Sitting of 29 June 1917

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with)—Ms. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle-upon-Tyne [Lords].
Ordered that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      MEAT.
      Mr. WINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if Australian and New Zealand beef and mutton is landed at London Docks at 6d. and 9d. per 1b.; and, if so, will he say who gets the difference between the above price and current charges?
      Colonel GIBBS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Poplar on 18th June by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade setting out the terms on which the meat in question is brought to this country and placed on the market.
      Mr. WING: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my question. The answer given on the date he
      676
      mentions gives no idea who gets the difference between price at which it is sold by the Department and the price at which it is sold to the public.
      Mr. FIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman give us that information?
      Mr. SPEAKER: It is obviously no use asking supplementary questions of the hon. and gallant Member, who is only replying on behalf of the office, pending the vacancy being filled.
      Mr. WINGasked if the present prices of meat are on account of the Government Departments lifting artificially prices in the interests of the home producers of meat?
      Colonel GIBBS: I am not able to make any statement on this matter at the moment.

      POTATOES (IRELAND).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what steps, if any, the Government propose to take to-prevent the spreading of the potato blight in Ireland; if facilities or a Government Grant for spraying will be placed at the disposal of plot holders in Ireland; and if the plots are all cultivated by working men with small wages?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. A full statement on this matter was made by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 21st June. I understand that loans for the purchase of sprayers are being granted by the Department to farmers, labourers, and others growing potatoes; but it is not proposed' to give any Grant for the purpose. No doubt a very large number of plots are being cultivated by shopkeepers, clerks, tradesmen, etc.
      Mr. FIELD: Is it intended to make spraying compulsory so as to prevent the disease spreading?
      Mr. DUKE: Yes, if there is any indication that it is necessary, but at present there is no indication that there is any necessity for compulsion.

      DISTRIBUTION' OF FOODSTUFFS.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the consequences of food shopping; whether he is aware that women have to wait outside shops for two, three, and four

      677
      hours in the hope of being able to buy margarine and sugar, and after waiting often find the stock gone by the time their turn comes; that the long waiting in any kind of weather has imposed a strain upon the health of some of the women, and has caused some of the children to contract pneumonia and bronchitis; and whether it is the intention of his Department to organise a better system of distribution?
      Colonel GIBBS: The question of the better distribution of foodstuffs is receiving the Food Controller's attention. I would refer to my answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for South West Ham, in which I asked that Members would, for the moment, refrain from raising questions as to control of prices and profits, which could only be answered when the general policy of the Food Controller is determined. I hope that Members will apply the same principle to questions as to the supply and distribution of foodstuffs and other points of general policy.

      BACON (DELIVERY).
      Captain BARNETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether on six separate occasions daring the past few weeks vans were sent by a wholesale provision merchant to the goods yard of the Great Eastern Railway Company in the City to obtain delivery of a large quantity of bacon; that on each occasion delivery was refused; that the said bacon subsequently became unfit for human food; and whether he will take steps to prevent similar delays and mismanagement in the future?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Roberts): I am not aware of the cases to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman alludes. Perhaps, if he has reason to think that the railway arrangements were at fault, he will furnish me with further particulars in order that the matter may be investigated.

      SUBMARINE MENACE (SAILORS' LOSSES).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to the treatment of sailors who have had the misfortune of losing their effects on ships which have been submarined; if he is aware that James Duggan, 46, Portland Row, Dublin, employed on the ss. "Amneree," lost his outfit,
      678
      valued at £10, and was twenty-three hours hi an open boat after the "Amneree" was torpedoed; if he is aware that this claim was rejected by the Committee on cases of hardship; and if he will see that this case will be sympathetically reconsidered?
      Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The facts are substantially as stated in the question. I should explain that the Committee on cases of hardship is limited to the consideration of cases in which the seaman had insufficient means or opportunity for insuring against the risk of loss of his effects. I am informed that the reason why this particular claim could not be admitted was that the claimant had had every opportunity of insuring against this particular loss, having had his attention specially drawn to the matter by the Captain and Board of Trade Superintendent, but preferred not to insure.

      PETROL (PLEASURE CARS).
      Sir C. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has discovered the source of supply of petrol to a number of cars on pleasure excursions still to be seen upon the roads; and whether steps will be taken to stop this supply?
      Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid that it is the case that a certain number of persons still use motor cars for purposes which are no: altogether essential, the petrol for the purpose often being obtained from savings on the restricted amounts which were authorised by the petrol licences.
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: May I ask whether any attempt is made to check the purposes for which cars are used by stopping cars on the road and ascertaining the purposes for which they are used?
      Mr. ROBERTS: The function of my Department lies in restricting the use of petrol by licences, and very severe restrictions have been imposed since 1st May. We believe that these cases arise out of savings effected in supplies received prior to that date.
      Mr. MILLAR: Is it not necessary to ascertain how the cars are being used in order to see that the conditions are being fulfilled?
      Mr. ROBERTS: The most effective method is to restrict supplies.
      Mr. KING: Is it not a fact that the restrictions are making it less and less possible to have anything but business journeys, and that the question will cure itself?
      Mr. ROBERTS: That is what I tried to convey in reply to the supplementary questions. As far as our evidence goes, what pleasure riding goes on now is attributable to savings in petrol supplies received prior to 1st May. I think my hon. Friend is quite correct and that the matter will now solve itself.

      CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS (COMPUTATION OF PROFITS).
      Mr. C. ROBERTSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the case of controlled establishments having foreign book-debts which they have been unable to collect owing to the War, a due reserve will be allowed before computing the profits of the company for the purpose either of the Excess Profits Tax or the munitions levy?
      Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Where in these circumstances a reserve has been made, the payment of an appropriate amount of Excess Profits Duty is allowed to remain in abeyance, and a like course will be followed for munitions levy.
      Mr. ROBERTSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the case of controlled establishments holding moneys in the countries of neutrals or of our Allies, the valuation of such moneys for the purpose of determining the profits of the company, whether for Excess Profits Tax or Munitions Levy, shall be taken at the rate of exchange current on the date at which the account is made up?
      Mr. BALDWIN: Ordinarily the course suggested by the hon. Member would be adopted, but in any case in which an obviously inequitable result would be produced, suitable alternative methods would be considered.
      Mr. ROBERTSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, when application is made to the Inland Revenue Commissioners for allowances on account of depreciation or obsolescence of machinery or any other assets belonging to controlled firms, he can give an undertaking that such allowances shall not be at less favour able rates than the controlled firm has
      680
      used in those years by which its standard profit is computed without prejudice to any exceptional consideration that may be due to circumstances caused by the War?
      Mr. BALDWIN: I can hardly conceive that there are circumstances—save in the most exceptional cases—in which at less favourable rate of allowance for wear and tear of machinery or plant would be appropriate during the war period as compared with the pre-war period. If the hon. Member has any specific case in mind, perhaps he will furnish me with particulars.

      BOARD OF EDUCATION OFFICES (REMOVAL).
      Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether his staff and offices have been or soon will be re moved to South Kensington; how many persons are affected by the removal and for what period the removal is contemplated; and whether, as a result, the Victoria and Albert Museum will be in whole or partially closed for the present?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. H. Lewis): The removal of the Board's offices to South Kensington will begin at the end of this week, and a circular on the subject has been issued, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend, to which I may refer him for particulars. The number of members of the Board's staff who will be moved to South Kensington is about 600. I certainly do not contemplate remaining there a day longer than is absolutely necessary for the prosecution of the War. A large part of the Museum will remain open to the public.

      IRISH CONVENTION.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the Government have decided on the building in which the Convention will meet to consider the Irish question; whether the council chamber of the Dublin municipal buildings has been considered; and if he will state the date of the Convention?
      Mr. DUKE: As to the building, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave yesterday. The date of meeting will be announced as soon as the arrangements are complete.

      RAILWAY FACILITIES (IRELAND).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that injury has been caused to the Irish tourist industry by the withdrawal of all excursion and tourist facilities, excepting those places where railway companies have hotels, and that this preferential treatment is tantamount to subsidising opposition to private enterprise out of public funds; and if the Government is prepared to appoint a committee of business men to inquire into the matter and the position arising therefrom throughout Ireland?
      Mr. DUKE: I have asked for information on this subject from the Irish Railway Executive Committee.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      LEAVE.
      Mr. WINGasked the Under secretary of State for War if any steps are being taken to have a census taken of soldiers who have not had leave from the front for eighteen months and more; if so, when it will be completed; and, if not, why it has not been taken?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have no information whether the Commander-in-Chief has taken a census, as my hon. Friend suggests. Such a matter is within his discretion. I know that he gives the most sympathetic consideration to the question of leave, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is in communication with him on the subject at the present time.

      MILITARY SEEVIOE (REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS) ACT.
      Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state in simple form under what conditions discharged soldiers are exempt from being called up under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act and publish the same
      Mr. FORSTER: Under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, a man is exempt from being called up under the Act

      (a) if, being an officer, he has left, or being a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or private, he has been
      682
      discharged from the Army in consequence of disablement if the disablement is certified under the authority of the Army Council to be the result of wounds (including injury from poisonous gas) received in battle or in any engagement with the enemy, or otherwise from the enemy, or in consequence of neurasthenia or allied functional nerve disease if so certified by a special medical board to be the result of naval or military service in the present War;

      (b) if he is an ex-officer or discharged warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or private who has left or been discharged from the Army in consequence of disablement or ill-health, and is for the time being engaged in agriculture upon work which is certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (or, as respects Scotland, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland) to be work of national importance, and he was engaged on such work on the 31st March, 1917.

