§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
§ [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
§
Question made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to make provision for the winding-up of the Naval Prize Fund and the dissolution of the Tribunal established under the Naval Prize Act, 1918, and that for that purpose there should be transferred from the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer—
and that the sums required for the payment of the costs, charges, expenses, and claims, liability for which is so transferred, should he charged on and be payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, and that in consideration for such transfer there should be paid out of the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer the sum of one hundred and twenty-six thousand five hundred pounds.—(King's Re-commendation signified.)—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlarn.]
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI must, first of all, express my surprise that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in whose name this Resolution stands, is not present. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam) going to take charge of this matter.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam) indicated assent.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYAs the hon. and gallant Gentleman has indicated that he is in charge, I shall address my questions to him. This is altogether a very suspicious business. We are given an explanatory memorandum in the Vote Office which explains nothing whatever except the fact that the original Naval Prize Bill in 1918 laid down certain things which we know already, and then that it is proposed to transfer this sum of £126,000 from the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer. That is practically all that we are told in the Financial Resolution. Before the Committee pass this Resolution we are entitled to have the following information at the very least. First of all, what is the total amount of money in the Naval Prize Fund? How much have the Admiralty in hand? This fund has been going on since 1914. All the captures that were adjudicated "good prize" and the cargoes that were condemned and sold have accrued to the fund. I believe that a very large sum of money—about £12,000,000—has been paid out to the officers and men of the Fleet. Incidentally, I consider that those who least needed the money have received the most, and that those who needed it the most have received the least. Whereas the naval captain's share has been several hundred pounds, the lowest class, the ship's boy, has received only a few shillings. I do not want to go into that. That was laid down at the time, and the Parliament of the day was responsible. A very large sum of money has certainly been paid out, but the proceeds of the capture of ships and of cargoes amounted to a tremendous sum.
I think we ought to know how much is left in the fund, because apparently, this £126,000 is not the only money available. The Admiralty seem to be keeping something for naval charities and I would like to know bow much it is, and also how much has been spent or is being spent from year to year on administration. If, for example—and this is my second question—the House does not agree with this Resolution and it is not possible to bring in the Bill, what would be the cost of keeping the fund in being? How much extra staff is required at the 128 Admiralty to administer it? That, I think, is rather important. The next question is, how much of the money that is being transferred to the Exchequer, or that the Admiralty have in hand, is due to claims which have not been made by those entitled to them? Every hon. Member in this House has had experience, I am sure, of men who have suddenly become aware of the fact that money is due to them either from a War Office bounty or from the Admiralty in prize money or from the Board of Trade in reparations for suffering in enemy action. We have these cases coming up even at the present time, after all these years, through no fault of the men. How many of these are claims that have not been made by seamen who are entitled to the money? I presume a record is kept by the Admiralty.
With regard to the question of the claims on the fund from men who served and were invalided and discharged and went back to their homes, perhaps to Australia, and did not know that they were entitled to any money, what steps do the Admiralty take to advertise for the men? Do they take the same course that is taken by lawyers when, for example, a distant niece or nephew or cousin is a beneficiary under the will of a rich relative who has died in England? In that case, the lawyers advertise for the whereabouts of so and so, who are invited to communicate with the said lawyers, from whom "they will hear something to their advantage." I live in the hope that some day I shall receive such an invitation, and shall be notified that someone has left me a well-deserved legacy. That is the way in which the legal profession get in touch with the heirs. The men who have claims on the Admiralty are the heirs of the Admiralty. What steps do they take to trace these sailors, many of whom would, no doubt, be very glad if they knew that money was being distributed. I understand that three distributions of prize money have been made. I received three payments of prize money, and I should be very glad to think that there is a fourth distribution coming. The last payment took place a good time after the end of the War, when it was only to be expected that many men had not put in claims and could not be traced. We ought to be satisfied on these points be- 129 fore we agree to the paying of this money into the Treasury. None of these facts are given to us in the Financial Resolution or in the explanation which accompanies it.
