HL Deb 06 October 1915 vol 19 cc970-94

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Creve.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, there is one question which I should like to put to the Government on this Motion. The body which is going to deal with the expenditure under this Bill differs from that which was originally proposed in the Bill, and at first sight it did not appear clear why the Government objected to this reconstruction of the body, because the Committee as set up under the amended Bill will be a more public body than could be a Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. In the course of these discussions a good deal has been said by the Government as to the necessity of only giving public funds to public bodies. But on the face of it, the Government have preferred a non-public body to a public body, because they have taken the strong step of saying that they will not be responsible for Lord Devonport's Amendment nor for any Amendment consequential upon it. I should like to ask, Does that mean a change of policy on their part? This public body as set up by your Lordships' Amendment would be one eminently fitted to receive public contributions. Does the objection of the Government to a Committee so formed mean that they intend to rely upon private subscriptions rather than upon Government contributions? I do not think they have stated what their objection in principle or in policy is to the Amendment that was inserted by your Lordships. They did state that they regarded it as a grave alteration of the Bill, but they did not explain their policy. This Committee can act in two ways. It can be supported by public funds supplemented by private subscriptions, or it can rely principally on private subscriptions supplemented by public funds. I am rather afraid that owing to the immensely increased taxation and other causes it will be extremely difficult, in the immediate future anyhow and probably for a few years to come, to get the amount of private subscriptions required, and therefore it will be necessary to rely on public grants. That was one of the reasons why I supported the Amendment setting up a more public body than a Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund, as proposed by the Government. I think it is not unfair to ask the Government whether they intend that the large requirements under the Bill should be met by private subscriptions supplemented by Government grants, rather than the policy which certainly I thought I was supporting in setting up this public body—that of relying on Government grants supplemented by private subscriptions.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE)

My Lords, I was under the impression that I had made fairly clear to the House on the last occasion the circumstances which caused us to regard your Lordships' Amendment as striking at the root of the plan which the Government had made. The noble Viscount opposite now asks—very much in the terms of a Notice on the Paper in the name of Lord Tenterden—how far the Government are prepared to undertake the main, or at any rate the initial, burden of making these payments. I think I had better explain again what the distinction between the two schemes in our opinion is. Our scheme was that after the State had made itself responsible for pensions and separation allowances on the ordinary scale, the supplements to those pensions and allowances—demanded by circumstances which are familiar to the whole House, and into which I need not therefore go—should be provided in the first instance by a voluntary body, and the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation was chosen for that purpose. It was hoped and believed that by the association of that body with localities through the composition of the Patriotic Fund Corporation large sums might be collected which could be devoted to these supplementary purposes. But it was also recognised that owing to the causes which the noble Viscount has mentioned and to others, it might happen that before the end of the war the sums voluntarily subscribed would not be sufficient to carry on the supplementary grants on the scale on which they have been contributed hitherto; and the Government therefore stated that they would be willing by way of grant—that is to say, by allocating from public funds a lump sum to be handed over to this body and used in addition to its own resources—to do what they could to maintain those supplementary allowances on the scale of the past. That, the noble Viscount will clearly see, is a totally different proposition from the Government saying, "We will give each year from the Votes to a public departmental body such a sum as would be needed for continuing these supplementary allowances on precisely their present scale. Although we have promised this, we hope that the public will still continue to subscribe." It is quite evident, of course, that in such circumstances the public would not subscribe. If the National Exchequer has undertaken an obligation the people will not put their hands in their pockets in order to relieve the National Exchequer of part of that obligation. But that is a totally different proposition from the one which we have favoured and still favour—nainely, that there should be a mainly private body with departmental representation, as happens in similar cases, to which in the event of public funds running short certain assistance might be given.

And it is important that I should point out once more that if it has to be assumed that no private subscriptions are to be forthcoming and the whole burden has to be undertaken by the Treasury, it is quite clear that the entire scale of supplementary allowances and the principles on which they are distributed must be closely re-examined and very possibly seriously modified. These allowances are made, not so much in relation to the presumed national obligation towards the individual as in respect of the particular needs of the individual owing to his or her private circumstances, and it is for that reason that we look forward with sonic apprehension to the possibility that the whole scale may have to be revised, and that is why we want, so far as possible, to keep the stream of private benevolence still current. That, I think, explains—I hope clearly—to the noble Viscount and to the House generally what the position is with regard to the provision of public funds. It is because we consider that the basis on which public funds might be provided, and probably will have to be provided, has been changed by your Lordships' Amendment that my noble friend (Lord Lansdowne) and I all through have declined to accept this alteration as one which we believe can form part of an Act of Parliament.