      In addition to the statutory exemptions above-mentioned, instructions have recently been issued by the War Office that no discharged man who has served overseas in the armed forces of the Crown is to be compulsorily posted for service under the 1917 Act, notwithstanding that under the provisions of the Act he may be legally liable to be posted for such service.
      Mr. WING: Does the hon. Gentleman by "special board" mean the verdict of the board resulting in an ordinary discharge
      Mr. FORSTER: The point of the hon. Member is covered by my answer, which is very long. Perhaps my hon. Friend, when hi3 reads it, will see that his point is met.
      Mr. HOGGE: As the discharge paper does not usually contain the specific reason for the man's discharge, and does not, for instance, mention that he has been wounded, is it sufficient for him to say on the back of the form that he has been wounded or must he prove that he has been wounded?
      Mr. FORSTER: No; I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has answered that question repeatedly. If the man has been wounded, he fills up the form on the back to that effect.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will instructions to that effect be issued to all the recruiting officers?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think the instructions which have been issued to the recruiting officers cover the point.
      Mr. SHERWELL: Is it not a fact that since the undertaking given by the Undersecretary recruiting officers have, nevertheless, called up men who have been discharged?
      Mr. HOGGE: And have put them into the Army?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will a man who has actually been put into the Army under such a misapprehension be entitled to his discharge?

      MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Undersecretary of State for War what "is the cause, and under what Regulation, Irishmen who were rejected in Dublin as medically unfit for service and given certificates that they were permanently medically unfit should be called to report themselves for further medical examination in Great Britain, having been induced to leave Ireland to take temporary employment; and if he will issue instructions to recruiting officers to cease such treatment of men who obtained employment on the strength of rejection certificates issued in Ireland by the military?
      Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member will supply particulars of specific cases inquiry will be made into the facts of each case, but I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the 7th March, 1917, and remind him that Irishmen who come to Great Britain and enter into employment on munition work, other contracts with Government Departments, port transport work or agriculture, are considered to be resident in Great Britain for a special purpose within the meaning of the Military Service Acts, 1916, and may be provided by the Employment Exchange with a card as evidence that they are ordinarily resident in Ireland and only temporarily resident in Great Britain for a special purpose. If Irishmen come to Great Britain and enter into employment not included in the arrangement with the Board of Trade they come within the provisions of the Military Service Acts as and when they become ordinarily resident in Great Britain, unless they can show that
      684
      they are resident in Great Britain for a special purpose; and an Irishman who has offered himself for enlistment since 15th August, 1915, and been rejected for service, is liable to be sent the statutory notice under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, as and when he becomes ordinarily resident in Great Britain. I must also remind the hon. Member that the mere fact that a man has been rejected for military service in Ireland does not necessarily mean that ho is an Irishman ordinarily resident in Ireland.

      GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Under secretary of State for War if a number of Irishmen who were transferred by Government Departments in Ireland to posts in Government Departments in Great Britain have received calling-up papers from military authorities and that the Government Departments have issued papers to the men releasing them for military service; whether this arrangement to conscript Irishmen has the approval of the War Office; and if he will see that justice will be done to these men who were induced to leave Ireland to take up employment in Great Britain?
      Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member will supply particulars of specific cases in which Irishmen employed in Government Departments have been transferred from Ireland for the purpose of working in Great Britain and have now been sent notices calling them up for military service, inquiries will be made into the facts of each case. The hon. Member was informed on the 24th May, 1917, that Irishmen who were employed in Government offices in Ireland and who had been transferred to Government offices in Great Britain would, if ordinarily resident in Ireland, be excepted from the liability to military service under the Military Service Acts, 1916.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the methods of the Excise authorities to obtain recruits; if he is aware that since the outbreak of war they induced a number of Irishmen to come to England to do Government work and that they are now releasing them for military service although they are not ordinarily resident in Great Britain; and if he will see that this treatment will not be tolerated by the War Office?
      Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 25th June to the hon. Member for Wicklow, W., by my hon. Friend the Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and on 24th May by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State to the hon. Member for Dublin Harbour.

      ARGYLL AND SUTHERLAND HIGHLANDERS (PRIVATE T. TYNAM).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will cause inquiries to be made into the case of Private Thomas Tynam, C Company, 11th platoon, 2/8th Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, Taverham Camp, Norfolk; if this man for the time he was in Great Britain engaged in work of national importance and that his ordinary residence was in Dublin; if he will order this man's discharge; if he will issue instructions that would prevent recruiting officers interfering with Irishmen who were induced to leave Ireland to perform work of national importance; and if this man was rejected medically unfit before leaving Dublin?
      Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries have been made into the facts of this case, and it has been ascertained that Tynam, or Lynam, was living in Glasgow, and registered there under the National Registration Act on the 4th December, 1915. He was called up to report for service with the Colours on the 18th April, 1916, the calling up notice being returned marked, "Not found." The police were subsequently requested to make inquiries, and reported that they were unable to trace Lynam, and in August, 1916, Lynam's name and description were sent to the Editor of the "Police Gazette," as a result of which he was traced and advised by the police to report to the recruiting officer at Glasgow. Lynam reported to the recruiting officer on the 7th September, 1916, and was medically examined and classified as temporarily unfit for a period of three months. On reporting to the recruiting officer he made no claim to be an Irishman not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, or to have been previously rejected for military service. At the expiration of three months Lynam was again called up for medical examination and was re-examined and passed as fit for garrison duty abroad (B1), but he was not then posted to a unit. On the 14th May, 1917, Lynam was called
      686
      up to report for service with the Colours, and reported in accordance with the notice and was posted to the 2/8th Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, and is at present stationed at Taverham Camp, Norfolk. The recruiting officer at Glasgow reports that although Lynam reported at the recruiting office on no fewer than three occasions, on no occasion did he claim to be excepted from the liability to military service as an Irishman who was not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, nor did he state that he had been rejected for service or produce any evidence of such rejection, and in these circumstances the recruiting officer would appear to have been perfectly justified in posting Lynam to a unit. Inquiries are being made with respect to the statement that Lynam offered himsef for enlistment in Dublin and was rejected on medical grounds.

    "EMPIRE" (DOMINIONS).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the precise indication of the statute by virtue of which the King speaks of My Empire as including the Dominions?
    Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): My right hon. Friend is unavoidably detained, and has asked me to answer this question. I can add nothing to the replies that have already been given on this subject.
    Mr. LYNCH: I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-day.
    Mr. LYNCH (at the end of Questions): I gave notice just now that I would raise this question on the Adjournment, but it appears that there is not to-day the usual opportunity for raising questions on the Adjournment. Therefore I will bring it up on the earliest opportunity.

    TOBACCO (PRICES).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Chan cellor of the Exchequer whether he has had an opportunity of examining the latest balance sheets of some large tobacco firms and has seen the increase in profit as com pared with pre-war profits; whether he is aware that increased taxation on tobacco is taken advantage of to inflate profits, and

    687
    that there is general discontent against trade practices; and whether it is the intention of the Government, by taking over the tobacco industry or in any other way, to prevent the charges now being made?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Tobacco Control Board are now examining the latest balance sheets and also former balance sheets of several of the larger companies connected with the tobacco trade, and will advise my right hon. Friend in due course as to any action that may appear necessary.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the survey which is now being taken is including other methods of checking war profits, such as the undue admixture of water?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think it will be within the competence of the Control Board to take all those matters into consideration.

    CURRIE CAMP (CASE UNDER INQUIRY).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a man has been confined to the guardroom in the military camp at Currie, near Edinburgh, for over eight weeks awaiting court-martial; whether this man, for refusing to answer his name properly on the 15th June, was tied to a post on the order of a sergeant-major; whether the prisoners at this camp, for refusing on Sunday, the 17th of June, to do some work on the ground that they were prisoners awaiting trial, were tied to tent pegs, each ankle being fastened to a peg, their hands tied behind their backs and bound to a tent peg, and their bodies being bent into a sitting posture; whether they had to endure this for a day; and whether, if he finds these statements to be accurate, he will cause those responsible to be reprimanded and issue orders which will prevent a recurrence of such punishments?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have called for a Report on this case, and the hon. Gentleman will be informed as soon as possible.
    Mr. MACDONALD: On Monday?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot say.

    BALKANS CAMPAIGN.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many Australian soldiers have fallen in the Balkans since the begining of the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: There have been no casualties to Australian troops in the Balkans.