I should like to know what claims are expected, after all these years. I am not now referring to the claims of the men who are entitled to their share of prize money, but to the merchant houses, the merchant shipping companies, and others who may have counter claims for damages. If a ship was wrongly detained and was not adjudicated a good prize in the Admiralty Courts, there was a claim for compensation by the shippers, which was good in law. Surely, those claims have all been settled. If not, what is the estimate of the outstanding claims for compensation or demurrage or damage? I shall certainly oppose the handing over of this large sum of money to the tender mercy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unless some good reason can be given. Unless some better explanation can be given, I must oppose the handing over of this nice little windfall of £126,500 to the Treasury. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer is hungry for windfalls. One day he robs the Road Fund; another day he robs the insurance reserve; another day he makes the brewers pay in advance. Then he makes the poor householders pay their taxes three times in one year, and so on.
Is it to be supposed that the finances of the country will so improve under this Government that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to resist the temptation to take this money from the sailors, this prize fund which they have earned, some of it very easily and some of it by very hard work? A certain amount of the money is going to naval charities. How much of the money is going to naval charities? The only sum that we know about is the amount that is going into the hungry maw of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and his avaricious chief. What naval charities are to benefit, and who is to choose them? Who is to exercise this largesse of the prize fund money? The naval charities that are deserving are some of the poor fellows who served in the Fleet during the War and who cannot now get work and are living and walking examples of naval charities. If there is any bounty going, I should like those men to have it.
130 We do not know the total amount in the hands of the Treasury. We do not know what claims are expected from ship owners for demurrage, damages, etc., and what the sum is likely to be. If, for example, £500,000 remains in the hands of the Treasury, why not make another distribution? All the records are in existence. It might amount only to 10s. for seamen, but many of them would be glad of it to-day. Has that idea been considered? In this matter the House is left in the dark. This is not the occasion to debate at length about naval prize money as a system. The system in the old wars was to distribute the prize money to the ships making the actual. captures. Some of the frigates were lucky and their crews were considerably enriched. The destroyers and patrollers had a chance of making huge prizes, and that led to great keenness on the part of the cruisers of that day. Some of the needy captains preferred to command a frigate, with the chance of making prize money, than to command a ship of the line. In the late War, that system did not prevail. It was decided that the whole of the money accruing from captures at sea should be pooled and go into the fund, and should be distributed equally amongst all those serving in seagoing ships. The ships of the Grand Fleet, which actually made no prizes, and the ships of the tenth cruiser squadron, which through the winter patrolled near the Arctic Circle and had the most difficult and arduous duty of examining ships, all got their share when the money came to be divided.
As in the old days when the naval captains and crews got the proceeds of their captures, so to-day the gentlemen of the long robe, the members of the legal profession, the most powerful trade union in the land, did not do badly out of the Prize Courts, and the officers of the Courts made quite a good thing out of the legal proceedings and formalities which had to be gone through. Nevertheless, a considerable sum in prize money did accrue to the officers and men of the Fleet. A great deal of the money that came into the fund came from ships that were never hailed at sea by a man-of-war. It came from ships that put in voluntarily for examination into Dover and Kirkwall, in order that they might receive their clearance and proceed on 131 their way. Our means of exerting pressure upon neutrals was so great—
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that this Resolution merely deals with the transfer of the fund under the Naval Prize Act, 1918, and that this is not the occasion for entering into the general history of naval prize law.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI bow to your ruling, and I shall not pursue that historical line. The fact is that this money belongs to the Fleet; that is not gainsaid, whatever may be the means used for diverting cargoes into harbour during the War, and I hope the House will not allow it to be paid over to the Exchequer without very careful examination, and without full information from the Government. I see the Chief Whip in his place. He earned some prize money during the War. I see the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) in his place as a Lord of the Treasury. He, too, earned prize money. I hope that not only will they realise that their property is being paid over to Downing Street, but that the property of the men in the Fleet is being paid over to Downing Street. This is the residue that has not been paid out and, except for what is going to certain naval charities, it is to be paid over to the Treasury. I hope that the Chief Whip and the noble lord the hon. Member for South Battersea will support me in asking for the fullest information from the Parliamentary Secretary, to the Admiralty. I am only sorry that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not here, because I should have liked to have had his assurance on the matter. As there is no satisfactory explanation in the Financial Resolution or in the explanatory White Paper, I am not prepared to agree to this substantial sum of money, the property of the Fleet, being handed over to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Rear-Admiral BEAMISHThere are certain particulars in regard to this fund which we are entitled to know. