§ 7." That a sum, not exceeding £387,104 9s, 7d., be granted to His Majesty to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services for the year ended 31st day of March, 1925:
§
tains one of the most startling changes in the mind of a man who, after all, has been long years in the public service, and has shouldered a good many ministerial responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman was Minister for War from 1921 to 1923. Again he acted as Minister for War at the end of 1924. He has seen three or four years of continuous application, though not a complete application, of a part of a system of which he himself was the strongest possible supporter. Ho told us himself that there is a great deal of saving to be effected by this scheme. The right hon. Gentleman, set up a Committee, one of the strongest possible, and I think the least he can do is to put that scheme into operation. In March, 1923, the then Under-Secretary of State for War said:
The new system of Votes is built up on a scientific system of cost accounting, details of which are shown in the Army Account— this blue volume which I hold, and which
971
is published every year. The great aim of the system, apart from Parliamentary and War Office control, is to enable an officer to see and check expenditure on waste in his own sphere of responsibility, and it should thus enable real decentralisation of financial control which previously was far too much concentrated in the Finance Department of the War Office. I do not for a moment wish to suggest that the accounts in their present form are perfect. They are still in an experimental stage, but I do join issue with those who think, because formerly we had no effective system and contented ourselves with cash accounts, produced by the Royal Army Pay Corps, and nothing but cash accounts produced by them, those accounts being combined in different Votes under the War Office by a Civil Service personnel, that we ought on that account to be debarred from taking advantage of modern accountancy in controlling business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1923; col. 1838, Vol. 161.]
I cannot imagine the Lawrence Report and a system so strongly recommended in that Report being explained in clearer and more emphatic language than was used by the Under-Secretary of State for War in the Government that came to an end in January, 1924. It is because this has such a great bearing upon Parliamentary control over the expenditure of one of the great Services of the nation that I am asking the House once again to pay attention to this matter. It is not a question of a few days or even of a few weeks, but it is a matter which has received public attention for the last eight years. The Select Committee on National Expenditure was set up in 1913. I am not going to speak as to the personnel of that Committee except to say that it was a very strong body and contained men of the highest financial and political reputation. I have always felt in this House that if a person wants to make a point he speaks of the strength of a particular Committee. Now that Committee which was appointed in 1918 recommended:
That the Estimates and accounts should be grouped to show the objects rather than the subjects of expenditure and with carefully chosen units of cost.
§ In 1919 the generally accepted principle of double entry in book-keeping was put into operation partially at least by the War Department. In 1920 the scheme was approved by a Committee presided over by Major-General Sir Gerald Ellison and it was also approved by another Committee under Major-General Sir F. S. Robb in 1921. In 1922 the Secretary of 972 State for War himself set up the Lawrence Committee, and it is those recommendations and the system outlined by them very clearly in their Report which the right hon. Gentleman himself so powerfully recommended, and with which he now agrees to abandon after one of the most startling changes on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that I am conscious of during my 21 years of experience in this House. I have seen many but never one quite so startling as this one. I say that the reversion to the old system of accounts lessens materially the control both by the War Department itself and by this House over Army expenditure. That control was always ineffective, and I think that is admitted. A common point upon which there is no dispute is that even the War Office, through many long years up to the termination of the War had little effective control over millions of expenditure, and that which is true of the War Office as a Department is even more true of this House.
§ The maintenance of a business-like system of accounts based upon double entry book-keeping, and giving a, cash value to every item is indispensable for the economical management of any large business. Although the primary business of the Army is to build up an efficient fighting machine, it is in addition a very large business organisation, with stores, depots, hospitals, schools and factories throughout the Empire, and therefore a proper costing account system is equally necessary if efficient and economical management is to be secured by the nation. The real cost of any article produced any service performed, or any unit maintained cannot be obtained from the mere cash statements of expenditure which will appear in future Army Estimates and accounts. Extravagance and waste in the handling of stores, the use of buildings, the employment of men and material are incapable of effective check unless they involve an immediate cash outlay.
§ Information on these matters has been increasingly available to hon. Members during the last six years. It is not possible even to give reliable figures even for the productive establishments, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in his recent speech, where the services and supplies are rendered by one unit and are received by another. The case depends not, however, upon specific cash 973 savings as upon the fact that no true economy is possible unless the real costs are known. This is equally true of control by the War Office itself and of Parliamentary control by this House. Under the old system, which is now being restored, officers in command of units were never acquainted with the true value of the materials or personnel under their administration.
§ The new system, although partial in its at application, was gradually teaching the officers the value of the stores they were handling, and if extended as recommended by the Lawrence Committee, it would have inspired economy and efficiency in the management of their units. It is in respect of the proper valuation of stocks that the greatest possibility of economy exists. With a total stock of the value, probably, of scores of millions, much of which is almost certainly surplus to requirements, the necessity for constant review to prevent unnecessary additions, and waste of staff in preserving and guarding the same, is obvious. When every item of stock is definitely booked out to the unit at its true value, there is an effective check against loss, and an incentive is given to economy, which cannot be the case when goods are described as by the dozen or by the yard. The right hon. Gentleman stated, in his recent speech, that he does not desire his officers to be turned into accountants. For my own part, I think that that was a sheer evasion of the issue, and, really, was not worthy of the undoubted ability of the right hon. Gentleman. We heard, within a few minutes of the right hon. Gentleman making that statement, the hon. and gallant Member for Pontefract (Brigadier-General Brooke), speaking in this House from his knowledge as an officer, plead that young officers should be given some training in book-keeping and some knowledge of accounts before being given the responsibility of command. Commanding officers are now, by the disbandment of the Corps of Military Accountants, deprived of that expert accounting advice.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans)That is quite wrong.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I thought he already knew that in every command there is to be an expert accounting adviser, late of the Corps of Military Accountants, now of the Army Pay Corps, and he will be in that command for the very purpose of giving advice on accountancy duties to officers in the command. He will lecture to them, and will do a great deal more to teach than has ever been done before.
