Sitting of 30 November 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gamble Institute, Gourock, Order confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

TREATY SERIES (No. 7, 1916).
Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and France respecting Trade with Morocco and Egypt in transit through British and French Territories in Africa. Signed at London, 24th August, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACT.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P. 419 and 420, declaring the respective areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY AND ARMY SERVICES, WARLIKE OPERATIONS, AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1916–17 (SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT).
Supplementary Estimate presented of the Sum required to be voted for Navy and Army Services, Warlike Operations, and other expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 139.]

CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1916–17).
Estimate presented of the further Sum required to be voted for the service of
446
the year ending 31st March, 1917 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 140.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    GREECE.

      DEMAND FOR GENERAL ELECTION.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allies have demanded of the Greek Government that a General Election should be held; whether this demand was conceded; if so, when; whether a Greek General Election has been, or will be shortly, held; and, if not, whether the Allies have agreed to this change of policy?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): In regard to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary Paper No. 27 (1916) Miscellaneous. The answer to the second, third and fourth part is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member will see, if he refers to that Paper, that the demand for a General Election was contingent on a restoration of the electorate to its normal conditions, a situation which does not yet exist.
      Mr. KING: We may still conclude that a Constitutional Government is the object which the Allies have in view?
      Lord R. CECILwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

      SUFPORT TO VENIZELOS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can state to what extent financial, as well as diplomatic and military, support has been given to M. Venizelos?
      Lord R. CECIL: The Allied Governments have furnished to M. Venizelos an advance of 10 million drachmae, and they are at the same time rendering to him considerable assistance in kind in connection with the equipment, maintenance, and transport of volunteers adhering to the Venizelist movement.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Herr Esslin. a German agent, who is asserted by an official telegram from the Venizelist Government dispatched from Salonika on 18th November to be organising outrages against the adherents of M. Venizelos and paying Royalist rioters in Lamia at the rate of 6 francs a head, is still resident in Athens; and, if so, why he has not been expelled?
      Lord R. CECIL: As the hon. Member is aware, the Allied Powers are taking energetic steps at Athens to induce the Greek Government to expel all enemy agents in Greece, and I have inquired of His Majesty's Minister at Athens whether this particular agent was among those who recently left the country.
      Mr. LYNCH: Cannot we have the reply?
      Lord R. CECIL: I have not received it yet.
      Mr. DILLON: May I put an urgent question to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which I have given him private notice, namely, what provision has been made by the Allied Governments to safeguard the status, as combatants, of the Greeks who joined the Venizelist Army, and to make sure that if taken prisoners by the enemy they will be treated as soldiers and prisoners of war; and whether, in the case of Greek soldiers and of civilians who join the National Army coming from south of the neutral zone, the Allied Governments have made it quite clear that they will be safeguarded against any penalties from the King's Government in the future?
      Lord R. CECIL: As regards the first part of the question, the forces of M. Venizelos will be regarded by the Allies for belligerent purposes as volunteers serving with the Allied Armies at Salonika. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply returned to the hon. and gallant Member for the Maidstone Division on the 7th instant.

      ALLIES DEMANDS.
      Mr. LYNCH(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the refusal of the Greek Government to deliver up arms in accordance with the demand of the Allies presented by Admiral du Fournet, he is prepared to make any statement as to the new critical situation so created?
      Lord R. CECIL: The French Admiral has informed the Greek Government that, unless the artillery he has demanded be handed over to him by to-morrow, 1st December, he will be obliged to take certain counter measures. The nature of these counter measures cannot, of course, be published in advance.

      PEACE TERMS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the cablegrams sent by Viscount Grey and Monsieur Briand to the League to Enforce Peace meeting, held in New York on 25th November, it is to be understood that the general methods and proposals of that league, and not merely its ultimate object, have the approval of the Government and the Allies?
      Lord R. CECIL: In reply to a telegram from Mr. Taft to Viscount Grey the following telegram was sent by him:
      "I think public utterances must have already made it clear that I sincerely desire to see a League of Nations formed and made effective to secure the future peace of the world after this War is over.
      I regard this as the best, if not the only, prospect of preserving treaties and of saving the world from aggressive wars in years to come, and if there is any doubt about my sentiments in the matter I hope this telegram in reply to your own will remove it."
      This and his previous utterances on the subject need no further explanation or qualification. I have not got the text of the telegram sent by M. Briand. According to reports in the Press some speeches were made at the meeting of the League that were inconsistent with its own declaration of its objects, but I have no other knowledge of these speeches than what has appeared in the Press, and the message sent was on the assumption that the League and its objects were as originally constituted.
      Sir W. BYLES: Does Germany agree to the same policy?
      Lord R. CECIL: I do not know, and I do not very much care.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Shame, shame; it is disgraceful!
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: You do not care how many men are killed!
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Blackburn and District Trades and Labour Council,

      449
      representing nearly 30,000 organised workers, affirming its unshaken conviction that a lasting peace cannot be secured by a policy of conquest followed by a commercial war, but only by a policy which lays the foundation of a real international partnership, condemning a prolonged war of attrition, which it considers would involve the victors as well as the vanquished in social and economic ruin, and strongly urging that an attempt be made to ascertain whether we can now get by negotiation everything that the War was started to secure or defend, and demanding that the people of this country shall not be committed, without their knowledge or consent, to the support of schemes of territorial aggrandisement which have not hitherto been regarded as germane to the interests of this nation and which Parliament has neither debated nor sanctioned; and if it is his intention to adopt the policy outlined in this resolution?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second, I have nothing to add to my public utterances on this subject.

      UNITY OF ALLIES.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been officially informed that M. Stuermer is no longer Russian Premier, and whether he can assure the House that the policy of M. Stuermer and the present Russian Premier has been and still is one of unfailing loyalty to the pact of London?
      Lord R. CECIL: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative, and I repudiate most emphatically the invidious suggestion conveyed by putting a question on the Paper which implies doubt as to the good faith existing between the Allies.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question was submitted to his secretary and no difficulty was raised, and will he withdraw the imputation made upon me?
      Lord R. CECIL: If the hon. Member tells me that is so, I accept the statement; but none the less, whatever the hon. Gentleman's intentions may have been—and I have no doubt they were perfectly correct—the question is undesirable.
      Mr. LYNCH: On a point of Order, Sir. More than once it has been laid down by yourself, and very properly—[HON. MEM-BERS:"Oh, oh!]—that Members, in putting questions, are not allowed to express opinions or to bring in any question of emotion; but again and again on the Front Bench, in replying to these questions, instead of merely giving information, they give vent to their own opinions, or to some kind of resentment or emotion?
      Colonel CRAIG: Is it not possible to stop at the Table of the House questions which are prejudicial, and if it is against the Rules of the House not to prevent such questions from being put, ought not, at the same time, the good sense of Members prevent them from putting questions which are undesirable and which embarrass us and embarrass our Allies?
      Mr. SPEAKER: My only business is to see that the questions comply with the Rules of the House as to proper Parliamentary expression. It is no part of my business to say whether they are desirable or not. That is, of course, a matter for the Ministers.
      Mr. HOUSTON: In connection with your present ruling, Sir, I wish to ask you whether it is in order for an hon. Member, as occurred yesterday, when I asked a question, on your calling my name, of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs and I was told by the Minister representing him that I had been requested to postpone my question and I stated that I had not received the request, thereupon to ask me, "Why did you not sleep at home?"
      Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot go back on what occurred yesterday. The point ought to have been raised at once.

      PRIZE COURT (NON-PERISHABLE GOODS).
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what steps are taken with regard to perishable and non-perishable goods placed in the Prize Court; and whether in cases where the Court decides against the British claim the goods, or the money obtained from the sale of such goods, are released to the owners?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My Noble Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Perishable goods are sold by the Marshal as and when necessary. If an Order for release of perishable goods is made subsequently to the sale, the owner receives the proceeds, less expenses of detention and sale. Non-perishable goods are in such case released to the owners, unless with their consent they had previously been sold to avoid accumulating charges for detention

      GERMANY (BLOCKADE).
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the quantity of foodstuffs imported into Denmark and other neutral countries at the present time exceeds the average pre-war quantities; and whether he can give the House any information with regard to our blockade keeping supplies out of Germany?
      Lord R. CECIL: Taking the aggregate import into the Scandinavian countries and Holland the answer is in the negative, but the hon. Member will doubtless realise that for obvious reasons it is undesirable to enter into particulars respecting any specific country. With regard to the second part of the question, I believe I can say that, broadly speaking, no overseas supplies now reach Germany through neutral countries, although instances of smuggling and occasional evasions of the naval patrol still occur.

  FOOD SUPPLY.

    BARROW DRAINAGE BILL.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the flooding of the River Barrow within the past few weeks has caused loss and suffering to occupiers of land within the catchment area; if he is aware that thousands of pounds worth of stock and crops have been destroyed by the floods within that period, that the process of destruction continues daily, and that unless some prompt measures of relief are taken hardship and want will be caused to many sufferers in the area; if he is aware of the provisions of the draft Barrow Drainage Bill circulated by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland for the consideration of the local authorities within the Barrow
    452
    area; if he is aware that the local authorities approved of the provisions of that Bill, and agreed to raise by local taxation the amount to be raised locally under its provisions; and whether, taking into consideration the necessity of protecting, maintaining, and developing the sources of food supply during the War, he proposes either to introduce forthwith his predecessor's Drainage Bill, or, in the alternative, to recommend that a sufficient number of German prisoners of war should be employed in the drainage of the River Barrow?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I am aware of the damage caused by flooding of the River Barrow. The adoption of either of the hon. Member's proposals at the present time appears not to be practicable. The provision of a remedy against natural forces such as those which cause periodical flooding in a country like that traversed by the Barrow is a work of such magnitude as prevents its being undertaken in time of war.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of acres are rendered practically useless; and, in view of the importance of food production, is it not time that some steps should be taken, and will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Department of Agriculture for statistics of the damage done?
    Mr. DUKE: I will inquire of the Department as to whether some temporary remedy can be found but, as I pointed out in my answers, the causes have been in existence for many years, and the matter is one of great difficulty.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one of the town lands, owing to the floods, the only outstanding object in one area was a tree, on the trunk of which was a poster calling upon farmers to join the Army?
    Mr. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been under consideration for seventy years?
    Mr. DUKE: This matter has had careful consideration for a considerable number of years, but the causes are widespread and have been in existence for ages.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Government to put some of the German prisoners on to this work—some of the men who have been taken since July?

    POTATOES (IRELAND).
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed at the last meeting of the Irish Council of Agriculture, on the Motion of the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), to the effect that all shipments of potatoes from Ireland, unless such as may be authorised by licence from the Department, should cease; whether the Government have given effect to this, resolution by forbidding any further exportation of potatoes from Ireland; and, if not, will he say what are the intentions of the Government in regard to the condition created in Ireland by the partial failure of the potato crop, aggravated by continued exportation?
    Mr. HACKETTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a resolution from Thurles Urban Council in reference to the price of potatoes; and if the Irish Government intend to take any steps to regulate the price of potatoes, which are the staple food of the poorer classes in towns in Ireland?
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if the Board has issued an order prohibiting the exportation of potatoes from Ireland; and, if not, if he will say why it has not done so?
    Mr. DORISasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he has received a resolution from Castlebar Urban Council emphatically protesting against the continued exportation of potatoes from Ireland, and calling upon the Department to put an embargo upon such exportation, as otherwise, owing to the partial failure of the crops, there will be an alarming shortage of the staple food of the people of the West of Ireland; and if he can state what action the Department intends to take on the subject?
    Mr. DUKE: The exportation of potatoes from Ireland has not yet been at all abnormal. The resolutions referred to have been received and the Department of Agriculture is closely observing the prevailing conditions with a view to any action as to prohibition of export, or otherwise, which may become necessary.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the
    454
    meeting of the Agricultural Association of Ireland at which his colleague proposed a resolution that there should be no exportation of potatoes from Ireland except under licence?
    Mr. DUKE: I am aware of the resolution, for I received a copy of it. Consideration of that resolution is comprised in the ground upon which my answer is founded.
    Mr. DILLON: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that while exportation is not abnormal, there is a shortage of over 1,000,000 tons, whereas the exportation is about 200,000 tons; therefore, there is a deficit of the supply of the poor people of Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The question of the prohibition of export depends very much upon the districts and their relation to one another. The potato crop in some districts in Ireland from which potatoes have usually been exported is not, I am told, very seriously affected compared with other parts of the country, and the withholding, up to the present time, of any order for absolute prohibition of export is founded upon a desire to consider the relative interests of the various parts of the country.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is the proposition of the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture accepted—is it a fact that potatoes can only be exported from Ireland under licence, or has the appointment or proposed appointment of a food dictator made a difference?
    Mr. DUKE: These matters have been taken into account in considering the question; therefore I can add nothing to the answer I have given.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take into consideration the extraordinarily high price that the working man earning low wages in Ireland at the present time has to pay; that the poor depend solely for their food upon potatoes, which are at the present time 1s. 6d. and 1s. 8d. per stone, whereas in normal times they are only 6d.; and will he take steps to have the exportation stopped?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot say more than I have already said as to the course the Government is taking.

    BUTTER INDUSTRY (IRELAND).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, in view of the after-the-war trade policy of Great Britain and the opportunity which may be afforded to develop and promote still further the Irish butter industry, he will consider the advisability of appointing additional dairy in structors who will visit creameries more frequently and advise and assist not alone on the question of production, but, as to marketing, means to be employed in turning out first-class quality and the other points which are absolutely essential to he Irish butter trade; and whether he is aware that Irish farmers of all creeds and classes are at one as to the appointment of these additional instructors?
    Mr. DUKE: In view of many other pressing requirements, the Department do not propose at present to increase the number of creamery inspectors.

    INDIAN MEAL.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware of the feeling throughout Ireland, and particularly among the agricultural classes, that no percentage of oil should be extracted from Indian meal by millers; whether the latter for some time back have issued cards to retailers stating that 2½ per cent. of oil is extracted from Indian meal so that they may evade prosecution; and, in view of the fact that such meal will be used for human consumption this winter, particularly by the poor, will millers be prevented from extracting any oil whatever and allow the most nutritious portion of the grain to go to those who pay for the meal more than what it is value for?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department are aware of the circumstances. They have no power to prevent the manufacture or sale of such meals. The relative feeding value of oil-extracted and whole maize meals has been the subject of experiments, the results of which will shortly be available. Until these results have been considered the Department are not in a position to express a definite opinion as to the merits of the case.

    LAND CULTIVATION (LABOUR).
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked whether the Government will direct that all farms shall be equipped with a sufficient and efficient supply of labour on condition that
    456
    the land shall be cultivated so as to produce that form of produce that the Government considers most essential for the nation and at prices to be fixed at fair remunerative rates to the producer?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I must refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given on behalf of the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire yesterday. The Government are fully alive to the situation.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When do the Government propose to announce a policy for increasing home food production?
    Mr. GEORGE FABER: What docs the right hon. Gentleman mean by the statement that they are fully alive to the situation? Does it ever lead to anything?

    FOOD CONTROLLER.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to announce the name of the new Food Controller?
    Captain C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state the name of the Food Controller; and whether the latter will control the home production of food, as well as its use, distribution, and sale, and help in reconciling and unifying the policies of the War Office and the Board of Agriculture, respectively?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope this announcement will be made by the end of the week. The delay in making it has been due to unavoidable causes, and in the meantime the organisation and work of the new office have been and are being actively proceeded with under the direction of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the Food Controller have any power to increase home production?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is intended that he should have a say in that also.
    Mr. DILLON: Would it not be more suitable to make the announcement to the House of Commons?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the House prefers that the announcement should be delayed until the House meets, I am sure that the Prime Minister will be glad to do so.
    Mr. KING: Will this be a salaried office?

    HOME PRODUCTION.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there is a threatened shortage of food in the United States of America which indicates a probability of a further rise of prices here, and therefore an urgent need for economy and for an early increase in home production; and what further steps will be taken to secure both these ends?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am fully aware of the urgent need for economy and for an increase in home production. Both matters are receiving attention and action has been and is being taken to secure supplies and regulate consumption.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade, if the new Food Controller will be empowered to organise the home production of food so that, if necessary, farms may be controlled, waste and derelict land brought under cultivation, prisoners of war set to work, new and up-to-date machinery employed, supplies of artificial manures arranged for, and all other measures taken to increase the production of food within the United Kingdom?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not in a position to forecast extent to which powers may be undertaken by the Food Controller. Many of these powers are now exercised by the Board of Agriculture, but due note will be made of the suggestions contained in the hon. Baronet's question.

    HERRINGS (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).
    Mr. FIELD(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireand whether railway and shipping transport facilities are refused to carry herrings from Balbriggan and that much valuable food is thereby being lost; whether he will exercise pressure to have this waste prevented; and whether it is a fact that empty steam colliers aggregating 1,000 tons leave Dublin daily for Liverpool without cargo?
    Mr. DUKE: The question the hon. Member has put contains a part which does not appear in the notice I have received. The answer to the question I received is that the Department of Agriculture state they have been in communication with the carrying companies. The Department say that all but sixty boxes which reached
    458
    Dublin late for shipment were dispatched from North Wall yesterday. These sixty boxes are going forward to-day.

    PRISON WARDERS (IRELAND).
    MY. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state when the Irish prison warders will receive the increased pay granted them?
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Irish "prison warders will have to remain without their new scale of pay until the status of Derry prison has been further considered and decided; and, if not, whether he is now in a position to state when the new scheme of pay for Irish prison warders will come into operation?
    Mr. DUKE: The question of the prison warders' pay will not be held up until the status of Derry prison is settled. One small question of amount alone is now outstanding, and I am assured this will be decided in the course of a few days.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    PERSONS INDISPENSABLE (IRELAND).
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary (l) if he will state why no person. in Ireland have been reckoned as indispensable in the Command Paper on men of military age who are engaged in giain-milling, bacon-curing, the butter industry, and similar food-producing industries there; whether he is aware that in the latest list of certified occupations in Great Britain wide exemptions are given to men in such industries; on whose responsibility no such men are regarded as indispensable in Ireland, though numbering many thousands; (2) why no persons in Ireland have been reckoned as indispensable in the Command Paper on men of military age who are engaged in the manufacture in that country of clothing, boots or shoes, fertilisers, or in printing and bookbinding, printing and publishing of newspapers, tanning, saddlery and harness-making, or in the timber trade or manufacture of furniture and carriages, or in building and contracting or in any industry except agriculture and a few minor occupations and the professions; (3) why no persons in Ireland have been reckoned as indispensable in the Command

    459
    Paper on men of military age who are engaged in coal mines or other mines, or in quarries of any kind; whether he is aware that in Great Britain the great bulk of men of military age in these occupations are considered indispensable; and why a different policy is adopted in Ireland; and (4) why no persons in Ireland have been reckoned as indispensable in the Command Paper on men of military age who are engaged in woollen and worsted manufactures, in linen and hemp spinning, weaving or making-up industries, in bleaching, dyeing, printing, and finishing trades, or in flax scutching; whether he is aware that over 30,000 men alone are engaged in these industries in Ireland; whether he is aware that in Great Britain extensive exceptions on the ground of indispensability are granted to men in these industries there; and why it is proposed to discriminate against such Irish industries if compulsion were to be enforced on that country?
    Mr. DUKE: In compiling the Return referred to it was considered that the industries other than those expressly mentioned in the prefatory part of the Return could be adequately carried on by the men of military age included in the estimate of physically unfit with the assistance of men outside the limits of military age and women.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the same estimate has not been made in this country and why Ireland is treated differently in this matter, and why it is proposed that men of military age in all these various industries are to be taken if Conscription were to be applied to Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member's statement is founded on a misunderstanding. I am told the principles which have been applied were the same in both countries.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Home Secretary how many conscientious objectors are located in Wakefield Prison, and what is the nature of the work upon which they are employed; if these men are free to leave the precincts of the prison every evening and to go to their homes for week-ends; and if he is aware that the reports of these men that they are employed only on light duties and are
    460
    allowed ample liberty encourage other men to plead conscientious objection in order to escape military service?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The number of men now employed by the Committee on the Employment of Conscientious Objectors in their establishment at Wakefield is 566. They are engaged in foundry work, weaving, building, the manufacture of mats and mailbags, vegetable growing, tailoring, and boot-making and repairing. A certain number of men are also employed on the necessary cooking, cleaning, and clerical work. Subject to good behaviour, the men are free to leave the building between the hour of stopping work and the hour for closing the building. The Committee's agent who is in charge of the establishment may give individual men permission to be absent over Sunday. As regards the third part of the question, the matter is one for the decision of the tribunals, by whom all these cases are considered. I may add that the Committee hope shortly to be in a position to transfer a considerable number of the men now at Wakefield to other work.
    Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the granting of conditional exemption to a conscientious objector upon his taking up work of national importance relieves him from the control of the military authorities; whether men so exempted are still under orders from officers appointed for recruiting work; and whether the military officer has a right to intimate that he can order the arrest of such persons at any time as absentees?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to address this question to the War Office.

    MAN-POWER BOARD.
    Major NEWMANasked whether the Board that was appointed more than two months ago by the War Committee to determine all questions arising between Government Departments relating to the allocation or economic utilisation of manpower for the purpose of the successful prosecution of the War and, in order to give effect to its determination, to direct the Government Departments concerned to create the machinery necessary to coordinate their activities in regard to the distribution or utilisaion of men and

    461
    women, can be required by Parliament to lay before the House any account of its work; and, if so, will he say to whom should the demand be addressed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that Parliament has any specific power to require the Man-Power Distribution Board to render an account of its work, but both the Board itself and the War Committee who appointed it are most anxious to give to this House all the information about the Board's operations which could be given without injury to the public interest, and a full account of the Board's work will be given in the forthcoming Debate.
    Major NEWMAN: To whom are we to address ordinary questions from day to day relating to man-power? Is it to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot make any better suggestion than to the Prime Minister. If the question does not suit his Department they will be transferred to some other.

    CENTRAL AND LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether ho is aware of the practice of the Central Tribunal in applying to the local tribunal for information in cases which have been referred to them by an Appeal Tribunal; and if he will say whether in such cases the information so obtained is submitted to the appellant in order that he may answer any misstatements that may have been made?
    Mr. LONG: The Central Tribunal is not under my control. I understand that appellants are given full opportunity of stating their case to the Central Tribunal.

    PETROL. SUPPLY.
    Mr. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary whether the Petrol Control Committee is the sole authority for the issue of permits for the purchase of petrol; will he state under what Statute or in pursuance of what duty a district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary has recently served notice in writing on an Irish firm in Kilkenny, warning them that the sale of petrol to any person is prohibited unless a permit issued by the police is produced by the purchaser, or unless the licence issued by the Petrol Control
    462
    Committee is countersigned by the police; will he state by whose authority it has been decided that such licences are invalid unless countersigned by the police; and, if this Regulation is not sanctioned by any Statute and is not permitted in England, will he take steps to see that officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary obey the law and do not take upon themselves powers which have not been given to them?
    Mr. DUKE: The practice described by the question appears to have originated in precautions taken at the instance of the military authorities. The question of the continuance or modification of the practice is now being examined.

    SMALL HOLDING COLONIES ACT, 1916.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he will introduce a Bill to extend the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916, to Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The question of the advisability of extending the provisions of. this Act to Ireland is at present being considered, at the instance of the Government, by several of the Irish Departments.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP.
    Colonel J. CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the reason for transferring the Press censorship from the military to the civil administration in Ireland; whether this course has been adopted in any other part of the United Kingdom; and whether care will be taken to exercise the censorship in a way that will not hamper free Press criticism of Irish administration as distinguished from military affairs?
    Mr. DUKE: The transfer of the censorship was thought by the military and civil authorities in Ireland to be desirable? and was made with a view to place the censorship in Ireland on as nearly as possible the same footing as hi England. I am not aware of any ground for expecting that the censorship will be used to interfere with free criticism of the Government.
    Colonel CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman take pains to see that it is not interfered with?
    Mr. DUKE: I receive evidence every day that it has not the least effect on criticism either of the Government or of myself.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a paper called "New Ireland," which had an article containing full particulars of Frongoch prison, which article was prohibited?
    Mr. DUKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have seen—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better give particulars of every particular instance.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can give the reasons which have made it necessary to withhold the measure of recognition asked for by the Association of Volunteer Training Corps in Ireland and to the consequent disbanding of the various training corps?
    Mr. DUKE: This matter is not one of Irish administration. It was decided by the Secretary of State for War.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    REBUILDING (DUBLIN).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the destroyed property owners in Dublin will be in a position to build; and if he will say when they will hear the amount awarded in each case for destroyed buildings?
    Mr. DUKE: The information mentioned in the question will be communicated to the persons concerned individually when decisions have been arrived at in their respective cases.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when, after seven months, a decision will be arrived at?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not exactly know that in the exercise of my prevision I am equal to answering that question. It will not be delay by any operation of mine; on the contrary, if I can I will accelerate it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is it the Treasury that is in default. Have they during the time given one shilling towards rebuilding?
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the date upon which the Dublin Reconstruction Emergency Bill will be taken, and whether, having regard to the fact that the measure, as agreed upon by both parties in Dublin, is not acceptable to the Government, ample time will be given between the appearance of the proposed Government Amendments on the Order Paper and the Committee stage of the Bill, so that the interested parties in Dublin may have time to meet and consider their effect?
    Mr. DUKE: I did not receive the hon. Member's notice, but the position is this: For something like three months or fourteen weeks I have been ready, when the parties came to an agreement, to deal with it. They came to an agreement a few days ago, and the Irish Office has been busy ever since trying to put the agreement in a form in which probably the Bill would get through the two Houses. The Amendments are complete and will be put upon the Paper to-morrow. If the parties think they may have questions to raise which have not been raised and can persuade the other parties who have settled their differences to run the risk of this Bill not being dealt with before it is possible to deal with them in this House it may be adjourned for another week, but in view of the great pressure that hat been put upon me to bring it on at the earliest time, the Amendments will be handed in to-night and will be on the Paper to-morrow morning, and I strongly recommend those who are interested in the Bill to acquiesce in the order which is proposed, namely, that the Bill shall be taken on Monday if possible.

    HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the Dublin Corporation has been offered £400,000 by an American bank for the housing of the working classes; and if he will consider the advisability of steps being taken for assisting the corporation to pay the interest on the loan?
    Mr. DUKE: I am aware of a proposed loan of 2,000,000 dollars from a firm of American bankers. I cannot hold out any

    465
    hope of an exceptional provision with regard to the interest, assuming the loan to be sanctioned and accepted.

    FRONGOCH CAMP.
    Mr. BYRNEasked whether the result of the courts-martial on fifteen untried Irish prisoners at Frongoch Camp is yet announced; if he will say what the nature of the charge was against them and by whom made; and if he will cause inquiry to be made as to the commandant's fitness to control men?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The finding of the military Court cannot be promulgated until it has been confirmed by the proper military authority. I have not yet received information of the result. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 22nd November in reply to a similar question. The answer to the last part is in the negative.
    Mr. BYRNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman got any information as to the sanity of the commandant there?
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if he will issue orders to the commandant at Frongoch to hand over to the prisoners' camp leader for distribution all letters and parcels for the interned Irish prisoners; and, if the prisoners are not released before Christmas, will he allow them out on parole for Christmas week?
    Mr. SAMUEL: With regard to the first part of the question, I am making inquiry. The answer to the second part is in the negative.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are over 100 parcels of food supplies going bad, and will he see that there is a proper distribution?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of it.

    CONVICTED PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked when the new conditions for Irish prisoners undergoing sentences of penal servitude will be put into operation; if the new rules will apply to prisoners at Maidstone and Wormwood Scrubbs; if he has yet considered the suggestion to allow them to wear their own clothes; if he is aware that the conditions of the Irish prisoners at Dartmoor are much worse than the lowest criminals; how many Irish prisoners are receiving
    466
    hospital treatment, and for how long; if he will announce the dietary scale of each prisoner; and if he will say the number under eighteen years of age?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The new conditions will come into operation as soon as the prisoners can be collected at Lewes. This will be as soon as all the necessary arrangements can be made, probably in two or three weeks' time. The Irish prisoners now at Maidstone and Wormwood Scrubs will be included. These prisoners will be excused from wearing prison dress when on transfer from one prison to another. It is not the fact that the conditions of the Irish prisoners are worse than those of the lowest criminals. I will inquire as to the prisoners receiving hospital treatment at Dartmoor. The convicts at Dartmoor are receiving the dietaries prescribed by the Rules of September, 1901. There are five Irish convicts under the age of eighteen.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the Government hope to gain by keeping boys under eighteen years of age in prison? You made an order to release boys under eighteen.

    LINEN AND COTTON GOODS.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether some time back Messrs. Harrods, of London, were suspected of having offered for sale goods labelled as Irish, but which were really American; whether prosecutions were instituted, and, if so, with what result; will he state if any other of the leading London houses were visited on similar suspicion, and, if so, will the names of the firms be given; and what proceedings, if any, were taken against them?
    Mr. DUKE: Articles purchased as linen by officers of the Department in 1913 at the premises of Messrs. Harrods were found to be made from cotton. The circumstances of the case were fully investigated at the time, and, as there appeared to be ground for concluding that the misdescription was due to an error, it was considered that an explanatory public advertisement by the firm would meet the case. In the same year articles were bought as linen by officers of the Department at a large number of shops in London. Prosecutions were instituted in seven oases, in six of which convictions

    467
    resulted. The names of the firms concerned in these cases duly appeared in the Press reports of the proceedings in Court.

    EXPORT OF EGGS (IRELAND).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he can say what is the export trade in eggs from Ireland to Great Britain for the years 1914, 1915, and for the first six months of 1916; and what is the proportion to the whole Irish agricultural exports for the same period?
    Mr. DUKE: The statistics of eggs exported from Ireland to Great Britain during the periods referred to are as follows:—

    —

    Quantity Great hundreds.

    Estimated value.

    Estimated proportion of the total Agricultural Products exported.

    £

    Per cent.

    1914

    6,824,612

    3,383,870

    10

    1915

    7,577,763

    4,799,250

    12

    1916 (1st 6 months)

    5,439,266

    3,648,841

    18

    Two-thirds of the eggs exported annually from Ireland are exported during the first six months of the year.

    NEW INDUSTRY (CORK).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been called to the new industry which it is pro posed to establish in the city of Cork; whether the existing schemes of technical instruction are so framed as to permit of special instruction being given in the methods of manufacture which will be employed in this new industry; and, if not, will steps be taken to ensure that students who are likely to obtain employment in this new industry will be given every facility, under a scheme of technical instruction, to fit themselves for this special form of employment?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department are aware through the public Press of the proposed new industry in Cork. A scheme of engineering instruction is in operation in
    468
    the Cork Municipal Technical School, and provision is made under the Department's programme for technical schools for the instruction of workers in engineering and other trades. The Department will be glad to facilitate as far as they can any developments and adaptations in the existing provision for technical instruction which may seem advisable.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: To what special industry does the question refer?
    Mr. DUKE: It refers to the proposed establishment of a constructive factory in Cork, which it is expected and hoped will be of great advantage to the population of Cork and the South of Ireland.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. and learned gentleman take advantage of this occasion to greatly extend technical education so as to make it something really vital and practical in the life of the country?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department which has, as one of its functions, to deal with technical instruction will be very glad indeed to fulfil the functions contained in the answer.

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (USE OF ROOMS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the possibility of finding space for housing to some extent the additional offices and employés of the Government in the at present disused Committee Rooms of the House of Commons?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr.Harcourt): Two Committee Rooms in the Commons and two in the Lords are in regular use by Government Committees and Commissions. I will consider whether further use can be made of the remaining rooms without inconvenience to Members, who use them largely for private meetings and unofficial committees.

    MAIL SERVICES (IRELAND).
    Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Postmaster-General whether he has called the attention of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to the fact that during the month of October, omitting Sundays and two days on which the train did not wait for the arrival of the mails,

    469
    the morning mail was only late in arriving at Kingstown by thirty-five minutes on two occasions, and that on the same basis the average delay for the last three weeks of October was only fifteen minutes; whether, in fixing the period of thirty-five minutes now allowed as a margin of delay, maximum delay or only average delay was taken; whether there is now any improvement in the running of the mail between Euston and Kingstown; and whether he will approach the railway company with a view to having the thirty-five minutes' interval at Kingstown cut down to a figure corresponding with the real facts?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pease): The object with which the present time of starting the Great Southern train from Kingsbridge was adopted was, as I have often stated, to fix a time corresponding with what is attainable under war conditions. The hon. Member's figures as regards time of arrival at Kingstown cover too short a period and are arrived at with too much omission for me to accept them as a safe guide to what is at present attainable, although I am sure that the North-Western Company and the City of Dublin Company are alike doing their best.
    Mr. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that part of the question which asks whether there is now any improvement in the running of the mail between Euston and Kingstown?
    Mr. PEASE: It varies from day to day in accordance with the traffic. The two companies are doing their best, and nothing more can be done under the circumstances.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, until the adoption of English time in Ireland, we were able to get our letters an hour and a half before we get them now?
    Mr. PEASE: The increase of traffic has been lately very considerable, and the
    time of passenger trains carrying mails worse than it was a few months ago.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what advantage it has been to any human being to extend English time to Ireland?
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the Postmaster-General why it has been decided to have the mails conveyed from Drimoleague to Bantry, a distance of fourteen miles, by
    470
    horse-drawn vehicles instead of by train as was the custom hitherto; whether, in so deciding, he considered the delay which would result in the delivery of the mails in the Castletownbere and Bantry districts, and the inconvenience which would be thereby caused to the commercial, mercantile, and professional classes resident in those districts; and whether, in view of the general objection to the proposed arrangement, the matter will be reconsidered?
    Mr. PEASE: The road service between Drimoleague and Bantry is intended to minimise the serious delay which would otherwise result on and after 1st December from the withdrawal by the railway company of the train by which the mails are at present conveyed.
    Captain DONELAN: Could not the right hon. Gentleman make some new arrangement with this railway company?
    Mr. PEASE: I am afraid I have got no power to control the timing of railway companies' trains.

    INTERNED PERSONS (AYLESBURY).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a notorious prostitute from Piccadilly, suffering from a loathsome disease, interned at Aylesbury, has been placed among British and Irish political in ternees, not accused of any moral turpitude; and, if so, whether he will have this state of affairs remedied?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for North Salford.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the statement in this question?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I gave a full reply yesterday.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary when it is intended to release and make amends to the two ladies interned at Aylesbury for friendship with Indian-British subjects, Miss Howsin, English, and Miss Brunner, Swiss; why they were not released when the Home Office became aware that they had no German associations or sympathies; alleged admissions by them being wholly false, will he specify the charge on which they are now detained

    471
    and give them a free opportunity of dealing with it; and if he will state what the reason has been for secrecy regarding both the charge and the treatment in the cases of these two untried ladies?
    Mr. SAMUEL: These two ladies are interned under Regulation 14 B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The procedure under this Regulation was the subject of a full statement by me in the Debate on 2nd March and has been dealt with in replies to previous questions by the hon. Member. The circumstances in which Miss Howsin was interned were explained by the Attorney-General in the Debate on 23rd March; Miss Brunner was interned for similar reasons. I am satisfied that both of them are well aware of the grounds on which the Orders for their internment were made, that they have had ample opportunities of making representations to the Advisory Committee and to me, and that in the interests of the defence of the Realm they must remain interned.
    Major NEWMAN: Was Miss Brunner an English subject?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
    Mr. GINNELLasked where the rules can be seen, and by whom made, under which some prisoners interned at Aylesbury are not allowed to consult a solicitor on any subject, some allowed to consult on private business, but only in the presence of a wardress, none allowed to consult regarding the internment, none allowed to complain of any treatment, insanitary conditions, or other menace to health, and for breach, or attempted breach, of any of these rules, punished by loss of all letters and visits at the discretion of the governor; and whether such rules have ever been submitted to this House for approval?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The same rules apply to all the prisoners interned at Aylesbury, and any who can show reasonable ground for desiring to see a solicitor with regard to private affairs are allowed to do so in the presence of a wardress. They were all free to obtain legal assistance for the purpose of their appeal to the Advisory Committee, but any subsequent representations as to their internment must be made to the Secretary of State or, as regards their treatment, to the two lady visitors. The rules are made by the Prison Com-
    472
    missioners with my approval; they have not been and do not require to be submitted to the House.
    Mr. GINNELL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman modify the rules so as to allow an interview between prisoners and visitors in business matters?
    Mr. SAMUEL: They are allowed.
    Mr. GINNELL: Yes, but in the absence of wardresses?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think it would be safe to do that in connection with these persons, many of whom in Aylesbury are interned under suspicion of espionage.

    SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING ORDER).
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Home Secretary whether he has received from the Manchester and district wholesale and retail confectioners a petition stating the hardships arising from the Early Closing Order, and asking that there should be some extension of the opening hours for shops, especially during the two weeks preceding Christmas Day; and, if so, whether he has been able to consider the petition, and is he able to consent to such extension?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter in the course of a few days.
    Mr. CLYNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the very serious effect which the Order has on the livelihood of small shopkeepers, and the absurdity of it being legal to sell a meat pie if hot, but not if it is cold?

    ENEMY BANKS (UNINTERNED EMPLOYES).
    Mr. G. FABERasked the Home Secretary what were the respective positions and salaries and ages of the six Germans and Austrians lately employed at the Deutsche Bank, the Dresdner Bank, and the Disconto-Gesellschaft, who have been permitted by him to remain uninterned after their services at the said banks were terminated; how long had they been, respectively, employed at the said banks; and what are the general principles which have been observed throughout by the Home Office in granting exemptions from internment?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Three of these persons were, respectively, sub-manager, deputy sub-manager, and accountant of the Deutsche Bank, their ages being fifty-six, fifty-seven, and seventy, and their salaries £1,000, £650, and £370. They had been thirty-three, twenty-five, and forty-two years, respectively, in the employment of the Bank, A fourth was chief of the bill department of the Disconto-Gesellschaft, aged forty-seven, salary £360, eleven years in the employment of the bank. I have not full information about the other two, but am obtaining it. The Advisory Committee recommended that exemptions from internment should be given on the ground of long residence and British connections in the case of persons who were free from all suspicion, and the principles laid down by them have been followed throughout.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Home Secretary if he can state the various kinds of work at which German prisoners of war are employed in England?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Secretary of State for War in reply to a question on the 21st of this month, that it is undesirable to give this information.

    VEHICLE DRIVERS (VISION TEST).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked whether there is any periodical vision test for drivers of vehicles in the Metropolitan area; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of instituting such a test, in view of the number of accidents now occurring?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Public carriage drivers in the Metropolitan area are required before they are licensed to produce a medical certificate of fitness, in which their fitness as to sight is considered. After they reach the age of fifty years a certificate of fitness is required either quinquennially or as often as the licensing authority may deem necessary. For drivers generally I have no power to impose any test.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is advisable to have some test in view of the large number of accidents now occurring?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not sure that it is so much a question of eyesight as more light.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will he inquire as to whether the eyesight has been found de fective in many instances?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is not in accordance with the report of the Chief Commissioner.

  MUNITIONS.

    EXPLOSIONS (GOVERNMENT FACTORIES).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister whether he can announce the decision which the Government have arrived at regarding the indemnification of third parties who have suffered in property or life through explosions in Government and other factories engaged in producing or handling high explosive substances?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Legislation is being introduced to deal with this matter.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Bill down on the Paper.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will that legislation also include people injured by faulty aiming?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member will read the Bill he will see what it does mean.

    WORKERS' CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether the extension of the Christmas holidays which has been announced applies only to munition workers; and, if so, does the Government intend to make arrangements to enable those persons, other than munition workers, who gave up their Bank holidays to get extra holidays at Christmas?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to a written answer I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Enfield Division.

    SOUTH WALES COAL MINES (STATE CONTROL).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has yet considered the advisability of the taking over of the South Wales mines by the State in order to eliminate war profits, to avoid

    475
    industrial disputes during the War, and to secure the best results from the labour of the miners?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. As my hon. Friend will have seen, a Regulation has been made empowering the Board of Trade, so far as they consider necessary for the national safety and the defence of the realm, to take possession of coal mines, either generally or in any particular area. The Board of Trade have already made an Order applying the Regulation to the coal mines in South Wales and Monmouthshire as from to-morrow, in the confident belief that this action will secure the advantages set out in my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. SNOWDENIs it intended, under this arrangement, that the coal owners should be guaranteed a fixed profit and that any increased wages will be borne by the general community?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make any statement at the present moment as to the financial arrangement that will be arrived at.
    Mr. ANDERSON: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement with regard to that?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: At the earliest possible moment.

    FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether an opportunity will be given to the House, before rising for Christmas, of expressing by a vote its approval or otherwise of the conduct of affairs by the Foreign Office, especially in regard to Greece?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Opportunities for discussing Foreign Affairs will arise in the ordinary course of business and I am not prepared, as at present advised, to set aside a special day for the purpose suggested in the question.
    Mr. PR INGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be advisable to have a Secret Session in order to have a frank discussion, especially in view of the decision of the French Chamber?
    Mr. LYNCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that the Greek question may be the turning point of the whole war?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do take the view that it is a very serious question, but there will be opportunities next week for it to be discussed in connection with the Vote of Credit.

    SPECIAL REGISTER.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state the policy of the Government in regard to the special register of electors; and, if not, whether he can indicate when he will be able to make a statement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will deal with this when I come to make a general statement about business.

    PAYMASTER-GENERAL (SALARY).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the amount of salary which is at present being paid to the Paymaster-General; and is it paid as Paymaster-General or as Labour Adviser?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A Supplementary Estimate will be presented on Monday to authorise payment of salary at the rate of £2,000 a year to my right hon. Friend as Paymaster-General. When the Pensions Bill becomes law, my right hon. Friend will be paid the salary attaching to the office of Pensions Minister.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he has not answered the question on the Paper as to what is being paid at the present time? What salary is he drawing at the present time and for what office?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The salary, I understand, of Paymaster-General. The Estimates, I am told, provide for it.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can he not answer the question what salary is the Paymaster-General drawing at the present time?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry that I did not understand this question, but the answer was prepared for me. I would rather my right hon. Friend would put it down again.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I will put it down on Monday.
    Mr. BILLING: Is any new member joining the Cabinet obliged to "pool" his. salary or is it optional?

    INTERNED ALIENS.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Home Secretary whether certain interned aliens at Islington are still allowed to leave the camp periodically; and whether it is in tended that the practice shall continue?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement I made on 28th June last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division. The practice is the same now as then, but the number of permits has been reduced and is now very small.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Home Secretary whether he caused an inquiry to be made into the recent escape from Islington Camp of Ferdinand Kehrman, Grseme Scott, and Edward Hodgson, and with what result?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have inquired into the matter, and after consultation with the Commandant have authorised measures calculated to prevent any similar escapes.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Does my right hon. Friend not think it advisable that there ought to be a military guard in this camp as well as in every other camp?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is not thought necessary in the circumstances.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does he not consider it desirable that these men, if guilty' of any offence, should be brought to trial and not kept in prison month after month and no charge made against them?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there is a military commandant for the Irish prisoners at Frongoch and not for the Germans in London?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There is a military commandant at this camp.
    Mr. HEALY: You said that there were no soldiers.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I said that there was no military guard.
    Mr. HEALY: Then why is there a military guard for the Irish prisoners at Frongoch and not for the Germans in London?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The circumstances are entirely different. There are military guards at most of the camps in which Germans are confined in London.
    Mr. BILLING: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that these men are dangerous to the community?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. BILLING: Then why was there no guard?
    Mr. HEALY: He wants to let them escape.

    FISHING INDUSTRY (IRELAND).
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the First Lord? of the Admiralty whether hundreds of families along the seaboard in West Cork are wholly dependent on the fishing industry for a livelihood; and whether, in view of that fact and the scarcity and high prices of foodstuffs, the Admiralty will consider the necessity and advisability of relaxing the restrictions which it has placed on the fishing industry along the southern and western shores of Cork county?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: These restrictions were only imposed after careful consideration of the matter from all points of view. They are considered by the Admiral Commanding the Coasts of Ireland to be absolutely necessary for the defence of our coasts and shipping, and, while deploring their necessity, I regret that no prospect can be held out of its being possible to relax them in the near future.
    Captain DONELAN: In view of the hardship inflicted by these restrictions, would the Admiralty recommend the Treasury to grant some compensation to the fishermen concerned?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I quite appreciate and regret the hardship. But the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend is not one for me, but for my hon. and gallant. Friend himself.

  BRITISH NAVY.

    CRYSTAL PALACE TRAINING SCHOOL.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether much discomfort is caused at the Admiralty's Crystal Palace Training School by the low pressure of gas which often interferes with the proper heating of the premises; and will he get the South Metropolitan Gas Company to remedy the grievance?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No complaint has been received of discomfort caused by improper gas heating. The gas is supplied by the South Suburban Gas Company, and the pressure is ample. Defects occasionally arise due to obstructions forming in the pipes and connections, especially in very cold weather, but remedial measures are immediately taken.
    Mr. RENDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Member wishes for a further reply, I will, certainly.

    SERVICE FOB WAR PERIOD.
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if men or boys who join the Navy for the period of the War and do training at Shotley are not able to attain to a higher rank than that of ordinary seaman?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no such restriction as is implied in my hon. Friend's question.

    PRESENTATION OF MEDALS.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the Admiralty custom to decorate men who have received awards for distinguished service through the post; and what action is it necessary for a naval rating, invalided by wounds out of the naval service, to take on receiving instructions to join the Colours with the military?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All medals awarded to men still in the Service are forwarded to the officers under whom they are serving, for presentation. In the case of men who have left the Service, arrangements are made by the Admiralty for presentation by a naval officer unless inconvenient to the men. I may add that in the most recent case the recipient desired to have the decoration forwarded to him. In the circumstances referred to in the second part of the question, the man should return the notice to the recruiting officer, stating the facts of the case.

    ZEEBRUGGE.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the date when the first Naval Air Squadron was sent to Dunkirk;
    480
    the date that the Order was issued forbidding them to drop bombs on Zeebrugge and district; the reason why such an Order was given; whether the Admiralty received application or applications from commanding officers in Dunkirk and district for permission to bombard Zeebrugge and district; the date that such permission was eventually granted; and whether the recent raids have been successful?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend regrets that questions of this character, dealing with operations, should have been placed upon the Order Paper. The operations referred to are under the control of the Vice-Admiral Commanding, in whose discretion the Admiralty has complete confidence. If the question is intended to convey the impression that either the Vice-Admiral or the Admiralty is not equally determined with my hon. Friend to harry the enemy whenever we can do so with profit, I can only assure him that he is much mistaken.
    Mr. BILLING: Has it come to the right hon. Gentleman's notice that the bombing raids on Zeebrugge were stopped for a considerable period, and that they were not renewed until there was a great agitation in the Press and a certain Sea Lord wrote to Admiral Bacon and told him he had better do so?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret to say that is the substance of the question, on which, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I say that it was not desirable to place it upon the Paper. If my hon. Friend has any views on this matter, all he has to do is to come and submit them to me.

    LOSS OF HOSPITAL SHIPS "BRITANNIC" AND "BRAEMAR CASTLE."
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, what reports he has received as to the torpedoing of the hospital ships "Britannic" and "Braemar Castle" in the Mediterranean; and whether he can now give the House full information with regard to the sinking of these vessels?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I am unable to add to the communication made to the Press on Tuesday last.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether Petty Officer (First Class) Thomas Hale, of His Majesty's ship "Tiger" residing at Easkey, county Sligo, who was wounded in the Jutland battle, and sustained, amongst other injuries, the loss of his right eye, has been permanently disabled, and that the only pension he is receiving is 14s. 5d. a week; on what basis the pension is computed; and whether, considering the increased cost of the necessaries of life, the Admiralty can see their way to grant an increase and give Hale the maximum pension?
    Dr MACNAMARA: The pension of 14s. 5d. a week is based on the medical assessment of five-tenths earning incapacity, allowances being included in respect of two badges and service as petty officer. A gratuity of £5 was also awarded in respect of minor injuries sustained some time ago. The present award covers the period from discharge to 3rd October, 1917, shortly before which date Hale will be re-surveyed with reference to further pension to be awarded, which, as Hale has lost an eye, will not be less than 12s. 5d. a week for life. The Admiralty has no power to take into account the increased cost of the necessaries of life in assessing pensions.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is it the case that this man has been paid less than he would have been paid if he had been serving in the Army? Is it the case that the Admiralty is less generous than the Army in making- gratuities and pensions to soldiers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so, but I will look at this particular case side by side with a case of absolutely corresponding circumstances in the Army and consult with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board (1) whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the allowances paid to dependants of apprentices; and (2) whether he can now state the decision arrived at with regard to the separation allowances of dependants of apprentices?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): As the hon. Member
    482
    is aware, the Regulation framed by the Statutory Committee with regard to this matter has been the subject of communication between the Committee and the Treasury. The Committee have now received from the Treasury their approval to the Regulation in the form in which it was finally submitted to them. The Statutory Committee will issue the Regulation in the course of a few days, and I will send the hon. Member a copy of it.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Will the allowances be retrospective?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I would rather have notice of that question.

    ADMIRALTY (MR. C. E. DICKES).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether C. E. Dickes, who is employed by the Admiralty at £480 a year, and who was compelled by the military to leave Portsmouth, and who was exempted by the Lambeth Tribunal as the result of a representation by an Admiralty Committee, was previously employed at a naval station in Ireland; whether his commander-in-chief at that station had occasion to reprimand him; and, if so, can he state what the complaint was that was made against him?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Mr. Dickes served as Deputy Cashier-in-Charge at His Majesty's Dockyard, Haulbowline, prior to serving at Portsmouth. My right hon. Friend is wrong in suggesting that any Admiralty Committee made representation to the Lambeth Tribunal. He evidently has in mind the Committee on Work of National Importance, which is not an Admiralty Committee. At Haul-bowline Mr. Dickes actively interested himself in the formation of an Irish section of the Union of Democratic Control, and took part, I understand, in the endeavour to organise public meetings. Further, the Vice-Admiral Commanding had occasion to give Mr. Dickes a private warning to cease association with certain persons suspected of pro-German sympathies. The Vice-Admiral, in making a private request to the Accountant-General that Mr. Dickes should be removed, spoke of him as a very good cashier and disavowed any desire to injure him professionally, and desired to make it clear that, so far as his knowledge

    483
    went. there was nothing against this gentleman's honour. Mr. Dickes was thereafter, as I have said, removed to Portsmouth, with the result which has been set forth in the several answers to my right hon. Friend's several questions. I may, perhaps add, in view of the undertaking I gave a week ago, that the Committee on Work of National Importance have been informed that the Admiralty do not propose to retain Mr. Dickes's services, and that it is for that Committee and the Lambeth Tribunal to agree on some other work of national importance on which to employ him.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: When were we deprived of this admirable person's services in Ireland?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: He went there in October, 1914.
    Mr. HEALY: And when did he leave?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid that I cannot say.
    Mr. BILLING: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether Dickes is still at the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Dickes is engaged on the claims of deceased sailors' dependants, and, as far as I know, he is at work at the present time.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is a German-French?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say. I see that the Civil Service Commission, according to one certificate, speaks of his mother as "Sarah Ann Dickes, formerly, Wiltshire." That does not strike me as particularly German.
    Mr. HEALY: Was he in Ireland in April of this year?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think not; but I would not be quite sure about it.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Did the right hon. Gentleman not describe this gentleman as "very stupid"?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I said—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think if hon. Members want any further particulars, they had better give notice.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the right hon. Member for West Essex, as representing the Kitchen Committee, whether in creases of wages or war bonuses have been granted to the staff employed in the refreshment department to enable them to meet the increased cost of living; and, if not, whether the matter will receive the consideration of the Kitchen Committee?
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: In answer to the hon. Member I have to say that I am rather in the position Juvenal sings of—"Contabit vacuus coram latrone viator. "We have not enough funds. All our workers have their meals at our expense on the premises.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: As it appears to be not a question of good will but of money, will the institution of a meatless day once a week assist the right hon. Gentleman financially?
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: I should be very glad to have the opinion of the House on this matter. Up to the present time the House has always followed the maxim of qui facet per alium facit per se, and they have been thoroughly satisfied with the vicarious sacrifice of the proletariat. But I really should like to have some opinion from the House on the question.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order. Did not you rule, Sir, that Irish was not to be spoken?
    Mr. BOWERMAN: I will put another question next week, after I have carefully considered the right hon. Gentleman's reply.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (NEW SHIPS).
    Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is yet in a position to state the steps that have been taken to ensure the supply of a larger number of new ships for the mercantile marine; and how far the pooling arrangements in the various shipbuilding centres have been successful?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. It is not possible to state in detail all the measures that have been, and are being, taken to hasten the completion of new merchant ships. The main problems are

    485
    labour, material, and pressure of Admiralty work; but all the Departments concerned are working together, and considerable progress is being made. Pooling arrangements are at present in the initial stage, but I have every hope that they will be successful.