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.- Commander Kenworthy) has covered most of the ground, as he generally does. We are entitled to look 132 at what I would call the particulars of this fund, or, in plain English, to the actual accounts of the fund. As far as I know, they are not actually available. It is an extraordinary thing that there should be this large sum of £126,500 remaining in the fund at this period, and I should like to know how much more besides this amount remains in the fund. A still more important point, which I have no doubt will be cleared up, relates to the claims on the fund. What claims are in prospect, and what has brought about the decision to close the fund? We ought to know what big claims there are in prospect, and also whether there are any claims which are pending at the present time. I should be much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary if he would clear up those points, because I feel confident that the Navy as a whole would like to know a little more about the naval prize fund.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI hope not that I shall have any difficulty in making clear to the two hon. and gallant Members who have spoken that what the Admiralty are proposing to do in conjunction with the Treasury is a very right and proper course. At the beginning of the War the Crown granted as a prize fund to the Navy what are known as "Droits of the Crown" and it was decided that, in fairness to the whole of the Navy, this fund should be pooled and distributed in certain proportions which were laid down by Order in Council, that is to say, that the money should be paid to those serving in the Navy in varying proportions according to their rank and terms of service with the Fleet. A special tribunal was set up at the time to administer the fund, which was to be known as the Naval Prize Fund. It was to be regulated by this particular tribunal. The tribunal was to adjudicate on all the money that came in for distribution for the purpose for which it was designed, and any money that was over and above after distribution to the Fleet was to be devoted to Naval charitable purposes. This was laid down by the Act of Parliament in 1918. But in addition to paying out prize money to officers and men of the Navy there were certain claims that were brought against the Navy in the course of the War by 133 persons who were aggrieved by the action of the Navy in the taking of prizes and the tribunal had to hear these cases and adjudicate whether or not the Navy were responsible to the appellants. Tins entailed a very large amount of work, especially at one period. In consequence of the Crown's appearing as claimant for condemnation of all Prize, whether taken at sea or in port, it had been unnecessary, during the recent War for the Prize Courts to determine whether the proceeds became "Droits of Crown" which went to the Prize Fund or "Droits of Admiralty," which went to the Treasury. The, tribunal decided these and other points relating to the titles and liabilities of the Fleet as captors. In the old days if eases were decided against the Navy the sailors, the captors of the vessels, were held responsible for the damages and the tribunal found that the Prize Fund, as representing the captors, was liable for damages where the responsibility of the Navy was proved. The charges on the Fund under this head alone amounted to over £500,000. The total receipts of the Naval Prize Fund amounted to £16,035,000, against which must be set off the following disbursements—and these are the figures for which I was asked: the total shares paid to the Imperial Fleet amounted to £14,437,000; to Dominion sailors, £318,000; paid to Naval Charities—and this is exclusive of a, sum of £100,000 to which I shall refer in a moment—£195,000; paid as compensation in the cases to which I alluded just now, £611,500.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThat is paid as damages?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMYes, as compensation in the cases where the Navy was held to be responsible for damages. Unpaid shares amount to £195,500, leaving a residue of £278,000. This makes a total sum of £16,035,000, and the figures I have given are approximately correct. I have already alluded to a sum of £100,000 which has been transferred to Greenwich Hospital, but a, lien still exists on it for share payments and it is in contemplation to pay a further sum of £50,000 to Greenwich Hospital out of the money that remains. The work in connection with the fund is nearing completion. It reaches finality in 1930, ten years from the commence- 134 ment of the distribution, and with the practical cessation of work in the Prize Courts, the continuance of the Naval Prize Tribunal is no longer necessary.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDoes that mean that by the year 1930 no more claims can be made?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMYes.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThen would the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly say what steps are being taken to let the seamen know of that?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI will come to that point if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me time. Although the receipt of moneys into the Fund has practically finished, there is no time limit to the prosecution of claims against the Fund in the Prize Courts, and it is desirable that a final settlement should be made which, while providing that any future liabilities can be met, will enable the Admiralty to wind up the Fund and to ascertain the final amount of the residue which may be disposed of in accordance with Section 3 of the Naval Prize Act, 1918; that is to say, how much more we should be left with to give away to naval charities.