    BILL PRESENTED.
    NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL,—"to amend Section 74A of the Naval Discipline Act," presented by Dr. MACNAMARA; to be read a second tme upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. GULLAND: May I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury which of the Orders on the Paper he proposes to take to-day?
  Lord E. TALBOT: We propose to take the first five Orders.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it proposed to take anything more than the Second Heading of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Transfer of Powers) Bill?
  Lord E. TALBOT: We shall take the Second Reading.
  Mr. HOGGE: Not the first stages?
  Lord E. TALBOT: No.
  Mr. KING: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the first Order, Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill—this Bill cannot now be obtained in the Vote Office. Therefore, the Lords Amendments, which are only intelligible if we have the Bill itself, are really inappropriate to be discussed here to-day. We do not know what they mean.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I shall be happy to give the hon. Member my copy of the Bill.

  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of Court to Suspend or Annul Certain Contracts.)
    (1) Where, upon, an application by any party to a contract for the construction of any building or work or for the supply of any materials for any building or work entered into before the fourth day of August, 1914, the Court is satisfied that, owing to the prevention or restriction of, or the delay in, the supply or delivery of materials, or the diversion or insufficiency of labour, occasioned by the present War, the contract cannot be enforced according to its terms without serious hardship, the Court may, after considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties to the contract and any offer which may have been made by
    694
    any party for a variation of the contract, suspend or annul the contract on such conditions (if any) as the Court may think fit.
    (2) Where upon an application by any party to any contract the Court is satisfied that, owing to any restriction or direction imposed or given by or in pursuance of any regulation made under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm, any term of the contract cannot be enforced without serious hardship, the Court may, after considering the circumstances of the case and the position of the parties to the contract and any offer which may have been made by any party for the variation of the contract, suspend or annul the contract or stay any proceedings for the enforcement of the contract or any term thereof or any rights arising thereunder on such conditions (if any) as the Court may think fit.
    (3) This Section shall be construed as one with the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "contract" ["suspend or annul the contract "], insert the words "or stay any proceedings for the enforcement of the contract or any term thereof or any rights arising thereunder,"—Agreed to.
    At the end of same Sub-section add the words, "For the purpose of this Subsection where an offer made before the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, was binding on a contracting party if accepted within a specified period expiring after that date and was so accepted after that date the contract shall be deemed to have been entered into before that date."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. KING: I should like to know from the Solicitor-General in regard to these Amendments whether they only bear out and confirm, and strengthen if possible, the concessions which he so generously made with such great approval when the Bill was before this House? If we might have a, word or two to reassure us, I am sure it would facilitate business.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say at the same time which of them are new altogether—which were introduced by the Lords for the first time?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): There are three classes of Amendments with which the House is now concerned. There is, first of all, the largest class, which carries further the relief that was sought to be given in this House. There is, secondly, a small class of Amendments, which I think I may fairly call drafting Amendments, that alter and improve the phrasing without altering the substance; and, thirdly, there is a particular Amendment which undoubtedly modifies by way of compromise a concession that was made in this House. That is on Clause 5, and it may be that on that Amendment, when it is reached, it will be proper that a word of explanation should be offered. I think in what I have said I have in substance covered the inquiry of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) also.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (2), after the word "contract" ["any party to any contract"], insert the word "whatsoever." —Agreed to.
    Leave out the words, "any regulation made under."—Agreed to.
    After the word "realm" ["relating to the defence of the realm"], insert the words '' or any regulation made thereunder, or owing to the acquisition or user by or on behalf of the Crown for the purposes of the present War of any ship or other property.' —Agreed to.
    At the end of Sub-section (2), insert the words "This Sub-section shall apply to any obligation relating to the supply of water, heat, light, traction or power arising under any Act of Parliament, or Order having the force of an Act of Parliament, in like manner as it applies to a contract, except that it shall not be lawful for the Court to annul any such obligation."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Relief in Respect of Certain Contractual Obligations.)
    Where by virtue of any contract of tenancy any person is bound to do or abstain from doing or is under any liability if he does or abstains from doing any act or thing, and by virtue of any Regulation made under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm the doing of such act or thing is restricted or enjoined, he shall not during the continuance of the contract or on the determina-
    696
    tion thereof be liable to pay any sum of money or incur any forefeiture or other penalty in respect of the failure to do or the doing of such act or thing if and in so far as the failure to do or the doing of such act or thing is attributable to compliance with such restriction or injunction as aforesaid.
    Lords Amendments:
    Leave out the words "does or" ["if he does or abstains "].—Agreed to.
    After the word "doing" ["does or abstains from doing"] insert the words "or does."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "any Regulation made under."—Agreed to.
    After the word "realm" ["relating to the defence of the realm"] insert the words "or any Regulation made thereunder."—Agreed to.
    After the word "is" ["doing of such act or thing is restricted"] insert the words "wholly or partially."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the word "enjoined" ["is restricted or enjoined"] and insert instead thereof the word" ordered."— Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "the determination" ["or on the determination thereof"], and insert instead thereof the words "or after the termination."— Agreed to.
    After the word "to" ["be liable to pay"] insert the words "any mandatory Order or any injunction or interdict in respect of such act or thing or. be liable to."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the word "injunction" ["restriction or injunction as aforesaid"], and insert the word "Order."— Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Relief from Liability when Fulfilment of Contract Interfered with by Requirement of Government Department.)
    It is hereby declared that where the fulfilment by any person of any contract not being a contract of tenancy is interfered with by the necessity on the part of himself or any other person of complying with any requirement, Regulation, or restriction of any Government Department, or of a competent naval or military authority, that necessity is a good defence to any action or proceeding taken against that person in respect of the non-fulfilment of the contract so far as it is due to that interference.
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out Clause 3 and insert Clause A:
    Where before or after the passing of this Act the non-fulfilment of any contract (not being a contract of tenancy) was or is due to the compliance on the Hart of any person with any requirement, regulation, order, or restriction of any Government Department, or of a competent naval or military authority made, issued, or given or imposed for purposes connected with the present War, or with any direction or advice issued or given by any Government Department with the object of preventing transactions which, in the opinion of the Department, would or might be contrary to national interests in connection with the present War, proof of that fact shall be a good defence to any action or proceeding in respect of the non-fulfilment of the contract. A certificate by the appropriate Government Department shall be sufficient evidence that such direction or advice was issued or given and with such object as aforesaid.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. KING: Here is an entirely new Clause, not perhaps new in the sense that it does not cover the same ground, but when a, whole Clause is left out and something else substituted we ought to have a word of explanation.
    Sir G. HEWART: My hon. Friend appears for the moment to have forgotten that in Committee in this House Clause 3 was inserted with the object of giving a good defence in an action where the fulfilment of a contract, other than a contract of tenancy, was interfered with by the necessity of complying with a requirement, regulation, or restriction of a Government Department. It was proposed in that Clause to cover the whole ground, but inquiry made it plain that it did not cover the whole ground, and certain modifications were required in order to give effect to what I think was the undoubted intention of the Committee here. If that alteration had been made by the process of taking out particular words and inserting other words a good many Amendments would have been required, and therefore the course which was adopted, I imagine purely for purposes of convenience, was to leave out the Clause as it left this House and to insert the expanded Clause, which
    698
    went a little further. I will point out in what respect the new Clause goes somewhat further than the old. The new Clause extends the relief which the old Clause gave to cases where a person has failed to comply with a contract because he has complied with any direction or advice issued or given by any Government Department with the object of preventing transactions which, in the opinion of the Department, would or might be contrary to national interests in connection with the present War. If this Amendment had not been inserted there might conceivably have been controversy as to whether that which was done in the way of direction or advice amounted to a requirement. The insertion of these words puts that doubt aside and expands the previously existing words in a sense which this House would desire. There is an addition at the end of the Clause, which the House may think to be a useful addition, that further provides that a certificate from the appropriate Government Department shall be sufficient evidence that such direction or advice was issued or given. So that partly the new matter introduces a new ground of excuse, or relief, and partly it introduces a convenient way of dealing with any question of evidence with regard to that direction or advice.
    Mr. KING: I thank my hon. Friend for his explanation and also for the last three lines which have been added, which are really something quite new. The issue of a certificate by the appropriate Government Department may be, and probably will be-, a quite useful and satisfactory solution, and I hope the Government Department will raise no difficulties at giving it. We are by this placing power in the hands of a Government Department in a way which was not considered and is quite new. It practically amounts to this, that in future a Government Department can give certificates which will enable firms to get out of their contracts. That may be good and may be necessary, and no doubt in many cases will act well, but there is a danger in it. I will not oppose the Amendment, but I think it is only right that this quite new principle ought to be shown up.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to Sums made Irrecoverable by 5 & 6 Geo. 5, c. 97.)
    (1) Where any sum has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, been paid

