Commons Sitting of 8 March 1929

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWER TO QUESTION.

  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
  Miss WILKINSONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can state what is the precise purpose of the summary of cuttings issued to traders by the Empire Marketing Board; what is the cost of such circulation; and if he will consider whether such matter as extracts from speeches made by an anonymous member of the Northampton Junior Chamber of Commerce justifies the expenditure of their circulation?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I presume the hon. Member to refer to a periodical summary of Press notices relating to the work of the Empire Marketing Board. This summary is compiled for the use of members of the Board and its Committees. No issue is made to traders or any other section of the public. It would be difficult to estimate the exact cost, which in any case is inconsiderable.
  Miss WILKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two or three associations of traders have asked me to raise this matter in Parliament? How, then, can it be correct to say that this has been circulated only to the Committees of the Board, seeing that associations of traders have approached me on the subject?
  Mr. AMERY: It is conceivable that associations of traders may have seen a copy, but it is intended solely for the use of the Committees and sub-Committees.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Parliament Square and other Streets Bill, with an Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations with respect to cotton cloth factories and for purposes connected with the enforcement of the enactments relating to such factories." Factory and Workshop (Cotton Cloth Factories) Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This small Measure is well suited to the calm and dispassionate atmosphere of the House on a Friday morning, and no doubt hon. Members will be in a state of sufficient mental activity at this early hour to enable them easily to grasp the simple proposals contained in it. As hon. Members know, an industrial assurance society or friendly society may not pay more than £15 on the death of a child of 10 years of age. There are smaller maxima for children of a lesser age. For many years, however, these societies have issued endowment policies in respect of children which provide for repayment of premiums on the death of the child. Hon. Members will easily realise that the repayment of those sums is not the mischief at which the provisions of the law to which I have just referred were aimed. Nobody would be likely to ensure a child's life upon the chance, merely, after a year, or five, or ten years, of getting back only the premiums which had been paid without interest. In the Committee on the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923, an Amendment was moved providing that the return of these premiums should not be taken into account in assessing the amount of the maximum which is the limit of permissible insurance payable upon the death of a child. In administration, the practice then was not to include those premiums in the calculation. It had been the practice of the official who was then called the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and of the Registrar-General not to include those premiums in that calculation, and the various societies who communicated with the officials from time to time were so informed. Accordingly, when that Amendment was moved in Committee, I declined, upon that information and being aware of the practice, to accept it as being one that was unnecessary for the purpose proposed. There was a substantial reason for not accepting the Amend-
  732
  ment in addition to the fact that it was unnecessary. The Bill in question dealt only with industrial assurance societies, and if the Amendment had been inserted there would have been a difference, at any rate in the letter of the legislation, between the position of friendly societies and industrial assurance societies, although there was not a pin of difference between the actual position of the two bodies in this respect.
  A new position came into existence, however, when the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, who then became the Industrial Insurance Commissioner, thought it necessary, or at any rate desirable, to have judicial recognition of the practice which has so long been followed in not including these premiums. With that laudable object in view he directed a prosecution to be taken in a suitable case. It was heard at the Merthyr Police Court, and the magistrate decided that the practice was wrong, and that these returned premiums ought to be taken into account in calculating the maximum of £10. It was hoped the society concerned would take the matter to a higher court and would obtain a reversal of the decision of the magistrate, which would make plain that the existing practice, against which there was nothing to be said, was right. The society, however, thought it unwise, as perhaps many people will agree, to embark upon a vista of legislation, and the purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to restore the position to that which I stated it to be in 1923 and which every body believed to be the legal position, instead of leaving these societies with a number of policies issued under the impression that the law was what it is now said not to be, with the consequence that they are liable to penalties for having insured lives above the maximum which is legal.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What was the date of the case?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It was about a year or fifteen months ago, to the best of my recollection.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And which was the Society concerned?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. and gallant Member will address these observations in an orderly way I

  733
  will try to obtain the information. I think it was the City of Glasgow Society, with which, I think, the hon. Member for Dundee has some connection. Clause 2 of the Bill is merely intended to restore the position with regard to policies of this kind to that which everybody believed it to be before the unfavourable decision in the Merthyr police court.
  When the matter came to be looked into it was found, however, that there was one further point to be dealt with. Hon. Members are, of course, aware that industrial assurance societies and friendly societies may issue policies on the lives of certain relatives for funeral expenses. Some people may think that those policies are desirable and some undesirable, but, speaking for myself, and knowing what one knows as to the sentiments of the poor and the conditions under which many of them live, I think it is not remarkable, indeed it is to their credit, that they should desire to be provided with the cost of the funeral expenses of their near relatives.
  At any rate, it has long been the practice that these policies should be issued, but, curiously enough, there is no power in the law to issue endowment policies upon the lives of these persons; with one exception, that there is a very curious provision in one of the Friendly Societies Acts which allows the issue of an endowment policy upon the life of a nominee of a member of the society, a nominee of any age. With that exception, there is no power to issue endowment policies on the lives of relatives. Hon. Members will understand that by endowment policy I mean a policy which provides for a sum payable at the end of a period or upon the attainment by the life in question of a particular age. The result is that, although such endowment policies have for many years been issued by industrial assurance societies, they are illegal. They are admirable policies. No such criticism as is directed to the policy ensuring the payment of a sum on the death of a child attaches to them in any way, but it appears that as the law stands, so we now find, these policies are illegal, though everybody has hitherto supposed them to be legal, and they certainly are not mischievous. The result would be that Section 5 of the Act of 1923 would apply, making the
  734
  issue of the policies a penal offence. The societies would be pursued and the holders would be entitled to certain rights which might have some effect on the stability of those societies, and would affect the policy holders who are interested in the profits of the various societies. It is desirable in this connection to restore the law and make it actually what everybody believed it to be, and the law upon which everybody has taken out these policies. Section 3 therefore of the Act of 1923, which allows a person to insure the life of a relative for funeral expenses, will be extended so as to apply to an endowment insurance upon the life in the same range of relationship.
  There is a very important proviso in Clause 1. We have no intention of allowing endowment policies to be used for a purpose which was not intended, and if the life dies before the period at which the sum is payable, the only amount that may be recovered is a reasonable amount for the funeral expenses of the life insured. That will prevent anybody thinking that there is a gold mine in policies of that kind. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill validate the holders of those policies, and ensure to them certain legal rights. In certain circumstances which I will not detail to the House, because that is quite unnecessary, the policy holders have certain rights in some cases to a surrender value and in other cases to a free paid-up policy. In some cases, they would be entitled to the return of the premiums. It is true that these rights are not very valuable to the persons concerned, but it is not thought proper to take away those rights without giving them something in return. They are in fact secured better rights by this Bill.
  Clause 3 and the Schedule of the Bill provide free paid-up policies, or for the payment of surrender values. There is this further benefit provided. It is not all policies on the life of a child that are illegal. Hon. Members will recognise that it is only those policies which insure more than the maximum amount which are illegal. We give this new right of surrender value to all policies of this character, whether legal or illegal. We are improving very much the position of the policy holders and we are making this still greater im-

  735
  provement. Under the law as it stands the benefits are such as give a policy holder certain rights after the payment of three years premiums and in other cases after the payment of five years premiums. Under this Bill we give these benefits after the payment of one year's premiums. After the payment of one year's premiums these rights may be claimed by any policy holder provided that he makes the claim within one year of announcing his intention to stop the payment of any further premiums under his policy. Consequently we are making a considerable improvement in the case of those who hold these hitherto illegal policies. By statutory regulations we are bringing up these policies to the practice of the best societies who have always been in advance of the statutory requirements. We are now levelling up the statutory regulations to the best practice, and we are really making a great advance so far as concerns the payment of benefits which policy holders can secure in substitution for the policies with which this Bill deals.
  I hope this Bill will be considered non-contentious, because it simply deals with the two main points with which I began my observations. Clause 3 as I have said provides for surrender values. There is one matter which I hope will not escape the attention of hon. Members. In Clause 3 we have set out what is contained in another Act of Parliament, and instead of legislating by reference, we have incorporated the whole of the provisions word for word so that anyone who runs may read. I hope some of our critics will note this incident in the drafting of the Bill. I must add that inasmuch as the Bill is intended to make the law what it has always been supposed to be since 1923, Clause 4 of the Bill makes it retrospective in its operation. When this Measure becomes an Act of Parliament I think it will be found that nobody is prejudiced, that the whole position has been regularised, and I hope the result will be that the policy holders will be better off than they would have been if we had not introduced this Bill.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: This is a Bill which requires very clear thought and explanation, and I think the House will agree with me when I say that the Attorney-General has given us a clear
  736
  explanation of a somewhat difficult legal position. The assurance societies found themselves in this position on account of advice which they took with a bona fide desire to have their industrial insurance business placed upon a sound basis. In 1923 there was an Amendment which stood in my name on the Order Paper to which the Attorney-General has referred, and, as I happened to be out of the House when the Amendment was called, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) moved it. I returned to the House during the discussion, and it was upon the assurance which the learned Attorney-General then gave that I withdrew the Amendment.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The words I used on that occasion were:
  "The Chief Registrar, who will in future be the Commissioner, has consistently held that sums repaid in respect of premiums do not come within the amounts which make up the limits that are possible under the Friendly Societies Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 1st May, 1923; col. 512.]
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I am obliged to the Attorney-General for giving me the quotation. It was upon that specific assurance, from the Solicitor General of that day, that these policies would be quite legal, that I withdrew the Amendment from discussion in the Standing Committee in 1923. That has been responsible for the very serious position in which the friendly societies and industrial assurance companies have found themselves in subsequent years. I want to thank the Attorney-General for having been perfectly frank in his statement this morning. He points out that the Chief Registrar had been accustomed to deal with points of this kind as matters of administrative practice, and that in that administrative practice he had regarded these policies as certainly not being of an illegal character; but in his new capacity as Industrial Assurance Commissioner, he felt that it was necessary to have judicial authority for what he had regarded as the administrative practice previously. That decision of the Industrial Assurance Commissioner was no doubt lawful from some points of view, although in our judgment it dealt with the matter in a roundabout way. I am not complaining, but I think that, from the point of view of the anxiety of people having to handle these important

