HL Deb 23 September 1915 vol 19 cc844-923

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve into Committee.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Before the House goes into Committee I wish to ask a question which I have no doubt can be easily answered. We are in unprecedented circumstances in this respect, that one of the noble Marquesses on the Front Ministerial Bench is in charge of the Bill, and the other noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) has given notice of a number of Amendments. I suppose that both are acting for the Government. But what I desire is to be quite sure that the Amendments are on equal terms, and, if agreed to, are cordially accepted by both sections of the Government, and that this is not a momentary relapse into the leadership of the Opposition on the part of the noble Marquess.

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

Far from there being any difference of opinion between my noble friend behind me and myself on this subject, our co-operation in this particular work has been singularly close. In fact it is not too much to say, as I think I hinted on one occasion at this Table, that a large part of the work in connection with this Bill has been done by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne. It so happened that during part of the time I was busily occupied with other matters, and my noble friend was good enough to engage in several of the conversations and conferences which took place on the subject. The result is that he and I have shared the Government Amendments between us, and I can assure the noble Lord that nobody opposite will see either of us rising to oppose the other.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Establishment of Statutory Committee of Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.

1.—(1) For the purposes herein-after 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 of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (herein-after referred to as the Corporation), consisting of twenty-five members, appointed as herein-after mentioned.

(2) Of the said twenty-five members— twelve (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) Four of the members appointed by the General Council of the Corporation shall be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation, but save as aforesaid it shall not be necessary that the persons appointed to be members of the Statutory Committee should at the time of appointment be members of the Corporation.

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

(5) 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.

(6) Seven members of the Statutory Committee shall constitute a quorum, and the Statutory Committee may appoint sub-committees con- sisting 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.

(7) 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: Provided that if a member required to be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation ceases for two months to be a member of the Corporation otherwise than as a member of the Statutory Committee he shall at the end of that period vacate his office as member of the Statutory Committee, and that a person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall continue in office so long only as the person in whose place he was appointed would have continued in office.

(8) The Statutory Committee may employ a secretary, assistant secretaries, and such other clerks and servants as they may require, and may establish a scheme of pensions for persons in their permanent employment.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had an Amendment on the Paper, in subsection (1), after the word "allowances," to insert "other than separation allowances." The noble Lord said: I desire to put myself right with the House and to make a short explanation of why I am not going to move this Amendment. I gave notice of the series of Amendments of which this is one prior to the recess and before we knew what course the Government were likely to take in regard to this Bill. I am now convinced that if this Amendment were carried it could not possibly, after what has passed, be accepted by the Government. But I understand and hope that we shall hear in the course of the discussion in Committee that to a large extent the points which were sought to be obtained by this Amendment will be conceded, and that Amendments will be agreed to which will go far to remedy what I still think was the injustice threatened to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, inasmuch as in the Bill as presented to your Lordships that body was cut entirely out of the work which it had been doing with great acceptance for the past fourteen months. I am satisfied that the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill greatly under-rated the amount of area which is covered, certainly in Scotland, by the operations of this association, and I believe it could have gone on with the work, especially so far as separation allowances are concerned, with complete satisfaction to the Government until the end of the war, and in some respects the advantage to the recipients of these allowances would have been very great if that could have been carried out. There is a considerable logical difference between things which are permanent, like pensions, disablement allowances, and so on, as contrasted with separation allowances. I am told that the work of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association has been done with great economy, and I am perfectly certain that without that work justice in many cases would not have been done in the past to the women who were receiving these separation allowances. The association gave valuable assistance where either the separation allowances were inadequate or owing to untoward circumstances the delay in payment led to distress arising in the family which required immediate dealing with. Besides these things, it was impossible for many of the women in question to put their case justly and fairly to the Government representative, and unless the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association had done in the past what they have done, a great deal of quite unnecessary suffering would have been caused. If there is to be representation on the local committees of those who have learned this work and know how to do it, I believe those difficulties and injustices will be largely removed. Therefore though I do not regret the course which I took in the past in advocating the cause of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the House and of the discussion which we shall have to-night that I should not move at this stage the Amendment standing in my name.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have a similar Amendment to that standing in the name of Lord Balfour, and I should like to say a word or two as to why I do not propose to move it, although I still think that this is the best way of dealing with the situation. It would be better to leave the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association to deal with separation allowances, but I understand that the general feeling is against that course. One reason why I think it would be far better had that course been followed is that we knew that the National Relief Fund has money, and that the committee of that Fund have advanced money to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, who have in turn made advances in respect of separation allowances before the War Office had decided officially who were entitled to them, and in that way a very awkward gap has been bridged over. It is true that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has an Amendment on the Paper to enable the local statutory committees to advance money for this purpose, but as the Bill stands at present they would have no money, neither State money nor private money. Therefore I should have liked these societies to have been left where they were, and the new local statutory committees would not then have been burdened with a large amount of work which it was unnecessary to transfer to them. If you read the reports of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and of the other bodies you will see that they discharge an immense amount of useful and beneficent work quite apart from the money they advance for the purpose of separation allowances. I hope that that work will continue. But one cannot help feeling that had these bodies been left, I will not say in an official but in some semi-official position discharging the duties as regards separation allowances, they would have had more authority and more influence in performing their other beneficent work. For these reasons I think that would have been far the best way to have dealt with the problem. But as I understand the general sense is against it, I do not wish, any more than the noble Lord below me, to press this Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I think I ought to say, on behalf of my noble friend (Lord Lansdowne) and myself, that we are obliged to both the noble Lords for not pressing this Amendment. The subject, I quite admit, is not altogether an easy one, and I do not at all dispute the force of what both noble Lords have said. On the other hand, there remains a strong argument in the other direction. It has been thought that it would be a pity to divorce pension administration altogether from that of separation allowances. To take only a single instance, the two administrations are likely to overlap in relation to the same people. In the case of a soldier whose wife and family have been receiving the benefit of a separation allowance, if that soldier were killed all the knowledge which was possessed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association of the circumstances of that particular family would be lost were this Amendment carried. The care and administration of that particular family would have passed over to the pension authority, who ex hypothesi would be completely ignorant of the circumstances. The object of combining the two is that in such cases use may be made of the knowledge which individuals possess of the circumstances of the particular case. That is a single instance of the advantage which, in our opinion, attaches to the Bill as it stands. However, I will not attempt to develop the subject further as the noble Lords do not intend to move the Amendment, but will merely once more express our thanks to them for the action they have taken.

LORD DEVONPORT

I move to omit from subsection (1) of Clause 1 the words "of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation." This Bill represents an endeavour on the part of the Government to deal with probably the greatest question which has ever confronted this or any other Government; and inasmuch as the war itself is the greatest war we have ever witnessed and the duration of it is indefinite and consequently the particular conditions and circumstances which the Bill seeks to meet may be enlarged as time goes on, I think your Lordships will agree with me that it behoves us to take the greatest possible care that the organisation which is entrusted with the administration of these most complex questions is one which possesses the national confidence and which will be so equipped that it shall have at its command and be able to call in to help it representatives of all the various interests concerned, and I submit that the only body capable of meeting those requirements is one which is absolutely under State control. Therefore I move this Amendment with the idea of eliminating this particular body, which as the clause now stands is to constitute, if I may so term it, the parent stem on which is to be built up this organisation. I propose, in substitution for this body, to give to the Crown the entire right of nominating the whole of the members of the Statutory Committee. The Bill as introduced provides that the Statutory Committee shall consist of twenty-five members. I make no quarrel about numbers, and as that is the condition of the Bill as introduced I accept those numbers. A State body will possess what an outside charitable organisation in connection with these momentous things will not possess—public confidence; and I think that the constitution of the Committee, if left to the Crown, will secure all the elements that are necessary to make this Statutory Committee a success.

I propose for a moment to glance at the nature of the responsibilities which this Bill seeks to entrust to an outside and quasi-private charitable organisation. Your Lordships will find these responsibilities set out in the various paragraphs in Clause 3. This series of paragraphs delegates to this body the responsibility of conducting a series of functions on behalf of the State. Under paragraph (a) there is delegated to this Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation the responsibility of deciding for the State any question of fact upon the determination of which will depend the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant. A matter of that kind requires no delegation. The State is perfectly competent to determine a question of fact affecting the amount of a pension, or allowance, or grant to a dependant, and I fail to see why it should invoke the aid of some outside body, more especially when the grant is to be paid out of public funds. Under paragraph (b) the function is delegated to the Statutory Committee to frame for the State regulations for supplementing inadequate pensions, or grants, or separation allowances payable out of public funds. Why should the State go to some outside body and ask them to draw up such regulations? One would think that the State had come newly into existence and was altogether lacking in experience, whereas quite the contrary is the case.

Under paragraph (e), again, to this body is delegated the responsibility of deciding whether any pension, or grant, or separation allowance, or supplementary grant has become forfeited. I am surprised that the State should ask this body to decide whether or not a pension has become forfeited. The State has plenty of experience in regard to the forfeiture of pensions. And I suppose these grants and allowances are decided by regulations. Consequently any infringement of the regulations could be far more easily ascertained by the State than by sonic outside body. Under paragraph (g) there is set up a court of referees, again under delegation, to decide any question in relation to pensions, or grants, or separation allowances which may be referred to them by the Admiralty or the War Department. It seems to me a serious thing that these great Departments, with their vast experience, should seek by this Bill to refer matters of great moment, as many of them must be, to an outside body of this kind. I say that all these duties can be more conveniently carried out by the State than by sonic body to whom the responsibility is delegated.

Then there are paragraphs (c) and (d). It is not necessary, in connection with these two paragraphs, to confer statutory powers at all if the words "out of funds at their disposal" mean, as they certainly did mean when the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, "out of private moneys within their control." if the words mean that, then there is no statutory enactment required. No statutory enactment is needed to enable a body to do what it likes with the funds of which it is the trustees, always subject, of course, to the trust deed if there be one. But circumstances have altered materially since this Bill was first introduced. It is now practically admitted that the expectation of getting the finance of the Bill found from private sources is, if not dissipated altogether, at any rate a diminishing hope. Therefore if the State is going to provide the money necessary, which is anticipated to amount to £5,000,000, then I say that the words in the Bill as they at present stand confer on an outside body the spending of State funds without any control whatever. It is quite evident, at all events to those of us who have had experience of the House of Commons, that it is contrary to Parliamentary practice to allow a private body to spend public funds unless it is deliberately stated in the Bill. Here, of course, it is not stated at all. The clause as drafted assumes that the money is going to be found by these private organisations. These private organisation, as far as indications go, are not going to find the money. I hope the noble Earl opposite (Earl St. Aldwyn), whose experience is greater than that of any of us, appreciates this point. Assuming that the wording of the clause remains precisely as it is, and assuming that instead of the money coming from private sources it comes from State sources, I would like to have the noble Earl's view on the regularity of the proceeding.

But assuming, as I will assume for the purpose of argument, that this money is to be found by private effort, what is the position that it places us in? It puts the State in the undignified position of casting the responsibility on to private organisations to provide pensions, separation allowances, and other grants as the case may be, out of funds which are charitably subscribed. The inference in the Bill is that these pensions and grants are deserved; but the State refuses, as it were, to accept the responsibility of defraying these obligations, and prefers to cast the duty upon an outside organisation. In that connection I would say this. If we can afford to raise £5,000,000 a day to defray the cost of this war and to bear the heavy burden of taxation that is cast upon us, surely we shall not decline to shoulder a little additional burden to discharge adequately and completely the obligations that we owe to the men who have fought and suffered during the terrible time they have had to endure in this war.

Hitherto—and I think here I am on substantial ground—the granting of pensions and allowances and the regulations governing them have always been a State responsibility. The experience is there. The authorities at Greenwich deal with Navy pensions, not merely what are termed to-day fiat-rate pensions, but disability pensions and compassionate allowances. The same happens at Chelsea in relation to the Army. At the Admiralty and the War Office contract pensions are paid; but these side pensions, disability pensions, and compassionate allowances have been paid from Greenwich and Chelsea from time immemorial, and there all the experience resides. Yet it is proposed to disregard the existing organisation, which is a State-controlled organisation, and commit the whole thing to the custody and control of an outside body. I say that the discharge of every one of the functions to which I have referred is appropriate to the State and to no other body, and the delegation of them, as is sought by this Bill, is in my judgment an avoidance of responsibility on the part of the Government which nothing can justify.

I pass to far more serious responsibilities that are sought to be committed to this body. Paragraph (i) of Clause 3 gives to the Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation the care of disabled soldiers and sailors after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment; and paragraph (j) casts upon the Statutory Committee the responsibility of assisting by grants widows and other dependants to obtain training and employment when necessary. If one analyses these two paragraphs closely one finds that this responsibility will embrace such matters of vast importance as the care of the disabled man's health when he is discharged from the Service with the idea of getting him well so that he can re-enter civil employment, the provision of industrial training, and the teaching of new trades, as will be necessary to thousands who become disabled from following their former vocations; and, more important still, the responsibility is cast upon this outside body to find employment for those who stand in need of such assistance.

