Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,225, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and other expenses of Royal Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries, etc., including provision for Shorthand, and the Expenses of Surplus Stores, etc., Liquidation.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill)
This Supplementary Estimate, I think, requires very little explanation from me. In the original Estimate, in accordance with invariable custom, a small sum was put down under Subhead S to provide for any commissions which might be required during the year, and which were not specifically provided for, this sum being £2,582. This Supplementary Estimate for the sum of £6,225, is made necessary by the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry which was appointed after the original Estimate was presented. It is quite clear that when the main Estimate was framed, there was no idea in. anybody's mind of this special Royal Commission, and it would have been impossible to provide for the whole of the cost out of the small sum which I have already mentioned. The Commission met in circumstances which, as will be readily understood by the Committee, made its proceedings exceptionally expensive. To begin with, it had to do its work with as great expedition as possible. Further, it required an exceptional amount of expert assistance, and there was a good deal of necessary and unavoidable travelling. All these circumstances contributed to swell the cost 1056 beyond what it would otherwise have been. The sum mentioned in the Estimate is the exact sum which was expended in the cost of the Commission, and it is that sum which I now ask the Committee to grant.
§ Mr. BATEY
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I do so for two reasons. Firstly, I consider that the Coal Commission was not value for the money. Composed as it was, the Commission was not worth the expenditure of anything like this sum. My second reason is that I wish to take the opportunity of urging on the Committee that there can only be one solution of the mining difficulty, and that solution is nationalisation.
The hon. Member cannot raise that question. It has nothing to do with the Estimate.
§ Mr. BATEY
I am not going to raise it; I merely mention it, but I want the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain some of the items in this Estimate. One is an item for £3,650 for fees to expert advisers. I wish to know how many of these advisers were called in, and who they were. Personally, I am always afraid of experts. There is always great danger, when you are dealing with any question like this, in allowing the experts to, get their fingers into the pie. This seems to be a large sum to have been spent in this way. I very much question if it is justified, and when I have had the answers to the questions which I have just put to the Financial Secretary, perhaps I may have an opportunity of saying a few words in regard to these experts. If my impression is right, some of the experts to whom this money has been paid were not worth the expenditure. I also desire to have some information as to the item of £185 for an economist. Who was that economist? In our opinion there was no need to spend one penny upon either experts or economists. There is an abundance of facts already known in connection with the coal industry, and an abundance of men who thoroughly understand the industry, and who are capable of giving all the advice necessary without involving the payment of these fees. I may remind the Committee of the fact that this Commission was not asked for by the miners, and that the miners did 1057 not want it. As a matter of fact, we believe there have been far too many inquiries during the last few years.
The question before the Committee to-day is not the advisability of setting up the Commission, but the expenses of the Commission after it had been set up. The question of setting up the Commission has already been settled by Parliament.
§ Mr. BATEY
I suggest, Sir, that if you are going to apply that rule, you will crib, cabin and confine us in the discussion. In the explanation attached to the Estimate it is pointed out that this expenditure is incurred solely in connection with the Coal Commission. I submit we are entitled to point out that this expenditure was not necessary because of the information already made available by previous Commissions.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
On a point of Order. Is it not in Order to discuss the question of how the money which is being voted has been expended? If it has been expended upon experts, whose services an hon. Member regards as unnecessary, surely it is in order for that hon. Member to criticise the engagement of those experts, and the payment of this money to them.
That is quite in Order, and I did not call the hon. Member to Order when he raised that point. He was however going further, and was discussing the necessity for setting up the Commission at all, which is quite out of order.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
That matter was dealt with when the House of Commons decided to set up the Commission, and we cannot discuss it again to-day. What is before us is the actual expenditure on the Commission after it had been set up.
§ Mr. N. MACLEAN
On a point of Order. If the House sets up a Royal Commission to inquire into the coal industry 1058 and empowers it to call for information, and if the information which it obtains is already in the archives of the Mines Department, that indicates unnecessary expenditure. In that case an hon. Member is surely in order in criticising such expenditure when it comes before us in Committee of Supply. Can he not criticise it by pointing out that there was already in the possession of the Government ample information for use by the Commission without paying this additional money?
As long as the hon. Member confines himself to the expenditure of the money while the Commission is sitting, I shall not raise any objection.
§ Mr. MAXTON
Is it not in Order for my hon. Friend to refer to previous expenditure for the purpose of comparison with this Estimate?
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BATEY
This Estimate is different from several other Estimates which we have discussed. In several of the Estimates, part of the money for the particular thing had been already passed by this House, but in the case of the Coal Commission there has not been a single penny previously passed. It is because there has not been any money previously passed in on the passing of this money I want to criticise the Coal Commission, and I think, on those grounds, you ought to allow me to proceed. As a matter of fact, I do not intend to enter into details either in regard to the Sankey Com mission, or the Buckmaster Inquiry, or the Macmillan Inquiry, or even this Samuel Commission or the private inquiry held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1924. I will leave those inquiries if you hold that I cannot deal with them, but I hope you will con sider me in order in criticising the composition of this Commission. It con sisted of three Commissioners, and naturally in those Commissioners—
That has nothing to do with this Estimate. I do not see anything about the three Commissioners in it. If the hon. Member will 1059 look at the Estimate, he will not find the three Commissioners mentioned.