  737
  matters, it would have been desirable to have moved to make the law clear rather than raise the question by a prosecution with a view to getting a test case. Still, that is a question of procedure. Sometimes it is felt necessary to move by amendment of the law, and sometimes the other practice is adopted of moving by way of a test case; but the precipitation of the matter by a test case placed the great working-class insurance societies, as well as the industrial assurance companies, in a very difficult position indeed.
  The essential fact is that it is necessary, not only from the point of view of the financial standing of the working-class societies, but in order to maintain confidence in the general principle of insurance, that the position as outlined in the Standing Committee in 1923 as being the law-should now be made in fact the law. That is all that the main part of this Bill really does. There is the other point to which the Attorney-General has drawn attention, namely, that while the law is being put back into its proper position, the Government are taking the opportunity of securing to the persons concerned that, in the case of these policies, whether they have been regarded as illegal or not, they shall have all the benefits in regard to paid-up policies or surrender values to which they would be entitled. The Bill now provides, not only for the granting of free paid-up policies, but also, in the case of those endowments which are specially covered by the Bill, for a surrender value of an amount fixed by the Bill becoming payable after only 12 months, although under the Act of 1923 the period was five years. It will be seen that the provisions of the Bill are very much more to the advantage of those who took out these policies than was previously the case. We have considered this matter on this side of the House, and, so far as the official Opposition are concerned, while they regret the circumstances which led up to the position that we have been discussing this morning, they regard the passing of this Bill as essential, and propose to treat it as non-contentious.
  Sir BASIL PETO: I should like to ask whether I am right in inferring, from the very clear statement of the Attorney-General,
  738
  that there is absolutely no substance in an allegation which has been made in one section of the Press. I refer to a paper called "John Bull," which circularised Members by a communication received this morning saying that this Bill is a secret conspiracy to defraud millions of small investors who have taken out these policies on their children's lives, and who are to be defrauded of the premiums they have paid when they are no longer able to keep them up. I understand from the Attorney-General's statement that exactly the opposite is the fact, and that the Bill gives them further rights; and it is in order to give publicity to that statement, and to ask the Attorney-General if I rightly interpret the Bill, that I have risen.
  Mr. KELLY: This Bill has been spoken of as a non-conteutious Bill, but I am much concerned about many of these people who have been paying for a considerable period, as the Attorney-General I think, stated, on what were illegal policies, or illegal acts of the insurance companies. Many of those people have endeavoured to recover those premiums from the insurance companies, and probably they are among those to whom the Attorney-General referred as the best insurance companies. I am not asking him to name the best, for fear that he should name some to which we should have to take very strong exception, but I know from experience during recent months that when people have discovered, after paying for a number of years, that the amounts taken from them were for policies that were illegal, these insurance companies will not return the money that these people have paid under the impression that they were doing what was legal, cither in regard to payment or in regard to the expectation of certain benefits. I do not mind naming the companies. I refer to the Pearl Assurance Company and to the Liverpool Victoria Society, from whom I have endeavoured to obtain for these poor people the moneys they have paid.
  I cannot find that there is in this Bill the real remedy for that injustice to people who have paid all this time under the impression that they were doing what an Act of Parliament permitted them to do, and that they would be able to receive the benefits. I hope the Attorney-

  739
  General will satisfy us that such people will be entitled under this Measure to receive back the premiums which ought never to have been taken from them. There seems to have been a great desire on the part of the Government suddenly to regularise the position of these very wealthy insurance companies. We know the power that they have at this time, and we know that they can speak with a voice that even the Government have to be very careful of refusing to listen to; and it appears that these particular insurance corporations, big and powerful and wealthy as they are, have been able at any rate to wring something out of the Government that other people could not get.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before this Bill is given a Second Reading, I think some further explanation is required. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) said, in a speech which I found far more helpful than that from the Government Front Bench, the Opposition are not at the present stage opposing this Bill, but we want to know a little about it, because this is a matter that affects a very great number of poor people. I have heard extraordinary figures about the number of persons who are affected. The Attorney-General rather seemed to think this was a matter that must be got through very quickly and that he had not time to go into details. I really put it to him that it was owing to his mistake and misguidance of the House, if I understood the two Front Bench speeches aright, that all this trouble has been caused, and it is really treating the House of Commons without sufficient respect to say that it is very early in the morning, and we have clearer heads, we can see this thing much better than we did in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, in other words, wrongly advised the Committee on the state of the law, and the Bill is really to indemnify him and the Government for that mistake. These airy pleasantries about the early hour, and no need of much more explanation, and no need for delay, really will not do.
  I have nothing to complain of in the speech of the hon. Member for Hills-borough. I congratulate him on making
  740
  several points a good deal clearer. There are very serious complaints on the part of the holders of these policies dealt with under the Bill who are insured with some of the industrial insurance societies. As regards the great friendly societies and the Co-operative Insurance Society, I have heard no specific complaints, but, with regard to the private insurance companies who engage in the business of industrial insurance for profit, there are very serious complaints indeed. I should like to put this specific question to the Government, if the Attorney-General will give me his attention.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am attending to the hon. and gallant Gentleman very carefully.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will also interrupt me in an orderly manner if I do not make myself clear. Will any insured person, as the result of the Bill, be made worse off, and if so to what extent. Secondly, with regard to Clause 3, it says:
  "Where under any policy to which this section applies not less than one year's premiums have been paid, the owner of the policy shall be entitled at any time within one year from the date on which the last premium was paid or, if no premium has been paid since the date of the commencement of this Act, within one year from that date, to surrender the policy and to claim either a free paid-up policy in conformity with the rules contained in the Schedule to this Act; or payment of a surrender value equal to ninety per cent. of the value of the sum or sums payable under such a free paid-up policy as aforesaid, calculated in accordance with the last four rules contained in the Fourth Schedule to the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923."
  I have read the Schedule and am familiar with the Act. May I ask exactly how much this free paid-up policy in percentages will be worth. Supposing a person has paid £50, or any convenient sum, in premiums, how much will this free paid-up policy be worth, and how much of this is surrender value? It is worthy of notice that the surrender value is 90 per cent., not of the sums payable under the original policy, but of the sums payable under a free paid-up policy. I think I have read the Act correctly, though it is not too clear.
  The next question I should like to ask is how are the rights and benefits under the Bill for insured persons who are

  741
  affected by it to be made known to those insured persons. This is very important indeed. I have not read the article in "John Bull," and I have not had the circular that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) referred to. [Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Member, who I hope will not get excited at this early hour of the morning, that there is a Mr. Mashford who lives in my constituency. The hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench is good enough to be amused at the mention of Mr. Mashford's name. I know something of his activities. He has fought a very long battle on behalf of insured persons. The hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) also knows his activities. He will not be amused at the mention of his name. He will treat him with the respect with which everyone treats him when it is remembered that he has had a long life of contest on behalf of very poor people indeed. My only complaint against him is that he thinks the only evil in the world is the profiteering of industrial assurance companies, while I look at other evils as well. I will send the Lord of the Treasury a list of some of the sums that have been recovered on behalf of these poor people in the Courts at great trouble and inconvenience, and even risk, to himself. He has been imprisoned and persecuted for a very long series of years.
  I do not know if the hon. and gallant Gentleman who was so amused has read the evidence given before the Parmoor Committee. They went very thoroughly into the whole question of industrial assurance companies and paid a tribute to the excellence and value of the evidence that had been given by Mr. Mashford—that was before the hon. and gallant Gentleman's entry into political life—and the Committee thanked him for his services. [Interruption.] I am making no strictures on the Committee. I am calling them to my aid and saying that this gentleman, whatever his antecedents and his past history, gave valuable evidence before the Committee, and it has been of great value in recovering large sums of money for a great number of very poor people. He came to see me yesterday. He admits that he does not want to pass any judgment on the Bill. He has given me nothing in writing about it, but there are certain matters which will need clearing up.
  742
  I should like to know what means will be taken to let the insured persons know their rights under the Bill. Will there be notices in the post offices or advertisements in the Press? Here you have a very large number of poor, hardworking and, in many cases, ignorant and illiterate people, and they simply do not understand very often what they are signing when canvassers get them to insure young children and that sort of thing, and, unless the Government take some means of letting them know, they will not know the benefits to which they are entitled. The fact that we have in Hull a gentleman like Mr. Mashford, who is very vigorous in the matter, does not mean that in other cities there are other people who are able to advise on the subject.
  There will be many evils in the business of industrial assurance as long as it is run entirely for private gain and profit. It was to meet some of these admitted evils that the Act of 1923 was passed and the Commissioner who looks after the rights of insured persons was appointed as Industrial Assurance Commissioner. I would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Industrial Assurance Commissioner—of course, he is affected by this Bill—has given any figures of the numbers of persons affected under it and the sums involved. I quite understand that owing to the original mistake very heavy liabilities might have been innocently and properly entered into by large friendly and co-operative societies, and unless the law is altered they may be penalised quite improperly. At the same time, the great industrial assurance societies are well able to afford to pay for any mistakes which they have made, and, if there is anything to choose between their rights and the rights of the insured persons, steps must be taken to uphold the whole of the rights of the insured persons.
  The Industrial Assurance Commissioner is supposed to, and does, I am quite sure, defend the rights of the public who are insured with the industrial assurance companies, and I would like to know whether he can suggest any machinery that can be set up to advise people who are in doubt about this Bill and about their rights, and how the machinery of the Bill is supposed to be worked. There is need of someone to defend, advise, and instruct the mass of the policy holders in