The foundation for these provisions is the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. That was a Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board to consider and report upon the methods to be adopted for providing employment for soldiers and sailors disabled in the war, and I am going to appeal to lids Report in support of my Amendment. A more concise, definite, unambiguous Report, expressing as it does the unanimous mind of an exceptionally strong Committee well equipped for the work entrusted to it, I have never read; and if the recommendations of Sir George Murray's Committee had been accepted by the Government there would have been no need to move an Amendment, and there would have been no necessity for this House to hang up the Bill as it did. Had the recommendations of that Committee been adopted, there is no doubt that the result would have been a thoroughly satisfactory Bill. Sir George Murray's Committee were emphatically in favour of State responsibility. The opening paragraph of the Report dwells upon that, and the closing paragraph repeats it, and at intervals in the various passages in the Report it is re-emphasised. This is what the Committee say— At the outset we desire to express our opinion that the care of the soldiers and sailors who have been disabled in the war is an obligation which should fall primarily upon the State. … We regard it as the duty of the State to see that the disabled man shall be as far as possible restored to health, and that assistance shall be forthcoming to enable him to earn his living in the occupation best suited to his circumstances and physical condition. At the end of their Report the Committee say— We desire to bring to your notice the urgency of the questions into which we have inquired … It is most desirable that an organisation should be set on foot at the earliest possible date for the performance of the duties which we regard as properly falling to the State in relation to those who have suffered in its service. The Report gives data up to May last. It contains interesting figures, first as to the numbers up to that time that had been disabled. Then it deduces the numbers that may be expected to be disabled in the future; but circumstances have so changed as regards the character of the campaign that no doubt the numbers suggested in the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee will be very largely exceeded.

The Report then gives the nature of the disablements, collected again from data supplied by Army Returns up to May last, and we get some indication of the terrible misfortunes that happen and will continue to happen to the men serving in this campaign. The Report points out a very important matter in relation to the treatment of disabled men. It is this, that the Navy and Army Departments are responsible only for the care of the man who is in a disabled condition up to the time of his discharge. When once he is discharged their interest in him ceases altogether; and Sir George Murray's Committee point out that as soon as the Service Departments get a clear idea that a man is not going to get well enough to return to the Service they get rid of him without paying very much regard to the question whether his health or physical condition can be improved by further treatment. In paragraph 8 of their Report the Committee say— We suggest that the State should take a liberal view of its duties in this respect, and that it should assume the responsibility for the treatment of the disabled sailor or soldier and his restoration to health when practicable. The result under this Bill will be that immediately on the discharge of a man from the Service these responsibilities will fall, not upon the State, but upon the Statutory Committee, and when I reflect upon the serious nature of the responsibilities that will be cast upon the Committee it only snakes me more emphatic in my view that the State, and the State alone, is the proper body to undertake this important work.

Now, what are some of the responsibilities that will have to be undertaken to render disabled men fit to resume civil occupation? Sir George Murray's Committee point out that in some cases prolonged treatment of a special kind will have to be provided, as well as massage, electrical treatment, and things of that sort. Sanatoria will have to be provided for consumptive cases, provision will have to be made for the care of the mentally defective, and a vast number of surgical appliances will be required. I enumerate these things because the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee refers to them and points out that suitable assistance in every class of case to which I have referred can be provided through the agency of some appropriate Government Department. For example, the Committee suggest the National Health Committee as the proper Department to take care of tuberculous cases and those requiring prolonged and special medical treatment. They suggest that the Home Office and the Local Government Board should have the care of those who are mentally defective, and that it should be the responsibility of these Departments to see that they are properly looked after. As regards surgical appliances which will be so much in request, Sir George Murray's Committee state that the Chelsea and Greenwich authorities are already supplying them, and it has been their practice to supply them for a long time past. Notwithstanding that all these responsibilities could be properly and appropriately, as the Committee put it, placed upon Government Departments, the recommendations of the Committee in this particular are disregarded, and the responsibilities are to be placed—unless this House prevents it—upon the Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.

Beyond all that, there is a far greater responsibility, in my judgment, cast upon the Statutory Committee, and that is to find employment for all injured men when they are restored to health. Many of them, of course, will be able to resume their old employment. Others will be incapacitated from doing so, and in those cases it will be necessary to teach the men new trades. Sir George Murray's Committee point out that the local education authorities, by reason of the fact that they have under their control technical schools, polytechnics, and trade institutions would be the natural body to whom to entrust these responsibilities, and, of course, the local education authorities are under the purview of the Board of Education, so that in that particular a Government Department would have supervision. Then take the question of finding these men employment. That is also to be committed to the Statutory Committee. But the Board of Trade is the Government Department that deals more closely with employment than any other. At the present moment I think I am right in saying that the Board of Trade has not a single representative on this proposed Statutory Committee. The Board of Trade is in daily touch with the great trade organisations, not merely of labour but of employers; and I venture to say that, so far as a Government Department can possess the whole-hearted confidence of organisations of this kind, the Board of Trade possesses it in a marked degree. The Board of Trade is also in charge of the Labour Exchanges, the work and organisation of which it controls and directs. The Board also prepares all the employment statistics, and it would be futile to urge for a single moment that any outside organisation could have the influence which the Board of Trade would be able to exercise in connection with the finding of employment for these men. There is another very important question that will come along. It is not mentioned in this Bill, but it will be a great question to deal with when the Armies are demobilised. I refer to the enormous need of organisation to deal with the resettling in employment of the millions of men who will be disbanded at the end of the war. That organisation ought to be thought out now, although it could not be included in this Bill; but naturally the Board of Trade would be the body most competent to deal with that question.

This Bill disregards entirely the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. We have it on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Bill is founded upon the evidence submitted by Mr. Hayes Fisher, the Chairman of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. Mr. McKenna said that it was modelled upon his proposals. In view of what has happened—the fact that the expectation of the Bill being financed by voluntary aid has been dissipated—I submit that there is no justification for entrusting these responsibilities to this Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. Circumstances have completely changed, and I am seeking by my Amendment to set up a Statutory Committee entirely State controlled, entirely State nominated, entirely supported, as it must be, by State funds, and that will make it fully responsible to and under the control of Parliament. No doubt questions will crop up in Parliament almost daily with reference to the treatment accorded to men returned from the war. What would be the position if this body was a Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund? The Minister who was questioned could only reply on second-hand information. Whereas if the body were a State body in the true sense of the term there would be a Minister detailed who would be responsible for the work, and who would have to hold his own in defence of attacks made upon him in connection with the conduct of the organisation for which he was responsible.

My Amendment would not shut out one single representative indicated in the Bill if the Government still desire to continue them on the Statutory Committee. All those indicated could still be nominated by the Crown. The difference would be this, that instead of earmarked representation of various private charitable organisations and of numerous Government officials with a statutory right to hold their representation for all time, a far better system would prevail. The preferable system of pre-choice would be secured if the selection was left to the Crown. My proposal has this further advantage. It is susceptible of modification after three years, whereas if any modification is desired after a statutory title has been given to what I may call earmarked representation, it could only be done by legislation. I am perfectly certain that bodies such as the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, the Soldiers and Sailors Help Society, and the National Relief Fund, would be given representation, probably liberal representation, if my scheme were adopted, and there would be no fear of losing their co-operation. I see no justification whatever for according this privileged position to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. They propose to contribute no money. Mr. Hayes Fisher, the chairman, was asked when he appeared before the Select Committee whether they would be able to supplement by funds at their disposal these pensions and allowances, and he replied, I think quite truthfully, that their funds were already fully allocated. There is, therefore, no hope of securing money from this body. Consequently I fail to see why it should be accorded six representatives and be given a position of privilege. In moving the Amendment standing in my name I feel confident that only by the establishment of a State body, State controlled, and administered by State funds, can the success be achieved which the Government undoubtedly desire.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, lease out ("of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation").—(Lord Devonport.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I listened with close attention to the speech of my noble friend behind me, filled, as it was, with no little detail. But I confess that when he sat down I still remained in some doubt as to his precise purpose in moving this Amendment. I did not—very likely through my own fault—entirely follow his line of thought, because he appeared to me at various periods of his speech to describe the object which he had in view in different terms. My noble friend began by saying that the whole of the work in connection with this business ought to be handed over to the State. That is a convenient general term, but it may mean a number of different things. During a great part of my noble friend's speech I was under the impression that what he desired was that the whole management of this business should be departmental—that is to say, it should be managed solely by the War Office and the Admiralty, with the assistance of the Treasury to provide the funds.

But at another and later period of my noble friend's speech I gained an altogether different impression. Far from the entire management being departmental, my noble friend pointed out that there was no reason, simply because the members of this body were to be nominated by the Crown, that they should be in any way different from those whom we propose to nominate—that so far as the individuals were concerned they might be the same. He seemed to believe that the fact that this statutory body was to receive some other name and not to be described as a Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund conferred some sort of magical attributes upon it and made it in various respects infinitely more representative of the State than it would be even if its individual position remained the same. I confess I cannot follow that argument. I can understand what is meant by State management in the sense of official management. That is what as a rule, I think, is understood by that term. But that the mere fact that the body is somewhat differently described, and that it becomes, if you like, a chartered body nominated entirely by the Crown, should be supposed to make a complete change in its functions in relation to the public is a proposition which I confess I cannot follow.

As my noble friend knows quite well, there is nothing whatever new, either in this country or in other parts of Europe, in the combination of official representatives of public Departments and private individuals of capacity and experience for working sonic particular set of public or semi-public functions. There are many cases which could be named in this country on those lines, and, as my noble friend is no doubt aware, in France the whole Poor Law administration is conducted on those lines. The whole foundation of the Assistance Publique is a combination of State management and private benevolence. Therefore I cannot see that the proposition which we have made to the House in the Bill represents any novel suggestion or a suggestion which experience would lead us to suppose might not be a useful one.

Then the noble Lord made a point which, if lie is right, is no doubt one of great importance. He believes—although for argumentative purposes he was willing for the moment to presume the contrary—that the sources of private benevolence for the purpose of supplementing pensions or allowances have completely dried up. I think I am not misrepresenting my noble friend in saying that he believes that for the purposes of this Bill we ought to ignore the possibility of any contribution from private funds.

LORD DEVONPORT

I said that you had, in fact, failed to realise your expectations.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

That is quite true, as is familiar to us from previous discussions, as regards the particular contribution from the National Relief Fund which it was hoped at one time might be received. That expectation has not been borne out, but I do not think it is quite fair to assume that for these supplementary purposes no additional funds will be forthcoming from private sources. I hope sincerely that that may not be the case because if that be so it cannot be denied that the whole business of supplementary allowances assumes a different, and in some respects an unhappy, aspect. For this reason. We are all well aware that the scale on which these supplementary allowances are given has some considerable reference to the previous circumstances in which the individuals have lived, and the result is that the allowances are given in altogether different amounts; a maximum is no doubt fixed, but within that maximum a great variety of allocations are made. That is all very well and simple enough so long as the money comes from private funds; but you would not find it possible to go on distributing money on those lines—lines, that is to say, of benevolent consideration of the particular circumstances of individuals. Even if you did not have to change absolutely to a flat-rate, you may be sure you would have to come very near it; and for that reason, in view of the actual hardships inflicted upon some in comparison with others by the misfortunes of the war, it would be, I think, a great misfortune if we had to fall back, as I am afraid Parliament would insist on falling back, upon something like equality of treatment in all cases. Therefore we should be extremely sorry to have to face the idea that private benevolence, whether from the National Relief Fund or from other sources, was altogether at an end for the purpose of these supplementary additions. And when my noble friend behind me talks of the State undertaking the obligations, what I have just said has, I think, a bearing on that phrase. The obligation which the State is likely to undertake may not be more than a flat-rate obligation—it could hardly be expected to be much more—and therefore we are loth to believe that the last word has been said as regards the provision of these supplements.

That brings me to the proposal of my noble friend to sever all connection between the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation and this body. There is another matter on which my noble friend spoke at the conclusion of his speech on which I shall have to say a word—the question of disable- ment—but I desire at the moment to deal with the particular circumstances of the Amendment. It may be said that from one point of view the proposed connection between this new body and the Royal Patriotic Fund is not in itself a matter of supreme importance. Perhaps not. But so far as it is important I venture to think that the weight of argument is on the side of the maintenance of the connection. The Royal Patriotic Fund has an honourable history from the time of the Crimean War and through the South African War, in which a great deal of valuable service was rendered by persons of experience in the kind of work which has to be done under this Bill. The Fund has been presided over by two most honoured and popular members of the Royal family— the late Duke of Cambridge, and His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, who is the present chief of the Fund. As I said, I am brought to this particular point by the last stage of the argument, because if there is to be an attempt, as I am quite sure there ought to be, to continue to raise money by voluntary effort for these purposes, the composition of the Royal Patriotic Fund makes it peculiarly suitable, both centrally and locally, for that purpose. Its central meetings, held, I think, three or four times each year, provide—

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I happen to be a member of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, but I am only summoned once a year, and that is when the report is to be considered.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I think I know the kind of meeting to which my noble friend refers and to which as an ex officio member I have also been summoned. But my impression is that there are two or three other public meetings in the year at which statements of the work of the Fund are made.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Meetings of the general Corporation?

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Yes.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I am not summoned to them.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am under the impression that there were meetings at which reports were made and published in the Press. But, however that may be, so far as local organisations are concerned I think my noble friend will agree that the fact that all the Lords Lieutenant of counties are ex officio members is one which, if there is a question of raising local funds, is not without its importance. It is also not altogether an unimportant fact that the heads of important local authorities—lord mayors, chairmen of county councils, and so on—are members, and that touch thereby maintained between the central body and local bodies. Those are arguments which appear to me, in the absence of any strong reason to the contrary, to tell distinctly in favour of maintaining, the association of the Fund with this new body.

So far as this particular Bill is concerned, I might add that the re-casting of the composition of the body in this respect would no doubt be regarded as a very radical change when the Bill has to go back and be considered in another place. Even if my noble friend's Amendment were accepted it obviously could not stand alone, because this body, if it is to be called a Committee, must be a Committee of something, and therefore it would have to receive an entirely new title; it would have to be re-christened by the House under a new name. I venture to ask the House, Is that altogether worth doing? I think I have shown that my noble friend's belief that the mere elimination of the Royal Patriotic Food in this connection would somehow give the body a kind of State character which it does not possess at this moment is not justified by the fact, and in those circumstances I feel sure your Lordships will be right to leave the matter as it is. We are not at the moment on the question of the composition or the number of members, but on the question of whether the Royal Patriotic Fund should be regarded as the foundation from which this new body should spring, and I venture to hope that in view of the arguments which I have put forward the house will not accept my noble friend's Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I submit to the House that a considerable part of the discussion which has taken place has gone altogether beyond the Amendment before the House. As the noble Marquess has said, the composition of the Committee does not arise on this Amendment; that will come later. As the Bill stands, it is proposed that there shall be a Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. Lord Devonport wishes that the words should be simply "a Statutory Committee," to be filled up with other words, no doubt, later. But that is the sole subject which is before the House, and all the remarks with regard to the duties, composition, and so on of the Committee have really been beyond the point.

