Sitting of 26 February 1931

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For County of Glamorgan (Pontypridd Division), in the room of Thomas Isaac Mardy Jones, esquire (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Kennedy.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour what steps the Government propose to take to render domestic service more attractive and of higher status so as to cope with the unsatisfied demand in this occupation?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have nothing to add to the statement of policy which I made in answer to the question which the hon. Member put to me on the 6th November last.
    Mr. MANDER: Am I to understand that the Government have no settled policy for dealing with this question?
    Miss BONDFIELD: On the contrary, I said that there is no change of policy.

    Women claimants* for benefit on the Registers of Employment Exchanges.

    Date.

    Married women.

    Single women and widows.

    Total.

    24th February, 1930

    129,018

    166,518

    295,536

    13th October, 1930

    238,827

    238,426

    477,253

    24th November, 1930, the latest date for which figures are available.

    238,000

    249,600

    487,600

    * Statistics of the numbers actually in receipt of benefit are not available.

    Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady say how many training centres are now open for them?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Five.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot my right hon. Friend suggest an alternative name?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I do not think that that question arises.
    Dr. MARION PHILLIPSasked the Minister of Labour whether her Department has any information as to the number of vacancies in resident domestic service and the number of applicants for such work; and, if not, can she have inquiry made of private registry offices as well as Employment Exchanges?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The only statistics available are those relating to the vacancies notified and the applications registered at Exchanges in the appropriate classifications. I have no power to make inquiry of private registry offices as my hon. Friend suggests.

    WOMEN.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of unmarried women in receipt of unemployment benefits at the end of February, 1930, at the end of September, 1930, and also at the latest date at which the figures are available?
    (2) the number of married women in receipt of unemployment benefit at the end of February, 1930, at the end of September, 1930, and also at the latest date at which the figures are available?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour what points of difference still prevent an agreement between her Department and the representatives of the quarrying industry with regard to the formulation of a scheme for training kerb-dressers?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member on 11th February. I am awaiting the views of the representatives of the industry.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Lady any hope of being able to give a satisfactory answer very soon?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I certainly hope so. It rests with the industry and not with me.

    VOLUNTARY EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES, DURHAM.
    Mr. LAWTHERasked the Minister of Labour how much help is being provided by her Department towards the running of voluntary employment agencies in Durham; how many officers have been loaned; and at what cost to her Department from January to the last available date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The only voluntary employment agency in the county of Durham which has been provided with help from the Ministry of Labour is that organised by Mrs. C. M. Headlam, C.B.E. In reply to a question asked by my hon. Friend, I explained on the 4th December last that the assistance formerly given to Mrs. Headlam had been discontinued as from July, 1929. I have, however, recently agreed, in view of the illness of Mrs. Headlam's secretary, who has to undergo an operation, to loan an officer of the Department for a strictly temporary period not to exceed three months, on the understanding that no question of an extension of that period will arise. Apart from the officer's salary, the only expense incurred is a small sum for daily travelling and subsistence.
    Mr. LAWTHER: Can the right hon. Lady say whether or not it is contrary to the whole policy of Government Departments to loan an officer to private individuals when it is quite possible for them to obtain help from the large num-
    2250
    ber of people who are signing on in that very district?
    Mr. WELLS: Are not these agencies finding work for those people who require it?
    Miss BONDFIELD: There are a very large number of voluntary agencies which are able to find work for people and which do not get a loan of Government officers.
    Mr. LAWTHER: May I have an answer to my supplementary question?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The answer is that there are occasions when temporary Assistance is granted in supporting enterprises which may be of value to workers or to juveniles, or to any contingent work which bears upon the work of the Exchanges, and that has been done; but it is always of a purely temporary nature and put forward for the purpose of, what one might call, preliminary assistance.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I should like to ask if this agency which is being subsidised is owned by the wife of a Conservative ex-Member of Parliament.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has not this work been of very great value indeed?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Arising out of the original reply—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sir William Wayland.

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLANDasked the Minister of Labour what would be the additional weekly levy necessary on the State, employers, and workers in the same proportions as at present to put the Unemployment Insurance Fund on a paying basis, presuming the total number of unemployed persons insured reached a total of 3,000,000?
    Miss BONDFIELD: With an average number of registered unemployed of 3,000,000 the total annual expenditure of the Unemployment Fund would be about £142,000,000, including the cost of benefit at the present rate, administration and interest on outstanding Treasury advances. I have no means of knowing what the cost of transitional benefit would be in such circumstances, but assuming the cost in a year to be

    2251
    £40,000,000, it would be necessary to increase the weekly rates of contribution to about 2½ times their present amount in order to cover the balance of £102,000,000.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: Will the right hon. Lady suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that perhaps it might be a means of getting him out of his difficulties if—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Herbert Cayzer.

    DEVELOPMENT LOANS AND GUARANTEES.
    Major Sir HERBERT CAYZERasked the Minister of Labour if she will state, to the most convenient date, the total amount of the grants made under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Since 1st June, 1929, up to 23rd February last, the estimated total cost of schemes of work for the relief of unemployment approved through the Unemployment Grants Committee was £59,928,000. Under Part I of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, the estimated total cost of schemes approved up to the same date on the recommendation of the Development (Public Utility) Advisory Committee was £34,669,000.

    Class of Person in respect of whom relief is issued.

    Daily rates of unemployment relief in the Department of the Seine from 1st February, 1931.

    francs.

    s.

    d.*

    Head of household

    8.00

    1

    3½

    Each child over 16, unemployed and living with head of household.

    4.00

    7¾

    Spouse, not in employment, and each child under 16 dependent upon the unemployed person and either not in employment or earning less than four francs a day.

    3.50

    6¾

    Father, mother, etc., not in employment, dependent upon head of household.

    2.50

    4¾

    * Converted at the rate of 124.21 francs to the pound sterling.

    In Germany, unemployment benefit varies according to the wage class of the unemployed person, and is the same for persons, whether male or female, in the same wage class who have served the same qualifying period. There are 11 wage classes, ranging from Wage Class I for wages up to and including 10 Reichs-

    FRANCE AND GERMANY (RELIEF).
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Labour whether she is in a position to state the amount of unemployment relief or benefit, expressed in sterling, in France and Germany, payable weekly, to an unemployed man with a wife and three children; and whether there is any limitation in either country upon the total amount payable to any one family?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is long and contains two tables of figures, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    In France, unemployment insurance is voluntary. I have no information as to the precise rates of benefit, which, I understand, vary according to the rules of the individual unemployment insurance fund. In the Department of the Seine, rates of unemployment relief (as distinct from contributory benefit) have, I understand, been fixed as shown in the following table. I do not know whether these rates are paid in respect of six or seven days in the week, of what is the maximum amount payable as relief. Particulars of the rates of unemployment relief paid in other parts of France are not in my possession.
    marks a week to Wage Class XI for wages over 60 Reichsmarks a week. The highest weekly rate of ordinary benefit, payable is 37.80 Reichsmarks, or 37s. for an unemployed person (man or woman) in Wage Class XI with five or more dependants. The highest weekly rate of emergency (or crisis) benefit payable is

    2253
    24.38 Reichsmarks, or 23s. 10½d. for unemployed persona in Wage Classes IX to XI with five or more dependants. The weekly rates of ordinary and emergency

    Wage Class.

    Range of weekly wages.

    Weekly rates of benefit for a man, wife and three children.

    Ordinary benefit.

    Emergency benefit.*

    Rm.

    Rm.

    s.

    d.†

    Rm.

    s.

    d.†

    VI

    30.01–36.00

    19.80

    19

    4½

    16.20

    15

    10¼

    36.01–42.00

    22.43

    21

    11½

    19.80

    19

    4½

    VIII

    42.01–48.00

    24.75

    24

    2¾

    IX

    48.01–54.00

    28.05

    27

    5½

    22.43

    21

    11½

    X

    54.01–60.00

    31.35

    30

    8¼

    XI

    60.01 upwards

    34.05

    33

    11

    * Emergency (or crisis) benefit in Germany is benefit paid, in Communes with more than 10,000 inhabitants, to unemployed persons who have exhausted their claim to 26 weeks' ordinary benefit. Emergency benefit is paid, subject to a means test, for 32 weeks, which may be extended to 45 weeks in the case of persons over 40 years of age.

    † Converted at the rate of 20.43 Reichsmarks to the pound sterling.

    STATISTICS.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Labour what were the numbers of insured persons aged 16 to 64, inclusive, at July, 1929, and July, 1930, and the estimated numbers unemployed at June and October of 1929 and 1930, in the following industries: con-

    ESTIMATED Numbers of Insured Persons classified as belonging to certain Industries in Great Britain at July, 1929, and July, 1930; and the Numbers recorded as Unemployed at June and October, 1929, and 1930.

    Industry.

    1929.

    1930.

    Estimated number insured at July.

    Number of persons unemployed.

    Estimated number insured at July.

    Number of insured persons unemployed.

    24th June.

    21st October.

    23rd June.

    27th October.

    Construction and repair of motor vehicles, cycles and aircraft.

    243,230

    14,840

    19,509

    244,980

    32,215

    38,577

    Silk and Artificial Silk

    73,480

    5,907

    6,899

    77,960

    17,075

    19,078

    Lace

    16,920

    1,655

    1,494

    16,750

    2,659

    3,118

    Musical Instruments

    28,330

    2,087

    986

    26,220

    4,565

    3,078

    TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Labour how many persons have been transferred from the depressed mining areas of Durham and South Wales during each of the last six months; and to what areas have they been drafted?
    benefit for a man in Wage Classes VI to XI with a wife and three children are shown in the following Table:
    struction and repair of motor-vehicles, cycles, and aircraft; silk and artificial silk; lace; and musical instruments?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is in the form of a table I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Miss BONDFIELD: Statistics giving the numbers transferred from particular areas are not available.

    EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATION (ERDINGTON).
    Mr. SIMMONSasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the growth of the population in the area as a result

    2255
    of the completion of six new housing estates during the last three years, she will consider the provision of an Employment Exchange for Erdington, Birmingham, at the earliest possible moment?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have had this matter under consideration and as at present advised I am not satisfied that the establishment of a separate local office would be justified. I am having a communication sent to my hon. Friend explaining the considerations which have led me to that view.
    Mr. SIMMONS: Is the Minister aware that 100 per cent. of the Trade Unions in the Erdington Division are in favour of this proposal?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Unfortunately, I have to take the percentage of unemployed using the Exchanges.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to offer any Departmental evidence on the question of the inclusion of agricultural workers in an unemployment insurance scheme to the Royal Commission now sitting?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Evidence is to be given jointly by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and by my Department.

    RELIEF SCHEMES (GRANTS).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Health the amount of money in hand available for unemployment grants in respect of approved employment schemes; whether he proposes making provision for additional grants of this kind; and what are the intentions of the Government concerning the 100 per cent. grants in this connection?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I presume that the right hon. Member has in mind the 100 per cent. grants. The whole of the money for England and Wales has been allocated, except some £16,000 kept in hand for engineering contingencies. The allocated money is paid as work proceeds and £220,000 has already been so paid. Provision has not been made for grants on the 100 per cent. basis in addition to the money already voted.
    Mr. BATEY: Is there any intention to try and get a further sum of money, be-
    2256
    cause the Minister of Health must be aware that some of the distressed areas have received none of this money, while particular distressed areas have received the greater share?

  WORKS COUNCILS.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour in what countries at present there is legislation in existence establishing by law works councils in industry?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Legislation establishing works councils in industry is in existence in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Luxemburg, Norway and Soviet Russia.

  KING'S NATIONAL ROLL.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Labour how many employers were on the King's Roll in January, 1929, 1930, and 1931, respectively?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The numbers of employers on the King's Roll were as follow: In January, 1929, 27,151, employing 381,479 disabled ex-Servicemen; in January, 1930, 26,709, employing 375,326; and in January, 1931, 25,908, employing 371,792.
  Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady say why there has been this rather marked decrease of approximately 1,000 in the last two years?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot give any particular reason, except that in all probability there are a certain number who pass out and employers do not fill up the vacancies.
  Sir A. POWNALL: Has every step been taken to see that the number is kept up to what it was before?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, certainly.
  Mr. SIMMONS: Is membership of the King's Roll a condition of Government contracts?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I should like notice of that question, but I believe it is.
  Major COHEN: Is it not a fact that the number of disabled men employed under the King's Roll system compares

  2257
  very favourably, when one considers the enormous number of men out of employment.
  Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, indeed it is quite a remarkable proportion.

  POLICE.

    PENSIONS.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the average period of service which an ordinary policeman has to serve to obtain a pension, assuming that he entered the force at the minimum age; what age would such a man be when he retired; and what pension would he obtain?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): As the answer is long and involved, I will circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    A constable can retire on pension after 25 years' approved service. Most constables will then be from 46–48 years of age. In the case of constables retiring now, the pension on retirement after 25 years' approved service is approximately £153 per annum, and the maximum pension, reached after 26 years' service, is approximately £164 per annum. Men who have joined the force since June, 1919, come under the new scale of pensions introduced by the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and in their case the pension on retirement after 25 years' service will be approximately £123 per annum, and 30 years' service will be required to qualify for the maximum pension of £164 per annum. The pensions of members of the higher ranks vary, of course, with the scale of pay for the rank.

    DISCIPLINARY CASES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether shorthand notes are taken of all evidence given against police officers for the Metropolitan Police Disciplinary Board; how many appeals have been made to him on the decisions of this board for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and in how many cases have the appeals been dismissed?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
    2258
    In 1930 there were three appeals to me by members of the Metropolitan Police who had been dismissed or required to resign. All the appeals were dismissed.

    MOUNTED POLICE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary the annual cost of the Metropolitan mounted police now and pre-War?
    Mr. CLYNES: The present annual cost of the mounted branch of the Metropolitan Police is approximately £100,000. I regret that I cannot give a corresponding statement of pre-War cost because the mounted police were not then, as they are now, organised in a separate establishment.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does my right hon. Friend expect any future saving, in view of the establishment of the motor cycle patrol?
    Mr. CLYNES: I will inquire as to what bearing the one may have on the other.

    METROPOLITAN SPECIAL CONSTABULARY RESERVE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary what is the present cost of the special constabulary in the Metropolitan area; how many paid officials are attached to the special constabulary; and what is the annual total of their salaries and emoluments?
    Mr. CLYNES: The present cost of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary Reserve is approximately £18,000 per annum. Two officers and four clerks at headquarters and 23 clerks in the offices of the local commandants are paid salaries totalling approximately £5,200 per annum.

    MOTOR CYCLES AND SIDECARS.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Home Secretary the number of solo motor cycles and of motor cycle combinations at present in the possession of the Metropolitan motor patrol police; and whether both types have been equally effective?
    Mr. CLYNES: The number of solo machines is 50 and of combinations six. The combination machines have been found the more generally effective, the solos being less effective in the inner and more congested districts.
    Mr. HACKING: Does that mean that the solo machines will be abolished and their place taken by combinations?
    Mr. CLYNES: I will not say that at the moment, but we shall take into account the greater efficiency of the one compared with the other.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the difference in speed between the two?
    Mr. CLYNES: Not without notice.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Are not these machines used for the purpose of tracking law breakers, and, if so, have they sufficient power?
    Mr. CLYNES: Generally, I think so.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the machines with which the police are provided are sufficient for the object they have in view?
    Mr. CLYNES: That is a technical point, and I should require notice in order to go into it.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN - DOYLEasked the Home Secretary whether he will give an estimate for equipping all motor cycles used by traffic police in the Metropolitan area with sidecars, and what will be the added cost in respect of materials and personnel?
    Mr. CLYNES: I understand that the cost of fitting side-cars would be about ££700–£800, and that there would be little, if any, additional cost to the Police Fund for tyres, repairs, etc., by reason of the higher rate of grant which would be received from the Road Fund for combination machines.
    Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of doing this, in view of the corroborative evidence that would result in having two instead of one?
    Mr. CLYNES: I will consider that point, which is quite new to me.

    METROPOLITAN FORCE.
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement to the House regarding the redistribution and reorganisation of the Metropolitan Police Force?
    Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 13th November last. The measures referred to in that answer are being carried forward, but I am not yet able to say whether any, and if so, what, augmentation of the Force will be required.

    COLLEGE.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Home Secretary whether he has any intention of establishing the police college proposed by Sir Leonard Dunning in his recent report; and what method does he propose to adopt in appointing police students to this college?
    Mr. CLYNES: Until the police council has met and considered the report of the committee appointed to consider the scheme for the institution of a police college, I regret I cannot say what action I shall take. I hope that it will be possible to arrange for a meeting of the police council for this purpose in the near future.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LICENSING.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary if he is yet in a position to state when he expects to receive the report of the Royal Commission on Licensing?
  Mr. CLYNES: I regret that I cannot add anything to the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) on this subject on the 9th instant.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any prospect of this Commission issuing a report before the end of July?
  Mr. CLYNES: I believe so. I understand that the Commission is now steadily working on it.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS (GOVERNMENT DECISION).
  Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether he has had an opportunity of consulting with all parties of the House on the question of the Sunday

  2261
  opening of cinemas and theatres; and can he now make a statement as to the intentions of the Government?
  Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir, and the Government have decided that it is desirable that Parliament should have an early opportunity of pronouncing upon the whole matter. With that object they propose to introduce a Bill at an early date.
  Mr. DAY: Will my right hon. Friend also consider inserting a Clause which will make inoperative the breaches of the Sunday Observance Act which have been committed by cinemas in the past.
  Mr. CLYNESThat matter is under consideration in regard to questions covered by the Bill.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the House having an opportunity, does that mean that there will be a free vote on this question?
  Mr. CLYNES: I should hope so.
  Mr. ISAACS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill is likely to be ready?
  Mr. CLYNES: It is too early yet to make an announcement, but there will be no delay in compiling it.

  LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COM- PANY (DRIVERS' TESTS).
  Mr. SORENSENasked the Home Secretary how many omnibus drivers In the service of the Loudon General Omnibus Company have been tested by the police for driving the latest type of omnibus during the last 12 months; how many have failed; how many times they can submit themselves for such tests; and what answer he proposes to give to representations made to him concerning the nature and circumstances of the tests?
  Mr. CLYNES: During the 12 months ended 31st January last, the London General Omnibus Company presented 4,975 men for testing on the type of omnibus known as the L.T. type. 1,227 men failed on the first test. 196 men failed on the second test. 39 men failed on the third test. None of the last mentioned drivers took the fourth test during
  2262
  the year in question. The maximum number of tests permitted for any applicant is four. The only representation which I have received on the subject has come from the hon. Member. I hope to reply to it fully in a day or two, but the subject is too large to be dealt with in answer to a question.

  VISITORS FROM OVERSEAS.
  Mr. HACKINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to state the number of holiday visitors who came to this country from overseas during the year 1930; and, if so, how the figures compare with those for the years 1929 and 1928?
  Mr. CLYNES: The figures for the three years named in the question are, respectively, 1928, 224,815; 1929, 238,391; and 1930, 245,865.
  Mr. HACKING: Is the improvement due to the advertising of this country in foreign countries?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have no doubt that that has had a great effect.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not due to better conditions under a Labour Government?

  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the recent recommendations of the Select Committee on Capital Punishment and pending any change of the law, he will consider the desirability of reviewing all sentences of death in the light of those recommendations?
  Mr. CLYNES: Every case is exhaustively considered in the light of all the relevant circumstances. Until Parliament has decided whether any alteration of the law is desirable, it would be quite impossible for any Secretary of State to give effect to those recommendations by advising upon the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. FREEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication whether we shall have an opportunity of considering that report in the House?
  Mr. CLYNES: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister, but, I understand that those who are deeply interested in the matter are moving.

  ALIENS.
  Mr. SMITHERSasked the Home Secretary how many out of the 2,235 persons who were refused leave to land in the United Kingdom in the year ended 31st December, 1930, were citizens of the Soviet Republic of Russia?
  Mr. CLYNES: Forty-three aliens classed as Russians were refused leave to land in 1930. Of these, five were in possession of Soviet passports.
  Mr. SMITHERSasked the Home Secretary if he can state by nationalities how the total of 454,752 persons who landed in the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st December, 1930, was made up?
  Mr. CLYNES: Perhaps the hon. Member will find the figures he requires on page 4 of the Quarterly Return of Alien Passengers recently published (Command Paper 3576 III).

  EDUCATION.

    TEACHERS PENSIONS.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Education the average period of service which a school teacher has to serve to obtain a pension, assuming that he entered the teaching profession at the minimum age; what age would such a man be when he retired; and what would be the average pension he would obtain?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): Under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, a teacher, in order to become eligible for a superannuation allowance on the ground of age, must normally have served for a minimum period of 30 years, and must have reached the age of 60. Teachers entering the profession at the minimum age, and serving continuously, would serve for a considerably longer period than 30 years before becoming eligible. The amount of the allowances depends not only on the period of service but also on
    2264
    the average salary for the last five years of service. Of the age pensions actually awarded during the year 1929–30, under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, the average amount was £155 per annum, and, in addition, a lump sum.
    Mr. McSHANE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether privileges are still allowed to schoolmasters of over 65 years of age to continue to serve in the particular post in which they were serving when they reached 65 years of age?
    Mr. JONES: I must ask for notice of that question.

    NURSERY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any further schemes before his Department at the present time for the purpose of assisting local education authorities to increase the present system of the nursery schools throughout the country?
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend welcomes any proposals for the provision of additional nursery schools, either by local education authorities or by other bodies. Grant is available at the rate of 50 per cent. of the net expenditure involved.
    Dr. PHILLIPS: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any figures as to the number of nursery schools that have been established since he went to the Board?
    Mr. JONES: As compared with June, 1928, when there were 28 recognised schools, there are now, I think, 44 schools which are open. There are 14 schools for which plans have already been approved and 14 for which plans are now being considered. In addition, there are 41 for which plans have already been presented to us in connection with the three-year programmes of the local education authorities, which have not yet been considered.
    Mr. WELLS: Has the age of entry been reduced below five years in any of the nursery schools?
    Mr. JONES: Not by law, but I believe that in some areas children below the age of five years do in fact attend school.

    UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware

    2265
    that the Luton Education Committee is advertising for uncertificated men and women teachers; and if he will consider withholding recognition of such appointments?
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: The employment of uncertificated teachers is allowed by the Code, and it would not at present be practicable to prohibit their employment.
    Mr. LEACH: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take steps to improve these sorry standards?
    Mr. JONES: The hon. Member must be aware that the Code allows the appointment of uncertificated teachers—I do not mean people who have no certificate at all—and I am afraid that in the present circumstances we can do nothing without altering the Code itself.
    Mr. MORLEY: Will the hon. Member state a time limit beyond which uncertificated teachers will not be recognised?
    Mr. JONES: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. McSHANE: May I ask whether the Department takes into cognisance the question as to whether there is not an undue proportion of uncertificated teachers being appointed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is going beyond the question on the Paper.

  HOUSING.

    TOWN PLANNING.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health the names of the members of the committee engaged in examining town-planning schemes with a view to the building of satellite towns; and whether it has yet made any recommendations?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The members of the committee are the right hon. The Viscount Chelmsford (Chairman), Mr. H. Alexander, Sir Ernest Clark, Mr. W. R. Davidge, Mr. A. Dryland, Sir George Etherton, Mr. W. J. Hadfield, Mr. F. W. Hunt, Mr. T. Alwyn Lloyd, Mr. J. Norval, Captain R. L. Reiss, Mr. J. H. Rothwell, and Mr. Raymond Unwin. The committee have not yet made any recommen-
    2266
    dations. I am sending the right hon. Member a, copy of the terms of reference to the committee, as his question seems to indicate some misunderstanding of its functions.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: May I ask how many of these gentlemen are fully-qualified civil engineers?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot say offhand, but, of course, the majority have a practical knowledge of the questions involved.

    FLOODS, KENSINGTON.
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Health how many houses were flooded by sewage in Kensington during the years 1929 and 1930; how many of these houses have been supplied with flood-proof floors; and whether any compensation has been made to the tenants?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have made inquiry and am informed that no houses in Kensington were flooded by sewage in the year 1929. On 17th June, 1930, an exceptionally heavy storm caused flooding of about 178 basement dwellings in that borough. Information is not available as to the number of these dwellings in which flood-proof floors have been provided. The borough council have no power to compel provision. It does not appear that any compensation has been made to the tenants.
    Mr. WEST: Does the Minister of Health consider that the flooding of these houses has some connection with the fact that rheumatism in the northern part of the borough of Kensington—that is the poorer part—is greater than in the southern part by 800 per cent.?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: That may be due to the fact that there are more basement dwellings there, unfortunately.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
    Mr. MORLEYasked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive a report from the committee dealing with the Rent Restrictions Acts?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that the committee have already held 20 meetings and heard a considerable volume of evidence, but I am unable at present to give any precise indication of the date when their report may be expected.
    Sir W. BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long they have been sitting now?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think their first meeting was at the beginning of November—shortly after the beginning of the Session.

    RURAL WORKERS ACT.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health whether he can supply a summary showing the number of dwellings for which assistance had been provided at 31st January, 1931, by grants and by loans, respectively, under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, in each of the counties in England and Wales?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am having a statement prepared, and will send it to the hon. Member.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health whether, in order to allow time for the preparation of plans for reconditioning cottages for agricultural workers, he will now state whether he proposes to continue the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, which is due to expire on 30th September next?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: This question is under the consideration of the Government.
    Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he anticipates being able to arrive at a decision in this matter, as it is extremely important that there should be time for the preparation of plans?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I assure the hon. Member that a decision will be taken in ample time to prevent any embarrassment of the local authorities.

  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FIGURE.
  Mr. L. SMITHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the doubt that exists that the cost-of-living index as evolved by the Minister of Labour is a suitable criterion for adjusting the pay of officers in the Army and Navy and non-industrial workers in the Civil Service, he will consider the setting up of a committee to investigate the possibility of drawing up separate cost-of-living indexes for the various classes of the community
  2268
  or of evolving alternative methods for adjusting the pay of the various classes of Government servants in accordance with the rise and fall of prices?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer on this subject which was given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on the 19th February, and to the reply which I gave on the 3rd February to a question by the hon. Member for Willesden East (Mr. D. G. Somerville).