I have already ruled the hon. Member out of order three times for criticising the fact that this House set up this Commission, and he must not proceed to do it.
§ Mr. WHITELEY
The right hon. Gentleman, in asking the Committee to sanction the payment of this £6,225, did not give us any information at all, and the Estimate, as printed, leaves us without any information as to why these expenses have been incurred. For instance, you have set out here £150 for one secretary who also receives a salary as Assistant Under-Secretary in the Mines Department, and the actual payment, I think, is £90. There is no explanation about that. We want to know whether it is the practice in setting up Commissions of this kind to use the various Government Departments who are interested in a particular Commission and from which the Commission derives the bulk of its information, and whether the permanent officials in those Departments receive additional salaries for such work and for giving information which they are paid to collect from time to time, or whether this expenditure is in consequence of these people being called upon to work for a longer period, and is in the nature of a bonus or overtime. The same thing applies to the assistant secretary. Then my hon. Friend raised the question of the economist. I think we are entitled to know exactly what value the economist was to the Commission. It has cost the Commission £400 inclusive, and the actual item is £185. We who are interested want to know what value this economist was to the work of the Coal Commission, because, if you have an item of £400 in these days for this purpose, when some of our people cannot get a 1060 decent livelihood, we want to be able to make comparisons and to justify these items to our people when we go back to our constituencies.
There is another item—No. 4 Clerks. Of course, there is a big difference between the first three items and the fourth item. What does it mean? Does it mean that the clerks who, of course, are expected to do all the donkey work, are only entitled to receive 55s. 6d.—I take it that would probably be a low-grade clerk—for the work that they have done in connection with this Commission. The same applies to shorthand-typists, typists, and messengers. If we cannot go into the policy of this, we certainly are entitled, in order to explain matters to our people when we are asked about this money that has been spent on the work of the Coal Commission, to full information as to why the money was spent, the reason for these differences, and why these sums have been paid to permanent officials of the Department who ought to be in a position to give full information to a Commission set up to inquire into the economic position of the coal industry. Before we could pass an Estimate of this kind, it is essential that we should have full information from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
§ Mr. SCURR
I want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, because, when you look into this Estimate, you see that the Secretary during the period of the Commission received a sum of £150. I see by the main Estimate that the salary of the Assistant Under-Secretary in the Mines Department is £1,500. It seems to me, if you are paying a man £1,500 a year, which is certainly a living wage, rather extravagant that there should be any necessity for giving him another £150. Then when we come to the Assistant Secretary, we find that he also receives a salary as a principal in the Mines Department, and I find from the main Estimate that his salary is anything from £700 to £900 a year. Yet a further £100 is to be voted to him. It may be contended that a certain amount of extra work was thrown upon these people and that therefore they ought to be paid these sums. But when I go further down the list I find figures in the Estimate which are an absolute disgrace to a Government Department. The fact 1061 that under any circumstances a Government Department should offer to a skilled typist a sum of 42s. 11d. a week, rising I presume to 48s. 11d. a week, is a disgrace. There is not a single firm of any standing in the city would think of offering less than 70s., and in many oases £4 a week is given. Here we have a Government Department quite prepared to vote £150 to a man already getting £1,500 and £100 to a man already getting anything from £700 to £900, and yet paying typists, who happen of course to belong to the working classes, from 42s. 11d. to 48s. 11d., shorthand typists from 50s. 1d. to 56s. 1d.—I suppose we ought to be grateful to them for including the penny—and clerks from 55s. 6d. to 65s. 6d. inclusive. I presume in a Commission of this kind that the clerks employed would be skilled. They certainly would have some knowledge of their profession, but this is a wage that would be paid to beginners, to unskilled people and not to people who had a real knowledge of their business. It seems to me that the Government on the one hand are quite prepared to give money to those who have on the old principle thatFor he that hath, to him shall be given, and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath,but to the lower-paid grades they pay these miserable wages. For these reasons I am going to support the Amendment.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
In supporting the reduction that has been moved by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), I also want to take exception to the spending of money upon this Commission. In the original Estimate provision was made for Commissions not specifically provided for to the amount of £2,582, and for this Commission we are asked to vote £6,225. In analysing the expenditure, I find that the great proportion of the £4,900 that we are asked to vote for salaries is taken up with the fees to expert advisers. As a matter of fact, the actual salaries work out at £1,250, whereas the fees to expert advisers total £3,650. In one of my points of Order, I suggested that in the Mines Department there must be filed away all the information that should be necessary to place before the Coal Commission in order to help them to arrive at some conclusion upon which to base any recommendations they may make to 1062 the Government. If I am right in suggesting that, and I hold that I am, then there was no occasion for the Coal Commission to invite the opinion of experts, and thereby cost the country something like £3,650. If that particular sum were eliminated from this Vote, then the amount for the Royal Commissions not specifically provided for, £2,582, would have been there.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
If it was not there then it must have been spent upon something, but we do not know what it has been spent upon. It was taken by the Government for something that was not at the moment specifically provided for, and, if it was not there when the Coal Commission was set up, it must have been spent upon some other Commission.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