LORD TENTERDEN had the following Question on the Paper—

To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in the event of the House agreeing to eliminate the clause for State control, His Majesty's Government will give the House some definite and binding assurance that any deficit in the funds available for distribution will in extremis invariably be made good by the State.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Viscount opposite was going to put a Question on lines similar to the one standing in my name on the Paper. But the answer which the noble Marquess has just given does not meet the point which I was going to raise, for the construction which I place upon the remarks made by the noble Marquess is that in the event of insufficient money being forthcoming it may be necessary to restrict the allowances. I did not put down this Question for the purpose of raising a controversial matter, but, on the contrary, in the hope of assisting in bringing about a settlement of the outstanding difficulties. Many noble Lords have argued with great force that the vital reason for having State control here was that you were in the greater part going to utilise public funds. When we look at the Bill we find a system of voluntary contributions plus the aid of public funds. I do not wish to pass any adverse criticism on the Bill at this stage. At the same time I fail to see any guarantee, on the part of the voluntary contributions, as to what they will amount to; or on the part of the public funds so frequently alluded to, as to what they really consist of. Therefore 1 feel that if this safeguard of State control—I say "safeguard" because I consider that where State control exists there co-exists with it a certain amount of State responsibility—is taken away, the Government should give the definite assurance for which I ask. The weakness of the Bill is on its financial side, and if State control is deleted it will be taking away the very essence and substance of the Bill as it now stands. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House told us on Tuesday last, on the Report stage, that the inclusion of this clause for State control strikes vitally at the fundamental principles of the Bill. He told us at the same time that we were to be mindful of the fact that we were framing a measure which would outlast—

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The noble Lord speaks of the "clause for State control." To which clause in the Bill is he alluding?

LORD TENTERDEN

I allude to the Amendment which was agreed to on the motion of Lord Devonport, which in effect gives State control. I was saying that the noble Marquess told us at the same time that we were to be mindful of the fact that we were framing a measure which would outlast the lives of all noble Lords in this House. But if it is the fact that the Bill is to remain on the Statute Book for many years that makes us the more anxious to secure that the measure shall have substance in it. I believe that if His Majesty's Government give a favourable reply to the Question which I am putting, it will go far towards alleviating the anxieties felt by myself and by other members of your Lordships' House with regard to this very important Bill. This is no paltry measure, no measure of a second or third-rate character, but a Bill of the very highest importance, dealing with no less a matter than that of providing pensions for the gallant soldiers and sailors who are fighting to protect our homes and our families, and, more than that, are maintaining the glorious traditions of the British Army and Navy. It is, therefore, with the greatest confidence that I put the Question standing in my name.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, I am bound to say, with regard to the remarks which fell from the noble Marquess who leads the House, that after listening to his statement I am entirely in the dark as to the extent of responsibility which His Majesty's Government assume for the finance of this Bill. The noble Marquess said the other day—and he repeated it to-night—that His Majesty's Government proposed this Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, as it was originally drawn in the Bill, because they expected and hoped that it would obtain private subscriptions, and because they were willing to subscribe to this body, which would have been a quasi-private body, but were not prepared to bind themselves with regard to the finance of the Bill. Then to-night the noble Marquess stated that if the Government find that more money is wanted they may depart from the scheme proposed by the Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation and substitute another scheme altogether. I ask, What is the measure of responsibility that the Government take for financing this Bill? They say they are willing in certain circumstances to subscribe, but they say they are not prepared to make the money good. That is what I understood the noble Marquess to say to-night. I want to know how far the Government propose that this Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation should have any authority at all, and how far the Government would be bound by what the Committee might propose. Because if the Govern- ment are not to be so bound, what is the use of this Committee? The Committee may make proposals; they may have collected some subscriptions; the Government may, as they say, in one or two years subscribe a certain sum to the scheme of this body; but the Government do not in any way say that if the private subscriptions are inadequate they will be responsible for the finance of the Bill. The noble Marquess has always guarded himself on that point in the way he did to-night. All along I have never been able to understand, and I do not understand now, how far the Government are prepared to make good the money that will be required.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, both my noble friend (Lord Lansdowne) and I regret extremely that, as is evident from the two speeches we have just heard, we have not succeeded in making our position lucid, at any rate to some members of the House. In the Question which was placed on the Paper by the noble Lord behind me (Lord Tenterden) I am asked whether His Majesty's Government will give the House some definite and binding assurance that any deficit in the funds available for distribution will be made good by the State. Deficit from what? There is no deficit on the State contribution. It is surely well known to every noble Lord that there is a Government scale payable by the War Office or the Admiralty respectively for pensions in the largest sense—that is to say, pensions to men and to widows and dependants—and also a scale of separation allowances. It has been felt by a great number of people that owing to the totally different original circumstances of those who have joined the Army—a fact which has become prominent in this war in a way which it never has before—either the separation allowance or the pension, which in some cases may be quite adequate to bring those who receive it into something like a similar position of life to that in which they were before they became entitled to the pension or allowance, is in other cases altogether inadequate for that purpose. It has consequently occurred that in some cases it has been thought desirable to give, for instance, the widow of a man who has been making through his own exertions a considerable income a pension of as much as, say, £100 a year. It has never been proposed that all soldiers' widows should receive £2 a week, but it has been felt that unless some such aid is given in a certain case much greater hardship is inflicted by her terrible loss upon that particular individual than might be the case in another instance. That is a consideration which, I am sure, would appeal to us all; and it has been felt by those responsible for the distribution of public money that this is an object to which some portion of public aid might be devoted. Those who vote the money in the House of Commons would, I feel confident, be prepared to vote from time to time a lump sum in order to assist in arriving at a scheme of that kind—not a flat rate, but a varying rate—provided that the public showed their sense of those particular needs by subscribing, as they have subscribed in the past, for that object. That seems to me to be perfectly clear. It surely must also be equally clear that it is not possible—certainly not possible for us here, and I very much doubt if it were possible for the House of Commons—to pledge public funds indefinitely to go on paying for the lives of a great number of people who have met with these misfortunes that varying scale of allowance which considerations of kindness and also of general fairness make us desire that they should receive. Parliament, I am quite certain, would not blindly pledge itself to carry on permanently the scale of allowances at the same figure at which it has been fixed by those who have had the distribution of money privately subscribed. I therefore, by way of caution, pointed out to the House that if the whole business has to be considered on that basis it is impossible to say that the scale which would be adopted, and which might have to run for fifty, or sixty, or more years, would be precisely the scale which has been arrived at while large sums of money privately subscribed have been forthcoming. If by "deficit" my noble friend behind me and the noble Earl opposite mean that the Government are expected to pledge themselves here and now to carry on until the last pension to be received in respect of this war ceases to be drawn precisely the same scale of allowances as is made just now when funds are forthcoming from private sources, I may say at once that it is altogether impossible for us to do anything of the kind; and I am certain, when this Bill goes to another place, that if somebody puts a similar question to my right hon. friends who sit there, he will get the same answer.