    ENEMY BUSINESSES.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give, in answer to this question, or will grant a Return showing the manner in which German firms and businesses have been dealt with in England, France, and Italy, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Prety-man): German businesses in this country are dealt with by appointing supervisors of the businesses and either by winding up the business and paying the non-enemy creditors under Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, or by vesting the enemy interest in the Public Trustee for sale under Section 4 of that Act. I am not in a position to furnish particulars with regard to the action which has been taken in France and Italy.
    Mr. RENDALL: Will the hon. Gentleman not make those inquiries, so that we may know what the differences are?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot say that at present I am convinced that there will be any advantage gained by making those inquiries, in view of the present pressure.
    Mr. RENDALL: How can the hon. Gentleman know that if he does not know what the facts are?
    Mr. BOOTH: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question about German firms or companies, and state what is being done with companies as apart from other businesses? Is he putting the companies to an end?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No legislation is necessary to bring companies to an end. When a company has no business, its existence can be terminated by the Registrar of Companies.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is it being terminated?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot say exactly what is being done. It will be or is being done, but it may require a good deal of care.
    Mr. RENDALL: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry as to other countries, so that we may know what is the procedure adopted there and compare it with what is done here?

    WAITERS' ORGANISATIONS (ENEMY ALIENS).
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the two leading waiters' organisations, the Ganymede Society and the Geneva Society, were entirely controlled by enemy aliens and had all their capital invested in Germany, the headquarters being in Berlin; and if any steps have been taken to wind up the British branches of these organisations or to eliminate the enemy influence and control?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No steps have been taken under the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act with regard to the societies referred to, but I am having inquiries made.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole of the funds of this society are invested in Germany?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am having inquiries made. My attention has not been called to the matter before. It is not an ordinary company, but something more in the nature of a friendly society.

    PLUMAGE (IMPORTATION).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the scarcity of tonnage and the necessity for stopping all luxurious and wasteful expenditure, he will issue orders prohibiting the importation of feathers and skins of birds from all places outside the British Empire?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply given on 11th July to the hon. Member for Roxburghshire, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman respond to those countries which prohibit the export of plumage by prohibiting the import here?

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (PROCLAMATION).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the protection given by Clause 6 of the Trading With the Enemy Proclamation of 9th September, 1914, to branches in British, Allied, and neutral countries of enemy firms has been withdrawn as regards firms carrying on insurance business, branches outside the United Kingdom of enemy banks, and branches in China and certain other neutral countries of enemy firms; whether he can state what useful purpose was served by inserting Clause 6 into the Proclamation originally, and what useful purpose will be served by retaining that part of the Clause which still remains unrepealed; and whether he will now repeal the Clause in to to?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: This is not a matter which can be satisfactorily dealt with by question and answer, but as I have already informed my hon. Friend, I shall be glad to discuss with him the advantages and also the difficulties of a repeal of the Clause to which he refers.

    Irish Model Schools.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary if the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have received any communication from the Irish Model School Teachers' Association in reference to fees collected in model schools and the distribution of the same; whether he intends taking any action in the matter; if he is aware that up to 1900 all model school head mistresses received a rent allowance of £20 per annum from the Treasury, and that the rent allowance paid to head mistresses appointed since 1900 is taken from the school fees instead of being defrayed by the Treasury; and whether he will recommend that this rent allowance of £20 and the increase of £10 per annum to all newly appointed head mistresses should be paid by the Treasury and not out of the school fees, and so permit the allocation of the entire school fees to the teachers?
    Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies to his question of the 26th July last and to that of the hon. Member for Dublin (St. Patrick's Division) on the 31st July, which contain full information upon this matter.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair that those appointed since 1900 should be placed in a worse position than those appointed before that date?
    Mr. DUKE: That is a matter of argument. The complete answer to the whole question is in the full replies to which I have referred the hon. Member.

    National School Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the Irish National Board of Education has threatened with dismissal Irish teachers who were given the commission of the peace by the Lord Chancellor if they attempt to act in any way in that capacity; whether any such order applies to English teachers who have been so appointed; what is the explanation for this conduct of the Board; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: The Commissioners of National Education consider that the performance of the duties of a magistrate by teachers is inconsistent with Rule 88 (a) of the Code. This rule provides that teachers are not permitted to carry on, or engage in, any business or occupation or to be members of any association tending to impair their usefulness as teachers. The Commissioners accordingly, at their meeting of 10th October, 1916, made the following order:
    "That those national teachers who have accepted appointments to the Commission of the Peace be informed that the Commissioners, consider the. performance of the duties of a magistrate by a national teacher to be inconsistent with the requirements of Rule 88 (a) of the Code, and they require that such teachers must not adjudicate as magistrates in order to be eligible for continued recognition as national teachers."
    I have no information as to the practice: in England.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it decent that one Department of the Irish Government should appoint a man, a magistrate, and another Department threaten to dismiss him if he exercises the duties of the position?
    Mr. DUKE: The appointment of magistrates is in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who exercises his discretion with which the executive does not interfere. The decision as to whether particular duties are or are not consistent with the exercise of the functions of teaching is in the province of the Commissioners of

    489
    National Education. It is entrusted to them by Statute, and so far as I know, only a new Statute could control that.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: May I ask whether this decision has been come to by the Commissioners solely in the interests of education or is it actuated by other motives, and why is it that in England and Scotland teachers are eligible for these positions?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it was decided that the position of magistrate was a business or occupation?
    Mr. DUKE: I have told the House all I know of this particular decision. I have read to the House the Order of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland on which the present practice proceeds. If there is a desire to challenge the Order they can raise the question as to whether it is a legal Order or not.
    Mr. M. HEALY: Is not the obvious course, if this Order is an absurdity, that the Order should be altered?
    Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of the National Board of Education in dismissing Mr. Michael O'Donoghoe, third assistant of the Six Mile Bridge National School, county Kerry, on the 30th December, 1915, on account of two quarters of insufficient average attendance; whether this action was contrary to their rules; whether the Board, recognising the injustice committed, cancelled Mr. O'Donoghoe's dismissal on the 24th July last; whether the Board subsequently withdrew from their order reinstating Mr. O'Donoghoe, and again dismissed him; and whether, seeing that the average required for third assistant in this school, although insufficient in ordinary times, is sufficient according to the war times rules, he will request the Board to remedy this injustice?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that it was not they, but the manager of the Six Mile Bridge National School who is responsible for withdrawal of recognition and payment from Mr. O'Donoghoe. A full statement of the particulars has been furnished me, and I shall be happy to communicate it to the hon. Member.

    Urban Housing (Ireland).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary whether he has received correspon-
    490
    dence and resolutions from the residents of St. Patrick's Division, Dublin, respecting the delay of the Government to advance the loans sanctioned by the Local Government Board for housing purposes in Dublin city; whether he is aware that the neglect of this grievance was one of the contributory causes of the insurrection; and whether, in view of its urgency, he will endeavour to provide a speedy solution?
    Mr. CLANCYasked whether he is yet able to make any announcement as to his intentions in the matter of financial assistance towards the solution of the housing question in Irish urban districts, and especially in Dublin?
    Mr. BRADYasked whether he has examined Reports respecting Dublin housing; and whether, in view of the statements he made at the Pembroke meeting, he is prepared to advise financial assistance?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot at present make any announcement.

    Experimental Science (Irish Intermediate Board).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether any official notice, apart from laying their new Rules upon the Table of the House, was given by the Intermediate Board to the Department of Agriculture with respect to the new rule as regards experimental science; and, if so, on what date; and whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture has stated that it received no such official notice?
    Mr. DUKE: The Report of the Committee of the Intermediate Education Board, recommending the introduction of a written examination in science, was duly sent to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, in his capacity of a member of the Board, with the Agenda of the Board for 9th December, 1915. He was present at the meeting of the Board at which the rule introducing a written examination in science was made, and at a Subsequent meeting, when all changes made in the rules were finally revised, and their exact wording read out to the Board. The Board are of opininon that their action in this matter was an effective communication to the Department of Agriculture.

    Petty Sessions Procedure, Derry.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the attitude of Mr. Hardy, resident magistrate, at Derry recently, where he attempted to prevent the Mayor of Derry from adjudicating in a particular case at Petty Sessions, on the grounds that the magistrate who had sizing of the case was by law empowered to deal with it, to the exclusion of other justices; is he aware that, despite the attitude of the resident magistrate, the Mayor of Derry insisted upon his right to adjudicate, and carried his point by taking the Petty Sessions book and making a ruling, which was contrary to that announced to the Court by the resident magistrate; and has any action been taken by the Government to support the theory of the resident magistrate and, if so, with what result?
    Mr. DUKE: This matter is sub judice.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board, after issuing an offer to Mr. Stanuel for the purchase of his estate near Newport, county Mayo, withdrew the offer, stating that they were obliged to suspend land purchase; whether all the other estates in the neighbourhood have been acquired by the Board; and, having regard to the congestion on the Stanuel estate and the necessity for the enlargement of the holdings thereon, the Board will repeat their offer to Mr. Stanuel before the untenanted lands in the district are all distributed amongst the tenants on purchased estates?
    Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board inform me that they made an offer for purchase of this property in April, 1914, which was not accepted. In April, 1915, the Board withdrew their offer, as they were obliged to suspend negotiations for the purchase of any further estates. The Board have purchased a number of estates in Newport district, but they have not acquired all the estates in the neighbourhood. They are unable at present to reopen negotiations with Mr. Stanuel with a, view to acquiring his property.
    Mr. DORIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why they are unable to do so?
    Mr. DUKE: I surmise that the War has to some extent interfered with the funds under the control of the Congested Districts Board.
    Mr. DORIS: Why should they not be able to carry out their statutory duties towards these poor people?

    Irish Dispensary Districts (Appointment of Doctors).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he can say under what Statute or Regulation the Local Government Board can on the ground of his being of military age veto the appointment of a doctor for a dispensary district in Ireland after his election by the guardians of the union of that district at a meeting properly convened for that purpose; whether he is aware that the Local Government Board refuse to sanction the appointment of Doctor Michael Fitzgibbon, for the Askeaton, county Limerick, dispensary district, because he is of military age; and whether, as the guardians of the Rath-keale Union will not comply with their decision, he will have his appointment sanctioned and thus be the means of preventing friction in this matter?
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Gentleman has been asked to postpone this question.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: May I ask did the right hon. Gentleman see the opinion of counsel which was published the other day in reference to this matter stating that the Local Government Board had no power to veto the appointment of doctors for dispensary districts because they were under military age, and will he give his attention to that?
    Mr. DUKE: I understand some question of legality has arisen. I am not aware of the opinion to which the hon. Member refers, but it may be the existence of a thing of that kind which has delayed the answer to the question.

    National Education (Ireland).
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will ascertain from the Commissioners of National Education the number of vacancies in the first division of first grade of men teachers in Ireland; how many have fulfilled the conditions laid down by the Commissioners of National Education and are eligible for special promotion to that grade and to whom the Commissioners are morally responsible to pay the salary to these teachers of which they are deprived owing to the limitation of standard numbers in the grade; and whether the Commissioners, who hold out inducements by way

    493
    of special promotion, will now ask that there should be an increase in the standard numbers in the grade so that these teachers may receive the promotion and consequent increase of salary which have been withheld from some of them for two years?
    Mr. DUKE: The number of vacancies is twelve. As far as can be ascertained, about fifty teachers are eligible for the promotion mentioned. Such promotion appears not to be a legal right, and an application for an increase in the standard numbers could not be favourably entertained at the present time.

    Congested Districts Board (Ireland).
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Castletown estate, situate in the parish of Castleconor, county Sligo, has been for many years past vested in the Congested Districts Board; that the estate has been sub-divided into farms by the board, and fourteen houses built thereon and completed over two years ago; and, seeing that only seven of those farms and houses have been let to tenants, what steps the board are taking to give over the remaining seven farms and houses for the relief of congestion in the district?
    Mr. DUKE: This estate was vested in the Congested District Board in February, 1914. Congestion on the estate has been relieved, and the seven farms referred to have been held over for suitable migrants from other congested estates. Tenants are being selected, and it is expected that they will be in occupation by the end of next January at latest.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has received any memorials from pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary relative to the winding-up and distribution of the Constabulary Superannuation Fund; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: I have received such memorials. The conditions on which the fund is held appear to prevent the adoption of the suggestion to wind it up.

    Connaught Winter Assizes.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked what is the estimated saving by the arrangements for the Connaught Winter Assizes; under
    494
    what heads is such saving anticipated; and whether any estimate has been made of the increased cost of bringing prisoners and witnesses from Connaught to Ulster?
    Mr. DUKE: The Attorney-General, in making the existing arrangements, was actuated by a desire to save public expense. There is no doubt that a considerable amount of legal expenses will be saved by having three Assizes instead of four, but it is impossible to state at present what will be the precise amount of the saving.

    Postal Messenger (Rathaspic, Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Hubert Murray, postal messenger, Rath-aspic, Westmeath, in the service of the Post Office during the last seventeen years, has been given notice of dismissal in the interest of economy; and, seeing that he is being paid only 5s. a week, that this is his sole means of living, and that bad health unfits him for manual labour, whether, in consideration of his long ser-Tice and circumstances and the trifling amount of the proposed saving, the notice will be withdrawn and this man's services continued?
    Mr. J. PEASE: Under a revision of the postal services in the district, which was undertaken for purposes of economy, a short delivery duty, carrying wages of 5s. a week, which was performed by Hubert Murray, has been abolished. I regret that it is not practicablc to restore the duty, and that there is no other employment in the Post Office available for him.

    Coal Mines (Horses and Ponies).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that in 1912, out of a total of 71,526 horses and ponies employed in the coal mines of the United Kingdom 2,850 suffered injuries resulting in death and 7,873 suffered non-fatal injuries, whereas in 1914, out of a total of 70,396 of such horses and ponies, 2,999 suffered injuries resulting in death and 10,878 suffered non-fatal injuries; whether there is any special reason for this increase of fatal and non-fatal injuries in 1914; and whether he will take steps or give directions which will remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that in the year 1914 there were 4,870 deaths

    495
    of horses and ponies employed in the coal mines of the United Kingdom consequent on injury and disease (including 375 who died or had to be destroyed in consequence of old age or blindness), he will state whether the conditions under which horses and ponies are now employed in the coal mines necessarily lead to this o very great number of deaths; and whether he can, by means of more frequent inspection or otherwise, improve those conditions?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I find that the percentages for 1914 are considerably lower than those for 1913, and that the figures for 1915, which will shortly be published, show a, further decrease. It seems probable that the Returns for 1912, which were the first Returns made under the Act, were incomplete and ought not to be taken as a basis for comparison. The situation, therefore, is more satisfactory than the published figures would indicate. The horse inspectors have instructions to watch carefully the causes of injuries to pit ponies, and to report in every case where the conditions are unsatisfactory, and, as I informed the hon. and learned Member, in reply to his recent question on the subject, I do not think that any further instructions are required.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Seeing the very large number of these deaths, is it not possible, by means of more frequent inspection, or otherwise, to diminish this number?
    Sir GEORGE GREENWOOD: Is it not possible, in view of these terrible figures, to adopt the same course as has been adopted by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals by appointing more inspectors—[An HON. MEMBER: More inspectors !] —of men over military age?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will consider those suggestions. At the present moment the Government are very anxious not to increase the number of appointments.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is it not possible to get men over military age?

    Milk for Children.
    Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Local Government Board when he will be in a position to introduce the Bill which he promised to deal with the questions of nursing and expectant mothers, and the provision of milk for little children?
    Mr. LONG: I hope to introduce legislation shortly.

    Franchise Law.
    Mr. GLANVILLEasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) as, according to the Census Return for 1911 the adult male population of the Metropolitan Borough of Bermondsey, which contains nearly two Parliamentary Constituencies, was 341,249, whilst the number of Parliamentary electors in the same year, in the same area, was 17,028, of whom exactly 700 non-residents were not included in the Census. leaving a total of 16,328 resident electors according to the Census results, which indicates that 17,921 adult males, equal to 52 per cent., in one Metropolitan borough were excluded from the Parliamentary franchise, whether he will make provision in the forthcoming Register Bill to secure that such disfranchisement of the nation's manhood shall be reduced to a minimum; and (2) as, according to the Census Return for 1911, the adult male population of the City of London was 7,017, whilst the number of Parliamentary electors in the same area was 30,500, according to the last register, thus showing that 23,183 Parliamentary voters in the City of London do not live in that constituency, whether he will in his forthcoming Register Bill make such provisions as will secure that these 23,483 non-resident electors shall be removed' from the Parliamentary list of voters in the City of London and placed upon the Parliamentary register of the Constituencies in which they reside?
    Mr. LONG: The Government are not at this moment proposing any alteration of the general franchise laws of this country. The question of the franchise, with others, is engaging the attention of the Conference now sitting upstairs.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does my right hon. Friend think the relative importance of the City of London can be gauged in the manner suggested in No. 98?
    Mr. LONG: No, I do not.

    Venereal Disease.
    Mr. PRATTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is suggesting to those local authorities who are preparing schemes for the diagnosis and treatment of venereal disease the desirability of instructional lectures and the publication of information; and whether he is directing their attention to

    497
    that part of the Report of the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases where the Commissioners state that their evidence tends to show that the communication of disease is frequently due to indulgence in intoxicants, and that there is no doubt that the growth of temperance among the population would help to bring about an amelioration of the conditions which their inquiry has revealed?
    Mr. LONG: The Regulations issued by my Department on this subject empower local authorities to make provision for the giving of instructional lectures and for the publication of information on questions relating to venereal disease. The Circular which accompanied the Regulations has drawn attention to the contents of the Report of the Royal Commission.

    Loss of Steamship "Connemara."
    Mr. WHITTYasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether it is proposed to hold any inquiry into the loss of the London and North-Western Railway Company's steamer "Connemara" and the collier "Retriever" off Cranfield Point, in Carlingford Lough; and (2) whether any signals of distress were sent up from the "Connemara" or from the lighthouse close by after the collision with the "Retriever"; whether it was due to the lack of any wireless facilities along this part of the coast that no intimation of the disaster reached the lifeboat station at Crcenore in time to be of any service; whether the "Connemara's" wireless call for help was received at Kingstown; and whether steps will be taken to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I propose to order a formal investigation into the loss of these two vessels, and the various points which the hon. Member has raised can then be fully examined.

BILL PRESENTED.
MUNITIONS (LIABILITY FOR EXPLOSIONS) BILL,—"to obtain contributions from persons in the event of their liability for damage or loss from explosions of or other accidents in connection with Munitions being assumed by His Majesty's Government, "presented by Dr. ADDISON; supported by Mr. Montagu, Mr. Primrose, and Mr. McKinnon Wood; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to
Anzac (Restriction of Trade Use of Word) Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what will be the business for next week?
  Mr. BONARLAW: On Monday we shall take the Report and, I hope, the Third Reading of the Board of Pensions Bill, Supplementary Estimates for the temporary salary of the Paymaster-General and for the monthly payment of teachers in Ireland, and the Committee stage of the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill and the Governemnt War Obligations Bill.
  On Tuesday we shall give facilities for a discussion on the Air Service, on the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley).
  On Wednesday the Prime Minister will move a Vote of Credit.
  On Thursday we shall take the Report of that Vote, which will provide a convenient opportunity for a discussion of Man-power.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite impossible for the people interested in Dublin to consider the proposed Government Amendments before Monday? They will not be in Dublin till Monday morning.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what has been said on that subject by the Chief Secretary.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: Were we not to have a day exclusively for Man-power? What I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is that to have it mixed up with all the questions that will arise on the Vote of Credit would not be at all in conformity with the pledge that was given, that we were to devote a day to Man-power. I would further ask if facilities will be given to the absent service Members of this House to come home, if military exigencies allow, so as to be present on that important occasion?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of my right hon. Friend's question, if there is not a general willingness on the part of the House to confine the discussion on Thursday to that subject, I think it will be necessary to reconsider the
  532
  answer of the Prime Minister I have just read out. I will communicate the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions to the Prime Minister to-day, and I hope he will be able to give an answer on Monday.
  Mr. PRINGLE: May I remind my right hon. Friend that he promised to answer Question 80 in his general statement as to business?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That referred to a promise made yesterday on behalf of the Prime Minister, that he would make a statement on business next week.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Considering that the Government have now had the Man-Power Report for a very considerable time, are they able to state whether they are in a position to give the House any information whatever as to its recommendations?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not think it would be advisable to give any answer to that question in advance, but a great deal of work has been done. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will await the discussion.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Government abandoned any intention of putting soldiers and sailors on the Register, or of devising machinery for their voting?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot really say anything on that subject beyond what I have said already. The Prime Minister will deal with it in his general statement.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the great importance of the Man-Power question, he could not see his way clear even to postpone such an important matter as the Air Debate, and give the whole day on Tuesday to the question of Man-Power?

