§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Sir DONALD MACLEAN in the Chair.]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the administrative expenses of any local or joint committee (including the expenses of any subcommittee thereof) established or appointed under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the better administration of the enactments relating to naval, military, and air force war pensions, grants, and allowances.
§ Mr. BOOTHThe House having arrived at this stage of the Resolution, I must again ask the Government to observe the pledges of their Leader. It is almost beyond belief that time after time one should have to reproach the Unionist Ministers of the Government with entirely ignoring the pledges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Seeing that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a very close observer of the customs of the House, is here, I had hoped that, at any rate, he would take the proper steps under this Resolution, and it is with a great amount of sorrow that I draw the attention of the House to the fact that he has not offered to make any comment to the House about this important Resolution. What was the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? My hon. and gallant Friend who is in charge of this Motion will remember that time after time this House hung up the Resolution relating to the Emigration Bill on the point of expenses, and, in deference to the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I think, is conspicuous amongst the Ministers, always anxious to gather the spirit and intention of the House, had to come down to settle that controversy, and he then gave to the House his own view of what the procedure should be. It was to this effect, that wherever possible a limit should be put in these Financial Resolutions. Where that was not possible—it may be so in this case; I do not know. This is a 882 Resolution which is not on the paper, but which one can get by going to the Clerk of the Table; otherwise we cannot see it—but where it was not possible, it was desirable that the Minister should explain to the House why he did not advise the insertion of the limit. I am never unreasonable. When a Minister came down and suggested £5,000, I immediately moved £10,000, so that he should not be crippled through inadvertence, because it was no desire on the part of the Committee that he should be penalised by the House. I mention that to show that if my hon. Friend said his Resolution did not admit of a limit, or if he did insert a limit, I, for one, would not hold him to too narrow a margin. But it was a pledge to this House, which, I think, ought to be observed, that either the Minister himself should say within what monetary bounds he would like to be held, or, if that were not possible, he would explain to the House why he did not advise a limit.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen)I have no desire to contravene the spirit or intention of the House, and the only reason I did not get up before was that I knew my hon. Friend was going to speak, and I thought the House would like to hear him first. The sole object of this Resolution is as follows. As things are at the present time, in accordance with an Act passed last year, two-thirds of the administrative expenses of any local or joint pensions committee fall on the State and one-third on the local rates. It is proposed, by a Bill read a second time yesterday, in future that the whole amount shall fall on the State and no part on the local rates. That will involve a certain additional charge upon the State. It is necessary, therefore, that we should get this Resolution, the reasons for the change having been fully given during Debate yesterday and generally accepted. But it is really impossible for me to give a limit. These administrative expenses naturally vary from year to year, and as more men are discharged it is almost impossible to estimate precisely what the addition will be. In order that we may get the Bill, and in order that proper control may be exercised by the Pensions Ministry, 883 which cannot be exercised now, owing to the fact that part of the expense falls on the local rates, and that control has to be exercised by the Local Government Board, which does not profess to have a complete knowledge of pensions' administration, I think it is only reasonable that I should ask the House to agree to this Resolution so that we may proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill next week.
§ Mr. BOOTHI thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy, and for his very straight reply, but surely some estimate has been formed by the Department as to what this cost will be. I will say now that if he can indicate some of the limits I shall be satisfied. Is it £500,000, £100,000, or £50,000, or what is it? If such an estimate has been formed, and he can give us any idea whether it will be a large or a small sum, I do not intend on this occasion to move for the limit to be inserted. Therefore I will not take any advantage of any suggestion he gives, but I do think we are entitled to know what his view is. Will he give us some indication whether it is a moderate sum or a very heavy sum? I will be content with that.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI can assure my hon. Friend it is not a heavy sum. At the same time, it is really impossible to give any estimate. It is not like a new charge, but is only adding to an existing charge. There is a charge of two-thirds now.
§ Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
§ The remaining Orders were read and postponed.