LORD TENTERDEN

My Lords, as the noble Marquess has alluded to the point perhaps I may explain that in asking that there should be a pledge from the Government that money should be forthcoming for any deficit, I meant on such a scale as would be approved by the Statutory Committee. I in no way inferred that the rate should be at the same high rate as when we had a much smaller Army and when the voluntary subscriptions were pouring in in large amounts. My Question was directed to getting an assurance that upon a scale decided by the governing Committee the money would in emergency be guaranteed by the State.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

My Lords, I was surprised to hear the noble Marquess the Leader of the House make the statement to which we have just listened, because I was under the impression that in Committee the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, most emphatically assured us that the Government would be responsible in the case of any deficiency. I cannot quote his words because I have not the Official Report here, but my impression certainly was that he stated that the Government would be responsible for any deficiency that might occur in making up these supplementary allowances. I was also under the impression that Mr. McKenna, in the House of Commons, used words to the same effect with regard to the Government being responsible. Then, again, with regard to private charities, surely we all have in view the encouragement which should be given to existing charitable organisations dealing with soldiers and sailors to come forward with their experience and their funds to help to make up these supplementary allowances. I remember stating, when Lord Devonport's Amendment was before the House, that in my opinion one of the greatest objections to retaining the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation in the position that it then occupied was that it would seriously interfere with existing soldiers' and sailors' charities which had been long in existence, which had received the confidence of the public, and which were well up in their work. It surely could not have been present to the minds of any of us that public charity should be entirely cut out from helping in these objects. On the contrary, it seems to me that every effort should be made to encourage the private charities already dealing with soldiers and sailors to continue their good efforts and get support from the public. But I am afraid they would not have got the same support had the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation been retained in the commanding position which it occupied when the Bill first came to your Lordships' House.

