to inquire he would have been quite assured that my health would not be broken down by adding other work to the duties of Paymaster-General.

Mr. SCANLAN

Why should not the office be abolished if it is a pure sinecure?

Mr. HENDERSON

I hope that my hon. Friend will put that question to the Prime Minister.

Mr. SCANLAN

I may do it.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. HENDERSON

I hope that he will not do it until the Pensions Bill is carried. I think that the remark which I have made as to his anxiety about my being overworked applies also to the position of Labour Adviser. This question has been referred to on several occasions, on the First Reading and the Second Reading, and it has been put to me privately—why ought I to take on the responsibility of pensions work in view of the fact that I felt it necessary to relinquish the work at the Board of Education because of the demands upon my time as a Labour Adviser? I want to point out the difference in the position. When I was at the Board of Education I endeavoured to do the work of Labour Adviser without any assistance. I had no office and no assistance of any kind. That made the work extremely difficult. Immediately I was released from the Board of Education I set to work and organised the Labour Advisory Department. I also have this additional advantage in the excellent services of my Parliamentary Secretary for the Labour Advisory Office, who is one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury, and a member of the Labour party, who knows the difficulties that we have to contend with in connection with labour questions and who renders me day by day most valuable assistance. That makes a considerable difference. I would like to put this to the Committee. When I accepted the position of Paymaster-General a great portion of the responsibility for pensions that will devolve upon me when this Bill is passed devolved upon me immediately, because, as I told the House on Second Reading, by virtue of being Paymaster-General I have to accept the chairmanship of the Chelsea Commissioners. It is quite true that Paymaster-Generals in the past have pleased themselves as to whether they went to Chelsea or not. But when I went there I went with the intention of seeing what the pension. problem was, and I was brought face to face by the score or more of meetings which I think I have attended, and by the position which I found with the need for making special investigations into the limitations and anomalies of the system, and, as I tried to point out to the House in my speech on Second Reading, there is a great deal of change and improvement that requires to be made. When I found out these limitations and defects, I then set to work to try to find a means of remedying them. This Bill is the beginning. It is the machinery, and, as I have tried to outline, I have got plans, which I promised to lay before the House at the earliest possible moment, for dealing with the Warrants, and all the anomalies that have arisen out of the Warrants, and the Report of the last Select Committee. I am not going to disguise from my mind the fact that when the Bill becomes law, and the Department is organised, and I have got my new scheme through the Treasury, through the Cabinet, and through this House, it may add to my work. It will certainly add to my responsibilities, but I shall be very much disappointed if I do not so organise the machine and so improve the decree under which the awards have to be given as to simplify the work and to some extent, if it does not lighten the responsibility, remove the far too many causes for vexation that now exist. To that extent I hope that all of us, including our soldiers, will reap an advantage. The second point of this personal consideration is the question of salary. There is a salary mentioned in the Bill. I do not mind saying that I am in the happy position that the proposal in the Bill affects my successors more than myself. One hon. Member has been cautious enough to bring before the notice of the Committee the private arrangement that exists. I had no hand in making that arrangement, and I do not know if I shall be going too far if I inform the Committee that when I was invited to enter the Cabinet I offered to go in without any salary whatsoever. So that it is not the question of salary that concerns me. We have, however, to make provision.

Mr. PRINGLE

Your offer was under the trade union rate of wages.

Mr. HENDERSON

It may have been. The position has to be carried on in the future. The Coalition Government will come to an end, but there will have to be a Pensions Minister in future, and the Government have thought St to include within the Bill the salary which is mentioned. I hope, therefore, that so far as I am concerned there is no desire to take the advice that has been tendered and fix the salary of the Minister of Pensions on the higher scale referred to. I hope the Committee will keep the fact in mind that the higher salary will not benefit me in any way, and whatever they do they will only do it having regard to the possibilities of someone who is coming into the office hereafter. The question was asked by more than one speaker whether I could indicate to the Committee the scale of salaries of the officials to be appointed. I do not want to say that that is unreasonable, but I do not see the practicability of it. Here I am, not having got in the saddle yet, much less having got settled in it, in the sense that I am taking over when the Bill passes and the date is fixed four or five different sections and have to bring them together. How can it be expected that before I have really been able to see exactly what permanent officials we require, I should come down to the Committee at this early stage and make an announcement with regard to salaries? As I pointed out on the Second Reading Debate, the sooner we can get the Bill the sooner we will get the new Department organised, and the sooner we will get the improvement which I believe the whole House wants to have brought about with regard to scale, etc. May I put in one reservation? I have been sufficiently long in the Government to see other Departments created and this procedure was not followed. The Minister was not invited before he had got his office door open to state to the Committee either the number of permanent officials to be appointed or the amount of salary that they were going to be paid. I do not know that these questions have ever been put, and I think it is rather tending to create difficulties if they are pressed upon me at this time.