  743
  this class of business. They, as I say, have the scale weighted against them by the immense wealth and power of the industrial assurance companies, and, whenever I find a very wealthy and powerful corporation coming to this House in order to have legislation passed that will admittedly help it, I do not propose for one moment to allow my rights as a private Member of Parliament to be swept aside by any talk of urgency or of the early hours of the morning or by any other specious argument the learned Attorney-General may choose to use.
  There is one other matter, about which I would like to ask. It has reference to Clause 4. This seems to be an amusing business which is not to be taken seriously by any occupants of the Government Front Bench. We on these benches treat matters of this kind very seriously indeed. I have been 10 years in the House of Commons, and I have seen something of the past political history of this industrial insurance. With regard to Clause 4, which is to make certain endowment policies retrospective, what will now be the limit of the amount—reference to this may be included somewhere else in the Bill, but I have not been able to find it—which can be paid on death? I understand the position with regard to funeral expenses and so on. I understand that the present amount of £15 for funeral expenses is adhered to, but what will be the new amount to be legally paid on death to the relative, or nominee in the case of friendly societies? This is rather important, as the matter is being made retrospective. I am sorry if I have taken a little time to explain a rather complicated matter. I confess that to me the Bill contains many ambiguities still, but I hope that before it finally leaves this House these matters will not only be made plain to hon. Members, but in some way, as I have suggested, to the many hundreds and thousands of poor people who are insured.
  Miss WILKINSON: I should like to ask the learned Attorney-General whether he will make some explanation with regard to the proviso in Clause 1 read in connection with Clause 4. The proviso makes provision for the payment of reasonable funeral expenses
  744
  upon the death of a person instead of the full endowment policy. In Clause 4, the position is made retrospective. I can understand that, as things are at present, when a person takes out an assurance policy on the lines suggested in Clause 1, it will presumably be explained to that person that in the case of death the full amount of the endowment policy will not be paid but only reasonable funeral expenses. I think it is extremely vague to have the phrase "reasonable amount for funeral expenses." Who is going to decide what are reasonable expenses? Is the matter going to be decided by the assurance company who can get the highest paid and most efficient legal aid in this country in their dispute in connection with some unfortunate person who has been insured for a few pounds. That is the first point.
  The second point is that any person who has taken out an endowment policy has done so under the assumption that if the person who is insured dies before the endowment policy matures the full amount of the policy will be paid; but under Clause 4, if it is made retrospective, the full amount will not be paid, but only what is defined "reasonable amount for funeral expenses." If that be so, it means that a person who is paying now under the assumption that the full amount will be paid if the insured person unfortunately dies will in that case be cheated out of his or her rights. The learned Attorney-General said rather contemptuously that persons must not regard this as a sort of gold mine. [Interruption.] The Attorney-General, speaking with regard to the question of reasonable funeral expenses in respect of persons specified in Clause 3, said that, instead of having the full endowment policy, they were to have this lesser sum in order—I think I quote his words correctly—"that no person should regard this as a little gold mine." May I suggest that a large number of people take out endowment policies, not hoping for the death of the person concerned, or even with any desire to murder him, as the Attorney-General seemed to imagine, but for very different and very praiseworthy reasons. They are paying now under the law as it stands on the assumption that they will get the full benefit of the endowment policy in case of the

  745
  death of the person insured; but under Clause 4, by making the matter retrospective, they will only get a reasonable amount for funeral expenses, the reasonable amount being decided presumably by the assurance company concerned.
  I suggest that the assurance companies stand to make a very good thing out of this. I have not read the circular to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) referred, but it seems to me, on reading the Bill, that it is purely a matter of common sense. If we allow these two things to go through, it will mean that the already very wealthy assurance companies, who have persuaded people to take up those endowment policies under the definite agreement that if the person insured dies before the endowment policy matures the full amount will be paid, will now come along and say: "We are very sorry, but the law will not allow us to pay you the full amount. It will only allow us to pay a reasonable amount for funeral expenses." The assurance companies are going to make a very handsome profit out of this. They are already making handsome profits out of the stories that are told to persons. The hon and learned Gentleman should not make the proviso retrospective. When persons have paid for a full endowment policy they should get that for which they have paid. Clause 1 should only come into operation for new policies. This is the only way to safeguard these very poor people who insure under a pledge that they will get certain amounts. I do not think that it is fair that an assurance company should be allowed to put the difference into their own profits with the approval of this House.
  Mr. MacLAREN: This is a matter of great public importance. These enormous sums are collected by the societies because of the duress and poverty of the people whom the collectors visit. Under these circumstances, any golden tale will be easily unfolded at the doorstep, with the result that many of these people become payers to these societies. We have heard much, this morning, about Mr. Mashford, who has been very active in connection with "John Bull". There seems to be a smirk go round the House when the name of "John Bull" is mentioned. I remember that during the War the name of "John Bull" was revered
  746
  in this House, and the editor was regarded as a great hero. The Noble Lord the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) smiles. Perhaps he was not here in those days.
  Lord ERSKINE: It has not the same editor now as then.
  Mr. MacLAREN: During the War, I used to remind my friends that the War had produced throe great persons, and one of those three was the editor of "John Bull." Justice has dealt with him. I wonder whether the present editor is to be placed under any restriction of the State in the same way as the gentleman to whom I have referred. Mr. Mashford has written many articles, and has written to Members of this House. I remember one article which appeared in "John Bull" under the name of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). I never read such an article in my life, and I thought: "If that article goes unchallenged, there must be something in it." Therefore, I made it my business to call at the headquarters of the Prudential Society, and there I met Sir Joseph Burn, a director of the Company, who was rather inclined to set aside anything that came from this particular journal as sensational and not worthy of much notice. I reminded him that the author of the article was a gentleman who held a very responsible position in the State, and who would not take upon himself the responsibility of saying something that he could not support. Thereupon, this very important official of the Prudential Society was good enough to say to me—I thought it was a startling statement to make—that "he was not there to apologise for the misdemeanours of the past."
  Whatever may be in this Bill, good or bad, it is the duty of this House to know exactly where we are going if the Bill becomes law. It is common talk in and around the insurance offices that this Bill would be rushed through the House. I have heard a rumour—I do not know whether it is true—that if the Bill was stiffly opposed, it would be withdrawn. I have rather kept in check much that I would have liked to say. In my own division, like many other divisions in this country, if one goes on to the public platform and says: "What about

  747
  policies?" one is inundated with letters, and innumerable people come for a personal interview. There is not a street in any poor area in this country where you cannot find dozens of victims of the harshness of these insurance societies in the past. If this Bill is going to make amends and give compensation to these people, I shall be glad, and I hope it will, but I am afraid that something much more drastic than this Bill is necessary.
  The Attorney-General will find he has a very difficult task. Here is a well-rooted and well-buttressed vested interest, with enormous financial ramifications, which even influence Government circles. Past Government officials are now directors of this company. It has its fangs in every political division in the country. Indeed, covert threats have been made that those who attempt seriously to criticise this Bill will find it to their own detriment when the election comes, because the collecting agents can do this, that and the other. It is our business to do our duty to the people, irrespective of threats of any kind. I hope that the House will do its duty and that public attention will be attracted to this matter, and that this Bill will not go out as a Bill giving expression to the will and desires of this House until it has been thoroughly scrutinised and subjected to full criticism. I know the position of the Attorney-General. We have discussed this matter before. He has not an easy task. I am not here to criticise him or to say harsh words about him, but to wish him well in the job he has in hand. Those who are critical of the operations of the Bill will watch with interest what evolves.
  12 n.
  Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: There are only a few words which I desire to say on this matter. In the first place, I should like to ask the House whether it is right or fitting that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) should speak in the terms that he did of a very well-known man, Sir Joseph Burn. I consider that he was unfair in what he said with regard to a mere occasional conversation. We have only heard the hon. Member's side of it. It is an extremely improper thing to do.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I am sure that I said nothing derogatory of the gentleman in question. I thought it was a very important statement for a man in his responsible position to have made. I have said nothing about him personally. I know nothing about the gentleman. I can vouch for the statement and I gave it to the House because it should know his attitude of mind.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I was a member and took a rather prominent part in the proceedings of the Committee which was appointed by the House in 1923 thoroughly to investigate the relations that existed between the large collecting societies, the smaller collecting societies and the people who insured with them. We sat for many days. We investigated the charges of harshness and oppression that were made against the collecting societies. With respect to Mr. Mashford, I can only say that although he thoroughly believed in all the cases that he brought forward, one or two of which turned out to be genuine, he was rather led away by his enthusiasm for the cases that he had taken up, and one might almost say that he had a bee in his bonnet. Every case that was brought before the Committee was thoroughly investigated. In one or two instances, or comparatively very few instances, out of eases which were made running into thousands—I forget the number—agents, for the sake of getting extra commission, had gone beyond their duty and made possibly false statements, and so vitiated the policies. There were very few cases but could have been put right in the courts of law, and were put right when taken up. The difficulty was that some of the poor people had not the means with which to seek their remedy.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the hon. and learned Member a question on the report which he signed. That report, after thanking Mr. Mashford for his valuable assistance, goes on to say:
  "While the Committee were not equally impressed by all the cases brought forward, they are satisfied that ii Hull is a typical urban centre in regard to industrial insurance, the volume of well-founded grievances under which the assured are labouring throughout the country must be serious."
  What does the hon. and learned Member say of that?
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: In so far as there were any grievances they concerned lapsed policies, and we put provisions in the subsequent Act for altering the conditions of the law in this respect. This Bill rather extends that principle in the case of young children. Mr. Mashford did not particularly raise this point. It was one of the questions into which we were appointed to inquire; and we did investigate it. A question of great public interest was the amount of the costs of these small insurances as compared with the larger insurances. Industrial assurance carried on by the collection of sums of 1d., 2d. and 3d. per week by the agent calling at the house, is more expensive. It was described to us as being like selling biscuits in penny packets; the rate is much higher than if bought by the pound. The results of that inquiry and the Act which was passed have been two-fold. In the larger insurance companies the percentage of cost to contributions has been reduced from something like 40 per cent. to 15 per cent. Only a short time ago the Post Office renounced its life insurance business. I think it should have been encouraged, but the public were not attracted. I believe that industrial assurance is an absolute necessity. That in the view I formed. It confers immense benefits on the people insured, and if the insurance companies could only get down the costs in proportion to the contributions, they would be doing a great service indeed.
  One other great improvement took place. We strengthened the powers of the Registrar. We gave him full power to investigate all complaints. This had an effect not particularly in the existing large companies, where there are practically no hardships except in a few cases, but more particularly in those cases where a few men formed a society, collected premiums, and then disappeared before the day of payment came. All the money went in expenses. The powers given under the Act are such that that class of business has stopped altogether. I think this Measure is a slight improvement on the existing law. It is all in the right direction. To do anything to damage the benefits conferred by industrial assurance would be a calamity to the working people.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can only speak again by leave of the House. Nobody can complain, and I certainly do not, that hon. Members take an interest in this Bill. I want them to look at it. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) said that nobody was going to prevent him doing his duty. We do not need that assurance from the hon. Member, and the more he looks into the Bill the more he will find, I think, that it makes a distinct improvement in the position of policy holders whose interests he desires to protect. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) says it has been suggested that I have been engaged in a sort of secret conspiracy; I do not know whether the House thinks that I fill the role of a secret conspirator. But I have been in conference with persons who are naturally interested in the Bill, the demand for which has come from hon. Members opposite, not from hon. Members on the Government side of the House. Parliamentary questions have been put in which I have been besought for the last year to introduce a Bill of this kind, and in all cases they have emanated from hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members on this side of the House have certainly shown less interest in the Bill than Members of the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, Bast (Miss Wilkinson) has asked one or two questions. I was going to suggest that if she cared to consider an Amendment making the proviso to Subsection (1) of Clause 1 applicable only to policies issued after the commencement of this Bill I think there would be good reason for it. I notice the hon. Member is not at present in her place, but no doubt this intimation will be conveyed to her. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) has been most anxious to explain that the whole trouble is due to my incompetence. I make no claim to the omniscience of the hon. and gallant Member, and I have not the slightest objection to being put in my place, even as much more distinguished people have been, by the hon. and gallant Member. All I can say is that I do not think I have made a mistake. I stated the practice, and I gave good reasons for not accepting the Amendment. The police