LORD SOUTHWARK

My Lords, with regard to the observations of the noble Earl who has just sat down, I may say that I am one of those who are strongly in favour of the voluntary associations not being interfered with, and being allowed to go on with their work. The noble Marquess said just now that the Government view was that supplementary grants should be provided in the first instance by the voluntary bodies. I hold strongly the opinion that that ought not to be the order. My view is that supplementary grants ought to be made under strict Treasury rules and ought to be administered by bodies like the Chelsea Hospital and the body which administers naval pensions at the present time. If you have a definite Treasury Order that the Commissioners may go to a certain point, they will stop there; and then voluntary aid would come in. But if you are going to draw distinctions between soldiers and sailors of different classes, I venture to say you will experience great difficulties, and I am convinced that you will have constant House of Commons discussions. Some men will have a grievance, and that grievance will be brought before the House; but if the whole thing were done under definite Treasury rules by the pensioning bodies that difficulty would be got rid of, and cases of hardship could then be dealt with by the voluntary bodies. You are not going to have voluntary bodies contributing to State funds, whereas if the State funds were limited and defined and generous then when the State had done its work voluntary aid could come in; and I have no doubt that a vast amount of money would be entrusted to these voluntary bodies to meet the hard cases referred to by the noble Marquess. What I feel myself, as I said on a previous occasion, is that the wisest policy for the Government would be to withdraw this Bill and bring in a Bill in another form after consideration of the recommendations in the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. There is no doubt that we have drifted away from the original intention of this Bill, which was to secure voluntary funds from the National Relief Fund and from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. Funds from neither of those bodies are forthcoming, and at present there is nothing in the Bill in the way of providing funds. As the Bill stands no money is provided at all, except that the local committees are allowed to solicit voluntary contributions, but the contributions collected by the local bodies will not be sufficient to meet the demands that will be made. If it is desirable that there should be supplementary grants I think it is much better that they should be made by the authorities who are now making grants and have in their possession all the information with regard to soldiers and sailors. I admit that there are other questions in the way of pensions and grants that the State wish to make that could not be met in that way, and that is one of the reasons why I think it would be better that the Bill should be reconsidered and a new scheme brought in.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, whether we differ or not from the noble Lord who has just addressed the House, we shall at any rate all of us, I think, concede that he knows his own mind and that he has expressed his views with very great clearness. He objects entirely to this Bill, and he objects for the reason he has given to the House. In his view these supplementary pensions ought to be limited by fixed rules issued by the Treasury, and should in short, be given under what is commonly known as the flat-rate principle. That point was very carefully gone into by the Committee which inquired into this question, and while the Committee accepted the flat-rate principle for what may be, I suppose, properly described as statutory pensions, they were clearly of opinion that in regard to other grants a different principle should be observed, and this Bill is founded upon the assumption that statutory pensions do not enter into the scope of the measure at all. Those are pensions which are issued, one might almost say, automatically under fixed rules, whereas these supplementary grants were to be met by the machinery which we proposed under this Bill—that is to say, a Statutory Committee at the centre, closely connected, through the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, with high officials in every part of the United Kingdom, and connected, on the other hand, through the local committees, with all the different parts of the country. In our view that was the best machinery that could be framed to meet the requirements of the case. But it is, I admit, open to this criticism. You may say, as my noble friend Lord Camperdown said just now, that the finance of the Bill is not of a precise or well-defined character. Throughout these discussions we have admitted that with the utmost frankness. It is impossible that the finance of the Bill should be of a definite character. We are dealing to a great extent with unknown quantities. We hope—we certainly hoped as long as the Bill remained in its original shape—that a great part of this fund would be provided by voluntary agencies. Supposing that those voluntary sources failed to contribute What was sufficient, we realised that it would be necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the rescue, and my noble friend Lord Lichfield was perfectly correct when he quoted me just now as having indicated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared, in the event of our expectations being disappointed, to come to the rescue with a Treasury grant. But it was impossible to name beforehand what the amount of that grant might be, and I am sure my noble friend would not expect that in the circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer should write what I might describe as a blank cheque for the purpose of filling up what the noble Lord behind me calls a "deficit" in the sum required for making good these allowances. For these reasons it is, I think, scarcely fair to criticise the vagueness—or, as I should rather put it, the elasticity—of the financial provisions of this Bill. Its elasticity or its vagueness, call it which you please, seems to me to be inevitable in the circumstances of the case; and the extent to which eventually it may be necessary to depend upon grants from the Exchequer must, of course, remain a matter for conjecture.

On Question, Bill read 3a.

Clause 1:

Establishment of Statutory Committee.

1.—(1) For the purposes hereinafter mentioned relating to pensions and grants and allowances made in respect of the present war to officers and men in the naval and military services of His Majesty and their wives, widows, children and other dependants, and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present war there shall be constituted a Statutory Committee, consisting of twenty-five members, appointed as hereinafter mentioned.

(2) Of time said twenty-five members— eighteen (of whom one shall be chairman and one vice-chairman and some shall be women and not less than two shall be representatives of labour) shall be appointed by His Majesty;

(3) There may be paid to the chairman or vice-chairman, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine.

(4) All other expenses of the Committee (including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Committee.

(5) Seven members of the Statutory Committee shall constitute a quorum. The Statutory Committee may appoint subcommittees consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Statutory Committee, and may delegate to such sub-committees, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers and duties under this Act. Subject to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, the Committee shall regulate their own procedure.

(6) The term of office of a member of the Statutory Committee shall be three years; but a retiring member shall be eligible for re-appointment.

