EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL SERVICE). (Hansard, 12 April 1923)

§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR
I beg to move to leave out from word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add, instead thereof, the words a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the question of the initial rate of salary for ex-temporary clerks appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service; and to report whether any, and, if so, what, alterations in these rates should be made. In moving this Resolution, I claim to be voicing the opinion of all sections of the House, that the only appropriate course for the Government to adopt in the present circumstances is to set up a Committee of Members of this House to consider immediately the case of the Lytton entrants. I deprecate the suggestion that any one party or section in this House has a monopoly of interest in these ex-service men. In pressing for an inquiry, I have been associated with hon. Members in all parts of the House, who have felt very strongly indeed the grievances to which these unfortunate men and women have been subjected. May I be allowed to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reviewing the incident of Tuesday, that the defeat of the Government was not really due simply to the "laxity" of the Government or to a "snap" Division, as has been suggested, but to the fact that there was a very strong current of feeling throughout the whole of this House on both sides in favour of an immediate inquiry being set up in order to deal with the grievances of these individuals? In fact, had it not been for the attitude of hon. Members on the other side who felt very strongly on the subject, the Government would not have been defeated. I think therefore we ought to make it quite clear that the case which we are making to-day is one which receives the support of every individual 1340 in this House who is interested in these men and women.
I trust that, in view of what took place the other day, the Government may adopt what I believe has been the universal procedure in the last few years in cases where the Government have been defeated on a question of this kind, and give effect to what really is the view of the House. I do not desire to take up time by going into details of the cases, which are familiar to the Government, but may I be allowed to quote one case, which is specially applicable, that of the Teachers' Superannuation Bill, where the Government were defeated on a very similar question, namely the setting up of a Select Committee to deal with a question of good faith in regard to teachers' salaries. On that occasion, 16th May, 1922, when the Government were defeated, they agreed to set up a Select Committee to deal with the question which had been raised and upon which their defeat had taken place. The Leader of the House then said: In these circumstances, the Government have decided to defer to the wish expressed by the House that a small Select Committee—which the Government think should consist of not more than nine members—should be appointed to ascertain and report the facts which the majority of the House appeared to think were insufficiently known."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May. 1922; cols. 373–4, Vol. 154.] That Committee was thereupon appointed. In 1921, when the Government were defeated, on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, on the question of the exclusion of the profits, or surplus, arising from the trading with its own members of a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts from payment of Corporation Profits. Tax, they also agreed to accept the decision of the House, a fact which was announced by the Leader of the House in these terms: On this occasion, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have come to the conclusion that, as the money involved is insignificant compared with the Budget, as the House has chosen to decide ‥ ‥ against the Government, we will accept their decision. "- [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1921; col. 2164. Vol. 144.] Accordingly, effect was given to that view. There are other reasons which I think fortify me in the case which I am making to-day, one of which is that it was very clearly brought out on Tuesday that the Anderson Committee set up by the Chan 1341 cellor of the Exchequer is not an appropriate tribunal to deal with this case. The Anderson Committee was set up, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, and it was one to inquire into the present standard of remuneration and other conditions of employment of the various classes of State servants employed in the Civil Service and in the three fighting Services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1923; col. 706, Vol. 162.] The field of investigation, therefore, was so wide that it would be impossible to have this question immediately dealt with within the scope of this Committee. I suggest, further, that this particular question is not related to the general question of Civil Service pay. It relates to the initial rates of pay and to the pressing difficulties and hardships with which men and women are faced at this moment on account of the rates of pay at which they have entered the Civil Service, after many years, in some cases, of experience as temporary clerks, and having an excellent record of past work. Therefore, I submit that here we have got a very special and specific case, which is fortified very much indeed by the great hardship which is being felt every day by these men and women as long as they are not getting their grievances redressed. May I remind the House that this matter has been the subject of representations for nearly two years, that it, affects nearly 9,000 individuals all together" and that there are men and women with families, some of them middle-aged, some of them up to 50 or 55 years of age, who are at present drawing most miserable salaries in the lower grades, as low as £2 11s. ld. a week, including bonus, and £3 8s. a week, including bonus, which makes it impossible for them to carry on.
I suggest to the House that on this matter we ought to be united in the appeal which we make to the Government that this injustice shall be immediately redressed. It is all very well to tell these people that when they have been so many years in the Civil Service they will have had increments which will have brought them up to a fair rate of salary, but the whole question is that at the present moment they are not being paid a fair rate of salary. It is an immediate need, and we press on the Government to bring their 1342 salaries up to a fair and decent level of subsistence. The principle for which we are fighting to-day is one which has been given effect to in many other spheres, and I suggest that we ought to do something for this most deserving class of civil servants, who served their country during the War and who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this position to-day. I believe the case we have made out, following upon the decision taken on Tuesday last, ought to be sufficient to satisfy the Government that it is now their duty to meet the desire of this House and to give effect to the Amendment which I have moved.