  751
  magistrate disagreed with the view which everybody else had taken; that is how the position stands.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The Court of Appeal.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Court of Appeal never dealt with the question. The only judicial person who has dealt with it is the police magistrate. Three or four categorical questions have been addressed to me and I will attempt to answer them. The first question asked was whether anybody is worse off under this Bill. Nobody is worse off under this Bill. Indeed, I am right in saying that the persons concerned are better off, subject to the criticism made by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough to whom I have suggested a possible Amendment which would remove even that prejudice. The next question was: What are the surrender values that the policy holders will obtain? Anybods who is acquainted with insurance will understand that you want a great deal more than the amounts paid in premiums in considering surrender values. You must know the life of the assured, and the period for which the policy is taken. Therefore, the only answer I can give is that the surrender value must necessarily depend on the number of premiums paid, the amount of the policy, the age of the life assured, and the remaining duration of the policy. If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question—I suggest that it should be an unstarred question—the information can be given. The hon. and gallant Member also inquired whether the benefits which this Bill confers will be advertised. I shall be glad indeed if anyone, including the hon. and gallant Member with his well-known powers in that direction, will advertise the benefits which this Bill confers upon policy holders. We have not proposed to set up any new department for the purpose of doing that, but no doubt the Debate in this House will make the benefits known to the persons concerned.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that the Debates in this House will be the only means of informing these people, hundreds of thousands of them, as to the position of the law?
  Sir B. PETO: Will my hon. and learned Friend give serious consideration to the question of advertising in all the Post Offices what are the rights of the people?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sure that any suggestion for making the benefits conferred by this Bill widely known will be heartily welcomed and taken into consideration. I should have thought that a Debate in this House was a very valuable way of bringing the facts to the attention of those concerned. Hon. Members have perhaps overlooked that Clause 3 provides that all policies shall set out the provisions of the Section and shall be printed in distinctive type.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This is an important matter. Is Clause 3 (3) retrospective, or can it be made retrospective? Will the companies be required to inform the policy holders?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: How can it be made retrospective when it contains a provision that the policy issued shall contain a statement of the benefits mentioned in the Section? If the policy has been issued you can hardly have a retrospective Section altering the policy. The new policies will contain in distinctive form on their backs a statement of the benefits to which the holders are entitled. So far as they are retrospective we shall do all we can to bring to the attention of the policy holders the increased benefits which they secure under the Bill. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) said that he was anxious about the position. I invite him also to study the Bill and to compare the benefits in the Schedule with the benefits which persons at present obtain under policies which may lapse, and he will find that the benefits are much greater and much more easily obtained.
  There is this further improvement, that it is an offence on the part of these societies not to pay the benefits which are now secured by the Bill. I believe that to be a distinct step in advance. So far as the industrial insurance societies are concerned, it is no part of my business to defend them. It was my duty in 1923 to conduct a Bill, the existing Act, through the House. It immensely improved the position of the policy holders. In connection with that Bill I had the assistance of many hon. Members opposite in making provision for persons who

  753
  at that time were left without protection. I believe that the present Bill is a still further step in the right direction, and I ask the House to accept it.
  Mr. MacLAREN: If you want to make the Bill public, do it over the wireless.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[The Attorney-General.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

  PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL
    CLAUSES 1 (Increase of units of pensions and of maximum amount of pension) and 2 (Provisions as to alternative pensions under Superannuation Acts), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 3.—(Power to grant a reduced pension under Superannuation Acts in special cases.)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. TINKER: This Clause states that reduced pensions will be given in special cases. The special cases are those in which it is impracticable to find appropriate employment in the public service, or when a man has not completed 10 years' service or has not attained the age of 60 years. In such circumstances, a reduced pension can be granted. I am not objecting to that, but I want to take the opportunity of pointing out that this proposal could very well be applied in other directions. I refer in particular to what is called the Industrial Transference Board and the mining industry. That Board found that there were 130,000 persons between the ages of 60 and 65 who were out of work, and many more between the ages of 51 and 65. It is not
      754
      likely that any of these men will get back into the industry. My point is that if the Government can make special arrangements for the Diplomatic Services, it is time they considered extending those arrangements in other directions. I know a case where the employers are now asking for men between the ages of 23 and 39.
      The CHAIRMAN: It is not quite clear how the hon. Member connects his argument with Clause 3 of the Bill. If he can make a connection. I should be glad to hear of it.
      Mr. TINKER: This is public money. The State will be involved in an expenditure of from £5,000 to £6,000. The people to whom I am referring will have to pay this money, and, in doing so, they have a right to compare their own case with that of the people who draw these pensions.
      The CHAIRMAN: This Clause gives "power to grant a reduced pension under the Superannuation Acts in special cases." If the hon. Member says that this power ought to be applied to others, he is entitled to make the point, but he cannot go into all the details of these other matters.
      Mr. TINKER: The Bill confers upon certain people, Governors in the Dominions, a pension. This Clause states that a reduced pension can be given in special circumstances. My point is that if under special circumstances, outside the terms laid down in the other Clauses, reduced pensions can be given, they ought to be given to other people where employment is not found for them. I claim that consideration ought to be given to these other people.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member's argument is too wide to come within the terms of this Clause. This Clause only applies to persons within the public service who are not entitled to pensions at all by right, and it allows a special, reduced pension to be given in special cases. The hon. Member can say generally—though it would be more appropriate on Second Beading or Third Reading—that other deserving classes should also be dealt with, but, of course, that could not possibly be done under this Bill, and I think it is rather farfetched to introduce it in a discussion on Clause 3.
      Mr. TINKER: Do you think, Sir, that it would be better to deal with it on the Third Reading of the Bill?
      The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be a more likely opportunity, but, of course, I cannot say what view Mr. Speaker may take even then. I am clear, however, that the matter cannot be raised now.
      Mr. TINKER: Then I would, in conclusion, merely ask the Secretary of State to explain what is meant by the provision in reference to "unhealthy places." I would also point out to him that there are many analogous cases in connection with other occupations where people, in circumstances far worse than those of Governors of Dominions, receive no pensions at all.
      Mr. KELLY: I would like the right hon. Gentleman also to explain why the period of ten years has been fixed. I find some difficulty in appreciating why it should be mentioned in this Clause. Has the right hon. Gentleman particular people in his mind or particular positions which are occupied at this time? Further, why is it that these Governors are having this special consideration extended to them while other people who come under the Superannuation Acts are left out of all consideration by the Government? As an illustration I may-mention one set of men employed in the Enemy Debts Department for a period of more than seven years who come under the Superannuation Acts, but who have not received a gratuity. Nothing is being done to give any consideration to those people for the service which they have rendered, but special consideration is being given to those who have been Governors or have occupied any of the other positions included in this Bill.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is referring to a case which comes under another Department, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could properly deal with that case.
      Mr. KELLY: I only use it as an illustration. There are people in the right hon. Gentleman's own Department in the same position. I mentioned this because it was a recent case.
      The CHAIRMAN: If it referred to people who were in the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, it might be in order.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The position is that ten years has always been the qualifying period in regard to any Governor's pension, and Lord Buxton's Committee did not propose to abolish that qualifying period. On the other hand, it did come to the conclusion that there might very well be cases—as there have been cases in the past—in which it would be very difficult for the Secretary of State to offer a Governor another appointment to enable him to qualify under the ten years' rule. The Governor in question may not be suitable for any one of the two or three vacancies which may be open at the time, and these may be the only vacancies open for some years. Therefore the alternative in the past has been for the Secretary of State in making appointments to very important positions like senior governorships to appoint either someone who really was not fully qualified for the post, or else to inflict the hardship of getting no pension at all on some very deserving person who might have considerable Colonial service behind him, but only had five or six years' service as Governor.
      There is one particular case in the light of which this provision has been antedated so as to operate from 1922. One Governor in West Africa was retired in 1922 after very meritorious service in the Colonial Service. There was no other governorship for which he was entirely suitable, and he had not reached the age of 60. To this day that officer has drawn no pension at all for his Governor's service. His pension only relates to such previous service as he had in the Civil Service, and, in fact, he is very much a loser as compared with what he would have drawn, if he had not been promoted to this governorship and if he had, instead, served five or six years longer in the Civil Service. As regards the point about "unhealthy places" it merely refers to the fact that, in respect of ordinary civil service, there are certain increments or abbreviations of the time which it is necessary to serve for pension purposes which apply in unhealthy colonies, like the West African Colonies and so on. The proviso here is simply to the effect that the reduction contemplated in the earlier part of the Clause should not prevent a retiring Governor getting whatever he would