(7) The Statutory Committee may, with the consent of the Treasury, appoint and employ a secretary, assistant secretaries, and such other clerks and servants as they may require, and may pay out of funds at their disposal to such secretary, assistant secretaries, clerks and servants, such salaries or remuneration as they, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine, and may with like consent establish a scheme of pensions for persons in their permanent employment or grant pensions to such persons on retirement.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I move to omit from subsection (1) the words "Statutory Committee," which it has been represented to me is hardly a Parliamentary expression. What we propose is really a Board, and it would be much better to call it so. I propose to accept the Amendment to my Amendment which has been placed on the Paper by Lord Lichfield, and to move to insert, in substitution for "Statutory Committee," the words "Board to be called 'the War Pensions Board' and hereinafter referred to as the Board.'"

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("Statutory Committee") and insert ("Board to be called the War Pensions Board 'and hereinafter referred to as the Board'").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

We took the opportunity of consulting some of our colleagues whose Departments are specially concerned with this matter as to the proposed change of title. As the result of that inquiry I am bound to say that His Majesty's Government do not think that the term "War Pensions Board," although it is compendius, can be taken as quite accurate. As noble Lords will recognise, with war pensions in the ordinary sense this Bill will in no case deal; and it is feared that to ascribe to it the title might lead people to suppose that this was a Board of the kind which it has sometimes been proposed to constitute, and the constitution of which would no doubt present many advantages—that is to say, a body dealing with the whole subject of pensions and allowances for disablement and for all war purposes. But, as noble Lords will equally recognise, the setting up of a machinery of that kind involves a very much greater change from existing conditions than anything which we propose in this Bill. It would involve, of course, taking from the War Office and from the Admiralty a number of functions which at present belong to them. I express no opinion at this moment as to how far that may be at some time or other a feasible proposition, but at this moment the only point I have to deal with is the particular title of this Board, and for the reason that it might be misleading we think that it would be wiser in the circumstances to speak of the Board as the War Allowances Board, not as the War Pensions Board; and if noble Lords would accept that change we should be willing to agree to that Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Would it not be better to call the Board the War Allowances and Pensions Board? If your Lordships will refer to the duties of the Board you will see that they have to deal with certain questions relating to pensions properly so called. Therefore I think that -in some form the word "Pensions" should appear in the title of the Board.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

It is true that it will be one of the functions of the Board to decide questions of fact with reference to pensions properly so called. But the objection I still think is a strong one to inserting the word "Pensions" in the title of the Board. We do not object to the word remaining in the title of the Bill; that is not quite the same thing.

VISCOUNT BRYCE

I hope I may be in order in asking a question relating to the constitution of the Board itself. I find in subsection (2) that of the eighteen members to be appointed by His Majesty not less than two shall be "representatives of labour." This expression seems to me prima facie to be rather vague, and I should like the Government, if they would be good enough to do so, to give us a definition as to who are representatives of labour, in order to meet questions that may arise hereafter on the construction of the Bill.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Camperdown will think it necessary to press this Amendment. I imagine that he put it down as a verbal Amendment, and as containing in his opinion a more Parliamentary description than "Statutory Committee." But the noble Marquess who leads the House attaches much greater importance to it than that. He says that the proposed alteration would practically suggest that the Committee or Board to be now constituted should administer all pensions as well as these supplementary allowances. I am not at all sure that that would not be the best solution of the whole question. But in regard to this Bill, would it not be better to leave in the words "Statutory Committee" as showing that, so far as the Bill stands at any rate, what is intended is that the Committee should administer these supplementary allowances and should not interfere with pensions in the ordinary sense of the word?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment to my Amendment suggested by the noble Marquess, and to substitute the word "Allowances" for the word "Pensions." The body would then be called the War Allowances Board.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Your Lordships will observe that later on there is a large number of Amendments standing in my name to leave out "Statutory Committee" and to insert "Board." If your Lordships will agree to that alteration once for all when we come to those Amendments, it will considerably shorten the proceedings, for when you have made the alteration once it is consequential that it should be made at every point in the Bill where the words "Statutory Committee" Occur. I now move to insert a new subsection after subsection (2).

Amendment moved—

Clause 1, page 2, line 4, after subsection (2) insert the following new subsection: (3) The Board shall be a body corporate with a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mortmain."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I raise no kind of objection to this Amendment, because I think it is required by the circumstances of the case. But if the House will allow me I will take this opportunity, as the Board is under discussion, of replying to the question asked by my noble friend below the Gangway (Viscount Bryce) with regard to the composition of the Board. He asked what is the meaning of the term "representatives of labour." I do not know whether there is any settled construction of that phrase. I should have thought that the term was a generally descriptive one, of which the Government of the day in appointing the Statutory Committee would give its own interpretation. I quite agree that it may not be altogether easy to say precisely what is popularly called a Labour Member in Parliament. I think my noble friend therefore must be content to take it, as I have said, as a descriptive term the general meaning of which is tolerably well understood by those who will have to administer the Act.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

This is the first occasion on which the Amendment to leave out "Committee" and insert "Board" occurs. A similar Amendment, as I told your Lordships just now, is necessary in a good many other cases down the Bill. May I take it that if your Lordships agree to the change on this occasion, the Amendment need not be moved again?

