§ The Minister may make Regulations for any of the following purposes:
- (a) For regulating the procedure of committees, including the proceedings at meetings of committees
- (b) For regulating the appointment, removal, duties, and remuneration of officers of committees, and the provision of offices by committees.
- (c) For authorising and securing the attendance of officers of the Ministry of Pensions at meetings of committees, and for enabling such officers to summon and examine witnesses on any matters the administration of which is vested in the Minister.
- (d) For enabling officers of the Ministry of Pensions to inspect and take copies or extracts from any books or other document kept by or in possession of committees, and for that purpose to enter any premises where any such books or documents are kept, and for requiring committees to furnish to any such officers such information as may be reasonably required by those officer for the performance of their duties.
- (e) For prescribing the times at which, the manner in which, and the period for which, estimates of administrative expenses are to be submitted by committees.
- (f) For regulating the constitution of subcommittees.
- (g) For authorising or requiring the delegation to district committees and sub-committees, subject to any conditions or restrictions specified in the Regulations, of any powers or duties so specified and for making void the delegation of powers and duties otherwise than in accordance with the Regulations.
- (h) For prescribing the form in which the accounts of committees are to be kept, and providing for the audit of such accounts (including the disallowance of any items in such accounts, the surcharging of any items disallowed, and the recovery of any amount surcharged).
- (i) For prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed, and generally for carrying into effect the provisions of the principal Act;
§ Amendments made: After the word "make" ["The Minister may make Regulations"] insert the word "general."
§ Leave out paragraph (a).—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Grifflth-Boscawen)I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "regulating the appointment, removal, duties, and remuneration of officers of committees," and to insert instead thereof the words
determining what classes of officers are required by committees for the proper discharge of their functions, and defining the general duties of the officers of committees and the conditions under which officers may be appointed or removed by committees, and regulating the remuneration of such officers.
Sir MONTAGUE BARLOWI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "the" ["the conditions under which officers may be appointed"], to insert the word "general."
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI am not quite sure where my hon. Friend wishes to insert this word. Perhaps he will explain to me.
Sir M. BARLOWI desire to insert the word "general" before the word "conditions," so that the form should be "general conditions," the object being that there should not be conditions made with regard to any specific officer.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI accept it.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSI beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words.
especially with a view to providing that ex-Service men and their dependants shall be given priority in all appointments to officers under these committees.I think it is desirable to have an explanation why this Amendment cannot be accepted.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI cannot accept the words in this form, but am quite willing to accept a proviso as follows:
Provided that the Regulations shall provide that in all appointments of officers of committees preference shall be given to suitable candidates who have served in the naval, military, or air forces during the present War or to the dependants of men who have so served.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI am quite willing to accept those words.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
Provided that the Regulations shall provide that in all appointments of officers of committees preference shall be given to suitable candidates who have served in the naval, military, or air forces during the present War or to the dependants of men who have so served.
§ 12.0 M.
§ Sir R. NEWMANI should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he could not see his way to insert the word "present"? It seems to me very hard that a man of middle-age who has served in the Boer War should be debarred from getting an appointment of this sort. The word "present" would make a candidate who had served in South Africa unqualified. It would give a bad impression. He would be passed over possibly for another man who happened to be wounded in another war in the service of his country.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENSuch a man would not be debarred. He would merely not have a preference.
§ Sir R. NEWMANI think any man who has been wounded in the service of his country, whether in the South African War or in this War, should be on an equal footing. I really cannot see, unless there are some better reasons than I have heard, that a man should be placed at a disadvantage because perhaps he was wounded, or, at any rate, served his country, in the South African War and might be over age in the present War. Preference should be given to any soldier who had served in a war or something of that kind. A man who fought in the Boer War, who might think the post one which would suit him, might be told he would have his claim considered after the claim of another man, who, I quite agree, deserves our full sympathy, but surely not more so than a man who served his country in the South African War! We ought not to forget the older soldier.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENMy hon. Friend does not quite realise the position. These committees are set up specifically to deal with cases in the present War. The whole system of pensions is derived from the present War. There was a system before, but probably more than 99 per cent. of the cases are cases in the present War, so preference should be given to those men and their dependants who have suffered in it. At the same time, we do not in any way debar any soldier who has suffered in a previous war.