The noble Marquess says that the reason in favour of retaining the words at present in the clause is that under those words, the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation being constituted as it at present is, you are more likely to get private subscriptions than if the Amendment were adopted. That is open to argument. I think myself very differently. Why do we object to this Statutory Committee being made a committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation? This Corporation was established for the purpose of dealing with certain moneys privately subscribed in regard to losses and accidents which occurred in former wars. If your Lordships will look at the last report of the Corporation you will see that the capital value of the funds which remain unexhausted is £1,000,000, and the amount they are dealing with is something like £38,000 or £39,000 a year. They have not dealt with a single penny of public money. But under this Bill there certainly will be public money to some extent at all events, and surely in a case of that sort the money ought to be administered by a Statutory Committee which in some way is responsible to Parliament. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation is not responsible to Parliament. As Lord Devonport very rightly said, it is a quasi-private body. It presents an annual report, but I am not aware that there is anybody in Parliament to answer for it, or that any one has a right to question what the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation has done with the funds which belong to it in its private capacity.

But this Bill establishes a new system altogether. It establishes a system of supplementary grants in respect of allowances and other matters which must necessarily involve the employment of a lot of public money. In the opinion of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, almost the whole of these funds will have to be found out of public money. The noble Marquess in charge of the Bill thinks that the fact that the presidency of the Royal Patriotic Fund has been held by popular members of the Royal Family will bring subscriptions; that is a matter of opinion. But whatever is not produced by private subscriptions will have to be found from public sources. Therefore it seems to me that the proper body is a Statutory Committee responsible to Parliament. If your Lordships will look at subsection (4) of Clause 3 you will see that the Statutory Committee "shall in each year make a report of their proceedings which shall be included in the annual report made by the Corporation to His Majesty." Those words make this body absolutely a Committee of the Corporation. Our reason for objecting to this is that public money ought not, in our judgment, to be distributed by a quasi private body.

Suppose that this proposal had come from this House. What do you think would have been said in the other House of Parliament? Do not we all know? We can imagine the terms which would have been applied to us. What surprises me is this. How in the world did the House of Commons allow such a thing as this to slip through? I believe the reason was that this Bill, like so many other Bills, was passed in a tremendous hurry. When the House of Commons have had an opportunity of reconsidering what they did I do not at all believe they will think that this House has done wrong by altering these words, because by this Amendment we give them an opportunity of reopening the matter and of settling in their more deliberate judgment whether they did right on the previous occasion.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Marquess rather treated this as if it were really a question of name. My contention is briefly this. Here you have a Committee to which you are going to entrust very large functions and the expenditure of a large amount of public money. I submit that such a Committee ought to stand on its own foundation, as it were, and ought not to be a Committee of any other body, however distinguished and however useful. Why should you tie it on to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation? The onus of proof in this matter rests entirely on the Government. There are to be twenty-five members of this Committee, six of whom are to be appointed by the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. If the Corporation appointed twelve, or a majority of the members, I could understand this being called a Committee of that Corporation, but when the parent body only appoints six it is an absurdity to call the new Committee a Committee of that parent body.

This country has not treated its soldiers and sailors extremely well in the past after wars, and that is pretty well known. It should therefore be a matter of principle that a body of this kind, which is to deal with these vast subjects and the fate of soldiers and sailors after the war, should not be a Committee of a Corporation, however distinguished, but should be directly the offspring of the Government, appointed by the Government and directly responsible to Parliament. It should report to Parliament and not merely to a Corporation which, as the noble Marquess said, consists of Lords Lieutenant and mayors and many people of that kind. By its composition the Corporation is so large that the Lords Lieutenant and mayors have no weight in it. I have the composition here. Its General Council, to which these Lords Lieutenant and mayors belong, meets once in every year and oftener when required, but the whole work is done by the Executive Committee. This large and floating body of Lords Lieutenant and mayors are not going to collect money for the Corporation, but for their own localities and towns. I have never known a mayor who collected any money except for his own town, and I do not think they will in the future. The substantial point is, let the representation on this Committee be direct, the members appointed by the Government, and let it be patent to all our soldiers and sailors that the Government are going to provide for them. I do not say that there will not be private funds coming in, but the bulk will be public funds, and for that reason we ought to have a national body.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

I should like to say a few words on this question, and especially with regard to the point which was raised by the noble Marquess the Leafier of the House. He considered that by the use of the name of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation inducements would be held out to the public to subscribe large sums of private charity, and that if the Fund was removed from the Bill it would seriously operate against the contribution of charitable funds. I should like to put forward another aspect of the case. We are all interested in the same object, and that is the getting of as much charitable money subscribed as possible. Now, what will be the effect under the Bill of the Royal Patriotic Fund being appointed in the position proposed? I do not think it is expressly stated in the Bill, but it is implied that later on the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation will appeal to the public for subscriptions for charitable purposes under this Bill. It will have the authority of Parliament for so doing, and what will be the effect on the other charitable institutions which have so long and so ably carried on work in connection with soldiers and sailors? I venture to think that this scheme will have the opposite effect to that which the noble Marquess predicted. It seems to me that the existing societies other than the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation will suffer great disadvantages owing to the fact of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation being in this prominent position. I believe, if the Royal Patriotic Fund is eliminated from the Bill, that so far from that detracting from voluntary subscriptions, it will have the opposite effect, because the other societies which have for so long been interested in work connected with soldiers and sailors will be likely to receive a greater measure of support from the public than they would under the Bill as it is now constituted. I, like many others, strongly object to any private society being placed in the commanding position that it is proposed the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation should occupy. The State is under an obligation to provide for disabled officers and men, and I submit that the Committee that is appointed should be directly responsible to Parliament. I shall certainly support the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The object of this Amendment is obviously to sever the connection which under the Bill is provided between the Statutory Committee which the Bill sets up and the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. I should like the House to consider whether such a severance would really be for the public interest—

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Does the noble Marquess mean that the Amendment destroys all connection with the Statutory Committee? Let me point out to him that there are words to be proposed, when we come to the composition of the Committee, which give the election of six members to the Corporation.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

It seems to me impossible to treat this Amendment without reference to the proposed connection between the Corporation and the Statutory Committee.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF CROMER

Not the total severance.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

As far as the description given in this clause of the Statutory Committee is concerned, is not that so?

THE EARL OF CROMER

The Corporation may be brought in later on.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Yes, they may be brought in later. But the argument, after all, applies to the position of the Patriotic Fund Corporation under this Bill, and I desire to say a few words upon that general question. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Devonport) who moved this Amendment dwelt at some length upon the great responsibilities which under the Bill will attach to the Statutory Committee, and he suggested that the kind of Statutory Committee which he advocates is more fitted to be entrusted with those responsibilities than the Statutory Committee which we propose. The noble Lord suggested two tests of fitness for the discharge of those responsibilities. He desired a body which would command the national confidence and which would be able, when necessary, to call in representatives of interests concerned. I am quite ready to accept those tests, and I venture to say that, tried by those tests, the Statutory Committee which we propose would be a preferable Committee to that which would result from the Amendment. I would ask your Lordships whether, if it comes to public confidence, a smaller body nominated by the Government of the day, which is what the noble Lord behind me desires, would be more likely to command public confidence than a body such as this based partly upon the representation of the great Departments, partly upon Government nomination, and partly upon nomination from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation? And if it comes to being able to call in representatives of the interests concerned, I suggest that no body could be better qualified for that purpose than a body connected with this great Corporation, which, as your Lordships know, has its branches and its representatives in every county and in every borough throughout the United Kingdom.

I cannot help thinking that some of the arguments which are used against the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation are based upon forgetfulness of the extent to which that Corporation was reformed and re-organised in the year 1903. It is sometimes talked of as if it were an old-fashioned, unregenerate, sort of body from which no good is to be expected. The record of the Corporation is a perfectly clean record. There has been some controversy this evening as to the extent to which it holds open meetings. I believe it is quite true that it is only obliged to meet once a year, but it can meet oftener if desired; and now that these new duties are to be thrown upon it more frequent meetings will doubtless take place.

The noble Lord who moved the Amendment protested against a body of this kind being entrusted with the expenditure of what he calls State money. He said there was State money to be spent, and therefore he desired to have State control. That is a very good sentiment. But what right has the noble Lord, or any one else, to assume that the money which this Statutory Committee will spend will be entirely State money? We cannot tell. It is impossible to predict what amount of support it may be able to enlist, but I refuse altogether to admit that we have a right to look forward to the whole of the objects in this Bill being financed entirely out of public funds. I believe, on the contrary, that through the agency of the Patriotic Fund Corporation there will be a good prospect of obtaining financial support throughout the country. I ask the noble Lord again, What right has he to assume that there will be no State control over the expenditure of these funds? We provide, on the contrary, that so far as the administration of the Statutory Committee is concerned, so far as the salaries and pensions with which it will deal are concerned, to that extent it is to be under the control of the Treasury.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Where is that?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

It is in one of the Amendments which stand in my name.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Oh, yes. But we are dealing merely with the Bill as it is now.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I will not press that until we come to that Amendment. But there was one other point made by the noble Lord about which I should like to say a word. He relied to a great extent upon what he found in the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. I am not going to say a word to detract from the authority of that Committee, but I think it fair to point out that when this question was dealt with as it was by a very strong Committee of the House of Commons, the House of Commons Committee had before it the Report of the Murray Committee and made its recommendations with the full knowledge of all that was contained in that Report. For these reasons I must say I shall be extremely sorry if your Lordships, by accepting this Amendment, bring about what seems to me to be a very serious structural alteration in the Bill, and one which we at all events could not possibly accept.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My noble friend who has just sat down characterises the proposal of the noble Lord behind him (Lord Devonport) as a "very serious structural alteration" in the Bill. I confess that that seems to me to be entirely contrary to the argument with which the noble Marquess who leads the House replied at the commencement of his speech.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

May I explain, because it is a point of some importance? What I desired to say was that my noble friend behind me (Lord Devonport) at one period of his speech argued, as it appeared to me, that the Amendment was one of supreme importance because it gave State control where no State control existed in the Bill as it stands, and in another part of his speech he appeared to indicate that the individual composition of the body would be precisely the same.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

The composition of the body is not touched by this Amendment. What the Bill says is, as my noble friend Lord Peel pointed out, that this Statutory Committee is to be a Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. It is nothing of the kind. It is a Committee of which nineteen out of the twenty five members are to be appointed apart from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation altogether. The Corporation are to appoint only six out of the twenty-five, so that on that matter we do not seem to he arguing on a very important point. My noble friend who has just sat down said that if this Amendment is carried it will make a very important structural alteration in the Bill, and I gather that he inferred that the effect would be practically to destroy voluntary contributions for the purposes of this measure. I am afraid that all experience teaches that if you have at the back of any kind of expenditure the public purse, as you certainly have at the back of this expenditure, it will kill voluntary contributions in a very short time. I cannot believe that the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, with its Lords-Lieutenant and mayors and other dignitaries, will for a moment be able to fight against the infallible result that this expenditure will before very long come entirely on the public purse. I wish I could think it would be otherwise. It seems to me that this Bill has been framed entirely on the supposition that there will be in the future very large private contributions for this purpose from charitable persons. I think it will not be denied that when that idea was entertained it was anticipated that a very large contribution would come from the National Relief Fund. We now know that that will not be the case, and we are driven to the conclusion that this will really be a public burden. I do not think that the Royal Patriotic Fund ought to be placed in a position of controlling what will be expenditure front the public purse. Therefore I shall vote with the noble Lord opposite, although I do not at all wish to refuse to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation some representation upon this Committee.

LORD SOUTHWARK

I feel that I cannot allow this debate to close without saying a word as an old Commissioner of Chelsea Hospital. I cordially agree with the observations which my noble friend Lord Devonport made, and also with the observations that have been made by noble Lords opposite. I have had eight years' experience in reference to the administration of these military pensions, and in my opinion no better way of discharging these duties could be devised than the way in which the funds have been administered by Chelsea Hospital. But we have a duty which we owe to our soldiers and sailors who are fighting our battles, and if additional sustenance is to be given to them then I hold that there is a State liability, and the money ought to be distributed by a State body. If other bodies like the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Societies can provide further funds for extraordinary cases, by all means let them do so. But I agree with my noble friend on my right (Lord Devon-port) that this Statutory Committee ought to be a body directly in communication

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN had the following Amendment on the Paper— Page 1, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation)").