  MALTA (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Mr. FOOTasked the Prime Minister if he has been able to receive the deputation now in this country from Malta?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The answer is in the negative. All sections of Maltese political opinion will doubtless have opportunities of laying their views before the Royal Commission; and, in order to avoid embarrassment to the Commission, it is considered desirable that in the meantime Members of His Majesty's Government should refrain from receiving deputations on Maltese political matters.
  Mr. FOOT: Would it not be in accordance with precedent and with the needs of the case if the three Ministers of the Crown from Malta who are in this country at the moment were received by the Secretary of State?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I have already answered that question in another part of my reply, in which I say that it would be very undesirable in the circumstances for any Minister of His Majesty's Government to receive a deputaiton.
  Mr. HANNON: Would it not be better to leave the matter alone until the Royal Commission has an opportunity of making their inquiries?
  Mr. FOOTasked the Prime Minister if he can now announce the personnel of the Royal Commission on Malta; and when the Commissioners are to commence their inquiries?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It is not possible to give this information at present, but a further announcement on the matter will be made shortly.
  Mr. FOOTasked the Prime Minister if the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Malta will be framed so as to enable the Commissioners to inquire into the language question in the island?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I must refer the hon. Member to the terms of reference themselves, which were announced in the answer which I gave on the 23rd February.
  Mr. FOOT: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to receive representations not merely from one side but from all sides of the House as to the importance of the language question in Malta?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I think the terms of reference are sufficiently wide not to preclude the Royal Commission from dealing with that matter, and it will be for the Commission themselves to interpret their terms of reference.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that it is the intention and purpose of the Government to allow the language question to be dealt with by the Commission?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot add anything to what I have just said.

  PUBLIC HEALTH,

    ASYLUM OFFICER'S SUPERANNUATION (MRS. E. F. BAILES).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that Mrs. E. F. Bailes, 10, Cromwell Road, Shenfield, Essex, was employed as a nurse in an asylum from January, 1919, to 14th August, 1930, during which time she paid full contributions; and, seeing that on her resignation there has only been a refund of her contributions from September, 1928, to 14th August, 1930, although she paid in contributions for the nine years previous, and in view of the terms of Sections 6 and 10 (2) of the Asylum Officers Superanuation Act, 1909, will he look into this question and see whether the contributions can be returned for the full period?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the facts of this case and of the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1909, to which the hon. and gallant Member
    2270
    draws my attention. I am, however, advised that the Act does not enable any further payment to be made to Mrs. Bailes.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the intention of this Act that contributions which have been paid should be returned. In this case, the lady is deprived of nine years and is only getting the contributions paid for 1½ years.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Act, he will see that we have fulfilled it in the letter and in the spirit.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Not in the spirit.

    MENTAL TREATMENT, SOMERSET.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Health whether the Somerset County Council has submitted any proposals under the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, to enable suitable cases to be treated without certification?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The local authority are not required to submit proposals for this purpose under the Mental Treatment Act; but admission documents received by the Board of Control indicate that some voluntary patients have already been received into the two mental hospitals belonging to the Somerset County and Bath County Borough Councils.

    PARATYPHOID.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health whether he is making any arrangement to insure the efficacy of the pasteurisation methods used for the milk supply of the country, with a view to reducing the number of cases of paratyphoid fever?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am advised that the paratyphoid organism is easily destroyed by heat and that any of the methods of treatment by heat in general use, if carried out with proper care, is effective in destroying this organism. Milk is not allowed to be sold as "pasteurised" unless it has been treated by the method prescribed by my Department, and as this method is now being used to an increasing extent, I do not think it is necessary for me to take any special steps to encourage its adoption.
    Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Minister of Health whether the origin of the outbreak of typhoid in Essex has been discovered; how many cases have occurred; how many have proved fatal; and what steps are being taken to prevent a further outbreak?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The inquiries made by a medical officer of my Department, in conjunction with the local medical officers of health, appear to have shown that the origin of this outbreak of paratyphoid was one of the employés at a dairy farm who, unknown to himself, was suffering from the disease. 256 cases, including secondary cases, have occurred up to the present and there have been seven deaths. The preventive measures which were taken included the removal to hospital of the man considered to have been the source of infection, the cleansing and disinfection of the premises, milk utensils, etc., and the employment of a fresh staff of workers at the farm.

    GRADED MILK (LICENCE FEES).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health if he has considered the suggestion submitted to him that in order to encourage the supply of pure milk the Ministry should abolish the licence fees now demanded from producers who apply for permission to sell certified or grade A milk; and if he will adopt this suggestion?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not at present satisfied that the abolition of the licence fees for graded milk would have any appreciable effect upon the supply; but I will consider the matter in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Agriculture and also with representatives of local authorities when opportunity occurs for the general revision of the Special Designations Order.

    INFLUENZA.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health the number of deaths from influenza for each year since the War and for each month from January, 1930; and whether he has any evidence as to the cause of the increase?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: As the answer to the first part of the question involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon.
    2272
    Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that I cannot give the number of deaths for each month but I am giving the number for each quarter of 1930. According to my information the prevalence of influenza has been greater during the present year than during the corresponding period of 1930, but considerably less than during that period of 1929. As my hon. Friend will see from the figures circulated the numbers of deaths vary substantially from year to year and I am advised that it is not possible to ascribe this variation to any particular cause.
    Following is the statement:
    Numbers of deaths registered in England and Wales in the years 1918–1930 and classified to influenza.

    Year.

    Number.

    1918

    …

    112,329

    1919

    …

    44,801

    1920

    …

    10,665

    1921

    …

    8,995

    1922

    …

    21,498

    1923

    …

    8,461

    1924

    …

    18,986

    1925

    …

    12,721

    1926

    …

    8,936

    1927

    …

    22,263

    1928

    …

    7,754

    1929

    …

    29,084

    1930

    …

    5,002

    (provisional)

    namely:—Quarter ended—

    31st March

    …

    2,193

    30th June

    …

    1,153

    30th September

    …

    457

    31st December

    …

    1,199

    (provisional)

    MENTAL PATIENTS (PROPERTY).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health if he will make an inquiry into the case of a woman who on 10th July, 1930, was transferred from Brighton Infirmary to Haywards Heath Mental Hospital and deprived of belongings which have not been restored to her on discharge; and will he take steps to secure that in future the public assistance committees, who are in charge of the property of persons so detained, should immediately notify the Master in Lunacy of its value, with a view to the appointment of an appropriate receiver to look after the interests of any person so detained?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: If my hon. Friend will inform me of the name of the patient, I will make inquiries and communicate with him.

    VACCINATION.
    Mr. CARTERasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the conclusion arrived at in the recent report of the Rolleston Committee on Vaccination in regard to the necessity of trying to find some means of protecting against small-pox other than that of the direct introduction of a living virus into the organism, he will introduce a Bill at an early date to suspend the compulsory Clauses of the Vaccination Acts, as has been done in Holland, until the experimental researches now in hand have been completed, particularly in view of the continued occurrence of deaths from post-vaccinal encephalitis after the use of Government lymph?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have under consideration the whole subject of vaccination, but I cannot in present circumstances undertake to introduce legislation dealing with this question. I may point out that the compulsory requirements of the Vaccination Acts are in effect limited to infants under 12 months of age, and that in this class the occurrence of post-vaccinal encephalitis has been practically negligible, whereas I understand that in Holland the compulsory measure which has been suspended related to the vaccination of children at school age. I may add that since 1st January, 1930, a total of seven cases of post-vaccinal encephalitis have been reported, two of which have proved fatal.
    Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman study the experience of Leicester, a non-vaccination town?

  POOR LAW,

    CHILDREN.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Health the number of children under the public assistance committee of the Somerset County Council who are boarded out and the number boarded in?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The number of Somerset children boarded out in the county is 132; the number of Somerset
    2274
    children boarded out in other areas, 11; the number of children in public assistance children's homes in the county of Somerset, 206. These numbers are exclusive of 62 Somerset children in hospitals or special schools.
    Mr. GOULD: Will the Minister of Health consider the desirability of making strong representation to get the larger number, that is 200, boarded-out rather than continue the boarding-in system?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Pressure is being put on local authorities to end the boarding-in system.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: And if local authorities refuse to put an end to the system what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do then?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Put on more pressure.

    COTTON INDUSTRY DISPUTE.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Health whether he has given full consideration to the request from the Lancashire Public Assistance Committee to be advised whether persons in the Lancashire county area who were locked out during the recent dispute in the cotton industry should be regarded as involved in a trade dispute and ineligible for Poor Law relief; and what advice, if any, was given?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the correspondence with the county council.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities feel considerable difficulty as regards the advice which he is reported to have given, because it appears to conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Attorney-General versus the Merthyr Tydvil Guardians?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of that difficulty. This is, under legal advice, an interpretation of the decision in the Merthyr Tydvil case, applied to the circumstances of the Lancashire dispute.

    OUTDOOR RELIEF (LONDON).
    Mr. MUGGERIDGEasked the Minister of Health the number of applicants refused out-door relief in Bethnal Green in December, 1928 and 1930, respectively?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that this information could not be obtained without special research into all the applications for relief made during the periods in question. Moreover, Bethnal Green no longer constitutes a separate area for relief purposes, and it is doubtful whether comparable figures could be obtained which would justify the time and labour involved.
    Mr. BECKETT: Would it be possible to obtain figures as to the number of people in institutions in that area?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: It would be possible to give such figures, but since the alteration of the Poor Law authority areas, it is very difficult to give comparable figures.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Minister of Health if he will state what relief the public assistance committees of the London County Council give to a single destitute woman?
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Minister of Health what is the scale of assistance paid to a man and wife with two children by the public assistance committees of the London County Council?
    Mr. HORRABINasked the Minister of Health what assistance is given to a destitute single man by the public assistance committees of the London County Council?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am advised that the council has not laid down any scales of relief, the amount of relief in each case depending on the individual needs of the applicant's household.
    Mr. BECKETT: Has any complaint been received as to the amount of relief which is being paid; and has the right hon. Gentleman had any communication with the London County Council on the subject?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, representations have been made, and there have been comunications between the county council and myself, but I may point out to the hon. Member that, by law, I am
    2276
    precluded from dealing with individual cases.
    Mr. BECKETT: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his representations have had anything to do with the amount of relief which is being paid?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that such representations as have been made to the London County Council have resulted in an improvement of the general conditions.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Minister of Health the number of applicants refused out-door relief by the public assistance committee dealing with Peckham in December, 1930, and the number refused by the old board of guardians in December, 1928?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that this information could not be obtained without special research into all the applications for relief made during the periods in question. Moreover, I understand that Peckham is not and has never been a separate unit for relief purposes and it is doubtful whether comparable figures could be obtained which would justify the time and labour involved.

    TEST WORK.
    Mr. LONGDENasked the Minister of Health how many local authorities are imposing test work on applicants for relief and how many are not?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: 103 local authorities have in operation arrangements for setting to work, or training and instructing, able-bodied men in receipt of outdoor relief, and some of the remaining 42 have schemes under consideration.
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman himself issued an instruction as regards test work to local authorities?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have issued an order that, as and where work of that kind is available, it should be offered.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman receive regular reports from the local authorities as to how the conditions laid down in the recent Circular are working; and is he aware that there is general dissatisfaction in reference to that Circular?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not receive reports regularly from the local authorities, but I receive regular reports from the inspectors of the Department, and I should not like to agree with the hon. Member that there is general dissatisfaction.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Minister of Health what are the conditions and pay for the test work imposed by the public assistance committees of the London County Council?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The question of pay for test work does not arise. The amount of relief afforded is governed by the individual needs of the applicant. Where work or means of training or instruction suitable to the age, physical capacity and intelligence of an able-bodied applicant are available, such an applicant is required to undertake them as a condition of the grant of relief under a scheme submitted to me by the county council in accordance with Article 6 of the Relief Regulation Order, 1930. Particulars of the scheme, including the conditions of work, training and instruction, are set out on pages 11–20 of a Memorandum (P.A. 3) which has been published by the county council. My hon. Friend could, no doubt, obtain a copy from them.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the London area, that scheme results in a man doing 42 hours work a week for 6s.?
    Sir K. WOOD: Is it not the case that there is a London County Council election in progress and that these questions are prompted by that circumstance?

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Health the number of persons whose health insurance membership has been continued for another year as a result of the passing of the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1930?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Precise figures on this matter are not available, but in the memorandum explaining the financial resolution on the Bill it was stated that it was estimated that between 60,000 and 100,000 persons would have their period of insurance extended as a result of the Bill.

  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  Commander SOUTHBYasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Mrs. Beckett, of 3, Jubilee Road, Cheam, Surrey, who is in receipt of a pension by reason of her late husband's death due to War service, has been debarred from receiving a widow's pension under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, for which she should be eligible by reason of her late husband's cash contributions to the fund; and whether he will take steps to obtain for her the return of the sum of money so contributed by her late husband, observing that this money was paid into the fund in order to obtain a certain benefit for the contributor's wife in the event of his death?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I would point out that the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, provides that a pension under the Act is not payable to any person to whom a service dependants pension is payable but that where the service dependants pension is less than the pension which would have been payable under the Act, the pensions fund shall make up the difference. Under this provision Mrs. Beckett's service dependants pension has been increased by 2s. a week, payable out of the Pensions Fund. She will also, as a result of her late husband's insurance, be entitled, on attaining 70, to the old age pension at 10s. a week without having to satisfy the means test imposed by the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924.
  Mr. SHAKESPEAREasked the Minister of Health whether he will tighten up the procedure under which legal decisions are taken on certain widows' pension claims?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not clear what legal decisions the hon. Member has in mind. If, however, he will give me more precise information I will look into the matter.

  CONVICTED PRISONERS, MILFORD HAVEN (MENTAL TREATMENT).
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the case of Ivor Clifford Thompson and Ronald James Thompson, of Milford Haven, who, after a conviction for stealing a bicycle, were committed

  2279
  to a mental institution as mentally deficient; and if he will take steps to inquire into the mental condition of the boys?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The two persons named were undergoing detention in Swansea Prison when they were certified by two qualified medical practitioners to be feeble-minded, but owing to the inability of the local authority to provide institutional accommodation or appropriate guardianship, they have not been dealt with under the Mental Deficiency Act.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons given for adjudging the younger of these boys to be mentally deficient was that when asked "Who is Mr. Lloyd George?" he replied, "A big Labour leader"?
  HON. MEMBERS: Quite true.

  RATES (EQUALISATION).
  Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health whether he has under consideration the proposal to establish a national rates equalisation fund, with a view to levelling the burden of poor relief over the whole country?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not think that such a proposal would be practicable.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. BRACKENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the House a list of the economies he has effected in the staff and salaries of the Civil Service during the past 12 months; and will he supply particulars of all the major economies which he has been able to make in public expenditure during the same period?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 27th November last in reply to the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).
    Mr. BRACKEN: Am I to understand that no economy has been effected since last September?
    Mr. McSHANE: Will this list include also those Members on the opposite side of the House who voted for third-class fares?

    IMPORT DUTY (REVENUE).
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made of the extent to which a 10 per cent. duty on all imports entering Great Britain would check the import trade; whether any further estimate on that basis has been made of the revenue which such a duty would produce; and will he give the figures?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative, and the third part therefore does not arise.

  SUEZ CANAL (CHARGES).
  Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government intend to take action consequent on the statement made by the Liverpool Shipowners' Association in their annual report that the high level of charges for ships passing through the Suez Canal is one of the factors contributing to the loss of the Eastern markets; what proportion of the shares in the Suez Canal is held by the British Government; what proportion of the remainder of the shares is in British hands; what are the agreements now in force for the administration of the canal; and whether from time to time His Majesty's Government take any steps to see that British interests are adequately safeguarded?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) on Thursday last. The proportion of the ordinary shares of the Suez Canal Company held by His Majesty's Government is about 44 per cent.; I have no information as to what proportion of the remainder of the shares is in British hands. The canal is administered by the Suez Canal Company under concessions granted to the company by the Viceroy of Egypt in 1854 and 1856, and confirmed by firman of the Sultan dated the 19th

  2281
  March, 1866; its international status is governed by the Suez Canal Convention of 1888 and the Anglo-French Declaration of 1904. As regards the final part of the question, there are three Government directors on the board of this company, with whom His Majesty's Government is in constant touch, and in addition seven unofficial British directors chosen because of their knowledge of the shipping and commerce of the United Kingdom which passes through the canal.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Are the Government satisfied that a concern in which the British have apparently the majority of shareholding should be entirely administered and staffed by the French?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that I cannot deal with that in reply to a supplementary question. It is a very large matter. I can only say that, as indicated on Thursday, I am in touch with the shipping interests in order to find out whether we can get a further reduction of dues.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman not in a position to insist on a further reduction in view of our large shareholding?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that that goes very far beyond the question, and raises large problems of policy.
  Sir BASIL PETO: What proportion of the shipping passing through the canal is British-owned?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot say without notice.

  CIVIL SERVICE (SALARIES AND BONUS).
  Mr. SNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has given consideration to the representations submitted to him with respect to the anticipated cut in the Civil Service bonus; and if he can give the number of civil servants whose inclusive wages or salaries are under £3 a week, the number of such whose ages are under 21 and 25 years, the number of males and females in these categories, the present cost per head of the whole Civil Service, and the cost in 1913–14?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have given full and sympathetic consideration to the representations which have been made to me in respect of the matter referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question and greatly regret that, in existing financial circumstances, it is impossible to relax the provisions of the cost-of-living bonus agreement under which a reduction of remuneration falls due on the 1st March. With regard to the latter part of the question, the number of non-industrial civil servants is approximately 322,000, of whom about 200,000 are in the Post Office. At the present date the cost per head of this staff, excluding provision for superannuation, is at the rate of approximately £214 per annum; the corresponding figure for 1913–14 was approximately £99 per annum. The number of whole time non-industrial civil servants now in receipt of rates of pay, including bonus, of less than £3 a week is 94,200 as follows:

  Males, 48,200.

  Males under 21 years of age, 13,600.

  Males under 25 years of age, 19,500.

  Females, 46,000.

  Females under 21 years of age, 13,400.

  Females under 25 years of age, 24,600.

  Mr. W. J. BROWN: In view of the fact that some 300,000 civil servants are affected by this decision, is the Minister able to agree that the House should have a day to debate the matter before the cut becomes operative?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: No, I do not agree at all. This is an agreement which has been in operation for about 10 years, and it is already under the consideration of the Royal Commission. I am simply carrying out the terms of the agreement which both sides have endorsed.
  Mr. BOWEN: Does the analysis of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House show to what extent he has analysed the figures of the Post Office, and can he confirm the fact that there are 120,000 Post Office employés, representing 67 per cent. of full-time staff, with less than £3 a week?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not make a distinction between the Post Office and other non-industrial workers. The figures that I have given show that the statement of the hon. Member is quite

  2283
  inaccurate, because there are only 94,200 people altogether in the non-industrial part of the Civil Service with less than £3 a week.
  Mr. BROWN: In view of the fact that, on the Minister's own showing, there are scores of thousands of civil servants whose wages represent a standard of life below the Rowntree poverty limit, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a proper thing to do to drive these men and women lower than they are at present?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA rose—
  Mr. BROWN: May I have an answer to my question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: What the hon. Member as asking was a matter of opinion.
  Mr. BROWN: There are 300,000 people affected by this decision, and, if we cannot have a day to debate it, at least we should be allowed to ask questions. I want to ask the Minister whether he will suspend any drop in Civil Service rates of pay below £4 a week until such time as the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service which is now sitting is available?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: No, Sir.
  Mr. BROWN: In these circumstances, is the Minister willing to do what he has done in the case of another Government Commission, namely, the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, and ask for an early interim report on this subject?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand that the Royal Commission are now nearing the end of their investigations, and that their report as a whole is likely to be ready, I understand, within the next few months. I do not think that it would be advisable to ask them to give an interim report upon this subject, which is bound up with general conditions and wages.
  Mr. BROWN: In these circumstances, if an interim report cannot be asked for, will the Minister stop the cut in the meantime? [Interruption.] Surely, it is not too much to ask—[Interruption.] I want an answer to this question. In view of the fact that the agreement upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer bases his decision—[An HON. MEMBER:
  2284
  "We have had enough of it!"] And I have had enough of having my people's wages cut.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must remember that there are other Members who have questions on the Paper.
  Mr. BROWN: I should be sorry to ignore the claims of other Members of the House—
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is what you are doing.
  Mr. BROWN: —but, when there are 300,000 people waiting on this decision, and they look to me to put their case—[Interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: There are many questions affecting a great many people besides this one.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an equal 10 per cent. cut falls far more heavily on those who have less than £3 per week than on those with higher salaries? Would not exactly the same results be achieved if the economies were more fairly distributed; and does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he made a speech last Saturday in which he said he had always been an apostle of high wages?
  Mr. SNOWDEN:? I am still an apostle of high wages; but this is not a question of wages at all. This is a question of a bonus which is given to meet the increased cost of living, and the bonus is regulated by the fluctuations in the cost of living. There is no question hereof wages at all.
  Mr. BROWN: Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware—
  Mr. SPEAKER rose—
  Mr. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, Sir—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I should not be fair to the House if I allowed the hon. Member to monopolise the time.
  Mr. BROWN: I am very sorry, but this is the only chance we shall get before this decision becomes operative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Raise it on the Adjournment!"] The Adjournment is no good, and hon. Members know that. Hon.

  2285
  Members know it is no good. I could raise it on the Adjournment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—
  Mr. SPEAKER rose—
  HON. MEMBERS: Name!
  Mr. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, Sir—
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will not obey my Ruling, I must name him.
  Mr. BROWN: I should be sorry if that happened, but I propose to press this matter. I want to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is not aware—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not remain standing while I am on my feet. I am quite sure that I Should be wrong in allowing the hon. Member to monopolise so much time at Question Time, however important the subject may be. There are certain rules which govern questions, and the hon. Member must abide by them.
  Mr. BROWN: On a point of Order. I have not put any questions in this House for many days past. [Laughter.] That is true. I am now raising a question which affects the standard of life of 300,000 men and women outside. The
  Chancellor of the Exchequer has tried to tell us—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must not allow the hon. Member to go on. I really do not want to name the hon. Member.
  Mr. BROWN: I am sorry, but I must pursue this matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I shall have to name the hon. Member if he will not obey my Ruling.
  Mr. BROWN: Very well, Sir, in that case I must ask you to name me, because I am not content—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not do his case any good. I ask the hon. Member once more to resume his seat when I am on my feet.
  Mr. BROWN: I regret that I cannot resume my seat until I have got a satisfactory reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Then I must name the hon. Member for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That Mr. William Brown be suspended from the service of the House."
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 17.

  Division No. 170.]

  AYES.

  [3.45 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Brooke, W.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Brothers, M.

  Dagger, George

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Dallas, George

  Albery, Irving James

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Ammon, Charles George

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Arnott, John

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Butler, R. A.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

  Day, Harry

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Cadogan, Major Hun. Edward

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Ayles, Walter

  Campbell, E. T.

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Cameron, A. G.

  Duncan, Charles

  Barr, James

  Cape, Thomas

  Ede, James Chuter

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Carter. W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Edge, Sir William

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Benson, G.

  Cautley, sir Henry S.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Berry, Sir George

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)

  England, Colonel A.

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Blindell, James

  Charleton, H. C.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Chater, Daniel

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cluse, W. S.

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Foot, Isaac

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Compton, Joseph

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Boyce, Leslie

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Bracken, B.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Gill, T. H.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Gillett, George M.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Shield, George William

  Gossling, A. G.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Shinwell, E.

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Manning, E. L.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Simms, Major-General J.

  Gray, Milner

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Mathers, George

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Matters, L. W.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Millar, J. D.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Montague, Frederick

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Somerset, Thomas

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mort, D. L.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Harvey, Major S. E, (Devon, Totnes)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Sorensen, R.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Palin, John Henry

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Tillett, Ben

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Toole, Joseph

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Tout, W. J.

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Vaughan, David

  Isaacs, George

  Potts, John S.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Walkden, A. G.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Walker, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Lathan, G.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Lawson, John James

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Rothschild, J. de

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Leach, W.

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Lowth, Thomas

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Lunn, William

  Sanders, W. S.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Sexton, Sir James

  McElwee, A.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  NOES

  Batey, Joseph

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Longden, F.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  McShane, John James

  Wallace, H. W.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Marcus, M.

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Maxton, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Horrabin, J. F

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Mr. McGovern and Mr. Campbell Stephen.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Price, M. P.

  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton to leave the House.
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence. Having made my protest—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if it would not be possible for Members of this House who desire to be suspended to intimate their intention to you beforehand?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us what the business will be for next week, will he state how far he intends to go to-night in the event of the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule standing in his name being carried.
Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is proposed to dispose of the outstanding Supply on the Paper to-night, and also the Second Reading, and the Money Resolution of the Ancient Monuments Bill. The business for next week will be:
Monday: The Motion standing in the name of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs approving Accession to the General Act of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.
Tuesday: The Motion setting up a time-table for the further stages of the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill.
In the event of this Motion being carried, Wednesday and Thursday will be the 1st and 2nd Allotted Days of the Committee Stage of the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.
Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has an observation to make on the first item of business. In regard to the business for Tuesday, at this moment I can only protest most strongly against the course which has been announced. So far as I know, that course has never been taken before in this House on a Bill dealing with the franchise. It would not be in Order for me at this moment to adduce any reasons for my objection to that course being taken, and I will content myself by saying that we have the strongest objection to a proceeding which we consider most improper.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the business for Monday next, I suppose we may assume that in any case the Motion will not be taken unless the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is able to be in his place on the day on which it is taken. I assume that. Apart from that, I enter a very earnest protest against taking the Motion on Monday, because it refers to a document and a Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which has been ordered to be presented as a Command Paper. I have just been able to obtain a copy at the Vote Office but that Paper has not yet been circulated and no orders have been given for its circulation. I think that a document of this importance ought to have been circulated to all Members of the House. I have ascertained that the document will not even appear on the Pink Paper for Members until Saturday. I submit that it is not reasonable, in these circumstances, for the Government to ask us to discuss this question at such short notice on Monday next.
Mr. SNOWDEN: After the advertisement given to the fact by the right hon. Gentleman, there will now be Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday—four days—for the consideration, and surely that will be sufficient time.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would appeal again to the right hon. Gentleman to give a little more consideration to those who are interested in this matter. It would not have been unreasonable to expect that, following the usual precedent in a matter of this importance, the Government should have directed that the Papers should be circulated without requiring a special application on a Pink Paper. Apart from that, the right hon. Member must remember that we are interested in more subjects than one which comes before this House. There are some of us who will desire to familiarise ourselves with this question, and also prepare ourselves for the Debate on the Franchise Bill. I do once again appeal to him for a little more time. I think it is not an unreasonable request.
Mr. SNOWDEN: We are, of course, always anxious to meet the Opposition in these matters, but I think the request of the right hon. Gentleman to-day has not much foundation. It is a subject with which those who are particu-

2291
larly interested in this matter have long been familiar. I cannot believe that a great deal of time is necessary. It has been announced that the subject will be taken before Easter, and I am afraid that we cannot alter the programme.
Captain EDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman read this himself, and can he say how many Articles there are?
Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: With reference to the very important business which is to take place next week, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection and advice with regard to the Standing Committees upstairs? To-day we sat for over two hours on Standing Committee B, and we are called upon to sit again this afternoon from five o'clock until seven o'clock. Committee C is also sitting this afternoon on the Trade Disputes Bill. No
doubt the same thing will occur next week when these very important matters have to be discussed on the Floor of the House. I know perfectly well that it is not primarily a matter for you to deal with Committees upstairs, but I do think that the time of Members who are extremely interested in what is going on in this House should not be unduly taken for Committee work upstairs in the afternoons.
Mr. SPEAKER: That matter is out of my hands. It rests entirely with the Chairmen and the Committees upstairs to make their own arrangements.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]
The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 139.

