HL Deb 29 September 1915 vol 19 cc945-67

Amendments reported (according to Order).

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received, I think it would probably be for the general convenience if I were to say a word on the position in which we find ourselves owing to the action which was taken by your Lordships' House in making certain substantial Amendments in Committee. Since then we have had the opportunity of consulting our colleagues whose Departments are specially concerned with this measure, and I will tell the House what the result of that consultation is. We have arrived at the conclusion that the changes which are brought about by the Amendments made here in Committee are in fact considerably greater than they would appear to be on a superficial examination of the Bill and a comparison between its form now and that in which it was before Committee. It will be seen, I think, that the adoption of these Amendments by your Lordships has in fact brought about a reversal of the principle on which the Bill was framed and on which it was passed through the House of Commons.

The intention of the Bill as it came up here was that the pensions and allowances on the normal scale should be, as they always have been, the care of the Admiralty and of the War Office, but that a private body—in this case the Corporation of the Royal Patriotic Fund—should be entrusted with the duty of supplementing those national pensions through funds collected either centrally or more probably in the main locally, and by the employment of persons exercising local influence for that purpose. That was the main object for which the body to carry out these purposes was a Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, it being believed that owing to the constitution of that Corporation and the fact that the larger number of persons who possess great local influence are members of it these objects could thus be best carried through. I shall be told that public money would be needed to carry out, in all probability, part of the work entrusted to this new body. That is undoubtedly true. But the intention of the framers and promoters of the Bill was that if a public grant had to be made it should be made in the form of a large single contribution from the Exchequer to the funds of the body entrusted with the distribution, and not by undertaking a regular annual payment for the purpose.

In the form in which the Bill now stands the suggestion is that the National Exchequer should undertake these duties, the body having ceased to be in the main a private corporation such as was intended in the original form of the Bill, and that the private contributions would only be such crumbs as the Exchequer could collect for further supplement of pensions and allowances after having undertaken to supply them itself. It was stated, and so far as I know generally believed, in the House that in those circumstances the crumbs would not be forthcoming on a large scale. I am bound to say that I think that this belief was probably well founded. Our view is, therefore, that the whole principle of the measure is affected and indeed altered by your Lordships' Amendments, the result of which, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, does not spring to view at first sight in the mere substitution, as it appears, of two members for six from the Royal Patriotic Fund and in the other changes which have been made. But in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the basis is thus altered, and consequently the action which His Majesty's Government have to take upon it is thereby to some extent affected.

The Ministers who preside over the Departments which are specially concerned and affected by the measure require more time to consider the whole question in all its aspects—more time, that is, than could reasonably be asked for in carrying the Bill through its further stages in this House. In our opinion, therefore, the most reasonable and easy course is for the Bill to go down to another place in its present form with such Amendments as, in the opinion of the House, may be needed to make that form more shipshape and coherent than it is left by the Amendments which were carried in Committee. In those circumstances we think that it would be better for His Majesty's Government, as we cannot pretend to adopt the changes which have been made by the House, not to ourselves attempt to undertake the work of trimming off the rough edges of the Bill, but to let that be done by those noble Lords who are responsible for the Amendments carried, and of course we shall not raise any objection to their doing this to any extent that they think fit.

There are, I see, several Amendments to be moved at this stage, but they by no means cover the entire ground of amendment which noble Lords will, I conceive, wish to undertake if the Bill is to go down in anything like a complete form to be considered by the House of Commons. There are various other Amendments, some of them of a drafting character, which in order that the Bill shall present a decent appearance on its return noble Lords would, I have no doubt, wish to see included; and it would probably be the most convenient course that noble Lords should move those at the last stage of the Bill, after the Third Reading. We can get through this afternoon those Amendments which are down for to-day, and we can take the Third Reading on any day—perhaps early next week—that noble Lords might find convenient, by which time they could place the other Amendments on the Paper. We all, of course, desire to make the Bill a workable one, even though we may not all be agreed as to the precise lines on which its operations ought to move. After all, this Bill has to frame a system which is to last for years to come—a system which, as I said on a former occasion, will go on for a period long exceeding the utmost period of the life of probably any member of this House. Therefore it is clearly important that it should become law in the best possible form.