The question of a Parliamentary Secretary is on an entirely different footing. We have provided in the Bill for a Parliamentary Secretary. I think the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) referred to this point. If the Committee will look at Clause 7, Sub-section (3), they will see that it states: One of the Secretaries of the Board of Pensions shall not by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to, or of voting in, the Commons House of Parliament. That was put in specially and deliberately. I was given to understand by the draftsman that that was the usual course, and it is put there to let the House see that immediately the Bill becomes law a Parliamentary Secretary is going to be appointed. My hon. Friend (Mr. Scanlan) seemed to think that there was a strong argument against the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary because there were three other members of the Board besides myself. Those three members of the Board occupy the position of Financial or Parliamentary Secretaries in their respective Departments. There is no reason why, though they occupy those important positions, which are full-time positions, I should not have the benefit of their assistance occa- sionally at Board meetings, especially having regard to their very intimate knowledge of and acquaintance with this particular problem of pensions. I am very pleased to think that they are delighted to place their services at the disposal of the Minister of Pensions, whoever he may be, to the extent that they will come to the Board meetings and give me the benefit of their valuable experience. I do not mind saying that if the number of questions that I imagine will be asked in regard to individual cases are going to correspond with the number of questions that are asked me by letter—and I assume they are only asked me by letter because they cannot ask me the questions through the Order Paper under the present arrangement—

An HON. MEMBER

Why?

Mr. HENDERSON

Because a question was put to the Prime Minister the other day as to whether questions had to be put to the Paymaster-General with regard to pensions, and he said, and rightly said, that there were Departmental difficulties, and that the arrangements under which the War Office answered or the Admiralty answered had better continue. That does not enable hon. Members to put their question to me on the Order Paper. I have had not scores, but hundreds, and I might say many hundreds, of questions put to me by letter since my name was-first mentioned as Pensions Minister. If these questions had to be answered on the floor of the House—and I do not know of any Order that is going to prevent them— it seems to me that I should be very much mistaken if I attempted to discharge the-duties of the position without the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary. It is my intention, immediately the Bill is through, to make, with the approval of the Prime Minister, an appointment of such an assistant.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

Will the name be given before the Bill is through?

Mr. HENDERSON

I do not think that it is necessary. The House does not concern itself with the appointment of other Parliamentary Secretaries, and I hope this is not another case of an exception being made. The matter will rest with the Prime Minister and the Minister concerned. So far as I am concerned, I am not at all anxious to name the Parliamentary Secretary before the Bill is through.

Mr. SCANLAN

May I ask a question on this point? So long as the Chairman of the Pensions Board is a Member of this House is there any necessity for a Parliamentary Secretary? I could understand if my right hon. Friend contemplated going across the Lobby to another place that somebody would be required to answer questions in this House, but so long as we have as Chairman of the Pensions Board a Member of this House, surely there is no need to have a Parliamentary Secretary to answer questions! Why should the Minister not answer the questions himself?

Mr. HENDERSON

If that is the view -of the House, and it is indicated to the Prime Minister in the proper way, I have not a shadow of doubt that the Prime Minister will put the question to me— whether under these conditions I am prepared to continue to be Minister of Pensions, or whether I am prepared to give up being Minister of Pensions and to continue my work as Labour Adviser? I can give very important reasons, and I think they are reasons which would -appeal to the House, why I should keep in touch with the work of the office of Labour Adviser. At any rate, the organised workers of this country, over whom I have presided for both Ministers of Munitions, at all their conferences, when they have been asked to make concessions and to give up for the War period hard-won rights, which they have fought for for many years, think that I ought to remain there to assist them to get restored after the War that which they have given up. I am quite prepared to continue that work, with the consent of the Prime Minister; but if the House lays it down that I am to choose between that work and the work of Pensions Minister, I have already told the Prime Minister which of the two positions I would prefer to take. I hope that will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend, and to any others who are interested. I will tell the House this —and I have considered the matter very carefully—that if I thought that I could not do the work of Minister of Pensions to the extent that I think it ought to devolve upon the Minister, and do it effectively, and bring about the changes of importance that I hinted at on the Second Reading stage, I would refuse to have anything to do with it. I am taking up the position because of my deep personal interest in the pen- sions problem, and because I have had brought home to me, as very few have had the opportunity of having it brought home to them, that our soldiers and our sailors who have gone forward in the name of King and country are not being treated as they ought to be treated. That, I think, ought to be taken as an earnest of what I am going to try to do. If I cannot do it, I will not allow the position to fail through a desire to continue to discharge the responsibilities of a dual position.