    699
    on account of any rent or mortgage interest, being a sum which by virtue of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, would have been irrecoverable by the landlord or mortgagee, the sum so paid shall be recoverable from the landlord or mortgagee by the tenant or mortgagor by whom it was paid, and may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be deducted by such tenant or mortgagor from any rent or interest payable by him to the landlord or mortgagee.
    (2) If any person in any rent book or similar document makes an entry showing or purporting to show any tenant as being in arrears in respect of any sum which by virtue of the said Act is irrecoverable, or if, where any such entry has before the passing of this Act been made by or on behalf of any landlord, the landlord, on being requested by or on behalf of the tenant so to do, refuses or neglects to delete the entry, he shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
    (3) This Section shall be construed as one with the Increase of Rent and Mort gage Interest (War Restrictions), 1915.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "whether before or."
    Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I hope that the Government are not going to accept this Amendment. If they do accept the Amendment it will be really a breach of the promise given in connection with the charging of increased rent. It seems to me that by this Amendment the Lords are becoming accessories to the landlords who have been taking that which did not belong to them, and as a member of the House of Commons I do not want to be an accessory to an. act of that kind. I hope that this House will not accept the Lords Amendment. It seems to me perfectly ridiculous to pass an Act of Parliament to empower landlords to keep that which they have really stolen. It is illegal on their part to charge increased rent, and now it is proposed that we should condone the offence. I am told
    700
    that in Birmingham alone 60,000 tenants have had the rents increased by the landlords, and increased rent has been collected in spite of the Act of Parliament.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I think it is well that the House should give some consideration to this Amendment. I suppose every hon. Member—certainly those representing industrial constituencies—have had cases referred to them where, despite the legislation of this House, attempts have been made to evade it. There may be a very good reason not familiar to the House this morning for the particular Amendment now upon the paper, but unless the Solicitor-General can enlighten us I think we ought to hesitate about accepting this Amendment.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I hope this Amendment will not be passed without some clear explanation. It interferes very materially with the concession which we understand was to be made to the demand which was strongly urged in this House when the Bill was before us, dealing with the many cases which were brought before the House, and which have been going on ever since. I trust that the Solicitor-General will be able to give us some explanation, and I hope the Government, if possible, will reconsider their position.
    Mr. YEO: I hope this House will not pass this Amendment, because outside there is a good deal of dissatisfaction. I think people are entitled to recover that which has been illegally taken from them. If the House goes to a Division I shall vote against this Amendment.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I was hoping that by now the Government would have given us some explanation of this series of changes, for it is not merely one, made in another place. I am not quite sure what they mean as a whole, but it seems to me that one thing has certainly gone. The Solicitor-General might explain to us the meaning of this Amendment. As the Clause stood when it left this House it was provided that increases of rent made, whether before, or after the passing of this Act, which were illegally made, should be recoverable by various methods, and one method was that of deduction by the tenant. Presumably, if the tenant felt that his rent had been raised illegally, he could of his own free will deduct the amount, and then, presumably, the landlord would sue him, and he would have to prove in Court, on his own initiative, that the increase was legitimate and

    701
    legal. That would work out to the advantage of the tenant. We must not put the tenant in the position of suing his landlord, and the great advantage of Clause 5 is that we are reversing that process. I want to stand by that, and I should like to know whether, if we accept the Lords Amendment, that privilege is retained, or whether the tenant has to sue his landlord for having made deductions that were illegal under the Increase of Rents and Mortgage Interest (War Restriction) Act, 1915. If that is so, then I think this House will refuse to accept the Lords Amendment. If the Solicitor-General can explain to us that that is wrong, then I am open to consider the point. Perhaps he will explain precisely what the Amended Clause means in regard to what it did mean when it left this House.
    Sir G. HEWART: I should have risen before to explain this Amendment had it not been clear that several Members were desirous of addressing the House on it. I will endeavour to explain the effect of the change which has been made in the Clause since it left the House of Commons. First of all with reference to the question put to me by the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), I may say that the effect of that which has been done is not in the least to make it obligatory upon the tenant, if he desires to obtain his remedy, to commence an action against the landlord. The right of deduction remains in the Bill no less now than it did before. But in order to see what is the change in substance that has been made it is necessary that I should remind the House of the state of the law at the time when this Bill was introduced. As the House remembers, by the Act which was passed in "December, 1915, the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, it was provided by Section 1 that in the case of a dwelling house to which the Act referred the rent should not be raised above the standard rent, and it was provided further with regard to mortgage interest that that should not be raised. In the one case as in the other it was provided that where an increase was made beyond that which the Act permitted, the landlord, or In the other case the mortgagee, should not be able to recover that excess. So far the Act went, and no further. In other words, the Act retrained, and pointedly refrained, from enabling the tenant if he paid the excess I
    702
    to recover it back, and from enabling the mortgagor if he paid the excess interest to recover it back from the mortgagee.
    The matter stood in this way—and was made plain in a case which started in a County Court in the Midlands, I think, and ultimately came to the Court of Appeal— that if against the wish of a tenant the landlord unduly increased the rent,, or if against the wish of the mortgagor the mortgagee unduly increased the interest, he could not recover in either case. On the other hand, if for any reason the tenant in the one case, or the mortgagor in the other case, paid the excess, then he did not have an opportunity of getting it back, and ho did not have that opportunity for two reasons. In the first place, if the payment were made in mistake it would be money paid not in mistake of fact, but of law. Secondly, it would be money paid under an agreement which was lawful when it was made.
    That was the position with which the House had to deal when the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill was introduced. As the House will remember, when the Bill was introduced there was no provision in it relating to this matter, and this particular provision was the result of discussion and, I think, negotiation in this House. When the Bill left this House the position was that if at any time whatever, whether before or after the passing of this Act, the excess rent was imposed or the excess Interest was paid, the tenant in the one case and the mortgagor in the other case could recover it or could deduct it from future payments. The House of Lords has made a compromise upon that. I do not think that anybody who has made, a study of the matter will deny that among the arrangements which were made with regard to the increase of rent or interest there were many purely voluntary arrangements. Take, for example, the case of a mortgagor who was paying a certain rate of interest in August, 1914. He might be perfectly willing not only to pay that rate of interest, but to pay a somewhat increased rate, for this reason, that otherwise the mortgagee might call in his money and the mortgagor when he came to raise the money might have to pay a considerably enhanced rate of interest. So that it might be to the interest of the mortgagor no less than that of the mortgagee to agree, on an increased rate. In fact, those payments were made, and were made upon a considerable scale, and a question arose with regard to what has