I should like to add this. Although in some of its details, and, even more, in some of its principles, it has been a matter of discussion between different members of this House and also in another place, the subject itself is one which we ought to carefully guard ourselves from regarding in any sense as one of controversy. It is merely a question of finding the best method of arriving at results in the care of these people, all of whom deserve and will continue to receive the utmost sympathy of the public men of all parties and schools. Therefore although there may be some contest as to principles there is none whatever as to the object, and I sincerely hope that when the Bill is considered elsewhere—and I believe this will be the case—this fact will be carefully borne in mind, because it would be painful and odious to us all if this high national object were to become a matter of anything like dispute or acrimonious controversy. I now move that the Report be received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I would ask the noble Marquess to make his view of future policy a little more distinct. The only Division which took place was in regard to Lord Devon-port's Amendment, which had the effect of cutting out the Royal Patriotic Fund. Is that the Amendment which requires so many corresponding Amendments, or are the Amendments which are required consequential upon the Amendments which were moved by the two noble Marquesses opposite? Because a great many of the Amendments which were inserted in Committee throughout the Bill were on the initiative of the two noble Marquesses, the one in charge of the Bill and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. If it is in consequence of Lord Devonport's Amendment that further Amendments are required, it rests, I think, with him or those who supported him to try and meet the suggestions of the noble Marquess. If, however, the further Amendments indicated are consequential on the Amendments moved by the two noble Marquesses supporting the Government, it falls upon them, surely, to make the additional Amendments required.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I think the answer to the point raised by my noble friend opposite is that the Amendments which will be necessary in this Bill, and to which reference was made by the noble Marquess who leads the House, are mainly consequential upon the decision of your Lordships to strike the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation out of this Bill. So far as I am aware, if there are any Amendments consequential upon the Amendments which stood in my name they are certainly few and insignificant. But the point of my noble friend's observation was, I think, this—that the House having determined to make what we regard as a fundamental change in the structure of the Bill by striking out the reference to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, it seems futile for us to follow that up by touching up the Bill throughout in order to make it accord with that Amendment. In our view it is better to allow the matter to take what I conceive to be its usual course—namely, that the Bill should go from your Lordships' House back to the House of Commons, where it will be for that House to decide whether they can accept the change which your Lordships have made. There can be no doubt that in that House the objections and arguments brought forward by noble Lords in this House are sure to be raised, and we shall have to see whether they prevail in the other House of Parliament as they prevailed in this. Until that point is cleared up it would be, in our opinion, useless for us to pursue the task of doing what I think the noble Marquess called trimming the rough edges that have been left on the Bill by the somewhat drastic treatment it received at your Lordships' hands the other evening.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I confess I do not understand why the treatment which this Bill has received at your Lordships' hands should be considered as of such drastic importance as my noble friend has just Mated. What is it that we have done? A majority of this House struck out the words, "Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund." Well, the Committee never was a Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund in the Bill as proposed to your Lordships' House. It was a Committee appointed mainly from outside the Royal Patriotic Fund altogether, the Corporation of the Royal Patriotic Fund being allowed to appoint six members of that Committee as against nineteen appointed by the Government or by Government Departments. The representation of the Royal Patriotic Fund on the Committee was afterwards reduced to two instead of six. But that is all. Those are the alterations which your Lordships have made in this Bill which have induced the two noble Marquesses who have just addressed your Lordships to take so strong a view of what has been done. I do not wonder that the noble Marquess who leads the House should have admitted that it does not spring to the view at first sight why these alterations are so terrible. I should have thought it perfectly possible, if it was considered that there was any great virtue in the words "Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund," that they might have been restored in another place, and, if necessary, the additional members of the Fund might have been placed upon the Committee, as indeed was suggested, I think, by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House himself. But it is for the Government to judge of the effect upon their own Bill of the Amendments made by your Lordships, and I hope that before they decide upon any action in regard to it they will really consider whether what your Lordships have done justifies the description which has been given of it.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, I rise to ask a question. If Amendments are proposed from this side, will the Government express their opinion with regard to the advisability or not of accepting them? It is quite possible, if Amendments are proposed from this side, that if the Government were to say that they thought they had better not be put in the Bill they might be withdrawn. But we shall be under a considerable disadvantage if the Government, by taking the course which I understood the noble Marquess to indicate, were absolutely to refuse to us the benefit of their opinion upon any Amendment which might be proposed.