Division No. 171.]

AYES.

[4.5 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Ede, James Chuter

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Edge, Sir William

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Alpass, J. H.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Ammon, Charles George

Elmley, Viscount

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Arnott, John

England, Colonel A.

Kelly, W. T.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welch Univer.)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ayles, Walter

Foot, Isaac

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M

Barnes, Alfred John

Freeman, Peter

Knight, Holford

Barr, James

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Batey, Joseph

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Lathan, G.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Gill, T. H.

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Benson, G.

Gillett, George M.

Lawrence, Susan

Blindell, James

Gossling, A. G.

Lawson, John James

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Gould, F.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Bowen, J. W.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Leach, W.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Broad, Francis Alfred

Granville, E.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Bromfield, William

Gray, Milner

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Bromley, J.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Longbottom, A. W.

Brooke, W.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Longden, F.

Brothers, M.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Lowth, Thomas

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Groves, Thomas E.

Lunn, William

Burgess, F. G.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Cameron, A. G.

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

McElwee, A.

Cape, Thomas

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Hardie, George D.

McKinlay, A.

Charleton, H. C.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

MacLaren, Andrew

Chater, Daniel

Haycock, A. W.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Clarke, J. S.

Hayday, Arthur

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Cluse, W. S.

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon James I.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

McShane, John James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Compton, Joseph

Herriotts, J.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Cove, William G.

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Manning, E. L.

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Marcus, M.

Daggar, George

Hoffman, P. C.

Marley, J.

Dallas, George

Hopkin, Daniel

Marshall, Fred

Dalton, Hugh

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Mathers, George

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Horrabin, J. F.

Matters, L. W.

Day, Harry

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Maxton, James

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Middleton, G.

Devlin, Joseph

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Millar, J. D.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Isaacs, George

Montague, Frederick

Duncan, Charles

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Morley, Ralph

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Stephen, Campbell

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Rothschild, J. de

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Rowson, Guy

Strauss, G. R.

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Sutton, J. E.

Mort, D. L.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Murnin, Hugh

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Tillett, Ben

Noel Baker, P. J.

Sanders, W. S.

Tinker, John Joseph

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Sawyer, G. F.

Toole, Joseph

Oldfield, J. R.

Scurr, John

Tout, W. J.

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Sexton, Sir James

Vaughan, David

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Viant, S. P.

Palin, John Henry

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Walkden, A. G.

Paling, Wilfrid

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Walker, J.

Palmer, E. T.

Sherwood, G. H.

Wallace, H. W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Shield, George William

Watkins, F. C.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Shillaker, J. F.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Shinwell, E.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

West, F. R.

Pole, Major D. G.

Simmons, C. J.

White, H. G.

Potts, John S.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Price, M. P.

Sitch, Charles H.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Pybus, Percy John

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Raynes, W. R,

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Richards, R.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Wilson, R. J. Narrow)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Snell, Harry

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Ritson, J.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

Sorensen, R.

Romeril, H. G.

Stamford, Thomas W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Purbrick, R.

Albery, Irving James

Ferguson, Sir John

Ramsbotham, H.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Fielden, E. B.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Atholl, Duchess of

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Remer, John R.

Beaumont, M. W.

Gower, Sir Robert

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Berry, Sir George

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Ross, Ronald D.

Bird, Ernest Roy

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Hammersley, S. S.

Salmon, Major J.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Boyce, Leslie

Hartington, Marquess of

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Bracken, B.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Savery, S. S.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Haslam, Henry C.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Briscoe, Richard George

Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd. Henley)

Simms, Major-General J.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Hills, Major Rt. Hun. John Waller

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n A Kinc'dine, O.)

Butler, R. A.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Smithers, Waldron

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Somerset, Thomas

Campbell, E. T.

Hurd, Percy A.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Carver, Major W. H.

Inskip, Sir Thomas

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Knox, Sir Alfred

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Chapman, Sir S.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Colville, Major D. J.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Favensham)

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Cranborne, Viscount

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Wells, Sydney R.

Dalrymple White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Womersley, W. J.

Eden, Captain Anthony

O'Connor, T. J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Edmondson, Major A. J.

O'Neill, Sir H.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s,.M.)

Power, Sir John Cecil

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Everard W. Lindsay

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Sir Frederick Thomson.

Question put, and agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GLOUCESTERSHIRE, WARWICKSHIRE AND WORCESTERSHIRE) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BILLS PRESENTED.
  PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to probation of offenders in Scotland," presented by Mr. William Adamson; supported by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Johnston; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
  ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL,
  "to amend the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, by imposing a restriction on the employment of persons to procure new business," presented by Mr. Palmer; supported by Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Thomas Lewis, Mr. George Oliver, Mr. Kelly, Dr. Morgan, and Mr. R. Taylor; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930).
Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted for the Navy for the year ending 31st March, 1931 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.

  SUPPLY.
    CLASS VIII.

      MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £246,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921, and sundry Services."
      Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir Robert, for the guidance of the Committee, whether it will be possible on these Votes, which are more or less interconnected and interdependent, to have a general discussion on the question, rather than taking each Vote individually? I fear that, if that were done, there might be a good deal of overlapping, while, on the other hand, as they are interconnected and interdependent, it might be for the convenience of the Committee as a whole to discuss them generally.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. There is only one Vote. That Vote covers Sub-heads A, C, E, K, M, and O.2. All of these items can come into the general discussion on that one Vote.
      The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): In submitting this Supplementary Estimate, it is my duty to explain to the Committee why a sum in excess of the original Estimate is being asked for. First of all, may I say that the fact that it is necessary is in itself evidence that, in administering the Pensions Statutes and Warrants, every effort has been made to allow the normal machinery of pensions and medical treatment to work without unduly or unfairly restricting it by technical limitations which in the circumstances would have been unjustifiable. This additional
      2324
      sum of £246,500 which I am asking the Committee to grant is less than one-half of 1 per cent. of the total estimated expenditure of my Department. In a matter like War pensions, which are liable to be affected by so many different and often incalculable factors, an error of less than ½ per cent. is not always avoidable. At the same time, there are definite reasons why even this small degree of error has occurred.
      In the first place, the estimates of my Department's expenditure for the current year had to be prepared at the end of 1929, when we were still without accurate knowledge of what the expenditure of even that financial year would amount to. Our anticipations in regard to the expenditure for the year 1929–30 proved to be wrong, and we found in fact, as has been shown by the Appropriation Account now published, that our Estimates were, I am sorry to say, some £342,000 too low. Our under-estimate for 1929–30 inevitably threw out our Estimates for the current financial year, 1930–31. We started the present year year with current expenditure already at a higher level than we had bargained for. This, coupled with the further fact that the same causes which were operating to upset our calculations for the previous year have operated also during 1930–31, explains the greater part of this unforeseen expenditure.
      In the second place, some part of the increased expenditure is due to the fact that I have been enabled to make improvements in pensions administration—some of considerable importance to pensioners—all of which have had a cumulative effect in adding to the bill for War pensions as we first envisaged it.
      I propose very briefly to comment on each of the items appearing in the Supplementary Estimate. As regards administrative expenditure the Committee will see that administration is expected to cost some £50,000 more than was estimated would be the case when the original estimates of the Ministry were framed. This additional cost is due to the fact that we under-estimated the staff that would be required to do the work to which we had set ourselves. The previous year's Estimate—that for 1929–30—had already been shown to be insufficient from a similar cause, and our Estimate for the current year was in

      2325
      consequence similarly affected, because the same causes continued to operate. It might well seem to hon. Members that, at this late date in the Ministry's history, we should be in a position to estimate pretty accurately for the Ministry's staff in any given period, and I agree that ordinarily this would be so. But towards the end of 1929 and during the current and previous financial years the Ministry have had to undertake work in two important directions, the extent and effect of which could not have been accurately gauged.
      In the first place, we have had to carry out heavy work in connection with the investigation of claims for disablement made by ex-officers and men more than seven years after their discharge from service in the Great War. The publicity given to the new arrangements which the Government resolved to make, and which I announced in the House in November, 1929, naturally led in the first few months to a substantial increase in the number of claims. The weight of this extra work has fallen mainly on the current year, since the new arrangements were net in full working order until March. This work involved not only the retention and even increase of local medical staff, but also the retention of clerical and administrative staff at Headquarters which would otherwise have been dispensed with.
      In the second place, we had to complete the review of cases on the conditional and temporary pension list, in order to carry out what has been frequently urged both upon myself and upon my predecessor in this House, namely, the achievement of a permanent settlement of as many cases as possible. This work also has involved a heavy call on the medical and clerical staff of the Ministry, both centrally and locally, and has inevitably tended to keep up their numbers. I wish, however, to make quite clear to the Committee that, in spite of the additional £50,000 which I am now asking the Committee to authorise for administration expenses, the expenditure during the current year under Subhead A will be considerably below that of the previous year. In 1929–30, the actual expenditure under Sub-head A was just over £1,223,000. My present revised estimate of expenditure during the current year is £1,164,000—an estimated
      2326
      difference of £59,000 in the direction of economy.
      I now turn to the four items of increased pensions expenditure, which, I am glad to say, far outweigh the increased expenditure on administration. Of these the two of primary importance are the items of pensions expenditure on disabled officers and disabled men—Sub-heads C and K. I group these two items together for the reason that the explanation of the supplementary expenditure which I have to ask the Committee to authorise is the same for both. I have referred already to the additional work devolving on the Ministry in consequence of the new arrangements for the investigation and acceptance of claims from disabled officers and men which have been made more than seven years after retirement or discharge from the Service. During the current financial year we shall probably have admitted to pension about 1,000 cases, or provided for them in some other form by way of gratuity or allowance. Some portion of this compensation is included in this Estimate. Some increase was allowed for in our Estimate for the current year, but the allowance was inadequate. A more potent cause of our increased expenditure has been our normal review of cases on the conditional list, including cases in which deterioration of his condition and an increase of pension is claimed by the officer or man, and cases in which on other grounds an increase of pension is found to be proper. This factor of increased pension assessment was also allowed for in our original Estimate, as it always is, but, on this occasion also, inadequately.
      The increased expenditure for which I am asking the Committee to make provision under Sub-heads E. and M. is small, and I do not think I need delay the proceedings by any elaborate explanation of it. Briefly, the fact is that both of these items are affected by the uncertain factor of death among disabled officers and men. A high death rate in one year, such as occurred in 1929, does not produce its full effect as regards charges for pensions for widows until the full year's charge has to be met. This fact, together with an increase, which I am glad to say has taken place, in the number of cases in which grants for higher education for

      2327
      children have been made, has accounted or the small extra liability. With regard to the increased expenditure which is anticipated in connection with dependants' pensions, there is no doubt that the prolonged unemployment tends to affect the means of those who, or whose parents, have a claim on the Ministry in respect of a son who has died in consequence of his war service. This has led to a slightly larger number of claims than could have been anticipated, the full effect of which is now beginning to emerge in the expenditure of the current year.
      The last item of increased expenditure to which I have to call the attention of the Committee is that of £55,000, representing excess expenditure on artificial limbs and surgical appliances. To an appreciable extent this excess is due to a change of accounting, which has arisen from the fact that certain accounts which, but for revised conditions in the case of two contracts, would have been rendered to the Ministry so as to be included in the expenditure of the preceding year, had to appear in the current year's accounts. But in the main the increase is due to the fact that artificial limbs and appliances issued some years ago are now coming in in increasing numbers for either renewal or repair. We have, as hon. Members will be aware, supplied to disabled men who have suffered amputation, or who have had to wear artificial appliances of various kinds, not only the best of surgical limbs and appliances, but in many cases very elaborate instruments of delicate construction and adjustment. A very large proportion of these instruments are of post-War development, and their life could at best only be a matter of approximate estimate. Only time can show whether our estimates were unduly optimistic, and this is a point which I and my Department will keep under constant review. I hope that this statement as to why the increased sum is essential may be acceptable, and that the Committee will be prepared to agree to the Estimate as now submitted.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like, first of all, to express our delight at seeing the right hon. Gentleman again in his place. I am sure, whatever views we may have about his administration—
      2328
      and, of course, in a House composed as we are there are bound to be different views—one view we all hold is that we are united in our affection for him. His statement had two merits. It was short and it was clear. I was first of all rather disturbed when I found that one White Paper followed another and that we had first of all a supplementary Estimate and yesterday there was another paper which told us that there were excesses that had to be accounted for. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the excesses, though he dealt quite adequately with this supplementary Estimate. It divides itself into two heads, for one of which he was more or less apologetic, namely, the expenditure on administration, and the second, the additional expenditure upon increased benefits to pensioners or their dependants. No one likes an Estimate for administrative purposes to be exceeded, but he made out a good case for the increase. After all, it is only about a half per cent. of the total expenditure of the Ministry. I do not know what the total expenditure this year is but I recollect that when I first began work in the Ministry it reached the enormous Estimate of £123,000,000. I believe now it is down to half that. That was bound to be the case because, obviously, the more remote the War is, the less the expenditure upon pensions must become.
      The explanation that the right hon. Gentleman gave of the additional £50,000 on administration was that quite unexpectedly, and I think quite naturally, the Department thought they might be able to do with less salaries and allowances than they find themselves able to do with. The reason for that was quite obvious. In 1929 a scheme was instituted by means of which administratively there might be reviews of certain cases. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal as adequately as I should have liked with what he called the abolition of the seven years limit. The seven years limit, rightly or wrongly, is my own child. I instituted it in Section 5 of the Act of 1921 on the advice of the most skilled experts and after the most careful consideration by a committee admirably presided over by my predecessor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon), who is at present engaged in a Commit-

      2329
      tee and who otherwise, no doubt, would have been here. Whatever you may say, that Section has not been abolished. Whatever justification you may give for the review of the new cases, it cannot be said that there has been any legal abolition of Section 5. [Interruption.] I am reminded that the right hon. Gentleman claims that there has been. [Interruption.] I am glad to find that, even on their own side, there is some dissension even about that allegation. It has not been abolished and, in my judgment, very wisely. We do not want the Americanisation of pensions, that is to say we do not want them to go on indefinitely. There must be some limit. Everyone, to whatever party he belongs, will always admit the right of any man who is entitled to a pension to get it in full. We have heard of cases in America where pensions went on from grandfather to grandson for generations, and possibly pensions still exist which were originated in the war of Civil Independence.
      I acted upon the advice given me in those days. I was told the proper period to fix was four years but I thought on the whole the right and fair and generous period would be seven years and that has worked extraordinarily well. The right hon. Gentleman said that since his administrative alteration of the present conditions in November, 1929, there had been examined something like 14,000 or 15,000 cases, and out of that number only about 600 or 800 had had their claims accepted. It shows that on the whole the principle has worked very fairly, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this administrative provision, because if there is any dubiety about any case it ought to be carefully reconsidered, but you have to remember that the reconsideration of these cases means a lot of expense, not that the State, which has always been generous to its pensioners, will object to that provided the claims are good. I do not understand that, when you examine or review a case which is not under the seven years' limit, if the claim has been granted it has the same rights as a claim that has been granted within the seven years' limit.
      First of all, these claims are not examined in the normal way in which claims are examined under the seven years' limit. Under the seven years'
      2330
      limit, they are examined, first of all, on entitlement and so on, and they have a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. That independent tribunal was originated, I think in 1917, because the House of Commons felt that the service Departments were not proper bodies to consider fully the claims of pensioners and they thought that, to ensure fairness to the individual pensioner, there should be, if he felt aggrieved, or if the Department felt that the decision below was wrong, a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. That tribunal has been appointed in the past in Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session and in England by the Lord Chancellor. It is statutory and independent and its decision is final. Where an ordinary soldier is concerned, it is composed of a lawyer, a doctor and an ex-service man, and where an officer is concerned, a lawyer, a doctor and an ex-officer. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested on more than one occasion that he has repealed the seven years' limit.
      Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think I have ever on any occasion used the word "repeal."
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am glad to have it direct that there has been no repeal. I am merely contrasting as best I can the effect of the seven years' limit with the rights under it, and the effect of the administrative proposals which have been put into force since November, 1929. Under the seven years' limit the pensioner has all these rights, the ultimate right being the right to appeal to an independent legal tribunal which is outwith the jurisdiction of the Minister. He has no more rights before that tribunal than the man-in-the-street who has a claim for a pension. Under the administrative proposals introduced in November, 1929, the pensioner who pursues his claim to a pension has no right to go to an independent legal tribunal—I am not saying that it is good or bad—the possible reason being that it might be to the detriment of the pensioner himself if he went before it without specific records as to his claim. I can quite imagine a hard-headed legal tribunal saying, "You have not the documents to substantiate your claim and we cannot listen to you." That is probably true, and that may be one of the justifications which the right hon. Gentleman had for

      2331
      not giving to these claimants the right to an independent legal tribunal. If that is true, there is some justification for it.
      On the other hand, he has given two or three aids to the claimant. As I understand it, the pensioner is not precluded, even if he has not claimed hitherto under the seven years' limit, from making a claim. That claim, first of all, I have no doubt, would be examined by the Ministry itself and, if it was not satisfied, it might get the support of the war pensions committee, which would further investigate it and make representations to the Ministry. Then, and not till then, he would be entitled, no doubt within the discretion of the Minister, to have a tribunal not composed of laymen, but of doctors. I should be very interested to know what has been the result of those appeals. Have the specialists been working satisfactorily and have they given satisfaction alike to the claimant and to the Ministry? I can quite see that, the further away the claim is from the day when it ought in ordinary circumstances to have been made, the more difficult it is to value it, because a good many things, such as unemployment, now militate against the health of the men who served. You cannot possibly keep those things out, or the claims which are now being made. I should very much like to know from the Minister that he is satisfied that his new administrative scheme is working satisfactorily and with justice to the men who have put forward claims.
      He very rightly said that he made no great apology for the additional expenditure in the second part of the Estimate dealing with increased pensions and allowances to dependants. One of the reasons for the error in the Estimate was a miscalculation. A calculation is always made at the end of the financial year at the Treasury as to how many war widows are likely to remarry and how many pensioners are likely to die. They are not pleasant calculations to make. On this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have been wrong. You cannot blame them for being wrong when they have to make an estimate on matters of that kind. The other part of the Estimate deals with increases of pensions after the granting of the claims.
      2332
      I do not object to that. When any claim has been substantiated, I am delighted to hear that it is going to be paid, and I for one willingly support this Estimate, and the excess which was also mentioned in the White Paper.
      The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us as much as we should like to know as to how the limbless soldiers are being treated. One could not help feeling, in days nearer the War and during the War, that they were a class that deserved the special consideration of the Ministry. The Minister mentioned that part of this additional expenditure was due to the fact that new limbs had to be supplied. I want to know whether the Government are now in a position to say that they are satisfied that these men are made as comfortable as possible, with the most up-to-date limbs on the market. I am perfectly certain that no Member of the Committee will object to additional expenditure under that heading. These are facts which the country desires to know. Whatever may be happening in other directions, the country is very mindful of the very great services of these men during the War, and the electors would hesitate a long time before instructing any of their representatives to vote against an Estimate which was for the benefit of these men.
      The Minister said nothing about final awards. These are very important. I think I am responsible for the final award. There was nothing more tragic than to see men being dragged up time and time again, when they could ill spare the time and the special expense, in addition to the expense which was provided, to appear before medical boards. Ex-service men are sick of medical boards. They had plenty of them during the War, and they were sick of them afterwards. One of the things ex-service men did appreciate was, I think, the institution of final awards. A good deal was said against that principle for a very long time, but the fact that the Minister has not mentioned it goes to show that there is no great attack being made upon it at the present time, if there is any attack at all. I would like to know how many claims are outstanding in the sense that they have not yet been finally decided upon. I would like information on one other point, which is strictly appropriate to the Esti-

      2333
      mate, because it bears upon the allowances given to ex-service men, not by the State, but by private benefaction, although it is administered as part of the pension.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman must not go into that, because this Estimate only relates to money provided by the Treasury.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I was going to say that, if it had not been for those benefactions, the Estimate would have been bigger.
      The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has already said that, and I think he had better now say no more.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: if the Minister can tell the Committee quite accidentally in the course of his reply what has been done by these private funds, the information will be very useful to the ex-service men and to the Committee. I am sure you would not object to a sentence, nor would the Committee object to being told. I think I have covered the speech which the Minister made. In a Supplementary Estimate of this kind we cannot range over all the questions involved. I go about the country a good deal, and I speak quite frankly and freely when I say that, in my judgment, the Ministry of Pensions is doing its level best to meet fairly and adequately the claims made upon it. It is perfectly true that, when there is a bad case, it is heralded all over the country, but you never hear of the thousands of cases that have been admirably dealt with. I think it is due to any Department, whether I am speaking for it or against it, to say what is the result of my own experience. I hope the Minister will remember that the Committee will never hesitate to grant a reasonable and a fair claim, justly proved, by any man who has served in the War, and that he need not be frightened to ask the Committee for a grant. We all know that a great many bogus claims are made, but once a claim has been fairly and adequately proved the Minister need not fear to ask for the money even when the cry for economy is raised. We all feel that we have a deep and abiding obligation toward these ex-service men, and anything that we can do to make their lot in life easier, I am sure we shall all be very glad to do.
      Major COHEN: I would like to associate myself with the first remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and to say how glad we are to see the Minister back with us again. I sincerely hope that he is fully restored to health. He has always been most sympathetic to ex-service men. I always thought that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was equally sympathetic, but after his speech I am not quite so sure. He takes a great deal of pride in being the father of the seven years limit. It is a very harsh father indeed who would damn his own son, but I do not know that a wise father need go out of his way to show its shortcomings. The seven years limit is an extremely unfortunate measure for the majority of ex-service men. The right hon. Gentleman took a set of figures, which I also have, and he makes them prove to his satisfaction something quite different from what they prove to me. The Minister said that, although he has not abolished the seven years limit, no case would be turned down solely through being outside that limit. The right hon. Gentleman said that 14,500 cases have been outside that limit, and 800 of them have been admitted to pensions, and this proved to him how extremely well the seven years limit must therefore be working. Only 800 have been given the pension out of 14,500. To my mind, that fact proves something quite different. On this, I really want to be critical, because I am wondering whether his scheme is as successful as he, and as we, hoped it would be.
      The Ministry has put up, as an added safeguard, a committee of expert medical men to whom doubtful cases will be submitted. During the period of 11 months from November, 1929, I understand that 156 cases have been before that committee, 136 have been considered, and only 21 allowed. It would be interesting to know a little more about that committee, how it works, what sort of cases are brought before it, and how these experts sit. Do they sit by themselves, or have they an arrangement with the Ministerial medical board? Do they see the men Are they empowered to see the men if they want to do so? Is there anybody there to put the men's case before the committee, or is it only the Ministerial case that is put forward? One wonders whether the Ministry looks upon this expert board merely as an extra

      2335
      tribunal to which it can submit cases, and to which the men's side has no power to put a case at all. I believe the procedure at the present time, for a man outside the seven years limit who wishes to make a claim is that he goes to the area officer and fills in a form which is sent to the Minister. In due course, he is told whether he is awarded a pension or not. In the vast majority of cases, of course, he is not. He can then go—although I do not think he is notified of this—to the local war pensions committee, who are empowered to go into the case and to re-submit it to the Minister if they think that it is a good case. Neither the man nor the war pensions committee know why the case was turned down.
      I would suggest that a précis be supplied to the war pensions committee in any case which the committee think is a good case. I am certain that the majority of war pensions committees would not send up an obviously bad case. Would it not be possible, when the war pensions committee is at loggerheads with the Ministry, for that committee to have power to submit a case to the other committee of three medical experts to which I have referred? I realise that the Minister is not bound to accept the medical experts' advice, but there is no other channel by which to get to the medical experts, except through the Ministry. If my suggestion could be adopted, ex-service men would be considerably more satisfied than they now are. There are a good many other things I should have liked to have said about the seven years limit, but I realise they would probably be out of order.
      5.0 p.m.
      I should like to raise some points relating to war orphans who are totally incapacitated. The Minister has been generous in this matter, and that accounts for some of the increased expenditure. Previously, war orphans, however incapacitated, lost their allowances when they passed the age of 21. The Minister has now made it possible for all War orphans to get their allowances as long as they live, in cases where the orphans are motherless. Might this concession not have been extended to orphans who have mothers? I have a case before me of a girl who is paralysed, weighs 15 stone and spends all her time in a special invalid chair. Her mother is in hospital
      2336
      suffering from cancer of the breast, and it is thought that she will not live very long. The girl is over 21 and her mother is alive, and therefore her pension has been stopped. I do not think there is any, way of getting her a pension if in a few months her mother should die. I hope I am wrong, but I think she is ruled out of any possibility of getting that pension again. The Solicitor-General in his election address, said:
      "War pensions are being administered on the most humane basis, and the seven years limit has been abolished."
      I have no doubt the Minister of Pensions will tell the Solicitor-General what he has told the Committee this afternoon, but I think that, in the main, that is perfectly true. I think, in the main, the Minister of Pensions and the very numerous officials do their utmost for the pensioners and the ex-service men. It is because in the majority of cases they do so much for them that one is sometimes astounded at the smallness of the points which they take up. In a case which I submitted, a man was receiving a pension as a private. Very many years later it was discovered that it ought to have been paid to him as a lance-corporal. The Ministry considered the question, realised that they were wrong, and gave him a pension as a lance-corporal from the particular date at which he had applied, and he is drawing it now. But when the man tries to get arrears, he is turned down, although it is not disputed that he was a lance-corporal at the time that he was wounded. That does not seem sympathetic.
      There is another case of a man who was wounded twice, once in the back three months before he was married, and then in the neck four months after he was married. He is getting a pension of 20 per cent., but the two wounds have been lumped together for the purpose of assessment, and it is difficult to say how much is being allowed for one and how much for the other. But a widow is refused a pension, because in the official words "No allowance is made for the widow of a man whose post-marriage service did not occasion any permanent worsening of his pre-marriage disability." If the man understood that, he is a very clever fellow. It does not seem plain English to me, and it would not be so to an ordinary "Tommy." The poor