Then surely the Committee is entitled to know how that money was spent, why it was spent, and the purpose for which it was spent.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I will pass from that. I am submitting that if that sum has been spent upon some other Commission, then naturally we cannot take it into consideration. I still submit that the Treasury could have saved £3,650 by not asking the experts to give what is called expert opinion before them. We have in the Mines Department ample evidence, drawn from their own experts, and conclusions arrived at from the inquiries they have made time and time again over the entire coalfield of Great Britain, and comparisons they have made with the coalfields of other countries. All those things were there, waiting to be placed before the Royal Commission. I do not know whether the Commission invited that material to be placed before them, but, if not, I submit that they have been extravagant and that the saving of £3,650 would of itself have been a very material saving in a Vote which only amounts to £6,000 odd; it would be a saving of close upon 55 per cent. One would naturally imagine that, shorthand typists having been paid certain salaries, they were paid those salaries for doing typing and taking shorthand notes at the Commission, and yet we find—
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and, 40 Members being present—
§ Mr. MACLEAN
As I was pointing out when attention was drawn to the scarcity of Members, these shorthand typists would be expected to take down shorthand notes of the evidence given by those experts. Yet we find further down in this statement of details a sum of £650 paid away for shorthand writing. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a private firm of shorthand writers was engaged for this purpose, and whether this represents the payments made to that firm for the provision of an expert shorthand clerk, with also the transcribing into typescript of the shorthand notes made by the expert shorthand clerk, or of several expert shorthand writers, because one must not expect that the physical endurance of even an expert shorthand writer could stand up to the full length of the day in listening to and taking down the notes of the experts and the questions put to those experts by members of the Commission. I assume, therefore, that if it be the case that expert assistance had to be obtained from a private firm, there would be two or more shorthand clerks, and then again there would require to be transcriptions made of those notes typed out into a form convenient to be laid before the members of the Commission when they went over the evidence given before them on any particular date. What I am concerned about is why it is necessary, if it be the case that expert assistance had to be obtained from outside, for them also to have several shorthand typists to whom such wages were being paid as are in the details before the Committee. I put those matters before the Financial Secretary, and I hope he will think they are matters which justify him in making some reference to them, but I support the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend for the reduction of the Vote, because I consider that, if some of it were necessary—and I do not doubt some of it would be—the entire sum that is submitted here was not necessary. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will take his Amendment to a Division, and, if so, I shall assist him in the Lobby.
§ Mr. McNEILL
With regard to the detailed work of this Commission, I do 1064 not pretend to be as well informed as my right hon. Friend beside me, the Secretary for Mines, who will, no doubt, be able to answer in much greater detail than I can do some of the questions which hon. Members have in their minds, but to the question which the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has just put, I can give an answer. The point he raised was this: that there is a sum already voted in the original Estimate of £2,582 for Commissions unforeseen, and he says, to put it generally, that if this Commission had been more economically managed, and certain items had not been incurred, that sum would have been used for the purposes of this Commission. That is not so. As a matter of fact, there is always, every year, a certain number of minor inquiries and Commissions which incur costs, and it is for that reason that this small sum is always inserted. I do not think I can give an exhaustive list, but I can tell the Committee the sort of inquiries which have been held, and which have exhausted that sum in the current year. There has been a Committee on Legal Aid for Poor Persons, a Treatment of Young Offenders (Scotland) Committee, an Exchequer (Assistance to Local Authorities) (Necessitous Urban and Quasi-Urban Areas) inquiry, a Rent Restrictions Act (Scotland) Committee, a Crown Proceedings Committee, a Sheriffs Court (Records) Committee, and some others. Those are the sort of inquiries for which that sum is provided, and it has been expended on those inquiries. Therefore, that sum in any case could not have been available.
Independently of that, there is the criticism which two hon. Members have made, that this particular inquiry might have been conducted more economically, and the special figure which they have attacked is the sum of £3,650 for fees to expert advisers. The point made was that there was already, in the possession of the Mines Department, all the information necessary for the Commission to arrive at a Report, and that, consequently, there was no occasion for this elaborate equipment of expert advisers. As I say, I do not pretend, myself, to have intimate knowledge of the working of this Royal Commission, but I cannot imagine that there is any force in that particular point. Supposing this Commission—the vast national importance of which is recognised by everybody—had 1065 not thought it necessary to make any independent inquiry on their own account into the very intricate facts connected with the coal industry, but had been quite content to rely upon previous Reports, without even verifying them, I suppose, and certainly without bringing them up to date, I can imagine what would have been said, and not least forcibly from the other side of the House, if that course had been followed, and I had had to come here and defend such a proceeding from the Treasury point of view, and to say it had saved £3,000. I think I should have had a very unpleasant time before the criticisms of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members opposite.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was not talking about previous Royal Commissions, such as the Sankey Commission, but of the fact that we have now a Mines Department, with a staff collecting information, and I should imagine that the information they will have been collecting during the past two or three years would be just the kind of information necessary to lay before this Royal Commission.