THE EARL OF CROMER

My Lords, as I have taken some little part in this discussion I rise to confirm what has been said by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. His Majesty's Government appear to look upon the Amendment carried in this House as what is called a wrecking Amendment. We never regarded it in that light. We regarded the question of the Committee being formed on the basis of the Patriotic Fund as an important detail but no more than an important detail, and I cannot see why it should not be regarded as a detail still. Certainly it was not our intention in the smallest degree to put forward what is called a wrecking Amendment.

LORD SOUTHWARK

My Lords, is it not the fact that in the Bill as brought up to your Lordships' House there is no provision made in respect of public money? My noble friend Lord Devonport also pointed out that there was no likelihood of private funds being forthcoming, because he told us that those connected with the Royal Patriotic Fund had said that all their money was already allocated. With regard to the National Relief Fund I think there was an anticipation, when this Bill was framed, that there would be some millions of money forthcoming for these objects from that Fund, but I understand that that hope, too, is not to be realised. The question therefore is, Where is the money coming from? If you are going to have public money you ought to have public control and it ought to be under the Treasury, whereas in the Bill as originally drafted this Statutory Committee was to be a sort of sub-committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund, to whom they were to report, and not to report to the State, and there was to be no one responsible in the House of Commons. I quite understand that the Bill has been greatly altered. At one time I intended to suggest to His Majesty's Government that it would be a good thing to withdraw the Bill, redraft it, and reintroduce it into the House of Commons, and then send it up here as a new Bill. It seems to be decided that those who have hitherto had control of pensioning in the Army and the Navy are not to be the bodies to be used for the purpose of these supplementary grants. If you are going to have this new Statutory Committee I suggest, in drafting a fresh Bill, that this new body should have considerable powers beyond those of simply making supplementary grants. There are all manner of services that will be demanded and will have to be carried out in connection with our soldiers and sailors after this war. There are at present very many societies and much overlapping; yet we hear of much distress amongst old soldiers and sailors, whether Crimean veterans or otherwise. I suggest that when you are making a new statutory body you should have a body that should take over all these matters and be responsible to the State. I did suggest on a former occasion that the bodies that had been doing the pensioning hitherto—the Chelsea Board, and the bodies connected with the Admiralty—might have their powers extended; and if you want this under any particular body, put it under either of those. I quite concede that we have greatly altered the character of this Bill by the alteration we have made. There is no doubt about it that the money to be provided for our soldiers and sailors is going to be State money, and not money collected by voluntary subscriptions. I see a provision in the Bill that these local committees in the country are to solicit and receive contributions from the public towards any of these purposes. That is the only hope of any money coming in voluntarily for what this Bill proposes to do, but I think most of us realise that there will not be much money forthcoming in that way.

LORD TENTERDEN

My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill I advocated two things—that there should be State control, and that the pensions should be provided for from Government funds. The chief object I had in advocating State control was to make sure that the money would be forthcoming from the Government. Great exception is taken to the alteration made by Lord Devonport's Amendment, which in effect does provide for State control. To my mind the most essential point., the one I have had at heart most, is that the money for the pensions of our soldiers and sailors, officers and men, should be forthcoming, and if the Government are prepared to give a guarantee that any deficit whatever will be made up by them, then as far as I can see it matters little whether we provide for State control or whether we do not. What the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said in Committee is only too true, and he speaks with the authority of an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that when you start legislating on matters of this kind and provide public funds the result is that voluntary contributions fall off and eventually cease to exist. There is no doubt in my mind that that will take place here. Voluntary contributions will fall off to nil, and State control will ipso facto be established whether it is put in the Bill or not. I ask that the Government should guarantee that any deficit under the Bill will be made good by the Government, and that might get over the difficulty which has arisen.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I merely wish to notice an observation which fell from my noble friend Lord Cromer, which shows that he is to some extent under a misapprehension. He spoke of us as if we had charged him and his friends with a desire to wreck this Bill. Neither my noble friend nor I make any such charge; nor do we think for a moment that that is the desire of my noble friend and those who acted with him. I believe, on the contrary, they would like the Bill to pass and are far from desiring to wreck it. Our position is simply this. Your Lordships have made what we regard as a very important change in the Bill. The noble Earl opposite treats it as a matter of detail. I think it amounts to a great deal more than that, but opinions may differ as to the gravity of the change. Our view is that this change having been made by noble Lords opposite it is for them, and not for us, to deal with any Amendments necessitated by that change and consequential upon it. But if they, or noble Lords in any part of the House, think proper to move Amendments, we shall certainly—and this is the answer I have to give to my noble friend Lord Camperdown—discuss them and say quite frankly what we think about them. But in our view the responsibility should not be with us.