The Bill which we propose to introduce is to enable the Tribunal to be discharged, to facilitate the winding up of the Fund as soon as possible on the determination of the period for payment of shares outstanding, and to enable the balance available for payment to Naval charities to be ascertained. The Bill proposes that, in consideration of the payment of a sum of £126,000 from the Naval Prize Fund to the Consolidated Fund, all further interest in sums Accruing to the Naval Prize Fund as "Droits of Crown" shall be transferred to the Exchequer, and, on the other hand, it imposes on the Exchequer the liability for all claims outstanding or which may arise hereafter which, under Part 2 of the Schedule of the Naval Prize Act, 1918, would have been chargeable against the Fund. There has been considerable negotiation between the Admiralty and the Treasury with regard to the sums to be placed at the disposal of the Treasury in regard to future claims, and it is considered that this sum of £126,000 should be sufficient to meet all the claims which may be made in future against the Crown. We are perfectly 135 satisfied that we are making a good bargain for the Fund. It is more or less an uncertain quantity as to exactly how many of these claims will be put forward, but there is the possibility that some will be pressed and there is no time limit. That is the reason we think it is desirable that we should be relieved of this responsibility, that the Prize Fund should be wound up and that the tribunal, whose work is practically finished, should be discharged.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked me what steps we had taken to let the people who were entitled to share in this prize money know that there is this chance for them. Press notices have been issued inviting application for unpaid prize money and medals. This invite is still being pursued, and it has been pursued at various periods ever since 1920. As a matter of fact, this sum of £195,000 represents the balance of the unpaid claims. A close examination is also made of all official records, in order that the individuals concerned in the outstanding cases may be traced. Although applications will continue to be considered until 1930, when the Naval Prize Fund will be finally closed, we think it probable, from the information that we have before us, that the great majority of these shares will never be paid. Whatever money is over goes to the Naval charities. Now I have been asked what charges there were and how this money had been spent. I have already mentioned Greenwich Hospital. I have a list here of a great many other Naval charities which have benefited already from the Fund. There are certain grants that have been made to the Dominions and to the Crown Colonies. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull would like me to give him this list.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYHow many are there?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI cannot count them in a burry, but there are a very great many of them. There is the British Legion; there is the Queen Adelaide Naval Fund, the Royal School for Naval and Marine Officers' Daughters, the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust, Lloyds 136 Patriotic Fund, and many more of them, all deserving charities, which have already derived benefit from this particular source. I think I may ask hon. Members to raise no objection to grantting us this Financial Resolution. There will be plenty of opportunity on the Second Reading of the Bill to discuss further points. I hope hon. Members will consider that I have given a sufficient explanation in the course of these few remarks.