BOARD OF PENSIONS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Major H. TERRELL: I desire to raise a point of Order in connection with this Bill. The Government, as you, Sir, no doubt are aware, have introduced very extensive Amendments to that Bill, and the question I want to submit to you is whether, having regard to the extensive nature of those Amendments, the Bill has not become in substance a new Bill and must be reintroduced and passed through a Second Reading? Similar questions

533
have been raised with regard to other Bills. I should like to call your attention to two precedents on the matter. In the year 1889 the Tithe Rent-charge Recovery Bill was before this House. The Bill as originally introduced provided that a person to whom a tithe rent was payable could sue in a local Court, recover the rent, and proceed to certain methods of execution. Amendments were proposed to alter that right, into one enabling him merely to sue, with a discretionary power in the Court to say whether or not he could recover and for what amount, and whether or not execution should be allowed to issue. When those Amendments were proposed, Sir William Harcourt brought the matter before Mr. Speaker and asked for his ruling as to whether the proposed change in the Bill was not in substance presenting a new Bill and that they could not proceed with the Committee stage, but must present a new Bill and have it read a second time. Upon that Mr. Speaker gave a ruling, and it is to some parts of that ruling—I do not propose to read it all —that I would call your attention. First of all, the Speaker referred to an earlier case—the Partnership Amendment Bill of 1856, to which I will refer later. With regard to that Bill Mr. Speaker said:
"The objection was taken, as the right hon. Gentleman truly says, by Mr. Henley that the Bill was entirely different, and that it would be inconvenient to discuss in Committee Clauses the principles of which had not been affirmed at the stage of Second Heading. That, I think, is a most powerful and cogent argument."
A little later Mr. Speaker said:
"I express the practice of the House rather than the rule of the House, if I may distinguish between them. The practice of the House has unquestionably been, when a Bill has been so transformed, as in my opinion this Bill has been, that a new Bill should be introduced; that leave should be given to introduce it; and that the Second Reading stage should be gone through, when the general principles of the measure, as distinguished from its component Clauses, can be affirmed. I express my opinion on this point without the least hesitation, and I desire to affirm that opinion very strongly."
The earlier precedent to which reference was made was the Partnership Bill. That was a Bill which was intended to get over a decision of the Courts which had determined that if persons having separate businesses agreed to pool their profits and to divide the profits in certain proportions, that made each person a partner in each business and liable for the liabilities. It was desired to get over that by the Bill that was introduced. It only got over one objection and did not get over the whole of the objections. Thereupon an Amendment was suggested which would carry
534
out the original intention of the Bill. An objection was taken by Mr. Lowe, who moved that the Order for the committal of the Bill should be discharged on the ground that the Bill was in substance a. new Bill. Thereupon Mr. Speaker agreed, and the Bill having been substantially added to, and therefore in that sense being a new Bill—that is to say, a principle having been introduced by Amendment which should have been the subject of discussion on a Second Reading—the Order was discharged. Applying that ruling to this Bill, I ventured to submit that this Bill, as now proposed, is really a new Bill —a totally different Bill to the one origin-introduced and which had a Second Reading.
The Bill originally introduced was a Bill entitled "Board pf Pensions Bill." This Bill it is proposed to call "The Ministry of Pensions Bill." By the original Bill it was intended to set up, according to Clause 1, a Board of Pensions consisting of four persons—the Paymaster-General and four Under-Secretaries, who were together to constitute the Board of Pensions. By the amended Bill it is not intended to have a Board of Pensions at all, but it is proposed now to set up a Ministry of Pensions, consisting of the Paymaster-General alone. That is, I submit, a fundamental difference and I may test it in this way: On the Bill as originally framed it would be perfectly competent for any hon. Member to move in Committee that, instead of a Board of the four persons named in the Bill, the Board should be constituted of four persons, no one of whom should be a Member of this House. That would have been a perfectly competent Amendment. As a matter of fact, an Amendment was put down that, instead of the Board proposed, it should be a Board consisting of the Paymaster-General and five other persons not Members of this House. On the Bill as amended no such Amendment can be moved in Committee. The Bill is merely a Bill for the establishment of a Ministry of Pensions instead of a Board, and I take it it would not be permissible on such a Bill to move in Committee to establish a Board of Pensions, no member of whom should be a Member of this House, in the place of a Ministry of Pensions.
There is a further element of importance to be borne in mind. The Financial Resolutions with regard to this Bill have been submitted to the House and have been passed. It was proposed by those Financial

535
Resolutions that a salary not exceeding £2,000 a year should be allocated to the Minister of Pensions? That may be an adequate salary where the Minister is only one member of the Board and need not apply the whole of his time to the business of the Board. But this is not a matter which affects merely the Paymaster-General of to-day. This Board or Ministry, when established, will last a considerable number of years. I think the proposed Minister said it would last fifty years, so that, for years to come, the salary of the Chairman of the Board of Pensions would be governed by this Statute, and his salary would be determined. It would have been quite competent on this Resolution for any Member to have said that £2,000 a year was not sufficient for the Minister of Pensions. But now that cannot be now argued because the Statutory Resolutions have been passed. All this indicates that the Amendments to the Bill are so drastic that it would be unfair to the House, immediately before the Bill comes into Committee that the changes should be induced, without any Second Reading and without any Financial Resolution having been passed.
There is a further matter, and that is that the object of the authority is to be changed. By the original Bill it was intended to transfer to the Board of Pensions the powers of the Chelsea Commissioners, the powers of the Army Council, and certain of the powers of the Statutory Committee. That is now changed, and it is proposed to transfer to the Ministry of Pensions the powers of the Admiralty which were not included at all in the original Bill—powers with regard to pensions—and to transfer the powers of the Chelsea Commissioners and the Army-Council, but to leave out the transfer of powers of the Statutory Committee. These are matters which would properly be subjects for a Second Reading Debate, particularly the question as to whether the Admiralty should be introduced into this Bill, and they properly ought to be discussed on the Second Reading of a Bill intending to bring the Admiralty within its scope. These are some of the elements of this Bill which I submit indicate that the Bill as now proposed is really and fundamentally a new Bill. In many respects it is more than a new Bill than was the Partnership Bill, and more so still than in the case of the Tithes Bill. I, therefore, ask a ruling whether this Bill
536
is not a new Bill within the meaning of the Rules of this House, and whether it should not be reintroduced and read a second time?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon and gallant and learned Member has stated his point very clearly—that is to say, that if by Amendment the character of the Bill is so altered as to be completely changed, and if it is essentially a new Bill, then the Bill ought to be dropped and a new Bill brought in. In each case it is the business of the Chair to consider what the effect of far-reaching Amendments will be. I do not remember the ease of the Partnership Bill; I am afraid that was before my time. But I remember the case of the Tithe Rent-charge Bill quite well. That was a Bill introduced to enable owners of tithe rent-charge to recover the same in a County Court instead of by distress, and in the course of the discussion the House came to the conclusion that it would be better to transfer the liability to pay the tithe from the occupier to the owner. It was a complete change of policy entirely, and the Government, having agreed to accept the proposal, Mr. Speaker was asked whether it was not a complete change. He held that it was, and that it was necessary that a new Bill should be introduced. I may say, in passing, I think one Member, in the course of that discussion, pointed out that hardly one line of the old Bill would be left so complete was the change. There was also the case I had to decide several years ago with regard to the Franchise and Registration Bill and the introduction of women into it, and I then came to the conclusion that the introduction of women would completely alter the whole character of the Bill. Now, with regard to this Bill, it appears to me the object of the Bill is to introduce an authority which is to deal with pensions, and to take away the administration of certain pensions from the Army and Navy, and to combine the administration of them under one authority. The original proposition was that the authority should be a Board, now it is suggested that it should be a Ministry. That is a change, a considerable change, I quite agree, but I do not think it is so great a change as to necessitate the introduction of a new Bill. Let me put the case the other way. Suppose the Bill had been a Bill to set up a Ministry, and the House, in its wisdom, had thought it desirable that this

537
matter should be placed entirely in the hands of a Board. That clearly would be within the competence of the House. It would not be a very great change, but it would be a change, yet not so great a change in the character of the Bill as to necessitate the introduction of a new Bill. It seems to me that the same arguments apply in this case. I may also say that in recent years, certainly since the Partnership Bill was introduced, Committees have exercised a great deal more latitude in the introduction of Amendments than they did in earlier days when the rules were very strict. Those rules are now much modified, and the Committees have exercised, and do exercise, and probably will in the future continue to exercise far greater latitude. I think under the circumstances that this Bill can proceed, although, of course, its title will have to be changed.
Bill considered in Committee (Progress, 27th November).
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Sir G. TOULMIN: May I ask whether it would not be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to adopt the Government Amendments en bloc, then recommit the Bill, and work upon it from the White Paper? Suppose the Government Amendments are carried, they will strike out a number of Amendments already on the Amendment Paper, and it seems to me it would probably be greatly for our convenience generally if that course could be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN: That could be done if the Committee assent to that course. It would make it more clear what we are doing, and if that is the general sense of the House to accept the Government Amendments, then I should report the Bill and the House would presumably recommit it forthwith. I should then proceed to deal with the Bill as recommitted, as shown on the White Paper with one single exception of an Amendment which probably has been overlooked by the Government, namely, on Clause 8, which proposes to insert the words "Army Council" in place of the words "War Office." It is purely a drafting Amendment. If the course suggested is approved I should propose to take the Clauses slowly on the recommitted Bill, so that any hon. Member might have an opportunity of drawing my attention to any Amendment he desired to
538
move to the recommitted Bill which does not appear in quite exactly the right place on the Blue Paper.
Mr. BARLOW: The course suggested has, I admit, many advantages, but the difficulty I foresee is this: It is very difficult to know exactly now where Amendments should come in, and this would entail so many Amendments being moved in manuscript. We are against the policy of moving Amendments in manuscript form, but here it will have been impossible-to get the Amendments down on the Paper. Again, the Amendments on the-White Paper have been put down to the original Bill, and if we take the Government Amendments straight away it will mean that a large number of Amendments will have to be taken in manuscript form.
Sir G. TOULMIN: Would it not be possible, when introducing the Government Amendments, to say what Amendments already down on the Paper to the other-Bill are in order? That would, I think, lessen the inconvenience my hon. Friend has pointed out, although it happens it may not avoid other inconveniences which would happen if we work from the original Bill.
Mr. DICKINSON: What will be our position with regard to altering or rejecting any of the proposed Amendments of the Government? As I understand the procedure suggested, it is that the Amendments proposed by the Government in the-original Bill should be put in by the Vote of this House. Will the Committee then be free to go back on those Amendments which are not accepted?
The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, that will be so. Where I saw an Amendment on the Blue Paper that could not be covered by the change introduced in the Bill I should call on the hon. Member. In any case I should ask, "Does any hon. Member desire to move any Amendment to this Clause?" It means, of course, a little more trouble to the Chairman.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: May I ask the hon. Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin) whether it has been ascertained if there is a sufficient number of the copies of the White Paper to enable Members to pursue the necessary studies?
Sir G. TOULMIN: I have inquired at the Vote Office and am informed there are-sufficient copies.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: May I point out that the bulk of the Amendments put down with reference to the former Bill are really inapplicable to the new form of the Bill? I think the suggestion is an excellent one.
Major NEWMAN: I have an Amendment down to the Government proposal with regard to the Paymaster-General. I suppose I shall be entitled to move it?
The CHAIRMAN: Yes, certainly. I want hon. Members to draw my attention to any Amendments they may wish to move in order that nothing may be overlooked. With the assent of the Committee I will report the Bill with the Amendments incorporated of which the Government have given notice.
Bill reported, with a New Title [and with Amendments shown in Return No, 137, giving the effect of the Amendments proposed to be moved in Committee on behalf of the Government.]
Resolved, "That this House will forthwith resolve itself into Committee on the recommitted Bill."—[Mr. Rea.]
Recommitted Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

BOARD OF PENSIONS BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Minister of Pensions.)
  In order to unify the administration of such pensions, grants, and allowances as are hereinafter mentioned, there shall be a Minister of Pensions, who shall be the Paymaster-General, and shall be advised by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty, the Financial Secretary of the War Office, and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board.
  Major H. TERRELL: I beg to move, after the word "unify" ["Ho unify"], to insert the words "and for the purpose of exercising the powers and duties transferred to and vested in the Minister of Pensions hereby constituted."
  This is a purely drafting Amendment. The Bill states that in order to unify the administration of pensions a Minister of Pensions shall be constituted. The Ministry is not going to administer pensions. It is going to administer the funds out of which pensions are going to be paid, and it is quite wrong to use the words which appear in this Clause. This loose drafting may afterwards give rise to difficulty. Surely the better phraseology to use is that
  540
  which I have suggested. The difficulty that may arise is this: To a certain limited extent the Ministry of Pensions under this Bill will administer some of the pensions—that is to say, pensions which are given to infant dependants would be strictly administered by the Minister of Pensions—but it is quite wrong to say that the Ministry of Pensions are going to administer pensions. They are going to grant pensions, and the persons who receive the pensions will administer those pensions as they think fit. The phraseology which I suggest might meet that difficulty hereafter. You cannot unify the administration of pensions. My Amendment is to unify the exercise of the powers. The Bill proposes to transfer certain powers and duties to the Minister of Pensions. The Bill is for the purpose of that transference, and it forms the Ministry of Pensions to exercise those powers and duties so transferred, and is for no other purpose.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether I quite understand the hon. and learned Member's Amendment.
  Mr. BARNES: I would suggest that the hon. Member should have given us his Amendment before we had his speech. We have had a speech more or less about some words, and nobody can understand the speech. It would be far better if hon. Members give us their exact Amendment before they give us their speech.
  Mr. HOGGE: I hope the Government will resist this Amendment. This Bill is to administer pensions. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I would urge the Government not to accept this Amendment. The one thing that was decided by the Committee on the previous occasion was to put in these words "to unify the administration of pensions," and it would falsify the position we took up before if this Amendment were accepted.
  The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. A. Henderson): For the reasons stated by both of the previous speakers, the Government must resist this Amendment. It appears to me to be adding unnecessary phraseology, and what we ought to do is to keep the Bill as clear as possible.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to move to leave out the words,
  "who shall be the Paymaster-General, and shall be advised by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty, the Financial Secretary of the War Office, and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board."
  For the reason that the Paymaster-General has just assigned as the reason why the previous Amendment should be rejected, namely, for the unity of administration, I move this Amendment. To unify administration is the whole purpose of this Bill. That is the set purpose of this Clause. In order to unify the administration of pensions a Minister of Pensions is to be appointed. It seems to me, and I believe it is the feeling of a great many hon. Members, that we ought to treat the Minister of Pensions and the Ministry of Pensions on exactly the same lines as every other State Department has been treated. I have not a single word to say as to the gentlemen who are brought in as obligatory advisers of the Ministry. They are all honourable men. But when a Minister is being appointed to the most stupendous Department that has ever been created in English politics—that is what this Ministry is—why he should be called upon, under a statutory obligation, to submit himself for advice to three particular people is more than I can understand. The Clause says:
  "There shall be a Minister of Pensions, who shall be the Paymaster-General, and shall be advised by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty, the Financial Secretary of the War Office, and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board."
  Desirable as these Gentlemen are, competent as they are in their own business, they have no right to be brought back again into this Bill, because we were hoping the night before last that we had got rid of them for this purpose. What necessity is there that these Gentlemen should be brought in by this indirect process? The whole structure of the Bill gives to the Minister all the assistance he desires and all the assistance possible. Let hon. Members look at Clause 3. The Statutory Committee is now preserved, and Clause 3 provides that
  "The Statutory Committee shall render to the Minister of Pensions advice and assistance in respect of any matter on which such advice and assistance is requested by the Minister."
  542
  Clause 5 says, in Sub-section (1):
  "The Minister of Pensions may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may, with the sanction of the Treasury, determine."
  Clause 8, Sub-section (1), says:
  "There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry of Pensions such of the persons employed under the Admiralty, the Commissioners of the said hospital, the War Office, and the Statutory Committee, in or about the execution of the powers and duties transferred to the Minister of Pensions by this Act, as, subject to the consent of the Treasury, may be agreed between the several authorities above mentioned and the Minister of Pensions."
  Sub-section (2) says:
  "The Minister of Pensions may from time to time distribute the business of the Ministry amongst the several persons transferred thereto in pursuance of this Act in such manner as the Minister may think fit…"
  Surely, under these Clauses, there is given to the Minister all the powers and assistance that he can desire, and to lay upon him the statutory obligation to consult these three Gentlemen, eminent and competent as they may be, is to place upon him an obligation which has never been imposed upon any Minister in the whole history of politics. To what purpose can it be? If a man is compelled by Statute to consult with certain other Gentlemen—every one of whom in his own Department is almost overwhelmed with work—and if he is not only compelled to consult with them, but to receive their advice, he may be compelled to await that advice. This must inevitably lead to delay. The one thing that has been almost heartbreaking to the nation at large, and to this House, has been the awful delay-that has taken place in administration. Some of the Gentlemen at the head of these Departments—and I say it without the slightest feeling, because they are as good men as could ever be at the head of a Department—have broken down completely under the enormous burden of their work. Delay has followed delay, until the whole nation has felt what a horrible muddle they were in; not because of the lack of competence of any single man at the head of a Department, not because they desire to neglect their work—they have done their work to the best of their ability, and it has not

  543
  been the fault of a single Minister—but because of the fault of the system. Two nights ago we were hopeful that we were breaking down that system, and were establishing a system under which we should have direct responsibility and should give to the Minister with that direct responsibility the fullest possible power. In every other respect this Bill seems to me to go a great way in that direction, but why the Minister should have imposed upon him under a statutory obligation these hon. Gentlemen I cannot understand.
  The one thing I hope for is that the unceasing triplication and quadruplication of this business should end,- that there should be a person responsible whom we could hang if we get at him directly, and that there should not be this perpetual cloaking up. We do not want a Minister to be able to say "I cannot get along because I was not able to receive my report from such and such a body. At such a particular time I got into correspondence with that particular Department with which, under the law, I am compelled to consult and whose advice I must at least consider, and there has been much delay, with the result that I have been unable to carry out the Statutory obligations imposed upon me." Cannot we get away from that sort of thing? This pensions business is going to last half a century at the very least, and we should start with the utmost simplicity, consistent with the utmost efficiency and speed. As the Minister will receive, under the Clauses I have quoted, all the assistance possible—and in that respect the Bill is very emphatic—surely he ought not to have imposed upon him this burden which we all desire to see removed. This provision in the Bill cannot make for simplicity, and it cannot make for despatch, and it cannot make for the removal of the trouble under which hon. Members have been suffering for so long.
  Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: In supporting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Ince Division of Lancashire (Mr. Walsh), I would ask the attention of the House to words which we find in the Act establishing the Ministry of Munitions.
  "For the purpose of supplying munitions for the present war it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Munitions."
  544
  Then follows what, to my mind, is quite irrelevant:
  "to hold office during His Majesty's pleasure."
  One wants, in supporting the Government's new Bill, to have some very clear reason why the precedent, so plainly established when establishing the Ministry of Munitions, should be thrown over. I quite agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Walsh) that the Ministry of Pensions will become, next to the Navy, the largest spending Department of the State. It will be a Department employing thousands and thousands of people, and which must sooner or later be housed in its own premises. Its work will be the most controversial possible, for the next generation at any rate, and it ought to have at its head not only a whole-timer, but a strong Minister, and it is no reflection on the right hon. Gentleman, who has the support of all of us, to say that it must have a Minister who does not want any advice other than he can get from his own officials, and who is prepared to come to this House and face the fire with his own decisions, and, as the hon. Member as just said, take the gallows if he fails and a peerage, possibly, if he succeeds.
  Mr. BOOTH: A peerage if he fails!
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: All I can hope is the first Minister of Pensions will never become a peer. But more remarkable things than that have happened. When the Ministry of Munitions was set up the Minister was compelled to take from many Departments of State many more than will be affected by this Bill, Civil servants and others, to assist him. He was compelled to employ vastly more people and spend more money than the Minister for Pensions can ever be asked to employ or spend, and yet he was not compelled to take advice from any other Department. My own feeling is that the natural reluctance of capable and powerful Ministers to give up work which they have supervised up to the present is at the back of the inclusion of these three right hon. Gentlemen. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said about their merits and that sort of thing. That goes without saying. But for three busy Ministers, especially the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty and the Financial Secretary to the War Office, to imagine that they have got time to deal with the pensions that this Bill contem-

  545
  plates, is really to strain the seriousness and the patience of this House. One of my reasons for supporting the complete and clean cut away of these pensions from the Admiralty and the War Office is to leave the Secretaries of both Departments free from the burden of these pensions which now absorb so much of their time. It is their business to assist in the prosecution of the War. It is particularly the business of the Minister of Pensions to look after those who have fallen or suffered or those dependent upon them. Then my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Local Government Board really has no status in the new Bill at all. He is supposed to represent the Statutory Committee, but the power of the Statutory Committee under the new Bill is so insignificant that a Minister of his position and capacity is not required. In my opinion he, least of the three, has any right to be incorporated under this Bill. I hope that these three Ministers will see that by refusing to permit the Committee to relieve them of duties that are auxiliary to the prosecution of this War, by staying in the Bill, they are also handicapping and thwarting the desire of any Minister of Pensions to be master in his own household, and they would be best advised by accepting what I hope, will be the general opinion of the Committee and standing out of the Bill.
  Mr. BARLOW: There was one phrase used by the Mover of the Amendment with which we will all agree heartily—that is, that the duties which the new Minister of Pensions will have to discharge, both in the near and even more in the distant future, will be stupendous. I am not sure whether the Mover of the Amendment quite realises what is the effect of a great deal of his speech. His speech was directed to showing the Minister of Pensions as being overweighted and overburdened with the work, and it was also directed to showing that he should be relieved of the necessity of having to consult anybody else. As to the burden of the work I agree entirely, but accepting most cordially the nomination or appointment of the present Minister of Pensions, I think it unfortunate that he should be a man who, we know, is engaged in very laborious work in other directions—and, indeed, he has told us himself that he could not accept the position with regard to pensions, because
  546
  he was engaged in other work, unless he was given a Parliamentary Secretary. And accepting all that has been said as to the stupendous character of the burden thrust upon the Minister of Pensions, I think that that leads us to this, that it would be better, without criticising for a moment the excellent qualifications of the Minister, if we could have looked forward to having a Minister who would be, to use the regular phrase, a whole-timer. But that very fact seems to me to indicate a strong reason for rejecting this Amendment.
  I hope that the Minister will not think that I am saying anything against him personally. I am not. We have to deal with these questions on general grounds. He has come to deal with this work since he has been acting as Pensions Minister, through his position of Paymaster-General, and he has secured many excellent reforms. But he must come more or less new to this work. The three Gentlemen who are, in the Bill as it stands, to assist him with their advice have long experience in the matter. The Committee would be very ill-advised if they do not impose upon these Gentlemen the obligation to give advice. The position really is this, that the Bill gives to the Minister the right to go and get advice from these Gentlemen, that they cannot say to him, "We have no time; we are too busy; we cannot help you." He is in a position to say, "But you must." It is not, in other words, a limiting proviso, as far as the powers of the Minister are concerned. It only gives him the additional right to be able to compel advice when he wants it. Further, these three members of the Board are at the moment the repositories of the experience with regard to pensions of the Army, Navy, and Statutory Committee. I think that it would be the greatest possible pity if, during this transition period —I accept the position that this Bill is not going to be final. We are going to have pensions for the lifetime of the most of us. This is not the final word of Parliament on the subject, and I should be very much surprised if we are not here discussing pensions again in a few months—but during this transition period it would be the greatest possible mistake not to make use of the advice of these Gentlemen who are the repositories of this pension experience, and to give to the Minister the right to call upon these Gentlemen for advice

  547
  By doing so you are not limiting his power; you are merely giving him an additional privilege.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Paddington, S.): I am anxious to see the new system of pensions working as soon as possible. That is the reason why I should regret if these words were struck out of the Bill. Members talk as if, when the Bill is passed, all the Minister has to do is to wave his magic wand and say, "Be unified," and everybody would be unified and everything would be for the best in the best of all possibe pensions systems. I can speak from daily experience of the work for five months, and I believe that the unification of the pensions system will be a long, difficult, and laborious business. The physical union, which will effect a great real, will not be possible for five or six months, and it is to be borne in mind that the existing machinery, scattered as it is, will have to go on working at full pressure all the time, and any attempts to alter it should be undertaken with the greatest care and circumspection or you are going to have a very serious breakdown. For that reason, though it is not at all logical to bring in these three Ministers, I shall be glad to rope them in. It seems to me that they are roped in for the benefit of the Minister of Pensions in order that he may be entitled to call upon their assistance with regard to Departments of which they know a great deal and of which at present necessarily he knows nothing.
  There is another very important reason why it would be desirable to have these three advisers. You must bear in mind that it is not only a question of reorganising the present machinery of pensions. The right hon. Gentleman the Pensions Minister has told us definitely that he proposes to scrap the existing system of pensions and set up a new one in its place. He has condemned the existing system in the very strongest terms because he Has described the flat-rate system, which was combined with the supplementary system, as the most objectionable and unfair instrument you could apply to the system of awards in connection with pensions. He may be right or wrong. But the existing system of pensions was set up by the highest authority, by the Government, on the recommendation of a Select Committee, on which there were four important
  548
  Ministers, the Secretary of State for War, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary for the Colonies, and the Secretary for India, and it was approved by this House. If it is proposed to scrap that system and set up a new system in its place, the advice of Ministers who have had great experience in the matter of pensions would be of great value to the Pensions Minister. The Paymaster-General himself has said that the advice of those men would be of great assistance to him in setting up his new scales. As he wished to receive that advice, I do not see why it should not be available. It is quite possible to make too much of this matter, I quite agree. Still, for the reasons which I have given and as a matter almost, I might say, of courtesy and convenience, it would be well to retain these words in the Bill.
  5.0 P.M.
  General IVOR PHLIPPS: There is; no question that these words are unnecessary. The two Gentlemen who have already done so much for pensions are now handing over their work to one single body, and the House has decided definitely that it wants a powerful Pensions: Minister. Here, in the wording of this Bill, you have the most extraordinary document ever put before the House of Commons. You have actually appointed a. Minister of Pensions and you are compelling him by law to take the advice of three subordinate officers of other Departments. That is the position, and anybody who knows anything of Government Departments knows that is so. These three Financial Secretaries are the subordinate officers of the Secretaries of State for their Departments. To compel the Pensions Minister to go to subordinate officers of other Departments for advice is surely absurd. Have you put anything in the Bill that he has to follow that advice? Not a word. He has to ask for the advice. Is there any Department of the Government to-day that cannot get the advice and does not get the advice of every other Department? I say that if there is such a Department, the head of that Department ought to leave the Bench at once. I am sure they are purely redundant words. Why should we lay it down that the Pensions Minister should always be the Paymaster-General? It is not at all necessary. Why should we tie ourselves like this? We did not do so in the case of the Minister of Munitions. We did not

  549
  say he ought always to be somebody else. Let the Government in future appoint the man look fitted carry out this kind of work, quite irrespective of wnanl athor duties may be. I am one of those who want to see a whole-timer. I welcome the decision that the House has come to. We decided that we would have one man running this show, and we do not want to tie his hands in any way. There is no question about being obliged to leave the present occupiers of these posts in the Bill because they had first been put in. It is no insult to the Gentlemen to leave him out. They know perfectly well they have as much to do as they can tackle at the present time—indeed, they have more than they can do. There is no harder working Member of this House than the Financial Secretary to the War Office. The one object we want is to relieve him of this work, because we know he has such an enormous amount of other work to do already.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I desire also to support the Amendment that has been moved. The first part of the Clause that we have before us lays down a very clear, simple, and direct principle, namely, that there shall be a Minister of Pensions. The latter part of the Clause proceeds to qualify that in various ways. In the first place, the Minister himself is not to be a whole timer. He is to have associated with him another Department and he is to divide his energies between two Departments. Not only is that so, but as has been said he is to have associated with him Ministers from three other Departments. That very seriously qualifies the simple and straightforward principle that there ought to be a Ministry of Pensions. What is the object sought to be attained in this Bill by having associated with the Ministers these three representatives of other Departments? It must have been put in for some definite purpose and to achieve some valuable result. I cannot see what the object is. The only object which I can imagine is the object of consultation. Does not that follow as a matter of course? If there is any technical matter whatever on which consultation with another Department is necessary any Minister of any Department will always consult another Department. A Minister is not an independent potentate who evolves in the seclusion of his own office what policy is necessary on great national affairs and comes down as a great potentate to announce his policy
  550
  to the House. All great questions of policy with regard to any Department must always be settled by the Minister of that Department in consultation with the Cabrnee and If the Cabinet wishes for the views of some specine Department be definitely ascertained they secure that even if the particular Minister concerned has neglected to do so. The fighting Services, the Army and the Navy, and the other service, the Local Government Board, which has been dragged in, have no special concern with men after they have been discharged from the Army and the Navy. They are specially concerned with them as long as they are fighting members of the forces. But after they have been disabled and are unfit for services in any of the forces and have come back to civil employment, or lack of employment, the Army and Navy have no special concern with them any more than the Board of Agriculture or the Home Secretary.
  These men are really a national charge, and every Department and every member of the Cabinet has the same interest in them. Is it suggested that the fighting Services are going to be injured in any way if the future of the discharged soldiers and sailors is determined solely with regard to civil interests outside? I can conceive of a situation in which it might be desirable to have statutory representation of the Army and Navy. That would be so if the Minister of Pensions were dealing with Service pensions, with pensions which were really a matter of discipline, or pensions that were a matter of deferred pay. If he were dealing with these matters, then undoubtedly it would be desirable to have these Services represented, but all these service pensions have been specifically reserved for the Army and Navy. The new Minister of Pensions cannot touch them at all, and that being the case, the Army and the Navy have no more specific claim to be represented and can render no more valuable service than any other Department. This is a matter which ought to be decided without any reference to the fighting Services. It ought to be determined solely on national and civil grounds, upon the duty of the nation as a whole to those men who have been broken in this War. Again, we know from the daily discussion of affairs in this House, that the two fighting Services are overworked. The Financial Secretary to the War