§ Mr. JARRETT
I beg to second the Amendment.
I have no intention nor desire unduly to take up the, time of the House in prolonging the Debate upon a matter which has already caused a certain amount of embarrassment to the Government, but I wish, in seconding the Amendment, which has been so admirably moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar), to emphasise what he has said with reference to Tuesday night's Debate, and the fact that this demand is put forward, not by any political party, not by any section of this House, but is a demand that is supported in every quarter of this House, and, I might suggest, in every quarter of the country. Certain post-War protagonists of the ex-service men are attempting to throw this question into the cockpit of party strife.

HON. MEMBERS
Who are they? [Interruption.]

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is not good at any time to impute motives it is against the Rules of the House, and if it be done in one quarter, I am sorry to say it is a. practice that is followed.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
On that point of Order. I wish to submit, to you, Sir, in the interests of free speech in this House, that there is in fact a Resolution on the records of this House protesting against certain attempts on the part of different parties in this country to make party capital out of this very question. If it was in order for the House of Commons to place such a Resolution on its records, surely it is in order for an hon. Member to make reference to the fact.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I understood the hon. Member to make reference to parties in this House, and it was against that that I made my protest.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
On this point of Order, which I raise in the interests of no individual party, but in the interests of the House as a whole, I submit that the Resolution to which I referred related to parties both in the House and in the country, and it was on that ground that I and my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) opposed it, but we were defeated by the majority of the House.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That Resolution dealt with the party effect of this question.