      2337
      fellow is done out of one of his pensions. There cannot be a large number of those cases, and it is because they are so few that I would ask the Minister—not himself, personally, because I know he is sympathetic—to urge on the people under him that these cases should be sent forward as sympathetically as possible, and that those officials should realise that they are dealing with live men and women and children, and not merely with sheets of paper and precis of medical reports. They should try to visualise each case. That may be a little difficult; but I would appeal to them to try to do so.
      There is one other point I should like to raise. I see there is a big Vote for artificial limbs, and I think there should be some way of meeting the wear and tear of clothing that is suffered by those who use those limbs. I know that one's clothes wear out more quickly when one has artificial limbs than is the case with the ordinary man, and socks wear into holes within a day or two. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister that the pension is generous, and that that is taken into consideration. Possibly that is correct; but the argument against that is that the pension of 100 per cent. to a man who has lost a limb is exactly the same as it is to the man who is suffering from disease. Lastly, may I ask the Minister if he is ever likely to call the Central Advisory Committee together again? It has not met, I think, for seine years, certainly not since he became Minister, and I think the Committee have many things that they would like to tell him. If he can see his way to call them together, we shall be very grateful to him.
      Mr. R. RICHARDSON: There is just one class of case to which I should like to call attention. I would ask the Minister to consider whether justice is being done to the widows of men who have had pensions until their death but whose widows receive no allowance. I have had more to do with that class of case than with any other. Take the case of a man who, from the middle of the War up to last year, has suffered, and it is said that his death was not hastened by his war disabilities. The man's own doctor, who happens to be the medical officer of health in the area where he was living at that time, said that undoubtedly death was partially due to war
      2338
      service, and a certificate was given in that respect. But somehow the Ministry have taken no notice of that, and the widow has been turned down. An appeal was made to the Ministry to have this case re-opened, and the certificates were supplied again to the Ministry, but they said the case had already been dealt with and there was no necessity for a rehearing. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister that an opportunity ought to be given to the man's doctor to appear and argue out the case, instead of merely sending his certificate. The doctor has had the man under his care and observation, and knows the case thoroughly.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. I should like to ask the Minister if there is anything in this Estimate for the widows of men in such circumstances.
      Mr. ROBERTS: It is difficult to say. It cannot be included under the one head.
      The CHAIRMAN: In the original Estimate it is given under sub-head L, but there is no money in this Estimate, so far as I can see, for widows and orphans of deceased men.
      Mr. ROBERTS: It would appear that this argument is going rather wide of the Estimate.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am quite sympathetic with the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson), but, so far as I can see, there is no provision in this Estimate for the case he is mentioning, and, consequently, it is outside the scope of the discussion.
      Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Under sub-head A, dealing with salaries, wages and allowances to medical authorities of the Ministry, is it not possible to raise the question that these medical authorities are very often responsible for widows not getting their pensions? I take it that that is what the hon. Member is dealing with.
      The CHAIRMAN: If he is making a claim for increased pensions for widows, I think the question he is raising cannot arise here, but if he is putting forward that certain injustices are being done in the administration of pensions, I think it would be in order.
      Mr. RICHARDSON: That is what I am putting forward. I am asking that medical doctors who have had charge of ex-Service pensioners for all those years should be in a position to attend the tribunal and give evidence in support of the claims, instead of being allowed merely to send in certificates. That would make all the difference in the hearing of the case, as the doctor would have an opportunity of pleading the circumstances before the tribunal and pointing out that the man's death was partially caused by war service. I know I am pushing an open door so far as sympathy is concerned, but I ask the Minister to give special attention to the point which I have raised.
      Major EDMONDSON: I want to say a few words under Subhead A of this Supplementary Estimate, because with the other items I am absolutely in agreement, and I am glad to see that additional pensions, gratuities and allowances are being paid to men who served their country. Under Subhead A there is a very considerable increase in administrative costs. When we remember that the Ministry of Pensions in the past has always prided itself upon its economy of administration, and rightly so, we ought to look into this matter rather carefully and see why the increase has taken place. We have got to remember that the Ministry has usually conducted its administration at the very low cost of 5½. per £1 of pension paid. That is an extraordinarly low figure, and it is a great credit to the staff of the Ministry. But if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister intends in this Supplementary Estimate to show an increase in the cost of administration, I am afraid we shall be taking steps in the wrong direction, and we shall find ourselves getting back to where we were in 1920, when the cost was 1s. 3d., a very high figure indeed. What has brought about this demand for £50,000 for salaries, wages and allowances? The Minister did touch upon the point, but I think we shall be wise to emphasise it. For the real cause, we have to go back to the last election and look a little more closely at the sheet called "The Labour Programme." It contains the Labour appeal to the nation, and, on the third page, under the heading, "Extension
      2340
      and Improvement of Pensions," we find these words:
      "The limit of seven years which has meant so much injustice to ex-service men will be removed, so that cases may still be considered."
      Has the limit been removed? Will any hon. Member on the other side say that the seven years' limit has been removed? Not one. The Minister of Pensions, in reply to a question which was put to him in this House, in which he was asked what steps he proposed to take with regard to the abolition of the seven years' limit, said in a lengthy answer that the Government intended taking such action in regard to the time limit as would secure that all claims should still be considered.
      The CHAIRMAN: We are getting on to a matter of policy now. I understood from the Minister of Pensions, when he was dealing with the seven years' limit, that he was dealing with finance, and not with policy.
      Major EDMONDSON: Yes, Sir; I think you will agree with me that the item of £50,000 is the direct result of the statement of policy by the right hon. Gentleman.
      The CHAIRMAN: This £50,000 has, apparently, arisen from the fact that there has been an extension of the seven years' limit to certain people. That may be true, but the question as to whether the Government should have repealed the seven years' limit entirely or not, does not arise.
      Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not the case that the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) reviewed the operation of the seven years' limit, how he had been its father and how it had worked and all the rest of it, and, surely, other hon. Members are to have an opportunity of saying how it worked in their experience?
      The CHAIRMAN: I understood the right hon. and learned Member to claim that he was the father of the seven years' limit—he is properly entitled to do that—and I also understood him to say that it had not been removed, but he did not argue that it should or should not be removed.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. Is it not within the limits of

      2341
      this Debate to compare the seven years' limit and its working with the present proposal of the Ministry which affects the administration. All that my hon. and gallant Friend was attempting to show was that these additional expenses were due to the lack of fulfilment of pledges made by the right hon. Gentleman and his party.
      The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. I did not follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman there at all. As I have already said, part of this amount may be due to the extension of the seven years' limit, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman was reading from a circular and entering into a matter of policy. Policy does not arise in any Supplementary Estimate.
      Major EDMONDSON: What I was endeavouring to do was to show that the additional charge of £50,000 is the direct result of the action which the right hon. Gentleman took with regard to the repeal, or so-called repeal, of the seven years' limit, and I think that I can show in a very few moments what I mean. I have no desire whatever to transgress your Ruling, and I think that when I have finished you will agree that I have not made any attempt to do so. My point was, that the right hon. Gentleman, in making the statement which I have read, raised hopes in tile minds of thousands—
      The CHAIRMAN: That is just the point which is not in order. It is not a question of raising hopes or of not raising hopes, but a question of the amount which is before us. It would be perfectly in order to argue that this £50,000 was largely due to certain action which was taken but it would not be in order to say that if we had taken other action the amount would have been larger still. We are not concerned with a matter of that kind, but with the £50,000.
      Commander SOUTHBY: In the opening remarks of the Minister I understood him to say that this extra amount was required because of an alteration in the system. I understood him to say that.
      The CHAIRMAN: I agree. That is quite a different thing from reading an excerpt from a paper, and then commencing to argue on the strength of it.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I certainly understood my hon. and gallant Friend to be referring to the alteration in the system which I understood the Minister, in his opening remarks, to say had cost this extra money and that alteration of system was in effect an alteration of the seven years' limit.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am not calling that into question at all. I am calling into question any argument that the seven years' limit should not be further extended.
      Major EDMONDSON: I am not reading from the Labour programme but from the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not know whether that will alter your view? I was pointing out that, in view of what the Minister said, the result was definitely a large increase in the number of claims put up by ex-service men. That is in order, I think. That was the only point I wanted to put forward. We had that large recrudescence of claims owing to the fact that men's hopes were raised, and they thought that the seven years' limit had been repealed and that their claims would receive further consideration. That is the point I want to make. I consider that this £50,000—and the Minister has admitted it—is very largely due to this palaver about the repeal of the seven years' limit. I maintain that, under the administrative arrangements made by the last Government, these cases could have equally well been dealt with.
      The present Minister states that for the future the arrangements for dealing with belated claims for disablement will be such as to ensure the following essential points: first, that no application is rejected solely on the ground that it is barred by the time limit. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, under the last administration applications were not barred solely by the seven years limit. The second point which he makes is that every application is given explicit opportunity to produce evidence in support of his claim. He was given every opportunity under the last administration. We may differ on questions of opinion, but I should be very glad to see any case where the Ministry refused to consider evidence put forward by applicants. If any hon.

      2343
      Members opposite would let me see such a case, I should be very glad indeed.
      Mr. KELLY: You signed some of the letters.
      Major EDMONDSON: The third point the right hon. Gentleman made was, that all evidence in support of a claim is fully considered. These are three points which the Minister claims to be something new, but which I claim were all in operation under the last Government. I consider that this item of £50,000 is money more or less wasted. What has been the result of all the claims which have come in? We have been told that between 14,000 and 15,000 claims have come in from ex-service men as a result of this alteration in the administrative arrangements. The result was that 11,000 men were disappointed in the first 7½ months following that statement. 11,000 ex-service men who put up claims thinking they were going to be reconsidered under this new arrangement were rejected by the Minister, Why raise their hopes? Why stir them up at all?
      Mr. ROBERTS: After consideration.
      Major EDMONDSON: Yes, after consideration, but it does not matter. They were rejected after consideration. They could have had the consideration, and many of them did have it under the last Government, but they all thought that some new era had started in which they were going to receive more sympathetic consideration and they went away disillusioned. I say that if cases were put up in large numbers now, and if those 11,000 had received pensions instead of being rejected you could not have imagined a greater blame to be attached to the Ministry for allowing 11,000 men to go all those years and years without satisfactory treatment. I am not going to say any more, but I hope that the Minister and Members on the opposite benches will realise the importance of lifting War pensions out of party politics. I do not think that this is a thing which should be degraded by being dragged through the political arena at all. I hope after this last effort in the Labour Manifesto we shall not hear anything more when the next election comes along.
      Mr. SIMMONS: I want to raise one or two items on the Estimate with regard to administration and to call attention, under "Treatment allowances to Disabled Men," to the position of the disabled man who is compelled to give up his job and precluded from earning a living and has to wait a fortnight, three weeks or even a month before he can go into a convalescent home or hospital, without receiving any treatment allowance. I suggest that when a man is precluded from going on with his job and is awaiting treatment, he should be entitled to treatment allowance the moment he is incapable of work. I also want to raise a question with regard to people who have to come all the way to London to an appeal tribunal. I know that the Ministry pay the expenses, but there is all the inconvenience and time. I suggest that it might be possible for these cases to be heard in centres in the provinces so as to save all that amount of travelling.
      During the discussion the question of limbless soldiers has been raised. It is a question in which I am naturally interested, being one of these unfortunates myself. I was very much interested in the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Major Cohen) on the question of the wear and tear of clothes caused by artificial limbs. One has only to wear an artificial limb to realise the amount of wear and tear there is upon clothing. You require about four pairs of trousers to one coat and vest, and as regards socks, well, I will not ask my wife to darn them after I have taken them off the foot which is not mine. I think that allowances should be made to ex-service men who are wearing artificial limbs for the wear and tear caused by those limbs.
      With regard to the position of limbless soldiers, it was asked whether they are made as comfortable as possible and supplied with the best limbs on the market. Personally, I cannot say that I have had very much about which to complain. The Ministry and the Ministry's doctors have always been most attentive and have gone out of their way to make slight adjustments and alterations in order to secure added comfort as far as my artificial limb is concerned. I hope

      2345
      that it is the experience of every other ex-service man who wears an artificial limb, that the treatment he gets from the Ministry is the kind of treatment which gives him the best possible value out of the artificial limb which has been provided. I have one complaint to make about artificial limbs, and it is that at the present time they are all made by one firm. I remember that towards the end of the War, when artificial limbs were first being supplied, there were perhaps half-a-dozen or 10 firms in this country doing the job. Some of these firms would produce a limb which would suit one man and some would produce a limb which would suit another man, but now we find that the whole of the limbs supplied by the Ministry are procured from one firm. Men who at the beginning of disablement became used to a certain kind of limb very often find that, because of this policy, some of those firms have gone out of business altogether, and it is impossible to get limbs suited to them. I should like to ask whether it would not be possible for ex-service men who have been used to a certain kind of limb—even though another firm has the contract—to have a limb made by the original firm if they could prove to the Ministry that it suited them better than the one supplied by the mass production method.
      On the question of administration, an additional sum of £50,000 is required, but I hope that we shall not take seriously the complaint made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite about that money being wasted. If we have a number of ex-service men, who feel that they are not being treated properly, making appeals for a revision of their pensions and treatment allowances, there is bound to be additional work placed upon the Ministry of Pensions, and we have to pay for it.
      Major EDMONDSON: The 11,000 cases need never have come up at all.
      Mr. SIMMONS: On the one hand, we hear the plea that the seven years' limit should be abolished, and that anybody and everybody should come along and make their claim, while, on the other hand, we hear the plea that the 11,000 should never have been allowed to come in. The British Legion stands for the abolition of the seven years' limit. One would have hoped that the Minister of
      2346
      Pensions in the late Government would have considered the interests of ex-service men more important than the fate of the Trade Disputes Bill. It would be very interesting to know the opinion of the Minister of Pensions in the late Government on this question of the seven years' limit.
      Commander SOUTHBY: On a point of explanation. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Pensions in the last Government is ill at the moment.
      Mr. SIMMONS: In that case, I withdraw what I said, and apologise for it.
      Mr. KELLY: He is upstairs.
      The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the late Minister of Pensions is engaged in Committee upstairs.
      Mr. SIMMONS: That is what I presumed. Had I been wrong, I would gladly have apologised and withdrawn my statement. The point is that, as a result of the agitation for the removal of the seven years' limit, we have a demand made by ex-service men for reconsideration of their claims, and it is useless for hon. Members opposite to say that this is being made a party matter. It has been raised by what is supposed to be a non-party organisation. As a disinterested ex-service man and one who will always stand up for the interests of the ex-service men before any party interest, I have been trying to find out whether the increase of £50,000 in salaries, wages and allowances upholds the position taken up by the Minister of Pensions or the position taken up by the British Legion for the total abolition of the seven years' limit, and from the inquiries which I have made I have yet to find that those who have the largest experience in the Ministry, including ex-Ministers of Pensions, are prepared to agree that the total abolition of the seven years' limit is the best method. We have to remember that a very long period has elapsed since the end of the War.
      It is all very well to talk, as one hon. Member did, about cases coming up that were bad cases, and which the Minister had turned down. Those cases have been turned down time and time again by previous Ministers. Thirteen years after

      2347
      the War we are dealing with cases which have been handled by the great national newspapers, by great national orators and by various Ministers of Pensions, and after 13 years the present Minister of Pensions is blamed. We ought to give the most generous interpretation to every case that comes forward. We ought not to consider merely the fact of a war wound, but the fact that war service in waterlogged trenches and in indescribable conditions has so lowered a man's vitality and a man's power to resist disease that often, even if his disease cannot be attributed directly to war service, the fact that he has been through that war service has made possible the sufferings through which he is going. Those circumstances ought to be taken into consideration when the man is being assessed for his pension. I do not think that the mere fixing of seven, 10 or 17 years' limit is going to help us in this matter, but what will help us will be a determination, not merely on the part of the Minister but on the part of the higher officials of the Department, to treat every case from beginning to end as a human document, and to go into every case with the greatest amount of sympathy for the applicant.
      I am glad to see that the figures are up. We have been told by some hon. Members that the fact that the figures are up is proof that the administration is not as it used to be; that it used to be 5½d. per £1 of pension paid, and that if the present conditions go on the proportion of administration expenses will be raised. I do not care whether the administration is costing 1s., 2s., or 2s. 6d. in the £ so long as the ex-Service man is getting justice. We do not grumble about paying 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. interest on the money lent during the War, and we ought not to bother about the administrative cost of pensions to men who invested their lives, their limbs, their health and their prospects in the War. We ought to be prepared to give the most generous interpretation to every application.
      In regard to the signing of the life certificate, which has to be signed quarterly or six-monthly for pension purposes, I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister. At the present time the certificates have to be signed
      2348
      by magistrates, who are largely of one political colour, and in some areas they are very unapproachable. I appeal to the Minister to add to the list of people who are eligible to sign these documents, the district councillors. The councillors are most closely in touch with the community, and there is a fair representation of all parties among them. People come to my house every week-end wanting me to sign these certificates, but neither as a borough councillor nor as a Member of Parliament am I allowed to do so. I think that a wider selection should be given in order that so much trouble need not be taken by the ex-Service men in getting the documents signed. If the Minister cannot see his way clear totally to abolish the seven years' limit, will he consider very seriously the question in relation to every man outwith the seven years' limit giving to these men the same statutory rights that they would have enjoyed had they come within the seven years' limit? Could he meet representatives of the ex-Service men's organisations and tell them that if it is impossible totally to abolish the seven years' limit, there may be some modification and strengthening of the present system which will lead to benefit for the ex-Service man and the Department?
      I am not worried about the Supplementary Estimate. I wish it were double or treble the present figure. That would show that the ex-Service men were getting not only justice but generosity. They are entitled to generosity as well as justice. A great deal was said about heroes on recruiting platforms from 1914 to 1918, and we ought not to allow anything to stand in the way of doing justice to the ex-Service man to-day. We ought to err on the side of generosity, and not to adopt too strictly legal an interpretation. The more we pay for the pensions and allowances of ex-Service men, the more the sufferers of the War cost the nation, the more clearly ought it to be a lesson to the people of this country never to go to war again.
      Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The hon Member, I think, spoiled a very enjoyable speech by what he said about magistrates. I am sure that it was not his intention to impute to the magistrates

      2349
      of this country any such a cruel practice as refusing to sign a life certificate for a man because of difference of political opinion.
      Mr. SIMMONS: I am sorry if I created such a misunderstanding. What I said was that they were not accessible. When they are found, they willingly sign.
      Mr. MORRISON: I am glad the hon. Member has cleared up that matter. My reference to it was in order to give him an opportunity of doing so. In so far as the inaccessibility of the magistrates has proved difficult for the pensioners in many cases, I join my voice to his in urging upon the Minister the necessity of considering whether it might not be possible in the interests of the pensioner to secure the services of some wider and more accessible body than the magistracy to perform this service for the pensioners. Every hon. Member, no matter in what part of the House he sits, wishes to see the question of War pensions divorced entirely from party politics. When a party promises to make a change in the administration of pensions and promises greater humanity than its predecessor, it is perhaps unfortunate that those promises are not fulfilled. It is desirable that every Member of this House should try to build up in the Ministry of Pensions a stable organisation which will survive the vicissitudes of party gains and defeats, and prove an ever-present help in time of trouble to ex-service men of all parties and denominations. I think that anyone who reviews the conduct of the Ministry of Pensions since the War finished, will be forced to admit, in fairness, that it has discharged its difficult task with signal success and humanity.
      The only matters to which I would direct the Minister's attention are, first, the machinery which he has created for securing the reconsideration of claims which come outside the seven years' limit. I have always been of opinion that there is no magic in the number "seven." There is nothing which differentiates a claim arising seven years after a man's discharge from a claim arising two years, three years or four years after his discharge. In justice, there ought to be some adequate machinery for enabling the man who claims even after seven
      2350
      years to be suffering from the results of his service, to receive treatment and a pension. In the Estimate there is a sum of £15,000 for additional clerical expenses involved by the procedure set up by the Minister. I was a little disappointed to find that for the expenditure of £15,000 in administration expenses only 600 or 800 pensions had been granted. It seems to me an "intolerable deal of sack" for a poor pennyworth of bread. I should have imagined that in regard to the re - examination of claims arising after seven years have elapsed, if that examination were conducted on the lines which this House would desire to see it conducted the number of pensions granted would be greater.
      There is one important point, particularly in regard to the examination of these claims, which I should like to impress upon the Minister. It seems, from my experience, that an intolerably high standard of proof is demanded from the wretched pensioner. One example will explain this better than any number of general statements. I know the case of a man who is now a smallholder. Before the War he was a noted athlete, and competed with success in all the sports in his part of the country. He joined the Army at the outbreak of the War, and, in the course of his service, was struck in the small of the back by a bomb which exploded and filled that part of his anatomy with a lot of small splinters. Some of the splinters were extracted, but others were not. He went back to France and acquitted himself so well that he was given a commission and discharged from the Army. He made no claim for pension. He went back to his smallholding and supported himself, but more than seven years after his discharge he found that he was afflicted with what turns out to be arthritis at the base of the spine. He applied for compensation, and the reply is: "You have not proved that this disability is connected in any way with your War service," and, as if to rub it in, they say: "If you can produce any other evidence, the Ministry will be pleased to reconsider the matter." What can the man say? All he can say is that before he was struck he was a healthy man, that he had never suffered from any disease in his life, and had never suffered any

      2351
      injury except when he was struck by a German bomb in the place where he now suffers the disability.
      Any legal tribunal would accept that the burden of proof had been discharged, that the man, by the facts, had proved his claim for consideration for a pension. What is the contrary assumption? It means that medical science is in such a developed condition to-day that a medical man is able to say definitely that there is no connection between this disability and the injury; that no medical man, with a proper sense of humility and the limitations of human knowledge, and with a proper appreciation of how much is yet dark in physiology, would presume to say as a matter of certainty on oath that there was any connection between the two things. I say that the standard of proof demanded from the pensioner, particularly in cases arising after seven years, is intolerably high, and amounts in a great number of cases to a denial of justice. I am making these comments in no sense that the Minister is being purposely harsh or inhumane in the treatment of these men. The Ministry of Pensions is there to guard against the expenditure of public money involved, but I do ask the Minister to consider whether some real meaning cannot be given to the phrase "the benefit of the doubt," and that the benefit if there is a doubt shall be given to the ex-service man, that he should not be completely stumped by some obscure confabulations behind the scenes at the Ministry of which he has no knowledge and at which he is not represented.
      The other matter is also one which, I think, is worth consideration. The Minister is no doubt aware of the article of the Royal Warrant which limits the grant of pensions in these cases to widows if they were married after the disability had been incurred. In considering these cases, I ask the Minister to consider a little more carefully the medical history of the man as it was stated at the time when he was serving. I know the case of a man serving as a soldier before the War, and discharged before the War, because the Army authorities suspected him of being tubercular.
      Mr. ROBERTS: The hon. Member is introducing the question of a new policy.
      The CHAIRMAN: That is why I interrupted an hon. Member a short time ago. There is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate with regard to widows of deceased men, but the hon. Member may be dealing with a question of administration which comes under paragraph A.
      Mr. MORRISON: That is what I was endeavouring to do, and I submit that I am in order in asking the Minister to reconsider his administrative action in the expenditure of this money in the re-examination of these claims. The only point is that you have a man who was discharged before the War because of suspected tuberculosis. He is accepted into the Army again as an A.1 man. He is put into hospital, discharged as A.1, and sent out to France. When he is told that he is A.1 he marries the woman who is now his widow. They say to the widow that she has married this man after he became tubercular because "we have found a note on his sheet of pre-War days." Is it not common justice to plead that if the authorities, when the need of the nation was great, certified the man as A.1 and not suffering from tuberculosis, and if his widow then married him with an A.1 certificate from the State, she should not now be penalised and turned off because he suffered from tuberculosis? After all, what is the principle and justice behind the Royal Warrant? It is that if a woman chooses to take the risk of marrying a man who has this disability she is prepared to take the consequences, but the woman married the man when he was A.1 and she is now to be denied her pension. The Minister, if he considers this type of case, will agree that there is room for improvement.
      The only other point is the question of final awards. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), when he mentioned the question of final awards, took credit to himself and the system in that in many cases it, settled the claimants troubles as regard recurring medical boards and recurring irritation of having his claim reconsidered and placed in jeopardy. However just that claim may be for the final award it, nevertheless, cuts two ways. There is no body of medical science which can in that space of years say, "This man can be

      2353
      dismissed for ever with a final award." I know of cases, and I expect hon. Members do also where a man has had a final award which seemed adequate at the time to him and to his own medical advisers, as well as to the Ministry, but by some deterioration, due to some obscure causes which very often cannot be put down in black and white by any doctor, the region of disability for which he had received a final award is now a region of disability for which a final award is entirely inappropriate. I urge that the "correction of error" principle which is applied in many cases humanely by the Minister, should be applied with full sympathy for the men who placed their lives in jeopardy in the days of our trouble, and who are deserving of all the sympathy and support which this House can give them in their day of need.
      Mr. STEPHEN: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) on his speech. He has raised very important points. Since I came into the House in 1922 I have had a good deal of experience in dealing with pension cases and I should like to say that whatever Minister has been in control, I have found very little difference so far as the administration is concerned. The Minister is largely in the hands of the Department, and very largely in the hands of the medical authorities who advise him. Anyone who has travelled throughout the various parts of the country will no doubt have found serious victims of the system of administration at the Ministry of Pensions. I do not believe there is any town of average size where you will not come across hard cases of victims of the War who should be in receipt of pensions, but who are not receiving them. There is a tendency, whenever this subject is raised, for a chorus of congratulation about the generous treatment of this country of the ex-service men, yet the very fact that there are these numbers of victims of the War who are being penalised unduly seems to me to be a reason for a change in the administration.
      6.0 p.m.
      The present Minister of Pensions, I know, came to this question with a great desire to make many generous changes. I was associated with him in the advisory committee of my own party, and I know his desire to remedy many of these injustices, but the fact remains that the
      2354
      position is not materially different from what is was under the regime of his predecessor. The seven years' limit is still legally in operation. It is true that opportunity is given for cases to be reviewed, but I would like to say this, that when I took cases outside the seven years' limit to his predecessor I found that he was willing to have them reviewed when I could produce medical evidence in support of the case. It is, perhaps, true to say that the present Minister of Pensions has developed the procedure introduced by his predecessor, but I do not think it is quite satisfactory, and I should like to have seen the Minister of Pensions take far more thorough-going steps to deal with the matter. We are told that in some 800 out of 14,000 cases correction has been made when review has taken place, but I find in connection with those cases that the person who has been outside the seven year limit is in a worse position, in a statutory sense, than if there had been no mistake in his case. I think the Minister will admit that that is so. There is a difficulty with regard to such a man getting a final award, and I think in those cases where, under this very stiff procedure, a mistake is admitted, the individual should be put in the same position as any other pensioner with regard to his statutory rights. I hope that we shall see an attempt made in this Parliament to deal with this matter.
      An hon. Member opposite has already raised the question of orphans over 21 years of age, and has suggested that the procedure for dealing with those cases should be extended to other cases where the mother is still alive. I press that view on the Minister. I have a case in my own Division of a young woman over 21 years of age who is in an invalid chair and quite unable to work. Yet there is nothing for her from the Ministry of Pensions. It should be possible in all those cases to have the pension continued when the individual concerned is in such a state of bad health. In reference to the question of dependents, which arises under Sub-head A, I am not at all satisfied with the administration of need pensions. A limit is placed on the amount which a dependent can receive in need pensions, and the earnings of other members of a family are taken into account in fixing the amount.