  551
  Office, who is sitting there, has, on a multiplicity of occasions, to undertake work which does not strictly belong to his Department in this House He is here doing practically the whole of the daily Parliamentary work of the Secretary of State quite outside his own Department, and he has repeatedly to tell us he has not had time to devote to the consideration of matters on which he is answering questions in this House. Here in this Bill there is an opportunity of securing devolution and cutting the fighting Services free from this entirely civil work, and allowing them to concentrate their attention on winning the War and conducting the fighting Services as they should be conducted. This Bill, in its present form, still contains the taint of compromise. Sometimes compromise is necessary. If you have conflicting interests in the country you must compromise between them, but there is no conflicting interest in this country here. The only conflicting interest is the interest of the various Departments, and this is a Departmental compromise which conflicts with the interest of the country as a whole. I suggest that the only clear, simple, and straightforward method of procedure is to adopt the Amendment which has been moved.
  Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I should like to understand more clearly what this Clause means before deciding which way to vote. "The Minister of Pensions must be Paymaster-General, to be advised by certain gentlemen." What does that mean? One hears about the King being advised by his Ministers. We know what that means. Does this particular wording indicate that the Minister of Pensions is to be instructed in his policy by the particular advice that these three Departmental officials may have to give him? Does it mean, for instance, that when dealing with the Admiralty he must confer with the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, and must accept his advice? If all it means is this, that the Minister of Pensions really has a free hand, that he can come to decisions entirely according to his own judgment, I can see very great advantage in the retention of the Clause in its present form. I think it must be perfectly obvious that the arrangement devised in this Bill can only be a temporary measure; therefore we have to consider what will take place
  552
  during the War. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has referred to a military clean cut. When it Bill into law, certain men will not be in the fighting Services, and certain men will be in the fighting Services, and those can at once be sent to the separate Departments. I imagine there will be some little difficulty in the particular process and the particular moment of time when a man can be transferred from one department to another. I can quite conceive, as far as the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty is concerned, there may be certain periods of time in which, without consultation between the two Departments, there will be serious overlapping. I could imagine the Minister of Pensions saying to the Admiralty, "How and when are we to transfer the various cases that I have before me from your Admiralty Pensions list to that of the Department over which I am presiding?" If it is perfectly clear that the Minister of Pensions is supreme, if he stands in precisely the same position with regard to his Department as the Minister of Munitions does in regard to his, or the Secretary of State for War in regard to his Department, then I really cannot see why my hon. Friend should wax so eloquent about divided authority.
  Unless I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister of Pensions is supreme, that he does act entirely upon his own authority, I shall support the Amendment, but if it means—and I fancy this is really what it does mean—that those who have drafted the Bill know perfectly well that for some months at least, and probably for some years to come, the co-ordination of these different Departments will be a great difficulty, and the transfer of men from one Department to another will present very great problems, then it seems to me it was a very wise provision, because it would impose upon these Gentlemen an obligation of really serving under the Minister of Pensions. If they were meant to be coequal officials, surely the heads of the various Departments concerned would have been appointed as the men who were to advise with the Minister of Pensions? That would have been quite a different matter. If, instead of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty being called upon for advice, it had been the First Lord of the Admiralty, and, instead of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, it had been the Secretary of State for War, then that would have made a tremendous difference. The Minister of

  553
  Pensions then would have had slender authority, and would have been in a minority for his own Department. But if these three Gentlemen, who are subordinate members of the Government, have no voting power, if they cannot impose their will and pleasure on the Minister of Munitions, then I am satisfied. What I really think is intended is to give the Minister of Pensions a hold upon these Gentlemen, in order to serve him in an advisory capacity which otherwise he would not have had over them. Supposing the Minister of Pensions wants advice from the Financial Secretary to the War Department, and calls upon him, the Secretary to the War Office might say, "This is not my business; I am too full of other duties as regards the foolish questions I have to answer from day to day—all the ingenious questions that really have no bearing on the War at all. I must satisfy the House of Commons, or they might turn me out of my position; therefore, I cannot assist the Pensions Department." As I understand, this Bill provides that the Minister of Pensions shall be able to consult the three Gentlemen naned in the Clause, and be in a position to call upon them to give him advice.
  If the Minister of Pensions disregards that advice or thinks that it is not wise, and that his own policy is better, he is perfectly at liberty to pursue that policy; but he would not be in a position to do all that if these words were not in the Bill. Do not let us run away with words, or rather do not let words run away with us. That is the sort of thing that is constantly happening. We are quite right in asking for unity of administration, but do not let us make a species of shibboleth of that word. You will often arrive at unity in administration very much more effectively by concentration than you can by rushing away upon some preconceived opinion. You can better get through pressure by a little investigation than you can by laying down a hard and fast line, and a Minister, in seeking unity of administration, should not find himself overlapping or getting into difficulties with the Admiralty or the War Office. On the balance of considerations—of course there is something to be said on both sides—I at least am of opinion that this particular Clause does not deprive the Minister of Pensions of any prestige, or authority, or function as head of the Department, but it does, in fact, give him the right to ask the assist-
  554
  ance and advice of members of other Departments who could not otherwise be called upon if these powers were not in the Bill. We have to consider also what may happen during the next few months, and, in my view, we ought to retain the words in the Bill, and ought not to accept the Amendment.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I hope the House will allow me to say a few words in regard to what has been said. My hon. Friend who has just sat down said if he was satisfied that the authority of the Minister of Pensions was going to be supreme, he would assent to the words proposed in the Bill as they stand. I give him that assurance at once. There is no question whatever, there is no arriére pensée or reservation about the proposal we make, that the authority of the Minister of Pensions is supreme. What we propose here is that he shall have the right to call upon three other Ministers, who are named in the Bill, for their advice. There is no thought in our mind of exercising anything in the nature of undue influence, or anything of that kind, upon my right hon. Friend, and if we had that in mind we might be grievously disappointed if we tried to exercise it upon him. What are the reasons which have moved us in leaving in three Ministers, who may be summoned in the position of advisers. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment said that one Department communicating with another cannot make for dispatch, or something to that effect. It is because we want to make for dispatch that we have put this proposal in the Bill. I do not think that anybody who has not had departmental experience can possibly realise two Departments running side by side in matters of administration. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which two?"] The Ministry of Pensions and the other Departments concerned—the Admiralty and the Statutory Committee. You cannot make a clean cut. It sounds all right in theory to say "make a clean cut between the Pensions Ministry and the War Office," but at any rate for a very considerable time to come you cannot make a clean cut, because when you are considering small pensions for soldiers or sailors there are matters of which the Minister of Pensions must be in possession when coming to a determination with regard to them. What is the best way of putting my right hon. Friend in possession of the information he wants to have?

  555
  Do you want to have eternal intercommunication between Departments by means of correspondence, with which we are so familiar, and which we all so much regret? You do not want that. All that we wish to see done is that my right hon. Friend, if he wants advice from the War Office, shall be able to ask me to come and talk with him, and so settle it together. An hon. Member said in the course of his speech that it is not necessary to throw this burden upon the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and that some other official of the War Office might be got to do the work. You cannot do that, because nobody has authority to do it. What would happen if you deputed some officer of the Department to consult with my right hon. Friend? He would have to come back to get authority from me, or from the Secretary of State, to carry out any arrangement that had been suggested where the War Office was concerned. It is in the very interests of quick dispatch of business that this proposal is made.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of where it might be necessary to consult?
  Mr. FORSTER: I cannot at the moment.
  Mr. SCANLAN: Would it not be simpler if the Pensions Minister decided the matter for himself, without consulting these hon. Gentlemen?
  Mr. FORSTER: I submit that in the interests of smooth working—and we want to make the working of this Bill as smooth as we can—that if you are going to study the interests of the pensioners, rather than cling to a theory which the House apparently has fallen in love with, and if you want to obtain smooth and quick working of this measure, you will do well to keep these words in the Bill. It is said, of course, that one Minister can always consult another. That is perfectly true, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that as long as I am in my present office I shall always be willing, whether the words are in the Bill or not, to give my right hon. Friend such advice as he may desire to have or which I am able to give. It is one thing to say that the Minister of Pensions is free to consult any other Minister he likes, but it is quite another thing to have the obligation put upon my shoulders, and on the shoulders of my
  556
  right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, by the House of Commons to place ourselves at the disposal of the Minister of Pensions when our advice is sought. The House on Monday last aimed at two things. It aimed at unification of system and it aimed at the creation of a Minister of Pensions as opposed to a Board of Pensions. We have accepted, loyally accepted, the view of the House as expressed by the Amendment we have put down, and if the system which is now suggested, in what we may call the new Bill, be proved to be unworkable, it is open to the House to make such further Amendments in it as experience may show to be necessary. But I say frankly, and I say perfectly bluntly, that the House of Commons is going to make a great mistake if they divorce the two great fighting Services from the position which they occupy in the Bill. I say frankly and perfectly straightly to the House of Commons that I believe they will make a great mistake if they divorce us from the position of advisers in the way this Bill suggests. I hope, therefore, that the House will not accept the Amendment.
  Sir FRANCIS LOWE: My hon. Friend who spoke on the other side said this was a temporary measure. It is nothing of the kind; there is no Clause whatever which says that it is only to operate for the period of the War and no longer, and until the House alters the Bill it will, as an Act, remain in operation for all time. I am perfectly certain that the object of every member of this Committee is to do all he can to avoid any unnecessary delay in supplying the pensions and seeing them paid over to the recipients as soon as it possibly can be done. In order to bring that about we should make the Bill as simple as we possibly can. First of all, why on earth should we, in the Bill, say that the Paymaster-General, no matter who he is, shall be for all time the Minister of Pensions? We may believe very much in the present Paymaster-General as a very suitable occupant of the position, but another Paymaster-General appointed some time hereafter might not be at all a suitable man. I submit that kind of thing is contrary to precedent and most unusual. The Bill says that there shall be appointed a Minister of Pensions, and that is as far as the Committee want to go. We say that the Minister of Pensions shall be appointed with full power, and there is nothing what

  557
  ever in the Bill to prevent his receiving the advice of anybody whose advice he wishes to take. I cannot imagine for a moment that the various Secretaries who are included in this Bill would refuse to give that advice whenever the new Minister of Pensions asked them for it, and I do not think that the Gentlemen appointed to these responsible offices in connection with the Admiralty and War Office would for a moment refuse to give advice if they were asked to assist the Minister of Pensions in the proper administration of his office. I see by the Clause further down that the Minister of Pensions can appoint as many officials, servants, and assistants as he likes and that he can distribute the work they have to do in the manner which he thinks best It seems to me that in this way ho will have the fullest power to obtain any assistance or advice that he likes. For these reasons I do not think we need go further. I think it would be monstrously absurd for this Committee to say that the Paymaster-General, whoever he may be, shall for all time be Minister of Pensions, and I, for one, will not be a party to anything of the kind.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS (Ecclesall, Sheffield): I think the Financial Secretary to the War Office was perfectly right in his interpretation of this Clause, and that there is no doubt about the fact that the sole power is in the hands of the Minister. Clause 2 says that there shall be transferred to the Minister—first, the powers of the Admiralty, then those of the Commissioners of Chelsea, and, finally, the powers of the Army Council.
  Mr. SCANLAN: What about Clause 1?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am dealing with Clause 2, and my point is that the sole power of decision is, under that Clause, in the hands of the Minister of Pensions. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] I think it is and that it is perfectly clear. The point raised by the Amendment is, Shall these Departments be suddenly divorced from the pension question which they have had to administer and which they are administering now? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] You cannot suddenly cut them off and allow the Minister of Pensions to go his own way. and I am sure he would not wish to go his own way, but would wish to be advised by those who know what they have been doing in the past and what they are doing now. I think it is perfectly
  558
  right that the three hon. Gentlemen mentioned should be consulted in cases where the Minister wishes their advice. The words are, "and shall be advised by." I take it that those mean "shall be advised where he thinks it necessary."
  Mr. S. WALSH: Nothing of the kind!
  Mr. ROBERTS: I think it means that he is to adopt their advice if he likes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] That is my construction of the matter, and I support the position taken up by the Government.
  Mr. MILLAR: I desire to support the Amendment mainly on the ground that the words in question undoubtedly restrict and limit the powers of the Minister. I think hon. and learned Gentlemen present will agree with me that the words "shall be advised" are mandatory. If it had been the intention of those who drafted this Bill that the Minister's decision should be final and that he should have no restriction placed on his action, then I would suggest the words employed in Clause 3 with reference to the Statutory Committee, which provide that the Statutory Committee shall render to the Minister of Pensions advice and assistance in respect of any matter on which such advice and assistance is requested by the Minister. I would suggest that it is most desirable that nothing should be done which might in any way affect or influence the policy of the Minister in any important question he may have to deal with. The hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office stated that it was desirable that he should have special powers to invoke the aid of the War Office, and it has been suggested by hon. Members opposite that it is necessary that those powers should be given by Statute. I submit that is quite unnecessary. Surely those three Departments which are intimately associated with and interested in this question will be at all times ready to give every assistance in their power. We know that the hon. Members who represent them are anxious to do everything in their power to advance the interests of the pensions scheme. I think it would be most unfortunate if any words were allowed to remain in this Clause which would have the effect in law of restricting the power of the Minister. I accept my hon. Friend's assurance that it is not the intention to fetter the Minister; but why not make it perfectly clear. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to put in words such as those

  559
  employed in Section 3 to which I have referred, the matter, I think, could be settled in that way.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am unable to give any assurance on behalf of the Government that these words would be considered preferable to the words which are in the Bill. My right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill is absent for a few moments. As I am one of the three persons mentioned, I am quite ready to say for myself that, personally, I should be quite ready to accept these words in exchange for the other words, so far as I am concerned, because my intention is the intention of the House that there shall be one unified system of pensions, for which I have been asking for two years, and one Pensions Minister, for which I have been asking for over two years. It is fully the intention, so far as I am concerned, that the present Minister for Pensions should be the supreme authority just as is any other Minister in exercising authority in any other Department. But I do think it is useful, if I may say so as one of them, from the point of view of the soldier and the sailor, that we should be associated in the way of giving advice and assistance to my right hon. Friend, and that it should toe a duty not only that devolves on one because one is a member of the same Government, but that it should be a duty imposed upon us by Statute, and that my right hon. Friend should have the right to look for our advice or assistance.
  My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary explained why he considers that he would be a useful adjunct to the system. I heard some voices at the time say, "What about the Local Government Board? What have you got to do with it?" Somebody said that the Local Government Board had nothing whatever to do with it. It has. I think it is admitted in this discussion this evening that the pivot upon which any good machinery is going to turn for the benefit of the soldier and the sailor will be the local committees. Those local committees are set up by schemes approved toy the Statutory Committee and which have been framed by the county councils and borough councils and the various local authorities. I have taken part in framing those schemes, and I have spent many weary hours and days and
  560
  weeks in doing so. You may at times have to alter your scheme, and those bodies look more to the Local Government Board than they look to any other branch of our administration for advice and assistance. They are constantly coming to the Local Government Board for advice and assistance, whether the matter is actually concerned with the Local Government Board or not, and our inspectors are constantly advising these local bodies. Quite apart from that, let me remind the House that the whole of the finance of these local committees is really under the sanction and control of the Local Government Board. By the Local Government Emergency Act no county council or borough cuncil can spend mney upon administrative expenses of its pensions committee unless those administrative expenses are sanctioned by the Local Government Board. Further than that, the Treasury has now, very naturally wishing to disburden itself of some of its duties, cast upon the Local Government Board the duty of saying whether or not in the case of every one of these committees which they propose to take out of the rates is a reasonable expenditure or whether it is not.
  There is, I think, one good reason why in a state of transition, for that is really what we are legislating for, it would be a good thing that it should be cast upon me as Secretary to the Local Government Board officially the duty to endeavour by any advice and any assistance I can render to make the whole of this machinery go round more smoothly in the interests of soldiers and sailors. I think, possibly, that there is an added inducement in putting me on as one of the three advisers because of my very long connection with the pension system in this country, now over seventeen years, as an ex officio member of every single committee of the Statutory Committees. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite said time after time that none of us had an hour to spare for the work of pensions. I have looked at my diary and made a calculation and on the average I have never been engaged less than twenty hours in every week adjudicating on pensions and endeavouring to get our pensions system into better working order, that is our of four working days ever since the War began. I have looked into certainly not hundreds but thousands of cases and I have answered thousands of letters from all over the country, and I think I can humbly say that my advice and assistance

  561
  will be likely to be of considerable use to the Minister of Pensions. I assured him that any experience and any knowledge I have I shall be only too pleased to place at his disposal quite voluntarily. [An Hon. MEMBFR: "Why put it in the Bill?"] But I agree with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that it is very much better that it should be put into the Act and imposed upon us as a duty, and we shall be expected to do it. I admit you could argue the other way. I think I have made out at least some case for the Secretary to the Local Government Board being associated with my right hon. Friend. If there is any need for it, let me assure the House that there is no rivalry on the part of any of us—none whatever! Personally I recognise that it is much better that a Cabinet Minister should be Pensions Minister. A Cabinet Minister will have much more chance of influencing the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is the real person whom we shall have to get into our councils if we want to alter the Royal Warrants, and attend to many of those sad cases of which we read every day of our lives where pensions are being denied to those who have done admirable service for their country. I hope that I have made out a reasonable case, and that I shall neither be sent to the gallows or to another place as the result of any services I may be able to render.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I have listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend, and I think I shall be voicing the universal opinion of the House when I say how much we all recognise the pensions system owes to his work. We recognise, too, the very great foresight he showed long ago as to the ultimate development of this question. But if I may so, with great respect to him, and his somewhat melancholy foreboding as to his future, that is not quite the Amendment before the House. It has been suggested that we who support the Amendment want to divorce the Minister of Pensions from the three intimate Friends who at the present moment surround him. That is not so. We want them to act in exactly the same amity and concord in the future as now. The real point, however, is: are the words in this Bill really necessary or advisable for that purpose? That is the real point of the Amendment. First of all, with regard to the Paymaster-General, it is beyond controversy that not one member of the Government has raised his voice in support of these words. There has not
  562
  been one word of justification for saying that these five words should remain in the Bill, for this obvious reason: The Paymaster-General has, as I understand it, a sinecure office. If the office is that, and it is no longer required, then let the office be abolished. Do not let us have a sinecure office in name and make it a paid office in the name of the Minister of Pensions.
  Let us come to the second part. The right hon. Gentleman is referred to in the Bill as Paymaster-General. I understand in this office he does nothing, and receives nothing. He is, in fact, we know, Labour Adviser to the Government. What does it come to? I do not wish to say a word offensively about one for whom, as he knows, I have great respect. But the right hon. Gentleman is really under this Bill a half-timer. He is Pensions Minister half his time and Labour Adviser the other half of his time. But whereas as Minister of Pensions he spends his time in receiving advice from the three Gentlemen, the rest of his time is given to advising the twenty-two other Gentlemen in the Cabinet. I am very glad to know that this Bill does not provide for anybody's advice except the advice of these three Gentlemen. But it is not very respectful to them. All the Bill provides for is that he shall be advised by them, but as to accepting that advice, I am not so sure. I could have understood the Bill provided that the right hon. Gentleman should take the advice of his colleagues. In view of that at present it is simply an academic discussion in regard to these four Gentlemen. The Bill in effect says that the Minister of Pensions, when an important point comes up, has so little ultimate confidence of being able to make up his mind alone that he is under Statute, to call the three other Gentlemen into consultation with him to advise him. He need not, however, take their advice. Let me put a case.
  Supposing the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions has one view upon an important policy, and calls in the other three Gentlemen, who give contrary advice to his own view. What will he do? I really do not know what he will do, but I suggest that one of the points which will occur to him will be this: "I take one view and these other three Gentlemen take another view; the Statute says I shall be advised by them, and the Statute really meant that if my opinion was contrary to the opinion of these three Gentlemen I

  563
  should follow their advice." At any rate, he would have some reluctance to act upon his own advice contrary to that of the three Gentlemen whom the Statute says should advise him. I submit that this is a point of substance. One does not want to go into any detail in discussing these matters, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, I feel perhaps it is not quite gracious on our part—that is, some of us who take this point now—to take this objection at this stage, when we admit that the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends have met us most generously in regard to the main points. But it is only because I really think that the Government are a great deal more anxious about the success of the undertaking than about any form of words that I am making this appeal to them. I had intended to refer to Clause 3, where the words are quite different. Clause 3 says:
  "The Statutory Committee shall render to the Minister of Pensions advice and assistance in respect of any matter on which such advice and assistance is requested by the Minister."
  I do not think this is very flattering to the three Gentlemen. They can only give advice. On the other hand, the Statutory Committee, according to these words, can give both assistance and advice—which is a very different thing! The Minister may require advice, and he may require assistance, though he may not necessarily get the latter when he gets the former, and he may have better assistance in not having advice. One other point, which I think is one of substance. In Clause 8, as I understand it, the heads of the Departments in the Admiralty and the War Office, who really have experience of this matter, will go to the Minister of Pensions. Subsection (1) says:
  "There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry of Pensions such of the persons employed under the Admiralty, the Commissioners of the said hospital, the War Office, and the Statutory Committee in or about the execution of the powers and duties transferred to the Minister of Pensions by this Act.…"
  Therefore the right hon. Gentleman will have skilled servants to help him in this matter. About this I am quite certain, we are not dealing with this matter in any cantankerous spirit at all. We are quite certain that the four right hon. Gentlemen
  564
  are most anxious to meet the wishes of this Committee. There is no difference of opinion as to the aim to be arrived at, and I am satisfied that the Committee will come to some agreement upon the matter.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I want to respond to the invitation of my right hon. Friend. I can assure the Committee that the whole desire, not only of myself, but of those with whom I am associated in this matter is to try to put into the Bill what we conceive to be the position of the Committee as it found expression on Monday. I thought we had managed to do that in the White Paper. I have listened very attentively to the Debate on the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, and I want to see how far it is possible for us to come to agreement. The Amendment divides itself into two parts. I think I must, before I make the suggestion I am about to make, offer an observation or two in regard to the first part. It proposes to leave out of this Clause "Who shall be Paymaster-General" That leads me to notice the objection that has been raised during the stages of, the discussions on this Bill in regard to myself. I have tried to say before that whilst the office of Paymaster-General has been treated, I think, by some of the occupants of the office as a sinecure, there is an amount of work to be done by a Paymaster-General who is willing to do it of the kind that will come under the direction, control, and administration of the Minister of Pensions. I refer to the work in connection with Chelsea Hospital. It is because I have been brought so closely into touch with that work during the past few months that I have realised all the limitations and anomalies of our pensions system, and in fact many of its injustices. I do not mind saying, as I said in a previous discussion, that if there is a feeling in the House that the work under the new Department is going to be so onerous that it is quite impossible for me to discharge the work of the dual position of Labour Adviser and Pensions Minister then I am quite prepared to have that matter settled straight away. The longer the Debate on the Bill goes on, however, the more I am convinced that there is some confusion and misunderstanding as to the duties devolving upon me in my capacity as Labour Adviser.
  6.0 P.M.
  More than one Member of the House has given me to understand he understood that when this appointment was made and the new Department was organised that we