§ Mr. JARRETT
May I be allowed to make an explanation, which I think should not have been necessary, in accepting your ruling on this particular Point. I referred to no party inside this House or outside it, and I had no intention of referring to any particular party. I trust you will accept that as an explanation on that particular point. What I said—if I may be allowed, and I desire, to repeat it—was that certain post-War protagonists of ex-service men are attempting to make of this matter a party question. If that he a cap that fits anybody, inside or outside this House, it is not for me to say. I am merely stating the fact. I do not wish to prolong the subject, because I quite understand that on this particular matter feeling runs somewhat high, and I have no desire, of course, to inflame feelings. All I wish to do is to emphasise that the request that was put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) on Tuesday evening—a request that a Committee should be set up to deal with the most urgent and pressing grievance of the pay of certain employés of this Government whom we represent in this House—should be given immediate attention. A Committee has been set up to survey the whole field of Civil Service pay and conditions. We desire that the most urgent problem should be attacked first, and it is in pressing that upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, further, in emphasising that this is a demand from no party or section in this House or outside it, but is a general demand supported by all 1344 parties and all sections, that I have the greatest pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin)
What the Government and the House have to do this afternoon is to try to give effect to the desire of the House clearly expressed on Tuesday, and I think, in the performance of that function, we shall be able to proceed and accomplish our desire with the minimum generation of heat. The House no doubt will remember that before rising for Easter I announced, on 27th March, that a Special Committee would be appointed to inquire into the action taken throughout the Civil Service in consequence of the Report of the Committee set up in July, 1920, under the chairmanship of the Earl of Lytton, to consider the arrangements for the appointment of ex-service men to posts in the Civil Service, whether permanent or temporary, and to report to what extent practical effect has been given to the Committee's recommendations in the various Government Departments. It was originally intended that this Committee should not deal with questions of remuneration, it being considered that any question of pay might be dealt with by what is called the Anderson Committee. I have studied very carefully the Debate on Tuesday, I have listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, I have listened to the two speeches this afternoon, and of course, I have taken note of the Vote which occurred on Tuesday, and it is quite clear that the general desire of the House, as expressed in that Vote, is to have an inquiry, which shall be separate for this subject and immediate in its action. In considering the best way in which I could give effect to this desire, it seemed to me that it might be most conveniently done by so extending the terms of reference and adding to the Committee which I was in process of setting up to deal with the whole question of the Lytton Report; and, in addition to the terms of reference which I am going to put before the House now, to make it clear that the desire of the House should be carried out, that immediate attention should be given to the subject, and that there should be an immediate presentation of a report. The original terms of reference were to inquire into the action taken throughout the Civil Service in consequence of the Report of the Committee, under the chairmanship of the Earl of Lytton, to consider 1345 the arrangements for the appointment of ex-service men to posts in the Civil Service, whether permanent or temporary, and to report to what extent practical effect has been given to the Committee's recommendations in the various Government Departments. To these words I propose to add: to consider the recommendation in paragraph 43 of the Third Interim Report of the Committee regarding the initial rates of remuneration to be prescribed for successful candidates at the specially limited competitions for the clerical class, and to advise whether any, and, if so, what modifications should be made in these rates. Paragraph 43 of the Lytton Report is the one that deals with initial salaries. I then propose to add these words? It will be an instruction to the Committee to give immediate consideration to the question of initial rates of remuneration, and to report thereon. I think those words give effect to everything that the House desires, as expressed in the speeches delivered and in the Vote given on Tuesday, and that the House will agree with me that there is a great advantage in the same Committee that deals primarily with this subject taking in hand the whole subject of the way in which the Departments have carried out the recommendations of the Lytton Committee. With regard to the composition, I shall propose an outside Chairman, nonpartisan and of experience, as was the case in the Lytton Committee, nine Members of this House chosen in the usual way that they are chosen for Select Committees and in the usual proportions, which, I think, will be five from the Government side and four from the different sections of the Opposition. Hon. Members may remember that I originally said that there would be two women of knowledge of Civil Service and administrative matters, and I feel in a matter of this kind that covers the whole question of initial salaries, that it will be of the greatest service to Members to have associated with them two women who have had experience in these matters. I think that a Committee of that nature will be one in which the whole House will feel the utmost confidence that they will embark on the examination of this difficult question without delay and report, and, having finished that, they will then be able to devote their time to the terms of reference found in the first paragraph. I can only assure the House that I have given this matter most serious consideration. I have tried in 1346 every way to meet what I believe is the wish of the House, and I hope that what I have done will meet with approval.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD
I am sure that the House will have heard with great satisfaction the announcement just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there be any regret at all on this side, it is that it could not have been made yesterday. I have not risen, however, to renew memories of that occasion, but to assist, so far as possible, in letting bygones be bygones. We were very anxious—in fact, we considered it the right of the Opposition—to insist upon the Vote of Tuesday being given effect to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now makes this proposal, first of all, for a modification of his Committee, secondly, for a change in the terms of reference, and, thirdly, for an instruction to the Committee that it shall inquire, first of all, into the pay of entrants and report upon that question without delay. I have to say to the House that so far as that goes we accept it whole-heartedly. There is just one thing that I should like to ask, Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite certain that in his terms of reference this part of the hon. Member's Resolution upon which we have been laying some stress—that the Committee deal with the initial rate of salary for ex-temporary clerks appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service—comes in? It is an essential part of the problem that was raised last Tuesday. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be willing to consider that and perhaps to conduct some negotiations to see if that can be satisfied. I am not going to carry on the controversy. We accept the proposal made by the Government, and we hope that every Member of the House will do his best to expedite the business of the Committee and to produce a Report that will give satisfaction to those deserving State servants, deserving ex-service people, who have given so much for the Slate, and who expect fair play from our hands.