On Question, Report received.

Clause 1:

Establishment of Statutory Committee.

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, consisting of twenty-five members, appointed as herein-after mentioned.

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

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

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

(5) Seven members of the Statutory Committee shall constitute a quorum.

The Statutory Committee may appoint subcommittees consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Statutory Committee, and may delegate to such sub-committees, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers and duties under this Act.

Subject to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, the Committee shall regulate their own procedure.

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

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

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD had an Amendment on the Paper to the first paragraph of subsection (2)—

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

The noble Earl moved, before the words "representatives of labour," to insert "employers and not less than two shall be."

The noble Earl said: I was very glad to hear the remark that fell from Lord Crewe to the effect that though we might differ as to the form which this Bill should take we were all actuated by the same motive, and that was to get the best possible terms for the gallant men who have given so much for their country. I was also pleased to hear Lord Lansdowne state that the Government would be glad to give their opinion on any Amendments that we might bring forward. I must ask indulgence for putting this Amendment down a second time, but I withdrew it somewhat prematurely in Committee and did not give my reasons sufficiently for suggesting this alteration. Further, I would point out that the Bill has been so altered in Committee that there is more reason now for putting employers as well as representatives of labour on to the Statutory Committee. In the first place, there are now eighteen members of the Statutory Committee to be appointed by the Crown, as against twelve as the Bill originally stood. Therefore if places were given to at least two employers of labour there would remain a larger number of free places than there were in the original Bill.

Again, take the clauses that were incorporated in the Bill in Committee. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House moved one, and another was also inserted, in which specific reference was made to employers as well as representatives of labour. In Clause 3 the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, moved a subsection, which was agreed to, providing that for the purpose of making provision for the care of disabled officers and men the Statutory Committee should appoint a special subcommittee "which shall include representatives of employers and of labour." And a new clause was subsequently added directing that 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." I think it is evident that the Bill would be more complete and would better carry out the provisions which are indicated in those clauses if two representatives of employers were added to the Statutory Committee.

Your Lordships may perhaps wonder how it was that employers were not put down specifically in the Bill as drafted. The reason evidently is that the Report of the Special Committee of the House of Commons with regard to Pensions and Grants was adopted in this respect. In that Report, which was published in April last, the Committee recommend that two members of the Statutory Committee shall be representative of labour, but they make no mention of employers. This Committee was appointed for the special purpose of dealing with pensions and grants, and had nothing whatever to do with the care of disabled officers and men. But if we turn to the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee on the Provision of Employment for Sailors and Soldiers Disabled in the War, we find that, after recommending the appointment of a Central Committee acting under the direction of some existing Government Department, they specially recommend that on that Committee should be included representatives of employers of labour and of trade unions and other labour organisations. Therefore it would seem only reasonable that in this Bill, in which is incorporated the care of disabled soldiers and sailors, the provision which that Committee recommended should be inserted. Then, again, there is the very important question of demobilisation. I am aware that no mention is made of it in this Bill, but surely it is our duty, as far as we can, to see that the Committee constituted under this Bill should be capable of dealing efficiently with this question, because it would seem almost impossible to contemplate the establishment of two unconnected organisations, one dealing with disabled and the other with able-bodied sailors and soldiers.

I will trouble your Lordships with a short extract on this question from the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. They said— It has been suggested to us that an organisation so created— that is, the Central Committee which they suggested— might ultimately be utilised for the purpose of dealing with the employment of ex-sailors and ex-soldiers of all kinds, whether able-bodied or disabled. The numerous agencies at present engaged on this work in different parts of the country, and the complexity of their operations, make it highly desirable that some step should be taken to co-ordinate their activities and to prevent overlapping. But such a scheme does not come within the terms of our reference, and we are aware that the question has already received a good deal of attention elsewhere. It is only mentioned in this place because it seems to us almost impossible to contemplate the establishment of two unconnected organisations—one dealing with disabled and the other with able-bodied sailors and soldiers. Having that in view, and also the fact that the care of disabled officers and men is one of the most important parts of this Bill, I think it is highly desirable that employers and labour representatives should be brought together on the Statutory Com- mittee. I hold no brief for employers. I do not know what their views may be. I am sure that whether they are on or whether they are off the Statutory Committee they will be quite ready to take their share and do all they can to help these great questions forward. But if employers are given official representation on the Committee I cannot but think it will be a good thing for the country and for labour itself. Therefore I have ventured to bring forward this question again for your Lordships' consideration in the hope that His Majesty's Government may be willing to reconsider it.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 1, line 16, after the first ("be") insert ("employers and not less than two shall be").—(The Earl of Lichfield.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