The noble Earl said: The first part of my Amendment has just been agreed to. The omission of the words in parentheses is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 12, leave out ("(hereinafter referred to as the Corporation)").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

with and under the control of the Treasury and responsible to Parliament. Further, I wish that we were going to set up an organisation now that would deal with soldiers and sailors who are derelict, whether they have retired from the Services during war or in time of peace. It would be a good thing that these soldiers and sailors should be able to appeal to a Government body to relieve them in their distress. I shall certainly support the Amendment of my noble friend.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS
Buckmaster, L. (L. Chancellor.) Ancaster, E. Digby, L.
Crewe, M. (L. President.) Chesterfield, E. Hollenden, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. Privy Seal.) Dartmouth, E. Hylton, L.
Howe, E. Islington, L.
Selborne, E. Muir-Mackenzie, L.
Newton, L.
Devonshire, D. [Teller.] Allendale, V. Ormathwaite, L.
Ranksborough, L.
Farquhar, L. (L. Steward.) Revelstoke, L.
Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain). St. Audries, L.
Lansdowne, M. Colebrooke, L. Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Lincolnshire, M. Denman, L. Suffield, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Somerset, D. St. Aldwyn, E. Cheylesmore, L. [Teller.]
Waldegrave, E. Devonport, L.
Bath, M. Colville of Culross, V. Ellenborough, L.
Bristol, M. Elibank, V. Harris, L.
Falkland, V. Haversham, L.
Camperdown, E. [Teller.] Falmouth, V. Kinnaird, L.
Cromer, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Ferrers, E. MacDonnell, L.
Fortescue, E. Peel, V. Penrhyn, L.
Lauderdale, E. Bangor, L. Bp. Rathmore, L.
Lichfield, E. Southwark, L.
Mayo, E. Ashton of Hyde, L. Sudeley, L.
Northbrook, E. Balfour, L. Sydenham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DEVONPORT moved to omit from subsection (1) the words— appointed as herein-after mentioned. (2) Of the said twenty-five members— twelve (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) Four of the numbers appointed by the General Council of the Corporation shall be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation, but save as aforesaid it shall not be necessary that the persons appointed to be members of the Statutory Committee should at the time of appointment be members of the Corporation.

For these words the noble Lord proposed to substitute "to be appointed by His Majesty." He said: I seek by this Amendment to alter the responsibility for appointing the twenty-five members, but I am well aware that there is objection to this in many parts of the House. Several of your Lordships still hold the idea that particularised representation is a desirable thing. I do not wish to be in conflict with that view. I am satisfied now that the body is to be what I call for want of a better term a State body, and I do not desire to press this Amendment unduly. I move it, however, in order that an opportunity may be afforded to noble Lords to say a few words in criticism. If I find that there is a general disposition against it I will withdraw it.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("members") to the end of subsection (3), and insert ("to be appointed by His Majesty").—(Lord Devonport.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. Lord Lansdowne said just now that it was necessary to have twenty-five members because there would necessarily be a large number of sub-committees to be appointed. Then Lord St. Aldwyn has Amendments later which deal with the question of numbers.

LORD DEVONPORT

I have no objection to withdrawing the Amendment if that is the wish of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

At some point or other it would be convenient if I pointed out what the various suggestions are for the composition of the Committee, and that will enable the House to form an opinion as to which of the various propositions is favoured. I do not think it in the least matters on which Amendment that explanation is given.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

With a view of facilitating the discussion, I may say that I do not propose to move my Amendment to increase from twelve to fourteen the number of members who are to be appointed by His Majesty. I withdraw that in favour of Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendments, which provide that eighteen members shall be appointed by the Government, two by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, two by the Patriotic Fund Corporation, and the remainder by various Departments.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE had an Amendment to substitute "ten" for "twelve" in the following provision— twelve (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;

The noble Marquess said: The Government proposition in the Amendment standing in my name is to take two members away from the number of Crown nominees and give those two to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. By the Amendments in his name Lord St. Aldwyn leaves the numbers the same, but does away with all the Departmental representations except those of the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury. He takes away the National Health Insurance Committee representative and those of the three Local Government Boards, and gives two to the Royal Patriotic Fund, and two to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, making twenty-five. I understand that Lord Camperdown does not move his Amendment?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

No.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Lord Devonport, who proposed that the members should all be Crown nominees, has already withdrawn his Amendment. The only other Amendment that deals with these matters is that of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Lichfield, who proposes particular recommendations with regard to the Crown nominees. I think it might be argued that our proposition to reduce the number of Crown nominees from twelve to ten is a mistake, because it somewhat limits the possibility of representing particular interests which it may be desirable to add to the body. We must no longer call it a Committee, because it is not a Committee. Since the Division just taken it has ceased to be a Committee; therefore we must speak of it, I suppose, as a statutory body for the present until it has got a new name. The point of the representation of the different Departments is, of course, one of some importance. The noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, desires to do away with the Local Government Board representatives. I should anticipate that considerable objection would be taken to that both by the Department concerned and by the local authorities. The House will see that one clause of the Bill deals entirely with the local committees, to be largely composed of members of local authorities, and it would certainly therefore appear that the Local Government Board have a right to be represented on this body. It is true, no doubt, that this argument tells if anything somewhat in favour of the noble Earl's contention that there are other Departments which might lay claim to equal representation. My noble friend Lord Devonport mentioned the peculiar interest which the Board of Trade have in questions of employment, upon which we shall have to speak at greater length later when the Amendment is moved dealing with that subject; and what he said about the Board of Trade applies with almost equal force to the Board of Education and to the Board of Agriculture. But it was felt by us that to attempt to represent all these Departments on the central body would appear to make it too official and departmental, and therefore we confined the representation to those that it was felt to be impossible to leave out. I find myself, I am afraid, arguing on the Amendment of the noble Earl, which is not as yet actually moved—it is the next on the Paper—but the discussion can of course be only one, and it does not very much matter upon which Amendment it is taken. We should be prepared, if the House so desire, to increase the number of the Committee to twenty-seven, leaving the Crown members at twelve and adding two for the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. If the departmental representation is cut out, the noble Earl is probably right in increasing the number of Crown nominees, with the idea that these departmental representatives should be placed on; but I confess I do not see the precise object of taking that course.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

The Crown could then choose between the various Departments—the Board of Trade, the Board of Agriculture, and the others—and appoint from whichever they thought most pressing for representation, and select the men best qualified also. I think it would be a great pity to bind the Crown down, except in the case of the three Departments on this page of the Bill—the Treasury, the Admiralty, and the Army Council.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

As I said before, I fear that the excision of the different Local Government Boards from the Bill will be regarded as a misfortune by the Government. I should like to say, by way of caution, that in spite of the Division which has just taken place the noble Earl must not take us as assenting to the excision of the six members to be appointed by the Patriotic Fund with a substitution of only two; because although noble Lords had their way they will remember that we divided against the proposition to leave the Patriotic Fund out from the general representation. I do not know that there is anything that I can usefully add at this stage to what I have said. Perhaps it would be best if the noble Earl would develop the case for his Amendment, and we should then be in a better position to decide what line the Government will take.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

There is very little left for me to say, because the noble Marquess has practically admitted the justice of my case. He conceded that it was a mistake on the part of the Government to propose to substitute ten for twelve as the number of their nominees, because having regard to the proposals in the Bill which require them to appoint out of those ten a chairman and vice-chairman, some women, and not less than two representatives of labour, there would be very little room for selection beyond the persons whom they were obliged by the Bill to appoint. Therefore I think I may consider that the noble Marquess has practically given up his own Amendment.

With regard to my Amendment—to leave out "twelve" and insert "eighteen"—I desire to give the Government the fullest latitude in their choice. Let me refer to the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. In the paragraph of that Report which suggests the composition of the Committee are included representatives of the Admiralty, of the War Office, of the Board of Trade, of the Local Government Board, of the Board of Education—I do not think the noble Marquess mentioned that Department—of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, and of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. It will be impossible for the Government to embody representatives of all these Departments in the Committee, and I venture to submit that if they did it would be a mistake. You do not want retired officials or present officials of these Departments on the Committee. You want persons who could be trusted as experienced in the various matters with which the Departments have to deal. For example, it was suggested in another place that the County Councils Association ought to be represented on this body. I should not wish to suggest that there should be a specific representation of the County Councils Association, but I think that among those who are active on that body and in the various county councils you might easily find men who would be far better representatives of local government in the country and the towns than any ex-official of the Local Government Board; and the same with regard to the Board of Education and the other Departments. I do not think that retired officials would be the best men to deal with these matters. Of course, I am not alluding in what I have said to the War Office, or the Admiralty, or the Treasury. You must there, I think, have persons who are well acquainted with the working of the several Departments, and I do not propose to exclude those from specific representation. But I hope that the Government will give themselves full latitude with regard to the choice of the others. As to the question of the number of representatives of the Royal Patriotic Fund, that does not arise on this Amendment. That will come later. I confess that in my opinion six representatives is an excessive number, but we can argue that later.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("eighteen").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Perhaps I might say, with regard to what has fallen from the noble Earl, that it was certainly not the intention of the Government, although it might possibly be the effect of the Bill as it stands, that none but officials or ex-officials of the particular Departments should be nominated. The representative appointed need not neces- sarily be an official or ex-official, although I quite admit the perhaps more than possibility that the gentlemen so appointed would be.

On one particular ground I am not at all indisposed towards the noble Earl's Amendment, and that is this. I think it would enable a larger representation of women to be put on the statutory body than might appear to be the case if the Bill remained as it stood. As the Bill stood there was practically a minimum of four women members—two to represent the Crown, and two to represent the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. I always hoped that the number of women on the central body would be larger, and so far as the Amendment of the noble Earl tends to the realisation of that object I think it would be to the general advantage, because it is evident, I think, to us all that the functions in relation to the care of women and of children which are to be performed by this body are functions which can be in many cases performed far better by women than by any one else. Therefore the latitude of which the noble Earl has spoken, although I do not want to be taken as absolutely assenting to his Amendment without further consideration with my colleagues, has that, as I consider, marked advantage. We shall not, therefore, oppose the noble Earl's Amendment, but I hope he will not take us as absolutely assenting to it as it stands, because it is necessary for us to consult others before we do so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

The Amendment that I propose is not affected by the Amendment that has just been carried. I move after the word "women" where it first appears in subsection (2), to insert "and some persons of experience connected with or representative of associations or organisations engaged in rendering assistance to sailors and soldiers." My point is that if His Majesty's Government can see their way to agree to this proposal the societies who have had experience connected with soldiers and sailors and their families, other than the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association who are already represented on the Statutory Committee, would have some chance of some of their more active members being selected as representatives. I carefully refrain from stating any specific societies, because obviously that would be undesirable. Societies rise and fall, and are efficiently managed at one time and not so efficiently managed at another. Therefore I have thought it better not to mention any particular societies. But the words in my Amendment would give the several societies who are doing such excellent work now on behalf of soldiers and sailors a chance of representation and some recognition which they do not get in any other part of the Bill. It would also be a great advantage to the Statutory Committee that such people should be appointed.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 16, after ("women") insert ("and some persons of experience connected with or representative of associations or organisations engaged in rendering assistance to sailors and soldiers").—(The Earl of Lichfield.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I think the House will be in full sympathy with the motives that prompted the noble Earl in moving this Amendment, but it places us in this degree of difficulty. The noble Earl who has left the House (Lord St. Aldwyn) pleaded for a general latitude in the appointment of the Crown nominees, and while guarding ourselves from expressly accepting his Amendment we expressed from this side of the House a certain sympathy with that desire for free nomination by the Crown rather than the naming of specific Departments and others. If you are to have that kind of latitude I think you must have it both ways. If the Crown is not to be tied down to appoint representatives of particular Departments, I do not think it ought to be tied down to appointing representatives who are able to speak for a particular set of societies, or, as I think the noble Earl has got in a somewhat later Amendment, employers of labour. Therefore I am disposed to appeal to the noble Earl not to press this Amendment for the reason that if we are to go on the line that the Crown is to make the best appointments that it can it ought to be presumed that it will appoint some of those on behalf of whom the noble Earl is speaking, and that it is wise to avoid in the actual terms of the Bill specific directions as to certain persons. I think we must proceed on one line or the other, either that of general directions to the Crown whom to appoint or a generally free hand.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

After what has fallen from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House I will not press my Amendment. I understood him to speak with some sympathy with the idea that is incorporated in this Amendment, and I hope that when the time comes for the Government to make these appointments they will bear the matter in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD had an Amendment on the Paper to provide that of the representatives on the Statutory Committee to be nominated by the Crown two should be employers. The noble Earl said: My next Amendment, I am afraid, falls in the same category as the last. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House thinks it best not to specify any definite cases. The Bill gives not less than two representatives of labour. Or has that been cut out owing to Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

No.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

Therefore in the Bill as it stands there is provision for not less than two representatives of labour. I should have thought that it was of the utmost importance, if you have representatives of labour, that you should also have representatives of employers. Every good would result from bringing the two together. They would help to work out the problems to be faced under this Bill. In ordinary circumstances I should have thought it desirable that employers should be represented. But after what has fallen from the noble Marquess I will move but will not press my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 17, after the first ("be") insert ("employers, and not less than two shall be").— (The Earl of Lichfield.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Surely if you specify representatives of labour you ought also to specify representatives of employers. It is only fair to put on two employers with the two representatives of labour.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The fairness of which my noble friend opposite speaks is really more apparent than real. It certainly would, I think, be so in the estimation of those who are entitled to speak for labour. They would not regard it by any means as a matter of course, unless a direction was given, that on a body of this kind direct representatives of labour would appear. On the other hand they would feel quite confident that representation of employers would appear. I am bound to say, speaking generally, although I think any Government and certainly this Government would desire to represent labour in any case, I am quite certain that the elimination of these words by the House would arouse grave suspicion in the minds of those who are entitled to speak for labour. I cannot believe that the omission of the employer, as such, will arouse the least fears in the minds of the working classes generally that their interests will be neglected by the Statutory Committee. Therefore as a matter of simple common sense I venture to urge that the noble Earl, as ho has already expressed his willingness to do, should not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

If the noble Marquess will look at page 8 of the Amendments he will find this Amendment standing in his own name—

Page 5, after subsection (2), insert as a new subsection: (3) For the purpose of making provision for the care of disabled officers and men, the Statutory Committee shall appoint a special sub-committee comprising representatives of employers and of labour.

In that case he mentions labour and also employers. Surely the same argument would apply here, would it not?