      757
      nave been entitled to for his previous Colonial service in an unhealthy climate.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4 (Gratuity in case of death while serving as Governor in case of Governors with Colonial or similar civil-service) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of Section six of principal Act.)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. TINKER: I want an explanation of the proviso at the end of this Clause which exempts any person from reduction of pension if he goes into some other occupation, in cases where the Secretary of State and the Treasury are satisfied that the employment in question will not continue for more than a year. The early part of the Clause lays it down that anybody who undertakes another occupation must have his pension reduced; but apparently if the employment is only for 12 months that will not apply.
      Mr. AMERY: I think that is a practical provision. If any pensionable officer takes up some definite Government appointment which carries with it a salary, and which, therefore, normally is for a period of years, a deduction is made from his pension; but a proviso is made that this should not apply to work which is purely of a temporary nature. An ex-Governor might take up some work for a month or three months or some such period, and that would not be equivalent to taking up new permanent employment.
      Mr. TINKER: If you come to the decision that a person had undertaken employment for longer than 12 months, and if the matter was questioned, would it be open to you to say whether such a person could recover the pension as from the commencement?
      Mr. AMERY: I expect so.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSES 6 (Application of principal Act to Resident at Aden), 7 (Amendment of definition of "service in the permanent civil service of the State"), 8 (Rower to extend principal Act to mandated territories), 9 (Interpretation), and 10 (Short title, citation, construction, and repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I may be wrong, but I think there is something amiss here. If you look at the Order Paper, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will see that the fourth item has to do with "Supplementary Estimate, 1928," and on looking over the page it says: "Class 2, Vote 5 (Dominion Services)," and that is a Supplementary Estimate for the ex gratia grants to ex-service men in the Irish Free State. Further down on the Order Paper is Item No. 6:
  "Supply, [1st March] Report; Adjourned Debate on Question [5th March]."
  If you look at the bottom of that same page, you will see:
  "Motion made and Question proposed, 'That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution.'"
  Then follows the Resolution, which is for the same sum as is provided for in the fourth Order of the day.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The fourth Order is the one now before us. I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. and gallant Member's argument. What has this to do with the sixth Order?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The fourth and the sixth Orders are exactly the same.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If they be the same, that perhaps may be a point of Order when we come to No. 6, but I do not see that it is on No. 4.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I may he wrong, and I have been trying to fathom this since I saw the Order Paper

  759
  this morning, but I think we have already passed the Committee stage on this matter.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps when I descend to the lower Chair if the hon. and gallant Member, on consideration, thinks he has a case that the Committee stage has already been passed, I will consider it, but meanwhile I cannot reject the hypothesis that he may possibly be wrong.

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.
      CLASS II.

        DOMINION SERVICES.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £31,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for sundry Dominion Services, including a Grant-in-Aid, for advances in certain cases on account of liabilities assumed by the Government of the Irish Free State in connection with Compensation for Damage to Property or with Land Purchase, for certain ex gratia Grants, and for expenditure in connection with ex-service men in the Irish Free State, and for a Grant-in-Aid to the Irish Free State in respect of compensation to transferred officers."
        Mr. AMERY: The purpose of the present Estimate is to carry into effect the arrangement with the Irish Free State which was announced by me in the House of Commons on 20th February. In view of the very full statements which have been made on previous occasions, I hardly think I need go in detail into the past history of the question, which is one of the interpretation of Article X of the Articles of Agreement of December, 1921. The precise legal effect of that Article in the Treaty was dealt with in the Report of the Judicial Committee in November last, and the effect of it was that the method of dealing with the bonus applicable to British civil servants in this country was not necessarily applicable to the computation of compensation under Article X to British civil servants transferred to the jurisdiction and service of the Irish Free State. At the same time the Government here had always taken the position and had so
        760
        informed the Free State and Parliament, that the intention of the parties to the agreement was simply to ensure that transferred civil servants should not be worse treated than civil servants here, and there had been no intention to secure for them, apart from special concessions as to length of time counted for qualification, any further specially favourable consideration.
        At one time, the Committee is aware, the two Governments had proposed to introduce concurrent legislation here and in the Free State to give effect to what both sides clearly believed to be their intention. In view, however, of the very definite ruling given on what was in effect a second hearing of the case by the Privy Council, we felt that that procedure was no longer appropriate. We therefore asked the Irish Free State authorities to discuss the whole question with us. They pointed out to us that it was not really reasonable that they should compel the Free State taxpayer to bear an additional burden which was not in accordance with the original intention of the parties and which had arisen out of the drafting of a Clause for which we, who were concerned with the protection of our own civil servants, might very well be held to be primarily responsible.
        Mr. KELLY: Does that apply to the Lights Service?
        Mr. AMERY: I do not think that arises. The Government here consequently agreed that, as they were concerned with the protection of their own civil servants and with the carrying out of a draft for which they were primarily responsible, if the Free State Government paid the additional compensation, we should be willing to recoup them. It was, therefore, agreed that the additional compensation should he paid to all transferred civil servants who had already-retired or who would have given notice of retirement before the 1st March. The actual amounts in any individual case are, as a matter of fact, very small, ranging from £1 or £2 to £50 or so, and the total liability falling upon this country in the matter in respect of some 1,500 cases is estimated at £31,000 within the present financial year. There may be a certain addition in respect of officers who had given notice of retirement before the 1st March, and whose com-

        761
        pensation has not yet been assessed, and there may be quite a small, trifling sum in future in respect of what is known as the abolition of the overriding maximum, that is to say, if by any chance in future years the cost of living in the Irish Free State should rise above the cost of living at the present moment, there might be a small increment in the case of certain of these officers.
        As regards officers who have not given notice of retirement by 1st March, their position, as stated by me in the House on 20th February, has been the subject of an agreement between the Free State Government and the representative of those officers, an agreement the terms of which I believe are fully satisfactory to the officers concerned. Under it those officers forgo the difference between the Treasury terms contained in the Treasury Circular of 1922 and what they might get under the Privy Council judgment. On the other hand, they secure the protection of a definite statutory committee on which they themselves are represented, and statutory provisions against undue variation in the work imposed upon them and in other respects which, I think, are regarded by the representatives of the officers themselves as a very valuable safeguard for their position in the future. In carrying out these undertakings for the civil servants who remain in the Free State Civil Service, concurrent legislation will be required in both Parliaments as far as it affects the actual provisions of the Treaty. But I gather that the arrangements made are in every way satisfactory, and I do not think this House will have any difficulty in implementing that part of the agreement.
        Sir HENRY SLESSER: While we, of course, offer no objection to this grant, I think before we pass from this Estimate we must necessarily reflect on the extraordinary history which has produced it. I do not pretend to understand the matter very fully or very completely, but, as I understand it, the Privy Council, in this matter, appears to have advised on a different basis on two different occasions, although they arrived at a similar conclusion.
        In the circumstances, perhaps, the second advice of the Privy Council was better than the first. We are here not to discuss so much the merits or demerits
        762
        of the Privy Council's advice, but certainly it is disquieting that judicial opinion should be so unstable. In the circumstances, we can offer no objection to the Vote, but we can express the hope that in future the Privy Council will be of one mind, and not of two minds.
        Mr. KELLY: While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking I interjected a remark with regard to the Lights' service, and the answer he made is not at all satisfactory. I am concerned with regard to this service which is to be transferred, if it is not already transferred—I am not quite sure about it—to the Irish Free State. These are men who are manning the lighthouses and light vessels, and the steamboats which take reliefs. I am much concerned, because if they had remained in their old position then they would certainly have been entitled to a pension upon reaching the age which is set down as the limit of their service under their old employers at Trinity House.
        Mr. AMERY: The Irish Lights' service has never been transferred to the Irish Free State, and, therefore, the position of these men is still entirely intact.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Resolution to be reported upon Monday-next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  REPORT (1st March).
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th March],
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution:
  'That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £385,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1029, for sundry Dominion Service?, including a Grant-in-Aid, for advances in certain cases on account of liabilities assumed by the Government of the Irish Free State in connection with Compensation for Damage to Property or with Land Purchase, or for certain ex gratia Grants, and for Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State.'"
  Question again proposed.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: First of all, I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is acting for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury in taking this Order at