On the previous occasion when my noble friend opposite moved this Amendment I asked him to withdraw it for reasons which I then stated. Certainly on this occasion I do not make any appeal to him of that kind, in the first place because, as my noble friend stated, we do not pretend to take precise responsibility for the shape in which the Bill goes down to the other House.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

But the noble Marquess promised that the Government would give us their opinion about Amendments that were moved.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Certainly, and I am going to do so. And in the second place—as I was going to add—because my noble friend has this Amendment greatly at heart. He has pointed out two reasons which in his opinion make it specially desirable. In the first place, he says that as the care of disablement is one of the principal functions of the Statutory Committee employers as well as representatives of labour ought to be specifically represented. I should have thought that, as a matter of fact, disablement questions would have been dealt with more or less exclusively by the committee for dealing with those matters rather than by the Statutory Committee sitting fully. My noble friend will remember that the Disablement Committee is designed to include a number of persons who are not members of the Statutory Committee, and therefore it would probably assume a somewhat different aspect from that which the Statutory Committee would itself take. The other reason which I think was in my noble friend's mind was the possibility of the whole question of disbandment, demobilisation, falling to be dealt with by the same body. That, of course, is a vast question which we have not begun to face as yet, and whether when the time comes it will be possible to do what Sir George Murray's Committee indicated was the most likely course—namely, that of dealing with it by precisely the same body as that which deals with these questions of pensions and allowances—I am not in a position to say. But I do not make that observation in order to detract from the weight of my noble friend's contention.

As regards the main purposes of the Bill—that is to say, pensions and allowances, which are stated as being the principal purposes for which the Statutory Committee is framed—I can only repeat what I said before, that I do not feel quite certain that my noble friend's addition would add to the favourable reception of the measure in another place, simply for this reason, that it would not be doubted that so far as the general interests of employers of labour are concerned they would be quite adequately represented by the Statutory Committee as constituted. The same could not precisely be said of the interests of labour, and that is why labour representatives were expressly included, and that does appear to constitute a difference between the two categories. As I said before, the reason for expressly including women was somewhat of the same character. But certainly if my noble friend opposite and other noble Lords who have taken a prominent part in the debate consider that this Amendment ought to be included, I should make no further protest, although, as I say, from my noble friend's own point of view I doubt whether he is wise in desiring to include it.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I agree with what has been said by the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I do not think this is an Amendment which would be favourably received in another place. If I rightly understand what the noble Marquess said, His Majesty's Government have included representatives of labour by name in this proposal because it was considered that the views of the labouring classes might differ from those held by other members of the Committee and they would not be adequately represented by them. All the other members of the Committee will necessarily be in a greater or lesser degree employers of labour, and I do not know that in effect the words proposed by the noble Earl would have any real effect in altering the composition of the Committee. Anybody who employs labour at all would be an employer of labour, and might be put on the Committee as representing employers. I hope the noble Earl will not think it necessary to press this Amendment.

LORD HAVERSHAM

I also hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment, and for this reason. His object is that on the Statutory Committee representatives should be placed of the different classes. If this were an industrial dispute it would be quite right to put on representatives of employers and of labour. But this is a Committee which has to deal with the pensions and allowances of officers and men of the Services and their various dependants. The Statutory Committee is certain to include a number of members who will be quite competent to look after the interests of the officers and men; amongst the representatives will be some appointed by the Admiralty and some appointed by the Army Council. But the industrial classes produce the great majority of the soldiers, and therefore for that reason the Government have included representatives of labour. As Lord St. Aldwyn said, almost all the other members are in a certain sense employers of labour, so that nothing would be gained by putting this Amendment in the Bill.