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

That particular sub-committee deals practically only with employment questions, and therefore there is a distinct reason for including employers. But I do not think it necessary in the present instance to give any such direction, and I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL ST. ALDWYN moved to delete the words—

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved — Page 2, leave out lines 1 to 7 inclusive.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, after line 7, insert ("two shall be appointed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DEVONPORT moved to insert in subsection (2) the words— Two shall be appointed by the governing body of the National Relief Fund.

The noble Lord said: In the House of Commons Mr. Anderson moved to delete the words giving representation to the National Relief Fund, and he did so on these grounds. He said that he was suspicious that there was some ulterior motive in according this representation, and that the National Relief Fund was assenting to their funds being raided; and inasmuch as the money was being subscribed on behalf of civilian distress he took the strongest possible exception to an arrangement of that kind going through. Therefore he thought the easiest way to settle the matter was to move the omission of the two members accorded to the National Relief Fund. Mr. Walter Long, on behalf of the Government, resisted the deletion of this representation, and he said that, though the hon. Member appeared to be suspicious that there was a conspiracy to raid the Fund, from his own knowledge he thought it would be a very difficult thing to accomplish. These two representatives, he said, were there on their merits; they would be men of great experience; there was no bargain of any sort; a money contribution had nothing whatever to do with it. I am now moving the re-establishment of this membership in the light of the assurance given by Mr. Walter Long in the House of Commons that money consideration had nothing whatever to do with the representation.

When later Mr. McKenna unsuccessfully tried to raid the National Relief Fund and failed, he came to the House of Commons and asked that the Bill should be recommitted prior to Third Reading, and he incontinently withdrew the representation that appeared in the original Bill. It ought not to be tolerated that there should be that inconsistency between two statements of Cabinet Ministers in the House of Commons. When I was there it was always understood that a Parliamentary undertaking should be strictly adhered to. I should like to read Mr. Long's words, so that there should be no doubt as to what took place. When resisting Mr. Anderson's Amendment he said— The inclusion of these two representatives of the National Relief Fund on this statutory body has nothing to do with the question of raiding the National Relief Fund. And he concluded by making an appeal to the House in these words— I would reassert that this provision as to the representation of the National Relief Fund on this Committee is not in any sense part of a bargain. The proposal is made because these representatives will have special experience, and I urge the Committee not to accept this Amendment. It would be interesting if the noble Marquess who leads the House could tell us why, in spite of those express declarations on the part of Mr. Walter Long, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should come down to the House, pay no regard to those declarations, move to re-commit the Bill (as he effectively did), and delete those two representatives. I move this Amendment to give the Government an opportunity of explaining that extraordinary transaction.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 2, after line 7, insert ("two shall be appointed by the governing body of the National Relief Fund").—(Lord Devonport.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My noble friend's object—which I think is one over which we ought not to spend too much time—is to elicit an explanation of the apparent discrepancy in the statements made by two of my right hon. colleagues. In the first place it is not as a rule our custom to discuss here the debates that take place in the other House, and, whatever apparent discrepancy—which I think was really mainly verbal—between the two statements, I would point out to my noble friend that the immediate interest of the subject has disappeared by what has taken place in this House to-day. The character of the statutory body has been severely modified by the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite. I am sure, therefore, that my noble friend will agree that the actual inclusion of representatives of the National Relief Fund, however excellent those representatives may be as individuals—and they would undoubtedly appoint people of experience and knowledge —would be altogether out of keeping with the terms of the Bill as they now stand. My noble friend's object, I understand, was to call attention to the subject, and I hope that, having heard what I have had to say upon it, he will not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I move to omit from the end of subsection (2) the words "six (of whom some shall be women)" and to insert "two." When I placed this Amendment on the Paper I assumed that the Government would not add to the number of twenty-five, already a considerable number. The noble Marquess has this evening told us that it is possible they might agree to take that course, but I consider—and I gather from the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Camperdown that he agrees with me—that two would be a sufficient representation for the Royal Patriotic Fund on this Committee, which is not a Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund. If in the mind of the Government there is any importance in the number of representatives, it would perhaps be better if they substituted "four" for "six"; but in any case is it advisable that there should be a provision compelling some representatives of the Royal Patriotic Fund to be women? As the noble Marquess has pointed out, the Government have now a much greater latitude in their choice than they had under the original form of the Bill, and may use it to appoint a larger number of women than before. The smaller you make the number in the case of particular representation the greater the difficulty of including women in it.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 8, leave out ("six (of whom some shall be women)") and insert ("two").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I understand that this must be taken as part of the noble Earl's Amendment to increase the representation of the Crown to eighteen?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

It may be assumed, therefore, that neither of the two that he desires to leave to the Royal Patriotic Fund will be women, and this would appear to throw an additional burden of responsibility on the Crown to appoint more women members than would otherwise be the case. What I have to say on this Amendment is really part of what I said on the noble Earl's main Amendment. I think it would probably be our wiser course to accept for the time being the noble Earl's Amendment as a whole. But this part of it, too, must be subject to what I said before—namely, that my noble friend (Lord Lansdowne) and I are bound to consult the Department specially concerned before finally agreeing.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Thu EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The next Amendment in my name is consequential on what has just been done.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 9, after the second ("the") insert ("Royal Patriotic Fund").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL ST. ALDWYN had an Amendment on the Paper providing that the chairman or vice-chairman of the Committee, as the case might be, who was to receive a salary out of moneys provided by Parliament, should be capable of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons. The noble Earl said: This Amendment raises an important point on which Lord Devon-port has already made some observations. The Statutory Committee, whether related to the Patriotic Fund or not, is practically an independent body. It has no representation in Parliament. So far as I can see, it would not be answered for in either House by any Government Department. Considering the nature and the growing importance of the duties entrusted to it, surely it is very undesirable to place a new body in that position. It has been done recently with regard to the Road Board and the Development Commission, and I think it has happened that when the action of those bodies has been challenged in another place the Government have declined to accept any responsibility, and have stated that those bodies were deliberately appointed by Parliament as independent bodies, and that practically they had no control over them at all. As a matter of fact, as any one who is acquainted with local government knows, the Treasury have prevented the Road Board during the current year from exercising its proper functions with regard to grants to local authorities out of the fund which was specially set apart by Parliament for that purpose. I must say that I think this position is a very bad one. Until recently it has been considered quite an unconstitutional position, and I think it is extremely bad for the proper working of any Department. I have suggested, therefore, that the paid member of the body, who would be either the chairman or the vice-chairman, should be capable of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons, where, of course, he would answer for any of the proceedings of his Committee.

Sir George Murray's Committee dealt with this in rather a remarkable way for a body of which so experienced a public servant was chairman. They pointed out that certain of the functions of the Committee dealt with one Department, of the Government, certain other functions with Another Department, and certain other functions with another, and therefore they did not recommend that any Department at all should control the work of the Committee or be responsible for it in Parliament. I think that for Parliament to sanction such a position would be a very grave mistake. I do not know what may be the intention of His Majesty's Government with regard to the selection of the person to be the salaried official of this body, as chairman or vice-chairman; but, of course, he will practically run the machine. Unless use is made of the provision that such a person shall have a salary to secure the proper representation of the body in the House of Commons, where it ought to be represented, I hope no addition will he made to the existing Civil Service of the country in order to pitch-fork some individual into this paid position who is not at present a member of the Public Service. Such things have been done by the late Government in the last ten years, and I do not think they have been of a nature very satisfactory to the public concerned. However, I hope that in making this appointment His Majesty's Government will recognise that this proposed Committee will have most important and growing duties to perform and ought to be represented by some responsible person in another place, and that the proper way to deal with the matter will be to utilise the salary which it is proposed to give to this person in order to secure such efficient representation.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 18, after ("determine") insert ("and the person receiving such salary shall be capable of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The noble Earl is such an experienced Parliamentarian that we listen with great respect to any suggestion that falls from hint, but I am bound to say there seem to me to be some reasons which tell against the proposal which he has submitted to the House. The noble Earl desires that the chairman or the vice-chairman, who is to be a salaried official, should be eligible for a seat in the House of Commons. A seat in the House of Commons means connection with one Political Party or another, and it will be impossible when any one is appointed to the chairmanship or vice-chairmanship if that is to carry with it eligibility to a seat in the House of Commons to get out of people's minds the impression that politics enter into the whole question. I should have thought that this was a case in which we ought, if possible, to keep this new Department and its functions entirely outside the scope of political considerations, and for that reason alone I should regret to see the chairman or vice-chairman a member of the House of Commons. But there is another reason which I think is worth considering. The noble Earl spoke of the important and growing duties which would have to be performed by these officials. Is it not evident, considering the magnitude of the work which they would have to undertake, that it is not desirable that any part of their time should be taken up by attendance to Parliamentary work as well? I should have thought for these reasons that it was far better to allow the two officials to remain altogether outside the limits of Parliamentary controversy, and to treat them as other officials who are not allowed to be members of the House of Commons.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

So far as the particular question of either the chairman or the vice-chairman sitting in another place is concerned there is no doubt considerable force in what the noble Marquess has said. But the other point made by Lord St. Aldwyn was not touched upon by the noble Marquess Part of Lord St. Aldwyn's case was that some bodies have been set up which you cannot get at in Parliament at all, because no Department is responsible for what they do. Surely if there is not to be a representative of this new body in Parliament, there must be some arrangement whereby some Department which can be questioned in another place is responsible for the action of this body, whether it is the Treasury, the Local Government Board or some other Department.

THE EARL OF MAYO

I feel very strongly on this matter. We are legislating not for the present but for future years, and it is most important after what has been said that there should be some one in the House of Commons to represent this body who would be able to reply to Questions and answer criticisms.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The House will remember that the composition of this body has been altered by the vote which was taken earlier in the evening. As the body was constituted in the Bill there was, in addition to the opportunity which would be given as the Bill now stands for raising the question of the Fund's operation on the salary of this official, the further opportunity of raising it in connection with the Patriotic Fund. That would be on the presentation of the Report or on such occasions as general discussion on such a subject is possible in another place. Now the only occasion on which any discussion whatever could take place would be the vote on the salary of the chairman or vice-chairman.

Consider what would happen if you had an active representative of this body regularly sitting in Parliament. One result would be that he would be plied with Questions, as indeed I think the noble Earl who has just sat down intimated probably would be the case. Any Member of Parliament, one of whose constituents thought that some widow or child had not received proper treatment at the hands of the local, committee and had not been satisfied after appeal to the Statutory Committee, could ask it Question on the subject in the House of Commons; and I should very much like to know how this unhappy gentleman could have any opportunity of doing any work in connection with the Fund and at the same time sit in the House of Commons to be subjected to a nightly bombardment on questions of detail and administration. The intention of the Bill has always been that the general policy, in its wide sense, of the Statutory Committee should be subject to Parliamentary control; but it certainly has never been our intention that its operations should be subject to the daily Questions of Members of Parliament. In fact it never was intended to be a public Department in that sense. After the step the House has taken, whether it will be pound necessary to give some further opportunity for Parliamentary discussion or to institute some closer connection between this body and some Department of State is a matter which we must take time to consider. But I cannot feel that the particular remedy which the noble Earl has put forward—that of making the official (who, as he himself said, would be the most active part in the machine) a Member of Parliament—would in fact meet the case.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

What I want to establish is that this Department shall be answered for in the House of Commons by some responsible person. If I understand from what the noble Marquess has said that His Majesty's Government will seriously consider how that may be brought about and take steps, if they find it at all possible, for some existing Department to be charged with the duty of answering for this Committee in the House of Commons, I should not wish to press the present Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

If the noble Earl confines himself to answers on questions of policy or on questions of some substance—some action, for instance, which might create a precedent—I should not abject to what he has said. But I hope he desires to guard himself from subjecting the unhappy Minister to the kind of questioning of which I spoke when answering him before.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I am afraid those who have been in the House of Commons know that there are too many Questions put in that House. What I have in my mind is this. Every Government has a representative by Statute on the Ecclesiastical Commission and on the Charity Commission. That representative is always ready to answer Questions on any questions of policy or on any important matter in the House of Commons. If a similar arrangement were made in this case, what I want would be effected. If the noble Marquess will consider the matter I do not wish to press this Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 24, leave out ("and").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DEVONPORT

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 33, leave out from ("re-appointment") to the end of the subsection.—(Lord Devonport.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I bring this Amendment forward in fulfilment of a pledge which I gave to the noble Lord opposite that I would see that the clause was so drafted as to make it clear that in these matters of the appointment and remuneration of the staff of the Committee there should be full Treasury control.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 1, after ("may") insert ("with the consent of the Treasury appoint and").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The next Amendment gives power to grant pensions to the officials of the Statutory Committee on retirement. It seems obvious that there will be no prospect of obtaining the services of the kind of officials that we should desire to have for this Department if some of them, at any rate, were not pensionable. The extent to which they will be pensionable depends on the approval of the Treasury, of course.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, after the second ("may") insert ("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").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 4, after ("employment") insert ("or grant pensions to such persons on retirement").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

EARL ST. ALDWYN

May I ask the noble Marquess whether he will enable the Committee to carry out these Amendments by the Government moving in another place power to pay them out of public funds, because it is obvious that you cannot give pensions to people out of possible voluntary subscriptions which may never come in. I think it will be necessary to supplement this clause by the use of similar words to those that appear relating to the payment of the salary of the chairman or vice-chairman.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I will undertake that that point is attended to. The Bill must be so drawn as to leave no doubt of the fact that the money will be forthcoming.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, 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 case, 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 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 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 council of the county borough or urban district, from amongst the members of the local committee appointed by the council, of a chairman; and
  3. (c) for the inclusion of women and representatives of labour among the members of the local committee.

(3) The scheme, in the case of a county, may provide for the division of the county into district and the appointment of a sub-committee for each such district, 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 [...] majority of the members of the sub-committee and in the appointment of every such sub-committee some of the members appointed shall b[...] women.