§ Mr. WALSHTo the extent to which complete abolition is not being affected, I express myself indebted to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIt is not being abolished, but, on the contrary, there will be an expenditure of £100,000 a year upon accountant officers.
§ Mr. WALSHUpon the Royal Army Pay Corps already existing, plus, I take it, the number who are being retained from the Corps of Military Accountants.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS170 are being retained from the Corps of Military Accountants.
§ Mr. WALSHWill that have the effect of converting commanding officers of battalions and regiments into bookkeepers, to use the language of the right hon. Gentleman? The Public Accounts Committee, at a recent meeting, seemed, judging from their Report, to come with some reluctance to the abandonment of the recommendations made in the Lawrence Report, and they stated that there should be a complete annual valuation of the stocks. I notice that the Army Council, at a recent meeting, recorded what the right hon. Gentleman incorporated in his early Memorandum to the House, namely, that the War Office was considering the practicability of doing that. I really cannot reconcile the two things. I cannot understand how proper accounts can be prepared, not merely to satisfy the War Office officials, but to satisfy this House, that they are, as far as they can possibly be made, truthful and accurate accounts of the transactions that are going on within the Army, unless a valuation of stocks is taken as accurately as circumstances will permits. When it is said that the War Office, under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman, will inquire into the practicability of doing so, I think that is treating this 975 House in a rather cavalier manner. I am sure that the lack of a valuation of stocks must result in accounts coming before us in an incomplete and halting form—I will not say imperfect, and I will not say falsified, but certainly not giving us the truth as this House has a right to expect it. It is of the utmost importance that Parliament should know the value of the stocks that are being carried by the War Department, and any important variation in value or any transfer of appreciable extent.
It came before this House some years ago, and, indeed, it came to the open knowledge of the nation, that military material to the value of many millions had been passed over to General Denikin, and yet not a single word of it appeared at all in the old form of accounts, because, of course, no transaction took place in the year of transfer. I see nothing at all to prevent a repetition of that kind of case under the reversion to the old system of accounts. I am not prepared to say at this moment—it certainly was not a matter in which our Government appeared to any great credit—the exact magnitude of the value of the stores transferred to General Denikin, but I think I remember sufficiently to say that it ran into well over £40,000,000. I have not been able to trace it, and I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman could trace it.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIt was all disclosed to the House at the time.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSAt the time the transfer was made.
§ Mr. WALSHI am sure the right hon. Gentleman is answering, to the best of his ability, truthfully, but I am certain that in point of fact it was not disclosed until a very considerable period after, nor did it appear in the accounts at all at the time of the transfer.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI do not want to be misunderstood. It was disclosed to the House, though not on the accounts, because, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it would not have appeared on the accounts. Had it appeared, however, on the accounts, the House would not have known it any quicker than they did know it as it was.
§ Mr. GILLETTIs it not the case that the Public Accounts Committee complained of the fact that the information came so late, even to the Public Accounts Committee, that there was no chance of any public opinion being expressed upon it?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSAs the hon. Gentleman knows, the accounts of the War Office do not get before the Public Accounts Committee until long after the close of the year. My point was that this transfer of stocks was disclosed to the House before the House would have heard of it had it been included in the accounts.
§ Mr. GILLETTI suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the point was that it never became public until it came before the Public Accounts Committee, long after, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the time when it ought to have been known.