§ Mr. ASQUITH
I would like, though under sonic physical disability, to say two or three words in corrobation and emphasis of what has been said by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I think it would be a matter infinitely to be regretted if the question of the interests of these ex-service men came to be 1347 regarded, not as one in which the whole House, but any particular section of the House had a special concern. Indeed, I interpret the Vote that was given two nights ago and the subsequent discussions that have taken place as showing that in this matter there is complete unanimity of opinion, and, what is more, enthusiasm and interest. I am naturally glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) who occupies a seat which I myself occupied for the best part of 30 years should have made such good use of his chances and should have shown great Parliamentary flair in selecting this subject for an Amendment to the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave, the Chair." I am going to make an appeal to my hon. and learned Friend, if he will kindly respond to it, to withdraw his Amendment in view of the unanimity of the House and the satisfactory character of the assurances which have now been given from the Treasury Bench as the result— and a very good result—of free Parliamentary discussion. We all join in the hope that the working of this Committee will result in securing what we all have in view, without distinction of party or section, namely, that we shall have an effective guaranteed system for the protection of the interests of these men who deserve so well of their country. I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

§ Mr. HOGGE
Before my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment, I should like to ask a question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has added a fresh paragraph to the original reference dealing with the pay of the Lytton entrants. Have the Committee power to make fresh recommendations if they are not satisfied with the salaries at present being paid? There is no power given to the Committee to make further recommendations in the original terms. All they are asked to do is to inquire into the working of the recommendations of the Lytton Report, and to furnish a report upon their inquiry. Is it quite clear, and will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say if it is quite clear, that as well as the question of the initial salary being looked into, if the Committee that makes the investigation finds that the recommendations are not working satisfactorily, they will have the 1348 power to make recommendations about these other things as well as the entrants salary? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make that clear?

§ Mr. MIDDLETON
I desire to express my gratification that the Government have acceded at last to our request. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "The general request."]

§ Mr. SHINWELL
Why did hon. Members vote against it then?

§ Mr. MIDDLETON
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that in regard to the pronoun I use, I myself am an ex-civil servant, and I think I am entitled to use the pronoun "our" in respect to the civil servants, as well as in respect to hon. Members on these benches. So far as the Civil Service is concerned, they have been anxiously looking at the keen fight put up in their interests. I think it is not too much to claim that had the demonstration not occurred yesterday——[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no! "]. I am far more concerned in getting justice for civil servants than 1 ant for making party kudos out of this incident. I am, therefore, very glad that this Committee is going to inquire into the question of the initial pay. I am still, however, a little hit dubious at the terms of reference, and if I express some hesitation in accepting the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this stage. I think it will be agreed that the experience that we civil servants have had in the past of the treatment of the Treasury is a justification for us to try to get the terms more definitely fixed before this Debate closes. What I am anxious to know is whether the inquiry into the initial rates will cover all the grades concerned in the terms of the Amendment of the Member for East Fife? That is, that it will include an inquiry into the rates of pay of those people who are doing the work, even although they are not ex-soldiers, that it will include the clerks because it is exceedingly important that the people who do a certain class of work shall be paid an adequate, economic living wage for it, whether they have served in the Army or not. It so happens that the overwhelming majority of the people concerned are ex-service men, but we are anxious to see that the terms of reference are those included in the 1349 Amendment in order that we may have the inquiry as full and complete as we can to cover. I gather so from the terms that the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed by implication, but which we would like a definite assurance upon it. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he will consider terms of reference that will meet the points of view expressed from this side of the House. I would like him to say that he will accept the form of words set down in the Amendment moved by my hon. and teamed Friend the Member for East Fife.
That would in one stroke dispose of a very difficult question that has agitated civil servants for a very long time, and it will once more enable the civil servants to look to the House of Commons, and not some outside committee of employers, as the proper people to inquire into their rates of pay and conditions of employment. I would like to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that most of this difficulty has been caused by the impossibility we found in getting the Government to view the case from the point of view of the people who were suffering most. The announcements to the House before the adjournment were vague. They were, so far as the Committee that was announced just. before we rose was concerned, imperfectly understood by the civil servants. I am sorry to say that part of the difficulty was caused by an hon. Member on the Government side who counted its out at the very moment when we had arrived at the point when we could have settled the matter, and thus the incidents of yesterday would not have happened. That hon. Member on the Government side is the nominee of the Government on the National Civil Servants Whitley Council, the proper body to deal with this matter. I suggest, therefore, that the trouble the Government have got into is very largely due to their lack of foresight during the last few weeks. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we on this side of the House are prepared to let bygones be bygones, knowing that if we get the right terms of reference in regard to the ex-service men, their case will be adequately dealt with. I am, therefore, glad to know that at last the Government have given us this Committee, and I would request the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give as a Further and complete assurance that the terms of reference will be as satis 1350 factory as the admission that, the case is one for inquiry.

§ Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE
I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to extend the Terms of Reference of the Committee of Inquiry to cover not merely the men who fought in the late War—and all honour to them for having done so—but also the men who fought in many lands and on many seas and over a long period of years for this country? These men, in many cases, are not receiving£80 per year, but 1s. a day. I do not see that there is any reason why what I ask should not be done, and I should like with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move an Amendment extending the scope of the Inquiry to include all ex-service men who have fought in this last War or in the earlier wars for this Empire. Of many of these it may be truly said that they are starving. They have deserved thoroughly well of their country. They do not seem to have been much in the minds of hon. Members opposite. {Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"] Well, I am glad to hear it then, and I would ask hon. Members to push their case, for it is one of a deserving class of men.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Are these men about whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking civil servants?

§ Sir B. FALLE
No. Sir.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Then I do not think they can possibly be covered by the terms of this Amendment. The Amendment deals only with ex-temporary clerks who have been appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service. We cannot go beyond that.

§ Sir B. FALLE
Even if these men come under the definition of those who have fought in earlier wars? [An HON. MEMBER: "Waterloo! "]

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not think they can possibly be covered by these terms of reference which apply to civil servants.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I should like to put one point which has already been put by my hon. Friend the Member for East. Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). Naturally, I thank the Government for meeting the wishes of many of us in regard to the initial salaries of the temporary ex 1351 service men. I understand that the Committee will issue an interim Report and recommendations on the matters referred to it. So far so good. I am glad to know that the original Resolution which is now being amended will examine the operations of the Lytton Committee since 1920 in regard to the temporary ex-service men.

§ Mr. BALDWIN
And see whether the recommendations have been carried out.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
To review, as my right hon. Friend says, the operations of the Lytton Committee since 1920 and see whether the Government have carried out those recommendations. What I want to put is this: Supposing the Committee, viewing the wider field, and not the immediate point, find that the recommendations of the original Lytton Committee have not been carried out, have they power to make recommendations on that point and in that sense?

§ Mr. BALDWIN
Certainly.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I am very glad they have that power, and am obliged to my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. J. JONES
Some of us are not so easily satisfied, because it seems most extraordinary that those who were the protagonists of this Amendment in this case have run away from their opportunity when they have the chance. I have put up a fight, and, if necessary, will do so any time on behalf of the things we believe to be right. In this particular case, we have fought the case of the ex-service men because we believe that they have a good case. We are told that this is going to be tacked on to the General Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] There is not a Special Committee, but additional Members are going to be added to the Committee already appointed. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are wrong! "] Of course, I do not understand English, being an Irishman. So far as I understand it, the answer to the question was that an additional number of Members were going to be appointed to the Committee already in existence— [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "]— and the terms of reference are to inquire, first, into the rates of pay of these particular classes of men. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who is an ex-member of 1352 a previous Government, that we have such a thing as a Fair Wages Clause in all our Government contracts. Why are not these men paid on the basis of a Fair Wages Clause, instead of being sweated and starved? Now we are going to inquire as to whether they are sweated or not, although we have a Resolution of this House determining that every man employed by us shall receive at least the trade union rate of wages, and the minimum standard of living. The Government have ignored it.
Why some of us felt so hot on Tuesday, why we acted as we did, was because we knew that this Regulation was in existence, that every man employed either by a Government Department, or by a contractor on behalf of the Government, should pay the trade union rate of wages, and we knew that these men were being starved and sweated. That is why we felt so strongly. [An HON. MEMBER: "Electioneering!"] There is no need for me to electioneer. The best of hon. Members opposite can come clown to Silvertown, and I will beat them. It is no electioneering with me; it is a matter of principle. We want to know why this Committee is going to be instructed to carry out a Resolution of this House that we should pay the trade union rate of wages to all people whom we employ. You are going to ask this Committee to inquire and report, and their report will cost more than their inquiry, and that will not he worth having when you get it. Give them an instruction that these men must be paid according to the Resolution carried in 1904, when this House decided that sweating is an abominable institution, and that men and women employed by us shall be paid a proper rate of wages. Imagine a Committee having to inquire whether £80 a year for a man with a family is fair or not! [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not true!"] There is not a man in this House who could keep—I will not say his dog, but certainly his horse upon £80 a year.