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Hear, hear.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out ("Committee") and insert ("Board").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I had better put in general form the other Amendments to which Lord Camperdown referred. I suggest putting them in this way—That the words "Committee" or "Statutory Committee" appearing in the Bill in the places mentioned in the Amendments standing in the name of Lord Camperdown be omitted, and that in place of such word or words there be inserted in all cases the word "Board."

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD HAVERSHAM

I propose a small Amendment which does not in any way injure the Bill or alter the sense of this clause. Subsection (4) runs at present— All other expenses of the Committee (including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Committee. I move to omit the words "(including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine)."

In the first place this provision as it stands creates a new and, as I think, a very bad precedent, because in no charitable committee that one knows of is leave of this kind given to vote yourselves allowances and to charge the public with your travelling expenses. I happen to have served for eighteen years on the Patriotic Fund Committee, and I have never thought of being allowed to charge travelling or other expenses. Travelling expenses in this case might possibly be defended, but there is no travelling. There is not a single duty that the Committee will have to perform—and I refer your Lordships to, Clause 3 in support of my contention—which will necessitate travelling. The secretary might possibly go somewhere to make an inquiry, but that is not likely to be common; and if he did, the latter part of this clause contains a provision which would cover his travelling expenses. The duties of this Committee are entirely to settle disputed questions referred to them by the Admiralty and the War Office, or sent to them by the local committees. They have no travelling at all, and I think this sort of loose expression, "other allowances," invites expenditure which is not in the least required. My last objection to the subsection as it stands is this. In this particular case there is no Treasury check at all. In the other cases there might be the check of the Treasury, but there is no word said about these allowances and expenses being approved and sanctioned by the Treasury. I think, therefore, it would be wise if we omitted these words, more especially as they do not affect the sense of the clause and are simply supererogatory.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out from ("Committee") to ("shall") in line 10.—(Lord Haversham.)

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I hope His Majesty's Government will see fit to agree to this Amendment. I think it will be a great improvement in the Bill to leave out any such proposal as these words contain. Further than that, I think it is certain that if they remain in the Bill with regard to the Statutory Committee, all the local committees will be also asked to consider whether they should not provide something for the travelling and other expenses of their members. There has been a good deal of movement in certain quarters for indirect payments to members of various local bodies, and I think it is a very great evil.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

In these days we are all naturally opposed to superfluous expenditure of any kind, but I suggest that your Lordships should think twice before you strike these words out of the clause. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment suggested that these allowances, particularly the travelling allowances, were quite unnecessary, and he pointed to the wording of Clause 3 and said, "What is there in Clause 3 to show that the members of the Statutory Committee will have to incur any expenses upon travelling?" My noble friend seems to assume that all the members of the Statutory Committee will be resident in London. That certainly need not be the case. And I think the House should also bear this in mind, that we have provided in the Bill that amongst the members of the Statutory Committee are to be a certain number of labour representatives. If that is so, is there not some hardship in requiring these gentlemen to come up to attend meetings of the Committe and to deny them the right of compensation for their travelling expenses? I am told in point of fact that a difficulty of the kind did arise in the days of the old Patriotic Fund Corporation, when it was found desirable that power should be taken to make allowances of this sort I should myself have thought that, as the whole of the proceedings of the Statutory Committee are bound to come before Parliament and to take place in the broad light of clay, there really was not very much chance of abuse growing up under this subsection, and I confess I shall be sorry if my noble friend insists upon his Amendment.

LORD HAVERSHAM

I am afraid I cannot very well withdraw my Amendment after the support it has received from the noble Earl opposite. I can only say, in answer to the noble Marquess, that I was on this Committee of the Patriotic Fund but never heard of any application for travelling expenses. The offices where the Statutory Committee will meet will be in London, and you do not pay travelling expenses up to London as a rule.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

Would not His Majesty's Government go so far as this? The subsection now reads "travelling and other allowances." Surely "other allowances" are quite unnecessary, and we might say "including such travelling expenses." That would meet the point the noble Marquess urged.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Travelling and out-of-pocket expenses?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

No.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Merely travelling expenses?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

Yes.