§ Mr. WALSHThat is exactly my point. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is answering, to the best of his ability, truthfully, and I do not charge him with in any way evading what he admits to he the fact; but I do know from my own memory, and from my knowledge as a Member of this House, that it was not until a very considerable time after the transfer had been effected that it came to the knowledge of Members of this House, and I say that under a proper costing system it would have come before us within the following year at the latest. In these circumstances, I feel sure that my memory is much more accurate than the recital of the right hon. Gentleman. As every hon. Member knows, this House has only a very diluted and imperfect control over the expenditure of the nation. That control was becoming less and less as the years went on, but, in 1918, the Select Committee on National Expenditure, in its Report, directed attention particularly to the Army Services, and successive Committees, finishing with the most powerful Committee of all, the Lawrence Committee, set up by the right hon. Gentleman himself, showed how businesslike arrangements could be introduced into the Army administration, how control could be more effectively secured, and how the regimental commanders could themselves take on responsibility which they were perfectly willing 977 to accept. It is not true to say that they complained of being spied upon, and that they were unwilling to accept this responsibility. I believe the great majority of regimental commanders are prepared to accept this responsibility, and to do their best as responsible men, in the interests of the nation, to see that the accounts are properly kept. It is because of the reversion to an old system, dating right back to the earlier part of the 17th century, which is hopelessly antiquated and utterly unfitted to give businesslike and effective control to this House, that I move a reduction of the Vote by 100 men.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEBefore the Minister replies, I should like to put to him one or two questions on this point. With regard to the main issue, namely, the adoption in its entirety of the Lawrence Report, that involves at the same time considerations other than more accountancy. It involves the question of the devolution to the units of the whole spending apparatus and control in the Army, and, so far as that is concerned, not having adequate knowledge to enable me to discuss it, I propose to leave it on one side. I do desire, however, to press the Minister for categoric in formation with regard to all the other part of the cost accounting system which is not involved in that transference from the centre to the units. In the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, very great stress was laid upon the valuation of stocks. I want the Minister to tell us whether the valuation of the stocks is now proceeding, and will be completed. It was shown to us in the Public Accounts Committee that, although the valuation of stocks had been started, it had been to a, certain extent left in midair, and that only a very small part of the stocks had, as a matter of fact, been valued. I felt at the time, and I feel to-day, that, unless that valuation is completed, there is very great room for leakage. No business firm would be content to value part of their stocks and leave a very large further part unvalued, because they would recognise that great leakage might arise from that. Therefore, I would press the Minister to tell us specifically and categorically whether the valuation of stocks is now being pushed to its extreme limit, so that we shall have in future a complete valuation 978 of stocks, and shall know exactly what is taking place from year to year. In the second place, there is the question of the cost accounting of all the divisions of the War Office to which cost accounting can be applied, without going as far as transference to the units, as recommended by the Lawrence Committee. The Public Accounts Committee felt very strongly indeed on that point, and in their Report urged the War Office to have the fullest possible cost accounting in all the departments of the War Office to which it was capable of being applied. I want also to know whether we may in future have throughout the whole of these parts of the War Office administration the full system of cost accounting, because in my opinion it is only in that way that we can arrive at anything like the efficiency we are entitled to have in the Army.
§ Mr. GILLETTI should like to ask the Secretary of State a few questions in regard to these Estimates because I cannot see, from the way in which they are presented, that they quite tally with the statements he made a few days ago. The Treasury estimated that cost accounting might be used for various parts of the Army dealing with an expenditure of something like £11,500,000. The list of departments that they recommended might come under cost accounting was not agreed to by the Army, and I should like to ask, in the first place, whether the Government have now accepted the full list of departments that were recommended by the Treasury and whether they are prepared at present to adapt cost accounting to the whole of that list. One of the departments the Public Accounts Committee certainly recommended ought to come under the cost accounting system was the educational institutions. It is rather difficult for us to decide from these accounts how far cost accounting is being applied to the educational institutions. I find that, according to the information given in the Estimates, a few of the schools seemingly are treated in one way and a far larger number are treated in quite a different way.
For instance, at Woolwich College the estimate per cadet per year is stated at £521. The same applies to Sandhurst and two or three other educational departments. But when you come to a long string of other schools, as they are termed, 979 of various kinds dealing with special subjects, we find that the Estimates are presented in quite a different way from what they were a year ago. For about 20 so-called schools or colleges the facts and figures are not being given in the same way they were a year ago. Does that mean that these various colleges are not put on the system of cost accounting, or are they going back to the old system which was in force before the new system came into being? It looks to me as if the Government are really working on two lines. I have little doubt that the Army Council would really like to have gone back to the original system altogether and that they are being driven along in this direction by public opinion and the Public Accounts Committee, and in all probability they intend to do as little cost accounting as they possibly can. My belief is that about 20 of the schools have really been thrown out of the system of cost accounting and four or five of the big schools are being kept in. I should like to know if I am right in my conclusion.
For instance, there is one school where this year the estimate is given as £31,000 odd. Last year the total estimate came to something like £57,000 because it included such items as stores. If these schools are being carried on under cost accounting, surely the same information should have been given this year. In another school, the School of Artillery, this year the total amount is only £58,000. Last year the gross figure came to £212,000 because the ammunition, costing about £120,000, was included. One of the items that head the list of departments that the Army has decided to do cost accounting with was bakeries. In this year's Estimates you find nothing about Army bakeries. There is nothing whatever except some notes put down on what might be called the pink side of the account, and the figures given there are chiefly the figures for last year. It will be quite impossible, as far as I can see, to make out anything in regard to bakeries from the figures which have been supplied this year. Last year there were full particulars of the estimated cost. This year there is practically no information at all. There are thirty electricity stations under the care of the War Office and information in regard to them might very well have been supplied, but 980 all the information is so merged in bakeries and institutions of that kind that it is practically impossible to say how much is being spent on electricity or what the cost is likely to be.
It is true that on the pink sheet information is given in regard to electricity last year. I am wondering if the War Office is giving up the cost-accounting system for electricity, and whether it will be quite impassible for them a year hence to give us even the information for the year past. If, on the other hand, they are carrying it on— and this applies equally to what I said in regard to the schools—why cannot the Estimates be exactly on the same footing as those supplied last year? The Army seems to have 60 pumping stations. I am not sufficiently acquainted with Army methods to know why they have pumping stations, but the information one gathers is that they have 60 pumping stations. The financial information is practically nil to anyone looking through the accounts, and stands on exactly the same footing as the other Departments I have mentioned. The Estimate for the clothing factory this year is £138,000. Last year it was for something like £400,000, because we were given the estimated cost of materials. The information given last year was not very important, but, still, it all strengthens the point I am raising. If the system of accounting as regards these different Departments is the same, why has the Estimate been altered?