§ Colonel McCALMONTI wish to support my hon. Friend (Sir R. Newman) very strongly indeed. I can see no reason why preference should even be put in the Bill for men in the present War. No one wants another war, but it does not follow that the only deserving men are those who have fought in this War I cannot see the right hon. Gentleman's point in wanting to put in the word "present." What is his objection to taking it out? The argument of my hon. Friend is a perfectly sound one, and there are very many men who have served in previous wars who, under the terms of this Bill, certainly would not be debarred, but whose claims would be prejudiced by this word being left in.
§ Sir G. TOULMINI think the hon. Gentleman has very largely taken this from the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge), 3043 and he has adopted the words, "during the present War," from that Amendment. It seems to me he is quite justified in so doing. These are the men who will be out of work, and who will have sacrificed their positions now. They are likely to be most useful, and I do not think the men who were wounded seventeen or eighteen years ago are likely to be in need of this consideration.
Colonel Sir J. HOPEI do not quite understand the Amendment, but I have a very short and simple Amendment providing that no officer of committees shall be appointed who has not served in His Majesty's Naval, Military, or Air Forces.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe are not talking on that, but on a manuscript Amendment, which has been put in.
Colonel Sir J. HOPEI shall not be allowed to move my Amendment which is on the Paper if this be carried, but surely I may speak on it?
Sir J. HOPEMy Amendment is to insert the words
Provided that no officers of committees shall be appointed who have not served in His Majesty's Naval, Military, or Air Forces.I submit that this is a very simple Amendment, which covers the whole subject, and which allows the men who have served in the Navy, Army, or Air Force to be appointed as officers of these committees, and no other persons. There are 7,000,000 men in this country, I believe, who have served in the Army, Navy, or Air Force, and surely officers of these new committees should be appointed from these men and no others. I cannot, for the life of me, see why the old soldiers who have served in previous wars—there may not be many of them—should not also have an opportunity of being appointed. If there are 7,000,000 of these men who have served in the forces, surely it is not too much to ask that they should have the right of serving as officers of these war pensions committees? It seems to me that in the administration of the pensions you should have officers who understand from personal knowledge the soldiers, sailors and members of the Air Force, and can deal with the administration of the pensions in a sympathetic manner, having served with the men as 3044 comrades and knowing how to deal with them. One of the main objects of this Bill is to prevent unsuitable persons being appointed as they have been in the past. Many have been pushed into jobs as pensions officers because they had some other job under local bodies and so forth. We ought to avoid that. I suggest that my Amendment is the most suitable of the Amendments on the Paper.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI cannot accept this Amendment. It would limit officers entirely to those who have served in the forces. That is really impossible. We want to give preference where there are suitable men who have served, but in some cases we are unable to get them, and we have to get other men who are suitable. To tie us down entirely to those who have served is really unnecessary. I think I have made a fair compromise.
Mr. T. WILSONI think the hon. Member has met the situation fairly, and I do not think anyone can complain. I am quite satisfied, and, so far as men who have served in the forces are concerned, they will be quite willing to loyally abide by the Government Amendment.
§ Colonel McCALMONTI am not in the least satisfied. I regard this as another attempt to "do down" the old soldier in favour of the new soldier, who happens to be in front of the public now. The old soldiers are very few and far between, and I am entirely unrepentant and unconvinced. I do not know why the hon. Member has ignored the dependants who are mentioned in the Amendment on the Paper. Does he mean to ignore their preferential claims altogether, or do I understand that the dependants are in his Amendment?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThey are in the Amendment.
§ Colonel McCALMONTI am very glad to hear it, but I am still entirely unconvinced by the hon. Member's argument. I have not heard a single argument yet in favour of giving a preference to soldiers of the present War as against the old soldiers in the previous wars. This is a grievance which old soldiers in previous wars very often suffered from. We hear a great deal about the present War, but the old soldier is entirely forgotten.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI do not think there is much between us, and if it will satisfy hon. Members I am quite 3045 willing to amend my Amendment by leaving out the words "during the present War."
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "during the present War."
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Words, as amended, there inserted.