Such a sub-committee may, but need not contain any members of the local committee and a local committee may delegate to a sub-committee any of its powers and duties under this Act.

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

(5) In the application of this section to Scot land "county borough" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh whose lord provost o[...] provost is, as such, a member of the corporation and "borough" or "urban district" means [...] royal, parliamentary, or police burgh.

(6) In the application of this section to Ireland a reference to a borough or urban district having a population of not less than ten thousand shall be substituted for the reference to a borough o[...] urban district having a population of not less than twenty thousand.

The first two Amendments on the Paper to this Clause were in subsection (2) as follows:—

Page 3, line 16, after the first ("the") insert ("county").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

Page 3, line 16, after ("county") insert ("or")—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I think the two Amendments are practically the same. Should not the word "county" be repeated twice? It must be county or county borough.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I do not think there is any difference between us as to the sense.

LORD HARRIS

Is it not necessary to have "borough" separate from "county borough"?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Yes you must.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

On that may I point out that if you use the word: "county or borough or urban district," as the subsection will read with Lord Lansdowne's Amendment, you include "county borough," because a county borough is a borough.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I do not think you do. I think you had better say "county or county borough."

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Then you have to say "borough" also, I think.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Earl move his Amendment?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

No.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 16, after ("county") insert ("or").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

The next Amendment is one of substance. Your Lordships will see from subsection (2) that the constitution of a local committee shall be such as may be determined by a scheme framed by the council of the county borough or urban district and approved by the Statutory Committee; and on a later clause my noble friend intends to move that model schemes shall be prepared and circulated by the Statutory Committee. But if after that is done, and after the council of the county borough or urban district have settled their scheme and sent it to the Statutory Committee, there is something in that scheme of which the Statutory Committee does not approve—as, of course, may possibly be the case—there is no power as the. Bill now stands to settle the matter. I suggest to your Lordships that in ordinary business procedure there ought, to be such power, and therefore I propose, after "Committee," to insert the words "whose decision, in the event of any difference between the Statutory Committee and the, council, shall be final." There must be some power to settle these matters as some important points may be at issue—for example, the proper representation on the committees of persons who have taken an active part in this work. Matters of that kind certainly could not always be left entirely to the council of the county or county borough.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 17, after ("Committee") insert ("whose decision, in the event of any difference between the Statutory Committee and the council, shall be final").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

It is clear, as the noble Earl has pointed out, that in the matter of a dispute which cannot be settled by argument between the parties, some one must have the last word if anything is to be done. His proposition, therefore, is that the last word should rest with the Statutory Committee. We are advised that the terms in which he proposes to make this change would not in reality meet the case from a drafting point of view, and that the proper way to carry out his argument is to insert a provision that if within a limited time the local body do not prepare a scheme which meets with the approval of the Committee the Committee should then themselves prepare the scheme. I shall be prepared to bring up words on Report, if that suits the noble Earl, to carry out the object he has in view.

THE EARL OF CROMER

The noble Marquess will leave the final decision with the Statutory Committee.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 10, after ("county") insert ("or").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The next Amendment I have brought up in consequence of an assurance that I gave to the noble Earl opposite. He suggested that it was only reasonable that these local committees should be allowed to choose their own chairman. In the clause as it now runs—subsection (2), paragraph (b)—the chairman of the local committee is appointed by the local authority from amongst the members appointed on the local committee by the local authority. It seemed to us quite reasonable that the privilege of choosing the chairman should rest with the local committee.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 24 to 26, leave out ("council of the county borough or urban district, from amongst the members of the local committee appointed by the council") and insert ("local committee from amongst their own number").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (2), to insert as a new subsection: "(c) For the inclusion of members of the voluntary associations who have had special experience during the present war in connection with the administration of allowances and grants for the families and dependants of members of His Majesty's forces naval and military."

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the question of the representation of these experienced voluntary societies on the local committees. Though I am glad they are to be represented on the Statutory Committee, their representation on the local committees is really more important. But at the bottom of the page the noble Marquess has an Amendment which is substantially on the same lines as my Amendment. I shall therefore not move this one.

I have also on the Paper an Amendment providing that if in any area functions similar to those to be assigned by this Bill to a local committee are at present being performed in regard to separation allowances by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association or any other organisation, the Statutory Committee may empower such association or organisation, either singly or in combination with other organisations, to act as the local committee in regard to separation allowances, for such period or periods as it may deem expedient. There is a similar new clause standing later on the Paper in the names of Lord Derby and Lord Cromer which gives this power not to the Statutory Committee but to the local committees themselves. I prefer myself the Statutory Committee, because I think that if it is left to the local committees they might not act in this way. But I am informed that the balance of opinion on this subject is against me, so I will not move the Amendment in this form.

THE EARL OF CROMER

The Amendment tabled by Lord Derby and myself covers most of the ground, but as Lord Peel has not moved his Amendment I will reserve stating the reason for giving this power to the local committees rather than to the Statutory Committee until we get to that Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

We have thought it desirable to bring in here the new designation for these sub-committees. The object is to avoid confusion, and I think you will consider it an improvement in the drafting of the Bill.

Amendments moved—

Page 3, line 32, after ("district") insert ("which sub-committees are hereinafter referred to as district committees")

Page 3, line 38, leave out ("sub-committee") and insert ("district committee").

Page 3, line 39, leave out ("sub-committee") and insert ("district committee").

Page 4, line 1, leave out ("sub-committee") and insert ("district committee")

Page 4, line 2, leave out from the first ("committee") to the end of line 4.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My next Amendment is, after sub-section (3), to insert the following five new sub-sections. (4) A scheme regulating the constitution of any such local committee or district committee as aforesaid shall provide for the inclusion amongst the members of the local or district committee of persons who have within the area been performing functions similar to those to be performed by local committees under this Act. (5) For facilitating the preparation of such schemes as aforesaid the statutory committee shall as soon as practicable prepare and issue forms of model schemes. (6) 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. (7) 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. (8) A local committee may delegate to any district committee, and a local committee or district committee may delegate to any sub-committee 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. This is to give effect to one of the concessions which we undertook to make—namely, to secure representation on the local committees of representatives of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and of other bodies such as the Soldiers and Sailors' Help Society. That is a point which was a good deal discussed on the Second Reading stage, and the general feeling in the House was that the Bill should be amended so as to render the representation of these associations possible. The first Amendment, then, which I have to move is the new subsection—subsection (4)—which provides that there shall be included amongst the members of the local or district committee persons who have within the area been performing functions similar to those to be performed by local committees under this Bill. I think those words give effect to what was the general desire of the House upon that point.

Amendment moved—

After subsection (3) insert the following new subsection: (4) A scheme regulating the constitution of any such local committee or district committee us aforesaid shall provide for the inclusion amongst the members of the local or district committee of persons who have within the area been performing functions similar to those to be performed by local committees under this Act.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

EARL ST. ALWYN

I have to move some Amendments to this new subsection, but I hope that my noble friend will not think me ungrateful in criticising the words which he has placed upon the Paper. The clause in the Bill with regard to the constitution of local committees says that the council of the county borough or urban district shall appoint "at least a majority of the local committee, but the members so appointed by the council need not be members of the council." I have endeavoured to apply those words as far as necessary to the subsection of the noble Marquess. He proposes that a scheme regulating the constitution of any such local committee or district committee shall provide for the inclusion among its members of persons who have within the area been performing functions similar to those to be performed by local committees under this Bill. But those words would practically be carried out by the appointment even of one such person on a local committee. I do not think for a moment that that is the suggestion of my noble friend, but it might be interpreted in that narrow fashion, and that would not, I am sure, meet the wishes of noble Lords on this side of the House or of those who have taken an interest in this matter generally, and it would not be fair to such bodies as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, or the Soldiers and Sailors Help Society, who, every one admits, have done most excellent work—work which ought to be recognised in, this Bill. Therefore I suggest that the scheme should provide that at least one-third of the local or district committee should be composed of such persons who, either as members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association or the Soldiers and Sailors Help Society "or otherwise"—so as to make it as wide as possible—have done such work. I think that would be recognition in the Bill of the work that has been done by these societies, a recognition which they would really value; and I do not think the words go further than what His Majesty's Government desire by the words they have placed on the Paper.

Amendment moved to the Marquess of Lansdowne's Amendment—

New subsection (4) of Clause 2:

line 2, after ("provide") insert ("that at least one-third of the")

lines 2 and 3, leave out ("for the inclusion amongst the")

line 3, leave out ("of") and insert ("shall be")

line 4, after ("area") insert ("either as members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, or the Soldiers and Sailors Help Society, or otherwise").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am sure there is no great difference between my noble friend and myself as to the object at which we desire to arrive. I rather deprecate his proposal to stipulate that any particular fraction of the body should be drawn from either one or another source. On the other hand I am quite prepared to accept a wording which would give a somewhat more distinct indication than is given in my wording of the intention with which the new subsection has been drawn; and I suggest for my noble friend's consideration that in my subsection (4), after the word "area," we should insert "either as members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association or the Soldiers and Sailors Help Society or otherwise." That would make it perfectly plain that the two societies which are mentioned by name, and any other deserving organisations of the same sort if there be such, should receive their share of the representation. The effect of that change would be that I should accept my noble friend's Amendment so far as the specific mention of the two societies is concerned, but I should stop short of accepting it so far as he insists upon a given proportion.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

We will not quarrel about fractions. But may I take two words which my noble friend himself used, and put them into the subsection? Supposing it ran as follows: "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," and so on. That would show what it meant, and not be binding as to any fraction.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Do you take my other words?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Then I accept that.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

I think the Government have not adopted any means of employing the health insurance organisation of the locality. If that is so, perhaps the noble Marquess will say why they have not accepted that suggestion.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

That particular body is not referred to, but I think it would clearly be covered by the words "or otherwise." As the subsection will now run, the scheme will 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."

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that the noble Earl's Amendment to the Amendment is withdrawn.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

Yes.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Marquess suggests that the word "inclusion" should be omitted from his proposed new subsection (4) in order that the words "substantial representation" should be inserted; and that after the word "area" the words "either as members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, or the Soldiers and Sailors Help Society, or otherwise" should be inserted.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

That is so, and I move my new subsection (4) in that form.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My proposed new subsection (5) is intended to provide for the preparation by the Statutory Committee of what are usually referred to as model schemes. These schemes will be the skeleton of the new organisation, and it will be the duty of the local councils to clothe the skeleton in a suitable manner. We have already discussed the question of the power which the Statutory Committee will have of insisting upon due regard being paid to its wishes, and I do not think I need say more in explanation of this particular Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Insert the following new subsection: (5) For facilitating the preparation of such schemes as aforesaid the statutory committee shall as soon as practicable prepare and issue forms of model schemes.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The object of the next new subsection is to enable the local committee for a large town like the City of Liverpool to appoint subcommittees for the different districts. It would also enable any local committee, whether a county or a borough local committee, to appoint sub-committees for any particular purpose—for example, a finance sub-committee or any other suitable object. Like the rest of these new subsections, this subsection is intended to give more scope and latitude to the local committees.

Amendment moved—

Insert the following new subsection: (6) 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.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The next subsection which I move to insert enables the local committees to combine for the joint exercise of any powers or duties under the Bill. We anticipate that this power will be specially useful in connection with the case of disabled officers and men.

Amendment moved—

Insert the following new subsection: (7) 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.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I have reinserted in the new subsection (8) the provision enabling a local committee to delegate to a district committee certain of its functions. Your Lordships will remember that we struck out the subsection dealing with delegation at an earlier part of the Bill. This is really a power that ought to be possessed by these local bodies.

Amendment moved—

Insert the following new subsection: (8) 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.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Amendment is really a drafting Amendment applying the words in the Bill to Scotland. I have been to the Scottish Office and ascertained that this is the correct way to do it. My Amendment is to omit from subsection (5) the words "means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh whose lord provost or provost is, as such, a member of the corporation, and."

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 9, leave out from ("borough") in line 9 to ("borough") in line 11.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

The Amendments that I have placed on the Paper to subsection (6) of Clause 2 would have this effect. The clause proposes that any borough with 10,000 inhabitants in Ireland shall have the same privileges in the appointment of a local committee as boroughs of 20,000 in England. I felt, having some little knowledge of Ireland, that boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants do not always provide the proper material for dealing with the subjects dealt with by the Bill; on the other hand there might be cases among such boroughs where it would be desirable that there should be a separate local committee. Therefore I have placed Amendments on the Paper leaving it to the Statutory Committee to decide in what cases in those small boroughs there should be a separate local committee. But I find that subsection (6) is really unnecessary. I have consulted the draftsman of the Irish Government and I understand there will be no objection to omitting it altogether, leaving the matter to be dealt with under the first subsection of Clause 2 by the Statutory Committee, which, on the application of the council of any borough or urban district, may establish a local committee if it considers it desirable that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, a separate local committee should be established. Therefore I move to leave out subsection (6).

Amendment moved— Page 4, lines 13 to 17, leave out subsection (6).—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, 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) 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;
    6. 903
  6. (f) 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;
  7. (g) 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;
  8. (h) to administer any funds which may be placed at the disposal of the committee by the corporation or 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;
  9. (i) 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;
  10. (j) 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) 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.

(4) The Statutory Committee shall in each year make a report of their proceedings which shall be included in the annual report made by the Corporation to His Majesty.

(5) Pending the appointment of a local committe 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.