    703
    been done in the interval between the passing of the Act of 1915 and this new Act. Was the new Act to remain retrospective? Was that quite fair to trustees and beneficiaries?
    I am not going to say that there may not be a great deal to be said in favour of its being retrospective. One is not dealing here with his personal inclinations or prejudices. On the other hand, it is quite plain to anyone who has looked into the facts or has made himself aware of the course of. the discussion in another place that there is a great deal to be said against the retrospective part of the Clause. As the result of considerable discussion, what has been done in another place is this, that the Clause remains with its twofold remedy of either deduction or action, but two limitations have been introduced. One is that the Section is limited so as to apply only to the period that follows the passing of the Act, and the second is that the claim to recover must be made within six months after the payment. In other words, a person who pays the increased interest or increased rent is not to let it rest for two or three or four years, until the time when the Statute of Limitations prohibits recovery, but within the period of six months after the payment made he is to seek a remedy. I am far from saying that the Clause is a perfect Clause. I am not saying that there may not be a great deal of argument which could be advanced for retaining the retrospective part of it. But the view of the matter which I submit to the House is this, that in 1915 the Legislature pointedly abstained from giving the tenant or the mortgagor any right to recover any excess of rent or interest, notwithstanding that the landlord or the mortgagee could not recover it from him if he refused to pay. This new Clause, limited as it is in the two ways to which I have called attention, does give a remedy in the one case and the other in every instance that may arise after the passing of this Act.
    Mr. KING: The explanation of the Solicitor-General, clear and attractive as it is, is not at all satisfactory. I hope very much that we shall have a Division on this. I believe that if the House as a whole could know the facts, it would be overwhelmingly against the acceptance of this Amendment. The Government have not hurried this legislation at all. It has been a very long time before this House and the other House. Then the com-
    704
    promise in this House, which has now been upset in another place, was not only accepted by the Government, but was actually introduced by the Government, and the Solicitor-General himself was quite enthusiastic about it. It is obvious that the Government have given way against their mature and better judgment, and I am convinced that there ought to be a Division on this Amendment and also on the next Amendment.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: The Solicitor-General has given a very clear account of this Amendment, but I do not think that he has given any guidance as to whether he considers that we should accept it. I do not think that anything he said contained any advice. In fact, if anything, he rather suggested that we should not accept the Amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART Sir G. HEWART dissented.
    Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I certainly noticed no single word suggesting that either he or the Government approved of this action of the House of Lords. In these circumstances no Division should be necessary, and the expression of opinion of Members of this House should be sufficient to have this Amendment omitted.
    Mr. BOYTON: It is very evident, from what has happened, that there has been a very great inquiry into this subject in another place, and that it has been found impossible to carry out the desire of this House, whether before or after the passing of the Act. When we talk of landlords, it is assumed that those spoken of as rack renters are the actual landlords. That is not really the fact, and they are very largely in the hands of the mortgagees, and it may be that the mortgagees raised the rents. It is found that there would be great difficulty in connection with matters of account going beyond six months, and it seems to me that this compromise is really one decided upon in a very fair spirit. Many people would like to recover excess payments by deducting six months' rent or six months' mortgage interest, but in the case of small people who have taken mortgages on property—and building societies are also brought into it—it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make the Bill actually retrospective. As this matter has been very fully and fairly discussed, and as all the difficulties have been pointed out in another place, I hope the House will accept the Amendment.
    1.0 P.M.
    Mr. HUDSON: The Solicitor-General has given a very clear explanation of this matter, but, in connection with this Bill, I would point out that it was clearly understood that one of the most serious complaints raised on this matter referred to the past action of either landlords or landlords' agents. It should be considered that many people were not conversant with the Rent Restrictions Act, and they did not know what they could do in cases where excess rent was demanded from them. In regard to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, at the time when the Bill was before the House he challenged us to point out where there were any actual excess charges, and I produced a rent book which showed that there had been £8 or £9 continuous overcharge, under the provisions of the Act of 1915 Surely either the landlord or the agent, who have received excess payments, should not now be allowed to keep the money, and that was the decision at which we arrived. We, however, say that a fair amount of time should be allowed for the repayment of that which has been paid under misapprehension. This is one of the most important points in this particular Amendment, and I think that the Government should be relieved from the responsibility of passing an Amendment, simply because there will be a difficulty probably on the part of some people who have a great deal more money and who better understand increases in mortgages. I hope that the Solicitor-General will reject this Amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART: It may be that the House inferred from what I have said that I took no strong view as to the way in which the vote of the House should be given. I desired to put the matter plainly and frankly before the House, and I desire now to add only this, that a further compromise has been made in another place upon a compromise which originated here, but the second part of the Clause remains. With regard to the Amendment, for my own part I think I must vote in favour of it, but so far as the House is concerned it is a matter which will be left to the unfettered judgment of hon. Members.
    Mr. WING: I regret that this compromise has been made in another place, and I submit that if the Government accept it they will turn their back upon their previous decision in this House. For myself, I have received a number of complaints
    706
    relating to increase of rents, and I have always told the people to resist any increase. I would further point out that there is a general impression in the country that where increases have been paid the people who have made the payments will be able to deduct them. It will be a very great disappointment to the country if that should prove not to be the fact. I certainly oppose the Amendment.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["shall be recoverable"], insert the words "at any time within six months after the date of payment."
    Sir G. HEWART: After what has taken place it will be necessary now to insert some further words. I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to add the words "or in the case of payment made before the passing of the Act within six months of the passing thereof." That will deal with payments which took place before the Act came into force.
    Mr. KING: I am not quite sure about this. I see that some such words are necessary, but are these words making the payment irrevocable after six months?
    Mr. T. WILSON: I understand this means that a claim for a refund of rent which has been overcharged must be made within six months after the passing of the Act?
    Sir G. HEWART: As the Clause stands at present, as amended, the claim has to be made within six months after the date of payment. The words I have proposed to add provide with regard to such payments made before the passing of the Act that the claim has to be made within six months of the passing of the Act.
    Mr. T. WILSON: That is what I said.
    Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "mortgagee" ["from the landlord or mortgagee"], insert the words "who received the payment or his legal personal representative."—Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "payable," insert the words "within such six months," and leave out the word "the" ["to the landlord"], and insert instead thereof the word "such."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. T. WILSON: How does this Amendment affect the Clause after the deletion of the last Amendment?
    Sir G. HEWART: If the Clause remains as it is now, no doubt the period would be six months after the date of payment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "arrears," and insert instead thereof the word "arrear."—Agreed to
    Lords Amendment:
    After Clause 5 insert the following new Clauses:
    (Exclusion of Judgments in Actions of Tort from Section one (1) (a) of 4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 78.)
    The provisions of Section one, Subsection (1) (a) of the Courts Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, shall not apply to any judgment or order for recovery or payment of any sum of money or costs given or made in any action of tort, or in Scotland in any action of reparation founded on delinquency, whether before or after the commencement of this Act.
    (Provision as to Leases at Lens than Back Rent.)
    In Sub-section (6) of Section two of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, which relates to tenancies at less than rack rent, the word "standard" shall be omitted, and at the end of the Sub-section there shall be inserted the following words "and this Act shall apply in respect of such dwelling-house as if no such tenancy existed or had ever existed."
    (Application of Subsection (1) of Section One of 4 & 5, Geo. 5, c. 78, to Officers and Soldiers.)
    The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, shall have effect in favour of officers and men of His Majesty's Forces with the following modification (that is to say)—
    Sub-section (1) of Section one shall apply-to any sum of money due and payable in pursuance of a contract made before the officer or man has joined His Majesty's Forces.
    —Proposed New Clauses agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill.
    Committee nominated of Sir Gordon Hewart, Mr. Boyton, and Mr. Wing.
    Two to be the quorum.
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.— [Sir. G. Hewart.]

  TRADE UNION (AMALGAMATION) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  TRADE UNION (AMALGAMATION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amalgamation of Unions.)
    (1) Any two or more trade unions may, by the consent of a majority of the members of each or every such trade union voting at a ballot on the question, become amalgamated together as one trade union; and, accordingly, Section twelve of the Trade Union Act Amendment Act, 1876, shall have effect as if for the words "by the consent of not less than two thirds of the members of each or every such trade union" there were substituted the words "by the consent of a majority of not less than 20 per cent, of the members of each or every such trade union voting at a ballot on the question": Provided that not less than 50 per cent, of the members of such trade union entitled by their rules to vote take part in such vote.
    (2) For removing doubts it is hereby declared that the said Section twelve applies to the amalgamation of one or more registered trade unions with one or more unregistered trade unions.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. John Hodge): These Amendments deal with the ballot to be taken. The first leaves out words as to the method of consent, and the second and third are drafting Amendments.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "by the consent of a majority of the members of each or every such trade union voting at a ballot on the question."— Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "union" ["as one trade union"], insert the words "if in the case of each or every such trade union, on a ballot being taken, the votes of at least 50 per cent, of the members entitled to vote thereat are recorded, and of the votes recorded those in favour of the proposal exceed by 20 per cent, or more the votes against the proposal."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "by the consent of a majority of not less than 20 per cent, of the members of each or every such trade union voting at a ballot on the question: Provided that not less than 50 per cent. of the members of such trade union entitled by their rules to vote take part in such vote," and insert instead thereof the words "if in the case of each or every such trade union, on a ballot being taken, the votes of at least 50 per cent, of the members entitled to vote thereat are recorded, and of the votes recorded those in favour of the proposal exceed by 20 per cent. or more the votes against the proposal."—Agreed to.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC. (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): It falls to my lot to ask the assent of the House to the Second Reading of this Bill, which, I hope I may be able to think, is uncontentious, having already been agreed to by both sides of those immediately and directly concerned, and which, I believe, also meets with the general approval of those who have taken special interest in pensions and matters appertaining to grants and allowances made in consequence of the present War. The Bill is for the dissolution of the Statutory Committee and the apportionment of its powers and duties to the Minister of Pensions, and to a new authority. Inasmuch as when this Bill
  710
  finally passes this will be the end of the Statutory Committee, I think it is only right that I should say a word or two about that body and about its vice-chairman, because both the body and its vice-chairman have been referred to in somewhat uncomplimentary terms in this House on more than one occasion. The Statutory Committee was set up in consequence of a Bill passed by this House two years ago. It started its operations about January of last year. It has done a very great deal of useful work. It was my privilege to sit on that Committee for about a year. Upon the Committee, during the whole of that time, there were a number of men and women who did hard, disinterested work, work which was not performed in the limelight, which got no recognition. It was a sort of work of a most disinterested character, done by men and women because of their special knowledge and interest in the wives and dependants of soldiers and sailors. That work has been continued right up to date. I know pretty well that many men and women have given up their time to this work. As a result of it I believe that health, hope, and comfort have been taken into many thousands of homes throughout the length and breadth of the country.
  During the early part of last year the Committee were faced with what I venture to say was a very great problem. That was, how to get the benefit of certain provisions made in Parliament distributed by means of local agencies, throughout the whole length and breadth of the country, into the homes of the people. I know, because I was there at the time, what a tremendous problem presented itself to the Committee. The problem was, however, tackled with the assistance of Sir Samuel Provis and others who had special knowledge of the local government of the country. As a result 300 committees were set up as between then and last August. The date had been fixed for 1st July. It was first of all thought that all those committees would have been set up by that date. As a matter of fact, they were set up between the beginning of the year and last August. In the result we have now, I venture to say, one of the finest of agencies in a whole network of local committees throughout the country in actual daily touch with the people who are to benefit; that work has been largely due to the disinterested efforts of men and women with special knowledge of the sailor and soldier and the needs of the family that are