      2355
      Following the example of the last speaker I give a particular case. One of my constituents lost three sons in the War, but his income is only a few shillings a week and the Minister cannot see his way to bring the amount paid to this man up to the maximum which is possible on a need pension basis. I cannot understand such methods of administration. It may be that there are other members of the family, but they are working people, and are not in a position, especially in times like these, to provide for the father. When I first raised this man's case I was told that he was getting all that he could get in respect of his two sons killed in the War. When I pointed out that the man had lost three sons, I was informed that a mistake had been made and that the Ministry should have said three sons instead of two. The fact that his three sons had been lost instead of two made no difference, however, in estimating the amount payable to him. On the other hand, it evidently did make a difference that there were other members of the family who might be able to help the applicant. I urge on the Minister that he should consider the administration of these need pensions.
      Further in reference to Sub-head A, I am not at all satisfied in regard to the medical advisers of the Ministry. The hon. Member who spoke last gave an instance in which the medical authorities were evidently of opinion that the case of a man who had suffered a wound from a bomb in the War was not proved. If that were an exceptional case, we might not feel so worried about this matter, but my experience is that these cases are not exceptional, but are the rule. I find in consultation with friends of mine who take an interest in these matters, that such cases occur in their experience also. I suggested to the Minister in a letter which I wrote to him that his medical advisers appeared to be of opinion that the only place where a person could not contract disease during the War was in the front line trenches, whereas when these men came back to civilian life all kinds of traps were waiting for them. On their return home they might contract bronchitis or some other trouble, but disability was never due to their War ex-
      2356
      perience. It might be due to the fact that they were working in comparatively comfortable workshops, but in the trenches, unless they were nearly killed, they could never contract any trouble of this kind at all. That seems to be the view of the right hon. Gentleman's medical advisers. I suggest that he should consider bringing in, if necessary, other medical authorities in connection with the administration of these cases.
      I have had experience of different Ministers of Pensions since I have been a Member of the House of Commons, and when I have put the facts of a case before them they have all shown great willingness to consider it—both the present Minister and his predecessors. They have agreed with me, generally, about these cases, but there always seemed to be some doctor in the background, like the nigger in the woodpile, who discovered that the man's disability could not have arisen out of his War service. A case occurs to my mind of a man whose record in connection with National Health Insurance showed that he had never been in the hands of a doctor prior to the War. He was in the War, and since his return he has been a physical wreck. But, having gone to hospital, he happened to have said that he always had a cough, and, on that one statement, the medical advisers of the Minister held it to be clearly proved that the man had suffered from his disability before he joined the Army. Yet he was taken into the Army as A1. On that one statement made by him, when he was obviously anxious to get back home again, it was decided that his disability was not attributable to his War service. If I were a Minister, and if a doctor came to me with a statement of that kind, I would ask him what he was thinking about.
      There has been a great deal of talk about the benefit of the doubt being given to the applicant. Then the Minister comes along and tells us about doubtful cases being referred to a special medical committee. If they are doubtful cases, the men concerned should be given their pensions. They should not be referred to medical committees. This party has always proclaimed the principle that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the individual. Hon. Members often say that we should not make this a party

      2357
      question, but I believe that it is essentially a party question. It has always been used as a party question by the party on this side of the Committee, and it has been used as a party question by Members on the other side as well.
      HON. MEMBERS: No!
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I am afraid that we cannot go into that matter now.
      Mr. STEPHEN: With all due respect, I suggest that it is very difficult to reply to statements made from the other side of the Committee, if we are to be told that we cannot go into these matters now. But I will not pursue that subject further except to say this. Members on this side of the Committee have always claimed that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the individuals in these cases, and, if there is any doubt at all about a case, I say it is far better that there should be a little additional expense to the State, and that we should be sure that the rights of the individual whose suffering is due to War service are being recognised in every case. I hope we are going to see a great change in the treatment of these cases. There are 14,000 people who feel a great sense of grievance. They gave their services to the country during the War, and they were assured that after the War they would not be treated as the victims of past wars were treated.
      Sir BERTRAM FALLE: There never was any promise of that kind given to them when they joined.
      Mr. MAXTON: Were they not told that a grateful country would never forget them?
      Mr. STEPHEN: I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. Member opposite who says that there were no promises made to these men and who evidently believes that this is the proper kind of treatment for his constituents. I do not object if his constituents think that they are doing well in sending somebody like him to represent them here. He appears to think that because there was no formal contract in that sense with the men who gave their services in the War, we can treat them now as if they were of no account.
      Sir B. FALLE: No, the hon. Member misrepresents me. I am very much in-
      2358
      terested in what he was saying and I interrupted him when he made an incorrect and erroneous statement to the effect that these things were promised to the men when they joined. That is not so.
      Mr. STEPHEN: By implication the hon. Member's statement bears out what I said. There may not have been a formal contract. It may not have been in the articles of the Royal Warrant or anything of that sort, but it was understood, and I hope that the ex-service men in the hon. Member's constituency will take notice of his attitude in reference to the treatment which they have received. It is a terrible matter that people should be in this position, and that as case after case comes up and we go to the Minister and recognise his willingness and his natural disposition to try to get their grievances put right, we find that we are up against this machinery, and that unless we can prove a case as definitely as a mathematical proposition, the man cannot receive a pension. I hope that this Debate will result in a great change of treatment, and will encourage the Minister to go along the lines where his reason would urge him to go; and that he will take advantage of the fact that the expenditure of the Ministry is naturally contracting owing to pensioners dying and children going out of pensionable age, so that he can make really effective the principle, which every Member would like to see adopted, that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the persons whose cases come up.
      If the benefit of the doubt were given, we would not have 800 out of 14,000 cases. I find that the percentage represented by 800 out of 14,000 represents the percentage of winners that I get out of the cases which I submit to the Minister. Instead of that percentage, there should be 90 per cent. of winners. I am convinced that nine-tenths of the cases into which I have gone personally, and which I have submitted to medical friends, should have been granted. I hope that as a result of this Debate, the medical advisers of the Ministry will understand that their old line of approach to this question has been wrong, and that it is not the function of a medical adviser to become a Sherlock Holmes and to try to trace some flaw in the cases, but that it is his business to be kindly and to go into the facts of the eases, to see if there be anything that will

      2359
      suggest that they have suffered from service and should be given pensions. If they use the microscope, it should be used to see the good points in cases, and should not be confined to the weak places. I hope that we shall have a much more satisfactory administration of pensions than we have at present, that the Minister will go along the line that he has always desired and impress upon the medical officers that a definite change is to be made and a more generous treatment given to the pensioners.
      Mr. HASLAM: I should like to associate myself with those Members who have asserted that the British people desire the ex-service man to be treated not only with sympathy and justice but with generosity. Under Sub-head A, salaries, wages and allowances, an additional sum of no less than £50,000 is required; I understand from the Minister that the object of that is to produce greater efficiency, greater justice and greater sympathy in the treatment meted out. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) thought that this Vote was justified, and the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. Simmons) expressed the sentiment that it did not matter how much we spent on salaries, wages and allowances, provided we got results. In spite of this extra expenditure I do not see the results; I do not see that additional sympathy or that justice, let alone that generosity. It is, therefore, doubtful whether this increase can be justified. The Minister rightly took credit for the fact that the total increase of the revised Estimate is less than half of one per cent. of the total expenditure. That shows that the Estimates were framed in a businesslike way and were very fairly exact. But this Supplementary Estimate for salaries, wages and allowances is an increase of something like 4½ per cent. It is nearly ten times proportionally the amount spent on the ex-service men's benefits. It shows that it is not necessarily an increase of officials and salaries that produces increased efficiency.
      I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister to employ local medical men whenever possible. I have a case of a man in East Lincolnshire who is in receipt of a pension, because he has had his leg amputated, of £1 a week, on
      2360
      which he endeavours to keep his wife and family. No one can say that that is sympathetic treatment. The stump of his leg has been for some time in a bad way, inflamed and ulcerated. His health is suffering, and the Ministry have suggested that he should travel to Nottingham, a considerable distance, to see the medical officials of the Ministry there. It happens that within a mile of the man's home there is a very eminent medical practitioner who is sought after by the countryside for miles around. Yet this man has to travel all the way to Nottingham for purposes of examination, no doubt with an attendant, because a man in his condition cannot travel alone. It would be much simpler if the Ministry consulted the local medical man. If it turned out that the particular doctor I have mentioned were the private attendant of the man, there are equally able doctors in the neighbouring towns on whom the Ministry could call in order to get an unbiased opinion. Hon. Members may be rather unjust in the complaints that they have made about the medical advisers to the Ministry and in endeavouring to fix on them blame for a lack of justice. The medical men concerned are the servants of the Ministry, and the responsibility must be on the Minister who defends them in this House. That is the proper constitutional method. The Minister is responsible, and to go behind the Minister and blame the medical men, is not altogether just.
      Final awards have been the subject of great heart-burnings, and I have found that cases of what I car only call injustice are perpetrated under this system. It is difficult, on the face of it, to make a final award in every case of injury or disease. Take the case which I have mentioned of the man who has had his leg amputated. If his stump is going wrong, if things are occurring which were never anticipated, it alters the whole position. This man is entirely incapacitated, and to say that the final award given under much more favourable conditions can never be open to review cannot be defended on any grounds of justice. I have known other cases of amputation; if the amputation be successful, the final award is justified, but where something arises afterwards and

      2361
      the operation does not seem to be successful, there should be an opportunity for revision. The same thing applies to many diseases such as diseases of the lungs. Take the case of the innumerable men who have been gassed. It often happens that men have drawn pensions after having been gassed, and have got better; they have been passed as sound, and their pensions withdrawn. Their lungs go again, however, and they get bronchitis and other troubles but the Ministry often say that the subsequent trouble is not due to the War. If a man has been gassed in the War, his lungs can never be the same as if he had not been gassed. There are many cases of that sort. I have had cases of tuberculosis in which the disease may disappear and come on again; all these cases, if it is desired to treat them sympathetically, should be gone into so that justice can be done. I join with the other hon. Members in hoping that, after this Debate, the Minister will endeavour to meet these cases in a much more sympathetic spirit, and endeavour to assist in the very hard position in which so many of these men find themselves to-day.
      Mr. MAXTON: I wish to congratulate the Minister on having to come to Parliament with this Supplementary Estimate. It would have been a pitiable thing if he had kept the expenditure of his Department down to the strict level of what was estimated originally. I take it that the reason he comes for this additional money is not that his expenditure has increased over last year's, but that it has not decreased to the extent that was anticipated. He ought to take warning from the fact that he has to ask for this additional money to make a firm stand against a rapacious Treasury. This is the only State Department which, in the nature of its being, tends to be a diminishing charge, and he ought to see to it that the Treasury does not attempt to take from him more than the legitimate reduction that the natural decline in the number of cases brings about, and that he is not asked, by mean administration, to relieve the general financial condition of the country.
      I rise to add my words to what has been said about the demand for a special examination into and a very kindly consideration of the lot of those disabled men who are receiving no relief whatever from the Ministry, some of them
      2362
      with ailments of very long standing, some of them completely helpless and bedridden. In spite of what the hon. Member opposite said about medical men being merely the servants of the Ministry, I am afraid we must place the responsibility on the shoulders of the medical men. The political head of the Department, and the administrative heads, must be guided by the opinion of their medical advisers, but it seems to me that in certain groups of cases the medical men are taking a very harsh, and what I regard as an indefensible, view.
      An hon. Member opposite referred to a case of arthritis. I have had to bring cases of rheumatoid arthritis before several Pensions Ministers. I know of two men—officers; one of them a medical officer—who are completely helpless. They are men about 45 or 46 years of age. They went into the Army as hale and hearty men, and rendered distinguished and necessary service. Now, both of them are completely helpless; they cannot lift hand or foot to do a single thing for themselves. They have to be waited upon, and given special attention and treatment, and the cost of it has to come out of the resources of their friends. The medical officers of the Department say that rheumatoid arthritis is not attributable to or aggravated by war service. When I go around I ask medical friends what are the causes of rheumatoid arthritis. I am told that the causes of it are completely obscure, that the medical profession do not know them. They say that to be found in a completely helpless condition at the age of 45 because of the advanced state of this disease is most unusual in the case of men who have lived an ordinary decent life.
      They do not know what is the cause of rheumatoid arthritis; but when I go to the doctors of the Ministry of Pensions to appear for these men I am told, "It is true, as you say, that the medical profession does not know what causes rheumatoid arthritis; but we are perfectly certain that the war service had nothing to do with it." I cannot understand that, and I hope that in the absence of exact scientific knowledge on this subject the Minister will turn to his medical men and say, "While I always defer to your opinion where there is

      2363
      real medical knowledge, yet where there is admittedly only complete medical ignorance I shall have to rely on my own judgment, and decide that the very serious condition of these men has been at least aggravated by the experiences they went through in the War." I note that there is an additional charge for treatment allowances, etc., and I want to know if the abolition of the Bellhouston Pensions Hospital in Glasgow is now complete, and if the men are being sent to be treated in the ordinary wards of the Royal Infirmary and to the Erskine House Hospital; if that arrangement is working satisfactorily and without too great inconvenience to the men; and if it has resulted in any economy, or whether any part of this additional charge arises out of the necessity of transporting the men to more inconvenient places.
      Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I have listened to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) with very great sympathy, because I have had cases of rheumatism brought to me. Rheumatism is much the same as rheumatoid arthritis. It does not necessarily reveal itself immediately after prolonged immersion in water, such as was suffered by men in the trenches during many weeks and months. It may not appear for some years afterwards, but it does appear in the system sooner or later; yet many a time the Ministry of Pensions have turned cases down because they said the rheumatism had come on since the War and could not be attributable to service during the War, seeing that the men were perfectly fit when they were discharged from the Army. Each Minister of Pensions carries on to a great extent the tradition of his predecessor. In the matter of the seven years' limit the present Minister is only carrying on what the former Minister did, but in a somewhat more extended fashion.
      In answer to a question in December last, the Minister said that 20,300 fresh war pension claims had been submitted outside the seven years' limit, and that of those rather more than 18,000 had been considered, but only in 982 cases had the claims been recognised by way of medical or surgical treatment or by some form of pecuniary compensation. Probably there were a certain number of poor cases
      2364
      amongst those, but I am sure that the vast majority were very real cases. They had been investigated beforehand by the area committees, and I say the number of claims admitted is a very small proportion indeed of those which ought to have been admitted. Since that date I have asked the Minister whether he has any further figures to give of cases brought under the seven years' limit.
      After their 10 or 12 years' experience the Ministry seem to be working in a stereotyped fashion. It is all rules and regulations and red tape, and that is why we so often find ourselves tied hand and foot. We are told that a case cannot be admitted because something is not in a particular regulation. I suggest that the Minister ought sometimes to be given a little latitude to use that human touch which goes just beyond a regulation. There are many extremely hard cases with which he cannot deal because of the red tape by which he is bound. I have the greatest sympathy with him in the very difficult task before him. Listening to his speech, which was commendable both in its brevity and its lucidity, I noted he was apologising in the earlier part of it for an increase in the administrative expenses. The work of his Department is a diminishing work; his is one Ministry, above all others, in which one might expect to see a reduction of administrative charges, but we find instead an increase. Some 9,000 more civil servants are being employed, and every Supplementary Estimate that comes up includes an increase for administrative expenditure. Surely that ought not to be the case to-day. The staff of the Ministry are well trained and the number of claims which come before them must be diminishing. Permanent settlements are made in many cases each year, and thereafter do not need to come up periodically for review, and as the work must be decreasing I deplore that part of the Estimate which deals with an increase in the establishment charges.
      With regard to the minor additions, I should have thought the Minister could have budgeted more accurately for the allowances to dependants and children. He knows the ages of all the children and when they will pass outside the age limit. Of course he cannot budget accurately for the marriage of widows, but possibly he might establish a

      2365
      marriage bureau among his many officials and encourage the remarriage of the widows, thereby saving his Department a certain amount of extra expenditure. I just put that to him as a suggestion.
      Mr. McSHANE: A new economic proposal!
      Colonel HOWARD-BURY: A new economic proposal. It would save £15,000. Unlike other Ministers, he has rather a ghoul-like outlook. He is interested in the number of people who are likely to die during the year, and has to budget accordingly. It is the same with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, only the latter hopes to gain a lot of money by their deaths. Most of this expenditure, and especially the £170,000 for pensions, gratuities and treatment allowances, is money well spent indeed; but I wish there was more of the human touch in dealing with these hard cases. I wish the State would see to it that those who went out and suffered and who came back maimed and crippled are properly cared for during the remaining years of their life.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I find myself in agreement with what has been said by the hon. Member opposite, that there is not so much difference in the treatment of pensioners now compared with what took place under the previous Government. I do not find any fault with the administration of the Minister of Pensions, because I have held for a great many years that, speaking generally, the administration of pensions has been most humane. I find fault with the present Minister in regard to the promises which he made at the last General Election.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in order in referring to promises made by any party at the last General Election, and he must confine his remarks to the Estimate under consideration.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I want to say a few words on the question of the final awards to which I think some of the increased cost of pensions is due. When this question first came up some nine years ago some of my own constituents asked me to press their claims for final awards, and I refused to do so.
      2366
      I told them quite candidly that, although it was possible that the men of that time might be getting better and recovering from their wounds, the time would come when they would actually get worse. It is all very well for a person of 24 or 25 years of age because he can probably recover under suitable treatment, but even in these cases 10 or 15 years later they may find the wounds recurring.
      I know a case where a man had his knee smashed in 1917, and by very skilful treatment, followed by careful massage, to all intents and purposes, he appeared to recover the whole use of that knee, and for some years he was able to go about his business and do a considerable amount of walking. As this man got older rheumatism settled in that joint, and now he is quite unable to carry on his normal occupation. I pointed out to a deputation which came to see me on the subject of final awards what I thought might happen. A vast number of final awards had been claimed, and, in spite of the fact that some of these men were 10 years ago striking a good bargain with the Ministry by taking the final award, they find now that they are getting the worst of the bargain. I think the Minister should give these cases sympathetic consideration and deal generously with them.
      I want to say a few words about the question of the seven years limit. Speaking generally, I think it will be found that a man who suffered from wounds during the War has recovered so far as not to feel any bad effects from it. I know the case of a young man who recovered from his wounds so much that he did not think it necessary to bother about a pension. Frequently, these men suffer later on. I know a case where a man during the War was shot through the chest and the bullet lodged in his back. For seven years he made no claim, and, when his claim was put forward, the Ministry raised difficulties. It is perfectly true that I took up that case, and they treated the man very fairly and considerately, but I do not think it should be necessary for a local Member of Parliament to have to appeal to the Ministry before proper consideration is given to such a case.
      I am aware that the cases of men suffering from chest trouble and rheumatism are more difficult to deal with, but

      2367
      there, again, in spite of the final award, and in spite of the fact that it is more than seven years and no claim has been made, I ask that the Ministry should behave generously. I am not putting forward a plea for the men who never went abroad at all and claimed to be suffering from shell shock. That is not the type of man I am pleading for at all. I am pleading for men who were really wounded—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member is getting rather wide of this Estimate, and his criticisms seem to me far more suitable to the main Estimate.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I regret that I was out of order, but I have finished my remarks.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I am sure that no Member of the Committee will begrudge the money which is provided for in this Estimate as long as it is wisely spent. We may be justified in asking a question of that kind, but we ought to see that the one person who does not suffer is the poor pensioner himself. It has been pointed out by the Minister that this increase in the Estimate is largely due to changes in the system of administration of pensions. I was very glad indeed to hear the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) pay a tribute to the predecessor in office of the present Minister, because I hold, and I think many other hon. Members hold, that there is no difference in the kindness and consideration shown to pensioners under the present Administration and that shown to them under the last. I do not think that there has been any difference in the treatment which the pensioner receives to-day and the treatment which he received from the late Minister. I was glad to hear a tribute paid to my right hon. Friend who was Minister of Pensions under the last Conservative Government by the hon. Member for Camlachie. I have had brought before me cases of ex-service men who have received from the late Minister of Pensions and the present Minister the very greatest kindness, attention, and care.
      Mr. STEPHEN: What I said was that the medical staff advisers seemed to take an entirely different view.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I am glad to see in the Estimate that there has been an increase in regard to surgical requirements, because in many cases those appliances are gradually wearing out. I think we shall have to look for an increase in the expenditure year by year in this particular direction. Undoubtedly, there should be more help given to ex-service men to meet the wear and tear of artificial limbs and other appliances, and I hope the Minister will give this point his sympathetic consideration. As far as final awards are concerned, I think it is very unfair to penalise a man who may have struggled on and has not applied for a pension because he preferred to fend for himself, only to find that in after years the disability caused by his wounds contracted during the War recurs, and that he is suffering in health. I ask for a more sympathetic and humane view to be taken of those cases than has been done in the past. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. Simmons) spoiled a very sympathetic speech by stating that in these cases the magistrates were difficult of approach.
      Mr. SIMMONS: I said that they were difficult of access.
      Commander SOUTHBY: The magistrates are gentlemen of all political persuasions, and I have never heard any complaint whatever regarding the accessibility of magistrates.
      Mr. SIMMONS: The ordinary ex-Tommy does not want to go up a big drive to a door.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Erdington has raised this question in that way. So far as the magistrates are concerned, it does not matter whether they live in a big house or a small one, they are quite accessible. I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that this applies not only to magistrates, but to bank managers, ministers of religion, barristers and solicitors. For that reason, I do not think there was much point in the hon. Member's argument.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I fear the hon. and gallant Member is really going outside this Vote.
      7.0 p.m.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I will bow to your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, and leave that

      2369
      point. All I wish to say is that I have received nothing but kindness from the Minister of Pensions and his Department, although I think that very often there is undue delay in dealing with cases. I allude, in particular, to a case of a man who enlisted in 1915 which I brought to the notice of the Ministry. It was a case of lung trouble, the man having been gassed on the Somme in 1916. He was sent back to the base hospital, and, after three months, was returned to the trenches. That was a time when every man who could be sent back was returned to the trenches. Then he was sent to England. After that, he went back to France, his lungs gave further trouble, and eventually he was sent out to India. When he was demobilised, he was granted a pension of 11s. a week until 1922. Then he went into civilian employment and is now suffering from tuberculosis. Nobody can suggest that it is not aggravated by his having been gassed on the Somme. I brought this case up on 15th July, 1930, and no decision was given until 17th December, 1930. Even though it might have been right for his case to be turned down, and I do not think it was right, surely all that time need not have been taken in coming to a decision that the man could not have a pension. I contend that these cases should not arise.
      Undoubtedly, there are other cases in which the Ministry is most helpful. Other Members have mentioned the final award. I took up with the Ministry the case of a man who had taken a final award, and they have kindly re-opened it, and the man is now under treatment. When a man's case is taken up it should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment, so that he may not have the added mental anxiety of waiting for a decision. I think, if a plea could be made to the Minister to take a more humane consideration of all these cases, and not rely so much on actual medical facts given before a medical officer, the administration of pensions would give a great deal more satisfaction.
      Mr. ALBERY: The Minister pointed out that the extra cost under Sub-head A was due to the fact that the clerical staff had had to be retained, and also that increased medical assistance had been required. Can the Minister give us some idea what proportion of that cost is due
      2370
      to the increase in medical assistance, and what proportion to the retention of staff? Regarding Sub-head O2, which is concerned more particularly with surgical instruments, can the Minister tell us if there has been any reduction during the last two or three years in the cost of purchasing surgical instruments? Can he also give us some information whether any progress is being made in improving these instruments as the result of past experience? I take it that the contracts for these instruments are probably all given in this country, although that is not a point on which the Committee would wish to insist if better instruments in certain cases can be obtained from abroad.
      There have been a great many references to the final award, but there is one point of view which I would like to put. It is an unfortunate fact that a great number of men who accepted final awards were tempted to do so at the time because of the possibility of receiving a certain sum down in cash. There is another aspect of the case which is perhaps even worse—that of a man who having been offered a final award appealed against it but lost his appeal. There are cases of men who have not wanted to take a final award and have had it forced on them, and who during the last year or two have become worse in health and have been unable to follow their occupation. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that in cases of that kind very special consideration is given.
      Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: The Minister, in his opening speech, referring to Sub-head A and the increase of staff, reminded us that this is not the first occasion on which the Ministry have failed to estimate accurately the expenditure for the year. This is not the first Supplementary Estimate which the Minister has presented. It is the second, and it is also the second occasion on which Sub-head A has been exceeded. There is one point about that which the Minister did not tell us. He explained the increase, and he gave reasons that we can all understand. Can he tell us how many more people are being employed, if there are any more? We would like to know the number of the staff at the Ministry as the result of this Supplementary Estimate. I think we must