THE EARL OF CROMER

This Amendment was very fully discussed on the former occasion, and the noble Earl who moved it has said nothing to alter my own personal opinion as regards the fundamental point. He will remember that the idea we had was not to earmark so many individual members of the Committee, but to leave the number at eighteen and give the Government the widest latitude as to who should be appointed. It does run contrary to that to have two representatives of labour at all, and no doubt if we were logical the proper thing would be not only not to insert representatives of the employers but to delete the representatives of labour. The noble Marquess, however, urged some very cogent reasons against doing that, so I think on the whole the best thing to do is to leave the measure as it stands.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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, considers 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 or borough or urban district and approved by the Statutory Committee; so, however, that every such scheme shall provide—

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

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

Such a district committee may, but need not, contain any members of the local committee.

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

(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 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.

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

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

EARL ST. ALDWYN had an Amendment on the Paper, in subsection (2), after the words "Statutory Committee," to insert "whose decision, in the event of any difference between the council and the Committee, shall be final." The noble Earl said: I moved this Amendment in Committee in the form in which it now appears on the Paper. The noble Marquess, however, was of opinion that this particular wording would not in reality meet the case from a drafting point of view, and he suggested the terms of an alternative provision which he was prepared to accept. Those terms have been embodied in the new Amendment which I now propose to move. The object, of course, is solely to secure finality in the settlement of the scheme, and to leave the decision in the case of difference with the Statutory Committee.

Amendment moved.

To insert the following new subsection: If within such time, not being less than one month, as may be allowed by the Statutory Committee the council does not frame a scheme or such a scheme as the Statutory Committee approve, the Statutory Committee may themselves frame a scheme, which shall have a like effect as if it were framed by the council and approved by the Statutory Committee."—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The noble Earl has quite correctly represented what occurred on the last occasion. It appeared to us also that it would not do to leave the Bill without some one having the last word in what I hope will be the very rare event of its being found impossible by the local council and the Statutory Committee to agree on a scheme, and that this being so it was more advantageous to place that last word in charge of the central rather than of the local body in order to secure something nearer approaching uniformity, although it has never appeared to us that local schemes could be or ought to be absolutely uniform in character. The terms which the noble Earl has read out are considered, as I understand, by those who are competent to give a legal opinion on the subject, better suited to ensure the object he has in view than the words that were originally placed on the Paper.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3:

Functions of Statutory Committee.

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

  1. (a) to decide any question of fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant, other than a widow or child, may depend;
  2. (b) to frame regulations for supplementary grants in cases where owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the pension or grant or separation allowance payable out of public funds seems to the committee to be inadequate;
  3. (c) out of funds at their disposal, to supplement pensions and grants and separation allowances payable out of public funds, so, however, that no such supplementary grant shall be made except in accordance with such regulations as aforesaid;
  4. (d) out of funds at their disposal, to make grants or allowances in cases where no separation allowances or pensions are payable out of public funds;
  5. (e) out of funds at their disposal, to make advances on account of pensions or grants or separation allowances due to any person out of public funds during any interval before the payment thereof actually commences;
  6. (f) to decide, in any particular case, whether, as respects a wife, widow, child, or other dependant, any pension or grant or separation allowance and, as respects an officer or man, any supplementary grant has, under the regulations subject to which it was granted, become forfeited;
  7. (g) to decide, as between two or more claimants to any pension or grant or separation allowance, which, if any, of the claimants is entitled thereto;
  8. (h) to determine any other questions in relation to pensions or grants or separation allowances which may be referred to the committee by the Admiralty or Army Council;
  9. (i) to administer any funds which may be placed at the disposal of the committee by local committees or by any society or other organisation having funds applicable to the making of grants of the nature of those which the committee are authorised to make, or otherwise;
    10. 963
  10. (j) to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the service, including provision for their health, training, and employment;
  11. (k) to make grants in special cases for the purpose of enabling widows, children, and other dependants of deceased officers and men to obtain training and employment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to omit from subsection (7) the words "and the Statutory Committee may on request duly communicate all such and similar information to any charitable body legitimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant," and to substitute the following words, "and the Statutory Committee shall on request communicate to and shall on request be entitled to receive from any charitable body legitimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant all particulars relevant to such case."