In his speech a few days ago the Minister referred to a point which had been raised by a member of the Public Accounts Committee, who stated that the valuation of clothing in the Army stores amounted to about £25,000,000. He told us he immediately had inquiries made, and telegraphed all over the world in order to find out exactly what was the value of the clothing in the Army stores. He stated that the value was not £25,000,000 but £5,900,000, or a fifth of the sort of case that had been built up by the advocates of cost accounting. Some of us in the Public Accounts Committee laid great importance upon the valuation of these stores. We were told the Army had stores of the nominal value of £100,000,000 to £110,000,000. We have also been told that during the six years these two departments have been in 981 existence they have, I think, been put at the value of £6,000,000, and the other £100,000,000 was not the value of the stores when they were bought but some nominal value which has been attached to them and checked afterwards rather by quantitative than by actual value. The importance of the valuation of stores was laid great stress upon by General Lawrence, who said he thought the old system was absolutely worthless, and, after all, his is an opinion to which some attention might be attached.
The Secretary of State was asked about this clothing which was supposed to have gone up to £25,000,000. He now tells us it was only £6,000,000. As a matter of fact, whoever asked him the question—I am not quite sure who it was—had some grounds to go upon because in the printed Army accounts we find on 1st April, 1922, there was clothing valued at £28,000,000, and if you add on to that the fresh amounts manufactured, and make a deduction on the other side for issues and so on, you find that at the end of the year there was £26,600,000. If you start the new year with that figure and add on the right adjustments on both sides, you find at the end of 1924 there was nearly £26,000,000 worth, going from what was the printed figure in the Army accounts for two years before. It is impossible for us to follow it much further, but if it is a fact that there was £26,000,000 worth on March 31st, 1924, what has happened to the £20,000,000? Are we to understand that in two years it depreciated £20,000,000? Are we to understand that it is a depreciation that has gone on year after year and that at present these stocks are only valued at £6,000,000? It seems to rue at any rate that if we are to accept the figure given by the Secretary of State only a few days ago there is a sum of £20,000,000, and we should like to know where it has gone to in the meantime.
Another thing we were told was that it was impossible to follow this sum of £100,000,000 of which, at any rate, whatever the value of the stocks may have been, about £25,000,000 must have been responsible for clothing. For six years they had only been able to value about £3,000,000 worth. When the Secretary of State wanted the clothing valued, which was nominally £25,000,000, he got it valued in six months because he came to us just 982 before the summer holidays—probably between now and the end of July—and said he had £25,000,000 worth of these stores valued. In other words a quarter of the £100,000,000 has gone. Supposing it was a fact that they ought only to have stood at £6,000,000, the officials of the War Office could have told us that in the Public Accounts Committee, and that would have settled the question of the £20,000,000. Why cannot the War Office tackle the other £75,000,000 in the same way that the Secretary of State has tackled this £25,000,000? He has got rid of the £20,000,000 somehow in a very short time. Can he solve the mystery of the other £75,000,000? There is very little given in the book as to what the stores are to-day. We were certainly told in the Public Accounts Committee that stores were nominally £100,000,000. What is the value of them to-day? That is a most important point in connection with this system of accounting, because if you go back to the old system of accounts where you practically ignore the amount of stores that are going to be used for each year you have laid before you false figures as to what is the actual expenditure of the Army in any year.
8.0 P.M.
Until we take into account where the stores are being used, or the amount of increase in the stores, we cannot know the exact figure for the cost of the Army during the year. We have no under-taking in this House, and the Public Accounts Committee have no undertaking from the representatives of the War Office, that they have the slightest intention of valuing these stocks. I do not think they have the slightest intention of valuing the stocks. I do not think they have the slightest intention of bringing the value of these stocks into the Army accounts. I believe their intention is, as soon as possible, and as soon as the House of Commons will allow them to do it, to go back to the old methods and to bury the information which has been gathered in past years under figures such as those which have been presented in these Estimates in connection with schools, bakeries and electricity departments, which are practically worthless for Members of the House of Commons.
It is an amazing thing to me that Members of this House should be spending an enormous amount of time talking about economy and making themselves 983 busy over a comparatively small sum of £200,000 for sports grounds and leaving this most important matter in regard to economy, this system of accounts which are presented to us by the War Office, upon which economy alone can he effected. Unless we know what has actually been spent, the ordinary Member of this House cannot recommend economy of any kind, yet the House and the public and the newspapers, all busy with economy, are quite indifferent whilst the War Office is going back into the old method of keeping accounts, a system which makes it utterly impossible for Members of this House to know what we are spending and which makes it impossible to keep the check that would have been possible in regard to the War Office by the system of accounts which is being discontinued.
§ Mr. TOWNENDThere is one point on which I should like information, and that is the basis of compensation which is being paid in respect of the Corps of Military Accountants. We find that, as far as permanent officers are concerned, a sum of £100 for each year of service is given, with a sum varying, according to rank, which in the case of a captain means something like £2,000 compensation for loss of office in the Corps of Military Accountants. This basis of compensation will place many former members of that corps in a very difficult position. A sum of £2,000 for a man who left a profession in order to enter the Corps of Military Accountants is a very small sum compared with what is given in other branches where compensation is paid under the instructions of this House.