  711
  dependent upon them. I want to say a word about the vice-chairman. I do so because I think it is only due to him. There have not been wanting suggestions from time to time that the appointment of a vice-chairman was a waste of public money. There were, as I think, unfair suggestions that he was lingering superfluous upon the scene. Only yesterday there was on the printed matter of the House a question in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset in which there was more than a suggestion that the salary paid to the vice-chairman was a waste of public money, and the suggestion was made that he should be dispensed with.
  I want to say this for the vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee, that he has worked very hard. He has not stayed on because he wanted to stay on; on the contrary, during the time of transition between the old and new methods of doing things he was the necessary officer to remain to get the new people into the paths in which they had to travel. As a matter of fact, far from him doing what has been suggested, his own personal inclination was to go six months ago, when the Statutory Committee was put in a different position. He has only stayed since on the urgent representations made to him from time to time both by myself and others. Therefore he has occupied the position since last December only in consequence of those urgent representations, and because he felt he was doing a public duty in sticking to his job. It is only due that that should be said of the vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee. He has rendered work of a very valuable kind, and is entitled to recognition of this House and the country. In spite of the good work done by the Statutory Committee, the Statutory Committee was found to be an impossible institution. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh will remember that only a few days before setting up the Pensions Department I said I did not care a row of pins whether or not a Pensions Department was set up. I was concerned in getting money for the homes of the people in question. I was in hopes that there would have been a perfection of existing machinery so as to enable that to be done. However, the House thought differently. A Pensions Department was set up last December, and has been going on ever since. We have tried our best— both the Pensions Ministry and the Statu-
  712
  tory Committee—to get on amicably efficiently under conditions set up by this House when the Pensions Ministry was established. The House will remember that it was decided that the Statutory Committee should be placed under the control of the Pensions Minister. As I say we tried to work that system efficiently. I am glad to say we got on amicably. There has been no dispute between us. But we very soon began to find that the work could not be done efficiently. I will give an instance of this to the House
  The Statutory Committee, under the Act of 1915, had imposed upon it the duty of looking after the treatment and training of disabled men. Last December we were placed in control of the Statutory Committee. Therefore all that could be done by us in connection with the treatment and training of disabled men, according to Act of Parliament, through the Statutory Committee, was done. We tried honestly. We met the Statutory Committee and the chairman on 16th January. We tried all we could to arrange what we hoped would be an agreement whereby we could get things done. That was found impossible, and I will tell the House why. Whatever were the duties of the Statutory Committee regarding treatment and training we were inundated with applications from the country to get on with the treatment and training. It was borne in upon our minds that treatment and training were the most important part of our work, and that therefore somebody had to get on to it at once. The Statutory Committee were preoccupied in all sorts of detailed things connected with pensions, allowances, and grants, and so on, and they could not get on with it, and we said, taking our courage in both hands, "Very well; we will do it ourselves." That meant that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and myself had to go outside and get in touch with people primarily concerned—that is to say, the local committees—and, having got in touch with those people, we found it impossible to come back to London and say to them, "You must first of all write to the Statutory Committee, or if you write to us we must consult the Statutory Committee." It meant a waste of time, duplicating things, and inefficiency; in fact, it was an impossible position, and therefore we had frankly to go to the Statutory Committee and say, "Now we have tried to work this agreement of the 16th January. We are sure you on your side

  713
  have tried too. Do you not think the whole position is altogether impossible?" And I am glad to. say that, in the most amicable manner, the Statutory Committee agreed that it was impossible, and that if treatment and training of disabled men had to be done efficiently and promptly, then one or the other of us should do it. Well, we decided that the Ministry should do it. They agreed, and on the 19th April, I think, they drew up a letter to the Prime Minister in which they frankly stated that the position had been found to be impossible. They asked the Prime Minister to relieve them of their duties, and said that their duties should be. handed over to the Ministry or some other body as speedily as possible.
  That leads us to the Bill. The Bill, in effect, regularises what the Ministry has already done—what it was compelled to do—and puts things on a better basis for the future. I need not say anything more about treatment and training except that we have done for treatment and training what the Statutory Committee did last year for the distribution of moneys in the way of pensions, grants, and allowances—that is to say, that on the basis of their 300 and odd local committees we have now set up a network of machinery especially for treatment and training over larger areas than any one of the local committees presided over, and I am glad to say that work is going on efficiently and well, and, as a result, we hope to do for the men what no pensions can do for them, what no moneys can do for them, to fit them up, so to speak, and put them back in life as self-respecting, productive units. We are doing that, and we are not only going to do something for the benefit of the men, but I venture to think we are going to save the country a lot of money which otherwise might be wasted in pensions, because, after all, it is far better to make a man whole, mentally and physically, than to give a few shillings pension and encourage him to eke out his life in laziness. That is going on all right, but there are other things to be done. There are separation allowances. We propose that that matter should be turned over from the Statutory Committee to the Ministry of Pensions. There is also the making of advances in case of delay in giving pensions. All these things we propose to take over from the Statutory Committee—treatment and training, separation allowances, and the making of advances in respect to pensions.
  714
  All those things are things that can be done according to fixed rules and regulations.
  There still remain other things that cannot be done by the Ministry so well as by an outside body. In the payment of pensions you have to pay according to some warrant or rules drawn up. That is absolutely necessary. There can be no elasticity in them. If there were elasticity, it would be open to abuse. If, for instance, money was distributed according to the merits of a case, or according to the needs of a case, you would have all sorts of illegitimate pressure brought to bear upon Members of this House, and therefore those who have access to Members of this House would be better off than other people. Therefore, far that and other reasons, it is necessary that, in addition to the Ministry of Pensions, there must be some outside authority to deal with those cases that cannot possibly come within the regular outlines of a warrant. There has been the case, which has been several times mentioned in the House, of men dealt with for disciplinary reasons, and whose families have to suffer. You cannot deal with them by a warrant, but you can deal with them by an authority which has some discretion, and, therefore, some authority has to give pensions, where they cannot be paid out of public funds, to educate the children of widows and to train widows and children, and so on. We propose, under the Bill, that that should be done by the Patriotic Fund Corporation. It is a corporation that has already a great deal of experience in dispensing voluntary funls. It is a statutory body. Therefore it is a body having already a position in the community, and it is a body that is the most suitable we can find for taking over duties of a kind that cannot be performed by the Ministry. We propose, however, that it should be slightly altered and given more of a popular character. At present the general assembly of the Patriotic Fund consists, of mayors, provosts, lord lieutenants, and chairmen of county councils. They have a meeting once a year, and from that meeting they appoint an executive. The executive, however, is partly appointed by Government Departments, two from the War Office, I think, one from the Admiralty, and one from the Treasury. We propose that that executive, which consists at present of a number so selected anywhere between twelve and

  715
  twenty, should now have infused into it a popular element appointed by the Government, and that an additional four such members should be put upon the executive. After all, the executive is the important body here. The other body only meets once a year. The executive are meeting all the time, and we propose that this executive, which consists now of a number anywhere from twelve to twenty, should have an additional four members put upon it by the Government, that one of these four should be a woman, and that two of the four should be representative of labour. We think that with the infusion of this new element upon the Patriotic Fund Corporation it will be a body eminently suitable to deal with the outstanding problems after this Bill dissolves the Statutory Committee.
  Mr. WING: You seem to have arranged for an executive, but how is it going to be popularly administered in the country?
  Mr. BARNES: I do not know that it can be popularly administered in the country at all in the sense in which my hon. Friend has the words in his mind, I am afraid. This is a central body. It will be in touch, of course, with our local committees, or anyone it likes to make its agents, but, after all, it is a central body, and will have the control of moneys from Parliamentary funds. The Statutory Committee had £1,000,000 granted to it some time ago to meet the cases of distress, and so on, which could not be met by public funds. It has also got a considerable amount of voluntary money, and money has been sent from time to time to the Statutory Committee for covering those cases which could not be covered by public funds. Those moneys have come in without any appeal, and the question remains what shall be done with them. We propose that, as regards three-fourths, it should go back to the Treasury. There is only £1,000,000 in question, and £750,000 of that we suppose should go back to the Treasury, and £250,000 plus voluntary funds we propose should be handed over to the Patriotic Fund Corporation to be used for the purposes which I have mentioned. As to control, it necessarily follows that Parliament will have control over it, and will call upon the body disbursing the money to render an account of it. To be quite frank with the House, I may say we have discussed two methods of dealing with this money.
  716
  One of them is the handing over of £250,000 in one sum and the other is handing it over so much per year, so as to bring the corporation more within the control of Parliament. I may say that we have decided upon handing it over as a lump sum, because we do not think it is a good thing that detailed criticisms should come to this House on such questions as will come before this corporation. I think I have now covered the main points of this Bill. I am sorry that I have not had time to get a thorough grip of this measure, as I should have liked, but I think I have now covered its main outline, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
  Mr. HOGGE: Like my right hon. Friend who has just sat down, I have not had time to see exactly what this Bill will do in reference to existing Statutes. Consequently, I am glad that it is not proposed to go any further with it to-day than the Second Reading, and so we may have time to see exactly what the proposed changes mean. Therefore. I will not make more than a very few remarks now. Naturally, I am very glad that the Government have of late made this attempt to co-ordinate all the schemes for dealing with pensions. I was quite sure in my own mind that we made a mistake when we were setting up the Ministry of Pensions by not including straight away the Statutory Committee, and I felt quite sure that eventually my right hon. Friend would find that, however amicably the two bodies worked together, it was impossible to continue them without being brought under the same roof. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having found the business solution of this difficulty which is suggested in the Bill. As regards Mr. Cyril Jackson, the vice-chairman of the Statutory Committee, I never had any objections in my life to him, but I always had a very strong objection to the chairman or vice-chairman of any Committee being a salaried official. I hold the view which I then expressed that there should never have been any salary attached to the chairmanship or the vice-chairmanship of this Committee, and I agree that you ought to have had a secretary with a salary attached to it, and that post ought to have been filled by Mr. Cyril Jackson. I have never received anything but the utmost courtesy in my dealings with Mr. Cyril Jackson, and I have always found him a thorough and efficient public servant. I