LORD HAVERSHAM

May I be allowed to withdraw my present Amendment, and to move to strike out the words "and other allowances" and to insert the word "expenses" after "travelling"?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out ("and other allowances") and after ("travelling ") insert ("expenses").—(Lord Haversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2:

Establishment of local committees.

2.—(1) For the purpose of assisting the Statutory Committee in the execution of their duties, a local committee shall be established for every county and county borough, and for every borough or urban district having a population of not less than fifty thousand the council of which so desires, and for any other borough or urban district for which the Statutory Committee, on the application of the council thereof, consider it desirable that, having regard to the special circumstances of the ease, a separate local committee should be established.

(2) The constitution of a local committee shall be such as may be determined by a scheme framed by the council of the county or borough or urban district and approved by the Statutory committee; so, however, that every such scheme shall provide—

  1. (a) for the appointment by the council of the county or borough or urban district of at least a majority of the local committee: but the members so appointed by the council need not be members of the council; and
  2. (b) for the appointment by the local committee from amongst their own number of a chairman; and
  3. (c) for the inclusion of women and representatives of labour among the members of the local committee.

(3) If within such time, not being less than one month, as may be allowed by the Statutory Committee, the council does not frame a scheme or such a scheme as the Statutory Committee approve, the Statutory Committee may themselves frame a scheme which shall have a like effect as if it were framed by the council and approved by the Statutory Committee.

(4) The scheme, in the case of a county, may provide for the division of the county into districts and the appointment of a sub-committee for each such district, which sub-committees are herein-after referred to as district committees, so, however, that every borough and urban district within the county having a population of not less than twenty thousand, and in the case of the county of London the city of London and each metropolitan borough, shall be a separate district, and that the council thereof shall have the right of appointing at least a majority of the members of the district committee, and in the appointment of every such district committee sonic of the members appointed shall be women. Such a district committee may, but need not, contain any members of the local committee.

(5) A scheme regulating the constitution of any such local committee or district committee as aforesaid shall provide for the substantial representation amongst the members of the local or district committee of persons who have within the area either as members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, or the Soldiers and Sailors Help Society, or otherwise, been performing functions similar to those to be performed by local committees under this Act.

(6) For facilitating the preparation of such schemes, as aforesaid the Statutory Committee shall as soon as practicable prepare and issue forms of model schemes.

(7) A local committee or district committee may also appoint sub-committees, either for any special purposes or for any special parts of their area, and any such committee may consist either wholly or partly of members of the local or district committee.

(8) Any two or more local committees may combine together for the joint exercise of any of their powers and duties under this Act, and may for that purpose appoint a joint committee, and may agree as to the proportions in which the several local committees represented on the joint committee are to contribute towards the expenses of such joint committee.

(9) A local committee may delegate to any district committee, and a local committee or district committee may delegate to any subcommittee, whether appointed for any particular locality or not, any of its powers and duties under this Act, whether with or without any restrictions or conditions as it may think fit.

(10) Any expenses of a local committee (except so far as they may be paid by the Statutory Committee) shall be paid out of funds at the disposal of the local committee.

(11) In the application of this section to Scotland "county borough," "borough," or "urban district" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The next Amendment is mine. It is purely drafting, and it will make subsection (5) read, "A scheme … shall provide for the substantial representation on the local and district committee …"

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 3, line 37, leave out ("amongst the members of") and insert ("on").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE MARQUESS or CREWE

We agree to that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The next Amendment is to add words at the end of subsection (7). This is purely a drafting Amendment, and it is transposing Clause 5 to this place.

Amendment moved— Clause 2, page 4, line 10, after ("committee") insert ("and in particular may appoint a special committee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour for the care of disabled officers and men").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The next Amendment is in subsection (11), which adapts the Bill to the circumstances of Scotland. I introduced an Amendment when we were in Committee which I thought was merely a drafting Amendment, but it turned out that it had the effect of enabling any burgh in Scotland to appoint a local committee. That was not intended. This Amendment places the subsection virtually in its original form.

Amendment moved— Clause 2, page 4, line 26, after the first ("borough") insert ("means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh with a population of not less than fifty thousand, and").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3:

Functions of Statutory Committee.