§ Further Amendment made: In paragraph (c) leave out the words "and securing."—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI beg to move to leave out the words,
and for enabling such officers to summon and examine witnesses on any matters, the administration of which is vested in the Minister,and to insert instead thereof the words,and for providing that the records of the committee shall be accessible to officers of the Ministry.
- (d) For enabling officers of the Ministry of Pensions on the directions of the Minister to hold local inquiries with respect to any matters the administration of which is vested in the Minister, and for the purpose of any such inquiries to summon and examine witnesses on oath."
Sir M. BARLOWI should like to be quite clear how we stand. I and some friends of mine who represent the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau have put down the following Amendment—to leave out the words after the word "committees," and to insert instead thereof the words,
For enabling officers of the Ministry to hold a local inquiry into any matters affecting the administration of local committees specifically referred to such officers of the Ministry for that purpose on the ground of negligent or inefficient administration; and when such inquiry is held in public to summon and examine witnesses on oath for the purposes of such inquiry.The Second Reading of the Bill was granted on the understanding that the Ministry of Pensions would consider the matter with the representatives of the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau. The Amendment which has been put down on behalf of the Ministry of Pensions we feel does not quite carry out our wishes. We feel that an inquiry of this kind is a very serious matter. It should only be directed where there is a primâ facie case of misconduct of some kind. The Ministry should only direct an inquiry where there is a reasonable case of impropriety of conduct either on the part of the committee or some officers of the committee. The 3046 point of my suggested Amendment is that no inquiry should be held except where there is a primâ facie case of inefficient and maladministration, and, secondly, where the oath is administered that the inquiry should be in public. I think the hon. Gentleman is prepared to meet us as to the first point, but that he has some difficulty as to the second. If the oath is administered it is in the nature of a judicial inquiry, and, according to common sense and justice and the canons of English law, it should be in public. The penalty for breach of the oath is two years' imprisonment, and it would be very unsatisfactory to have it administered under circumstances entirely private. I suggest the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to accept our Amendment.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI am afraid I cannot meet my hon. Friend. I tried to meet him and his Friends on many difficult points, but this would really hamper us very considerably and is quite unnecessary. The Local Government Board inspectors have the right now to administer the oath at an inquiry, public or private. It is found very useful, though it is not often used, to have the power to do so. If we were to adopt the suggestion and make inquiries public, it would mean great delay by public exhibition of notices, and would probably hang up the inquiries for weeks. There is no reason why the limitation should be put on us, as it is not put on the Local Government Board. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir G. Hewart) tells me that sworn declarations and affidavits are constantly made in private. Why on earth should we be placed in a worse position in this respect than the inspector of the Local Government Board?
Sir M. BARLOWDo I understand the Minister to say he is willing to accept the first portion of my Amendment—namely, that the inquiry shall only be held where there is a primâ facie case of maladministration?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENWhat is the real object of that? My Amendment is limited in this way. An inquiry can only be held in respect of matters of administration which is vested in the Ministry, and we are not likely to order an inquiry unless we have a primâ facie case. Why should we? It is only where we think that things have not been done quite correctly that we should ask for an inquiry.
Sir M. BARLOWMay I say we have been in consultation with representatives of local authorities, who are very nervous. They are, in fact, afraid inquiries may be directed into their administration on all sorts of points which do not involve maladministration. I do not want to press the point too much, but it is one which gives rise to anxiety to those authorities which are concerned with the question of pensions. If the Minister will state that his intention is to direct inquiries only where maladministration is alleged or suspected, I cannot understand why there should be any difficulty on his part in accepting these words. The representatives of the local authorities and of the local pensions committees say that they are afraid that the inquiries will be directed into their ordinary administration and not merely into cases where the administration has been inefficient or where the officials have shown themselves incapable. But if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is prepared to accept some words—I am not tied to the particular form of words I have suggested—if he will introduce analogous words to show that the inquiries will only be held where there is a primâ facie case of improper management he will satisfy a very large amount of anxious opinion on the part of local people on whom he has to rely for administrative work all over the country. I am saying this, not merely on my own authority, but on the authority of a very large and representative body from all parts of the United Kingdom—coming from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and other centres It would ease matters very much if the hon. Gentleman would put in some words—limiting words—to show that it is only intended to exercise this right of holding inquiries when there really is some ground on which to do it, because of impropriety of action on the part of some persons.