  717
  hope my right hon. Friend, in the adjustments he will make under this Bill, will utilise the admitted knowledge of Mr. Jackson in regard to the many problems which will have to be tackled by the Ministry.
  The only point I want to criticise is what has been outlined with regard to the Royal Patriotic Fund. I hope my right hon. Friend is not going to make once more the mistake he made when he decided to continue the Statutory Committee. The Royal Patriotic Fund was brought into the Statutory Committee when it was set up, and we thought then that we had reached the end of the Royal Patriotic Fund as a fund, and that any moneys which were to be administered over and above any pensions should in future be administered by the Statutory Committee which was controlled through the Local War Pensions Committees popularly elected in all the areas throughout the country. I do not want to criticise the Royal Patriotic Fund adversely, but I think the House will agree that it is a charitable fund, and in that sense any money which was given from the Patriotic Fund in connection with any case obviously has the element of charity in it. Now, I consider that in dealing with these men and their wives and dependants arising out of any consequences of the War, they should be dealt with simply as a matter of justice and nothing else, and there ought to be no question of any charity in it.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend that exceptional cases arise. Take, for example, a man who is shot at the front for desertion. A man may have deserted for reasons for which there may be much excuse, because none of us who have not been in that position know what it is to meet the dangers and difficulties these men have to meet. If in such a case a man is shot for that reason, then his widow and children get absolutely nothing from the State. There is no fund or Regulation which provides for the widow of a man shot under those circumstances. I think everybody will agree that the wife and children of such a man who has been keeping a home together here have not deserted their post, and they ought to be provided for. I would put them under a Government Department and not under a charitable institution. While those cases must be provided for, I think the general case ought to be also provided
  718
  for, and ought to come within the four corners of the Government scheme. I am not without hope, and I am quite sure the Minister of Pensions is not, that the Government is likely to do yet more for the disabled soldier and sailor, and we have not seen the end of what the Government will do. I wish my right hon. Friend would get up and give reasons, which I know he can do, why the Government should give more in certain cases.
  I am rather anxious that what the Government will eventually do will be done under the Government auspices. It is proposed to give £250,000 of public money to the Royal Patriotic Fund, which has had its whole constitution altered by the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, and the right hon. Gentleman has announced that he is going to democratise the Executive Committee of this fund by putting upon it four new people, one of whom is to be a woman and two are to be drawn from the representatives of labour. I do not know why, whenever you want to represent people, you should suggest the putting on of two representatives of labour, I do not think that labour has any monopoly of the representation of the people. There are, 'after all, only forty Labour Members in this House, and I think the other 630 would resent the implication that they do not represent the working men in their constituencies. Take my own Constituency. It is a working-class constituency entirely, and nobody would say that I do not represent the workmen of my Constituency. I do not like this idea that whenever you want to make a, committee popular you say you are going to put on two representatives of labour. There are many other men, both in the country and in this House, who represent the people as well as the Labour party. Then there is the woman, and I do not know who the fourth is to be. Surely if you are going to give a quarter of a million to a committee on the excuse that you are putting four new members on the executive, that is not a strong enough reason why this House should agree to it! Under the Statutory Committee's Regulations, which my right hon. Friend is now going to take over, under Part II. of those Statutory Regulations, he could make himself Regulations which would cover all the cases he now proposes to refer to the Royal Patriotic Fund. I would like him, or the Parliamentary Secretary, to deal with that point, because it is the kind of point that

  719
  will probably be raised in Committee. You have now under the Naval and Military War Pensions Act sufficient power to make new Regulations. In fact, the Statutory Committee have made Regulations twice since they were set up, and my right bon. Friend could make new Regulations.
  I suggest that he should get into his head the wiping of the Royal Patriotic Fund out of the picture altogether. The Ministry of Pensions is a new Government Department. It is a young Department, and, in spite of the mistakes which it has made, and I dare say will make, yet as one of its most consistent and, perhaps, strongest critics I admit that it has been doing good work, and has been getting through that work. I am very glad to see the great improvement that has come over the work since the right bon. Gentleman has been able to settle down to the routine of the Ministry; but while I say that it is a Government Department, I would like it to be a complete Government Department. I would like the Government Department to take State control of the whole question, and I do not want us only to be able to say to anybody who comes to one of us after the State has made provision that it is a case for the Royal Patriotic Fund and that we cannot deal with it. If there is a case that cannot be dealt with under the Regulations themselves the money that is provided for that case ought not to be provided by the Government. If anybody outside cares to set up a new patriotic fund association, or any other body, and to provide the money out of their own pockets, then they can do that, as the Lord Kitchener Memorial does for officers, over and above what the State does. If, however, you begin to put into the funds of the organisation any State money, you raise the question of State control and of every action of that committee being criticised by this House, making it impossible for that organisation to work on voluntary lines with the freedom with which it ought to work if it is a voluntary organisation. I do not like, and never have liked, an organisation which is neither the one thing nor the other, and the only criticism I want to make at this period of the proceedings—because we can have it all again in Committee—is to suggest that between now and then my right hon. Friend can devise some means
  720
  by which if the Royal Patriotic Fund is to be recreated as a new organisation outside it ought to stand on its own financial feet and receive no Grant from the Government. If he feels that there are cases that cannot be dealt with by the present Regulations or Instructions, I think the House of Commons would prefer that he should take the powers he now has to draw up new Instructions to cover those cases, and I am sure that the House would support him; and that it would be a better, more complete, and more satisfactory way of dealing with this problem than not setting up but financing an organisation which has already been incorporated in the Statutory Committee. At the same time, I welcome the proposal to incorporate the Statutory Committee in the Ministry of Pensions, and I hope that the scheme will come into speedy operation.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I certainly welcome the Bill as it now stands. We have all had experience of these semi-independent bodies, partially under the control of Ministers, and I think they never work well. You do not get full ministerial responsibility; any attempt to secure full ministerial responsibility is never a success, and you do not get the control by this House. I am very glad the change of system has been made, and that the Minister of Pensions will have far the greater part of the work under his control. In saying that I am quite certain no one wishes to reflect on the very unselfish and disinterested work of the Statutory Committee. It is a change of system which we are welcoming to-day, and not in the least a reflection on or want of recognition of the work they have accomplished. I am also quite certain that in connection with the work the Ministry is doing for the treatment and training of disabled soldiers the House wishes to recognise what excellent work is being done by his Department throughout the country. I am quite clear that his task will be very much facilitated by the change introduced in this Bill. For my part, I certainly wished beforehand that the War Office should take over the whole work of the treatment and training of disabled soldiers before their discharge, but if the War Office find themselves unable to do that all I can say is that I should like to bear my testimony to the work the Ministry of Pensions and the pensions committees up and down the country are doing in this respect. I am

  721
  quite certain that a great amount of very valuable work is being done in this direction.
  I do not think I can agree with the remarks that have fallen from the last speaker on the subject of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. I think one understands the difficulty. If these cases which fall outside the Warrant, and in which you want individual discretion, are to be dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions you must have cast-iron regulations, and then you are invariably met with hard cases which the letter of your Warrant prevents your dealing with in any satisfactory way. The Ministry of Pensions, as I understand it, wants to find a half-way-house You may say, as the last hon. Member who spoke suggested, that you should leave it entirely to charity and voluntary subscriptions. Everyone feels, I think, that would be unsatisfactory, and that if the work was left to voluntary agencies it would only be partially "dealt with. There would be in a great number of cases strong objections to their being left to charitable aid, and therefore for my part I do think you want a halfway house. Whether the Royal Patriotic Fund, as modified, is the best body may be open to question, but I think you do need some fund of the kind, supplied with public money, and under the control of this House to some extent, which will have a freer hand than you can get in any other way. I think the more people get face to face with cases of real individual hardship, which always must crop up in some way that you cannot think of in drafting the terms of your Warrant, the more they will wish to have a freer hand in administering public funds or such other funds as you can get. The only other word I wish to say is to the Minister of Pensions. In taking over the staff does he think there will be any economy effected or will there be a duplication of the staff? He takes part of the staff. Can he tell us whether he will take the whole? Perhaps in this amalgamation he will be able to lessen the administrative expenses of his Department and to secure economy.
  Mr. H. P. HARRIS: This Bill is really an inevitable complement to the creation of the Ministry of Pensions and a desire for the concentration of authority. Moreover, when the Statutory Committee was created it was thought that a large
  722
  quantity of the fund provided by voluntary contributions was involved. As a member of the Statutory Committee, I desire to add my testimony to the large amount of good work of which they were in many cases pioneers. Many criticisms have been directed against them which ought to have been directed to other sources. I desire to reserve my opinion as to the Patriotic Funds Corporation until I have had time to consider the matter. There are a good many cases outside the Warrant which ought to be brought in, but there are a certain number of cases which must be looked upon as requiring patient treatment which might have been better dealt with than by the active body of the Ministry of Pensions. As regards the constitution of the Patriotic Fund Corporation, I say it may require some consideration whether it may not be possible to make it more effective than by introducing four new members. I desire to support the Bill and to recognise the courtesy and consideration that I have received from the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee in all the difficult cases I had to put before him.
  Mr. A. ALLEN: As a member of the Statutory Committee, I desire to say we cordially welcome the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced. I desire to associate myself with what he has said with regard to the excellent work that Mr. Cyril Jackson has performed. I have sat on the Committee a long time, and I know that he has given his whole time most devotedly to the work. I think his services have been extremely valuable. I agree with the last speaker in saying that the Bill is a necessary complement to the Act which set up the Ministry of Pensions. For my part, I thought from the first that the life of the Statutory Committee could not be long. I am glad that it is now being found practicable to bring the whole duties within the purview of the Minister of Pensions. We have endeavoured to work amicably and in concert with the Minister of Pensions, but it was almost impossible that two bodies of this kind should work permanently together, if for no other reason than that local committees throughout the country found themselves in the position of serving two masters. That was an impossible position which it was necessary to bring to an end at the earliest possible moment. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that there would be