It is when we come to the non-commissioned officers and men that the case is particularly hard. We find that they are only to receive an amount based upon their un-expired service. In many cases that means that men who have served 10 or 11 years in the Corps, anticipating when they entered the Service that they would have an opportunity of qualifying for a minimum pension based upon 14 years' experience in the Service, with a maximum pension on the 21 years basis, are being turned away with a paltry sum approximating to £110. When these men entered the Service they left a civil profession in many cases, and 984 to ask them to return in the present state of commerce to situations where their profession is overloaded with applicants is a very hard state of affairs, especially when we compare their position with the legislation for which this House is responsible respecting railway servants.
Under the Railways Act, it was definitely laid down that if as a result of redundancy members of the railway service were dispensed with, they were to be allowed a fairly satisfactory amount of compensation. In cases where men in the railway service, a private enterprise, are turned off because they are redundant they are getting anything from four to five times the amount that is now offered to non-commissioned officers and men of the Corps of Military Accountants. I suggest that the position ought to be reviewed by the Minister, if possible, so that in addition to a lump sum—which in the case of the railway men amounts to something like £500 to £600—these non-commissioned officers and men should be given a pension which would enable them to live a decent kind of life until they can find a entry into business circles once again. It is because the present amount is absolutely inadequate that I would like to know the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman calculates the compensation now paid.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI rather despair of convincing the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) regarding the action I have taken and the motives which led me to take that action in regard to reducing the Corps of Military Accountants and unifying the system of accountancy in the Army. He calls attention, for the second time, to the fact that I was very much in favour, if it could be put into operation, of making the unit cost accounting basis the basis upon which to build the accounts of the Army. I told him so in the Committee. I was in favour of it. I started very much predisposed with the idea that if one could apply to the public service the same sort of system which has been found good in business life it might be of great advantage in regard to the Army. It was for that reason that I appointed the Lawrence Committee so that we might have further advice upon the subject, because there were great difficulties.
985 Do not let the right hon. Gentleman forget that the so-called cost accounting system, which was never put into complete operation, had been going on for three if not four years before I first went to the War Office, and I was advised and I found that there was great waste of money in the finance and accountant's department in the overlapping of the two systems which were then running side by side, and which caused a still further expenditure in regard to the officials of the Finance Department, whose employment was to reconcile the results of the two systems. It was a thing which in my judgment ought not to have been allowed to go on. I wish that when the Lawrence Report came in I had been able to accept the Report and follow their advice, but they never at any time and no one at any time completed a unit system of accounting as a practical measure which any department could adopt. To put it into full operation requires decentralisation of financial control right down to the unit.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI know, but it is not practicable. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in my place he would have been up against exactly the same difficulty which I was in, and he would have found, as I found, after taking a, great deal of personal trouble about it, that it was not practicable; it could not be done, or if it could be done in any circumstances whatever it would have meant throwing an enormous amount of work upon the officer commanding the unit, which was not within his function, and ought not to be thrown upon him, In addition, it would have meant an expenditure of £400,000 a year as against the expenditure of £100,000 a year which I am providing for. It would have cost an extra £300,000 a, year in annual expenditure. In these circumstances I was bound not to pursue the matter upon the lines of unit accounting, and I was bound further to put an end to the duplication of work that was going on. I have not the slightest doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman had been in my place he would have done exactly the same thing. I do not think I need argue the matter further, because I argued it at length in Committee
986 I will now turn to the specific questions which have been put to me by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) raised the question of the valuation of stocks. There was a valuation of stocks, as they will remember, until 1908, but in 1908 the Public Accounts Committee considered the question of that valuation, and advised that it was no good to them, to the House, or to the War Office. Therefore, it was scrapped. I am asked now whether I will give an undertaking that the valuation of stocks shall take place. All I can say to hon. Members is that I am having the matter looked into in detail at the present time. Do they realise what the proposition is? There are 70,000, so I am advised, different headings which would have to be valued, and they are dispersed all over the world between 60 and 70 depots. It is obvious that a valuation of that sort, to be kept up to date—an annual valuation it would have to be—would be very expensive. If it is worth while, I will spend money on it, but if it is not worth while I do not want to spend money on it. I am having the matter looked into, and I am being advised in regard to it. Presently, I shall have to decide whether it is worth while to proceed with such valuation, in which case I will do so, or whether it is not worth while.
In regard to consumable stores, I think, and I have asked for advice in regard to it, that they are on a different footing. There is great advantage, I think, in being able to say to the House that the consumable stores consumed in the year are exactly all that we have paid for and that we have just as big a stock at the end of the year as we had at the beginning. Then hon. Members will know that there is not concealed an expenditure in stores in addition to cash. I want to get that system, if I can, without any great expense. I doubt very much whether in the case of other stores, warlike stores, it is worth while piling up each year entries showing that an 18-pound gun is worth a little less this year because it is a little worn out, and a. little less next year, and then, because in the third year we propose to re-line it, it is to be entered up again. I doubt very much whether a valuation of that class of stores will give the information which the House desires.