§ Lieut.-Colonel NALL
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the lowest rate of pay under this scale is £144?

§ Mr. JONES
The beginning rate for entrants under the Lytton scale is £80 a year.

§ Lieut.-Colonel NALL
That is without bonus. With bonus, the lowest amount paid to any man is £144.

§ Mr. JONES
Yes, with bonus. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself spends more than that on the upkeep of his motor car. I say it is a sweating wage. We are not asking for extravagant rates to be paid, but we are asking that the Resolution of this House, that everybody employed under its control shall receive the trade union rate of wages, shall be carried out. What is the trade union rate of wages for these men? At least it ought to be £3 a week. In the East End of London, our lowest rate of wages is £3 7s. 6d. for the man doing the lowest class of work, which is described as unskilled labour, because we have analysed the situation, and we recognise that that is the lowest rate on which a man can keep his family. Does the hon. and gallant Member think that less than £3 a week is an adequate salary after a man has passed an examination?

§ Lieut.-Colonel NALL
I did not say so.

§ Mr. JONES
The hon. and gallant Gentleman did by his vote on Tuesday night. He went into the Lobby to vote for it. [HON. MEMBERS: No!"] Now, on Thursday, he says it is not enough. If that be so, why not give instructions to the Committee to give enough. No, you are going to inquire whether the sweated rate is good enough.

§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
Your leader accepted that.

§ Mr. JONES
My leader accepts nothing for me. As a trade unionist, I stand for the full standard rate of wages. Anything less than that is black-legging. We do not accept it, leader or anybody else. These men are being underpaid and sweated by the party opposite—the patriots, the men who wave the Union Jack at elections, who boast about their patriotism, and yet take advantage of the position of these men. So far as we are concerned—some of us at least—we do not accept anything less than the standard rate laid down by this House as regards wages and conditions of employment. We have laid down regulations for ordinary contractors and we have told our local authorities that the full standard rate of wages must be paid to every man engaged on relief work, if the work is done by a contractor, and 75 per cent. if the work is done by the local authority itself. The 1354 Government themselves are not paying either rate. Therefore, we are demanding that the State shall live up to its previous Resolution, and carry out the recommendation of days gone by.

§ Lieut.-Colonel NALL
I do not want to prolong the Debate, nor do I want to arouse any controversy to produce heat, but in view of the hon. Gentleman's comments on my interruptions, it is only fair to the House that his very misleading statement should be corrected. It is perfectly true that the basic rate of pay for these men may be £80, but the fact, as I understand it, is that at the present time the very lowest total pay received by any of these men is £144. It does not matter whether it is bonus, or allowance or anything else; it is cash in the man's pocket.

§ Mr. MILLAR
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to correct him? I have here all the figures carefully worked out for the clerical class, and the lowest rate of pay is £128.

§ Lieut.-Colonel NALL
Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman correct the other hon. Gentleman? My information is that it is £144, which I believe is the fact. It is so in London, at any rate. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is £128 in Manchester."] I am glad of these interruptions; they are throwing more light on this subject, and, in my view, the public should be given the facts. It is now elicited that the lowest rate is £144 in London and £128 outside.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN
There are some lower than that.

§ Lieut.-Colonel NALL
When I interrupted the hon. Gentleman opposite, and when I voted with the Government minority on Tuesday night, I was in no way pledging myself to the opinion that those rates are adequate or fair. We had an undertaking from the Financial Secretary on Tuesday night that an inquiry—however much some hon. Members may dislike the inquiry—was to be made into the matter, and that these rates were to be considered by the Committee. The whole difficulty, as I understand it, has arisen in regard to the composition of the Committee and the Terms of Reference, and, of course, the time which is likely to be taken to get a report. I want to make it clear, however, that the figure of £80, which has been mentioned by the 1355 hon. Gentleman opposite, is an absolutely misleading figure, and I must confess that I was greatly astonished to see in the Press last night a statement by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) that the lowest rate paid to these men was £80 a year.