§ Sir G. TOULMINThe Under-Secretary has given us no indication of the kind of charge or accusation which would be held to justify the holding of an inquiry. If he anticipates such a serious position, then I think we ought to have greater safeguards to ensure that the inquiry shall only be held in cases where some form of negligence or maladministration is alleged.
§ Mr. COTTONI should like to know if the hon. Gentleman proposes to accept 3048 the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian, providing for the investigation of complaints from discharged soldiers, sailors and airmen, and their wives, widows or dependants?
§ Mr. COTTONWill such complaints as are indicated in the Amendment I have referred to come within the scope of the Amendment now under consideration? I have the utmost sympathy with that large and exceedingly nervous body of opinion of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken, but there is another body of opinion which is equally nervous and which is represented by the discharged soldiers and sailors and their wives and dependants. I have had quite a number of cases put into my hands lately where local committees have wrangled over some question for six months before deciding it, and I am very anxious while the authorities are considering questions of maladministration, that complaints from the classes I have mentioned should not be lost sight of but should be included within the scope of the proposed inquiries.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Sir J. HOPEI beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words,
And for enabling such officers to visit the office of each sub-committee at least once in each year and to there investigate and make a report to the Minister on any complaints which discharged soldiers and sailors and airmen or the wives or widows or dependants of sailors and soldiers and airmen may personally bring forward.I am fully aware that the Ministry for Pensions is anxious to remedy any defects of administration, and are therefore sending inspectors all over the country in order to see whether the local pensions committees are carrying on their work efficiently. I would like to point out that to a great extent these inspectors of the Ministry of Pensions go down naturally to the offices of the local pensions committee and there they see the local secretary and hear what he and the other local officials have to say. They find the accounts are in order and well kept, that the office is nicely kept, and that the secretary of the local pensions committee is a tactful man, who at any rate gets on with the inspector. The result of all this is that a good report is sent in, and nothing more is done. What I am anxious to see is that the inspector gets into personal touch 3049 with these people whom this House desires to benefit by the pensions provisions, and I want every soldier and sailor to have the opportunity of making an independent complaint practically direct to the Ministry of Pensions. Such a course would save Members of this House a good deal of work. We get under present conditions endless complaints from our Constituents as to maladministration, and we often send them on to the local committees, which sometimes take time to answer, and sometimes send back foolish answers which show that they do not even know their own regulations. I want this system carried out. I would like to remind the House, that under the old Army system, once a year at a general inspection, a general after inspecting a regiment asked, on parade, if a man had any complaints to make against his commanding officer, officer or non-commissioned officer of the regiment, and if there were any he resorted to the orderly-room and made his complaints. A soldier understands that, and I think that the same principle might be applied here, and that every aggrieved person should have that right once a year of making a complaint direct to an officer. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will go through. I submit that it provides a safety valve which will prevent the maladministration of the Pensions Act, and give confidence to the soldiers and the sailors and their dependants. Some of the ex-soldiers and their dependants may be uneducated, and do not understand their rights, hardly knowing how to write a letter and put their case to the authorities, but if they are assured that once a year an officer comes down with whom they can have a talk across the table so that they can put their whole case to him freely, they would be greatly relieved. It would give them a much better opportunity. Then if the officer goes down, has been to every local committee and receives no complaints from the dependants, then let him report good upon the local committee, but if he finds that in every district he gets a complaint about the administration of pensions, then let him put in a bad report against the local committee and let there be the local inquiry under the Sub-section we have just passed, with evidence taken on oath.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment. It really is absolutely unnecessary. He suggests that once a year an inspector should have a sort of 3050 solemn inquiry into the grievances of pensioners and so on. As a matter of fact the inspectors of the Department are doing it practically every day.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENOh, yes. I beg my hon. and gallant Friend's pardon. The first duty of an inspector if there is a grievance, is to go to the local committee, and if what they say does not give him satisfaction, he writes to the Ministry, and hardly a day passes that I do not myself refer to an inspector some grievance where a man alleges he cannot get satisfaction from his committee. I assure him that the system is going on daily and weekly, and to have a sort of solemn assize once a year is, to my mind, an unnecessary proceeding and really in its results nothing more than we have at the present time, when the inspector can and does go out to look fully into complaints. I am sure my hon. Friend has nothing to gain from his Amendment, and I hope he will not press it.