§ Mr. McNEILL
I have no doubt that all such information has been at the disposal of the Commissioners, and that the very fullest possible use has been made of it. But that does not get over the fact that this particular inquiry, from the point of view from which it had to be conducted, required a very much fuller examination of all the circumstances and facts connected with this vast industry than the Mines Department were able to supply. I can hardly imagine that hon. Members think that Sir Herbert Samuel and his two colleagues would have deliberately gone out of their way to accumulate a vast amount of facts and collect, under very high pressure of work, a large amount of information which was quite unnecessary from the point of view of the inquiry. I do not believe that that was the case at all. The fact was that a large amount of work had to be done by independent accountants, bearing on a great number of returns in connection with the working of the various collieries, returns as to output, as to shifts worked, output per 1066 man, wages and other costs, profit or loss per ton, and so on. All that sort of information had to be collected and sifted for the Commissioners. My information is—of course, I have to depend on my information—that a very large amount of most valuable work of that description had to be done, and was done, as a matter of fact, at very high pressure; and I submit to the Committee that for that work a sum of £3,650 is really not excessive.
The other item about which one hon. Gentleman asked me, namely, the economist, was the payment for a gentleman who was an expert professor of economics in the University of Cambridge, and he was employed as Assessor to the Commissioners themselves, so that they might have someone to whom they could turn for the interpretation of some of the very difficult and complicated points which might be put before them, and were put before them, in the course of the inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan also asked with regard to the typewriters., and the explanation of the apparent double entry on that account is this: The shorthand typists who appear on the list of salaries were typists employed by the Commissioners for the work of the office, and so forth. The hon. Gentleman, if he has had any experience of this sort of business, will know that with a great deal of necessary clerical work going on day by day two or three typists would be kept very busy, and it was for the use of the Commissioners themselves that these typists were employed. The item, Shorthand Writing, refers to the employment of reporters, who had to report the proceedings. Hon. Members can imagine it would be a pretty onerous matter, as no doubt there were a great many figures and tabular statements. It was the reporting of the actual evidence given before the Commissioners to enable them to arrive at their Report. I hope my hon. Friend will think that is a satisfactory explanation, as far as I can go, as to the Treasury point of view. If there is anything more that hon. Members want with regard to details as to the actual work of the Commission itself, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines will be glad to give it.
§ Mr. WHITELEY
Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he explain the first two items as to the Secretary and Assistant Secretary?
§ Mr. McNEILL
I did not know any explanation was required as to that. I never heard of a Commission of this sort without there being secretarial work. Someone in the position of Secretary must be at the disposal of the actual Commissioners. In those cases I think it is usual—I do not say it is invariable—to employ secretaries who, in Government employment, are familiar with the sort of work which is being done, so that they will not approach it as an entirely new job. They will naturally be able to do it very much more easily if the subject matter and the method of dealing with it are within their own experience in their ordinary work. That is the reason why the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary were taken over from the Mines Department, so that they might be familiar with the style of work they have been called upon to do.
§ Mr. McNEILL
I think the hon. Member must ask that question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines.
§ Mr. BARKER
I want, first of all, to complain about the way this Estimate is presented. We have got no information whatever as to the number of sittings that this Commission has held. I do not know why there should be this undue haste to present this Estimate. If the Committee had had the Estimate presented after the Commission had finished its work, we should have had some idea as to the value of the work that had been done. I do not know how many sittings the Commission has held, but I do know that since the Commission was appointed 160 days have elapsed, including Sundays, and, in my opinion, this sum of £6,225 is altogether inordinate to the work that is being done. We are told that there are one secretary, one assistant secretary, one economist, four clerks, two shorthand typists, one typist, and two temporary messengers, but as to the big items in the Estimate, there is no information what- 1068 ever. There is an item of £500 for "Clerical Assistance and Overtime." We are not told what clerical assistance was required, or how many extra clerks were necessary.
Then we come to the item, "Fees to Expert Advisers, £3,650." How many expert advisers have there been engaged in this work? How is it we are not told that? It would be interesting to know where to-day are the gentlemen who are so interested in economy. I am sorry the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) is not here, because he is very much interested in this particular subject. I find that, supposing the Commission had sat every day since it was appointed, including Sundays and Christmas Day, it would have had no less than £20 a day for expert advice. We think it simply monstrous. It is pre-posterous that a sum of money like this should be expended in this way without any information whatever being given. Then we come to the fees that are paid to the poor temporary messengers. How these temporary messengers can live on 29s. a week passes my comprehension, and it is simply scandalous for the Minister to present such an Estimate. They must either obtain poor relief or be ex-service men with pensions, with which they manage to eke out an existence. The disparity in this Estimate is most striking, and it is commensurate with the scanty information the Government gave in presenting the Estimates. I do not know why the Financial Secretary should reply, when he confessed at once he knew nothing at all about it. He said the Secretary for Mines knows a great deal about it. We shall be very interested when he comes to give this information. If he knows all about it, he should have presented the Estimate, and not get one to present it who knew nothing at all about it.
As a matter of fact, this Estimate was brought on at a rush moment. The Government thought they were going to rush it through the Committee because it was presented before four o'clock in the afternoon. I am very glad the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), at any rate, was here to take exception to this Estimate. It is the most slovenly Estimate ever presented to this House. I, personally, cannot too strongly condemn the way it has been 1069 presented, and I shall have the very greatest pleasure in supporting the reduction. As a matter of fact, I wish I could abolish the Estimate altogether, because I agree with what has been said before, that the whole expenditure is unnecessary. The pigeon-holes of the Government are packed with information about the mining industry, but nothing has been done. Whether that will be the result of this Commission, time will very shortly reveal. But with reference to the Estimate, I say it reflects no honour on the Treasury that the biggest items in the Estimate are altogether deficient in any information whatever.