(6) For the purpose of enabling the Statutory Committee to discharge their functions the Admiralty and the War Office 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, chili, or dependant, and the Statutory Committee shall on request duly communicate all such and similar information to any charitable body legitimately interested in the ease of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The Amendment standing in my name to subsection (1) deals with the question of making temporary advances. As noble Lords who are interested in these subjects are well aware, cases have arisen in which it has been found indispensable to bridge over the interval between the application and the completion of the necessary inquiry by the Department. All sorts of investigations and verifications of claims have to be made, and in many cases it is exceedingly hard on the applicant if she—as it generally is—has to stand out of all relief during that period. This work has been done to a great extent by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and financed to a great extent by the National Relief Fund in the past. I think the House will be prepared to accept this Amendment, which obviously supplies a want.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, after line 35 insert as a new paragraph: (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 cornmences.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

This is a very useful Amendment and absolutely necessary, and it is a valuable concession to those who have been working on these lines heretofore.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

This Amendment is consequential on what we have already done.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 9, leave out ("by the Corporation or").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MAYO

My Amendment is to delete the word "children" in paragraph (j) [grants in special cases for the purpose of enabling widows, children, and other dependants of deceased officers and men to obtain training and employment], and to insert a new paragraph to subsection (1) of this clause, making it an additional function of the Statutory Committee to make provision for the care of the orphans of deceased officers and men by securing the co-operation of the local School Care Committee or other adequate body responsible for the care of children, or by forming a similar suitable committee in districts where no such exists, and by co-operating with After Care and Juvenile Advisory Committees in helping these orphans to obtain training and employment, and to make grants in special cases for this purpose.

This Amendment is to deal with cases of bad mothers who drink and neglect their children. I know of a case in London in which the widow of a private who was killed at the Front has already re-married and continues to draw the pension paid to her in consideration of her former husband having been a soldier. This woman and her husband spend the money and neglect the children. Then there is the case of the mother who gets two years pension down when she re-marries, and the children are neglected after that marriage. I consider that some of that pension money ought to go to support the children. The principle contained in the Amendment has already been adopted by the Government in the Memorandum of November 9 issued by the Admiralty and the War Office, and it has been steadily applied with satisfactory results where School Care Committees are at work. All that is suggested is that it should be mentioned in a Statute. I know that there is a wish that this kind of case should come under what, are called Regulations, but we are dealing with a matter that will apply for many years to come. It would be much more satisfactory if it could be put into this Bill. We are often told that "Regulations will be made." Sometimes the Regulations attain their objects but they are often either too strong or not strong enough. I should therefore like to see my new paragraph inserted in the Bill. Experience shows that making grants to enable children to obtain training can only be successfully done where there is an organisation taking a continued interest in the child both before and after leaving school. This need has gradually called into existence the elaborate organisation of the School Care Committees, who, as your Lordships know, come under the local education authorities. I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 18, leave out ("children"). After line 20 insert as a new paragraph: (k) To make provision for the care of the orphans of deceased officers and men, by securing the co-operation of the local School Care Committee or other adequate body responsible for the care of children, or by forming a similar suitable committee in districts where no such exists, and by co-operating with After Care and Juvenile Advisory Committees in helping these orphans to obtain training and employment, and to make grants in special cases for this purpose.—(The Earl of Mayo.)

THE EARL OF CROMER

I hope the Government will give a favourable consideration to this proposal, which is one to which the Charity Organisation Society and many ladies who have taken a great interest in this matter attach considerable importance. It has been represented to me within the last few days that they attach value to the point to which the noble Earl alluded—namely, that this matter should not be dealt with entirely by Regulation, but that some provision of this sort should be inserted in the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I can assure the two noble Earls that I make no possible complaint of this particular Amendment being brought forward, but I must point out to them what the facts of the case are and the manner in winch the Bill was prepared. Any one who studies the Bill will see that matters of administration as distinct from matters of policy have been kept out of the Bill. There is a great deal of guidance and direction as to the lines on which Regulations are to be made, but no specific directions are actually included. If the noble Earls will look at the subsections down to (j) they will see that they are all drawn in general terms. In addition to the representation made this afternoon by the two noble Earls for the inclusion of this particular administrative matter in the Bill my noble friend and I had a number of similar requests, urged by persons on just the same authority as those who are behind the two noble Earls who have spoken, asking that particular matters which might be dealt with by Regulation should be included in the Bill. The Bill is founded on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee, and it has not, rightly or wrongly, included any specific administrative directions of this sort, and if we once begin to include them we must cover the whole ground. It would not be possible to touch a matter of this kind, for instance, without attempting to touch on other questions which many men and women of experience have at heart—namely, such questions as the care of children in particular circumstances; such a question, again, as the possibility of exercising discretion on the payment of the regular pension as distinct from the supplementary pension. There are a number of questions of a kindred nature which people of the greatest experience have at heart, which, as we have pointed out to them, can he dealt with by Regulations and upon which they will doubtless make representations to the Statutory Committee when it is formed, recommendations which are certain to receive full attention. We really cannot venture, therefore, to include in the terms of the Bill a clause such as that which my noble friend opposite has moved, because, as he will recognise if he looks through the Bill, it is on a footing somewhat different from any other clause in the Bill; it goes into greater administrative detail, and would form a precedent for the insertion of a number of other Amendments equally meritorious which it would be altogether impossible for us to resist, and which would make the Bill when it returns to another place infinitely larger in volume and different in substance. Therefore, with regret and reluctance, I am afraid I must say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF MAYO

Then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. But might I ask the noble Marquess whether the Memorandum which the Admiralty and the War Office have issued still remains in force?

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Yes, there is no change in that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I propose in my next Amendment that, for the purpose of making provision for the care of disabled officers and men, the Statutory Committee shall appoint a special subcommittee comprising representatives of employers and of labour. My noble friend behind me in his original speech—I refer to Lord Devonport—dealt with this subject of disablement and the provision of employment, and he by no means exaggerated the extreme importance of it. It is one of those parts of the Bill which may be described as of a permanent character, because this kind of administration will go on for a great number of years after the war. It has been suggested—and unless I am mistaken my noble friend Lord Devonport favoured the idea—that the proper course to take would be to set up an altogether separate body dealing with this side of the question. But he will doubtless remember that Sir George Murray's Committee—to the recommendations of which he rightly attaches so much importance—definitely recommended that these questions and the questions of pensions and allowances should be dealt with by a single body. Therefore although this board receives the somewhat humble title of a sub-committee it will, both as regards its composition and the work it has to do, be and remain one of the most important parts of the whole Committee. It will presumably contain some of the most efficient members of the body itself, and to them will be added representatives of the great trades and industries both from the point of view of employers and of labour. My noble friend also pointed to the undoubted claims of the Board of Trade to be represented in this regard. As he very truly said, the functions of the Labour Exchanges are of the greatest importance in this connection, and if it had been the intention of the Bill to add to the Statutory Committee itself representatives of all the Departments concerned it would have been impossible to leave out the Board of Trade. The noble Earl opposite has gone further than we ventured to do. He desires to omit the Local Government Boards of the three countries and the Health Insurance Committee. But it is clear, I think, that all those bodies, and the Board of Trade, the Board of Agriculture, and the Board of Education—because the training of children must play a large part in the responsibility of this Committee—must all find representation upon it. As I said, its title of a subcommittee is a somewhat humble one, and it might be held that the extreme importance of its functions and the representation of so many important. Departments of State entitle it to a more high-sounding designation. We can see as we go on whether any such necessity exists. It has always been our intention from the first that a committee of this kind should be appointed for the care of the disabled, and that the various Departments which I have mentioned should be represented upon it. I hope that after this explanation the House will find no difficulty in inserting this Amendment, which I am quite certain in practice will carry out what Parliament would desire to do in seeing to the care of the disabled and the finding of employment both for them and their dependants.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, after subsection (2), insert as a new subsection: (3) For the purpose of making provision for the care of disabled officers and men, the Statutory Committee shall appoint a special sub-committee comprising representatives of employers and of labour."—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Might I call the attention of the noble Marquess to the drafting of the Amendment. It runs "shall appoint a special sub-committee comprising representatives of employers and of labour." The word "comprising" is not a usual word of drafting, and it might be read to mean that the sub-committee was to consist solely of those people. The words "shall appoint a sub-committee which shall include representatives" would, I think, make clear what is meant.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The noble Earl is quite right; the word "comprising" is somewhat misleading in that connection.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

I feel very strongly that the care and provision for the training of disabled men to resume remunerative work in civil life is the duty of the State, and I believe am right in saying that this was the opinion expressed in the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. This Bill provides no public money for the purpose, and I hope we are not to understand that the money for this work is to be found from charitable sources.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I can reassure my noble friend on that subject.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

Then I hope we may understand that the Government will undertake to provide public money. But, even if money is provided for this purpose, I venture to think that these sub-committees to be appointed by the Statutory Committee and these district committees are not the best possible bodies to carry out the work. May I give the example of disabled men who may wish to go on the land? We understand that it is probable that a considerable number of men now serving in the new Armies may wish at the expiration of the war to take up agricultural work and be placed on land settlements. For that purpose I venture to think that the Board of Agriculture is a much better and more efficient body to undertake this work.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Marquess in charge of the Bill having accepted Lord Camperdown's suggestion to leave out "comprising" and to insert "which shall include," the noble Marquess's proposed new subsection now reads— (3) For the purpose of making provision for the care of disabled officers and men, the Statutory Committee shall appoint a special sub-committee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The next Amendment is consequential on what we have done.

Amendment moved— Page 5, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("which shall be included in the annual report made by the Corporation").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The next is a drafting Amendment. The phrase "Army Council" is the proper statutory form, net "War Office."

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 6, leave out ("War Office") and insert ("Army Council").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Subsection (6) of this clause provides that 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 shall on request duly communicate all such and similar information to any charitable body legitimately interested. My Amendment is a small one, the substitution of "may" for "shall." It is more reasonable that the word should be "may," as some of the information might not be communicable and it might not be reasonable to give it.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 10, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I hope that this Amendment will not be agreed to. The noble Marquess describes it as a very small one, but it takes away any right, of a charitable body to hear what has been done for people in whom they are interested. I think second thoughts are not best here, and I hope the noble Marquess will agree to leave the clause as it stands.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I must remind my noble friend of the actual wording of the subsection. It runs— … the Admiralty and the War Office 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 shall on request duly communicate all such and similar information to any charitable body legitimately interested … It is, I think, a very heavy burden to place on any important Department to say that any society, self-constituted or otherwise, which considers itself interested in a particular widow or child, can have the absolute right to the whole information which the Statutory Committee could give on the subject. I do not think that this is a claim which a great many societies have any right or reason to make. As a matter of fact, you may be sure that all the large and substantial societies are certain to receive from a body constituted like the Statutory Committee all possible information to which they are entitled. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press his objection further.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The noble Marquess says that this applies to any charitable body "which considers itself interested." Those are not the words of the subsection which he read. The words are a question of fact. If the body is legitimately interested I do not see why it should not have the information. It. is not a question whether the body considers itself legitimately interested, but whether it is legitimately interested.

EARL FERRERS

This is really a most important matter. It involves the question whether or not these voluntary societies shall be allowed to have sufficient information to work upon. As your Lordships know, there were over six of these organisations mentioned in the Second Reading debate as of sufficient importance for representation to be claimed for them on the Statutory Committee. There are a hundred or so regimental associations, and there are endless other societies dealing with the Services besides the purely civilian charities, which may or may not come in. But what I want your Lordships to see is that if these voluntary organisations are liable to be left in the dark, all going al cross purposes, there can be no economy or efficiency in the charitable work which His Majesty's Government want to help. The ideal thing is for every one of these societies, when a given case is raised, to be able to know absolutely what has been done for that family by every other society. It is essential that if a voluntary society is called upon to give assistance to a family it should at least know what the main assets of the family are. If they know nothing at all about the position of the family, they must be acting absolutely in the dark. If this right to information is refused practically every case will be more or less mis-handled, extravagant grants will be given to people who cannot use them properly, and really deserving cases will be liable to be starved because the society will suspect other sources of income. If a society knows exactly where it stands, it can act confidently and deal with the case justly and sympathetically. If you make it possible for this information to be refused, you incur the responsibility of practically wrecking the whole of the work of these voluntary associations. Unless you can absolutely trust the Statutory Committee to act on this "may" as if it were "shall"—and that would be cutting away the whole ground from underneath this Amendment—you will ruin the voluntary associations.

LORD HARRIS

I cannot share the apprehensions of the two noble Lords who have just spoken. It is the original main pension that is referred to, and as the clause was drafted it compelled the Statutory Committee to give the whole of the information that they had acquired from either of these Departments to any charitable body outside who was legitimately interested in the case. I can conceive there being cases where the Statutory Committee would prefer not to divulge the whole of the information, and by substituting "may" you give the Statutory Committee the option to impart as much information as it thinks necessary from the whole of the information which the Government Departments have had to give to it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER)

I hope this Amendment will not be resisted. If it is, the effect will be to take away from the Statutory Committee all discretion. They will be bound, if "shall" is left standing in the Bill, to give to every charitable body claiming to be legitimately interested in a particular case the whole of the information that they may have received from the War Office or the Admiralty. It is possible that some of that information might be of a confidential character, and it would be a very serious thing indeed to say that in circumstances such as those the Statutory Committee should be compelled, on the application it might be of the smallest possible charitable body, to give the whole of that information without any reservation whatever. I ask your Lordships to say, if the body here, the statutory body, be set up, that it should be trusted. It is rather hard to give them authority and at the same time to say that they are to have no discretion whatever with regard to what I suggest may be one of the most delicate matters connected with the discharge of their duties.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Functions of local committees.