  565
  took over important executive functions from some of the other Departments that were dealing with labour questions. I want to assure the Committee that that was not so. There is no executive functions whatsoever to be discharged by myself or by my Department. To-day I may be called upon to advise one or more Departments; to-morrow I may be called upon to advise none. When I got the Department organised with the valuable assistance, as I have pointed out, of my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts), it left me free to devote my time to the work of the chairmanship of Chelsea Hospital. Let it be understood that having given up my position as President of the Board of Education to attend to the fullest extent to the work of Labour Adviser, if I have to make a choice—as I told the House on the Second Reading of the Bill—that if representations were made to the Prime Minister that it was considered impossible for me adequately, effectively, and efficiently to discharge the duties of the two positions, and I was compelled to make a choice—then I shall make the choice of remaining at my work as Labour Adviser. I want to make that perfectly clear, because it will mean me giving up my work—especially if this part of the Amendment is carried—in connection with the chairmanship of the Chelsea Commissioners. I should like the Committee to recollect that the Chelsea Commissioners do not cease to exist when this Bill becomes law. They will still have important functions to discharge in connection with the large number of aged pensioners at the hospital, and they will still have administrative work to do at the War Office in connection with the Service pensions. Hon. Members will see there is still going to be work for the Paymaster-General—work that he ought to do, and work that no one else can do, except the Governor of the hospital takes his position in the absence of the chairman. All that work must devolve upon the Paymaster-General. But may I put this point to the Committee? In view of the talk there has been about a half-time office, suppose we accept the first part of the Amendment, it may be interpreted that that is an expression of the opinion of the Committee that the present Paymaster-General should not continue as the Pensions Minister. [HON.
  566
  MEMBERS: "No!"] Let us face the question about the half-timer. Let us be perfectly fair. I am going to be perfectly candid with the Committee. What can be the construction? In every Debate we have had on the Bill in many speeches the question as to my ability to give the time to discharge the duties of Pensions Minister has been raised, and only a few-moments ago we had an hon. Member saying they were not going to have a halt-timer. I have told the House that I feel I can organise this Department without detriment to the advisory work I have to do as Labour Adviser. If the House says it is not going to have a half-timer, or, in other words, that anybody who holds another position must not be appointed to the position of Pensions Minister—I want to try to understand the Amendment, and I want the Committee to understand its possible effect. The first part of the Amendment deletes the Paymaster-General for the time being from being Pensions Minister—[Hon MEMBERS: "No!"]—as Paymaster-General. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] That is how I interpret it. The words are perfectly clear. You must not take the words irrespective of the Debate that has been raised on every stage of the Bill. It will take out the words "who shall be the Paymaster-General." Have we to accept that as being the expression of the mind of the Committee, that because the present Paymaster-General is a half-timer, or, if you like, that the Paymaster-General, so long as he holds any other office—and there is an Amendment down to that effect—cannot be the Pensions Minister, and therefore he must make a choice?
  Sir F. LOWE: Might I just explain, as I referred to the Paymaster-General? I personally objected to the Paymaster-General being designated as the Minister of Pensions for all time. I said it should be left a perfectly open question. These Ministers are generally appointed, not by an Act of Parliament, but by the King and on the advice of the Prime Minister, and there is no reason whatsoever why the Prime Minister should not recommend the present holder of the office of Paymaster-General to be the Minister of Pensions.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I understand now it is desired to divorce entirely the connection of these words in the first part of the Amendment from all association with the statements made regarding the half-timer.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I have never opened my lips about half-timers, and I had not the slightest desire in any remarks I made to suggest that my right hon. Friend should not hold the office. As to one's opinions, we will not say anything, but certainly not a single reference was made in my speech to any such idea as my right hon. Friend has in his mind.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I do not for a moment suggest that the Mover of the Amendment made any such reference, but he has sat through the Debate and has heard a number of speakers refer to it. All I want to do is to make it perfectly clear to the Committee that if there is to be any influence brought on the mind of the Prime Minister that a half-timer, as has been suggested, cannot hold this office, and I have to make a choice, my choice is made. I shall remain Labour Adviser and ask the Prime Minister to appoint a Minister of Pensions. With regard to the suggestion that has been made from both sides of the Committee, I am exceedingly anxious to meet the Committee; in fact, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I thought we had done so in the proposals contained in the White Paper. If we can come to an agreement, I make this suggestion: that we delete from the new Clause 1 the words "advised by," in order to insert the words "entitled to receive advice and assistance from." Then go on to the end of the Clause, and it would continue "in respect of any matter on which such advice and assistance is requested by the Minister." It appears to me that if we could compromise on those words, it is a very fair offer, and, if the Committee will agree, I will ask the permission of the Chair to move it
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would be necessary to have the present Amendment withdrawn.
  Mr. BOOTH: I have endeavoured to press upon the Committee what I think is more important than these three offices, and that is the position of the National Insurance Act. If you are going to take advice you must surely take advice from the National Insurance Commissioners, nearly all the people concerned being insured persons. Ninety per cent. at least of these people are insured per-Bons, and already there is the greatest overlapping. I submit there will be no unification and no proper settlement unless the Minister of Pensions is pre-
  568
  pared boldly to face the position of these men under the Insurance Act, where they have paid for these pensions.
  Major NEWMAN: Might I ask to what Amendment the hon. Member is speaking?
  Mr. BOOTH: I am on the Amendment before the Committee with regard to the deletion of these names, and I am arguing that the men who are named here to give advice are not the right people. I think it would be a great mistake to direct the Pensions Minister to consult the Navy, the Army, and the Local Government Board, if you are giving directions to him, and not ask him to consult the National Insurance authorities, because what is happening? The Army and Navy Boards at the present time are telling their men, "you are only partially disabled" and they are following that up with partial pension. That compels those men to go on to the Insurance Act, and when they do that the Insurance Act doctor says, "You are completely disabled." The man replies, "No, sir. I have been certified as partially disabled by the Army (or Navy), and I have only got a partial pension." "But," says the insurance doctor, "you are totally disabled, and you must have a disablement pension from the approved society for the rest of your life." I am not urging anything more than that the Pensions Minister must deal with that point, otherwise there will be a collapse in the Act. Those cases are multiplied every week by scores and hundreds. The very first experience of the new Pensions Minister, I venture to think, will be deputations from all the approved societies saying that their funds are strained to breaking point. I am not raising this on a personal ground because I want a particular individual put here. It may be that the Pensions Minister will give me the assurance that he will look into it. I am willing to accept that. But I see the danger of vested interests coming in and pushing the obligation on to insurance funds. I do not charge the present occupants because, when this point came up in a very urgent way, no one could have been more considerate than the two present occupants. We were successful in getting an alteration, though I cannot forget their Departments did not hinder the proposal whereby 5s. invalidity pension was to go in reduction of the Army and Navy pension,

  569
  which meant that, although men had paid for it by a compulsory deduction from their wages, the Army and Navy were going to deduct the 5s. The representatives of the two Departments could not have behaved better, and we owe it to them to put things right, but at first they put the departmental view, egged on by the Treasury.
  That is an experience we must all guard against, and I do say it is a most serious point. If you are going to have three advisers, why should not the Chairman of the Joint Committee under the National Insurance Act also be there in case the Pensions Minister wants to see him? I think he is far more important than these three. The present Army of 5,000,000 consists of insured persons. You are deducting from them now. While they are in the Army you have got a scheme, and when they come out the point is that the Army and Navy should follow them. I am not objecting to these three representatives acting as advisers, but is there any case against the Pensions Minister familiarising himself with the position of the Insurance Act and taking all circumstances into account so that there will be no confusion? If my right hon. Friend could say, without any direction in the Act, that he would look into this matter, I do not want any more pledge than that.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I would like to assure my hon. Friend that I have been doing so already, and have been in conference with some of the Insurance Commissioners on the subject.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment. I have got an Amendment on the Paper which the right hon. Gentleman challenged in the speech just now. He says that if there is any question raised as to whether he is to be Labour Adviser to the Government, if this interferes with his occupancy of the position of Pensions Minister, he knows the course he will take. The whole object of the Amendment which will be considered later is to the effect that whoever is Pensions Minister should devote his whole attention to that office. I think the Committee will agree with me that the policy of the amount which should be given as allowances, the settlement of points which will arise from time to time, and the creation of a Department, will require the assiduous attention of the
  570
  Minister, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks he can combine this with other work, I am convinced that the Committee will not agree with him. As a person in a position to advise the Government about labour, there is no one who occupies a more pre-eminent place than my right hon. Friend. But it does not necessarily follow that his successor will be in the same position, and even my right hon. Friend surely would not maintain that he is the only person who can advise the Government with regard to matters of labour. The Labour party in this country is a very big party, and there are many representatives of Labour quite as well able to advise the Government as the right hon. Gentleman in regard to labour troubles, and I think when he sets himself out to take up the position that be is not going to be Pensions Minister, if it will deprive the Government of his services as Labour Adviser, he is putting his personal claim rather too high. Here is a position being created, a most important one, of a Minister of Pensions. The whole time of any man, no matter how capable he may be, is necessary for this position, and the Committee should insist that in appointing a Minister of Pensions we should have a man whose whole time will be devoted to the settlement of pension claims and the policy of pensions. If the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to take up this office, and feels his responsibility as Paymaster-General or Labour Advisor conflicts with the new duties, he should not accept the responsibility of the position. I am very glad it is not going to be necessary to have the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. I think the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying if he chooses to take advice he may take it, but he should not be compelled to take it. I think the Amendment should be carried, and then the Bill would be better, and the position of the right hon. Gentleman would be more secure in administering the Pensions Act if he is left without the necessity of consulting those other officers of the Government. I support the Amendment.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I hope the Government will really seriously consider this matter before they refuse to accept this Amendment. I put down an Amendment

  571
  to the same affect the moment this Bill came out, and I did so without any reference to any of those personal questions which have been most unfortunately raised during this Debate, and which I do not think come within our cognisance at present. I put down my Amendment because I felt that this was not the place to put in any definite recommendation with regard to the people to fill these positions under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will be appointed Minister of Pensions, I hope, by the Soverign on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and the mere fact that we strike out the Paymaster-General, in my opinion, ought to have no effect whatever in this respect. We object to the insertion of the Paymaster-General, because in an Act which is going to last for years there is no reason to think that it will be advisable to put future Paymasters-General into the office of Minister of Pensions. It is an accident that the right hon. Gentleman happens to hold this post now, but we should not tie the hands of the Sovereign in regard to the choice of a Minister. The same observation applies to the other officers mentioned. If the Minister of Pensions is to have the right to have the advice and assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board—and I would suggest the Chairman of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee—they would be most useful in rendering assistance to the Pensions Minister. I think it would be a great mistake to put into this Act these particular representatives who are the juniors of those three Departments, who are always to be turned to for advice and assistance.
  There is going to be a very considerable change, and we are setting up a Ministry of Pensions that is to be a branch of our Civil administration. We cannot attach too much importance to this fact that the House wishes to put this question of pensions into a Civil administration branch and take it out of the two military Departments. That is the main object of the change, and that being so, it has been accepted by the House and by the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister of Pensions shall be the supreme authority. All we have to do now is to ask that the Minister shall have the right to obtain advice
  572
  and assistance from these—offcers. The Pensions Minister is going to take over-all the members of the staff of those Departments who know anything about the subject. I agree that for the first year or two the new Minister of Pensions will have to be in constant and close communication with those Departments, but those matters can be better adjusted by the Cabinet than by us trying to put it into an Act of Parliament. The moment the Pensions Minister is in the saddle he will go to the Prime Minister and make some working arrangement in concert with those three great Departments, and unless he does the whole thing will fail. It is far better to do it in that way than try to do it by an Act of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the position that we are not putting any obligation upon him to receive the advice and that we are only empowering him to take it, I think he had better drop out those words altogether, because, after all, this means nothing as regards his personal position.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I make another offer to the hon. Member who Moved this Amendment. In view of the explanation I have given, I am quite willing to accept the part of the Amendment as far as the Paymaster-General is concerned. I would ask that the other part of the Clause should remain on the lines I suggested a moment ago, and with this offer I hope we may now be able to proceed with the Bill.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has made that statement. I have listened to every speech which has been made this afternoon, and I think we might well come to a settlement of the point before us. With regard to the latter part of the Amendment, I think the Government have made a very good offer. The drafting of the Clause has given rise to a considerable amount of misconception. I had drafted the words, "as and when it may be considered necessary to have the co-operation and assistance." However, I think that the words of the Government are better for this purpose, and so far as I am concerned I am satisfied with what has been suggested with regard to the latter portion of the Clause. I think the Committee ought to recognise here and now exactly the position in reference to this office which is about to be created. The Government have made a great mistake in asking the House of Commons to decide who is to be the occu-

  573
  pant of this office. There is absolutely no precedent for it. It is not impossible that there may be a reconstruction of this Government, perhaps in the course of a month or two, and then the Prime Minister for the time being, under this proposal, would be bound by Act of Parliament to put the Gentleman who may happen to be Paymaster-General in charge of pensions. The whole thing is without precedent. With regard to the three offices of Paymaster-General, Pensions Minister, and Labour Adviser, I say frankly that I think my right hon. Friend is right in making his choice, when it has to be made. I do not think the House will allow any Member of the House—I speak apart from the personality of my right hon. Friend, who is popular on all sides of the House—to fill all those offices, but we who are claiming that this question of pensions is of the greatest importance want a unified administration and prompt decisions, but to say that we are going to have a Minister in charge of the Labour Department who may have to run all over the country settling disputes to avoid industrial trouble in charge of pensions, the whole thing is impossible. For my part I think my right hon. Friend is right in coming to the decision not to attempt to force the House to combine the two offices.
  Mr. S. WALSH: The explanation and the offer of the right hon. Gentleman is exceedingly satisfactory, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: Leave out the words "who shall be the Paymaster-General."
  Amendment proposed: Leave out the words "advised by," and insert instead thereof the words "entitled to receive advice and assistance from."—[Mr. Henderson.]
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Before those words are inserted, I wish to ask would it be competent for me to raise a question afterwards as to whether the Secretary to the Local Government Board should be included amongst those from whom the Pensions Minister receives advice and assistance?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment would not be shut out.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to move to leave out the words "Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board."
  The Local Government Board is only an English office and represents only English interests. We have a separate Local Government Board in Scotland, and, if it is conceived that the Local Government Board in virtue of that office has a special interest in this affair of pensions, then undoubtedly in Scotland we have a claim for our Local Government Board being consulted in the same way. Is there any specific reason why, in addition to the-Admiralty and the War Office, the Local Government Board should be permanently consulted? I can quite conceive that there are reasons why the present holder of the office should be consulted. He, undoubtedly, has given great study to the subject, and he knows much about it. His advice, undoubtedly, would be valuable. But why should it be enacted that for all time the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board should be consulted? If such an enactment is made, then we are entitled to claim similarly that the Secretary for Scotland, or some official representing the Scottish Local Government Board, should be also consulted. This is rather a relic from the old Bill, in, which the Statutory Committee was not fully taken over, but now that the Statutory Committee has been wholly taken over there is no reason why the Local Government Board should be consulted with regard to it, I would suggest that the better way of proceeding would be to introduce an Amendment now, or on the Report stage, confining this to the present holder of the office, and not to have this statutory enactment that the Local Government Board should be at all times consulted.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I am quite sure that those who listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board will remember that he made out a very strong case in support of his retention in this Bill, but I would like to add that for some time he has been the representative of the Statutory Committee in this House, and he has an experience and a knowledge of the pensions problem, I should say, second to no other living politician. Therefore, I think he ought to be retained. In fact, if I have to begin and organise this Department. I shall personally feel that I have

  575
  been deprived of most valuable assistance if his name is removed from the Bill. There is a good deal to be said from the standpoint of confining the three members occupying these offices to the present occupants. After all, when the Coalition ceases to exist, we shall probably get back to something like ordinary party government, and most of us would feel that one member of a Government would be quite sufficient to fight on the pensions question, instead of having four of the same party to contend against. My right hon. Friend opposite has put down an Amendment on these lines, and I am quite prepared to consider the matter between this and the Report stage to see whether it is advisable to confine it, as suggested by my hon. Friend behind me, not only in the one case but in all three cases to the present occupants.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words "in respect of any matter on which such advice and assistance is required by the Minister."
  Major H. TERRELL: I beg to move after the words last inserted, to add the words "and who shall occupy no other office or appointment than that of Minister of Pensions."
  The object of this Amendment is to carry out that which has been spoken of by many Members—the absolute necessity of having a whole-time Minister of Pensions to attend to this very important work. The right hon. Gentleman in one Debate suggested that he would organise the matter, and that then it would not require the whole of his time to attend to the business of the office. I venture to suggest that is not right. Here we have a Department being set up which will have most important interests to consider and control. It will not be like an ordinary Department where matters are dealt with more or less by rule, but in regard to both pensions and allowances to dependants you will have to -consider and determine every case on its merits. This will involve, of course, an enormous amount of delegation of power, but it must also of necessity impose upon the Minister an enormous amount of personal investigation and labour, and, if you have a half-time Minister, I do not think you will have that supervision of the work which is absolutely necessary. A great deal will depend upon the discretion of
  576
  the authority who grants the pensions. You cannot have, and you are not going to have, any hard and fast scale of pensions. You are going to have pensions fixed by the Ministry of Pensions having regard to the requirements of each particular case. That, to a great extent, will be dependent upon the reports of local committees, and it will be imperative in a matter requiring so much discretion that the work of those local committees should be supervised by the Minister of Pensions himself. Unless you are going to establish an organisation in which the granting of these pensions and the exercise of this discretion are to be left entirely in the hands of officials of the Department, then you must have a Minister devoting his whole time—and it will be very hard work at that—to the work of his office.
  The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the amount involved might be some twenty million pounds a year. The War is not at an end, and it may last for a long time yet. I shall be very surprised if the amount to be dispensed by the Minister of Pensions does not double the amount of twenty million pounds a year which he has suggested. If you are going to set up a Minister to dispose of that enormous sum every year, you must have a man who will devote his whole time to it. It is not only the magnitude of the amount which impresses this necessity upon my mind, but it is also the interests of the individuals who will be affected. I do not want to see them left to the tender mercies of Departments, I want them to be able to reach the ear of the Pensions Minister himself, if ever they find a grievance inflicted upon them by the Department. The Departments which will have to be set up will be numerous. A department will have to be set up to deal with Admiralty pensions; you will have to have a department to deal with War Office pensions; you will have to have a department to deal with widows; you will have to have a department to deal with dependants; and you will have to have a department to deal with officers' pensions and with officers' widows, because their case differs materially from that of privates. In all these cases an enormous amount of work will be involved, and it must, if it is to be thoroughly done, be done under the personal supervision and control of the Minister of Pensions. It will be impossible for any man, however able he may be and however great an

  577
  organiser he may be, adequately and substantially to fulfil ail those labours unless he devotes his whole time to the office.
  Sir F. LOWE: May I say I am very sorry my hon. Friend has brought forward this Amendment? I think we can perfectly well trust the Prime Minister to recommend to His Majesty a suitable person for the office, and, in view of the reasonable way in which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has met us, I think it would be somewhat ungracious to discuss this proposal.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I am sure we have no desire to lose the services of the right hon. Gentleman, and I gladly associate myself with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Edgbaston. I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: I, too, desire to associate myself with the remarks of the previous speakers, and hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am a member of the Statutory Committee, but, speaking for myself personally, I must say that if the Amendment is pressed I shall be obliged to vote against it.
  Major H. TERRELL: As the sense of the House is against it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BARLOW: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and shall supervise and control the Board of Commissioners hereafter constituted."
  That, of course, leads up to a new Clause, which will, I hope, be considered, but which I must refer to at the moment, although I cannot move it now. The object of the Clause is to set up a Committee, consisting of not less than six and not more than ten Commissioners, of whom at least two shall have had experience in connection with the Army and two in connection with the Navy, and two shall be selected on account of their business experience and organising capacity. The Commissioners shall devote their whole time to the work of the Committee, and shall be paid such annual salary as the Treasury may determine. The Commissioners would be responsible to and under the control of the Pensions Minister. They would have administrative powers and duties only. The father of the whole principle of unification sits
  578
  before us on the opposite bench, and he now has the pleasure of seeing his child appearing in the world. I am referring to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who was the first person to mention, in public at any rate, the policy of unification in his evidence given before a Select Committee the best part of two years ago—
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: What was the evidence?
  Mr. BARLOW: The hon. Gentleman who interrupts me should have instructed himself before he came to take part in this Debate. I want to quote two or three words from that evidence. The right hon. Gentleman, in that evidence, said he believed that the whole question, after this War, was going to be big enough for a great Pensions Board. It would have a paid chairman and a paid vice-chairman, much in the same way as the Port of London Authority has. Now the idea of unification which was first outlined in that evidence has come forward more prominently. It is a very difficult question. We have had it suggested more than once whether the Pensions Minister—
  General IVOR PHILIPPS: Is not this a question affecting the duties and powers of the Minister of Pensions, and would it not be more appropriately raised on Clause 2? To put this in now surely would be a piece of bad drafting.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is a question whether the Amendment does not raise a point which has already been decided.
  Mr. BARLOW: I ask to be heard on that point. I have not yet made my speech and therefore it is not possible for the Committee to know what I am suggesting the Commissioners should do, and until my suggestions are before the Committee I submit I ought not to be ruled out of order.
  Sir F. LOWE: Is it not quite impossible for us to lay it down that the new Minister of Pensions shall supervise and control a Board of Commissioners when we do not know what the Board is going to be or what it will have to do? We want to know something about this Board.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is stated, of course, in the proposed new Clause. I may tell the hon. and learned Member that I think his proposal does conflict with the Clause which has already been adopted.
  Mr. BARLOW: But it is impossible to say that it conflicts until my proposition is before the Committee. What I suggest is that it is desirable to draw a distinction—and it has been done in many Acts of Parliament, and has been developed by many authorities set up by this House—between policy and control and administration and management. Policy and control must remain in the hands of the Minister, but he cannot do all the work himself; he has to administer through agents, and my proposal, to put it quite shortly, is that it is desirable, in the interests of this House and in the interests of the Minister himself, as well as in the interests of the pensioners and dependants, who, after all, ought to have the first consideration, that we should know who exactly are going to administer this Act. I do not for a moment suggest interfering with the Minister's powers or prerogatives, but what I do want, in the interests of control by this House and in the interests of speedy administration, is that we should have a body set up, a body chosen because of their experience—I have indicated the kind of people I suggest in my new Clause, although I do not pin my faith to it closely—that we should have nine responsible people of that kind appointed by His Majesty, and then we shall secure, first of all, to use a phrase first used by the Member for Ince—a phrase I would like to reiterate—"somebody you can hang if things go wrong," because on the Vote for their salaries questions affecting their administration could then be raised.
  Mr. HOGGE: Do you propose they should all be paid?
  Mr. BARLOW: That is a matter for later consideration. At any rate, the chairman and vice-chairman should be paid. The Port of London Authority has power to pay certain of its members, including the chairman. The chairman has not been paid up to date nor have any of the other members except one. I suggest a certain number of the members of the body I propose should be paid; then we could have an opportunity of discussing their acts on the floor of this House.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment is contrary to the policy of the first Clause. It appears to me the hon. Member proposes that the Commissioners shall be responsible to this House. But under Clause 1 it has already been laid down that the Minister shall be responsible.
  Mr. BARLOW: On the point whether my Amendment conflicts with a decision already come to, I submit that it does not. It in no way affects the Minister's authority; it only lays it down that the Commissioners should be paid in a certain way.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to submit this Amendment of the hon. Member is not in order. When it was first put down I understood it was one of a series of Amendments drawn up at the instance of Members of the House representing a certain Committee, with a view to limiting the powers of the Board which it was proposed in the former Bill to set up. But now a Minister is to be substituted for the Board, and, therefore, I suggest you cannot have paid Commissioners to govern and administer pensions.
  Mr. BARLOW: May I say it is not as the hon. Member suggests? This Amendment was put down last night and is entirely due to the Amendments on the White Paper. Of course I am prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair if it decides against me. But I do wish to have an opportunity of developing my case. I want to explain that this is to be a coordinating Board.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must rule against the hon. Member. It does seem to me, from what he has indicated, and from what he has said, that his new Clause would conflict with the decision already come to.
  Mr. WATT: There is an Amendment of which I have given notice which has not been called upon.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member was in the House when a similar Amendment was moved by one of his colleagues and was withdrawn. That is the reason why I did not call upon him.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I was the Member referred to. I moved to omit the words "Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board." But as the Minister responsible for the Bill stated that he would reconsider the point and deal with it again on Report, I withdrew it.
  The CHAIRMAN: The reason why I did not call on the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Watt) was that a similar Amendment, although not exactly in the same form, had raised the question and had been disposed of in the way stated.
  Mr. WATT: I understand the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill gave a promise to consider the advisability of having the Secretary to the Local Government Board named temporarily only?
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I think the right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to consider the advisability of inserting the word "present" before "Parliamentary Secretary," and to bring up his decision on the Report stage.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part; of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Duties and Powers of Minister of Pensions.)
  (1) There shall be transferred to the Minister of Pensions—

  (a) The powers and duties of the Admiralty with respect to pensions and grants to persons who have served as officers or men, and to their widows, children, and other dependants, and to persons who have been employed in the nursing service of any of His Majesty's Naval Forces, other than Service pensions, so far as such pensions and grants are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament for naval services;

  (b) the powers and duties of the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital for Soldiers at Chelsea with respect to the grant and administration of disability pensions, other than in-pensions;

  (c) the powers and duties of the Army Council and. the Secretary of State for the War Department with respect to pensions and grants to persons who have served as officers or soldiers, and to their widows, children, and other dependants, and to persons who have been employed in the nursing service of any of His Majesty's Military Forces, other than Service pensions;

  and His Majesty may by Order in Council make such adaptations in the enactments relating to such powers and duties as aforesaid as may be necessary to make exercisable by the Minister and his officers the powers and duties of the several authorities above mentioned and their officers, and may fix the time or times as from which the several powers and duties are to be transferred to the Minister.
  (2) The Minister of Pensions shall in each year prepare and lay before Parliament a Report of the proceedings of the Ministry.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "Admiralty," to insert the words "including its powers relating to Greenwich Hospital."
  7.0 P.M.
  The Committee will be aware that when the Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite was proposed the other day the Government were not prepared to amend the Bill to include the powers of Greenwich Hospital. I am not going to press this Amendment in any way. There are, no doubt, reasons why the Greenwich Hospital powers have been omitted from the Bill, but I should like to point out this fact, that there has been in the past very great disappointment among many men in the Royal Navy with regard to the emoluments they think they ought to derive from the Greenwich Hospital Fund. In the first place, those funds were subscribed to by the men of the Navy, and it was expected that they would receive, upon reaching the age of fifty-five, 5d. a day, and upon reaching the age of sixty, 7d. a day. In many instances it has not been found possible to give those emoluments and the men are very much disappointed. There are other matters relating to Greenwich Hospital which require some explanation at this stage. The funds are also available for the widows of men in the Navy who lose their lives not during a time of war. They are also available for certain petty officers, and certain officers, in fact, there is a great number of cases which come under Greenwich Hospital Fund. In these circumstances the Committee would like to know whether or not the omission of Greenwich Hospital from the Bill was a mistake or error on the part of the Admiralty, or whether it was intentional. If it was intentional, we should like to know why the omission has been made. This Amendment will give the Parliamentary Secretary-to the Admiralty an opportunity of making a statement upon the subject and I feel certain the Committee will be very pleased to hear that statement.
  Sir CHARLES HENRY: When I saw the amended Bill, I was very much surprised to find that Greenwich Hospital was omitted. What the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) has said