§ Mr. GEORGE HALL
My first question to the Secretary for Mines is, Who was responsible for the appointment of the expert advisers? I am not satisfied that he had the very best people to advise the Commission in connection with matters appertaining to the mining industry. Can he give us a list of the names and the qualifications of the so-called experts who were called in? I should like to know how many of the practical miners who are employed at the coal face, who know considerably more about the mining industry than a number of the experts, were called in to offer -practical and expert advice upon the position of the mining industry. I do not know of a single practical miner who was called in by the Commission. During these days of so-called ca' canny in the mining industry, it would be very interesting if the miner actually working at the coal face were called in to advise the Commission as to what is really wrong with the mining industry. I well remember a previous Commission which dealt with the position of the practical miner, and in their Report they said that for a generation the miner has been technically and socially educated. This is a great national asset. Was it used during the course of this Commission? I do not believe that one out of the 1,100,000 miners employed in the industry who had any practical experience was called in to give advice to the Commission in dealing with an industry such as this. There is another item, "Travelling and Incidental Expenses," for which there is a sum of £675 set aside. I would like to ask the Secretary for Mines what that really means? Who did the travelling? I understand 1070 the Commission travelled. Who selected the collieries to be visited, and what coal areas and coal districts were visited? How many collieries in each of the areas were visited? We have to realise that the conditions in Scotland are considerably different from those in Northumberland.
The hon. Member had better wait for the Report of the Commission to learn all these facts
But it is quite impossible now to go into all the questions as to what districts the Coal Commission visited.
§ Mr. HALL
We are asking for the information from the Secretary for Mines. We would like to know what collieries were visited, who arranged for the visits, and why the collieries were selected in the way they were? There are many cases in South Wales where you have some of the most efficient collieries almost adjacent to those that are absolutely obsolete. I would like to know whether the efficient collieries and the collieries not efficient were visited by the Commission when this expenditure was incurred? I feel very concerned, because I am not so sure that every district was visited. I am not sure that the most efficient and the least efficient collieries were visited. I would like the Secretary for Mines to give us the necessary information, because I do feel, with my colleagues, that this £675 has been absolutely wasted. You can go on having your Commissions and inquiries, but the only way to deal with the mining industry, as it should be dealt with, would be to put into operation the findings of the Commission of 1919.
§ Mr. KELLY
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) I would like to have some explanation of the figures that are here presented to us. We have an item which has been spoken of by one or two of my hon. Friends as 1071 to expert advisers. I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines why it is that we have this difference drawn between expert advisers and economists? Was he reckoned amongst those who could give expert advice, or was he considered outside the category altogether, and so had to have a line to himself? I should also like to ask who and what are these expert advisers? It seems unfair that we should be asked to pass this afternoon a figure of £3,650 for fees to expert advisers without knowing whether there were two, three, six, seven people, or more who were to receive expenditure, as has been pointed out, equal to about £500 a week for the time the Commission was sitting.
Surely there ought to be something more than the mere statement of the fees to expert advisers? There is surely more than that amount of explanation at the disposal of the Secretary for Mines? Even the sifting of what we have already heard should have in itself saved a considerable amount of cost for this particular work. In regard to wages there are four clerks who are, I notice, paid a wage of 55s. 6d., rising by 2s. 6d. per annum to 65s. 6d. How many of these four clerks are at the bottom or at the top? Then I would ask the Secretary for Mines how does he justify, in the case of a Commission which has to deal with low wages paid in a particular industry, or attempt to justify a wage of 55s. 6d. No human being in this country could live anything like a reasonable standard of life, or approaching it, on a wage of 55s. 6d. or even 65s. 6d., taking the higher rate. That, however, is not the worst. We find there are two shorthand typists. I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines whether he can justify a wage of 50s. 1d. to these two typists? In my opinion it is a sweating and inadequate wage for the Government at this time to pay. It shows that in the payment of wages the Government are not much above some of the worst employers in the country at the present time. Take, again, the temporary messengers. Reference has been made to their wage of 29s. It is a little better than that, because there is a bonus attaching to it. If, however, we add the bonus to the wages we find even then that these two messengers' wages are a great deal less than the gratuity which is paid out to the assistant secretary of 1072 £60, or the secretary of £90; both of whom already have a fairly high salary.
How can the Government, or the Department, justify itself in paying a wage of 29s. 6d. a week even with the Civil Service bonus added? The matter of travelling expenses is one about which I should like to ask, and the incidental expenses. Were these incurred by the members of the Commission or by the members of the staff? Surely we ought to have some details and not this bare figure of £675. Perhaps I would not be out of order in referring to the fact that Government auditors have disallowed expenses which were put down in the form that this is put down. It is unfair to the House that the Committee should be asked to pass through an item of £675 for travelling or incidental expenses without the slightest explanation as to how it has been spent, or where. We had the figure for shorthand writing drawn attention to by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). Is this sum paid to some firm of shorthand writers for reporting the conference, or are these shorthand writers in the employ of the Government? We might have been told that in the presentation of the Estimates. From the figure we cannot tell whether it is a reasonable figure or not, or whether it is an excessive charge for work which had to be undertaken for the Commission. I hope we shall have some explanation of these figures. I hope we shall hear the Secretary for Mines tell us whether or not he can justify the sweated wages that are paid to the clerks, the shorthand typists, and the messengers engaged in the service of the Coal Commission.