  763
  a reasonable hour of the day, instead of late at night. It is the last item of Government business to-day, so that there was no need for indecent haste on the previous occasion. There are one or two matters which I want to put to the Colonial Secretary and to ask him to explain. This is a sum of £385,000 for the grants for the Southern Irish loyalists. I want to know who really are the people who will benefit by this sum. I will give an actual case, of which I know, which was pursued over a number of years and finally turned down. It is the case of an Irish gentleman, who was a small landowner and a gentleman farmer in the South-West of Ireland. I will not mention the name, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to give us any particulars at all of the claims. Therefore, I will tell the right hon. Gentleman in private who this unfortunate person is. I do not propose to give his name for many reasons, one of which I have indicated. This gentleman would, I suppose, be called a loyalist. His father was a strong Unionist, and he is one himself. At the beginning of the War he enlisted as a private soldier and went right through the East African campaign. He, is a Protestant, and I know him through his cousin, who is a comrade of mine in the Navy.
  At the end of the Irish trouble, just before the Special Constabulary, known as the Black and Tans, were recalled from Ireland, they burned his property, for what reason I do not know. They burned a great many people's property. They burned the main street of Cork, containing large shops owned by supporters of the present Government or its party. That was, I believe, said to have been due to a regrettable mistake. I do not know who compensated the shopkeepers in Cork. There were many other burnings by these partisans, but in this particular case which I have mentioned I gather the reason was that he had let it be known that he was a supporter of Lord Midleton, who at that time wanted an agreement on broad lines of a Dominion policy for Ireland. He was reproached as being a Conservative and an Irish Protestant landlord, and he, perhaps foolishly, said that he thought that perhaps Lord Midleton
  764
  knew as much about the real needs of Ireland as the hon. Baronet the Member for East Walthamstow (Sir H. Greenwood) who was then Irish Secretary. His property was burned accordingly, and he has never been able to get compensation. Will he come under this Agreement and under the category of loyalists and be able to look to the committee to pay his claim for compensation in full? I think he deserves it by his loyal service to the Crown. He took no active part in the Irish troubles, but tried to pull his property together when he came back from the exhausting campaign in East Africa. Can he look to the Government to make good the misdeeds of their servants in Ireland and, if not, to whom is he to look? If he is to look to the Irish Free State, is anything to be done through the right hon. Gentleman's good offices to see that he gets something, because so far he has been able to get nothing whatsoever. If he were one of the people who had been able to get near the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) he would have been greeted as one of the great heroes who came back from the War to find their property injured. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what should be done, and I shall be very glad if he will try to get this case settled.
  1.0 p.m.
  There are a number of property owners in Ireland who come under the category of loyalists—people for whom the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) specially speaks, and also the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton and other Die-hards in this House. A certain number of these people had their houses burned down, and were promised that if they rebuilt them in Ireland they would receive payment from the Irish Free State Government. I happen to know West Connemara well, for I go there whenever I can spare the time, because it is very peaceful, and I like the people, and partly because there is very good angling. I know the history of what happened there, and it was this. After our troops were withdrawn, there was a Republican army in the West and a Free State army moving against them. In order to deprive the Free State forces of any billets or big buildings which could be used as barracks, the Republicans burned down nearly all the large houses

  765
  in the district. They burned down the big railway hotel and a number of other houses. In one ease, an Englishman who had bought property there—a fisherman—and had a very fine house, had his property burned down, not for any political reason, but for military reasons. He paid the cost of rebuilding, and has now built a beautiful place, and he was to be paid the cost of it by the Free State Government. The railway company whose hotel was burned down was told that if they rebuilt it they would be paid the cost by the Irish Free State Government. Does not this apply to the other people also? I went down to the Shannon the other day partly to see the great electrical barrage and partly to try, unsuccessfully, to fish for salmon, and one of the great houses I used to know in the old days when stationed in Ireland long before the War—belonging to a noble lord whose name I will not mention—stood there a hollow shell, and I made inquiries about it. This place was burned in the troubles also. I asked whether he was going to rebuild it, and I was told that he could rebuild it and get paid by the Irish Free State Government, but that the Irish Free State Government would not pay unless it was rebuilt, and the money was spent in Ireland. Are all these people going to be paid by this House if they do not rebuild their properties in Ireland, or are they going to say: "It is not safe, and we do not want to live there, but we are loyalists and the British taxpayers will pay"? That is the question to which I want an answer. If that be the case, I think it is unfair to British taxpayers. The country is perfectly safe for anyone who is prepared to behave himself, and nobody need fear any kind of reprisals or persecution of any kind—of that I am convinced. I have travelled all over the country during the last few years, and I really think that these claims should be scrutinised a little further. These are the two cases to which I should be very glad to have a reply.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I want to intervene in this Debate, as in the last, rather from the legal than from the administrative point of view. I was one of those who heard the Debate at the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the
  766
  right hon. Gentleman gave such weighty reasons why this grant should not be admitted. One of the reasons which was then used was that the committee which was sitting in consideration of these grants was one which was having all the evidence placed before it ex parte. It was pointed out that the Treasury had never been heard, that all applications were ex parte, that therefore the body was not, strictly speaking, a judicial body at all but acting in an administrative capacity, and that there was no reason to suppose that, if the Government case had been heard, either the awards or the amounts were something which the Government ought properly to give. Since that time I have never heard a word from the Government to suggest that that argument has not as much weight to-day as it had before the revolt of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. What are we to understand? Are we to understand, on the one side, that when they were opposing this payment the Government insincerely put up the argument that this was a mere ex parte application, speaking with their tongue in their cheek, in order to find some one reason why the payment should not be made, or are we to understand that when they used that argument, which had great weight in it, that only one side had been heard, they really meant what they said?
  The Government have surrendered. I am not going into that matter but the fact remains that the Government have capitulated, and the amount which is to be paid is, I understand, the total amount awarded. What has happened to the argument that the Government were never heard before the Wood Renton Committee? Is it now said that, after all, the Committee was a judicial committee? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Gentleman withdraw all the arguments which were used when they endeavoured to make the House think that this committee was not one to be treated as having judicial authority? If the right hon. Gentleman still maintains that it is not a judicial committee, does he say the money is not money which has been judicially determined or does he now say that the argument that the absence of representation on the part of the Government had invalidated the finality of the Wood Renton

  767
  claims has all gone merely because his supporters in the House threatened him with defeat?
  As a matter of general principle we ought to know whether the Government really meant what they said when they told us that this was not a judicial committee or whether they were trying to bluff us—if I may use the phrase. We are entitled to know whether the Government say to-day that this sum of money is a sum which has properly and adequately been ascertained by proper evidence, after hearing every side of the question, or whether it is still, as they then said, a sum which has merely been given on the application of claimants without the Government's side of the case having been heard. I believe this point has not been raised since that debate. It is quite true that general discussion has taken place as to whether the Government should or should not have surrendered, but one of the principal arguments on which the Government then relied, was the contention that the Wood Renton Committee had never functioned judicially at all. Do we now understand, now that the amount is to be paid, that the Wood Renton Committee did function as a court, because if it is said that it did function as a court we have some interesting precedents for the future? When, hereafter, a committee is set up to ascertain claims and the case of the Government is not put before the committee, the whole matter being ascertained after hearing one side only, are we to assume that the Government are to treat those ex parte applications as claims which the House ought to honour? Where are we in the matter of these tribunals? That is why I have intervened—to know on what principle the Government will proceed in the future.
  There are two courses open. One is to hear the claims and to say, "You are claimants, we accept your view, we will pay what you ask." The other method, what I call the more judicial way of proceeding, would be to hear the claim, then to hear what has to be said against the claim, to weigh the evidence on both sides, and make an ascertainment. By asking the House to consent to this Vote the Government have definitely said, on
  768
  this occasion at any rate, that an ex-parte application, a claim itself, is to be its own evidence of its own validity. If that is to be taken as a general principle on which Governments are to meet claims in the future, that whenever a claimant comes before a Government department and says "You owe me so much," they are to agree to pay in full, on the sole ground that the majority of their supporters want them to pay, I do not see how any Government is ever going to resist claims in the future.
  It is a very serious position in which we find ourselves. We are not on the question of whether these claims should be entertained or not, or whether 60 per cent. of a certain sum should or should not be admitted, but on the much more serious question, which ought to appeal to economists, of whether persons can make claims against the Government and the Government not be heard in answer to those claims. I have heard no explanation, no defence, no qualification of the arguments which were addressed by the right hon. Gentleman, I think—certainly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—against these claims on a previous occasion. I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cited as a precedent the claims for damage from enemy aircraft, and there his point was, similarly, that the body which decided them was not a Court; that there was a scaling down of the awards because there had not been a judicial determination as between one side and the other; that they were merely ex parte claims and, therefore, the Government reserved the right to scale down the awards. That seemed to him, in principle, a very fair way of dealing with the matter—either you take the evidence of the claim, do not hear any opposing evidence from the Government, and reserve to yourselves the right to give such ex gratia payment as you think fit; or, on the other hand, you commit yourself to pay the whole of the claim, but only after both sides have been heard.
  In the interests of the taxpayer we must have something to say about a system which seems to me to fall between two stools. In this case the claimant alone is heard, but at the same time he is to get everything that he claims. I may be misinformed, but I am basing that statement on the careful attention I paid