987 With regard to clothing. It was said before the Public Accounts Committee that it was valued at £25,000,000. I am not suggesting that anybody invented that figure, and I have no doubt that it was derived from figures in the books of estimates, but the actual fact is that their valuation is £5,900,000 and not; £25,000,000. The hon. Member asks what has happened to the difference. The truth is that the £25,000,000 was a guess figure inserted by the cost accountants. They had to get some figure to start with, and they put in £25,000,000. It never was £25,000,000. I do not know what it was at the time, but that is one of the absurdities which comes from this kind of accounting. Until you have the actual valuation of all stores, it is impossible to debit the unit and credit the store account with an actual amount and until there was a valuation they took a figure—
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSOf course they had some idea. I do not say they wrote in £25,000,000 without consulting anybody. No doubt they consulted with those in charge of the clothing stores, and together they came to this figure. I have no doubt it was done with the utmost bona fides, but the actual figure as to the value of the clothing is the figure I have given.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThe right hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The point is that if £25,000,000 was the figure estimated, and it is actually £6,000,000, surely that does reveal the importance of proper accounting?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI do not disagree with that, but what is important to the Army is that they should know they have so many suits of clothing of such and such sizes and so many boots of such and such sizes. It really is not a matter of so much importance from the Army point of view whether they are carried in the books at 10s. each or 12s. each.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIt is not a question of 10s. and 12s. It is a question of £25,000,000 or £6,000,000, and it must be of great importance to know 988 whether the things are so valuable as to be worth £25,000,000 or so inferior as to be worth £6,000,000.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThat is quite a different subject. The important question to the Army is whether it is serviceable stuff, and it is not important in that sense whether these stores are carried in the books at 10s. or 12s. The important thing is that the Army should know they have so many suits of this size and so many of that, and so on. Therefore it is not so much a question of valuation by money as a question of inspection, and it is the duty of officers to inspect and see that these stores are kept up as serviceable stores. In the stock accounts that are kept the accounts show whether the stores are serviceable or otherwise and all the time repairs go on of all those which are not serviceable and which can be made serviceable. However, I would like for the sake of completeness to have a valuation but I cannot do any more than undertake that the question shall be examined with the object of getting the valuation if we can.
It will be conditioned as to whether it is worth while spending the money. The hon. Member for Finsbury asked whether in future we were to have cost accounts of bakeries and electricity undertakings. Bakeries are being costed and electricity and fire stations are being costed; schools are not. If at any time we want the actual cast of any school we have a cost accountant available who will investigate the accounts of that school and bring out the figures that are required. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite cannot realise what the 170 cost accountants and their assistants are required to do. Let me say what they are going to do. Certain of these productive works, like bakeries and electricity stations, are going to be regularly costed. There will be a resident cost accountant either actually on the works or at a convenient place between one or two works which will be within his charge. In addition, in each command there will he a fully qualified accounting officer, with an assistant, and in that command he will be responsible for the various establishments that are being costed in the command, and will have other duties.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI am sorry to interrupt again. The right hon. Gentleman said certain of these things will be costed. The Public Accounts Committee was most particular on that paint and expressed the opinion that it ought not to be" certain" but" all" of these things and all the time. It is no use cost accounting one thing this year and another thing next year. They should be cost accounted all the time, every year. I understood the right hon. Gentleman was abiding by the decision of the Public Accounts Committee and I should like to know whether we are going to have all these things costed each year or only a certain number of them one year and a certain number another year.
§ Mr. GILLETTIf the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Woolwich Account he will find there is an estimated cost of £521 a year for the 220 cadets and an estimated total cost of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich of £114,000. Does not this account mean that Woolwich is being costed? The information given is much the same as that given last year, and it is the sort of information that is necessary. There are about 20 of these schools in colleges it which that information is not given, and it is one of the things I should like the Secretary of State for War to explain. I should also like to ask him why, if bakeries and electricity are being costed, we cannot have the Estimates put in exactly the same way as was the case last year. They were infinitely clearer than the present accounts.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIt may be possible —I do not know—to do so next year. It may be possible on the result of the cost accounting this year of these productive activities to give more information than has been given this year. I think that is highly probable. Hon. Members must remember that these Estimates are presented in this form for
§ the first time this year, and if I can give greater details next year I will certainly try to do so. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked me whether there were any of these activities to be costed all the time.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEAll of them.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSNot all of them. The productive ones are to be costed all the time. I gave a list the other day. Some will be costed only in the sense of an inspection. Just as we now send to inspect, so we will send a cost accountant down to go into the figures and cost of a particular operation. Those are, generally speaking, the minor operations, not the productive ones. That will apply to the smaller hospitals. The larger hospitals will he costed all the time, and we shall have comparative figures all the time. The cost accountants in the commands, besides looking after those activities which are being costed there, are at the disposal of officers in that command for the purpose of advice on any accounting question. An officer can go to the accounting officer in the command not only on public accounts but even on regimental accounts where that officer commanding is responsible. He can go for advice to the accounting officer, and in that way I hope that a much better knowledge of accountancy will spread through the Army, because it will cover a larger field even than any cost accountant does. I have answered all the questions that have been put. I believe that on the whole this economy is a real economy, a reduction in expenditure of £300,000 a year, and one which can be carried out without interfering with the efficiency of the Army.
§ Question put," That '159,400' stand part of the Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 78.