The hon. and gallant Member for Leicestershire (Colonel Yate) not only strongly opposes the proposal that I am to occupy the position of the Minister of Pensions, but is opposed to the Bill lock, stock, and barrel. He indicated it on the First Reading and on the Second Reading, and I am afraid that nothing that I can say is likely to influence his opinion.

Colonel YATE

I am not opposed to the Bill. I am only opposed to the constitution of the Board which is to be set up by this Bill—the constitution of the Board with the Paymaster-General and the three Under-Secretaries as members. I want the Bill, but I want a different Board.

The CHAIRMAN

That is a point we must not enter into now. It is a question which can be raised by Amendment on the Bill. This is not the occasion on which to raise it.

Colonel YATE

I raised it because the right hon. Gentleman did not accurately represent me when he said that I am opposed to the Bill lock, stock, and barrel. I am only opposed to the Board lock, stock, and barrel.

Mr. HENDERSON

I do not want to transgress the ruling of the Chair, and I would not have ventured on this subject except for the speech of the hon. and gallant Member. The Bill only seeks to do one thing, and that is to set up a Board of one kind, and the hon. and gallant Member is totally opposed to that. Therefore I think I have not misrepresented him in saying that he is opposed to the Bill lock, stock, and barrel.

Colonel YATE

Yes, you did misrepresent me.

Mr. HENDERSON

The Member for Galway—consistently, of course, with his position as a representative of Ireland in this House—is against any further injustice to his country. I do not think that this is a ease where either the peculiar interests of Ireland, or of Scotland, or of Wales, differ. After all, with the exception of one piece of work being done in Ireland, I think that all the Irish cases have been dealt with under the Board at Chelsea, over which I have had the honour to preside during the last few months. It seems to me that Ireland is not going to suffer; in fact, if I can improve the position, it seems to me that no body of people stand to gain more than do the Irish soldiers who have been either totally or partially disabled

Mr. HAZLETON

There is the question of the working of the local committees and the Statutory Committee, which will, of course, be a very important consideration.

Mr. HENDERSON

That is quite right, but so far as the Statutory Committee is concerned, as my hon. Friend knows, they only take over their powers so far as the supplementation of disability pensions is concerned. In regard to the local committees I do intend to use them, and I hope to make an arrangement with the Statutory Committee that will enable me to do so, provided, or course, that I can get them placed on a little more satisfactory basis, with a little more recognition of the urban element than has been introduced in the local committees in so far as they have gone up to the present. If I can get that arrangement made I am quite prepared to use the committees, but I must say that if the committees are not, going to do the work to the satisfaction of the Board, so far as I am concerned, I shall at once set about creating new machinery, and, of course, I will take Ireland into my consideration. I hope that with these explanations the House will now pass the Resolution.

Sir H. DALZIEL

We are indebted to my right hon. Friend for the very full statement he has made. There is one point, however, on which he might give us some information. He has stated that when the Bill is passed a Parliamentary Secretary is to be appointed. I think that decision a wise one, but it is right that the House should know what is to be paid to the Under-Secretary. He is only provided for in the Bill as an officer or a servant; there is no special definition; I am speaking of the power which is being taken at the present time. There is a precedent in regard to this subject in the establishment of the Ministry of Muni- tions. The President came down and stated, in regard to the two Under-Secretaries, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Parliamentary (Military) Secretary, before they were appointed, the amount of salary they were to be paid. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider the matter, and give some statement on the point. I think it is for the House and not for the Treasury to fix the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a definite statement.