§ Sir HERBERT NIELD
It, is only fair to point out that I did not say a word about bonus. I said "pay."

§ Lieut.-Colonel NALL
I am absolutely astonished that my hon. and learned Friend, with whom, on so many matters, I am in absolute agreement, and who holds a particularly responsible position in the party to which I belong, should have allowed his name to appear in the public Press alongside a statement which was so absolutely and so mischievously misleading.

§ Sir H. NIELD
If my hon. and gallant Friend will look again at what the paper chose to put in—it was the result of an inquiry early in the morning over the telephone—he will see that I complained that these men of 20 to 30 years of age, possibly with children to support, were put upon the basis of a boy clerk, whose pay was £80 a year.

§ Lieut.-Colonel NALL
I am sure we are all glad to hear from my hon. and learned Friend that he does not altogether accept what appeared in print in the newspapers, but the fact remains that it did appear as printed that the whole of the case which he brought forward was based upon the allegation that a man of 30 years of age was being paid only £80 a year. That was the impression created in the public mind, and it was also the impression created in the minds of many hon. Members of this House. It seems to me that after all the unfortunate trouble which has arisen over this question the main issue has been narrowed down to the kind of Committee which is to be set up, and the terms of reference are to be slightly varied from what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced on Tuesday last, and that the lowest rate of pay that these men at present receive is £144 in London and R128 outside London. As a Member of this House returned to support the Government, I am very glad to he able to express the appreciation which I am sure every hon. Member feels in regard to the announcement which has 1356 been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure we are all glad that this matter has been disposed of in a way which, I hope, will give satisfaction to all concerned.