  723
  a considerable number of border-line cases which could not be dealt with by any Regulations or conditions. I have always maintained that it would be impossible to pass Regulations worked by any Ministry with the best will in the world that would cover these border-line cases, because large local committees felt very strongly about them and would resent dealing with them out of charitable funds.
  Speaking of the Royal Patriotic Fund Committee, I reserve my judgment because I do not know much about it. It has never struck me as being a democratic body, and I am not sure even that which is suggested by the Minister of Pensions has its democratic character well marked. That is a matter which we must reserve for the Committee stage. I hope that between now and the Committee stage the Minister will give considerable attention to what shall be the union with that outside body, whatever it may be, and the local committees throughout the country, because most of these cases will come from the local committee—cases which are turned down by the Minister of Pensions which the local committees feel strongly about.
  2.0 P.M.
  I think it is necessary to establish a system by which they shall have direct access to the new body, and to which they can present a case about which they feel strongly. I only wish to say that I agree very fully with the need for the Bill.
  Mr. T. WING: I desire to associate myself with the kindly references to the Vice-Chairman and the Department generally, from whom I always received the most courteous consideration. I look upon the Bill as an exceedingly wise step, but there are one or two things which may make rather important developments. I do not like the idea of conferring upon the Royal Patriotic Society powers which up to the present time they have hardly possessed. I am in harmony with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that there are cases which stand outside the rules and regulations and conditions which it would be possible to deal with and which local committees are very well entitled to consider. There are to-day some means by which those local committees should know that they remain in existence, and that the public body, whatever name you may call it, should be set up in London, which should be in close contact with them but
  724
  not connected with charity. We emerged from that state in the early part of the War. We have got the local committees who view the matter in a democratic way, seeing that the Government are going to provide large sums of money. Let any private organisation that exists continue and perform its beneficent work, but I do hope that this Bill will not be made the means of conveying money to a private organisation to perform that work which is a public responsibility. Apart from that, I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.
  Colonel YATE: I would like to join with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) in protesting against the appointment of so many representatives of labour on these sub-committees. I agree with him as to the undesirability of these Orders. My experience is that when so many representatives of labour axe ordered to be appointed the committees concerned simply send to the Trades Council or the Women's Federation of Labour for the town and ask them to nominate so many members, and when you come to see who are nominated you find that the men and women selected spend Sunday after Sunday in the marketplace protesting against everything concerned with soldiers, recruiting, and with the War generally. I hope, therefore, that the Ministry of Pensions will take this matter into consideration, and, when issuing the Orders, will try to get men who really know the wants of the soldiers, such as men belonging to the Old Comrades' Association and people who really take an interest in the soldier and know his wants and his needs, and will give the committee advice as to his particular necessities. I am perfectly sure that the interests of the soldier either in pensions or anything else cannot be best served by members of Trades Councils and other organisations who spend their whole time in agitating against the soldier, and I trust that it will be possible for the men I have mentioned in future to be appointed on the sub-committees that have to deal with pensions.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I desire to thank the House for the way in which they have received this Bill. I quite agree that it is really the natural outcome of the Act setting up the Ministry of Pensions. Much as we appreciate all that the Statu-

  725
  tory Committee have done, and they have done a very great deal of which the House and the country is not aware, the position left was really almost an impossible one to work without friction, and this Bill is a necessary measure agreed to both by the Ministry of Pensions and the Statutory Committee. It has been asked why we cannot do everything ourselves under our own regulations. Whatever regulations are made, and however liberal and generous your warrant may be, and we wish our warrant to be liberal and generous, there must always remain cases of real "hardship that you cannot get within the four walls of any particular regulations, and there must be some body to meet those cases. If we tried to do it ourselves, we should be judging our own case. We should, on the one hand, have rejected a case for a pension or have given a very small pension in accordance with our regulations, and then, on the other hand, we should be judging our own actions and supplementing them.
  Mr. WING: We are doing it now.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; the Statutory Committee do it.
  Mr. WING: The Pensions Committees make these supplemental payments.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is quite true. We make our awards according to the warrants, and the Statutory Committee on the advice of the local committees make supplementation. It is quite true technically that the Statutory Committee are now under our instructions and control, but we never have interfered with their work as regards supplementation. We could not, because if we did we should be judging our own cases and we could not undertake to do that directly ourselves. Therefore, some outside body is necessary, and we have suggested the Royal Patriotic Fund simply because it is there. The Statutory Committee in theory is a committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund, and it has been doing this sort of work all along. It is proposed to hand over to it Government money for these purposes, so that what is done will not be of a charitable order. It is also proposed to alter its constitution so as to make a more representative body, but whether we have done sufficient in that respect is a matter for consideration. If it is thought, instead of having adding four, that we ought to have
  726
  added more, and that there should not be such a. large proportion of representatives of labour, we are quite willing to consider it. These representatives will be added on the nomination of the Crown, and not of any outside body, and we think that in that way we can secure the right sort of people to deal with these funds. This supplementation, we hope, will not be of a very large nature, because a great deal of the supplementation that has been going on, quite properly, in the past will be carried out under the Regulations of the now Warrant. The new Warrant goes much further than the old Warrant, and, therefore, supplementation is largely diminished. There will, however, be hard cases. If there are many hard cases of any particular character, it will be our duty to come to this House with another Warrant for that particular class; but hard eases are bound to arise, and some outside body, in our view, must exist. We cannot think of anything better than the Royal Patriotic Fund.
  It has been asked how the Royal Patriotic Fund will act, and how they will get their information. The House knows quite well that the Statutory Committee act on the information and recommendations of the local committees, which are not touched by this Bill. They are the most valuable bodies in the Ministry of Pensions. We could not get on without them for a moment, and if this Bill is passed, and if the Royal Patriotic Fund undertakes the work of supplementation and of giving pensions in cases where they cannot be given under the Regulations, we shall certainly issue Instructions that they must only do so on the recommendations of the local committees. We shall have to put the local committees into direct touch with the Royal Patriotic Corporation for that purpose, just as the local committees will be in direct touch with the Ministry of Pensions for other purposes. The question has been asked how this House will exercise control over the Royal Patriotic Fund. I quite agree that is probably an omission from' the Bill and that something will have to be provided; but I do not see why there should not be a Member of this House a member of the executive of the Royal Patriotic Fund, and who will represent it in this House, just like my right hon. Friend, whom we are all glad to see has just become President of the Local Government Board, the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) used to represent the Statutory Committee.

  727
  My right hon. Friend has asked me to mention a point which he accidentally omitted to mention himself. There is a Clause in the Bill which provides that the Minister may take advantage of the very ripe and valuable experience gained by the members of the Statutory Committee by asking some of them to become members of advisory committees to assist him on certain definite points. We all recognise the very valuable help that we can obtain from members of the Statutory Committee or those who are past members of the Statutory Committee, and I know it is the intention of the Minister to. avail himself of that Clause and to invite certain of those members, possibly the majority of them, to act as an advisory committee with him in certain matters. I hope the House will now give us the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next.—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESS), 1915–16.
    Motion made, and Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for the Ministry of Munitions for
    728
    the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1916," put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY [28TH JUNE].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1917–18.

      MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
      Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."
      Resolution agreed to.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  NEW WRIT.
  For the Borough of Fulham, in the room of the Right Hon. William Hayes Fisher, President of the Local Government Board.—[Lord E. Talbot.]
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
  Adjourned at Nineteen minutes after Two o'clock.

WAR.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    RE-EXAMINATION.
    RE-EXAMINATION.
    CASE UXDEB INQUIRY (PRIVATE V. H. HUMPHRIES).
    CASE UXDEB INQUIRY (PRIVATE V. H. HUMPHRIES).
  CAPTURED GERMAN GUN (DISTRIBUTION).
  CAPTURED GERMAN GUN (DISTRIBUTION).
  MINISTRY OF FOOD (REGULATIONS).
  MINISTRY OF FOOD (REGULATIONS).
  BREWING (BARRELAGE).
  BREWING (BARRELAGE).
  CORN PRODUCTION BILL.
  CORN PRODUCTION BILL.
  HAY HARVEST (LABOUR).
  HAY HARVEST (LABOUR).
  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
  Royal Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin.
  Royal Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin.
  Thompson-Orpen Estate (County Cork).
  Thompson-Orpen Estate (County Cork).