§ Mr. E. BROWNI should like to put one point. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us, in connection with the balance available for distribution to naval charities, if he will consider the case of those seamen who were torpedoed in the War and who were in merchant ships, and lost their kit and chances of employment? They feel that they have not been adequately rewarded for the losses they have sustained in the course of their services, although they were not serving in the Navy. No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a great deal of correspondence from Members representing ports on this point. There still is, in the minds of a large number of these men, a feeling that they have not been justly treated in the distribution of the money which has accrued under the Reparation Act. I think some share of this money should go to these deserving seamen who did such valuable service during the War.
§ Mr. GROVESAm I entitled to move an Amendment to this Resolution?
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope)It will have to be a limiting Amendment.
§ Mr. GROVESI was desirous of moving an Amendment that a certain sum should be set aside to add to the list of charities which the Parliamentary Secretary has read out. I can easily formulate an Amendment if I am entitled so to do. The men who served in the Fleet in view did great work for their country, but there are, I am afraid, a number of people who to-day are suffering under a grievance. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there were certain people who were aggrieved. I wonder whether it would be possible to move an Amendment Possibly the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take note of the suggestion that I make. Just as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has men- 137 tioned one class of men, so I know that there are many men in my constituency who are physically aggrieved as a result of their naval service, and are to-day living on Poor Law relief because they cannot get pensions, the medical officers of the Admiralty having said that their tuberculosis did not result from naval service. These men would indeed be benefited if there were added to the list of charities, as an act of good grace on the part of the Admiralty, the claims of these men, so that they could receive compensation and be removed from the list of paupers. The last time that the hon. and gallant. Gentleman presented an Estimate, I brought to his notice the case of a seaman, a gunner, who died in the London Hospital from a disease due to sandfly. The medical officers of the Admiralty certified that it was constitutional, but it was obvious that the complaint was contracted as a result of the man's service in the Navy in the East.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that the hon. Member's suggestion is out of order. The purpose of the Resolution is to transfer the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer. What the Exchequer will do with it is another matter. It may be possible to raise this matter at a later stage, but certainly it would not be possible at this stage to allocate the purpose to which such money is to be devoted when it gets to the Exchequer.
§ Mr. GROVESI want to oppose the money going to the Exchequer, because I know that once it gets there it will never get to the sailors, whom I have in view.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member would be quite in order in opposing the Resolution, but an Amendment to allocate the money to some particular purpose when it gets to the Exchequer would not be in order. I understand that is the hon. Member's objective.
§ Mr. GROVESThat was my objective, but I had not moved it because I thought you would not agree with me.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI think I can satisfy the hon. Member on the point. The money placed at the disposal of the Exchequer is money kept so that if claims are made against the Prize Fund from outside there will be something with which to meet them. The money 138 that we are keeping is money that is to be used for the purpose of naval charity. I can assure the hon. Member that if he knows of any particular charity to which it, would be in the best interests of the Navy to dispose of some of this money, and if he will communicate with me, his suggestion will receive the greatest consideration.