Mr. WILSONI am certain that if he does he will not get the local committees to work. I would like to say one word about his reference to the old Army system, namely, that it is extremely unsound to suggest that the private soldier was absolutely safeguarded in making complaints against his superior. When they make complaints they are often court-martialled.
Mr. WILSONI have letters every day in connection with this matter and, therefore, I know they dare not make the complaints.
Mr. WILSONI am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend shows some innocence of the old Army system. At any rate, I say that they dare not make complaints. They are always writing to me about what happens when they make complaints, about their not being listened to and about their being punished. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] In the interests of good administration I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press this Amendment, 3051 because it will not make for good management and is not likely to give satisfaction to the people concerned.
§ Colonel McCALMONTI do not think that what the hon. Member has just said should be allowed to pass unchallenged. I think he has made what is a serious reflection upon the Army, and I do not think his statements are true.
§ Colonel McCALMONTI will be very glad to have them, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War were here I think he would take the matter up more warmly than it has already been taken up from this side of the House. Whether my hon. and gallant Friend presses his Amendment to a division or not—and I do not know what his intentions may be—I should support it very strongly. The hon. Member who has just sat down says he knows more about the Army than my hon. and gallant Friend.
§ Colonel McCALMONTYou may not have said so in those exact words.
§ Colonel McCALMONTYou certainly said that my hon. and gallant Friend showed great innocence of what went on in the Army. I venture to say that this is an Amendment which would give a great deal of satisfaction to the persons who may have grievances as to the administration of the Pensions Act, and that is the object of my hon. and gallant Friend in proposing it. Really, to hear how some of those Amendments are being received in the House one might imagine that they were only put down for the purpose of obstructing the Bill now before the House. I honestly believe that this Amendment would benefit the dependant who wishes to have his or her grievance—in most cases I think it will be "her" grievances 3052 —seen to. I therefore hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not withdraw it.
§ Mr. COTTONI also support this Amendment. I hope, however, if an inspector is going down he is not going to be of the type of a major-general or other high military officer. If I might put myself in the position of the wife or widow or a dependant and the inspector comes down of the type which the hon. and gallant Member opposite has been speaking of—no doubt admirable in his own sphere of life but I should imagine quite unsuitable for a thing of this kind—I would not go to him with any great confidence. We do not want people like major-generals or holding the views of major-generals to go down and investigate complaints; what we want is the ordinary human being who will be able to put himself in the position of a discharged soldier suffering from a sense of injustice, and kept hanging about for a year or two, or who may enter into the feelings of a wife or dependant who complains of bad treatment. It may have been due to the fact that my mind does not travel sufficiently quickly for the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Pensions, but I confess I could not quite grasp the force of his argument when he says that he is constantly referring cases to the inspectors for investigation. From the short experience I have had of the Ministry of Pensions I am convinced that the present system works with a certain amount of indifferent success, and as I should like a change, I should like to support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian.
Sir J. HOPEI do not want to go over the points again, but the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Pensions Department suggests that what I am seeking is a sort of annual assize. But I would ask the hon. Member to see again the terms of the Amendment, and he will appreciate that all I am asking for is that officers of the Department shall visit the office of each sub-committee at least once in each year, and there investigate and report to the Minister on any complaints which discharged soldiers and sailors or their wives, widows, or dependants may personally bring forward. Is it not clear that the object of my Amendment is not to have a grand assize but to ensure that the officer will not merely go to the offices of the local pensions committee, as I believe they now do, but that they will 3053 visit all the country districts and see the people who have complaints to make? When they are about to visit any district they will announce their intention before hand. This will give the uneducated people who cannot write a satisfactory letter—the old soldier, for instance, who is shy of writing to his Member of Parliament, or to the Minister of Pensions as is suggested he might do—a proper opportunity of explaining their case by word of mouth and not on paper. They would put it much better by word of mouth. I am not suggesting an assize, but only that the inspectors should visit all the districts so that every man, woman and child, who should benefit by the Pensions Act, may tell their complaints to the pensions officers who should report direct to the Minister of Pensions and not to the local pensions committee. I do not see that the local pensions committee can in any way object to that. I really thought that we should have some concession from the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of the Pensions Department, and if we did not get that I had determined to carry the matter to a Division to show that I and those who agree with me are serious in our contention.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendment made: Leave out paragraph (d).—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
Sir J. HOPEI beg to move, in paragraph (f), after the word "for," to insert the words
ensuring that every sub-committee provides an office open to the public for at least one hour on at least two days in each week, and for.I really hope that we shall get some concession from the Ministry of Pensions.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENMay I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend for a moment. I have put on the Paper a new Clause to carry out what, I think, he wishes to do by this Amendment. I quite agree with him about the time of opening the offices, but if he will look at the new Clause which I have put down dealing with the committees he will see that it is proposed that every committee shall prepare rules for regulating their proceedings, including quorum, time and place of meeting, records, and the exercise generally of their powers and duties, and shall submit the rules for the approval of the Minister. Under that Clause we can and we shall insist upon a committee doing precisely what my hon. and gallant Friend wishes.