      2371
      protest against the excessive amount of this Estimate for staff. It is about one-quarter or one-fifth of the whole sum that we are voting, and, whereas before the usual amount on staff administration was 5½d. in every £ spent, in this Vote the actual proportion is something between 4s. and 5s. That is excessive. The reason we can all understand. It is the result of an increased demand, as we are told throughout the Estimates. More claims are being made no doubt as the result of the last election. When you have an election all parties are a little free.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member was present when I ruled that that aspect of the question cannot be discussed on the Supplementary Estimate.
      Colonel BROWN: I am only giving a reason. It is also interesting to find that the staff has had to be increased because a great many inquiries have come through. All that, to a certain extent, is waste money. You do not get your return in pensions paid out; they show a comparatively small increase. You find, therefore, an increase of staff and of work with little to show for it, and a great many more people who have made claims will be disappointed. The Minister seems to have very few friends in this House in connection with the seven years' limit. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), who is the proud parent of the seven years' limit, told us that he passed it through the House after the most careful consideration. I remember perfectly well, as I was assisting him at the time, what careful inquiries were made in all quarters as to the fairness of the seven years' limit or the objections that could be made against it. Successive Ministers have alleviated it to a certain extent. The last Minister made a little change, and the right hon. Gentleman has now still further extended that change. The difficulty, if once you start moving away, is to know where to stop. I regret, after it was once thought necessary to institute this limit, that any change was made. I think we have seen from this Debate some of the results which will follow whenever you start to give ground on a very big and intricate
      2372
      subject like this. Objection has been taken because 14,500 claims have been made and only 800 granted, and it has been said that this procedure must be wrong and unfair. The same cry would be raised if the seven years' limit was abolished and the ordinary procedure that is used in other cases applied. These cases are very difficult, and are so tied up with many years' history going back into the War period, that it is almost impossible to disentangle them.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is covering too wide a scope in his speech. The only thing we are discussing now is the administrative action of the present Minister during the present year. We must not go outside that.
      Colonel BROWN: I was only using an illustration.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These illustrations only lead other Members to wish to contradict them or argue them. I must rule them out.
      Colonel BROWN: I will obey your Ruling. We have heard a great many complaints against the medical profession. I think that is also the result of allowing too few claims to be admitted. Here, again, if under the new procedure you do not get the results anticipated, the blame is put on the Department. While I sympathise with the changes that the Minister has made, I think it would have been much better if he had not made these changes. I would reinforce the request made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard Bury), who has asked how many more cases have been dealt with under this new procedure, in order that one may visualise how many would have had to be dealt with had the tribunals been enforced instead of these committees. I do not know whether the Minister has yet found that this new procedure will be very costly, because every man who has once had a pension and every man whose claim for pension has been turned down will be entitled to put his case, and there will be no end to the matter.
      There is one item of this Vote to which no one has referred. That is Subhead

      2373
      O.2—Surgical Appliances—and the savings under Subhead O.1. I thought that the whole intention of maintaining our Ministry of Pensions hospitals was that men could get treatment allowances and go there, and, in the end, be cured, so that they would no longer be on the pension fund; but I find that among the savings there is an amount of £75,000, while last year there was a saving of £25,000 due to a reduced Estimate. That makes a total of £100,000. I do not grumble at the saving, but I am wondering whether these curative treatments are being reduced. The Vote is not a very large one; it is only £300,000; and a saving of £100,000 on that total almost looks as though there were a serious curtailment of these hospital services. I should be glad if I could be reassured upon that point.
      Mr. ROBERTS: If I may say one personal word before replying to the Debate, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) and other speakers for the very kindly personal references that they were good enough to make to myself. I am afraid that I shall not be able to touch on every point that has been raised in the discussion. If I were to reply as I should like to do, I am afraid, Sir Robert, that I should come under your strict Ruling, as other Members have. I want, if I can, to answer one or two of the points which have been raised in fairly consecutive order, but it may be that in my statement I shall go over some of the ground that has already been traversed by more than one speaker who has taken part in the Debate. May I say again that I have no complaint to make at all of the tone in which this Debate has been conducted. There has been at times strong criticism of the Ministry, and there has been some condemnation of various phases of its work; and in the course of my reply I shall make some particular references to one or two of those points.
      In the first place, with regard to the question of the over-seven-years' procedure, on which questions have been asked as to the amount of work involved in incurring the expenditure to which I made reference in my opening statement,
      2374
      I may say that the number of over-seven-years' cases in 1930 was 16,500, while the number admitted in the same period was 991, or 6 per cent. of the total. I am altogether averse from joining in a controversy which seeks to make comparisons between the treatment meted out to pensioners by those in charge of a former Administration and by those who are in charge to-day, but I think I am entitled, in order to show what are the exact facts of the case, to give the figures which have been gathered together. Under the operation of the arrangements to deal with post-seven-year cases, there were admitted, prior to 1930, 295 cases in 1927 and 318 in 1928. Up to May, 1929, 189 were admitted, and from June to December, 1929, 311 were admitted, making a total of 500 for the year 1929. While, as I have said, I deprecate comparisons which place Minister against Minister or Administration against Administration, I think that the citation of these figures is justified by the ground which has been taken by some of those who have preceded me in this Debate.
      Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Those numbers are very interesting. I take it that they all relate to the same procedure?
      Mr. ROBERTS: Yes. I think that, if the hon. Member will take his mind back to the time when a question on this matter was answered in the House in November, 1929, he will find that I definitely stated that I was extending the arrangement which had been worked by my predecessor; but in the extension of that arrangement I claim that there has been, probably, a better method of getting at the really difficult types of cakes which the House desires should be considered and settled favourably if at all possible. It is also a pertinent point that, if no alteration in the administrative arrangements was necessary, the 16,000 cases which were considered in 1930 should surely have been considered and disposed of long before that time.
      A further question was put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty, and the same point has been alluded to by almost every other speaker. Again I would like to give figures, in order to give hon. Members an accurate idea of the situation.

      2375
      Under the correction of errors procedure, the numbers of cases were as follow:—

      1924

      209

      1925

      1,510

      1926

      1,920

      1927

      1,726

      1928

      1,305

      1929 (January to May)

      417

      1929 (June to December)

      811

      1930

      2,790

      Total

      10,688

      Mr. ALBERY: Was there not, perhaps, a sort of lag or leave-over in the last figure?
      Mr. ROBERTS: That is not for me to explain. The only thing that I can say is that the cases which have come in have been dealt with, and the figures justify what I am now saying.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not the fact that by 1922 no fewer than 2,000,000 cases were dealt with?
      Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, that is perfectly true. Hon. Members have rightly laid emphasis on the fact that cases in which final awards had not been adequately dealt with or correctly assessed, or in which there was a worsening of the injury from which the applicant was suffering, should be dealt with on as generous lines as possible. I venture to say that the figures I have just given show that, whatever Ministry has been working from 1924 onwards, when the cases have been brought to notice and attention there has been no lack of consideration. Otherwise, we should not have the numbers of cases that I have just given.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty also asked a question or two with regard to the specialists, and as to whether they were working satisfactorily and with justice. I can assure him with emphasis that such is the case in both those particulars. The number of cases with which they have dealt, and the manner in which they have settled them, have been all to the good, and I am satisfied that it was wise to adopt the procedure of dealing with cases in this way. Here again, perhaps, I may be permitted to give one or two figures with regard to the cases that have been dealt with by the individual specialists.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I wonder if my right hon. Friend could tell the Committee who appoints these specialists? I forgot to ask him before.
      Mr. ROBERTS: I am responsible for that. The cases referred as the result of reports by war pensions committees were 341 up to the end of January, 1931, and the cases referred as a result of other action were 43, making a total of 384. Of these 384 cases, 338 have been dealt with as follows:

      Accepted on the advice of an independent specialist

      48

      Rejected on the same advice

      290

      The next question that was raised by the right hon. Gentleman was with regard to limbless men and artificial limbs. I feel that, if there is one subject on which the Department is entitled to some measure of congratulation, it is the satisfactory conduct of this branch of the Ministry's work. We do attempt, and I trust we shall always do so, to supply the best type of artificial limbs that it is possible to obtain. That has always been the policy, and it has been my pleasure to uphold that policy as far as I possibly can. If there are new devices which can be properly used for the benefit of ex-service men, the Committee can rest assured that the Department will not hesitate to take advantage of any advances which may be made in that matter. From what I have seen of the work which has been done in regard to the supply of artificial limbs of the different types which are devised from time to time, I think that a great measure of satisfaction can be taken from a knowledge and understanding of what has been done.
      I should like, in the same connection, to reply to the very sympathetic and helpful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington (Mr. Simmons). He suggested that there was a restriction now with regard to the choice of the type of limb that a man could secure. He said that they were all made by one firm, and suggested that there was a sort of mass production. In the reorganisation of work of this kind, mass production may be a correct or an incorrect term to use; I do not know; but I should think that, if there was any kind of work that did not lend itself to mass production, it would certainly be the production of arti-

      2377
      ficial limbs. At the present moment there are three firms who are under contract with the Ministry for the supply of artificial limbs, two of whom make the metal type and one the wooden. With regard to the question of men being allowed to go back to firms who supplied limbs which were satisfactory to them, I am afraid that that would not be possible in many cases, for I believe that some of the firms have gone out of existence, and the existing firms are doing the work which others used to do. The right hon. Gentleman also asked a question with regard to voluntary funds, but I am afraid I cannot enter into that subject beyond saying that voluntary funds are not used for any purposes which ought to be incorporated in the Warrants.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, however, use his influence to get those funds used where possible for urgent cases?
      Mr. ROBERTS: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if I have money to spend, I shall never be afraid to spend it. The hon. and gallant Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen) dealt with the position under the seven years' proposal, but there again I feel that, if I were adequately to answer not only the hon. and gallant Member himself, but also those who followed him in the Debate, I should be entering into the realms of policy and political controversy, which do not seem to me to be properly within the scope of the present discussion. Certain types of cases were mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, but I do not think that anyone will expect me to be able to give any information or make any statement with regard to the individual cases which have been constantly before the House. All I can say is that we shall study very carefully the observations which have been made, and, if it is possible again to take up these cases, each hon. Member in turn shall be communicated with, and they shall be given the closest possible consideration that we can give to them.
      With regard to the position of War orphans, I believe, when I answered a question at the time the concession was made, I intimated that I was afraid the Government had gone as far as they could. I should be going a little too far if I held out much hope that I shall be
      2378
      able to meet the request that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made. The same hon. and gallant Gentleman made reference to the wear and tear to clothes caused by artificial limbs. This is not a new matter. It has been frequently brought to my attention, and we had one or two consultations with the British Legion on the point, but up to the present I can find no way of meeting the claims which have been made beyond what has already been provided for in the pension allowances. It seems to me probable in certain types of cases that there is a certain amount of extra wear and tear on the clothing, but I had to reject that claim when it was made some time ago.
      The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Fairfield asked if I would call a meeting of the Central Advisory Committee. I can only repeat the answer I gave on the last occasion when the question was put, that I should convene a meeting of the committee as soon as it was necessary. That is the answer I shall have to give to-day. Whether the necessity for calling the committee will be brought any nearer by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's observations remains to be seen. I can only assure him that I will give the point every consideration.
      The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Banbury (Major Edmondson) criticises the amount that we have allocated for additional administrative expenses, but, if he analyses it, he will find that it is not quite so large an increase on the whole of the ordinary Estimate, and that there will be a reduction of the original Estimate when it comes to be brought forward. The same answer covers points which have been made by other speakers. In 1929–30, the actual expenditure was just over £1,223,000. My present revised Estimate during the current year is £1,164,000. I think that covers the point.
      Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information about the extra £50,000 under that heading?
      Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think I can usefully add anything to the statement that I have made. It is not possible to subdivide the amount that has been incurred either over a given number of doctors or certain sections of the staff. All I can say is that the staff, whether in one direction or another, has had to

      2379
      be maintained for the purpose of carrying out the essential work of the Department.
      On the point raised by the hon. Member for Erdington with regard to life certificates, there is a much wider arrangement made for them and it incorporates many other fields besides the magistrates. It could not wisely be extended in the direction indicated. The hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) made reference to the method of conducting the examinations, and, while he himself did not indulge in any unfair criticism of the medical staff, there has been a little said to-day which compels me to express some of the appreciation which I feel for the work that the medical side of the Ministry is doing. I know they are in an extremely difficult position, and the more I meet doctors the more I find it possible to feel some measure of gratification that politicians differ so little amongst themselves. There is brought to bear in connection with these cases by the members of the medical staff of the Ministry, despite what has been said to-day, a consideration which I think is most appreciated by those who know it best. My doctors desire to render the best service they can. They consider the cases on their merits. If anyone can prove to me that there is a doctor working for the Ministry who is not acting in accordance with the standards which we have a right to expect from members of that profession, we shall be the first to take steps to dispense with his services, but I have a right to defend the medical officers so far as complaints have been made to-day. If the position as outlined by the hon. Member obtained, we should have much too rough and ready a method of deciding claims. There must be a systematic basis of consideration, and, if we accepted the proposals that he has put forward, we should find pensions administration drifting into a state of chaos from which we should find it almost impossible to extricate ourselves. I appreciate very much the expressions which he has used, and I shall take another opportunity, in common with the rest of the statements that have been made, of giving them the closest possible examination and seeing how far it is possible to meet the criticisms which he has made.
      2380
      The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) complains of our administration. I believe inside the Department there is a great desire to give pensions where they can be properly claimed. There is no desire to keep anyone off the pension list for frivolous reasons. If a case is made good, if there is proof that there is association of the disability with the War period, we shall be prepared to accept responsibility for the payment that is to be made. The hon. Member also made reference to the position of the orphan of 21, which is covered by the answer I have just given.
      Mr. STEPHEN: Why should there not be an extension of this? The right hon. Gentleman said we could not expect them to go further. I should like to know why.
      Mr. ROBERTS: I could not develop that to-day. The hon. Member also made reference to the question of need pensions and the fact that some of them were not being granted in cases to which he made allusion. The need pension must be based entirely and completely on the income that is going into the household of the family concerned, and, while it might be possible to justify on grounds of sympathy, if no other, the kind of case he has mentioned, the Department has to judge these cases and the kind of case which is coming within the regulations of a general character. While we should all say that, if a father has lost three sons, it is a matter for more sympathetic and generous consideration than the case of a parent who has only lost one, that is not the line on which you can maintain the administration.
      Mr. STEPHEN: The case I mentioned was that of a man who had an income of a little over 6s. a week. I was saying that that is obviously a case where pension plus health allowance should be brought up to a maximum of 25s.
      Mr. ROBERTS: If that is the fact of the case, it is one for review and I will certainly look into it. My hon. Friend also referred to the medical question and alluded to Sherlock Holmes inquiries. That is an expression which may be either wise or jocular. I should like to accept it in a jocular sense. There are no Sherlock Holmes inquiries made, but only careful investigations, first of all to see whether it is possible, not to discredit the claim for pension which the

      2381
      man is making, but possibly to find out whether there are any grounds at all on which a pension can be given.
      Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask whether, in fact, a man is entitled to bring his own medical evidence? I have asked that question several times, and have never been able to get a definite answer whether he is told that he may bring his own medical adviser to give personal evidence to the other doctors.
      Mr. ROBERTS: It is not a question of bringing his own personal advisers, but on occasion my own officers enter into consultation with the man's medical adviser in order to try to get at the facts of the case.
      Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: One doctor getting verbal evidence from another is a very different thing from getting something written. The complaint continually made is that the claimant has no means of bringing his own medical evidence.
      Mr. ROBERTS: That is a different point entirely. As Minister, I hope I shall always be prepared to accept the responsibility that should rightly fall upon me for carrying out the duties of the office. I have no desire to shelter behind any particular section of my staff. I am responsible for the conduct of the Department, and, as such, I shall accept the responsibilities and liabilities placed upon me.
      The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) referred to particular types of tuberculosis and their connection with gassing as in some measure the cause of it. That naturally falls upon the medical side, and I want to make a passing reference to this complaint. Some time ago, a number of questions were addressed to me with regard to large numbers of what were called cases of injustice created by reason of the fact that we were not paying particular attention to the effects of gassing in relation to tuberculosis cases. I took note of the questions and the facts then stated. I asked a number of Members who were responsible for those questions to come to the Ministry and meet the specialists and experts who are concerned with this side of our work. I believe we were able to prove to them satisfactorily that the vast majority of
      2382
      tuberculosis and gassing cases combined were dealt with many years ago, in fact within a short period after the cessation of hostilities or demobilisation.
      There are some cases which have been proved to be associated with gassing and we accept them with the same readiness as other types of cases. There is no more difficult type of case to elucidate among the patients of the Ministry than to try to find out in 1931 to what extent a man suffering from tuberculosis may have been affected during the War, and to what extent those two circumstances are now related. We investigate and then discuss these cases with the utmost sympathy. If hon. Members can bring to the notice of the Ministry any cases of the type which has been alluded to, we shall be glad to ask our experts to go into them and try to link up the chain of events. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), Bellahouston Hospital has now been closed and the patients successfully transferred to Erskine House. I am assured on all sides that the men are more than satisfied with what has been done for them and with the better surroundings in which they are now living. The difficulties of transit have not been found too great, and when I feel able to travel as far as Scotland and can find the time to do it, I am hoping to investigate personally the circumstances of the arrangement which is now operating in that district in order to satisfy myself as to how things are going.
      I hope I have covered in a general sort of way most of the points which have been raised. One or two of the points may have been missed, and, if that be so, I trust the Committee will forgive me. I have rapidly surveyed and answered the points which have been raised, in the hope that I can assure the Committee that the Department, and I personally, are anxious to do everything possible to meet the requirements of ex-service men and to carry out to the best of our power what was the intention of the House, namely, that no genuine claim to pension shall be passed on one side.
      Dr. MORRIS-JONES: The point I want to raise with the Minister concerns the men who are receiving a percentage

      2383
      disability pension. When their pension is reviewed from time to time, they are asked the question as to whether they are in work, and their answer is apparently taken into consideration to decide whether or not the pension should be reduced. A private gets £2 a week, and, if he considers that the amount is not sufficient to keep him and his family—and it is not—he may ask for it to be reviewed. I can see no reason at all why the officials or the medical men representing the Ministry of Pensions should ask that man whether he is in work. At one time a standard was set for tuberculosis, sufferers from which are paid the full amount of disability pension. If the sputum was tubercular positive, and there were definite signs in the lungs, that was considered sufficient to give the man a full disability pension. It is not so now. That standard was a very fair one.
      I want to press upon the Ministry the point regarding the right of a man to go to work. I know cases of men and officers suffering from serious disability who are bound to do some work in order to get enough on which to live. I know at the present time an officer suffering from a heart affection. He has a very considerable dilatation of the heart, and he would be perfectly entitled, if he could afford it, to live a quiet life on his pension. He really ought to do so, but he has found that he is completely unable to do that. I do not think that the Ministry should take the fact of a man going to work as a reason to alter his assessment.
      Sir B. FALLE: The Minister paid a very graceful compliment to hon. Members who have spoken this evening, and offered his thanks for the personal references to himself. I think all those references were well-deserved. I have found him always courteous, fair, and willing to help. At the same time, I must say, and in no party spirit, that I found his predecessor at least as fair and willing and courteous. No one who served in the Great War would fail to demand the most generous possible treatment for those who suffered. There were a great many who suffered during the War who did not go to the Ministry of Pensions. No case is improved by overstatement. The hon. Member for Cam-
      2384
      lachie (Mr. Stephen) seemed to think that soldiers were promised something when they joined.
      Mr. MAXTON: Oh, yes.
      Sir B. FALLE: Well, that is not my experience. I joined up as soon as I possibly could, within a month of the outbreak of war. I saw a great many cases, in the great dockyard city of which I am one of the representatives. Men came to me, and I am sure that not one of them would say that anything was promised him before he joined. What was promised by irresponsible politicians after the men joined up is entirely a different matter. You can go to any Government Department, and, if your case is based on inaccurate or erroneous statements, you are only asking to be courteously turned down in the least possible time. The Minister cannot go outside the Act, or at least, if he goes as far as he possibly can, even then he must keep to the fringe of the Act. One thing is certain and that is that the House of Commons will never refuse the most generous treatment that any Minister of Pensions cares to ask for the men who suffered in the War. That is the whole point. The House must be asked to increase the Minister's power. That will come under, not this Supplementary Estimate, but others which we shall soon have before us.
      I do not think that anybody is quite satisfied, but that we are all disappointed, with the working of the seven years' limit. The men who are affected by that have legitimate grievances. There, again, we have not been able to alter the Act. Until the Act is altered, very much depends upon the Minister himself as to whether those men get fairer treatment than is now being given. We cannot blame either this Minister or his predecessor. We cannot ask him to go outside the Art, but we do ask him to see that as much is done under it as is possible until the Act is extended.
      Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I did not intend to speak if I had made my question to the Minister perfectly clear, but I think it is evident that he misunderstood the purport of my question, and that he thought I was casting some aspersion on his management of his Department.
      Mr. ROBERTS: No.
      Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: That had nothing to do with the point I was raising at all. It was a very simple point. It will be better if I put it in this form. It arises out of a reply which was given by the Minister of Pensions on the 8th December, 1930, in which the Government were definitely asked—and I say the Government, because the answer was given by the Attorney-General, although the question was put to the Minister of Pensions—as to whether claimants had or had not the right to bring their own medical officers to put their case before the Appeal Tribunal. There was no definite reply given.
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: This matter is not under the control of the Minister, and therefore it does not, arise.
      Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Then I will not pursue it in that form. The Minister does give instructions under which cases are heard before the appeal tribunal, and the point I want to make is that if it is in the Minister's power, as I believe it is, to emphasise the fact that medical evidence can be produced, it would be of the greatest benefit to claimants to know it. The Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate said that they would represent to the Minister of Pensions, as a reasonable suggestion, that claimants should be told that they have that right. I suggest that the Minister should let claimants know that they have that right.

      CIVIL (EXCESSES), 1929.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £348,771 11s. 8d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Departments for the year ended 31st day of March, 1930:

      Amount to be Voted.

      £.

      s.

      d.

      Class II.

      Vote 2. Diplomatic and Consular Services

      5,523

      3

      4

      Class VI.

      Vote 7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

      74

      3

      1

      Class VIII.

      Vote 1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

      907

      15

      2

      Vote 2. Ministry of Pensions

      342,266

      10

      1

      £348,771

      11

      8"

      8.0 p.m.
      Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think we ought to have an explanation of this Excess Vote from the Treasury Bench. An Excess Vote is always regarded by this Committee with peculiar care. It may shorten the proceedings if I address one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Vote. This Vote, taken as a whole, comprises really four items, and for the information of hon. Members who may not have it before them I will read them. They are: Clause II, Vote 2, Diplomatic and Consular Services; Class VI, Vote 7, Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands; Class VIII, Vote 1, Merchant Seamen's War Pensions; and Class VIII, Vote 2, Ministry of Pensions. All the Votes belong to the excess which we are now asked to make good. The largest is in respect of the Ministry of Pensions, which is no less than £342,266, a very considerable sum, although the Select Committee of Public Accounts very properly point out that It bears only a fractional relation to the total amount of the Vote.
      At the same time, as the Minister of Pensions is here, I think perhaps he ought to amplify a little more the circumstances referred to under paragraph 5 of the report of the Select Committee of Public Accounts. I ought to explain again to the Committee, in case there are some hon. Members here who do not fully appreciate the procedure in regard to the excess grants, that Parliament is always extremely jealous about a Department spending in a particular year more money than has been appropriated by it to the service of that Department. I should point out that in the Army and Navy Departments there is power to appropriate savings under some other Sub-heads for expenditure under any other particular Sub-heads; but that does not exist in the Civil Departments. When it takes place in the Civil Departments it has to be regularised by an Excess Vote. This particular Excess Vote is a much larger sum than that of any possible savings. The circumstances in which it arose are explained in the Special Report of the Select Committee of Public Accounts which goes, as it always does, carefully through the Excess Votes. When ever an Excess Vote is asked for the Committee has to report on it. They report:

      2387
      "In December, 1929, the Ministry of Pensions felt grave doubts whether the original Estimate would prove sufficient, so much so that they suggested to the Treasury that a Supplementary Vote should be taken for £297,000. Later,"—
      that is to say after the month of December, 1929—
      "on further examination, the Ministry came to the conclusion that the original Vote would suffice, and the proposal to present a Supplementary Estimate was withdrawn."
      My only observation on that is that it seems a little extraordinary that the Ministry's calculations should have been so very far wrong as all that. It will be observed that in December they were thinking that they would have to present a Supplementary Estimate for £297,000. Later on they thought their original Vote would suffice and, in fact, it has turned out that they had to come to the House for the sanction of an excess of no less than £342,000. That is a rather remarkable thing to happen, and calls for a little more explanation than is given in the report.
      As regards the other particular small Excess Votes, I do not think there is really very much to which to object in any of them. They are only two very brief points—both of them Treasury points—to which I should like to refer. The first is in the Vote for the Diplomatic and Consular Services. I see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is here, and I should be grateful if he would tell us how the £5,523 which we are asked to vote is divided: how much is due to the loss on currency, and how much to the excess on telegraphs. I rather fancy that in fact the different Consular offices in China must have been holding a rather excessive reserve in Chinese dollars, because between January, 1929, when the Estimate must have been originally made up, and March, 1930, which was the end of the last financial year, I do not think that the drop in the Chinese exchange was so large, and so it must represent the holding of a very considerable balance in Chinese dollars. That is a practice against which the Treasury has always, and very rightly, set its face. I remember that several years ago I was on a Treasury committee which inquired into this particular subject. It arose in connection with the Treasury Chest Fund,
      2388
      and we then laid down the principle, which has been adhered to ever since, that so far as possible the Treasury Chest Fund—and an analogous principle ought to be applied to this fund—ought to be financed by telegraphic transfers in order that the loss on the exchange should be kept down to the smallest possible amount. I rather fancy it will be found that the currency reserves in Chinese dollars were on the large side.
      I mention the Merchant Seamen's War Pensions only to recur to the suggestion which we threw out on this side of the House the other day and which deserves serious consideration by the Government. That suggestion was that in the case of this comparatively small pension fund—it would not apply to the Ministry of Pensions, because there the amounts are, obviously, much too large—the State should form some sort of general equalisation reserve, owing to the slight variation in the rates between what the actuaries expect to be the mortality and what is borne out by the actual mortality. It is hardly advantageous that the time of the Committee should be occupied, in the first place, with a Vote on the subject. In the second place—it is all right in this case, because we are being asked to vote more money—supposing we had appropriated more money than has been required by the Service, then we should be getting the extremely vicious effect that the taxpayer was having more money extracted from him than was required for the Service, which in the present situation everyone is anxious to avoid. An ordinary insurance business would work this by an actuarial reserve. It would be perfectly well known what the mortality rate would be. It would vary, and would sometimes be above and sometimes below the average; it would be averaged over a number of years and would be maintained by carrying a reserve. I cannot ask for more than an assurance that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will go into this; I know he will have the purists of the Treasury against him, but an insurance business would certainly maintain a reserve of that kind, and it is worth considering whether the State should not maintain such a reserve also.
      Mr. ROBERTS: Perhaps I may, in a few sentences, answer the point put by the right hon. Gentleman. This Excess Vote to which he has alluded is accounted

      2389
      for, first, by reason of £20,500 on account of the non-reduction of salaries, and certain increases of pay to junior officers. In the second place, there is £16,000 on account of more numerous medical hoardings undertaken to increase the number of permanent pensions, and consequent travelling expenses. In the third place, there is a sum of £25,000, anticipated reduction in staff which was not realised, and which was due largely to increased work in the provincial offices. That is under sub-head A. Under sub-heads K and L the amounts, though considerable in themselves, are small in proportion to the total of those items, and they are in the main due to variations, such as deaths, re-marriages, etc. A sum of £90,000 in excess was due to the failure of certain widows to take advantage of an additional pay day in the previous financial year. Under O.1 the payments for treatment have always been a matter of uncertainty, but the increased claims for pensions have never been large. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this matter has been reported upon by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and he has very generously and properly made allusion to some of their observations. Perhaps I may say further that they observe that the amount of the excess—
      "is not large in relation to the total amount of the Vote."
      It is an excess of £342,266 on a net total expenditure of £54,000,000. For the information of the Committee, I will point out that that works out at 0.6 per cent., which is not a very large proportion. It was expected on the experience of past years of the expenditure of the last quarter of the financial year, that the original Estimate would prove sufficient, but the drop in the expenditure during that quarter which was expected did not take place. That is the only explanation which I can give in regard to this Vote.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): May I take this opportunity of dealing with a point to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) referred. We regret, of course, that we have to ask for this small Excess Vote. The cause of it is in respect of currency depreciation in China, and he will appreciate that when I say that during the
      2390
      year the Chinese dollar fell from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 5d., a fall which it was difficult to foresee. The right hon. Gentleman asked about our balances; he was afraid that perhaps too large balances were kept in China. There is a net deficit on the whole account of £5,523. As to the exchange the net loss is £9,369, so that with certain surpluses under other subheads to apply to its reduction, there is a net deficit in the aggregate of £5,523 which we are now asking the Committee to give us. We have been able to bring it down to that figure. Taking the exchange by itself—
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: How much is telegraphs and how much currency?
      Mr. DALTON: As I said, on currency the net loss is £9,369. That is due to the fall of Chinese dollars from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 5d. We have watched carefully the matter which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, by keeping our balances at a minimum figure during this period. The maximum which we have established at Shanghai is 80,000 dollars, and the balance is never allowed to rise above that. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this balance accrues from the payment of consular fees in dollars. Our own people out there are paid in sterling, and the depreciation of the dollar does not affect those payments, but the consular fees and the court fees are paid in dollars which are, of course, remitted home as soon as possible. Occasionally, it may be that there is a rush of payments, and it is therefore often not possible to keep the balance at shanghai very much below the figure of 80,000 dollars. I think I have dealt with the currency point—
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, except that I would ask this—I do not know if it can be answered at the moment—is there any estimate relating to Treasury Chest Fund on the one hand and these consular balances on the other? I think the Committee would like to be satisfied that at any one moment the consular department is not collecting dollars and remitting them home to change into sterling while at the same time the Treasury is drawing telegraphic transfers in sterling to pay the Army and Navy in China.
      Mr. DALTON: I cannot answer that off-hand, but I will get the answer, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let me give it a little later.
      Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: It is clearly important.
      Mr. DALTON: It is clearly important, and I expect that steps would be taken to prevent any loss. I feel quite sure that our people will have brought that about. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to take the other point about the telegraphs. The total cost of telegrams, etc., in 1929–30 was £53,500, as against an estimate of £45,000. The excess is almost wholly due to communication with China. These amounted during the year to rather more than £18,000, which is rather less than one-third of the total. The excess in the total cost of telegrams was due to the exceptional need of communication with China. During this year the state of China was unsettled. In addition there were certain special negotiations proceeding. The Boxer indemnity negotiations involved long telegrams to and fro, so did the extra-territoriality negotiations, and also the rendition of Wei Hai Wei. As the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor knows, he having handled some of these things himself when he was in the office which I now hold, these were very complicated questions. As far as the Boxer indemnity was concerned, it was impossible to avoid very long telegraphic communications to and from Sir Miles Lampson. I will now ascertain whether we can answer the previous question which the right hon. Gentleman put.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may be able to answer it?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I understand the position is that there are arrangements for making transfers where such can properly be done, but under the particular case of China the Treasury chest is at Hong Kong and this fund is at Shanghai. I understand that the currencies are not the same, and that it is not usually profitable to make the transfer. With regard to the equalisation of reserves, as I said last night, I shall be happy to look into the question to see whether the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is practicable.