  583
  is quite correct. When the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) moved his provisional Amendment on Tuesday last, he specially mentioned Greenwich Hospital as one of the departments that should come under this Bill, and I believe that when the Paymaster-General summed up the situation he also included it. The first words of the amended Bill are—
  "In order to unify."
  If you are going to leave Greenwich Hospital out of the Bill, how in the world can you have a unified scheme? What constitutes the main function of Greenwich Hospital? My right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is mainly concerned with the payment of pensions. If you leave Greenwich Hospital out of the Bill, but bring the Admiralty into it, are you not liable to a certain amount of overlapping? How will you keep touch between the Pensions Minister and the individuals who receive pensions from Greenwich Hospital? Greenwich Hospital is not a small item, because, on referring to the last Estimates presented to Parliament, those for 1914–15, I find that the expenditure of Greenwich Hospital was just on £200,000. That expenditure is met entirely from incomes. The cost of the administration of Greenwich Hospital is £4,400.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Including superannuation.
  Sir C. HENRY: It would be more economical and sound if the administrative charges incurred in connection with Greenwich Hospital were merged into the general administration charges of the Pensions Ministry. I have said that the expenditure of the hospital was £200,000. How is that amont distributed? I want to show the Committee, from the way in which the money is spent that there is no reason why Greenwich Hospital should not come under the Bill. The expenditure on pensions to officers is £7,700, and on the education of the children of officers £l,500. Under the Bill the Pensions Ministry will have power to look after the education of the children of officers and of all soldiers and sailors. Pensions to seamen under the Greenwich Hospital scheme represent £130,000, the pensions to widows £6,000, and the pensions to sons and daughters of deceased or disabled seamen £5,400. Every one of those items could and ought to be administered by the
  584
  Minister of Pensions. My right hon. Friend will certainly have to convince the Committee that Greenwich Hospital should not be included. The only reason I can imagine why it has been left out is that the Board of Admiralty was greatly disappointed that they had to come into this scheme at all.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, no!
  Sir C. HENRY: If they accept the situation, why are they so persistent, and why did my right hon. Friend make such art admirable speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, with all his force and vigour, in order to persuade the House; that the Admiralty should be left out? There is no doubt that the Admiralty is a great deal disappointed with this loss. I fully appieciate the disappointment, but there is no reason why they should assuage their disappointment by leaving Greenwich Hospital out of the Bill. There is another reason why Greenwich Hospital should be-brought into the Bill. Clause 8 says:
  "There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry of Pensions such of the persons employed under the: Admiralty" who have the duty of dealing with pensions. There is no better body of men in the country or any who have had more practice in dealing with pensions than the; officials of Greenwich Hospital.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Hear, hear!
  Sir C. HENRY: I am glad my right hon. Friend agrees to that. That is all the more reason why they should be placed at the disposal of the Minister of Pensions. Greenwich Hospital is essentially an organisation of a pension character, and if my right hon. Friend does not dispute that, I hope he will support the Amendment and bring Greenwich Hospital into the Bill.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I quite admit that: when the proposal for a Board of Pensions was first made we did ask that we should be allowed to stand outside. We still think it is a pity to break an ancient tradition, particularly—I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Ivor Philipps). will take note of this—as no serious criticism has yet been passed on our administration of pensions and awards.
  General IVOR PHILIPPS: I quite agree; with that.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Nevertheless the sense of the House was so manifest in favour of a Minister whose authority in these matters should be supreme and whose control should be complete, save as regards long service pensions, which by common consent, or practically so, are still left with the Army Council on the one hand and the Board of Admiralty on the other, properly and rightly, that we felt bound at once to withdraw our request. I must say, particularly after one or two sentences which have fallen from my hon. Friend (Sir C. Henry), that our ground for asking for exclusion has been the subject, to say the least of it, of some slight misapprehension. I cannot believe that anybody seriously imagines that I should stand here and ask for exclusion if I thought it, would prejudice the interests of a bluejacket or his dependants. Of course, I should be utterly unworthy of my office if I had that in my mind, or contemplated that that was involved in exclusion. I do not for a moment believe it is thought, therefore it is not necessary to deny it. Prompt and adequate administration to their needs is the first consideration, and to that everything else must be subordinated. I would remind the Committee that I took part with the then Secretary to the Treasury and the then Financial Secretary to the War Office in framing the original White Paper which to this day remains the basis of most of these awards to the Army and Navy. It was discussed by the Select Committee, examined there closely, and modified by discussion in this House, and it ultimately led up to the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915. I am quite within the mark in saying that from the very beginning there has not been a day upon which some phase or other of this problem has not had to pass through my hands. I rejoice that with the assistance of most loyal, devoted, and tireless friends, the officials who have been in charge at the Admiralty—I must pay them that tribute—I have been privileged in lending a hand in carrying on this work. We were very fortunate in having in existence when war broke out a piece of machinery tested by long experience, and we were fortunate in that. War subjected that machinery to no very serious strain. Neither has the War seriously affected the basis of our existence. We, of course, accept without reservation, and wish godspeed to the full authority and control of the new Minister under this Bill. We are quite prepared to leave ourselves unre-
  586
  servedly in his hands, fully assured that he will pursue his work of unification without sacrificing whatever administrative efficiency may already have been gained by practical day-to-day experience.
  As regards Greenwich Hospital, which is the subject of this Amendment, I can assure the hon. Baronet the Member for Wellington (Sir C. Henry) that we are really not assuaging our disappointment at having to come in. I am sure he believes that, and that we are not trying to do so by saving Greenwich Hospital from the wreck. Greenwich Hospital, when one accepts fully and completely the spirit of the House, as, of course, I do, really presents considerable difficulties. It is, as probably the Committee knows, a very ancient foundation. It was established by Royal Charter of William and Mary in 1691, and the sources from which the funds employed in the building and maintenance of the Hospital were derived are of a very varied and interesting character. I think it will be found upon examination of the Statute—although I speak subject to correction—that some of its funds are absolutely inalienable, without further legislation, from the purposes of the Navy. I see that King William III. was among the earliest of its benefactors, and I see that Queen Anne gave the effects of Captain Kidd, the pirate, towards the funds of Greenwich Hospital. I also see that from time to time the forfeited and unclaimed shares of prize and bounty money were given to the fund which is now known as Greenwich Hospital Fund. Surely that is inalienable from the Navy. It must be administered in such a way as to avoid waste or overlapping, but that part of the funds, at any rate, I do not think you can divert from strictly Navy purposes.
  There are many other sources. There is the Chatham Chest, which was a fund collected, as the name indicates, originally at Chatham and then subsequently at Greenwich. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holder) can tell us about that. At any rate, all the moneys in that chest at that time were transferred to this fund. Its income is therefore derived from a great variety of sources, and bequeathed, as regards some of them, for naval purposes. The hospital took in disabled sea-men as in-pensioners from the seventeenth century down to 1869, and then there was an alteration in the system, under which a certain number of pensions supplemental

  587
  to naval life pensions, age pensions of 5d. a day, and advanced age pensions of 9d. a day were paid out of the fund, as against the old in-pension system which was stopped in 1869. During the current year we shall provide about 4,200 of the Greenwich age pensions at 5d. The provision is in the Estimates and cannot be affected by this. We shall pay about 5,500 advanced age pensions of 9d. They go to the oldest naval life pensioners and the poorest, and the men with the smallest naval life pensions. As regards expenditure, the Estimate for 1916–17 is £204,382. It has increased slightly since the Estimate my hon. Friend quoted. We shall spend, roughly, half of that on these age pensions and advanced age pensions to the oldest and poorest—that is to say, to the men with the lowest grade of naval life pension. Then we have a system of Greenwich Hospital special pensions, which fall into another category, and we shall spend £22,400 on that this year. They vary from 6d. to 1s. 6d. a day, and, in special eases, 2s. 6d., and are granted either to augment small existing pensions or to men who have been invalided without necessarily getting a life pension. We give pensions, in certain cases, to widows of deceased seamen and marines, and give assistance to the education of their children. We reckon to spend this year £12,000 on that. Then we give Greenwich Hospital pensions, in certain cases, to officers and contributions towards the education of their children. On that we reckon to spend £9,320 this year. Then there is the Greenwich Hospital School. It is a very fine school and a very ancient foundation, with accommodation for about a thousand boys. They stay there from eleven to fifteen and a half. Last year over 80 per cent. of them joined the public services after having left school, and of those who joined the Navy I think 10 per cent. reach the rank of warrant officer, which is a tribute to the self-respect, good training, and devotion to duty on the part of the boys. Paragraph (a) of this Clause deliberately uses the words,
  "so far as such pensions and grants are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament for naval services."
  These words were put in for the purpose, for the moment, of saving the case of Greenwich Hospital, because the bulk of these funds are not derived from the
  588
  Government, but Parliament makes a Grant in the Estimates, which is, for 1916–17, £21,250. I do not know whether we can arrange that that Vote can be transferred, with the services it renders to the men, to the Ministry—that is a matter which must be gone into—but I accept fully the spirit of the Bill, and certainly will lend myself to making any adjustment which may be possible. It will be necessary to examine ancient Statutes before coming to a decision in this matter. Since Monday, up to which time we were out of it altogether, and therefore I had not looked into it, time has failed us to do that, but we will look into it. There are a great many different services which cannot be alienated from the Navy, it is quite clear from the form of the original benefaction, unless Parliament wished to do so. The point made by my hon. Friend (Sir C. Henry) had already occurred to me. Inasmuch as we are out for unification and avoidance of overlapping and waste, it occurred to me that some of the work which has been done by Greenwich Hospital, and particularly the special pensions, might possibly overlap. The assistance given to the widows of both officers and men might overlap some of the work which will now be undertaken by the Minister. It is quite necessary that the Minister should be informed, and any authority which is recommending supplementation should be informed, whether Statutory Committee or local committee, of precisely what is being done with these funds from Greenwich if they cannot be alienated, because then everyone who has recommended supplementation will be informed of exactly what is being done, and by that means overlapping and waste will be avoided. I hope the Committee will leave the matter where it is. I do not know whether it will be necessary in another place to make an Amendment, but we accept quite fully the spirit of the House. We recognise that there must be unification, but you are dealing here with a very ancient foundation, and you want to look very closely before you alienate funds which are so admirably applied by this foundation. I do not know whether I can ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, but to accept the assurance I have given that we will avoid overlapping and waste, and we fully recognise the full authority over all these matters and the necessity for unification on the-part of the new Ministry.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: My object was to obtain a statement on the subject from the right hon. Gentleman, and after the explanation he has given I think I may withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HOHLER: I beg to move to leave out the words "so far as such pensions and grants are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament for naval services."
  I do not raise this in any hostile spirit. I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his words are quite wide enough. Under a bargain made with the Royal Fleet Reserve, these men were entitled to come on Greenwich age pensions at fifty. That was a very great disadvantage against the body of men in the Navy who were not members of the Royal Fleet Reserve, because they could only come on at fifty-five under the Statutes which deal with that subject. The result was that these men of the Royal Fleet Reserve were always coming in first, and the other seamen were losing their money. To remedy that injustice I think the sum of about £20,000 is granted by Parliament annually to pay the 5d. payable to the men of the Royal Fleet Reserve. I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the language of that exception, and to suggest that I doubt whether it is quite wide enough, because that £20,000 would be a fund provided by Parliament, and I rather think under the words of the paragraph it would go over to the Pensions Minister. That ought to be guarded against. I only raise the point in order that it may be carefully looked at to see that nothing to which Greenwich is entitled goes to the Pensions Minister.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have stated why the words were put in, for the sake of saving the other funds for Greenwich Hospital. The hon. and learned Gentleman calls attention to the fact that a certain sum, £22,000, from naval funds, goes to certain people in the Navy. If that money has to be handed over to the new Minister he will have to look after them. That is all. I will take particular care that he looks after it as well as it is looked after now. If any money which now goes to Greenwich arising from Parliamentary funds, because of the narrowness of this Clause, has to be transferred to the Ministry, surely the services will have to be rendered by the Ministry in respect of that fund. I very much appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's solicitude
  590
  for this particular aspect of the matter, but I do not think he need have any apprehension.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: Leave out the words "for naval services" ["moneys provided by Parliament for naval services."]—[Mr. Henderson.]
  Colonel YATE: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "pensions" ["administration of disability pensions"], to insert the words "including pensions to men invalided from India and the Colonies."
  I move this in order to find out exactly what are the duties of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, and whether disability pensions include invalid pensions for men from India, China, and the Colonies, or whether this goes to them now, or how the work is to be arranged. There are various things which are not named. I take the invalided soldiers who are sent home from abroad—India, China, etc. Who is to settle the payment of the Victoria Cross, the Distinguished Conduct Medal, and others, all of which carry pensions? Are they to continue to be paid by the Chelsea Commissioners? And how many of the Chelsea Commissioners are to be continued, or what is to become of them? As the right hon. Gentlemen knows, a great part of the twenty-four Commissioners is a myth. There are nineteen purely honorary men. The whole work is carried on by the secretary of the hospital and four assistant secretaries, each of whom has a special warrant from the King appointing him a Commissioner, with plenary powers. I think these assistants get something like £300 a year each. Are these men to be continued in their present office and to continue paying and assessing these pensions, or are they to be scrapped. I notice further on in the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman is taking powers to appoint any number of secretaries and assistants. We do not want to see brought into this pensions work a lot of new clerks and assistants who know nothing about the work, and are mere place-hunters and job-seekers. We want to see the old experienced men kept. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how many of these Chelsea Commissioners are to be retained, what are their powers, and whether they will continue to carry on the work that they are doing

  591
  now. Can we have an assurance that that body of men will remain and not be cast adrift?
  Mr. LOYD: Could not we substitute the word "disablement" for "disability"? Disability seems to convey a wrong meaning.
  Mr. HENDERSON: In answer to the Hon Member (Mr. Loyd), I think I am right in saying that in the Royal Warrant for a considerable time the word "disability" has been used, and I think it would be better, for the purpose of securing uniformity, to retain the word. In regard to the various points raised by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Yate), I want to make it quite clear that we do not interfere with the body of the Commissioners so far as giving assistance with regard to service pensions on behalf of the War Office is concerned. They will retain all their warrants. Any powers they have for dealing with the Indian soldiers or with soldiers in China, or in any part of the world belonging to this country, the Commissioners will still continue to use. All that we do is to take over their powers for assessing the disability pensions, especially the disability pensions arising out of the present War. I have noticed all through the Debate that the hon. and gallant Member is very solicitous about the personnel of the Commissioners, especially the paid Commissioners. As Chairman of the Board I have had opportunity of seeing the work they have done, and I have marvelled at their devotion, because many of them have not only worked six days a week, long hours, but they have worked seven days. They have been compelled to do so because we are dependent upon other Departments for sending the cases. For instance, at the present time when the question of transfer to the reserve is under consideration, the flow of cases is, to some extent, steady, but immediately that question is settled we may be overwhelmed with the cases being sent from the Record Office. We cannot increase our Commissioners for that work, and the result is they have to work extra hours. Where possible, they have to work Sundays and at nights. Unfortunately, the work has been so strenuous that some of them have broken down under it. Knowing the value of these men as I do, it is only common sense that I should make every endeavour to use
  592
  them. I cannot use them as Commissioners, but I can use them in the new organisation as awarding officers, and my hon. and gallant Friend may depend upon it that any knowledge and ability they have manifested will not be lost of. In fact, I have already arranged, not for all of them, but for some of them, immediately the Bill becomes law, to be transferred, to continue their useful work in the new Department. I hope after that explanation the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that we are going to make the very best use of the existing staff at Chelsea.
  Amendment negatived.
  Major NEWMAN: I had an Amendment down to Clause 2 about saliors, and another about soldiers, so as to make it secure that anybody who has served in the Navy or Army would not be left out of the pensions scheme. I understood that you ruled me out, Mr. Whitley, so far as the Navy went, and asked me to put my Amendment down to apply to the Army.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will move his Amendment now.
  Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "soldiers" ["officers or soldiers"] to insert the words "and have served with the Forces of the Crown."
  The Committee are aware that when the Blue Bill was drafted the draftsman, or whoever was responsible, forgot the existence of women, and the question of that omission would have arisen, but the error was seen, and in the White Bill provision is made for nurses. Nurses are mentioned in the Royal Warrant. Queen Alexandra's nurses are mentioned in the Royal Warrant, and it would be absurd to leave them out. I should like to know whether all the nurses are covered by the provision in the White Bill. Are the V. A. D. nurses covered? The other day, in my own Division, a young lady who is in the V. A. D. contracted blood-poisoning and died. I do not know whether she would be covered' by this Clause, or whether her people would be covered. Nurses are mentioned, but nurses are not the only women who are serving with the Forces. I may mention as an instance of what women are doing in the way of aiding the Forces fighting at the present moment, that there is a corps of women

  593
  carpenters now getting ready to go out to France to build huts and mend huts. Supposing something happens to these women, supposing they are erecting or mending a hut ten miles behind the firing line and an aeroplane drops a bomb on them and they are killed, do their people get any pension or do they not? If one of these women has her leg blown off, does she come in for a pension or not?
  Take the question of men who may be serving in our Forces but are not actually part of our Forces. Supposing a man is serving in our Forces but he is not a British subject, and cannot be taken over as an officer or private. I refer particularly to the question of a member of a foreign legion. We have 20,000 aliens of Russian nationality in London alone. There is a project on foot, I understand from a question that was put yesterday, to form these men into some sort of foreign legion. These men, if they are formed into a foreign legion, will go out to fight alongside our troops, or at any rate, they will fight as part of our Forces. Supposing anything happens to these men, what about their wives or other dependants? If these men are wounded and they come back, what happens to them? Are they part of the Forces of the Crown? Are they to be regarded as officers and men of His Majesty's Forces or are they not? That is a question which has to be considered, and I do not think this Bill covers it. Therefore, I move my Amendment, and if it is accepted the result would be that if a man or a woman had served with His Majesty's Forces he or she would be eligible for a pension, and if they were killed their dependants would get something.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member wants to make certain persons pensionable who are not pensionable now. This Bill is only dealing with the administration of such pensions as are now provided. I am afraid we cannot add this Amendment to the Bill.
  Major NEWMAN: I beg to move to leave out the words"and His Majesty may by Order in Council make such adaptations in the enactments relating to such powers and duties as aforesaid as may be necessary to make exercisable by the Minister and his officers the powers and duties of the several authorities above-mentioned and their officers, and may fix the time or times as from which the
  594
  several powers and duties are to be transferred to the Minister."
  My desire is to omit that part of the Clause which gives the Cabinet or the Minister of the Department power to make adaptations in the enactments relating to various powers and duties. I do not think much of the drafting of this part of the Bill. It is very difficult to follow. I protest against legislation by Order in Council. I remember very well that before the War we on this side of the House used to protest against legislation by reference. I maintain that legislation by Order in Council is dangerous, and that after the War is over and we come to normal times, one of the first things that the private Member will have to do will be to deal with the question of legislation by Order in Council. We saw an effect of legislation by Order in Council the other day in reference to the Order for the early closing of shops. That was done by Order in Council, and behind our backs. Protest was raised against it. and if the matter had not been raised on the Motion for the Adjournment it could not have been discussed at all. In this particular Clause we have enormous, definite and vague powers given to the right hon. Gentleman who will be the Minister of Pensions to do what he likes, when he likes, and how he likes. This is a House of Commons Bill which appeals to Back Bench Members, and I think we ought to keep a tight control over the Bill as far as we possibly can. In saying that Orders in Council are dangerous things, hon. Members may think that, as I am not a constitutional lawyer, I am speaking of something about which I know very little. However, there was a friend of mine, and a friend of many other hon. Members, the late Sir William Anson, who was perhaps the greatest constitutional authority we had, and in that great standard book of his "The Law and Custom of the Constitution" on more than one occasion he deals with this very question of legislation by Order in Council and its great danger to the private Member and the life of Parliament generally.
  And in one passage which I have taken the trouble to copy out he says
  "another point to note is the immense importance of the business which may be transacted in the Council—"
  that is the Privy Council,
  "without discussion, and with no opportunity of question in Parliament at the instance of the Cabinet or a Department. Some of these matters might attract

  595
  attention in Parliament, though not till their effects could no longer be cancelled or undone."
  That is exactly what happened in reference to the early closing of shops which was raised on the Adjournment a few weeks ago. We ought not to have these Clauses if they mean putting through the Act by means of Order in Council. It is very sloppy. It looks as if the draftsman who was drafting the Bill came to that point at half-past one and suddenly remembered that he had to go to lunch, and so wrote down "Order in Council," and went away. We ought to know exactly the powers which the Minister seeks, and how and when they are to be exercised. I have taken the trouble to read a great many of the War Emergency Acts, and there is only one Act which is perfect in respect of Orders in Council and is quite free from them. That is the Act which we are now scrapping, the Naval and War Pensions Act, 1915. It is a long, comprehensive Act, which is very carefully drafted, and yet it does not contain the words "Order in Council" even once; while in this Bill, which is a more important Bill giving even greater powers to Ministers, we have the words "Order in Council" at the beginning of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions ought to give us some outline of what powers he is going to take under this Order in Council, how he is going to use them, and when he is going to use them, and if he cannot give us that explanation the Committee should take some notice of the fact.
  Mr. HENDERSON: The Mover of the Amendment has made a very good point in urging that the House of Commons should keep control of many of the matters dealt with by Order in Council, and he has cited the case that was raised on the Debate on the Adjournment a few weeks ago on the Early Closing Order. But surely he must recognise that there is a vast difference between such Orders in Council as those which deal with early closing and the Order in Council which is referred to in this Clause. This is the ordinary Clause which is absolutely essential. Where we are not beginning from the very bottom, but are taking over certain work belonging to other Departments, you cannot allow it to come under the new Department the very moment the Bill becomes law. It would be upsetting the very thing that nearly every speaker has pleaded for, all the arrangements that
  596
  are really necessary to prevent any break in the continuity of the work, and it would all go to the injury of the disabled soldier and sailor. If the hon. Member reads the words he will see that all we are doing is not taking unlimited powers, but taking the powers that are necessary to enable us to do the work which the Committee, and also the country, have said that we must undertake and perform. The latter part of the Clause is that we shall have to fix the time or times when the several powers and duties shall be transferred to the Minister. Unless we followed this course we should have not one Clause, but scores of Clauses setting out everything that the new Department ought to undertake. I hope that that is sufficient justification for appealing to my hon. Friend to waive his objection on this occasion.
  Major NEWMAN: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I desire to ask a question with reference to various payments made now with regard to separation allowance and supplementary grants. Is the right hon. Gentleman taking power to act in conjunction with the War Office and with the Admiralty with regard to the payment of the different moneys that are now paid to wives, dependants, and widows? What I want to know is whether it is the intention of the Ministry of Pensions to work in conjunction with the other Departments. so that when they make a decision to pay a supplementary grant, which is now paid in the form of rent, it comes under Clause (3), in which they take over powers from the Statutory Committee, and I will put it on Clause (3) if it is out of order now?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member wants to ask an administrative question. We are now dealing with legislation.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Relations with Statutory Committee.)
  The powers and duties of the Statutory Committee under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, shall be exercised and performed by that Committee under the control of, and in accordance with, the instructions of the Minister of Pensions, and the Statutory