Sir J. HOPEBut there is nothing even in the Clause which you have read and which you intend to move to show, as far as I can see, that there is to be an office for every sub-committee open to the public for at least one or two days a week.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that we realise the necessity of all that, and it is in order that we shall be able to compel the local committees to do that very thing and a great many other things that are equally necessary that we are going to take these general powers. If we are going to have all these things specified in the Bill we should have to have a measure as long as my arm, but we intend to insist upon such conditions of working as my hon. and gallant Friend asked for.
Sir J. HOPEMight I ask for an assurance that a rule will be issued by the Pensions Ministry that every sub-committee must have an office open to the public for at least one hour on at least two days in each week. In my view it is absolutely essential that that should be put in as a minimum. It is quite clear that in some districts there must be an office open for at least four or five hours on every day of the week, but what I am pleading for is that every country district should have its office open to the public for this minimum. The Minister of Pensions himself said, though not in connection with this Bill, that he knew of a case where the office was a private house of a member of the local sub-committee, and that when this house was occupied the applicants had to be interviewed outside. I know a case in my own Constituency where at present the office is open for payment only on one day, and the consequence is that there are queues of people waiting outside. It is with that condition of affairs that I want to deal, and I should like to hear from the Ministry of Pensions that they were laid down definitely in the Regulations that every sub-committee must have an office open to the public for at least one hour on at least two days a week, and I therefore ask the hon. Member if he will give me an assurance on that subject? Otherwise, I must ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI would make an appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think that 3055 he realises the great difference and divergenciesa that there are between the conditions and desires of the different committees. I know some committees in the small villages where they have possibly only got one or at the outside half a dozen cases. To insist that a committee like that should be open two days every week would really be ridiculous, and you will not get people to work committees under these conditions. On the other hand, there are great committees which ought to be open every day and night of the week, and when you have a Ministry of Pensions you really must trust us to lay down such conditions as are applicable to the different kind of committee's in different parts of the country. To give a definite pledge that every committee will be open at certain hours is to ask a thing which I venture to suggest to the House is not reasonable.
§ Colonel McCALMONTWill my hon. Friend give this pledge, that in his rules he will provide that there will be a condition that it will be at some time or other open. It is well known that some people complain that they never know where to find their pensions committee. If my hon. Friend will say that in these rules that committee is to have an office it will satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENEvery committee will have an office of some sort and have it open at suitable times.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Amendments made: At end of paragraph (f), insert the words,
appointed by committees for any special parts of their areas.
§ Leave out paragraph (g).—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
Sir M. BARLOWI beg to move, in paragraph (h), after the word "any" ["any items in such accounts"], to insert the word "illegal."
I understand this is not opposed by the Ministry. If the Committee will meet us on the point I shall be glad.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENWe cannot very well accept this word. The word "illegal" is hardly applicable. I think that the word we want is something like "irregular." I have got the words down.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3056
§
Further Amendments made: In paragraph (h), leave out the words "in such accounts," and insert instead thereof the words
of expenditure in such accounts irregularly and unreasonably incurred.
§
After the word "recovery," insert the words,
or remission at the discretion of the Minister.
§
At end of Clause, add
(2) Every Regulation under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Regulation is laid before it, praying that the Regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 5 (Representation of Ministry of Pensions on Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.