991| Division No. 99.] | AYES. | [8.29 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Buckingham, Sir H. |
| Albery, Irving James | Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Blrchall, Major J. Dearman | Butler, Sir Geoffrey |
| Apsley, Lord | Blundell, F. N. | Caine, Gordon Hall |
| Atkinson, C. | Boothby, B. J. G. | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton |
| Baldwin, Rt Hon. Stanley | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Chapman, Sir S. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Brass, Captain W. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer |
| Balniel, Lord | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Clarry, Reginald George |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper |
| Cope, Major William | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Remnant, Sir James |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n) | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Huntingfield, Lord | Ropner, Major L. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Rye, F. G. |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Jacob, A. E. | Salmon Major I. |
| Dawson. Sir Philip | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Edmondson, Major A J. | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Knox, Sir Alfred | Sandon, Lord |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Lamb, J. Q. | Savery, S. S. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Falls, Sir Charles F. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Fermoy, Lord | Loder, J. de V. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Looker, Herbert William | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. | Macintyre, Ian | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Gates, Percy | McLean, Major A. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Macmillan, Captain H. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Margesson, Captain D. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Merriman, F. B. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Hanbury, C | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Harland, A. | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'id.) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Oakley, T. | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Owen, Major G. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Withers, John James |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marytebone) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Philipson, Mabel | |
| Holland, Sir Arthur | Power, sir John Cecil | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Homan. C. W. J. | Price, Major C. W. M. | Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer. |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Raine, W. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Short, Alfred (Wednesday) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hirst, G. H. | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertilliary) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Barr, J. | Kelly, W. T. | Snell, Harry |
| Batey, Joseph | Kennedy, T. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Lee, F. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bromfield, William | Lindley, F. W. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Bromley, J. | Lowth, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Cape, Thomas | Lunn, William | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Mackinder, W. | Viant, S. P. |
| Cluse, W. S. | March, S. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Compton, Joseph | Morris, R. H. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Connolly, M. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Warne. G. H. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Naylor, T. E. | Waits-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Oliver, George Harold | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Dennison, R. | Palin, John Henry | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Duncan, C. | Paling. W. | Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Gillett. George M. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Williams. T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gosling, Harry | Ponsonby, Arthur | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Potts, John S. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Windsor, Walter |
| Groves, T. | Ritson, J. | Wright, W. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks.W.R., Elland) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Charles Edwards. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
Seventh Resolution agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. WALSHMay I ask the Secretary of State for War to give further consideration to the case of those members of the Corps of Military Accountants whose positions have now been abolished. I spoke to him the other evening in regard to these men whose situation seems to be peculiarly unfortunate. The terms of their engagement were such that they were entitled to build on those terms a reasonable expectation of long-term service. They would have been pensionable at 14 years; there was an optional pension at 18 years, and their long-service pension would have been due at 21 years. The form signed by those men entitled them to hope that they would have the long-service engagement of 21 years. I do not charge the Department or the Minister with any breach of faith, but I would point out that many of these men have completed 11 years' service, that probably 90 per cent. have performed a greater or lesser amount of combatant service, that many gained high distinctions during the War. In the case of many of them, their service in the Army has involved the sacrifice of positions which they might have obtained in civil life in a number of instances they combined military and professional qualities in their service.
In view of these facts I ask the House to consider the character of the compensation which is being paid. The service already rendered counts for nothing in those cases. In many of the cases that service is 11 years. There are certain cases which appear peculiarly hard, but as hard cases make bad law, I do not intend to press the hardship of any particular case. When people have served nine, 10 or 11 years in this corps, and have combined military with professional services, it is hard in an extreme degree that the service they have given should count for nothing. It is only the un-expired term which counts at all, and it counts at the rate of one week's pay and marriage and ration allowance for every year. I hardly think that this can appear to the right hon. Gentleman or the permanent officials with whom he works, as in any sense proper compensation. An accounting sergeant with 10 years' service still to run, having given 11 years' 994 service, will get about £112 all together. I speak from memory, but I do not think I am far wrong in that figure. A sergeant-major, who is a warrant officer—Class 1 or Class 2—will get something like 50 per cent. upon that figure. These men were reasonably entitled to look forward to a long period of service in this capacity in the Army, and I feel sure the House will agree that the compensation suggested is not merely inadequate, but approaches meanness.
It may be said that they are receiving what was allowed under the scheme of the Geddes axe. It may be said that they knew their contract of service was liable to be determined. I agree, but a great Department like the War Office and this House exist not merely to carry out the letter of a contract such as this by rigid interpretation, but when misfortune overtakes a body of men like this, we should have regard to the equity of the conditions and act accordingly. I am sure that is the spirit in which the House desires these men to be treated. Two of them have won the Victoria Cross. About 13 have won the Military Cross, and four or five have gained the Distinguished Service Medal. They are all men who have sacrificed prospects in civil life which would have given them infinitely better terms and provided for them in a higher degree than anything the Army has given them. It is true that circumstances have eventuated to put an end to their calling. Like Othello their occupation is gone, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, now that this change has been effected, now that the debates and the arguments about it have passed away, now that it has become ancient history, to consider the treatment of these men, who can only be described by the right hon. Gentleman, himself as unfortunate, and who are the victims of the national pressure for economy. I ask him to see that in their discharge they are treated with some regard to the equity of the case as between them and the nation. They should receive far better treatment than they at present receive, and I hope I do not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in vain.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King)I am sure Members in all parts of the House sympathise with any man who at the present time is unfortunate enough to 995 be deprived of employment. But when dealing with employés of the State, belonging either to the fighting services or the Civil Service, one has to consider the conditions of contract and the conditions of service under which they join, and under which they have been serving. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out quite fairly that these men, in re-engaging for 21 years, knew from the form which they signed that they were engaging to serve for such further period of 21 years provided their service should be so long required. That was a notice to them when they signed it that there was the possibility that their services would not be so long required. When they signed that agreement, they also had the opportunity of knowing under what conditions they were going to serve. That was all laid down in the Pay Warrant.