    CLASS VI.

      MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £14,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."
      The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): The provision included in this Supplementary Estimate arises entirely from the administration of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. Under that Act a number of committees were established for the purpose of reorganisation on the lines of the amalgamation of the mines of the country, for the purpose of investigating complaints by persons other than coalowners in the working of Part I of the Act, and for the purpose of dealing with disputes in the industry. The expenditure involved in connection with this administration is set forth clearly in the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee. Therefore, I need only address the Committee briefly, but I hope adequately, in explaining the various heads now before us. It was found necessary to appoint a number of officials associated with the Mines Department to positions under the Reorganisation Commissioners. These Mines Department officials were seconded to the Reorganisation Commission because the Treasury thought fit to continue their services in the Mines Department for superannuation purposes. The amount incurred in connection with the seconding of these officials is stated under Sub-head A to be £2,400. No additional expenditure has been incurred by the Mines Department other than the expenditure provided for under the financial provisions of the Coal Mines Act.
      As regards the various committees that were established, there is the Central Committee of Investigation, with its 17 subordinate committees. These committees, as I have already stated, were set up to deal with complaints in connection with Part I of the Act, and the expenditure involved in that connection amounts in all to £4,500. The items are detailed in the Estimate. The amount required in connection with the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission is

      2393
      £6,000. That covers the expenses of the Commission, including the remuneration of the commission's secretary and staff and various fees required for the payment of professional and technical agents in connection with the inquiries by the Commission into amalgamation schemes. The expenditure in regard to the Coal Mines National Industrial Board, which has already held 11 meetings, amounts to £1,200, and here I may say the chairman and the secretary of the National Industrial Board do not receive any remuneration at all from this Vote. The expenditure incurred is entirely attributable to the travelling and incidental and subsistence expenses incurred by the members of the Board. I can hardly think of any other point which requires explanation in regard to the Supplementary Estimate. As I have said, it is entirely due to the normal administration which the Coal Mines Act made essential and to the provision made by Parliament for this purpose. I do not propose to detain the Committee any further, having made this quite necessary explanation.
      Mr. TINKER: I should like a fuller explanation concerning the expenditure of £6,000 on the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission. Can the Secretary for Mines give a more detailed account as to how this money is being paid out? What is the amount which is to be paid to the individual members of the commission?
      Sir S. ROBERTS: I want to ask the Secretary for Mines a few questions upon the Estimate. In asking these questions, I ask for the Ruling of the Chair. These Estimates, except the first one, are all new, and I assume that the discussion upon them is not limited to any question of the increased cost of the Estimate, and that the Committee, if it desires, can discuss the whole workings of the various committees. This is the first opportunity that the Committee has had of discussing them. I do not wish to say anything on Item A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, because I realise that the Department has had to transfer officials to work in the new offices, but I wish to ask a few questions, in a friendly spirit, in regard to items G1, G2 and G3. In regard to G3, I know that the Coal Mines National Industrial Board has
      2394
      been doing a considerable amount of work during the current financial year, and I consider the estimate of £1,200 extremely reasonable. With regard to G2, the expenses of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, the expenses include the remuneration of the commission.
      I may be ignorant, and it may be that the names of the Commissioners have been announced and their salaries stated to the public, but I am sure that the Secretary for Mines will be willing to disillusion my ignorance and tell me who these Commissioners are and what their salaries are. That would be a matter of extreme interest to all those connected with the coal mining industry. If the information has been announced and I have missed it, I apologise for asking an unnecessary question. It seems to me that the £6,000 required is a great deal of money for the very short time that has elapsed since this Act was passed and for the amount of work that one imagines has been done. It may be that a great deal of work has been done of which the general public and those interested in the coal trade are ignorant. I am sure the Minister would be willing to tell us the amount of work that has been done, the districts of the country where this Commission are setting to work, how far they have got, whether they have called together any groups of coalowners in order to discuss the ques-question of amalgamation, and how far this matter has proceeded since the House gave a Third Reading to the Bill and it became law several months ago. This is on opportunity for the Minister to give a full explanation of exactly what the Commission has done. I come to Item G.1, the Coal Mines Committees of Investigation. These committees were set up to investigate complaints made by the general public as to the minimum prices fixed for coal by the various committees of coalowners set up in the various districts. So far as I know, and I think I am right in saying this, very few minimum prices have been set up, and where those minimum prices have been set up—I am not saying this, as hon. Members opposite will realise, in the interests of the Coal Owners' Committee—they have been set so ridiculously low as to be of no use at all. They have been set up at ever so much less

      2395
      than the present price of coal. How that is going to help the mining industry, the miners or anybody to get any more out of it, I cannot possibly understand. I should like to hear what the Secretary for Mines thinks about some of the minimum prices that have been set up. I do not think that under the Act he has to approve of them. I think the mining Members of this House, considering that the miners' wages are fixed upon minimum prices, will consider these prices ridiculously low and entirely contrary to their ideas in putting the Act on the Statute Book. I may be entirely at variance with every other coalowner in the country on this point, but I do contend that the prices that have been fixed are absolutely ridiculous and they are making Part I of the Act an absolute farce. Anything that the Secretary for Mines may say on this subject will be of extreme interest to me and possibly to other hon. Members.
      These Coal Mines Committees of Investigation are set up to consider the grievances of the general public. During the year that will soon end they are going to spend £4,500 in investigating grievances which as yet cannot possibly have arisen. I want some explanation of that. It may possibly be that a certain grievance has arisen in South Yorkshire in regard to the question of standard tonnage which really ought not to have gone in to that Committee of Investigation. As far as I know, that is the only thing which the Committee of Investigation has yet in any place been asked to consider. A great deal of publicity has been given to this one case in South Yorkshire, where it is said a large number of miners are to work less time because of the working of Part I of the Act. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that if the miners in that particular group of pits were to achieve their object and to work longer time the only result would be that some of their fellows a little distance away would work shorter time. There has been a great deal of bluster about this, much more than the facts of the case deserve. It is not in any way the fault of Part I of the Act, which certain people are now asking to be repealed. I might ask for its repeal for other reasons, namely, that it does not seem to be able to do any good at all.
      2396
      With regard to the circular that has been sent out asking for its repeal, it is simply a question of one man or another being in work, and the people who have been working in these particular pits in the past few years have been reaping great advantage as against their fellows, and now they are wanting to continue these great advantages at the expense of their fellow-miners in neighbouring pits. There has been no answer whatever to the publicity that has been given by a very pushing gentleman who has been advocating the cause of his own concern, and I have availed myself of this opportunity of making a reply. I hope the Secretary for Mines will consider that my remarks have been made in all sincerity and without any idea of opposition to these Votes, but simply because this is an opportunity to get information which I desire just as much as hon. Members behind him.
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I should like to ask a question with regard to Item G 2. Could the Secretary for Mines divide items A and B into their component parts? In Item G 1 we are told what is the cost of telegrams and telephones, but we are not given a similar detail in G 2, where travelling and incidental expenses are put together. The sum involved in G 2 is higher than the amount in G 1 and there is no reason why the items should not be given in the same commendable detail as in G 1. I realise that the Government has not real responsibility for Item G 2, which is one of the unwanted children left by the Liberal party on the doorsteps of other people. They do not even come here to see if it is fed and probably they would deny its paternity.
      Could we know exactly what the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission has done to justify the expenditure of £6,000? Could we also be informed since when this expenditure was incurred? I am not quite certain when the Commission became operative. It would be interesting to have this information because it would enable us to form some idea of the cost of the Commission in a full year. Can the Secretary for Mines give us any idea what this will amount to in a full year?
      Will he also give us similar information in regard to G 1 and say exactly what the committee have done and in

      2397
      what way they have justified an expenditure of £4,500. Will he also tell us when they commenced their work so that we may form some estimate as to what is likely to be the charge upon the State in a full year. I do not know what exactly are the duties of the committees of investigation and I should like to know whether complaints under the quota system come before them. If so, it will be interesting to know what view they take and how they deal with the complaints. I must apologise for troubling the hon. Member with these matters because I quite realise that he has only recently become responsible for this Vote.
      Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: This is an opportunity for finding out how the Coal Mines Act is working and the first question I desire to put is with regard to the names of the members of the Commission and exactly what work they have done. We who took part in the lengthy Debates during the passage of the Coal Mines Act were rather sceptical as to what would be done by the various commissions and committees which were set up and it will be interesting to find out whether all the suggestions as to the good work they would do have, as a matter of fact, proved correct. As regards Subhead G 1, why six secretaries? It seems rather a large number. Then there is the Coal Mines committees of investigation, many hon. Members would like to know exactly what they are investigating. There has not been sufficient length of time since the Act was passed to enable much investigation to have taken place. With regard to the Coal Mines National Industrial Board, there was a good deal of discussion as to whether the chairman and the members should or should not be paid. I see that Subhead G 3 includes:
      "expenses of the Board, including, remuneration (if any) of the Chairman and Secretary."
      I should like to know whether the chairman is being paid, and, if so, his remuneration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Look at paragraph c."] Yes, I see. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, but this is an occasion upon which the Secretary for Mines can give us information on some of the points which we debated when considering the Coal Mines Act and by doing so he may clear up the point as to whether we on this
      2398
      side were right when we prophesied disaster or whether hon. Members opposite were right. At any rate, it is our duty to see that the money is being wisely spent.
      Mr. SHINWELL: I am extremely obliged to the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) for having stated the Government's case so admirably, although he was a little irrelevant at times.
      Sir S. ROBERTS: I must protest at it being said that I was out of order.
      The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. R. J. Russell): I felt at the time that the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) went a little from the Vote, but, as this is a new Vote, I thought a little latitude should be allowed.
      Mr. SHINWELL: I can at least reply to some of the points which have been raised by hon. Members opposite. I must point out that the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission was only definitely established towards the end of December. There was considerable difficulty in regard to personnel and, therefore, we were unable to get going until close upon the end of last year. They have had no time to operate, but have conducted the preliminaries to a survey, and there must be considerable time for preliminary activities before they can approach the fundamentals of the problem. As regards the personnel of the Commission I think the names were submitted to the House in reply to a question, but I will give the Committee their names again: Sir Ernest Gowers (Chairman), Sir William Whyte, Sir Felix Pole, Mr. Laurence Holt, and Mr. Joseph Jones. As to their remuneration, in presenting this Supplementary Estimate I assumed that the details would be submitted on the main Estimate, but I can give the Committee such information as is at my disposal. The remuneration of the chairman is £7,000 per annum, and three commissioners are remunerated at the rate of seven guineas a day with a minimum of 100 days per annum.
      Mr. BATEY: We cannot hear a word, and we want to follow this.
      Mr. SHINWELL: One of the commissioners has refused to accept any remuneration whatever. That is the position as regards this body.
      Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: For how long are they appointed?
      Mr. SHINWELL: The appointment is, I think, for five years, but I should not like to commit myself definitely to that statement.
      Mr. TINKER: Are expenses paid in addition to the seven guineas?
      Mr. SHINWELL: I think that, probably, expenses are in addition to that remuneration. I was asked by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) to state the financial position in reference to Subhead G.2. The position is that £2,900 is included in this provision for the purpose of salaries and the remainder covers the fees and expenses of professional and technical agents and telegrams and telephones, while £780 is for the travelling and incidental expenses of the commissioners and staff. I am not able to give a precise figure in connection with the emoluments of professional and technical agents because that figure is contingent upon the amount of work required and at this stage I am unable to give it. I am sure that the hon. Member will understand my difficulty in that connection. As regards the actual work done by these various committees, may I say, first of all, in relation to the committees of investigation, that the hon. Member opposite who raised the point was mistaken in assuming that nothing had been investigated. In point of fact, complaints have been received by committees of investigation from the Midland area—that is the amalgamated area which comprises, I think, five districts—and from Northumberland and Durham, and others are presently pending. Perhaps I may for the purpose of illustration invite the attention of the Committee to the recent Barnsley difficulty which has been referred to the Midlands committee of investigation, and is, I think, to be dealt with in the course of a day or two. There are 17 committees in addition to the central committee of investigation and that explains why there are six secretaries. These six secretaries deal with the whole of these committees. As regards the National Industrial Board, I think that sufficient explanation has already been given. That Board held 11 meetings and the expenditure incurred is, I think, very moderate indeed.
      2400
      I have endeavoured to give whatever explanations I could in reply to the interrogations of hon. Members and I hope that this statement will prove satisfactory to the Committee.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: I think the Committee must have listened with amazement to the speech of the Secretary for Mines when he told us that the Chairman of the Reorganisation Commission receives a salary of £7,000 a year. That was the sum mentioned, if my ears did not deceive me, and it is a matter of which the Committee ought to take notice. It is a remarkable proposal to be made by a Socialist Government which prides itself on its ambition to reduce everyone to a common level. Yet this is the Government which received severe rebukes and rebuffs from its own supporters because it decided to pay Traffic Commissioners somewhere about £1,000 a year. It is unfortunate that so few of the hon. Gentleman's followers were behind him on this occasion to hear this statement, and certainly I am surprised that it remains for a Conservative Member to make some protest against the enormous fees paid to this gentleman, whose name I did not catch.
      Mr. SHINWELL: I said he was Sir Ernest Gowers, who was Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: Even that statement does not convey very much to me. I have not the least doubt that this gentleman is fully qualified and competent for the job with which the Minister has entrusted him, but, for £7,000 a year, one is entitled to expect some competence and efficiency and knowledge of the work to be undertaken. My breath has almost been taken away by the statement of the Minister, and all I can say is that, if this is the way in which a Socialist Government conducts its proceedings, I tremble to think of how a Conservative Government would perform the same functions, since we have always been accused by hon. Members opposite of maintaining in comparative idleness pensioners and high officials. We have been accused of exploiting the poor in order to pay high salaries to the rich, but, after this, I do not think that the Minister will ever be able to make statements of that kind from a public platform in his constituency. I have not

      2401
      the least doubt that when the hon. Gentleman successfully put up for Parliament at the last election he promised to try to equalise the distribution of wealth, and to abolish vast emoluments earned in comparative idleness. Therefore, I think we have a right to press him on the point as to whether it is reasonable and appropriate that we should pay to the chairman of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission a salary not far short of that received by the Lord Chancellor. The Law Officers of the Crown who receive £15,000 or £20,000 a year each out of the mistakes of people in connection with the law, have always been held up to ridicule by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but here we have an official appointed by a Socialist Government under a Measure which we Conservatives opposed tooth and nail—
      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now straying from the subject before the Committee.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: A proposition like this is enough to make one stray. I only wish to make my protest against this proposal and to say that if this is the sort of thing that we are to expect from a Socialist Government, I am not surprised that there are departures from that party, and voices crying in the wilderness, and protests even from people who are in bed with influenza, as there have been in the last few days. I notice that the other commissioners are to be paid seven guineas a day for a minimum of 100 days. I do not know how many days they will work, but if I got seven guineas for every day I worked, I should take jolly good care that. I worked more than 100 days in the year. It seems to me that the Minister, instead of inducing these gentlemen to work, should try to restrict their activities, because every day they work over 100 days means another seven guineas to each. They are, at any rate, assured of an income of 700 guineas a year, which is considerably more than Members opposite are making out of all the agitation over this Measure. It it now apparent that all that we said of this Act when it was going through the House is more than justified. I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend below me; I do not know
      2402
      whether he was praising the results of this Act, but we at any rate protested during its passage—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is not the Coal Mines Act. The question is whether this money should be voted.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: I strayed from the direct question before the Committee in order to draw attention to the fact that we had predicted this vast expenditure, and that to-day our predictions are being more than fulfilled. I do not know what the travelling and incidental expenses of these gentlemen will be. I do not know whether, after the Debate we had yesterday, they will travel first or third-class. I do not know whether the Chairman of this Commission, in addition to this salary of £7,000 a year, is entitled to travelling expenses. If so, it would be outrageous. I do not know whether he will mark up each ham sandwich that he has or charge the Minister up with his taxi fares; if so, what will he get in addition to his £7,000 a year? Nobody would suggest that the Commission should not be composed of the most efficient and capable members that the Minister can obtain, but he might have obtained efficient and capable members at a lesser cost to the country.
      Mr. TINKER: I am amazed to hear from the Minister the amount of money that is being paid to these commissioners. To pay the chairman £7,000 a year is beyond what might have been expected, and I hope that during the present economy campaign this matter will receive attention. Nobody on this side expected that such an amount would be paid to this gentleman. He may be a good man, but he is not entitled to that amount. A sum of seven guineas a day with expenses in addition for the other commissioners appears also to be beyond what is fair, and I hope that that too will receive attention. The expenses of the Commission will be £9,000 in a full year, and that is exclusive of one gentleman who is not being paid any fee, but if he takes his money, which he may do at any time, the amount will be £10,000. This item is altogether beyond fairness and reason, and, although I belong to the Government side, I cannot let the Vote pass without raising my protest.

      2403
      Cabinet Ministers are getting £5,000 a year, and no man outside Cabinet rank is entitled to receive more. If they are to have their salaries cut down—as I understand that they are—people like the chairman of this Commission ought also to have their salaries cut down. I hope that the Secretary for Mines will take my remarks in the right spirit. I am not blaming him for this item; I do not know whether he has had anything to do with it. I am not criticising him, but whoever has been responsible for fixing this amount. I trust that this matter will be gone into, and that an attempt will be made to being down this amount to something which is more reasonable.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The information which we have received from the Secretary for Mines has taken the whole Committee by surprise. Not only are hon. Members on this side surprised, but hon. Members opposite are completely astonished at what has transpired. I remember the gentleman who holds the appointment with grateful recollection, because he was at the Treasury with me; no one is more able to fill the position than he is. But when the Secretary for Mines mentioned the salary, I could hardly hear what he said. I do not know whether he did not want the amount to reach Linlithgow, but it will. A salary of £7,000 is more than the Prime Minister is receiving, and, when we heard it, we were taken by surprise. We cannot upset any agreement that has been made, but more justification should be given than we have been given up to the present. I suppose that the agreement has been made, and that it runs for five years. For a £35,000 appointment to be casually mentioned to the Committee on a quiet evening, and whispered across the Table is something which we cannot let go without a further statement from the Minister. Not only do we on this side demand that explanation, but the hon. Gentleman's own followers require that he should say a little more.
      Mr. SHINWELL: I respond to the hon. Gentleman's request at once. I can assure him that I did not intentionally whisper the information across the Table.
      Mr. BATEY: Do speak up!
      Mr. SHINWELL: It was possibly due to a little modesty on my part. What are the facts? We have to pay the market price to the best man for a job of this description. I should like to remind the hon. Member that, when his own Government wanted important men for important posts, they were not the least diffident in paying the highest possible salaries. I cannot say offhand which Government was responsible for the appointment of the Chairman of the Central Electricity Board, but that is a case where a man who was regarded as capable of performing the functions of Chairman of such an important Commission was paid the very high salary of between £7,000 and £8,000. An hon. Member said that he expected competence for salary of this kind. I agree, and I think that competence is being provided.
      The hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench said, quite properly, that Sir Ernest Gowers, the chairman of the Reorganisation Commission, is a man of the highest competence. He was a prominent civil servant, occupying one of the highest posts in the Civil Service, and when he was asked to accept this position he had to consider the emoluments associated with his position in the Civil Service, pension rights and the like; and in the circumstances it could hardly be expected that he would accept this important post without a high salary. Sir Ernest Gowers will have to bear the brunt of the work associated with the commission, and will have to carry through schemes which will involve many millions of pounds. It is, perhaps, too early to speculate about this, but if amalgamations are proceeded with they will involve transactions running into enormous sums, and I cannot imagine that anyone would cavil at a market price being paid for his services. I As to whether the payment of such a salary is at all consistent with the views held by hon. Members on this side, and myself particularly, that seems to be beside the point at the moment. We are not living in a Socialistic age, but in a capitalistic age, fortunately or otherwise, and we have got to pay for services rendered. As to whether we can ask members of this commission to forego some part of their emoluments in the event of any reduction of salaries else-

      2405
      where, all I am in a position to say on that point is that they may agree to do it voluntarily but we have no power to impose our views upon them. After these explanations I hope the Committee will allow this Estimate to pass.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
      Like the hon. Member beside me, I listened with amazement to the statement of the Secretary for Mines. It may well be that he has gone into the market and obtained the best possible advice and the best value for money, but although this is a time when economy is essential we find this enormous sum, considerably more than is paid to a Cabinet Minister or a Prime Minister, being paid to the chairman of this commission. I wish to know whether his job is a whole-time job. Are the only duties he discharges the duties in connection with this commission?
      Mr. SHINWELL: I can settle that point at once. It is a full-time job.
      Commander SOUTHBY: I am grateful. I would like to know, also, whether, before taking this appointment, he surrendered any pension rights he may have had?
      Mr. SHINWELL: I said so.
      Commander SOUTHBY: That, also, I am glad to hear; and I would further like to know whether, at the conclusion of his duties on this commission, he will be entitled to any pension.
      Mr. SHINWELL: No.
      Commander SOUTHBY: Even so, I cannot believe it is right that there should be this disparity between the amount paid to the chairman and to the other members of the Commission. It is £7,000 for the chairman and a minimum of £700 for the other members. Further, I would like to know how much is to be paid to these gentlemen by way of travelling and incidental expenses. It is quite clear that it is the opinion of the Committee that £7,000 is vastly more than should be paid to the chairman, and I am moving the reduction as a, protest against such a sum being paid at a time when national economy is of the very greatest importance, when we have heard from the Prime Minister that it is intended to reduce the salaries of Cabinet
      2406
      Ministers, and when, I understand, hon. Members of this House are to be asked, very properly, to have reductions in their emoluments.
      Mr. BATEY: I was interested to hear the Secretary for Mines remind the Opposition of what they did when they were in office, but I could not help reflecting on the position which he himself would have taken up, with us, if we had been sitting in Opposition at the moment and the other side had been presenting this Estimate. I venture to say that we should have been making this House ring in denunciation of a payment of £7,000 to the chairman. There is no doubt that when the Secretary for Mines made his announcement he surprised us on this side far more than he surprised hon. Members opposite. We never imagined for a moment that when this Reorganisation Commission was set up the chairman would be paid such a huge sum as £7,000. I was one of those Members who not many nights ago was complaining of the Minister of Transport having appointed commissioners at £1,000 a year in addition to their pensions. It is ridiculous that we who were complaining on that occasion should now be asked to agree to a payment of £7,000 to the chairman of this Commission. I confess that I would never have believe that the present Secretary for Mines could be guilty of such an act. [Interruption.] Yes, but I think he ought not to allow his Department to override him. Then we come to this payment of £7 a day to the other members.
      Commander SOUTHBY: Seven guineas!
      Mr. BATEY: Yes, seven guineas. We are told that one of the members will not take it. The Minister ought to be candid and tell us which commissioner it is, because where there are several commissioners and an allowance is agreed upon and one refuses to take the allowance it is not fair to the others.
      Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Why not make him chairman?
      Mr. BATEY: He may be complaining that he was not made chairman. He may be refusing to accept the seven guineas because he is not paid on the same scale as the chairman. The Commission were appointed in December, and we are now