§ Mr. SHINWELL
It would be extremely unwise not to accept the offer of the Government, which, is, on the whole, satisfactory, although it cannot be regarded as final or conclusive. From the previous remarks made by hon. Members it must be apparent that there is a very deep-seated feeling in the country with regard to the treatment meted out to the men who are concerned in this Resolution. I rise for the express purpose of directing attention to some observations which were made from the benches below the Gangway, and which have been endorsed by hon. Members opposite, with regard to the decision of the House on Tuesday last. It has been alleged that the Government have come to their decision to-day as the result of a general request made by this House. How hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway arrive at that decision it is very difficult to understand. Surely, if there had been a general request which had been accepted by the Government there would have been no Division, therefore is it fair to assume that the Government have indulged in what may be described as a death-bed repentance because of the vote which caused the defeat of the Government and the incidents of yesterday afternoon.
I would say to the Treasury Bench that it will he a very bad day indeed for the ex-service men of this country, and for others similarly placed who looked to this House for a redress of their grievances, if it is laid down that such redress is only to ensue as a result of the defeat of the Government, or after turbulent scenes such as we witnessed yesterday afternoon. If we are not to have adequate payment for ex-service men in the Civil Service unless disturbances take place in this House, then all I can say is that the Government is far from appreciating the feeling in the country with regard to what is, or what is not, adequate remuneration for such a purpose.
Something has been said this afternoon with regard to the rates of pay which the men are in receipt of in the Civil Service. I am unconcerned as to whether it is £144 or £128 for men who 1357 enter the service for the first time, but I do submit to hon. Members opposite and to this House generally that a minimum wage of £2 11s. per week is neither consistent with the services rendered or with the needs of the persons concerned. We on this side of the House are quite frank in our declaration that we are entitled to make party capital out of such a question until the Government, upon whom the responsibility rests, provide these men with decent and adequate remuneration.
I cannot understand why hon. Members should make so much fuss about the attempt to make party capital, as they allege, out of the needs of ex-service men. There is a very simple expedient for them which is quite outside the realm of partisanship. We are assured that the Government and their supporters are full of sympathy for the ex-service men who rendered such valuable service during the War, but I would point out that they can destroy any case we may have to submit to the electors by providing the ex-service men concerned in this Resolution, and those concerned in the decision of the Government this afternoon, with just that measure of consideration which they would demand for themselves and their wives and families. We shall bring this question within the scope of partisanship until the Government recognises that ex-service men are entitled to all the promises made to them by the last Government. If we go to our constituencies and argue that ex-service men are entitled to full consideration how can that be described as making party capital out of it? If it is making party capital, then it has only been placed in that position because the Government have failed to give proper treatment to these men.
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has informed us that he did not vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend below the Gangway because he believed that the terms of reference were sufficiently wide in character to make further Amendment undesirable. I think that is rather asking us to stretch our imagination. Surely the hon. Member was aware of the point of view which had been expressed, and I make hold to say—and I think in this I shall Le supported by hon. Members on this side—that those who voted with the Government on the last occasion did so despite their pro 1358 mises to the electorate, and in order to bolster up what is regarded as one of the weakest Governments of modern times.
There has been revealed this afternoon something which hon. Members opposite are very desirous of concealing, that is a marked difference of opinion amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite. Whether those differences will take those supporters of the Government into the Opposition Lobby is a matter for the future to decide, hut I think the Government should take warning, because there are vital questions affecting certain interests of this country upon which hon. Members opposite, despite their desire for loyalty to the Government, will be compelled to act, because their constituencies and public opinions demand that they should so express their opinions in this House. Therefore I would urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do it no matter whether it is described in a partisan sense or not, because I believe that ex-service men are entitled to the fullest consideration, that he should not stop merely at remitting this question to a Departmental Committee, hut I think he should expedite the transactions of that Committee and so satisfy the desires of the men concerned. It is also important that the Report should to presented to this House without delay, and that Report should be in accordance with the spirit expressed by the Vote of Tuesday last, and in accordance with the attitude and in accordance of the House this afternoon. Unless that be done, we shall only have a repetition of Tuesday's incidents and a repetition of yesterday's episodes.
However anxious I am to conform to the Rules of this House, and to preserve an attitude which is desired, for my part, and I say it without any passion and with all the coolness at my command, that I shall use every weapon that is within the power of Members of this House in order to compel the Government to mete out justice to the ex-service men of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you an ex-service man? "] If hon. Members opposite imagine that points of that description will trouble me they are greatly mistaken. I know there are hon. Members opposite whose knowledge of actual war conditions was gained on this side of the Channel. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who are they? I should not care to unduly delay the House by discriminations 1359 of that kind. The frequent intervention of the newly-discovered apologist for the Government, who sits on the National Liberal Benches, does not trouble me, and I sweep these unnecessary interruptions aside and emphasise what I have already said, that we are gravely concerned about these things in our constituencies, as hon. Members below the Gangway and hon. Members opposite know full well by the communications they receive from ex-service men, which show that they are placed in a most deplorable position because of their extremely low remuneration, and this has all arisen because hon. Members opposite did not make the late Government carry out the promises which they made to these men during the War. We demand justice for these men, and unless it is meted out to them we shall be reluctantly compelled to have recourse to episodes such as those which happened yesterday in order to compel the Government to act up to their promises.

§ Mr. MILLAR
In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I understand that be has promised to deal with this matter in a satisfactory way, and I withdraw my Amendment on the distinct understanding that the Committee which is going to deal with this question will be able to deal with all the matters that fall within the scope of my Amendment, which includes the case of ex-temporary clerks appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service, and I understand that will include non-service as well as ex-service men and women, including the writers' assistants class. If there be any doubt upon that point I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that it includes all the classes intended to be included within the terms of my Amendment.

§ Mr. AMMON
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether writers assistants will be included in the terms of reference?

§ Mr. BALDWIN
That is a point which I shall promise to consider. I do not think that class was brought under my notice. What have been brought under my notice were the Lytton entrants. Whether it be possible to cover the others I will give my consideration 'to that point without delay. The undertaking I have given 1360 related to all classes in the third paragraph of the Lytton Report.

§ Sir JOHN SIMON
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will cover all the field that was covered by the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Duncan Millar)?

§ Mr. BALDWIN
It covers all I understood my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment to cover. I do not know whether there may not be other classes of entrants. It includes ex-service and non-service men who are classified as entrants under that paragraph.

§ Mr. HOGGE
You must put this on the Order Paper before this Committee is set up, and we will require time for discussion. Will my right hon. Friend say he will then state definitely what it covers, and we shall know exactly'?

§ Mr. BALDWIN
indicted assent.