  597
  Committee shall render to the Minister of Pensions advice and assistance in respect of any matter on which such advice and assistance is requested by the Minister.
  Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, to leave out the words "and in accordance with the instructions of."
  I acknowledge gladly that this Bill does carry out, on the whole, pretty well what I advocated on Monday evening. That is to say, it leaves the powers and duties of all existing authorities as they are, and leaves the powers and duties of the Statutory Committee as they were, but there is an important difference here. What I am afraid of is that these words, literally interpreted, would mean crippling the Statutory Committee. Of course, the Statutory Committee is transformed, so to speak, by this Bill and ceases to be an independent body, and becomes a body under the control of the Pensions Minister. I do not object to that. I think that the Pensions Minister must ultimately control all authorities dealing with pensions and grants, but the words "in accordance with the instructions of the Minister of Pensions," literally interpreted, would mean that we should have to wait until we had the instructions of the Minister, after this Bill becomes an Act, before we did anything else. That would be the simple rendering of the words as they are in the Bill. I do not know whether that was meant, though probably it was not, but that is how it might be interpreted. But even if we do not give the words so literal an interpretation, it does, I think, to an unnecessary extent interfere with the exercise of those powers and rights which are left to the Statutory Committee.
  We have it now as one of the duties of the Statutory Committee to set up local committees, and there is a certain discretion left with the Statutory Committee as to the setting up of those local committees. A borough with 50,000 inhabitants must have a local committee, and a borough with fewer than 50,000 may in special circumstances have a local committee. If these words remain in we shall no longer have a Statutory Committee, and the right to exercise a discretion as to whether a small borough shall have a local committee or not, but shall be obliged, if instructed by the Pensions Minister, to decide that there are exceptional circumstances in some particular case, and that a small borough must therefore have a local
  598
  committee. Therefore, while in the main the Bill does leave the powers and duties of all existing authorities as they were, to that extent it does cut into them so far as the Statutory Committee is concerned. I cannot help thinking that that is not meant, but it may give rise to a great deal of friction. We are all agreed that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should become operative with the least possible friction, and because this seems to me unnecessary and provocative, in regard to-a number of men who have been working on pensions for a long time, and in respect of whom it may be said without undue-optimism that they know their business, that I move this Amendment.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I wish as strongly as I can to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division. I certainly do not in the slightest degree object to the control of the Minister over the Statutory Committee. I think that is in the public interest, and it is exactly in accordance with the Amendment which I had on the Paper before. But I think the words "under the control of" the Minister of Pensions will give to the right hon. Gentleman all the power that he thinks proper and that he can really exercise. I may point out that if you put in the words "in accordance with instructions." it would require possibly a restricted interpretation until we had the actual instructions as to how we were to proceed. I gladly welcome the control of the Minister of Pensions. I think that would exercise a very good influence, because sometimes a mixed Committee may proceed slowly and may not perhaps, act with that promptitude that is necessary and which may be impressed upon it by the exercise of the Minister's authority. I think that he will, if he can, concede this point, and I hope he will accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. He will find that he has all the powers he desires, and I am sure he will make the working more easy and give the least possibility of friction than otherwise by adopting this course.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment because it will be a breach of the understanding that was arrived at on Monday night. There were very important Amendments on the Paper and it was understood in the discussion on Monday night that a very large number of Members were in

  599
  favour of abolishing the Statutory Committee altogether. There was a very strong feeling existing in the House that that should be done, but a compromise was reached I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfrairs Division, was not here the whole evening, but it was a compromise that we were prepared to accept in this Bill if the Ministry of Pensions is to have control over food and the important considerations that arise out of it. With reference to the point raised by my right hon. Friend's Amendment, let me point out that he said it was essential the Statutory Committee should retain powers with regard to the setting up of separate committees in the small boroughs. That is really the crux of the grievance of the small boroughs, and a very large conference will be held in London on that very point. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill, the Minister of Pensions, has down to the original Bill, provides for the establishment of separate committees. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has gone!"] No, it has not gone, we want to continue it, we want to give that power to the Minister of Pensions to create the local committees, or improve them where they are defective, and where the Statutory Committee have not carried out their obligations under the former Act—which we contend they have not done. This Ministry must have those powers. If they do not, it is a breach of the understanding which we had on Monday night. A very large number of Members of Parliament have gone away under the impression that this was going through without any objection. I can assure the Committee that it is a very important matter; in fact it is the most important matter in this Bill that these local committees should be specifically set up to carry out the obligations under this Act. If that is not done you will never settle this question. I am glad to know that the right hon. Genlteman is going to receive a deputation next Tuesday when this will be pressed upon him, and if he goes not take the power there will be great dissatisfaction.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I have already told the Committee that I am exceedingly anxious, and my colleagues and I have striven to give effect to it, that the understanding of a few days ago should be observed. I want to call the attention of the Committee to the proposition on which
  600
  the bargain was reached. The Member for East Edinburgh in moving the Amendment that led to the recasting of the Bill, said, "Fourthly, I put in the Statutory Committee altogether; I leave none of it out." Now, then, we have not gone so far as that, but we have reached an understanding with the Member for East Edinburgh, who had charge of the Debate which led to the change, and that understanding is based upon the Clause contained in the White Paper. It appears to me that the Member for the Black-friars Division provided the strongest possible argument for resisting his own Amendment. He pleads that the Minister should not have power to issue instructions to the Statutory Committee. That means that the Minister would not have power to issue instructions to the Statutory Committee as affecting the local committee. The Member for East Edinburgh, in his speech in moving the Amendment on Monday, said, "There is no reason at all why the local war committee cannot remain and cnnot work under the direction of the Pensions Minister instead of under the direction of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee." Surely, if I had to give effect to that, and if we had striven to give effect to it, it would be, as the Member for Stockport said, a breach of the whole understanding reached. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member for the Blackfrairs Division will not press his Amendment.
  Major NEWMAN: May I ask one question? What exactly has the Statutory Committee got to do? What powers will it have? Is it merely going to have advisory powers or executive powers? I sec that in Sub-section (3) it is provided that out of funds at their disposal they shall do certain things, among them make grants and advances. Are they going to have that money?
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Major Terrell), to leave out the words "and the Statutory Committee shall render to the Minister of Pensions advice and assistance in respect of any matter on which such advice and assistance is requested by the Minister."
  What my hon. Friend wishes me to say is that he thinks to compel the Statutory Committee, by Act of Parliament, to give their advice and

  601
  their assistance is not a practical thing if they choose to refuse. I pointed out to him that this Clause if it stood would put a statutory duty on them to give their advice and assistance. I also pointed out to him that there is no penalty to compel them to give their advice and assistance if they refuse to do it. That is the little dilemma which the legal mind of the hon. Member for Gloucester wishes me to put to the Committee. It has some substance in it, because the last lines of the Clause are practically inoperative unless something is added. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the future Minister for Pensions will consider the matter.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot take an Amendment of that kind.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Functions of Local Committees.)
  The local committees constituted under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, shall, at the instance of the Minister of Pensions, exercise, with respect to pensions and grants administered by that Minister, all such functions as to inquiring, reporting, collecting, and furnishing information and distributing grants as by the said Act are exercisable by those committees at the instance of the Statutory Committee.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I have on the old Paper an Amendment: After the word
  "pensions," to insert the words "but to the exclusion of any other body or person."
  This has been represented to me by the local committee of my own Constituency; they are very anxious to co-operate, but they do not think there ought to be delegation granted as regards part of their duties.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. I am glad to notice that it is a proposal on behalf of some committee, but I do not know why they should be unnecessarily alarmed. I have already shown that I am exceedingly anxious to work in close co-operation with the local committees, but at this moment I cannot accept a proposal that I should restrict my power to making an inquiry in an important city like Sheffield by anyone else except the members of the committee, whose work I have not yet been able to inquire into. I hope, therefore, he will not ask me to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Much will depend on the local committees.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Yes; I want to-work with them.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The Amendment which I wish to submit raises the question whether local committees should have the powers to make the necessary advances of money, thereby continuing what might appear to be extinguished by this Bill. By the existing Act they have the power so far as this Clause enumerates them, but the powers to which I refer-seem to be dropped—the power of making money advances, and also another power, that of making money contributions. Naturally, it may be argued that these powers should be included in the enumeration made by the Clause.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Under Clause 3, a. former Clause, we have taken over the powers of the Statutory Committee, and practically the Naval and Military "War Pensions Act of 1915. Under Section 4 of that Act the local committees have power to make advances out of moneys granted by the Statutory Committee from the£1,000,000. This Act does not destroy those powers, which will be continued.
  The CHAIRMAN: The matter is covered by a previous money grant.
  Mr. BARLOW: Section 3 only covers-the powers of the Statutory Committee, and does not cover the powers of the local, committee. I should have thought that we ought to have had general words in. Section 4 transferring all the powers.
  The CHAIRMAN: The committees have already received these powers.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Paddington, S.): I beg to move after the word "information" ["furnishing information"], to insert the words "making recommendation."
  One of the functions of the local committees was to report on cases to the Statutory Committee and make their recommendations. Nothing is said about that duty in this Clause. It only refers to their collecting and furnishing information.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to know the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has dropped the former extension of this Clause, that is taking power to create these committees in the different boroughs. It is a subject to which I have already called attention. Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will have power to do this when he assumes his office?
  Mr. HENDERSON: That has been explained on a previous Clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Staff, Remuneration, and Expenses.)
  (1) The Minister of Pensions may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may, with the sanction of the Treasury, determine.
  (2) There shall be paid, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to the Minister of Pensions, unless he holds another salaried office, such annual salary not exceeding two thousand pounds, and to the secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry such salaries or remuneration, as the Treasury may determine.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "Pensions" ["Minister of Pensions"], to leave out the words "unless he holds another salaried office."
  The Bill provides that a salary of £2.000 shall be given to the Minister of Pensions, and it is contemplated that the position of Minister of Pensions may in the future be amalgamated with some other Ministerial Department, but I submit that minimises the importance of this office at the very beginning. It seems to me, therefore, that the Clause will be much stronger without these words. I cannot congratulate the Government on the way they have gone about making provision for this office. I think that they ought to have boldly come forward with a proposal for a Labour Minister, associating pensions with his Department. As it is, I object to the view that this Ministry of Pensions is not going to remain an independent
  604
  Ministry. If there is to be amalganiation later, we know that under any circumstances the Prime Minister, without any authority from Parliament and purely as a matter of arrangement between the different Ministers, will be able to deal with the matter according to circumstances as they arise making it necessary. I think the salary of this new Department ought to have been put upon the same basis as the salaries of the heads of other Departments. It seems to me that there has been a grudging spirit with regard to this Department in high places right from the beginning, and it ought to have been properly equipped, and the salary should have been equal to that given in other Departments.
  Mr. DENNISS: Might I point out that these words infuse into the Clause something that is not intended at all, because if the Minister held another salaried office, say, of only £100 a year, as the words of the Clause read, he would get nothing at all I The salary is to be £2,000, but if he holds another salaried office, as I have said, with a salary only of £100 a year, he would get nothing. I put it to the Solicitor-General whether that is not right. I do not want to support the Amendment to leave out these words, but I am simply taking the opportunity to put that point.
  Mr. HENDERSON: There may be an opinion in the Committee that the Clause is not properly drafted, but it has been the work of a Government draftsman who is not here, and I am not in a position to consult him as to why he included those words. I do not see that there is very much in it, but I am prepared to accept the Amendment on the condition that I shall have to consult the draftsman, and, if necessary, raise the question on the Report stage.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Let me say that it is not a question of drafting but of policy, and the draftsman must have been told to put the words in.
  Mr. PRINGLE: There must be some point of substance in what my hon. Friend says, and if these words are omitted it will not be necessary to have a Supplementary Estimate on Monday.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Style, Seal and Proceedings of Minister of Pensions.)
  (1) The Minister of Pensions may sue and be sued, and may for all purposes be described by that name.
  (2) The Minister shall have an official seal, which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and that seal shall be authenticated by the signature of the Minister, or of a secretary, or of some person authorised by the Minister to act on behalf of a secretary.
  (3) Every document purporting to be an instrument issued by the Minister and to be sealed with the seal of the Minister, authenticated in manner provided by this Act, or to be signed by a secretary or any person authorised by the Minister to act on behalf of a secretary, shall be received in evidence, and be deemed to be such an instrument without further proof, unless the contrary is shown.
  (4) A certificate signed by the Minister that any instrument purporting to be made or issued by him is so made or issued shall be conclusive evidence of the fact.
  (5) The Documentary Evidence Act, 1868, as amended by the Documentary Evidence Act, 1892, shall apply to the Minister of Pensions as if that Minister were mentioned in the first column of the Schedule to the first-mentioned Act, and as if the Minister, or a secretary of the Ministry, or any person authorised by the Minister to act on his behalf, was mentioned in the second column of that Schedule.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Power for Minister and a Secretary to Sit in Parliament.)
  (1) The office of Minister of Pensions shall not render the person holding it incapable of being elected to, or of voting in, the Commons House of Parliament, and shall be deemed to be an office included in Schedule H of the Representation of the People Act, 1867; in Schedule H. of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868; in Schedule E. of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868; and in Part I, of the Schedule of the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868.
  (2) The person who, at the passing of this Act, holds the office of Paymaster-General shall not by virtue of this Act, if a Member of the Commons House of Parliament, vacate his seat as such Member.
  (3) One of the Secretaries of the Ministry shall not by reason of his office be incapable of being elected to, or of voting in, the Commons House of Parliament.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "at the passing of this Act holds the office, of Paymaster-General shall not by virtue of this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "is first appointed to be Minister of Pensions shall not by reason of such appointment."
  Sir H. DALZIEL: This is a very important point to be sprung on the Committee without being on the Notice Paper. It is consequential, of course, on the changes in the Bill, and I am not going to object to it, but at the same time I am glad that it is limited to the first Minister. For my own part I should have thought that the Government would have taken the advantage of this opportunity of having a Pensions Minister for the first time to have a popular election. They might have, as it is put, "drawn fresh inspiration from the country," and have satisfied themselves that they had the people behind them. As I understand, this Amendment only covers the point as to whether my right hon. Friend, if he accepts this office, should not have the trouble of election, and I am quite content to agree to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us the name of the Under-Secretary whom it is proposed to appoint. I understand that he had it in mind and nearly told us the other night.
  Mr. PRINGLE: How many applications had he?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I think it would be interesting information for the House, and I think it is usual to announce the name of the Under-Secretary. I do not wish to press him on the matter, but I am sure it would give satisfaction to many of my hon. Friends around me if he were to announce the name
  Mr. HENDERSON: I am sure my right hon. Friend will not press me on this point. I think after what has taken place in the Committee to-day we had better wait until a Pensions Ministry is established.
  Colonel YATE: What is meant by the expression "one of the Secretaries?" How many Secretaries are there to be?
  Mr. HENDERSON: There will be the Parliamentary Secretary, and there will have to be what is known as the Permanent Secretary, and therefore we have to use the plural. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman we are not going to appoint more than we consider necessary.
  Colonel YATE: Not more than two Secretaries?
  Mr. HENDERSON: In taking over the Statutory Committee, I may have to take over a secretary, and I am not going to commit myself to two.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Transfer of Officers.)
  (1) There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry of Pensions such of the persons employed under the Admiralty, the Commissioners of the said hospital, the War Office, and the Statutory Committee. in or about the execution of the powers and duties transferred to the Minister of Pensions by this Act, as, subject to the consent of the Treasury, may be agreed between the several authorities above mentioned and the Minister of Pensions.
  (2) The Minister of Pensions may from time to time distribute the business of the Ministry amongst the several persons transferred thereto in pursuance of this Act in such manner as the Minister may think right, and those officers shall perform such duties in relation to that business as may be directed by the Minister:
  Provided that such persons shall, while they continue in office, be in no worse position as respects their tenure of office, salary, and superannuation allowances than they would have been had this Act not been passed.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "War Office" and insert instead thereof the words "Army Council."—[Mr. Forster.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Short Title, Interpretation and Repeal.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916.
  (2) For the purposes of this Act "service pension" means any pension or award in respect of length of service or special
  608
  Service or attached to any medal or other decoration, whether payable to persons who have been officers or men, or their widows, children, or other dependants, and the expression "pension" in relation to officers includes retired pay.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. FORSTER: Clause 2 defines the powers to be transferred from the War Office and the Admiralty to the new Department, subject to the exception of Service pensions. In Clause 9 we define roughly what Service pensions are. There is at present a certain amount of doubt as-to what is included in the expression "Service pensions," and whether, for instance, it includes gratuities payable to temporary or retired officers or to soldiers on discharge, and the question of deferred pay and of reserve pay. I had Amendments prepared with the object of clearing up these points. They are not on the Paper, because we did not wish to interfere in any way with the consideration of the arrangement which the House forced on us on Monday last, but on the Report stage I propose to put down those Amendments, so that hon. Gentlemen will not be surprised when they see them, and will not suspect us of any ulterior motive.
  Mr. BARLOW: Does the definition as it stands now include prize money?
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that we have got prize money in the Army.
  Mr. HOGGE: As I understand, Clause 2 specifically named certain powers that you are handing over, and all other powers are reserved to the Department. A great many of us are ignorant as to what those powers are, and I would suggest some sort of schedule defining what powers you are not handing over, and that everything else would be left to the new Department. I know that all sorts of things are cropping up and letter writers ask for information about this kind of grant and that kind of grant. These are little things, but those are the things that are going to result in much correspondence, and I suggest, therefore, the alternative of defining the smaller things which are not handed over.
  Mr. BARLOW: Perhaps by leave of the House I might put to the Secretary to the Admiralty the question I put a few moments ago to the Financial Secretary. It is a question which has been put to me, and therefore I wish to ask it again: That is whether prize money

  609
  will in any way be affected? I should like an assurance about that.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is proposed absolutely to exclude service pensions. What my hon. Friend wants to know is whether the Pensions Minister will have any control over the distribution of prize bounty or prize money? I should say certainly not.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (GIFTS FOR LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (GIFTS FOR LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Accept and Administer Gifts for Settlement of Ex-Sailors and Soldiers on Land.)
  (1) It shall be lawful for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or for the council of any county or county borough to accept any gift by will or otherwise to be applied wholly or mainly for the settlement or employment in agriculture on land in England or Wales of men who have served in any of His Majesty's naval or military forces, and to hold any land or estate or interest in land, the subject of any such gift and to administer the trusts affecting the gift, so, however, that all expenses incurred by the Board or the council in relation to any such trust shall be defrayed out of the trust property or the proceeds or income thereof, or out of money borrowed on the security of the trust property:
  Provided that land so given to the Board shall not be deemed to be acquired by the Board under the Small Holdings Colonies Act, 1916, unless the gift is expressly made for the purposes of that Act.
  (2) Any conveyance, appointment, de vise, or bequest of land or any estate or interest in land under this Act to the Board or to a council shall not be deemed to be a conveyance, appointment, devise, or bequest to a charitable use within the meaning of the Acts relating to charitable uses.
  (3) Sub-section (1) of this Section shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:
  For references to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, land in England and Wales, and county boroughs, references to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, land in Scotland, and royal
  610
  parliamentary and police burghs shall be respectively substituted.
  (4) Sub-section (1) of this Section shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modifications: —
  For references to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and to land in England and Wales, references to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and to land in Ireland shall be respectively substituted.
  The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: In Sub-section (1) after the word "borough" ["council of any county or county borough"] to insert the words: "or of any municipal borough or urban district council."
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Several times since I have been in this House I have interested myself in trying to get extended to municipal boroughs or urban district councils the powers which in the particular Bill, as presented to Parliament, were only given to counties or county boroughs. I succeeded in the War Charities Bill, for instance, in getting the powers as to registration extended to urban district councils. This Bill proposes to empower counties and county boroughs to accept any gift, by will or otherwise, of land for the purposes of the Bill. I certainly did not, in reading the Bill, see why the power to accept such gifts should be confined to counties or county boroughs. I did not see, and I am not sure yet, why a municipal borough should not have the right to accept from one of its citizens a gift of land for the purpose of the settlement of soldiers or sailors coming from that borough. Speaking of the county of Surrey, where I live, I may say there are two municipal boroughs and a large urban district council near me, and I think it is extremely likely that gifts of land might be offered to these bodies which might not be offered to the county council. I have had the advantage of talking this matter over with the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. He raises the objection that county councils and county boroughs have a regular staff for administering land under the Small Holdings Act, and he does not think it would be wise to encourage people to give land for this purpose to municipal boroughs or to urban district councils, which have not the staff for properly administering it. I am afraid that argument does not wholly convince me, because municipal

  611
  boroughs and urban district councils, and even parish councils, have the power and duty of administering land under the Allotments Act, although not under the Small Holdings Act. I should, therefore, have thought it would be better to give this power to the municipal boroughs and to the urban district councils. However, as my right hon. Friend tells me he cannot accept this Amendment, I do not wish to move it.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Gentleman should not have made his speech.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Perhaps, then, I had better formally move it; and I do so in order that I may have an explanation from the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): We think it is rather important that persons willing to give land, or to leave it in their wills, for this purpose should be certain that the trustees who will be responsible for carrying out their intentions shall be a staff whose duty it is to look after the welfare of the soldiers or tenants who may be occupying the land they give or bequeath. A county council has, of course, the required staff, has an agricultural adviser, a land agent, and so on. If these gifts are administered by bodies of that kind, it will be certain that the tenants will be brought within the regular county organisation for looking after and helping small holders, who will be brought into societies for encouraging co-operation amongst small holders, and into schemes of agricultural instruction for small holders. There will be persons definitely responsible for looking after their welfare. Therefore the Board would like the Bill to stand in its present form, if the Committee so decide. If, however, we heard of any case where the owner wished to make an urban district council or a borough council trustee for carrying out his intentions, I undertake to have that considered and to suggest amending legislation. We do wish, however, in the first instance, to suggest to owners, so far as this Bill will suggest to them, that the authority which really will be best suited to see that their intentions, in perpetuity, are carried out is the authority which has a staff appointed for that purpose.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, in Subsection (l), after the word "gift" ["trusts affecting the gift"], to insert the words "and for the purposes of those trusts to borrow money on the security of the trust. property."
  I move this Amendment for the sake of greater clearness. My Amendment is included in the words that stand in the lines a little further down in the Sub-section, and they make the whole sense clearer by putting them in there.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. ACLAND: I bog to move to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof
  "(2) Any assurance under this Act to a Board or to a council shall not be deemed to be an assurance of charitable use within the meaning of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888."
  These words are better for our purpose, and clearer than those which I propose to omit.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as. amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes; before Mine o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February last.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:
MONDAY.
Shops (Earliar Closing) Order.—Petition from Manchester, for alteration.
WEDNESDAY.
Registration of Business Names Bill [Lords].—Petition of the Scottish Trade; Protection Society, in favour.
WAR
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  PARIS ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  PARIS ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  RESERVE (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
  RESERVE (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
  MEN PASSED FOR SERVICE.
  MEN PASSED FOR SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  WAR EXPENDITURE.
  WAR EXPENDITURE.
  ALBION MOTOR COMPANY, GLASGOW (CARRIAGE LICENCES).
  ALBION MOTOR COMPANY, GLASGOW (CARRIAGE LICENCES).
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS.
  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS.
  WAR CHARGES.
  WAR CHARGES.
  CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS.
  CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OVERTIME).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OVERTIME).
  TRAIN SERVICE (LIMERICK AND KERRY).
  TRAIN SERVICE (LIMERICK AND KERRY).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (MATERLALS).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (MATERLALS).
  MINE SWEEPERS (OFFICERS).
  MINE SWEEPERS (OFFICERS).
  VOLUNTEER FORCE.
  VOLUNTEER FORCE.
  BRIGADIER-GENERAL GROVE (QUESTIONNAIRE).
  BRIGADIER-GENERAL GROVE (QUESTIONNAIRE).
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (IRELAND).
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (IRELAND).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  BROCTON CAMP.
  BROCTON CAMP.
  MILITARY FORCES (IRELAND).
  MILITARY FORCES (IRELAND).
  YEOMANRY (DRAFTS FOR INFANTRY).
  YEOMANRY (DRAFTS FOR INFANTRY).
  OFFICERS EMPLOYED AT HOME.
  OFFICERS EMPLOYED AT HOME.
  SCOTTISH REGIMENTS (ENGLISH RECRUITS).
  SCOTTISH REGIMENTS (ENGLISH RECRUITS).
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  ARMY CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  ARMY CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  CIVILIANS KILLED.
  CIVILIANS KILLED.
  COURTS-MARTIAL (POWERS).
  COURTS-MARTIAL (POWERS).
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
MUNITIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (BELFAST).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (BELFAST).
  DISUSED BREWERY, ENNISKILLEN.
  DISUSED BREWERY, ENNISKILLEN.
  IRISH CONTRACTS.
  IRISH CONTRACTS.
  GERMAN-BORN SURJECT (VISIT TO AMERICA).
  GERMAN-BORN SURJECT (VISIT TO AMERICA).
  INDIAN ARMY (PROMOTIONS).
  INDIAN ARMY (PROMOTIONS).
  TROOP TRAIN, INDIA (DEATHS FROM HEAT).
  TROOP TRAIN, INDIA (DEATHS FROM HEAT).
  SUNDAY TRADING.
  SUNDAY TRADING.
  IRISH RAILWAY EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
  IRISH RAILWAY EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
  SEWING COTTON PRICES.
  SEWING COTTON PRICES.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  WHEAT CHOP.
  WHEAT CHOP.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  CEREALS (MINIMUM PRICES).
  CEREALS (MINIMUM PRICES).
  WHEAT CULTIVATION.
  WHEAT CULTIVATION.
  FREIGHTAGE.
  FREIGHTAGE.
  PRIVATE GARDENS AND PLEASURE GROUNDS.
  PRIVATE GARDENS AND PLEASURE GROUNDS.
  MAIZE.
  MAIZE.
  BARLEY AND HOPS CULTIVATION.
  BARLEY AND HOPS CULTIVATION.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (APPEAL TRIBUNAL).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (APPEAL TRIBUNAL).
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
  SUB-POST-OFFICES.
  SUB-POST-OFFICES.
  GRAND JURIES.
  GRAND JURIES.
  CATHOLIC TEACHERS, SCOTLAND (WAR BONUS).
  CATHOLIC TEACHERS, SCOTLAND (WAR BONUS).
  DISCHARGED SAILORS AND SOLDIERS.
  DISCHARGED SAILORS AND SOLDIERS.
  LAND CULTIVATION, SCOTLAND.
  LAND CULTIVATION, SCOTLAND.
  ENEMY BUSINESSES.
  ENEMY BUSINESSES.
  Leeds Training College.
  Leeds Training College.
  School Clinics.
  School Clinics.
  Science Examinations (Great Britain).
  Science Examinations (Great Britain).
  Rice Consumed (India).
  Rice Consumed (India).
  Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company.
  Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company.
  Loss of Danish Ship "Fulvia."
  Loss of Danish Ship "Fulvia."
  National Penny Bank.
  National Penny Bank.
  Technical and Scientific Instruction (Scotland).
  Technical and Scientific Instruction (Scotland).
  Cattle Transit (Irish Channel).
  Cattle Transit (Irish Channel).