4. The functions of local committees shall be—

  1. (a) to inquire into any case 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) to solicit and receive from the public contributions towards any such purposes as aforesaid;
  6. (f) 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.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have a small Amendment in paragraph (d) of this clause which I should like to put before your Lordships. Part of the duties of the local committees is to increase pensions, grants, and separation allowances and to make grants or allowances where no pensions, grants, or separation allowances are otherwise payable. They are to make these out of the funds at their disposal for the purpose, and it may quite well be that they have not funds enough at their disposal to deal with all the hard cases with which they wish to deal. It is very probable—in fact, we know it is so—that there are other societies in the various localities which have facilities for raising money which these local committees will not have. I suggest, therefore, that the local committees should have power to make arrangements with these voluntary societies, to indicate to them cases which are hard cases, and to suggest to them that they should spend money they had collected on these particular cases. It is important, I think, that there should be some cooperation between the local committees and voluntary societies, and I think by a suggestion of this kind it may well be that money which otherwise would be wasted would be profitably spent under the direction and at the suggestion of the local committees.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 34, after ("payable") insert ("and to make arrangements with voluntary societies, associations, or persons for the provision and distribution of grants for any of the above purposes").—(Viscount Peel.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I should be unwilling to take any strong exception to the noble Viscount's Amendment, because its object is evidently one of which we should all approve. I cannot myself think it quite necessary, because it draws a distinction between the local committees and the voluntary societies which one does not desire to see enforced. One hopes that the voluntary societies will be so well represented on the local committees that they will practically be able to work through them, and therefore as a matter of preference we would sooner not see the words inserted. But if the noble Viscount insists upon it, I do not wish to oppose the insertion of the words.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not wish to press the matter if the noble Marquess thinks this can equally well be done in the way he has stated. I do not want to overload the Bill, of course.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Amendment is to provide that a further function of the local committees shall be, 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. As noble Lords know, this is work which has already been done, and it is highly desirable that it should be continued. It has been suggested to me that a further power ought to be taken to make advances in cases which sometimes occur, particularly the case of allowances to parents as dependants, where an allowance is suspended for a time while inquiry is being made. I have not been able so far to get the considered opinion of the War Office on that point, or to know whether objection is likely to he taken to it. I can conceive some difficulty in making such an addition to the Amendment, because it might not be easy in terms to distinguish between cases where an allowance is suspended under suspicion of misconduct and cases where it is suspended under circumstances over which the recipient has no control. But if I find it necessary to make an addition in those terms to the clause I will bring it up at the Report stage.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, after line 34, insert as a new paragraph: (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."—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The next is a drafting Amendment; a transposition.

Amendment moved— Page 6, lines 35 and 36, leave out paragraph (e).—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Amendment to paragraph (f) is designed to avoid, if possible, overlapping between the functions of the Statutory Committee and the local committees. Among the functions of the local committees is the duty of inquiring into cases and furnishing information at the direction of the Statutory Committee. But paragraph (f) gives initiative powers of their own to local authorities 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. These powers are given also to the Statutory Committee. The whole of the area of this country is covered by local committees, and they may all start schemes for training, and so on; and, by a previous Amendment, they can also combine with other local committees. The Statutory Committee can also commence its own schemes. Indeed, it is suggested in the Bill that it will start a number, because the noble Marquess has just moved an Amendment appointing a sub-committee of the Statutory Committee to deal with this. The suggestion contained in my Amendment is that the words "subject to the approval of the Statutory Committee" should be inserted. This would bring into harmony the action of the local committees and of the Statutory Committee in this respect. It surely is important that there should be coordination of action between the different authorities. Either one general scheme should be drawn up, or the Statutory Committee should be fully aware of what is being done by the local committees. If this or something of the kind is not established I am afraid a great deal of money will be wasted, a good deal of effort thrown away, and a great deal of overlapping occasioned.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 37, after ("provision") insert ("subject to the approval of the Statutory Committee").—(Viscount Peel.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

As the noble Viscount has explained, his desire is to prevent overlapping between the work of the Statutory Committee and the local committees in this matter of dealing with disabled soldiers, and that, we should all agree, is a thing to be avoided if possible. But I am not quite confident how a very important local committee of one of the great provincial cities, if it provided all the funds for the care of its own disabled soldiers, would regard the prospect of having to submit its whole scheme to the sanction of the Statutory Committee; and from that point of view I am afraid that the acceptance of my noble friend's Amendment may cause a certain degree of difficulty. Its object, however, is one with which in the main we sympathise, and therefore I shall not oppose its insertion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, after line 39, insert as a new paragraph: (g) to solicit and receive from the public contributions towards any such purposes as aforesaid."—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

My Amendment on the Paper is after Clause 4, to insert the following new Clause— The local committee shall appoint, for the care of disabled officers and men, a special sub-committee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour. I hope that this proposal may meet with better success than the one which I proposed with regard to the composition of the Statutory Committee, more especially as in this case I am following the lead of my noble friend the Leader of the House. In moving his Amendment just now the noble Marquess referred to the great importance of the question of providing for disabled officers and men, and stated that it was very desirable that there should be special committees for the purpose. I am therefore merely following out with regard to the local committees what the noble Marquess proposed with regard to the Statutory Committee.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I certainly look favourably upon my noble friend's object, but I do not feel quite certain that the necessity for the appointment of such a sub-committee would exist in every case. There must be, I think, some local committees in whose case it would certainly not be easy to find and not reasonable to appoint a sub-committee of this kind. If my noble friend would agree to snake the provision permissive and to substitute the word "may" for "shall," I have no doubt that in a great many cases it may be desirable to insert the indication in the Bill. But we think it is hardly safe, particularly as some local committees may be quite small, to make this mandatory upon every one of them.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

I shall be pleased to move the Amendment in the form suggested by the noble Marquess.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 4, insert the following new clause: .The local committee may appoint, for the care of disabled officers and men, a special sub-committee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour."—(The Earl of Lichfield.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CROMER

I very much regret that my noble friend Lord Derby is not here to move the Amendment standing in his name and mine, all the more so as it was based substantially on the resolution of the Liverpool Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association of which the noble Earl is president. The Amendment explains itself, and I do not think at this late hour I need dwell upon anything, except two points as possible objections that could be urged. In the first place there is the objection of my noble friend Lord Peel. In this Amendment it is proposed that the power of delegation shall rest with the local committees. Under Lord Peel's Amendment it was to rest with the Statutory Committee and not the local committees. There is a good deal to be said on both sides. It is a point which I have discussed with a great number of people connected with the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and I must say that the balance of opinion is distinctly in favour of giving the power to the local committees. There is a good deal of local jealousy in these matters, and it is thought by those most experienced that although local committees might be very willing to delegate the functions to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association or other similar institutions if left to themselves, at the same time they would very much resent being coerced by the Statutory Committee. Therefore I have been pressed very much by, I think, the majority of those who represent these voluntary associations to leave the provision as it is in this Amendment. The other objection which it occurs to me might be made is this. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, may say that the Amendment which he has already proposed covers the same ground. That is to a certain extent true, but I do not think it obviates the necessity for this Amendment. Under the noble Marquess's proposal—in Clause 2, I think—what would really happen would he that these various voluntary associations would be dissolved, or would cease to act at all events, and then they might be reconstituted by bringing some of their members on to the local committees. But under my proposal, if the local committees wished it, there would be no break of continuity, and I think that would be rather an advantage. I know that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association attach great importance to this. As there is nothing in this Amendment which clashes with the proposal of the noble Marquess, I hope, even if lie thinks it unnecessary, that on the principle of superflua non nocent he will not object to it.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 4, insert the following new clause: . Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, if in any area functions similar to those entrusted to a local committee are at the time of the passing of this Act, being performed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association or other organisation, such Association or other organisation may, if the local committee so desire, and so far as the local committee may direct, discharge within such area the functions of the local committee during the continuance of the present war, provided such Association or other organisation shall so long continue to perform within such area such functions to the satisfaction of the local committee."—(The Earl of Cromer.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am entirely in favour of the proposed clause, and, equally with the noble Earl, I regret that Lord Derby, whose name is also attached to this Amendment, is not here this evening. He wrote to me on the matter, and I know that he takes great interest in this particular point. This is a delegation clause, and I am bound to say it has been drawn in such a manner that the powers of delegation are very carefully safeguarded indeed. Under the clause the delegation may take place only if the local committee so wish and so far as the local committee may direct, and it will remain in force only so long as the local committee desire. Those seem to me very important safeguards, and I think they are sufficient. I was going to raise the point, in which my noble friend anticipated me, and to suggest that the new subsection which has been already inserted in the Bill—subsection (8)—sufficiently provides for an operation of this kind; but I can see that the noble Earl and his friends will be reassured if we accept this clause. I think it can certainly do no harm. It goes beyond my clause to this extent, that under my clause it would not, I think, have been possible for the local committee, if it desired to do so, to abdicate entirely in favour of one of these associations. This clause does give that power, and I see no reason why it should not be given. Therefore I offer no opposition to the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CROMER

I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for accepting the Amendment. All that my clause does is to emphasise the point, and its acceptance will give great satisfaction to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The new clause which I move to insert after Clause 4 is one to which no little importance is attached by those who are responsible for administration, for it removes three inconveniences which exist at this moment. In the case of a false declaration—for instance, for the purpose of obtaining a separation allowance—being made by a dependant of a sailor, proceedings can be taken under the Admiralty Powers Act of 1865, but in the case of the Army the only remedy is for the culprit to be indicted for obtaining money by false pretences. This clause will enable a summary jurisdiction Court to deal with the matter. Then, again, this clause will enable proceedings to be taken in the place in which the person lives. The proceedings almost always have to be taken now in the place where the paymaster is to whom the declaration is sent. That is very likely to be at the other end of England, and consequently the case has very often to be tried perhaps three hundred miles away from the place where the offence was committed. The third provision, which will be found of great convenience, is that which will enable the declaration of the paymaster as regards the stamp on the declaration to be taken as evidence instead of compelling that official in every case to attend and swear to it at the Court. I am sure the House will desire to see this Amendment part of the Bill.

Amendment moved— After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:

Summary penalty for false declaration.

". If any person, with a view to obtaining any such pension or grant or allowance as aforesaid, makes or uses, or has before the passing of this Act made or used, any declaration, application, or other written statement knowing the seine to be false, he shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and for the purpose of proceedings in respect of any such offence the offence shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place where it was actually committed or at the place where the offender may happen to be, and any declaration on an appropriate official form bearing a stamp purporting to be the office stamp of the Admiralty or Army Council, or any sub-department thereof, with a date subsequent to that on which the declaration purports to have been signed, shall be evidence that the declaration has been used with such view as aforesaid unless the contrary is proved."—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The fine to which the person guilty of this offence is subject is £5. I should like to ask whether that matter has been carefully considered. Claims may be made which ought to be punished very severely, and it does seem to me that a fine of £5 is a very small penalty.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I quite see the noble Earl's point; but this clause would not prevent, if the case was a serious one, the proceedings of which I have already spoken—namely, that of the prisoner being indicted for obtaining money under false pretences, and receiving possibly the utmost punishment which can be administered under that indictment. Therefore the punishment for the offence is not confined to the £5 fine, which in most cases I have no doubt would be ample.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5:

Provisions as to Corporation.

5.—(1) Any lord mayor or mayor, lord provost or provost, who is as such a member of the Corporation may, if ho is unable or unwilling to act as a member thereof, appoint some other person in his place to be a member of the Corporation; and any person so appointed shall hold office so long as the person by whom he is appointed holds his office as lord mayor, mayor, lord provost or provost.

(2) In addition to the persons whom the general council of the Corporation may co-opt under the Patriotic Fund (Reorganisation) Act, 1903, the council may co-opt as members thereof Any number (not exceeding thirteen) of persons having special experience in work of the character to be performed by the Corporation; but in exercising this power of co-option the council shall include some women as well as men amongst the members so co-opted.

(3) Every member of the Statutory Committee Appointed under this Act shall, by virtue of his office as member of that Committee, be a member of the Corporation; but shall not as such be entitled to act or vote in respect of any question Arising before the Corporation as regards matters dealt with by the Corporation independently of this Act.

(4) The purposes of this Act shall be included amongst the purposes for which the Corporation may solicit and receive contributions from the public and donations of property.

(5) Save as otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this Act shall affect the constitution or powers and duties of the Corporation.

LORD DEVONPORT had four Amendments to this clause on the Paper—to omit from subsection (1) the words "as such"; to leave out from the beginning of subsection (2) down to and including "Act, 1903"; and to leave out subsections (3) and (5). The noble Lord said: I placed these Amendments on the Paper because I thought they were consequential. But I see that there is an Amendment standing in the name of Lord Camperdown to delete the whole of this clause. I think that is the better way of dealing with the matter, and if that course is acceptable to the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill I will not move my Amendments.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The Amendment standing in my name to this clause is not exactly a drafting Amendment, but is in the interests of grammar.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 14, leave out ("some").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I move to omit Clause 5 altogether. In consequence of what we have done there is no need for reference to the Corporation. And there is a further objection to the clause which in itself is of a considerable character. We have become accustomed of late years—I am sorry to say it is becoming more and more common—to alter the constitution of one body by a single clause in a Bill relating to quite a different subject; and this clause gives an instance of that. I think your Lordships will be doing the right thing in striking the clause out for the two reasons which I have stated.

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

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

After the action that has been taken by the House, I think the course proposed by the noble Earl is undoubtedly the right one. It is nugatory in effect to leave this clause in the Bill when the main functions of the Corporation in relation to the Bill as a whole have been abolished, and therefore we offer no objection to the deletion of the clause.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I rise to say a word, not at all as to this Bill but with reference to what Lord Camperdown said a moment ago about the habit we have got into in regard to amending legislation. May I, as responsible for advising your Lordships on Private Bill matters, say how glad I was to hear what the noble Earl said. The practice to which he referred has grown in the case of private as well as of public Bills, and I am entirely at one with the noble Earl in desiring to check it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

We shall be prepared to take the Report stage of this Bill on Wednesday next, if that is considered convenient.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

If Tuesday would suit His Majesty's Government equally well, I think we might take the Report stage then—the sooner the better.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

There are some changes to be made in the Bill, and I think it would be more convenient to the drafting authorities if the Report stage could be postponed until Wednesday

The Report of Amendments to be received on Wednesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 158.)