  769
  to the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this very point; and I hope the House will not pass this Vote to-day without our being told quite definitely that these cases of admitting claims without proper examination will be limited to cases where Governments are threatened by defeat and will not go beyond that point. If the right hon. Gentleman will say that the general principle ought to be that both sides should be heard and the amount ascertained, and the amount which the taxpayer has to pay be awarded by a committee only in cases where both sides have been heard, and that the only exceptions, the only cases where claimants may have what they claim without the Government being heard, shall be cases where Governments are threatened with defeat, we shall have limited the vice of this extravagance. But what I fear is that this principle may be extended to cases where Governments are not threatened with defeat, and that in future it will be cited to show that all claimants who come before all authorities are entitled to everything they claim without the Government being heard at all.
  This is not the only time we have entered a protest against this wild extravagance and incompetence of the Government in administering these matters. As I have often had occasion to say, those gentlemen who meet in constitutional clubs spend most of their time, it seems to me, in an effort to destroy the Constitution; at any rate, every time they come here they bring every kind of pressure to bear and make me, as an old-fashioned lawyer, alarmed at the irresponsibility with which they upset all our old traditions in dealing with legal principles. I have never known a worse case than this. The right hon. Gentleman himself has said that the Government had never been heard before the Wood Renton Committee. [Interruption.] That was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the last occasion. He said the reason why the Government were not paying the whole amount was because these were mere ex parte applications by one side and had never been heard properly as by a judicial committee, before whom both sides would put their case. That was said over and over again, but all the same a surrender was made to those who are vulgarly called
  770
  the "diehards," to the Gentlemen below the Gangway.
  Is it true now that the only reason for the change is to be found in the attitude taken up by some of the right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, or is it that the Government have varied their juridical views as to the obligations of Governments when people make such claims? The money in this Estimate is the amount awarded without proper investigation and without hearing the Government's side of the question, and we should be wanting in our duty if we allowed this Estimate to go through, and led the country to assume that in the future anything that may be claimed will he paid whenever a certain number of discontented Members of Parliament threatens the Government with opposition. If we allowed that to go through without objection, we should be wanting in our duty to this House and to the taxpayers.
  Mr. J. HUDSON: There has been some misapprehension upon this question and I am sure a great many hon. Members were not expecting this vote to be taken to-day. I would like to ask why this question has been jumped upon us in this way. Clearly there has been some misunderstanding. The proposal we are considering raises a first-class issue, and it is infinitely more important than the ease which arose at the end of 1924, when the Conservative party made a point of attacking the Labour Government upon a similar question. The charge was made at that time that by pressure from certain quarters not named the Labour Government had been persuaded—or at least one member of the Government had been persuaded—to alter its mind. That charge was never proved, but the feeling which existed amongst members of the Conservative party was sufficient to justify them in attempting to bring down the Government of the day, and in that attempt they were successful.
  What is the position now? The Colonial Secretary is responsible for the statement that the Government could not, in view of the way that the Wood Renton Committee had been constituted, accede to the pressure that was being placed on the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reinforced that opinion by saying:

  771
  "You cannot expect the Minister responsible for the time being for the public finances to allow anybody the privilege of writing unlimited cheques upon the public account otherwise than by a judicial procedure with both parties represented." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1929; col. 1004, Vol. 225.]
  The Government have allowed those who were able to use political pressure to interfere with judgments and to impose upon the Minister responsible for the public finances the very large sum which we are now being asked to vote. This is simply the thin end of the wedge, because there are other interests concerned. Hon. Members opposite know that whatever Committee is set up to guide the Government in regard to their decision, if they only make their political pressure hard enough the Government can be made to yield to their importunities. It is because we realise that on the evidence of the Colonial Secretary himself the Government have departed from a well-established procedure that we are making our objections. This new departure in regard to the decision of the Wood Renton Committee is not the only instance in which the Government have departed from their promises. There have been several unjustifiable jumps made in regard to this question. Perhaps it would be better not to call them jumps, because they are really cases of the Government being hurled forward by their supporters.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) has referred to a number of claims in Ireland which would have been included amongst the claims which have been allowed if justice had been done. I shall be interested to know what reply the Colonial Secretary will make to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on this point. I have heard of other claims, but I have not had time this morning to collect my papers or I should have been able to bring them forward. A number of politicians sitting on the benches opposite have personal friends with an axe to grind and money to collect from the Government, and although the Government said that it was their duty to resist those claims hon. Members opposite have been successful in getting those claims recognised in spite of the view expressed by the Chancellor of
  772
  the Exchequer. I think this case is a public degradation of the ordinary procedure of Government, and if we allow a repetition of this kind of thing this great nation will sink to the level of those communities in America and elsewhere where politicians fill their pockets at the public expense and pander to the worst instincts of the community.
  Mr. LAWSON: Although on these benches we agree with this Vote, it is quite true, as was said by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), that we believe there are other people with claims worthy of consideration who have suffered just as much as the people whose claims have been recognised. During the critical period with which this Vote deals I saw something of the devastation which occurred. As the responsible representatives of the Labour party we are all aware that there were injuries inflicted at that time upon a great many private citizens for which in some measure the Government were directly responsible, and we thought those people were worthy of some consideration which they have not received up to the present time. I am pleased that we recognise our responsibilities in that direction. The serious matter underlying this Vote is the method by which it has been advanced and the shilly-shallying of the Government in regard to his question. I would also say that one of the outstanding things has been the attempt of the Government to retreat under cover of darkness, so to speak. One characteristic of the House of Commons, in my experience, is that the big Debate that is expected never comes off, but that suddenly from somewhere there springs up one of the most important Debates of a Session, or, perhaps, of a Parliament; and so it has happened on this occasion. A few people have got together unknown to the Government and have sprung a surprise, formed themselves into a very definite square, and made an inroad upon the Government. Then what happened? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very definite statement, in the best style of his latest books. He said:
  "Somewhere in this rather fluid organisation of our modern Government, there must reside a principle in the light of which we can say 'No' when a certain point has been reached; and it is very dangerous indeed, I think, for the House, carried away

  773
  by absolutely right feelings, by strong sentiments of generosity … carried away by a sincere belief that they are expressing what is just, to brush aside or wear down the constituted guardians of the public purse, to overturn the definite, long-considered judgment of the Cabinet of the day, and to endeavour to extract from the public Treasury sums of money which the executive Government do not think, in broad light and equity, ought to be handed over.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1929; cols. 1002–3, Vol. 225.]
  In accordance with that sentiment, the right hon. Gentleman said "No" very definitely, supporting the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. Then, of course, it turned out that the Government was in very great danger, the Prime Minister moved to report Progress, and every one of us wondered what was going to happen. One would have thought, in view of such a crisis, that the Prime Minister would have taken a reasonable opportunity of communicating with the Opposition and telling them that he was going to make a fair and clear statement to the House on this question. No such arrangement was, however, made, and the Prime Minister, on a Friday, under such conditions as we have to-day, came and made a statement to the House. He said:
  "I should like to make it clear at the outset that the Cabinet are collectively responsible for the various decisions taken in this matter during the present Parliament, and that the statements made from time to time on their behalf by various Ministers have at every stage carried with them our united assent and approval."—[OFFICIAL RETORT, 22nd February, 1929; col. 1452, Vol. 225.]
  I suppose that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried the united assent and approval of the Cabinet, but then the Prime Minister came to the House and made a statement which in effect said, "We were all wrong; we made a mistake, or a series of mistakes; we are going to do just what our followers want us to do." I congratulate those hon. Gentlemen who have defeated the Government in their objects, who have overturned the Government decisions—repeated decisions, according to the Prime Minister—on their victory. I congratulate them on their loyalty to their colleagues, and on their lively conscience on this matter. But I do wish that they had a lively conscience on other matters with respect to the affairs of this country. It appears to me
  774
  that their consciences are not very lively when we are considering the real inwardness of the state of great masses of people in this country, but this, at any rate, can be said about them, that they will appreciate the feelings of many of us when we have seen pledge after pledge violated with respect to our people, whom such violation of pledges has finally driven down to a state of degradation and want such as we have not known in our time.
  Fundamentally, the matter is a serious one. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other Ministers, are going to the country and speaking about the insecurity of a Labour Government. They are saying that it is subject to pressure from outside. The Chancellor of the Exchequer once gave expression to the famous statement that Labour was unfit to govern. I wonder what the average citizen thinks about the ability of the present Government to govern, in the light of this decision? As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield has said, those of us who have a great regard for the affairs of this House and for its constitution, and who have some sense of responsibility to the mass of the people who have to pay these contributions, feel that underneath this a very serious principle is involved. As the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has said, if any particular set of people can band together in their clubs, or meet in some part of this House, and rush the Government for something which they want and which they think is right, but which the Government have repeatedly said is not right—if they can overturn those decisions and rush the Government to the thing that they want, it is a very bad outlook for democratic government and for the future of the Parliamentary institutions of this country.
  It is not merely a matter of making party capital, but it is, in our view, a duty to the people of this country to underline what has been done. It has been said that we were open to pressure from outside when the Labour Government was in office in 1924, but I challenge the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, I challenge the Prime Minister, or any other Minister on the Front Bench, to discover, during the Labour Government's term of office in

  775
  1924, any incident equal to this. I challenge them to compare the conditions and the whole record of the Labour Government in 1924. I say that the Labour Government were never subject to such shameful pressure as has been exercised on this occasion; we were never brought to such a state of humiliation, and we never violated the fundamental principles upon which Parliamentary institutions are based.
  Mr. AMERY: I do not think that the hon. Member, who has challenged me on broad grounds to show anything so infamous as the conduct of the present Government, really expects me to take up that challenge in detail, but I should like to answer, first of all, the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), as to who are the kind of people who are being dealt with under this grant. They are, of course, as I pointed out to the House at another stage of this matter, those who suffered special hardship for their loyalty after the truce, after the British troops and police authorities were removed, and who have been unable to get any redress, or got such redress from the Free State authorities as in our opinion would not be adequate to the extent of their sufferings. They are people in every walk of life. Some of them are landowners, some are business men whose whole business was destroyed, and a very much larger proportion are professional men—doctors, lawyers, valuers, agents, and so on—for whom life was made entirely impossible, whose whole professional career was ruined, and probably whose property, such little as they had, was destroyed. There are also farmers and men in a very small way, such as ex-policemen, working men and others. Of the whole 1,600 cases in connection with which recommendations were made, something like 1,350 were cases where the total recommendation in respect of all that they suffered was under £1,000.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted one or two instances. He asked as regards those to whom the Free State had given compensation in terms of the Bill. The great majority of those cases belong to the pre-truce period and are entirely outside this ex gratia grant. In other cases, there is, of course, no question
  776
  of any further grants being made by the committee. He also quoted the case of the gentleman whose place was destroyed by troops in Cork. That obviously was a pre-truce case, because there were no troops in Cork during the period with which these grants deal. If, however, the sufferer whose case was brought forward was unable in any way to get redress before the Judicial Tribunal so established, it is a matter about which I can give him no information, except that conceivably the particular form of hardship he suffered did not come strictly within the category for which the Judicial Tribunal was set up. I add that, because it is very relevant to the whole case made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this case and tell me whether anything can be done?
  Mr. AMERY: I will, certainly, but I am afraid it was a pre-truce case, because the only remedy was the court that was set up and, if that court was unable to provide a remedy, or if he failed to apply to the court, it would be beyond my power to help him.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The ease is this. Each side undertook to indemnify its own friends. This was the case, however, of a man who was a supporter of this country, an ex-soldier, and his property was burnt by Black and Tans. The Free State position was that he was our supporter. We say his property was burnt by Black and Tans, and, therefore, that he must have been doing something wrong.
  Mr. AMERY: I do not think that difficulty would affect the case for compensation. The same tribunal heard all the eases, the awards were made, and then the amounts of the awards were allotted as between one Governments and another. If it came before the Court, he would have got his award, and the question as to whose victim he was would no doubt be duly assessed. Certainly, if the damage was done by British troops, or Black and Tans, it would be as against them.
  I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds

  777
  has somewhat overlooked the whole genesis of the Wood Renton Committee. We have always recognised that we were under a special obligation to do something for these people, and we set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Dunedin to advise us as to the general character of our obligations and as to the method with which to deal with them. The Dunedin Committee pointed out that there were two distinct ways of dealing with the problem. One was the strictly legal method. We could have said that we regarded these people as still being entitled to such legal compensation as they were entitled to before the truce, and while British authority was in force in South Ireland. Then a legal tribunal could have been set up, and, by the ordinary process of law, these people could have established, or failed to establish, such legal claim as they had. Lord Dunedin's view was that, while this might afford very substantial compensation indeed to many of the more well-to-do claimants, it would entirely leave out of account a large number of cases of grievous hardship of a kind for which there was no legal remedy before the truce and for which there is no legal remedy to-day, and the Committee recommended that, instead of setting up a legal tribunal, we should take the guidance of an advisory committee which would look at the whole question of hardship in its broad historic standpoint, from the point of view of equity, and make recommendations to us as to what they would consider fair and reasonable compensation to mitigate the hardships suffered.
  Sir H. SLESSER: Did the Dunedin Committee recommend that the advisory committee should only hear one side and that the Government side should not be heard?
  Mr. AMERY: No such recommendation was made. The view of the Government has always been that if they had set up a judicial tribunal, competent to give legal decisions, of course they would have been bound to pay in proportion whatever the decisions of the tribunal were. Setting up, as they did, a body of a different character, an advisory committee, they have always reserved to themselves the right, if they decided on general grounds of national policy to do
  778
  so, to scale down the recommendations of the committee, but that fact, and the fact that the committee was an informal one, do not mean in the least that the interests of the Government were never considered, or pleaded, or vindicated before the body. The Treasury preferred to entrust this case to the scrutiny of the secretary of the committee and the continuous scrutiny of the Commission itself rather than to formal legal methods of procedure, which might very well involve much greater moral liability to pay the whole of the damage than was involved in the procedure the committee actually adopted, and which the Government considered most suitable in view of the whole character of this case.
  Sir H. SLESSER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was not a legal tribunal where both parties to the controversy were represented. I understand the right hon. Gentleman now to say that the Government were represented by an able secretary.
  Mr. AMERY: The case of the Chancellor was that this was not a judicial tribunal proceeding on formal legal lines which involved us in a legal liability to pay whatever the awards were. This was a tribunal admittedly outside any ordinary formal relations of the law.
  Sir H. SLESSER: Let us be clear. I quite agree that the Chancellor said that, but I am not on that point. I am on the point of the representation of the Government before this informal tribunal, which is another point altogether from the question whether it was a legal tribunal. The Chancellor said, in a Debate in this House, that the reason the Government had the right not to acknowledge the award was because both parties were not represented. I understand the right hon. Gentleman now to say that the Government were represented by a secretary. If so, what becomes of the Chancellor's argument that the Government were not bound because they were not represented?
  Mr. AMERY: I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely misunderstood the argument both of myself and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Our point was that, because this was an advisory body, and not a judicial body, we were not bound to

  779
  implement its recommendations. The fact that we were not represented by counsel does not imply that the point of view of the Government was not very effectively represented. It was represented both by the action of the Secretary, who exercised a special scrutiny, and by the Committee themselves, the Advisory Committee of the Government. Their very first duty was to scrutinise these cases, not to accept the statement by the claimant of damage, and, unless that statement be disapproved, to award large sums. Very far from it; the claims put forward, even when the actual damage might have been a very considerable amount, were reduced by the committee to what they thought to be the measure of hardship which justifiably and reasonably entitled to compensation. We have not in the least in this matter changed our juridical point. I would remind the hon. and learned Member that a year ago we hoped that it would be possible to pay the recommendations of the committee in full. We have never taken the view, and we have made it clear again and again in this House, that this body was an irregular body, or that they were likely to scale them down. We have indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, this year and last year paid our tribute to the care and vigilance in the public interest which the committee exercised.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I am not suggesting anything to the contrary.
  Mr. AMERY: All we have claimed is that this is not a legal tribunal, but an advisory committee, but we did reserve to ourselves the right to fix the total amount. We did, in the first place, decide to fix a sum which we soon discovered, in view of the number of cases, was inadequate. We raised it, and we have raised it again. We have, in doing so, in no way altered our point of view in regard either to the character of the tribunal or to the efficacy of its methods. We have bowed to the very general feeling in the House. Our decision was taken, not on the merits of the case as far as the people were concerned or on the efficacy of the work of the Wood Renton Committee but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself explained, in relation to all the many needs which the Government have to con-
  780
  sider, and that was the only reason why that decision was taken. But in view of the very strong feeling in every quarter of the House that we in this particular matter ought not to be guided by general considerations of financial economy, and that we ought to close this whole chapter on a note of reasonable generosity to people who have suffered, as undoubtedly these people have very gravely suffered, we bowed to the decision of the House.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have published the reports of the evidence given before the Wood Renton. Committee in any form whatever? Has the case for and against been published?
  Mr. AMERY: Obviously, no. It would be quite impossible in cases of this sort. Knowing the history of these cases and the conditions under which some of these people still live, it is obviously quite impossible.
  Mr. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement in reference to the representation before the tribunal. I must say that I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) that his statement contradicts that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it would be permissible to ask why, in view of the gravity of this matter, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not present?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can answer that question.
  Sir OSWALD MOSLEY: I would like, very briefly, to address myself to the legal and constitutional question which has been raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). On the broad question of the Government's conduct in this matter, perhaps, enough has been said, and more, no doubt, will be said later on outside this House. On this particular and narrow issue, the point, as I understand it, raised by my hon. and learned Friend was: Are we now to have a precedent established that a purely advisory committee may fill in a blank cheque written by the Government? That is what the issue comes to. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies admits that in their inception

  781
  this committee were clearly advisory, that they had no legal character, that the Government were not legally represented. The Government's intention was to receive the advice of this committee, and then, having regard not only to the condition of the victims for whom compensation was asked, but also having regard to the condition of national finances, they were to make up their minds what compensation was to be paid. That was the original position of the Government.
  What is the situation which has now arisen? The Government were driven from that position by the action of their supporters, and they are now compelled to pay full compensation to the extent of any award which the Wood Renton Committee may make. In fact, the Wood Renton Committee have been turned into a tribunal whose decisions have a legal and binding authority upon the Government. The right hon. Gentleman now, as an afterthought—we heard nothing about it in the first Debate—claims that the secretary of this committee was acting for the Government. No doubt he is a very estimable gentleman. He was given a kind of roving commission of inquiry, but he had no legal status of any kind as a Government representative, and I understand that he is not the representative who is commonly employed by the Treasury. It is quite useless for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, if the Wood Renton Committee are to be regarded as a legal tribunal whose awards are binding on the Government, the Treasury were satisfied that they had adequate representation on that Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first Debate made specific and bitter complaint that the Treasury were not there represented. The words I have to read are even stronger, I think, than those which came to the notice of my hon. and learned Friend. These are the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
  "There was no case where the Treasury counsel could advance arguments against the claims made by the parties, and canvass and criticise their credentials, such as is done when any Income Tax case is fought in any Court with the greatest vigour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1929; col. 1004, Vol. 225.]
  Those are the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He complained that the Treasury were not represented, and he put very strongly the case that, if
  782
  these awards were to be binding upon the Government, then the Treasury-should have been represented before a properly constituted tribunal. In face of those words, in face of the facts which have now emerged, it is quite idle for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that the Government were represented and that the Treasury had not full opportunity to combat these claims and to secure their writing down. The facts are perfectly clear. This committee began as an advisory committee; it has ended as a legal tribunal whose awards have binding authority upon the Government. The difference that has arisen is not due to the volition of the Government. It is not due to any change in their conception of their obligations to these people. It is simply due to a revolt of their supporters which has entirely changed the character of this committee and has compelled the Government to write a blank cheque for any award which this committee may care to make.
  I shall not enter at this stage into the general question that we discussed last week. It is sufficient to point out on this occasion that the legal and constitutional question raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East, has been thoroughly justified, that no adequate answer of any kind has been forthcoming from the Government and that we have constituted a precedent, which I hope will never be followed, that a purely advisory committee can give awards which the Government of the day is bound to honour in toto. Upon this extraordinary situation we need not make any further comment now. We know its origins, and we shall discuss them further before a greater tribunal. On this occasion, we can merely point out that in their unparalleled course of conduct the Government have established precedents which we trust this House will never follow.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  REPORT (1st March).

    ADJODENMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir V. Warrender.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes before Two o'clock until Monday next, 11th March.