Mr. HENDERSON

I have no objection to the course suggested by my right hon. Friend. I have made inquiries, and I am informed that these payments are governed by scale, and as I am a strict believer in the payment of the trade union rate, I accepted the fixed scale, thinking that would be as acceptable to the House as to myself.

Mr. PRINGLE

We are to understand that the salary of the Secretary to the Board of Pensions will be according to scale. When the Ministry of Munitions was established the chief salary was £5,000 a year, and the salaries of the Under-Secretaries was £1,500 a year. But in the case of the Board of Pensions, if the salary to be paid is £2,000 a year, the Under-Secretary will be paid on the inferior scale.

Mr. HENDERSON

I am advised that the salary of the Under-Secretary would be £1,200.

Mr. PRINGLE

I think that payment according to scale leads to a rather unfair way of dealing with the matter. We know that the salary which is paid under this Bill does not affect the right hon. Gentleman himself. We know that there is a domestic arrangement in the Cabinet which makes the members of it all superior to such monetary considerations. Under this Bill £2,000 a year will simply mean that every Cabinet Minister gets £100 a year extra, and £5,000 would give a corresponding income to all the members of the Cabinet. But under the scale arrangement the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Pensions would suffer, because the head of the office is in a different position from that enjoyed by the Minister. I think, after all, we are entitled to assume that the very heavy part of the work of the Pensions Board will fall on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board. The right hon. Gentleman indicated as much to the Committee. He said that without the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary he could not undertake to combine the pension work with the duties he at present discharges as Labour Adviser. We may therefore infer that a much heavier burden will fall upon the Parliamentary Secretary of the Pensions Board than usually falls on the Parliamentary Secretaries in other offices. Surely it would be unfair that he should be treated on what may be called an inferior scale, especially seeing that there are some positions in the Government which are practically sinecures.

After all, we know that the Home Office, the Local Government Board, and some other offices are doing far less than they in time of peace, because there is practically no legislation of a domestic character at the present time, nor has there been for some long time past, and the consequence is that they are really overpaid. Here we are creating an office that results from the War, and it is going to be one of the most heavy worked offices in the Government. The work which will devolve upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Pensions Board will be very heavy compared with that which falls upon these more fortunate Gentlemen, and why should he be called upon to accept a position which is inferior in respect of the financial arrangements. I submit that this is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman should consider in consultation with the Prime Minister, and whoever is appointed should not be asked to occupy an inferior position, whether he takes a salary or not, in comparison with other officials in the service of the Government.

Mr. SCANLAN

May I state that I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that it was not his intention to have appointed a Parliamentary Secretary—I mean so long as he is in this House himself and able to answer questions in regard to pensions. But the right hon. Gentleman might not be in this House, and of course if the position might be held by a Member of another place at a salary of £1,250 a year—

Mr. HENDERSON

The hon. Member must not build up a case on wholly imaginary premises. That is not really the case. I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. SCANLAN

I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to be here as President of the Pensions Board, and he ought to be able to answer all the questions. He has three Under-Secretaries in the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, and the Financial Secretary to the War Office. Even if we have a Member of this House as President of the Pensions Board, are we also to have the infliction of another Under-Secretary? I do not know the salary which is going to be paid, and I do not think the House cares very much. Why should not the President of the Pensions Board, so long as he is a Member of this House, be able to answer all the questions?

Mr. HENDERSON

For the reasons I have already given.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have a permanent Under-Secretary as well?

Mr. HENDERSON

Certainly. If we are to have a Parliamentary Secretary in the House, it is essential, in the organisation of a Government Department, to have also a permanent Under-Secretary.

Colonel YATE

I desire to remove the misapprehension of the right hon. Gentleman as to my objection to the Bill. I listened to his explanation of the duties-he is to undertake with great interest, and I have no doubt that he, as head of the Pensions Board, will ably discharge those duties; but my objection is not to him in a personal sense. My point is that we ought to have a full-time Minister in charge of this Department; it is not a personal question at all, because the right hon. Gentleman might change with any change of the Ministry at any moment. We have to provide for the future in regard to pensions which are to be administered for many years, and I would prefer a full-time Minister, and also Commissioners, to deal with pensions quite independent of Parliamentary control.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must discuss that question on Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment not of moneys provided by Parliament of an annual salary, not exceeding two thousand pounds, to the President, and of such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine to the secretaries, officers, and servants of the Board of Pensions constituted under any Act of the present Session for establishing a Board of Pensions.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.