§ Mr. GROVESI will merely say that this grievance I have presented to the hon. and gallant Gentleman time after time. I know that these men are suffering and are unfortunate in having been certified by the medical officers as suffering from constitutional diseases. It is the duty of all of us to see whether we can do anything for these men at every conceivable opportunity when we know there is money available.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI have received an answer to most of the questions that I raised. Hon. Members will agree that this Resolution is presented in a very vague form and that the explanatory memorandum is vaguer. We certainly want to know something more. I am in doubt on one point, and it is a point of some importance. We are going to transfer £126,500 against hypothetical claims that may be made against the Admiralty. Suppose that the claims are not made. What will happen to the money? Will it go to naval charities? I can understand that if the first sum is not claimed by 1930, it is going to naval charities, but what happens to the £126,500 which is being set aside against mercantile claims for damages? There is apparently no time limit. I should have thought that these foreign shippers, or whoever they were, would have claimed long ago. I cannot understand the immense delay. If the money is not claimed does it go to the redemption of debt or to naval charities? It is a very important point. I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury present. I understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has spoken for the Admiralty that there have been protracted negotiations between the Board of Admiralty and the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury on this matter. Did they get any undertaking from the Treasury as to what was to happen if the money was not claimed by the interested parties?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel)The amount was first fixed between the Admiralty and the Treasury at £135,000. Since then claims have come in and reduced the figure, which now appears in the Resolution as £126,500. It is expected that claims will come in from time to time, and I do not see very much reason to anticipate that the whole amount will not be absorbed by the claims and costs. But, if not all absorbed, the balance will go into the general revenue.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThen that is not satisfactory, and I intend to oppose the proposal. You are taking money from the Naval Prize Fund and passing it over to the Treasury against hypothetical claims that may be made 10 years or 12 years after the War by some foreign merchant who may have been aggrieved by one of His Majesty's ships, and in case the £126,000 is not claimed it is going to the general revenue account. That really will not do at all. I do not know whether it is possible to move any limiting Amendment, by adding at the end of the Resolution some such words as, "and unless claimed to revert to the Admiralty," so that the Admiralty may dispose of it? I apologise for not having handed in an Amendment before, but it is because we have been left in the dark and have had to drag out information as with a corkscrew.
§ The CHAIRMANI am not sure yet whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggested Amendment would read. If the hon. and gallant. Member will hand it to me I will look into it, and meantime perhaps one of his friends will continue the Debate.
§ Mr. BARRI shall make some relative observations for a moment or two. I would like to ask about a particular case I have in view, relating to the remote Isle of St. Kilda, where there was a wireless station. Naturally the enemy bombarded it, and they destroyed one of our churches. They caused damage to the extent of £450. Repeated efforts have been made to get compensation for that damage. I believe a great deal of effort was made in different parts of the House of Commons to secure compensation. I gather that under the scheme now pro- 140 posed the enemy will be compensated, and I do not object to that if they have a claim, but when we have a claim of this kind arising within our own borders —a just, and, I believe, an admitted claim—I ask, can it not be taken into consideration within the ambit of the present proposals? If this matter has not already been provided for we might make some arrangement for meeting the case. Rather than allow this money to go to the general revenue you ought to make some special provision to meet such a claim, and I should be glad of an assurance, either that the case falls within the provision already made, or that the hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the Admiralty is prepared to make some special arrangement for dealing with it.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, at the end, to add the words:
to be held in trust on Admiralty account.
§ Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAMI intervene for only a few minutes because, possibly, the situation is not well known to the majority of the Members of the Committee. This problem was considered by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons and, while there was no difficulty about the winding up of the fund, and, probably, no doubt as to the wisdom of that course, it was certainly understood that there would be many claims against the sum of £135,000 or, as it is now presented the sum of £126,500. That was certainly very clearly in my mind during the course of this Debate, but when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke a few minutes ago it was plain that there might be a residue and that, in fact, we were transferring to the Exchequer the amount by which this sum might exceed any claims which came in against it. In other words, we were leaving the balance, if any, to go into the general revenue of the State. That is not what was expected by those who had studied the exact position of the fund, because the broad object was to provide for ascertained claims—for liabilities and nothing more—and that any balance was to be free to go back to be used for naval charities, or whatever other objects might be approved. It is 141 perfectly clear that if we pass the Financial Resolution in its present form we transfer the sum of £126,000 to the Exchequer and I imagine that if the Financial Resolution were passed that decision would be irrevocable. In other words that Resolution would fix the character of the Bill. Therefore, it will also be plain to the Committee that any Amendment must be made at this stage and it occurs to me that the proper form of Amendment is the insertion of words at the end of the Resolution providing that any balance over and above the amount required for the satisfaction of valid claims—which, of course, must he met—should not go to the general revenue of the country but should revert to the fund and to these charities which I am sure all sections of the House desire to protect.