3.—(1) The functions of the Statutory Committee shall be—

  1. (a) to decide any question of fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant, other than a widow or child, may depend;
  2. (b) to frame regulations for supplementary grants in cases where owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the pension or grant or separation allowance payable out of public funds seems to the committee to be inadequate;
  3. (c) out of funds at their disposal, to supplement pensions and grants and separation allowances payable out of public funds, so, however, that no such supplementary grant shall be made except in accordance with such regulations as aforesaid;
  4. (d) out of funds at their disposal, to make grants or allowances in cases where no separation allowances or pensions are payable out of public funds;
  5. (e) out of funds at their disposal, to make advances on account of pensions or grants or separation allowances due to any person out of public funds during any interval before the payment thereof actually commences;
  6. (f) to decide, in any particular case, whether, as respects a wife, widow, child, or other dependant, any pension or grant or separation allowance and, as respects an officer or man, any supplementary grant has, under the regulations subject to which it was granted, become forfeited;
  7. (g) to decide, as between two or more claimants to any pension or grant or separation allowance, which, if any, of the claimants is entitled thereto;
  8. (h) to determine any other questions in relation to pensions or grants or separation allowances which may be referred to the committee by the Admiralty or Army Council;
  9. (i) to administer any funds which may be placed at the disposal of the committee by local committees or by any society or other organisation having funds applicable to the making of grants of the nature of those which the committee are authorised to make, or otherwise;
    10. 992
  10. (j) to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the service, including provision for their health, training, and employment;
  11. (k) to make grants in special cases for the purpose of enabling widows, children, and other dependants of deceased officers and men to obtain training and employment.

(2) The Statutory Committee may refer to any local committee for their consideration and advice any question pending before the Statutory Committee, and may request any local committee to collect and furnish them with any information they may require with respect to any matter, and may delegate to any local committee the distribution within their area of any grants made by the Statutory Committee, and may pay or contribute towards the payment of the expenses incurred by the local committee in respect of any of the matters aforesaid.

(3) For the purpose of making provision for the care of disabled officers and men, the Statutory Committee shall appoint a special subcommittee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour.

(4) Paragraphs (8), (9), (10), and (11), of the First Schedule to the Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903 (relating to funds, accounts and audit) shall apply in respect of the Statutory Committee in like manner as they apply in respect of the Corporation.

(5) The Statutory Committee shall in each year make a report of their proceedings to His Majesty.

(6) Pending the appointment of a local committee or sub-committee for any area, the Statutory Committee may make arrangements with any organisation for the performance within that area by the organisation of the functions of the local committee mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of section four of this Act.

(7) For the purpose of enabling the Statutory Committee to discharge their functions the Admiralty and the Army Council shall on request supply the Statutory Committee with such particulars as they may require with regard to any payments made by them to any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant, and the Statutory Committee may on request duly communicate all such and similar information to any charitable body legitimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

Subsection (1), paragraph (e), provides that the Committee may, out of funds at their disposal, make advances on account of pensions or grants or separation allowances due to any person out of public funds during any interval before the payment thereof actually commences. I move to add the words "or during which the payment thereof has been accidentally interrupted." There were a good many cases of the kind in the early stages of the war, and I think this would be a useful power for the Committee to possess.

Amendment moved— Clause 3, page 5, line 11, after ("commences") insert ("or during which the payment thereof has been accidentally interrupted").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The next Amendment is in my name, and is to leave out subsection (4) and insert a new subsection.

Amendment moved—

Clause 3, page 6, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert the following new subsection: (4) The Paymaster-General shall be the treasurer of the Board, and he shall keep such accounts on behalf of the Board as the Treasury may from time to time direct, and the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Board shall be audited in such manner and by such persons as the Treasury may from time to time direct."— (The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4:

Functions of local committees.

4. The functions of local committees shall be—

  1. (a) to inquire into any ease referred to them by the Statutory Committee, and to report to the Statutory Committee their advice and recommendations with respect thereto;
  2. (b) to collect and furnish to the Statutory Committee such information as may be required by the Statutory Committee with respect to any matter, and to furnish applicants for pensions or grants or separation allowances with information and advice, especially in the event of payment being unduly delayed;
  3. (c) to distribute any supplementary grants made by the Statutory Committee, the distribution of which has been delegated to the local committee;
  4. (d) out of any funds at their disposal for the purpose, to make contributions towards the funds administered by the Statutory Committee, to increase pensions, grants, and separation allowances and to make grants or allowances where no pensions, grants, or separation allowances are otherwise payable;
  5. (e) out of funds at their disposal, to make advances on account of pensions or grants or separation allowances due to any persons out of public funds during any interval before the payment thereof actually commences;
  6. (f) to make provision subject to the approval of the Statutory Committee for the care of disabled officers rand men after they have left the service, including provision for their health, training, and employment;
  7. (g) to solicit and receive from the public contributions towards any such purposes as aforesaid.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

With regard to the powers of the local committees, I move to add at the end of paragraph (e) of this clause the same words as your Lordships inserted just now, On my motion, in Clause 3.

Amendment moved— Clause 4, page 7, line 17, after ("commences") insert ("or during which the payment thereof has been accidentally interrupted").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5:

Special sub-committees for care of disabled.

5. The local committee may appoint, for the care of disabled officers and men, a special subcommittee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The remaining Amendment is to leave out Clause 5. This provision has been transposed, and now appears in Clause 2.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 5.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 160.)