In regard to pensions, the ordinary terms of pensions are, of course, service for 21 years, and, as the, right hon. Gentleman remarked, there is also a pension under certain circumstances at 18 years. The pension for 14 years is only payable to those men who are discharged for illness or by reduction of establishment, and 14 years is certainly the very earliest at which any man really attains a right to a pension. Under the terms under which these men re-engaged for 21 years, they knew they could not possibly get a pension should they not serve for at least 14 years. The only right they had under the Pay Warrant was to a gratuity of £1 for each completed year's service. I would like to remind the House of the terms which these men have actually received. They have certainly received all they contracted for, and considerably more, because not merely are they credited with the £1 for each year of service, but £12 is credited to all those men, whether they have reached their 12 years' service or not.
Twelve pounds for 12 years' service is the maximum allowed under the Pay Warrant, and they are all credited with that £12, whether they have served only eight or nine years or whatever it may be. In addition to that, they have all received 28 days' full pay and allowances, whatever their length of service, and further than that—I will not go into all the details—none of them got less than 28 days at a quarter pay and allowances, 996 but with full marriage allowance, if they were entitled to it, for every uncompleted year of their service. Therefore, in the case that the right hon. Gentleman quoted, if a man had served for 10 years, he got credited for 11 years at 28 days for each of those years at a quarter pay and allowances, but with full marriage allowance. That certainly is considerably more than he was entitled to under the contract which he took up when he re-engaged.
There is also some little misunderstanding with regard to these men as to how they can re-engage. In the ordinary way the majority of the first engagements are for seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve. They can extend from their seven years for the 12 years, but their further re-engagement cannot become operative until they have completed 12 years. I believe that sergeants and all non-commissioned officers are entitled to re-engage at the end of their nine years. Their new contract, of course, would not become operative until they had completed their first contract for the 12 years, but they can reengage as from nine years. Therefore, we have some of those cases, which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, of men who, though they have not completed their first 12 years, have re-engaged for the 21, and, therefore, might be considered on a pension-able basis. But I want to draw a distinction between a pension-able basis and being due for pension. They could not possibly be eligible for pension until they had done 14 years' service. Compare that with other ranks in the Service who are under similar conditions of being on a pension-able basis, but not yet due for pension, and you will find that officers in the Army are on a pension-able basis from the day they join the Army and receive their commission, but they are not eligible for pension until they have served at least 15 years, and should an officer be discharged at any time, we will say, after he has done 14 years' service, should he be discharged for illness or reduction of establishment, he is not entitled to pension, though he has been on a pension-able basis all those years, because he has not completed his 15 years.
Exactly the same thing occurs in the Civil Service. A civil servant is on a pension-able basis from the time he joins 997 the Civil Service, but he is not eligible for pension until he has served at least 10 years, and so there is no possible claim on the part of these men to a pension, because, though some of them may have been on a pension-able basis, if they have not completed 14 years they are not eligible for pension. In regard to the hardship of it, the right hon. Gentle man has truly said that these men are being treated under the special terms, which I have already quoted, which were brought into force for those men who were reduced under the Geddes Axe.
The educational officers, who, some two yea is ago, were also reduced in number, were under those terms. They are certainly far more generous terms than have ever been offered before, and when you consider the numbers of men who have already been treated on similar terms, I do not think it can now be claimed that these terms at the present time are ungenerous. Even during the War, if a man with less than 14 years' service was discharged for sickness, he was not entitled to a service pension, and I do not think any hon. Member of this House would claim that members of this Corps of Military Accountants are entitled to more generous treatment in that way than men who were discharged during the War with less than 14 years' service, and yet who were given no service pension. I do not wish to detain the House further, but I hope I have been able to explain to the right hon. Gentleman, if not to convince him—
§ Mr. WALSHI ought perhaps to say that I never put forward the plea that these men had a claim to pension. What I am asking is that a somewhat more generous scale of compensation should he given. Of course, in their ease they have not suffered for sickness, but as a matter of fact, they were led to believe over the last six or seven years that theirs would be a continuing occupation. Every Committee that sat, from 1918 right on until 1924, and every hon. and right hon. Member connected with the War Office who spoke, gave these men the impression that theirs was a vocation in the Army that would continue, and with that impression, and with those ideas impressed upon their minds, they 998 accepted the new offer of a 21 years' engagement. It is because of the expectations that they were legitimately led to establish that I believe these men are entitled to a more generous treatment than has been given to them.
§ Captain KINGI do not think the right hon. Gentleman would really suggest that fit men who are being discharged on reduction of establishment are entitled to more generous terms than a man who is discharged from the Army because of sickness.
§ Mr. WALSHIn the one case that is something which is incidental to the man himself. This is the abolition of a corps of men who were led to believe repeatedly year after year that theirs was a continuing occupation, and they signed no new engagement because of that.
§ Captain KINGNo inducement was held out to any individual in that way. There was no undertaking that these men should be employed for 21 years, and, as far as they are concerned, they being fit are in a far better position under these terms than a man discharged for sickness without any pension under similar terms to these men who are being discharged. They have the same terms as the men discharged for sickness.
§
Ordered, That the Resolution which upon the 8th day of this instant March was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read:
That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 35,500, all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927.
§ Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force; and that Secretary Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, Mr. Bridgeman, Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare, and Captain King do prepare and bring it in.