§ Mr. OLIVER STANLEYI should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what will be the position if the amount of the claims exceeds the sum of money which has been set apart to meet them. If more money has to be provided, surely the Treasury will have to find the extra amount. Is it not the case that in fact what has been done has been to arrive at the closest possible estimate of the amount of the claims to be made, and that then the Treasury is to bear the burden of meeting the actual claims or take the benefit of any advantage which may arise. If this Amendment were passed, it would be fixed so that any balance would go back to the naval charities. That would leave the Treasury in the position of having to bear the burden of any excess over the estimated claims and leave the naval charities in the position of taking any advantage which might arise.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELMy hon. Friend has made my reply for me.
§ Mr. E. BROWNIt is not satisfactory.
§ Mr. SAMUELIf a larger sum for claims has to be paid, the Treasury will have to find it. We have only fixed upon this figure of £126,500 as the closest estimate we can make. I do not say that the amount needed will not be more. It may be more; but it it is more then the money will come from Exchequer funds. It is, therefore, a give-and-take estimate and within a limited scope. It may be that the Exchequer will have to 142 find more money than the figure now under discussion, and in that case the argument of my right hon. Friend opposite falls to the ground. It is the nearest estimate we could make, and I hope the Committee will regard it as such.
§ Rear-Admiral BEAMISHIs this sum of £126,500 actually comparable with the prospective claims? That is a point which seems to be of the greatest importance. Is it merely some sort of round figure, without any real direct connection with the claims that are pending or are under consideration?
§ Mr. SAMUELIt is the outcome of a careful estimate made by the Treasury, the Admiralty and the Tribunal itself. The details were carefully balanced up and that was the figure which was arrived at after exhaustive examination.
§ Mr. E. BROWNI think the Committee will agree that more needs to be said from the point of view of the men in the merchant service and the Navy. I find the answer which has been given is quite inconclusive. It is obvious there has been something in the nature of a bargain between the Treasury and the Admiralty and, in this matter, unlike most matters, the Admiralty or those for whom the Admiralty ought to be responsible are going to come off badly. This transaction is in the nature of a gamble, and a gamble I understand to be a transaction where somebody's gain is somebody else's loss or where everybody loses. When you give work for money that is the law of labour; when you give goods for goods that is the law of exchange. When you give something because you love a person that is the law of love, but in this case it is the law of bias which seems to be operating and the bias is in favour of the Treasury.
It is quite obvious that any claims which are not now put in are very unlikely to arise between now and 1930, and there seems to be a heavy bias in favour of the Treasury in regard to the allocation of this money. The limitation proposed in the Amendment does not interfere with the Treasury getting the money, if the claims are made, but it makes sure that if the claims are not made the money can be turned to the advantage of the charities and of those to whom the advantage ought to be belong. I am bound to ask for more information. The Committee 143 would be unwise to allow the Resolution to pass in its present form without a great deal more information. There are Members of all parties sitting for seaports who know that many of the men who served both in the merchant service and in the Royal Navy are in need of assistance, and who must feel that these men have not had their just claims met out of these various funds. If there is £100,000 or £80,000, or whatever the sum may be, they ought to have some attention from the Government. The Amendment does not interfere with the Treasury getting the money if the claims are made against the Fund, but it gives a chance for review when we know the facts. Therefore, I hope hon. Members on all sides will hesitate before passing this Resolution and will support the Amendment.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe position is quite clear, and I do not think there need be any difficulty in the way of the Government accepting the Amendment. The Treasury has made the best bargain it could, and it reckons that this £126,500 safeguards the position, but, supposing these hypothetical claims amount to more than £126,500, who will find the extra?
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELThe Treasury.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe Treasury! It does not come out of the hon. Gentleman's pockets, but out of the pockets of the taxpayers. The whole nation Supposing, on the other hand, the claims come to only '2100,000, there is a nice little nest egg of £26,500. That will not make much difference to the Treasury, but it will make a great difference to the naval charities. What we have to decide is whether the very problematical loss to the Treasury shall be spread over the whole nation, or whether the problematical gain to the Treasury, which is not so problematical, shall accrue to naval charities. After all, I would remind the Committee that the Naval Prize Fund was built up by captures at sea by the Fleet, and I do not think there can be any hesitation as to where this matter should lie. If there is any profit to be made, it surely ought to go to the naval charities, and if there is any loss, let the whole nation bear it.