The noble Lord said: In regard to this Amendment I am entirely in the hands of the House and the Government. If the Government do not desire that it should be put in, I will not go further with it; but it does seem to me, when there are two bodies concerned in the administration, extremely desirable that there should be an interchange of opinion and of information between them. As the Bill first stood, there was nothing to insist upon the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association giving information to the Statutory Committee, but the Statutory Committee was bound to give the information to the other outside voluntary associations. On the Committee stage the Government changed that to a permissive form, inserting the word "may" instead of "shall" in this subsection. My object is only to bring about the best possible administration, and to endeavour, if possible, to secure that all information shall be interchanged between the two bodies. I think that would be an improvement on the Bill as it stands. But, as I have said, if there is still a serious objection on the part of the Government, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Clause 3, page 6, line 23, leave out from ("dependant") to the end of the clause and insert ("and the Statutory Committee shall on request communicate to and shall on request be entitled to receive from any charitable body legitimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant all particulars relevant to such case").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

EARL ST. ALDWYN

There are a good many different kinds of charitable bodies. I can conceive that there are such bodies who might be entirely indisposed to give this information, and my noble friend provides no machinery by which his "must" shall be carried out. Would it not be better to leave the clause as it is?

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Perhaps I ought to say a word, as my noble friend opposite (Lord Camperdown) desires to hear the Government's opinion. Our objection to the Amendment in the form in which the noble Lord has moved it is undiminished by reconsideration. The noble Lord, as I gathered on the last occasion, pins his faith to the adverb "legitimately" interested in the case of any officer, soldier, and so on, and he considers that the word provides a sufficient safeguard against the demand for a large quantity of possibly most private and delicate information by a set of persons who constitute themselves into a society and profess to be, and very likely actually are, interested in a particular case. In our view that is a somewhat dangerous proposition. It is undoubtedly true that there are societies to which such information very properly could be supplied, and I should hope and believe that in those cases it would be supplied. But I cannot agree that any set of persons who may have what may be a quite legitimate interest in an individual are thereby entitled to receive large masses of very confidential information. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8:

Short title.

8. This Act may be cited as the Naval and Military War Pensions, &c. Act, 1915.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

There is no allusion whatever in the short title of this Bill to the very important part of it which deals with the care of disabled officers and men, and I think it important that the public should be made aware as widely as possible of the provision that Parliament is making for these disabled officers and men. I am conscious of the difficulty of expressing the scope of a Bill at all adequately in a short title, and I need hardly say that I have no particular love for the words in the Amendment standing in my name. But still I think, and perhaps your Lordships will agree, they are an improvement on the title as now in the Bill. This is, of course, a matter entirely for the Government. If my Amendment were carried Clause 8 would read, "This Act may be cited as the War Pensions, Help to Disabled Men, &c., Act, 1915."

Amendment moved—

Clause 8, page 8, line 7, leave out ("Naval and Military")

Clause 8, page 8, line 8, after ("Pensions") insert ("Help to Disabled Men").—(The Earl of Lichfield.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

As a matter of fact the question of its title has really no effect on the Bill, and of that I take it my noble friend is aware. But he desires that its short title should call some attention to the fact that the Bill, besides dealing with pensions and allowances, deals with these questions of employment and disablement. I should have thought that if after the word "Pensions" merely the words "Help, &c.," were inserted without mentioning "Disabled Men," that would have met the case. But I do not wish to object to my noble friend's Amendment as he has phrased it if the House desires to accept it.

LORD HAVERSHAM

I would point out to the noble Earl that what he wishes to put in is already in the Preamble. Any one reading the Act would see that it is intended for the purposes he desires to emphasise.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

I am aware of the words in the Preamble. My object is to insert words which will be used in connection with the Bill when it is cited.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

At all events I hope the word "Help" will not be put in by itself, because "Help" is a very general term.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Short Title:

Amendment moved— In the short title, leave out ("Naval and Military") and after ("Pensions") insert ("Help to Disabled Men").—(The Earl of Lichfield.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

May I ask the noble Marquess when it is proposed to take the Third Reading?

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

As to that, I am very much in the hands of the House. I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite will be able to tell me when the Amendments they would desire to move on the Third Reading will be ready, and I should propose that the Third Reading should be taken then on the first convenient day. I understand that the House of Commons is about to adjourn almost directly for a short period, but it is desirable, I think, that we should proceed with this measure, and that whether the House of Commons meets next week or not we should sit either on Tuesday or Wednesday, whichever day is most convenient to noble Lords opposite who have Amendments to move. We could then dispose of this measure and it could go down to another place.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

Would not Wednesday be the most convenient day, being the middle of the week?

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Yes, Wednesday is quite suitable so far as we are concerned.

Bill to be read 3a on Wednesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 159.)