§ The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox)
I shall endeavour to reply as briefly as I can to the questions which have been put by hon. Members. The Committee will be good enough, of course, to realise that I would not be in Order in roaming over the whole field of the operations of the Commission at the present moment, or of their Report, which, it is hoped, will be ready in a few-days' time. Perhaps hon. Member's will be good enough to wait for that Report. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked me about the shorthand writing, he asked how many sittings there had been, and he suggested that the amount was altogether excessive.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
Perhaps hon. Members have no idea of the work or the value of that work which has been done by the Commission. I would put it to them that it would not have been possible for them to have suggested that the Commission should be stinted of staff in any way. If they knew the whole-hearted way in which the members of the Commission have thrown themselves into the work, working night and day in order to achieve the result it is hoped may bring peace to the coal industry they would, I fancy, take a somewhat different view. When it is considered that the Commission were endeavouring to go thoroughly into the whole trouble in the coal industry, I think no one would be inclined to refuse what help was necessary, to get out information or provide staff or anything else that was required. The work was very, very heavy and I think it is really creditable that the expenditure should have been kept so low. Reference was made by one hon. Member to the fees for expert advisers. These men had to get out full reports on individual colliery undertakings. The Commission required a great deal of information from them. The Commission desired information about profits, output, and a host of details connected with individual collieries, and this, involving most intricate figures and so on, had to be got out.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
I am afraid I cannot give the actual number of persons employed. The work was widespread and the appropriate firms were employed as required. As regards the shorthand writing, the work was placed in the hands of Mr. George Moore, a well-known firm. As regards the experts, an hon. Member opposite complained that not one practical working miner was called, amongst the experts, to give evidence. May I, however, say this, that the Miners' Federation were at perfect liberty to call what evidence they wished, and they themselves did not bring a working miner to give evidence before the Commission. They could have done so if they wished; the Commission called for what witnesses the two parties required, and they had every opportunity afforded them. I was 1074 also asked how many sittings of the Commission had taken place. The Commission sat for 33 full days, and considerably over 17,000 questions were recorded in the evidence. So far as travelling expenses are concerned, the Commissioners were requested by the Miners' Federation to inquire into a number of individual collieries which were reported to be inefficient, and inspectors had to be sent down to report as to the condition of these collieries. The travelling expenses also include the visits of the Commission and their staff to certain coalfields—visits which were arranged with the parties and to suit the needs of the Commission.
I think, perhaps, I have about answered all the questions which have been put to me, except one put by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) as to the wages of the messengers. All I can say in reply to that is that they are paid on the Treasury scale, for which my Department is not responsible.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
I thought some questions had been addressed to me about the wages in these Estimates.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. WHITELEY
I think it was unfair of the Secretary for Mines to suggest that Members on this side were against the spending of money for the purpose of ascertaining the true economic position of the mining industry, and, also, I did expect the Secretary for Mines to give us some of the information which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was not able to give because it was outside his Department. We were told by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the fees were paid to the expert advisers because they had to collect information with regard to output, the number of men employed, wages costs, the costs other than wages, royalties, and so on. All this information is in the possession of the Mines Department today. They get it regularly under the existing agreement.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
I have already explained that this was for information which was asked for by the Commission, and which the Mines Department had to get for them.
§ Mr. WHITELEY
If this information was not already in the possession of the Department, could the Secretary for Mines tell us exactly what the additional information was? We know that detailed statements are made by the collieries from time to time, and we think that if the Secretary for Mines had called for that detailed information from the collieries there would have been no need to engage expert accountants at a cost of £3,650 simply to make tabulations from lists which were already prepared and have been furnished since 1921. If the Secretary for Mines would tell us what extra information it was that the Commission required, I should be prepared to agree that it was essential they should be supplied with it; but the trouble is that neither in the previous estimate nor in this have we been able to get an explanation as to what the further information was which could not be supplied without this extra expenditure. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury explained that it was essential for the Commission to have an expert economist at hand to assist in explaining various details which, naturally, the members of the Commission could not promptly understand. So far from wishing to stint the granting of money to enable the Commission to secure full information, what we say is that if it was essential to have an economist, it was even more essential that there should be a practical man sitting at their left hand to point out the difficulties that are being created through the industry not being worked on a proper basis. A practical man could have given far more information than any economist from a university. I have only intervened on this second occasion because I feel information is being kept from us which we are entitled to have, and that the taxpayers' money ought not to be spent unless members know exactly what it is being spent upon.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
It is not a question with us of raising issues that will arise in the Report of the Commission, for which the whole nation is waiting this week. No Members on this side are raising that issue in this Debate, but we are entitled to a fuller explanation from 1076 the Secretary of Mines as regards details of the expenditure. As to the expert advisers, the Secretary for Mines has told us that accountants were appointed as expert advisers. I am just wondering whether one of those expert accountants was Charlie Markham.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
Yes, he is a double expert, and I wish to know if Charles Markham's fees are in this item, because if he is one of the experts I feel quite sure that an ordinary fee would never be able to pay him.