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman)The whole 144 discussion turns on whether or not the bargain made between the Admiralty and tht Treasury is a good one for those who might be recipients of something from the Naval Prize Fund. It has been very carefully considered, and we came to the conclusion that it was a fair one. Nothing that has occurred this evening has shown that it is not. It must be a matter of speculation to some extent, but if hon. Members, before the Bill which will be based on this Resolution is introduced, would like us to look further into the financial aspect of the thing, I do not say that we should come to any different conclusion, but I would be quite prepared to give further consideration to it before actually introducing the Bill.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAMThe statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty would be excellent if in practice it amounted to anything so far as this House was concerned, but, of course, if the Financial Resolution goes through in its present form, that is a decision for the purposes of the Bill, and progress could only be made if the whole thing were re-started, which, I imagine, the Government will not contemplate for a moment. As a result of this discussion, the position is now perfectly plain. After all, all that the Treasury desire to do is to get accurate and sufficient cover for the claims which will be made and which must be met. Surely it is quite easy for the Treasury and the Admiralty to say that they will agree upon such a sum within these limits as will meet these claims. I quite agree, as the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) pointed out, that the Treasury will have to find the money if the claims exceed the amount of £126,500, but that is not an adequate reply to the point which arises if the claims happen to be very much less, because you do not want to take more out. of this fund than meets that exact situation, which we all recognise we have to cover.
What is the difficulty in the way of the Government accepting an Amendment on the lines proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend? We seek to carry out what we believe to be the intention of the Government and to rob this Resolution of its speculative element. There is no reason why you should have a gamble of a mild character or a speculative element in a Resolution of this kind. It is 145 quite unnecessary. It is not the intention of the House, and, as I understand it, it is not the intention of either the Treasury or the Admiralty. Nothing will be lost if, in fact, this Resolution is amended on these lines, and the only difficulty which I can see at the moment is that you would perpetuate the administrative machinery and the other details which you want to sweep away, and in which you wish to economise. There is no loss in that whatever, if this is delayed a little, the Resolution amended on these lines, the Treasury safeguarded in exactly the sum required, and the Naval Prize Fund not penalised, as I am afraid it will be under this Resolution.
§ Mr. MACLEANI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I move this in order to give the Government an opportunity of reconsidering this matter. The First Lord of the Admiralty said they were prepared, if they got this Resolution, to reconsider the whole matter before the Bill is brought in, but after all, the Bill, however much consideration they might give to it, would require to be based upon the Resolution as it is presently worded, and consequently, so far as any reconsideration is concerned, any alteration in the Bill would require to be by Amendment and the acceptance of the Amendment by the First Lord.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIf we pass this Resolution now, we only have a Report stage, which may come on at midnight any night, and this Motion to report Progress is not put forward as an attempt to embarrass the Government. We are not, to use a colloquial term, ragging for this, but trying to get something which I believe the First Lord himself will see might be of value to the Fleet. The Amendment may not cost the Treasury anything, but it makes certain that no profit is made by the Treasury out of the Naval Prize Fund. That is all that we want, and surely all hon. Members will support that.
§ Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
146§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI am quite ready to examine this question further, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, I myself will be prepared to move to report Progress in order that we may look into it. Nobody wants to do any injustice, and we do not want to miss the chance of making a good bargain, but I am quite ready, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, to move to report Progress and to reconsider this with the Treasury.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am very much obliged to the First Lord. The Amendment was drafted very hurriedly, because we did not really know the facts until we had the explanation, but in view of the undertaking of the First Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Bridgeman.]
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.