I am glad to realise from that shake of the head that Charles Markham is not one of the experts. I hope he will be paid quite well when the Report comes out. We have been told they were expert accountants, and, if that is so, this item is wrong, because it speaks of "expert advisers" when it ought to be expert accountants. Whilst we are willing to see money spent so long as it is spent wisely and well—we are not complaining about the amount of money—yet we are entitled to ask what these expert accountants know about the methods, in many cases, of payment of wages to miners. Miners would have been far better able to explain to the Commission the way in which the wonderful pay lists are made out. They are made out so well on some occasions that I have known of an instance where a man was asked to take money to the pay office to pay for the stamp which it was necessary to put on, because, although the stamp had to be there, he had no money to take home, deductions having swallowed up more than the sum on his pay list.
We complain, and are entitled to complain, about the low wages which have been paid to some of those engaged in doing work for the Commission. According to the amazing reply, as it seems to us, of the Secretary for Mines, it is not he who has the power to decide what wages or salaries are to be paid to these workers; that it was a matter for the Treasury. Are we to understand that the Treasury fixed these wages in accordance with the wages being paid to miners? That seems to have been their standard. We have heard no justification; we have had only an explanation from the Minis- 1077 ter that he is not responsible for the miserably low wages paid to these workers; but, as bad as those wages are, there are miners doing a full week's work in the mines at the present time who are actually being paid less than these workers for whom we are pleading.
Who were these expert advisers? Will the accounts of these accountants be open for inspection by Members; because there are a good many accountants who put in accounts who would require to have accountants to go over the accounts of these accountants for the purpose of enabling us to see that no unjust payments are being made? I trust we shall have a further explanation from the Secretary as to who these experts are who receive this large sum of money. But while we are asking for that explanation, we are entitled to let the Committee know that we are not complaining about the money that is being spent, because we believe it will have been well spent on the purpose of trying to sift out evidence and getting us some way towards the removal of the difficulties which face the mining industry at the present moment.
§ Mr. BARKER
I should like the Secretary for Mines to withdraw this Estimate until he can give us some more information. In his meagre reply he stated that he was not able to give us much information at present, and I think he ought not to ask the Committee for the taxpayers' money until he is prepared to give the taxpayers full information as to the necessity there was for its expenditure. I put one specific question to him which he has not answered. I asked him how many expert advisers were engaged on this work, and he said nothing at all about it; nor did he say anything to justify the payment of scandalously low wages to these other employés. He told us the Commission sat for 33 days. If there were 33 sittings, then the expenditure works out at £188 per day, and I say that is a ridiculous sum of money. What has the Commission done to spend this large sum of money in 33 days? There is
§ the sum of £110 per day for the expert advisers. £110 per day! What were their qualifications that they should be paid this extraordinary remuneration? It is of no use for the Secretary for Mines Mines to sit there mute. We do not want muteness; we want explanations. It is of no use for the Secretary for Mines to get up with that nice bland smile of his and say that some of this matter is privileged. That is no good to us. We have to see that this money is properly expended, and I say the criticism that has been levelled against this Estimate has not been met by him.
§ Mr. SCURR
I put a specific question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and he said that while he could not answer it, it would be answered by the Secretary for Mines. That question has not been answered, however. It was this: While the Secretary and Assistant Secretary were engaged in doing work for this Royal Commission, who was doing their work, for which they were receiving pay, in the Mines Department?
§ Colonel LANE FOX
I agree that I did forget to answer that question. A very large portion of their time was entirely engaged by the Commission, and during that time we had to carry on in the Department as best we could, but we were bound to supply the very best men we had to help the Commission, and I think nobody should grudge the item that is shown on this Estimate for the extra work they did. Those men have been working night and day, and if the House realised the work they have been doing this money would not be voted in any grudging spirit.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 253: Noes, 95.1081
|Division No. 53.]||AYES||[5.15 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Astor, Viscountess||Bennett, A. J.|
|Albery, Irving James||Atholl, Duchess of||Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Atkinson, C.||Berry, Sir George|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W. Derby)||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Betterton, Henry B.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Balniel, Lord||Blades, Sir George Rowland|
|Apsley, Lord||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Blundell, F. N.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Boothby, R. J. G.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Oakley, T.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Hartington, Marquess of||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Penny, Frederick George|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Haslam, Henry C.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hawke, John Anthony||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Perring, Sir William George|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Philipson, Mabel|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Pilcher, G.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hills, Major John Waller||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Ramsden, E.|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Holland, Sir Arthur||Remer, J. R.|
|Burman, J. B.||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd. Whiteh'n)||Rye, F. G.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Huntingfield, Lord||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hurd, Percy A.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hurst, Gerald B.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Sandon, Lord|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||lliffe, Sir Edward M.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.||Savery, S. S.|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunei||Jacob, A. E.||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Skelton, A. N.|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Smithers, Waldron|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Knox, Sir Alfred||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cunliffe, Sir Hebert||Lamb, J.Q.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Dalziel, Sir Davison||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Stanley,Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Loder, J. de V.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Looker, Herbert William||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Templeton, W. P.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Edwards John H. (Accrington)||MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Tinne, J. A.|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Macintyre, Ian||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||McLean, Major A.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Fermoy, Lord||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Macquisten, F. A.||Wells, S. R.|
|Finburgh, S.||Mac Robert, Alexander M.||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Malone, Major P. B.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Gee, Captain R.||Meller, R. J.||Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Meyer, Sir Frank||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Winby. Colonel L. P.|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Windsor-CIive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Goff, Sir Park||Moore. Sir Newton J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Grace, John||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut,-col. J. T. C.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Withers, John James|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Murchison, C. K.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsfd.)|
|Hanbury, C||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Cope and Capt. Margesson.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Baker, Walter||Batey, Joseph|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Barnes, A.||Broad, F. A.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Barr, J.||Bromley, J.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Clowes, S.||Kelly, W. T.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kennedy, T.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Smith, Rennle (Penistone)|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Livingstone, A. M.||Snell, Harry|
|Cove, W. G.||Lowth, T.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lunn, William||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Dalton, Hugh||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||Mackinder, W.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||MacLaren, Andrew||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Dennison, R.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Duncan, C.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Thurtle, E.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||March, S.||Townend, A. E.|
|Gillett, George M.||Maxton, James||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Gosling, Harry||Montague, Frederick||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Greenall, T.||Naylor, T. E.||Westwood, J|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Paling, W.||Whiteley, W.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Potts, John S.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Purcell, A. A.||Windsor, Walter|
|Hardie, George D.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wright, W.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Rose, Frank H.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Saklatvala, Shapurji||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.|
|Hirst, G. H.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Scurr, John|
§ Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,125, be granted for the said Service."1082
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 259.1083
|Division No. 54.]||AYES||[5.25 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Grundy, T. W.||Rose, Frank H|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hardie, George D.||Scurr, John|
|Baker, Walter||Harris, Percy A.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Barnes, A.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Barr, J.||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Snell, Harry|
|Broad, F. A.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Bromley, J.||Kelly, W. T.||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Buchanan, G.||Kennedy, T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Clowes, S.||Livingstone, A. M.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lowth, T.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lunn, William||Thurtle, E.|
|Connolly. M.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon.. R. (Aberavon)||Townend, A. E.|
|Cove, W. G.||Mackinder, W.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Crawfurd, H E.||MacLaren, Andrew||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Westwood, J.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||March, S.||Whiteley, W.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Maxton, James||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Montague, Frederick||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Dennison, R.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Duncan, C.||Naylor, T. E.||Windsor, Walter|
|Gillett, George M||Paling, W.||Wright, W.|
|Gosling, Harry||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Greenail, T.||Potts, John S.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Purcell, A. A.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Astor, Viscountess||Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Atholl, Duchess of||Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-|
|Albery, Irving James||Atkinson, C.||Berry, Sir George|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Betterton, Henry B.|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Blades, Sir George Rowland|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Balniel, Lord||Boothby, R. J. G.|
|Apsley, Lord||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Hartington, Marquess of||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Penny, Fredrick George|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Haslam, Henry C.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Hawke, John Anthony||Perring, Sir William George|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Henderson, Lieut,-Col. V.L. (Bootle)||Philipson, Mabel|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Heneage, Lieut.-col. Arthur P.||Pilcher, G.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Buckingham. Sir H.||Hills, Major John Waller||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Maryleborne)||Raine, W.|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Holland, Sir Arthur||Ramsden, E.|
|Burman, J. B.||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k,Nun.)||Remer, J. R.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Remnat. Sir James.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Ropner, Major L.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hudson, Capt. A.U.M.(Hackney, N.)||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)||Russel, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Rye, F. G.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Salmon, Major I.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)||Huntingfield, Lord||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hurd, Percy A.||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hurst, Gerald B.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||ilife, Sir Edward M.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Jackson, Lieut,-Colonel Hon F. S.||Sandon, Lord|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandswoth, Cen'l)||Sasson, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.)|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Jacob, A. E.||Savery, S. S.|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunei||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Shaw, R. G.(Yerks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Knox, Sir Alfred||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)||Lamb, J. Q.||Smithers Waldron|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Somervile, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Dalzlel, Sir Davison||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Locker-Lampson, Com.O.(Handsw'th)||Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Loder, J. de V.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Looker, Herbert William||Stanley, Hon. O.F.G.(Westm'eland)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lumley, L. R.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||MacAndrew, Capt. P.D. (I. of W.)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Erskine, James Matcolm Monteith||Macintyre, Ian||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.||McLean, Major A.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Macmillan, Captain H.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Ward, Lt.-Col A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Waner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Fermoy, Lord||Macquisten, F. A.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Fielden. E. B.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Finburgh, S.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Wells, S. R.|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Malone, Major P. B.||Wiggins, Williams Martin|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Margesson, Captain D.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Gee, Captain R.||Meller, R. J.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Meyer, Sir Frank||Williams, Herbert G.(Reading)|
|Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Miline, J. S. Wardlaw-||Wilson M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Goff, Sir Park||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Grace, John||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol,N.)||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Withers, John James|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Murchison, C. K.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Wood, E.(Chest'r Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Hail, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Hebert||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Hanbury, C.||Nuttall, Ellis||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry||Oakley, T.|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major Cope and Major Hennessy.|
Question put, and agreed to.