      2407
      at the end of February, and yet the Minister tells us that the Commission are simply surveying the field. Evidently they have done practically nothing. With a chairman paid £7,000 a year they ought to have got something done in two months. The Commission have power to take action in any part of the coalfield, to go into any district for the purpose of considering the amalgamation of collieries. Some of us believe this to be one of the good things left in the Coal Mines Act; some of the others have not proved to be so good as we had expected they would. As we have something that is good, we do not want any delay in realising the benefits of it. Could the Minister tell us where these commissioners are seeking to bring about the first amalgamations? Have they gone into any districts so far or are they considering the position in any district? In two months they ought to have made some progress; we ought to hear that they are dealing with amalgamation projects in some parts of the coalfield.
      I want now to refer to Subhead G1 dealing with the committees of investigation. An hon. Member opposite said that the work of those committees was to deal with complaints from the districts, and that so far they had had nothing to do because several of the districts had not yet fixed the minimum price. I want to ask the Secretary for Mines whether he intends to deal with those districts which have not up to the present fixed the minimum price. Anyone who reads the local newspapers must see the complaints which are being made that Yorkshire has not yet fixed its minimum price and is underselling the neighbouring counties. I think the Secretary for Mines ought to bring pressure to force all the districts to fix their minimum price so that one district will not be able to steal the trade of the other district.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The Secretary for Mines made a statement to the effect that Sir Ernest Gowers had surrendered his pension rights. The chairman of this Commission has been a civil servant for some considerable time, and he must have acquired the right to a pension. I want to know if the chairman has surrendered all rights to that pension, or whether, at the conclusion of his chairmanship, he will receive his pension right again?
      Mr. SHINWELL: No.
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: That is all I want to know.
      Mr. HALL-CAINE: I would like to ask what the secretary for Mines means by saying that in the case of this appointment he had to pay the market price. Does it mean that the services of this gentleman were offered elsewhere, and that he had to bid for him? Was this salary fixed on the basis of the salary which this gentleman previously had, or was this £7,000 the figure fixed by the Minister? I want the Minister to tell us what he means by the market price.
      Sir HILTON YOUNG: It is quite obvious from the Debate that the Secretary for Mines has failed to carry with him his own followers in regard to this appointment, and in these circumstances, perhaps he will consider the withdrawal of this Supplementary Estimate for reconsideration. I should like to suggest that this is an occasion upon which the Government might act upon the intimation recently described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the direction of economy. The reply of the Minister showed that he had not apprehended the real weight of the criticism levelled against this remarkable salary. The Minister compared it with the case of the chairman of the Electricity Board, and said that in this case it was necessary to pay the market price. Surely, the circumstances of those two cases are not analogous. Let it be understood that what has been said from these benches is not a personal criticism of this appointment as distinguished from the policy of the Government. We recognise that this gentleman is one of the ablest and most distinguished of Government servants, and, if he placed his services in the market, he might demand a great deal more than he is now receiving. This is the case of an appointment to do Government work which can be done by a Government servant, and a wholly new scale of salary is being introduced for Government work. This is the case of an appointment to Government work at actually double the salary usually paid to the head of the Civil Service at the Treasury. You cannot have two prices for the same article in one market. This appointment laying down a new maximum for Civil Service salaries threatens the stability of existing Civil Service

      2409
      scales. This is not a case of going into the open market to get a big business man; it is a, case of introducing new salaries for civil servants' work.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: I notice that the additional cost of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission in this Estimate is 6,000. The Secretary for Mines has told us that this Commission did not start its work until the end of December, that is two months ago. I presume from that statement that we may expect that the total cost will be increased next year, and I would like to ask whether I am right in assuming that in the end the cost of this Commission will amount to £30,000 a year?
      The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order. We are simply dealing with the amount of the Estimate before us at the present moment.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: I only wish to know whether we are committing ourselves to further expenditure in the future.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member might just as well ask how much the cost would be the year after next.
      Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Secretary for Mines has told us quite plainly that this ex-civil servant is to be paid £7,000 a year. We have also extracted from the hon. Gentleman the fact that he is surrendering his pension rights, and I should like to know whether in the event, which I sincerely hope will not happen, of his health breaking down in 12 months time, he then has no claim on any Government Department, but has totally abandoned the whole of his pension rights? That is a point about which we ought to be told. The hon. Gentleman does not seem inclined to accept that one way or the other, so we are not quite certain. I should like to know for how many years Sir Ernest Cowers would have had to continue before he qualified for his pension, and approximately what his salary was? Unless we know the full facts, we do not know how good a bargain or otherwise the Government have made. I am not in the least saying that if the hon. Gentleman had gone into the open market and got a really thoroughly efficient man, £7,000 would have been too much. I am not a narrow-minded person like the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) or other Clyde Members.
      2410
      I quite realise that some are worth more than others. I have no doubt that the hon. Member who leads the Clyde group would be worth very much more than I am as a public platform speaker.
      I am not for one minute quarrelling with the fact that a civil servant has been appointed, because I think, probably, you have got a very excellent brain to deal with the job and a fair-minded man as well. Nevertheless, I think the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) is a most important one. When you train your men up in the Civil Service for a long time to occupy eventually a position of very great trust at the top of the Civil Service, you should be very reluctant to take them out of it and put them in an outside job. It is not a good precedent.
      Then I should like to ask some questions about those who are getting seven guineas a day with a guarantee of a 100-day year. Was any sort of provision made as to how long those days should be? I do not mean on the basis of an eight-hour day, and so on, but I do think that we should have some more information as regards those people. It does not seem a satisfactory position that, having set up this new Royal Commission, you should come and ask us for a particular Estimate for these men, and we should suddenly have flung at the head of the House of Commons these new salaries without having a proper occasion to go into them and consider them fully. I now begin to realise why such tremendous efforts were made earlier in the day to keep a large number of Members out of the House. The Government Whips knew very well that this very bad Estimate was coming on. This rather difficult task had to be overcome, and they made every effort to keep us away.
      I wish to protest against salaries of this kind at this particular time being paid without any justification whatever from the Minister. It is an illustration of the absolute folly of many of the things which are happening at present, when you are merely setting up Government Department after Government Department for the sake of paying large salaries to a large number of people, and the result is you get absolutely nothing in return for the money. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend behind me will press this

      2411
      Amendment to a Division, and I shall certainly be delighted to go into the Lobby as a general protest, not against any particular salary, but against the system of perpetually placing more and more citizens of this country on a salaried basis where they are not doing anything towards the upkeep of the country as a whole.
      Sir DENNIS HERBERT: As far as I have been able to gather from this discussion, this is just an example—
      Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in describing the character of a discussion when he has not heard it?
      The CHAIRMAN: I called upon the hon. Member, and that is sufficient.
      Sir D. HERBERT: I may have begun my introductory words with a certain sort of apology for the time I was not here, but I have been here quite sufficient time to justify what I intend to say. This is one of the examples of the unfortunate methods of our procedure in regard to Supplementary Estimates, where we suddenly get flung upon us, in the course of a discussion in Committee, information of which we have no knowledge beforehand. I should be very interested if the hon. Member who interrupted me just now on a point of Order can sincerely say that he knew anything more about this Estimate than I do at present. It must be quite clear that the Government have appointed to a position, at a salary of £7,000 a year, a gentleman who was at the head of the Civil Service at a salary which was half that amount. If the Government had in the Civil Service a man who was fit to do that business, why should they pay him a higher salary than he can ever hope to attain in that business which he had gone into as his Life work? As far as I can gather, the only answer which has been given is that in return he is giving up certain pension rights. I want to know specifically from the hon. Gentleman, when he has got a civil servant whom he considers capable of doing this work, what justification he has for putting him on to work on an entirely different basis at an increased salary, and getting him to give up his pension rights, instead of asking him to do that work on the same basis as every other
      2412
      civil servant does his job, namely, that of a salary and certain pension rights? It is obvious that the Government on this occasion have adopted a course which, I say, without any hesitation, is absolutely without precedent.
      In the circumstances, as the matter has been sprung upon this Committee without any previous knowledge of this unprecedented course of action, I desire to reinforce very strongly the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), that the Minister should withdraw this Supplementary Estimate for further consideration at a future date. I can only suggest that, if he does not do so, the matter is scarcely likely to end here. It is obviously a very serious matter. It is an entirely new matter, it is a complete departure from all the ordinary practice in regard to the employment of persons in the Civil Service, and it requires far more explanation than we have received up to the present. I think that perhaps the best thing the Minister could do would be to give the best explanation he can at the moment, and then ask leave to withdraw this Vote for further consideration at some future date, when the House has had a real opportunity of considering the circumstances which have been brought to our knowledge unexpectedly and for the first time to-night.
      Mr. SHINWELL: As there has been a challenge front hon. Members opposite with respect to the possible withdrawal of this Supplementary Estimate, I think I ought to make the position perfectly clear at once. We have no intention of withdrawing this Supplementary Estimate. It is quite clear to me that hon. Members opposite are much more concerned about the activities of the Reorganisation Commission than they are about the emoluments that are to be paid; and that is quite consistent with their action during the period when the Coal Mines Bill was passing through the House. It was the opinion of the House at that time, and it is the opinion of Members on this side and below the Gangway opposite, that the Reorganisation Commissioners are capable of performing very useful functions in relation to a very distressed industry, and, in these circumstances, it is important to get the very best men for the purpose intended.

      2413
      What was the position? We had to secure the services of the most competent person we could find as Chairman of this Commission, and I confess at once that we found the task somewhat difficult. We endeavoured to secure the services of influential men in the business world capable of handling an intricate problem, as this is; but we had considerable difficulty. Eventually it was decided to secure the services of this eminent civil servant, and in doing so we had to consider certain facts. In the first place, there was the fact that he was occupying an important position in the Civil Service. That is not denied by hon. Members opposite. Secondly, he had to forego substantial pension rights; while, in addition, the work was of a most onerous character, and the brunt of it is falling upon his shoulders, for the work of the other commissioners is very largely of an advisory character. Moreover, this amount was, having regard to capitalist economics, the market price.
      I do not defend a salary of this description for a single moment in normal circumstances, but we are not living in normal circumstances; we are living in capitalist circumstances. When we speak of a market price, we are not speaking in terms of economic equality with regard to any individual, whoever he is, whether he be an eminent civil servant or a lowly paid civil servant; we are speaking in terms of the salary that it is necessary to offer in order to secure the services of the person who, in our opinion, is most competent to perform this work. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), while agreeing that Sir Ernest Gowers was quite competent for this task, observed that his salary, having regard to the fact that Sir Ernest Gowers had left the Civil Service to take over this post, ought not to have been increased to any extent, and he disputed my proposition that the case of Sir Andrew Duncan was analogous. I venture to join issue with him on that point. It is analogous, because Sir Andrew Duncan was associated with the Civil Service before he became Chairman of the Electricity Board. He was Coal Controller for a considerable period, and, at all events, he was a semi-civil servant, closely associated for a period
      2414
      with the Civil Service. Then he entered business life, securing the market price for the particular position which he then occupied, and he afterwards became Chairman of the Electricity Board. I am not certain which Government was responsible for the appointment, but in any event, if the Chairman of the Electricity Board—I am speaking again of the existing capitalist situation—deserves a salary of between £7,000 and £8,000 annually, I venture to say that in the existing circumstances, having regard to the important nature of the task devolving upon Sir Ernest Growers in effecting amalgamations in the mining industry, the salary is not higher than ought to be paid.
      I should be prepared to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) if the circumstances were different, but, unfortunately, they are not. No one is more anxious than my hon. Friend to promote amalgamations in the mining fields, and I think he would be the last to desire any interference with the functions of the Reorganisation Commission. Indeed, he said that he expected much more work to be done in the course of the two months that had elapsed since the appointments were made. My reply to that is that the ground must be surveyed, the secretariat associated with the Commission must get to work, and professional and technical inquiries of all sorts have to be conducted before any definite amalgamation proposals can ensue. In these circumstances, it is not too much to ask that my hon. Friend and others should await the conclusion of the present preliminary investigations. While I am, generally speaking, in agreement in principle in relation to the salaries that are now being offered in certain directions, yet the importance of promoting the work of amalgamation in the mining fields cannot be subordinated at this moment to the question of what a proper salary should be. The appointment has been made.
      It is all very well for hon. Members opposite. They dislike amalgamation, and it is their anti-amalgamation bias that has made them speak as they have done. [Interruption.] I am not to be deceived by the attitude of hon. Members opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor's statement was a per-

      2415
      fectly proper one, because he believes in amalgamations. He believes that in proper circumstances salaries should be lower than they are. Hon. Members opposite believe wages should be lower than they are. That is rather a different proposition. The one thing they believe in, and the one thing they are endeavouring to secure, is the disruption of the Reorganisation Commission, and that we are determined to prevent. Whatever success may attend the difficulties of the Reorganisation Commission, we on these benches, and hon. Members below the Gangway, expect fruitful results and we want to support it in every possible direction. In these circumstances I ask the Committee to agree to the Vote, the circumstances being abnormal owing to the fact that we had to secure the best services for the purpose and, in addition, that we encountered serious difficulties before we obtained the right material for the post.
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am rather surprised that the Minister should construe the very legitimate criticism of this very generous salary, a criticism made on both sides of the Committee, as an attack upon the Reorganisation Commission. In fact I should have thought such an attack would be out of order, as the bulk of the criticism has been levelled, quite rightly, at the salary which the Minister is defending. It will be perfectly feasible for him to withdraw the Estimate and to produce a revised salary for this official without in any way endangering the work of the Reorganisation Commission. It is obvious that the Committee on both sides are surprised and shocked at the magnitude of the amount. When we debated the matter in Committee on the Coal Mines Bill a year ago, the President of the Board of Trade, in reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), said that the remuneration of the commissioners would probably be a comparatively small element and by far the greater part of the expenditure would relate to the legal, technical and other interests involved.
      Mr. SHINWELL: Financial provision was made, when the Bill was passing through the House, to the extent of £250,000, and the emoluments of these
      2416
      appointments are a small proportion of that.
      Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I quite understand the Minister's point but, as far as we have gone at present, it would appear that the greater part of the £6,000 that has been spent in two months was for salaries and incidental expenses to salaries. As regards living under capitalism, in some ways the Minister's argument is very encouraging, because in an era like this, in a hybrid state of capitalism, you can get what you want, and the future for certain capitalists is very favourable so long as the Minister has a majority behind him. In any event, even under capitalism, I should be surprised to find that it was not possible to obtain capitalists of considerable repute for half the salary that is now proposed. Yet throughout the whole of these proceedings I have felt increasing sympathy for the Minister. This Reorganisation Commission is not his child. It is a foundling. He has to look after it, and he has now been compelled to pay a most extravagant sum to the nurse. Before my hon. Friend moved the Amendment, the Liberal benches were untenanted. It is now encouraging to note that some of the parents of this child are present and, in their zeal for economy, we shall be interested to hear some contribution from them as to whether or not this is the kind of salary which they contemplated when they set up this Commission. I very much hope the sense of the Committee will be that the Minister should withdraw his Estimate and produce another with a salary more commensurate with what the ideas of the House should be, and, I think, are.
      Mr. HAYCOCK: We are told this is a real crisis in our financial affairs because we are going to spend £7,000 on a civil servant. I wonder if our friends opposite have any sense of proportion at all? I have been sitting here while they have been wasting time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I withdraw. I have discovered that the country is now rapidly going to the dogs and there is a serious economic crisis because of this £7,000, which actually amounts to 28 minutes interest on the War Debt. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who told you that?"] A 14-year-old school girl can work that out and I pay you the very great compliment that you are nearly

      2417
      as clever as a 14-year-old school girl. We are all interested in economy and we know what it costs to build a battleship.
      Mr. CULVERWELL: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss battleships?
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is trying to make a comparison.
      Mr. HAYCOCK: I am merely trying to show you how generous you can be without raising any objection and how stingy you can be with things that really matter.
      Major GEORGE DAVIES: On a point of Order. Is it in order to accuse you, Sir, of stinginess?
      Mr. HAYCOCK: I certainly would not accuse the Deputy-Speaker of stinginess.
      Major DAVIES: On a point of Order. Is it in order to address you, Sir, as Deputy-Speaker?
      The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I shall have to call the hon. and gallant Gentleman to order.
      Mr. HAYCOCK: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be named. The interest on one battleship is 28 times this amount. Do we want to put the mining industry in order or not? I know that £7,000 is a very large salary. Under any decent system we should not think of giving one man £7,000 and another, who goes down the mine, £2 a week, but we are not responsible for that system. It is something like 17 times the price of a Member of Parliament, but that is not our fault. It is our misfortune. I think it is very shocking when one knows that nearly as many Members as are on the benches opposite will give their full time working to get a salary that this gentleman is going to get. [Interruption.] Yes, all of you are earning, working together, this £7,000, but we are not responsible for a system where there are anomalies of that character. We have to see that the mines are reorganised, and we have to get the best persons and then pay them. Unfortunately, we have to pay them £7,000, but it is a small sum out of an £800,000,000 Budget. I am getting just a little bit sick of people who will not economise about things that matter and will throw money away on things that do not matter.
      Mr. ALBERY: I do not think there is anybody in this Committee who is not surprised at the item of expense which has been suddenly burst upon us. I do not suggest for one moment that the gentleman who is going to get this £7,000 a year is not worth every penny. I daresay he is. That is probably the view of many hon. Members, but, from what we have heard in this Committee and in the country, that is not the view of hon. Members who sit on the Government benches. If this question is carried to a Division, I shall certainly go in the Lobby against it, not because I do not think the gentleman is entitled to £7,000. I do not know much about that. I have not met him or heard about him before, and I am quite willing to believe that he is worth the money. I shall go into the Division Lobby against this Supplementary Estimate because I am determined to have the satisfaction of seeing hon. Members on the other side of the House who go up and down the country declaring that no one is worth more than £400 a year, going into the Lobby to vote for a salary which they themselves have created, an entirely new salary, of £7,000 a year. If they can do that without feeling, every one of them, to be the hypocrites which they are, I shall be surprised.
      Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I shall have very much pleasure in going into the Lobby in support of the Vote, because I shall be voting for the amalgamation of the mines. The last hon. Member who spoke made it perfectly clear to my mind that he is not opposed to Sir Ernest Gowers getting £7,000. No hon. Member opposite would vote against Sir Ernest Gowers getting £7,000, because Sir Ernest Gowers is a defender of their class. They will go into the Lobby because they are opposed to anything in the nature of reorganisation of the mining industry, and they think that this is a fine opportunity to carry out their objection. If hon. Members who are asking that the Minister should withdraw this Vote had paid attention to what the Minister said, they would be aware of the fact that we have already entered into the agreement whereby this sum of £7,000 to Sir Ernest Gowers, not the market rate, has to be paid annually.
      10.0 p.m.
      I do not hesitate in saying that Sir Ernest Gowers is not worth £7,000 a

      2419
      year, but I will say that if we had to choose a chairman from the Civil Service, there is no one better qualified than Sir Ernest Gowers; not for the reason that he was in the Treasury, but that he was for some years directly and intimately associated with the mining industry as the principal secretary to the Department. From that standpoint, I have no objection. If hon. Members have no feeling against Sir Ernest Gowers, then there is no reason why they should not accept the statement that has been made by the Secretary for Mines. If we had known at the time that this salary was to be paid to the chairman, I do not hesitate to say that we should have taken action and we could have dealt with the matter, and I should have voted against it.
      Mr. ALBERY: May I ask the hon. Member if he means that as long as his Government put up things of this kind without consulting Members of his party, they will continue to support them?
      Mr. GRAHAM: It does not mean anything of the sort. It merely means that, on this side of the Committee, we take the view that once a contract has been entered into we stand by the contract. When we have made an agreement, we keep it. When the employers enter into arrangements, they do not keep them. I have as much sympathy as anybody with the anxiety for economy, and I am not personally very sympathetic to the appointment that has been made, but, in view of all the circumstances, and in view of the fact that a contract has been entered into, we are morally bound to stand by that contract. I hope that everybody on this side of the Committee will give his Vote in favour of this Supplementary Estimate.
      Captain CROOKSHANK: There are one or two questions which have not been answered. The hon. Member who has just spoken takes us to task, because in criticising this Vote he says we are proposing to vote against amalgamation of the mines. He is entirely misguided and wrong. It is not surprising. He should remember that we are dealing with what is on the Statute Book about amalgamation. No vote of this Committee would even be a sort of vote against amalgama-
      2420
      tion. It is absolute rubbish to say things like that, and the hon. Member knows it. What we are talking about is the salary of this gentleman. I think it is a very great pity, and it seems unfortunate, that the names of distinguished people should come up. It is the fault entirely of the Minister. If the Minister had had any kind of frankness he would have put in the notes to this Estimate exactly what it was we were going to be asked. But nothing is there. There is no mention of £7,000 or any pounds at all. It is entirely due to the Minister's lack of frankness.
      Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was perfectly well aware that the information would all be given in the full Estimate.
      Captain CROOKSHANK: I am surprised that the Minister should tell me a thing like that. I know perfectly well that the details would appear in the Estimates in the normal course, but this is a new service, and in the case of new services it is always the custom to put the fullest possible, details into the Supplementary Estimate, and not necessarily to repeat them in the main Estimates of the ensuing year. The first time the House is asked to vote money on a new service is the time when the Committee is entitled to the fullest possible information. If the Secretary for Mines had been frank—I do not blame him; it was not nice for him to have to say to his colleagues that he was to pay a salary of £7,000 a year—it would not have been necessary for him to drag out before the Committee the names of gentlemen who are distinguished in their own professions. No doubt the gentleman whose salary we are discussing will do sterling work in the appointment which he has received.
      The Secretary for Mines says that this appointment is the same as that of one of the Electricity Commissioners. I do not think there is any connection between the two. As I understand it, the gentleman whose salary we are discussing was a civil servant at the time of his appointment while the other gentleman was not a civil servant at all. He was what has been called as "a sort of a civil servant." He had been a coal controller, and he left that to go into business, and was taken from business to be an electricity commissioner. I do not know if that gentle-

      2421
      man had been in the Civil Service or was temporarily attached to it, but if so, he had broken with the Civil Service. This gentleman whose salary we are now discussing never went into business at all. Those of us who have served on various Committees, like the Estimates Committee, know what a valuable civil servant he was, and we should like to pay him a tribute, although it is not necessary for us to do so because his ability has been recognised by the Minister for Mines in making this appointment. I should like to ask whether he has left the Civil Service definitely, or has he been seconded?
      Mr. SHINWELL: I have stated three or four times, and, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been present he would have heard me, that the chairman of the Commissioners has left the Civil Service.
      Captain CROOKSHANK: That is what I wanted to have emphasised. Why did the Minister not second him temporarily for this job? He could have used him temporarily as chairman of the Commission and save one half of the salary that is now being paid. I am reminded that in regard to Subhead C, in the note at the bottom of this Paper, it is stated that the offices of the chairman and secretary are at present held without additional remuneration by the president and secretary of the Industrial Court. What has happened with regard to the pension rights of this gentleman whose salary we are discussing? Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not realise that the whole of this Commission is due to the attitude of the Liberal party when the Bill was going through the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was unable to be here when the Minister spoke before, and it is for his benefit that I am discussing this matter.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I cannot allow those things to be repeated for the sake of anybody who was not present before. I cannot allow them to be repeated over and over again.
      Captain CROOKSHANK: We really cannot get away from the fact that it is illogical for right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite to go up and down the country preaching that £400 or £500 is an overwhelming salary for anybody in business, and then for the Sec-
      2422
      retary for Mines to give a salary of this magnitude without any kind of reason for it. We shall be interested, when the Division comes, to see how many of the Government's supporters are prepared to go into the Lobby to put it on record—just as they said that first-class travelling is necessary for Members of this House—that £7,000 is the lowest possible sum that the Government can give to an official to carry out this work.
      Mr. McGOVERN: I should like to say to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that if he or his official spokesman would state clearly the reasons for the opposition to this Vote the Committee would understand better where they are. If he or his hon. Friends think that they are going to exploit any differences that may exist on this side in regard to the position of the Government, he is making a great mistake, because Members on this side are just as "'cute" as he or any hon. Members opposite. We protest emphatically against salaries of this kind being paid to chairmen who are undertaking to sit 100 days in the year out of 365. I should think that a person who leaves a salary of £3,500 and steps into a "cushy" job at £7,000 a year need not worry about pension rights. I am in favour of reorganisation of the mining industry, and I recognise that hon. Members opposite are opposed to amalgamation and reorganisation and that they intend to challenge the Vote because they want to stick a dagger into the scheme of reorganisation. We have been told that there is hypocrisy on this side of the House, but that can be thrown back at hon. Members opposite regarding the payment of a salary of £7,000 a year, because during their term of office they did nothing but continually set up committees and commissions, members of which had drawn fabulous salaries to which they were not entitled in any shape or form. I refuse to believe that this man is worth £7,000 a year. If I were given the opportunity of voting for or against such a salary I should not have the slightest hesitation in voting against it. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have the opportunity!"] If this matter was freed from the question of amalgamation, I certainly should vote against the payment of that salary, but as a protest against the payment of such a salary, I

      2423
      do not intend to take any part in the voting.
      Although the Secretary for Mines tells us we are living in a capitalist world, I believe that the Government were placed in office to try to rectify some of the wrongs which exist in the capitalist world. I understand that the Minister is not wholly responsible for this appointment, but that he is expected to defend the appointment in some way. I do not think there can be any defence made from the Socialist point of view. While amalgamation is desirable and reorganisation absolutely essential in the interests of the mining industry, we certainly cannot, in these dark days, when we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that economy must be the order of the day, afford to pay a salary of that description to an ex-civil servant. I protest against the payment of such a salary during a time when those engaged in the mining industry are compelled to exist on the meagre amount of 32s. or 33s. which goes into the home to keep a wife and family. It is said that he has relinquished his pension rights. Many miners in this country give up their lives in the interests of the mining industry, and you are certainly less concerned about their lives than you are about the pension rights of an individual of this description. Regarding the undertaking to sit a minimum of 100 days per year, I cannot understand how it is that a commission of this description only undertake to sit 100 days per year. Surely in giving a salary of that description we ought to expect greater service than they are prepared to give in order to reorganise the industry which is at such a very low ebb at the present moment. I do not think that this country should be saddled with the payment of such fabulous sums as we are asked to give these individuals.
      I say again, that had this Vote been freed from the question of amalgamation, I certainly should have voted against the proposal. [HON MEMBERS: "It is freed."] I am convinced that had we been called upon to vote against the £7,000 salary alone there would have been very few heads to count from the other side, because they are certainly the defenders of this type of thing. Now they state that they are prepared to go into the Division Lobby. I want to re-
      2424
      mind them that while they may be very brave in stating that they will go into the Division Lobby against this Vote, they will only do so if they are told by their Front Bench to go into the Lobby. If they are told to stay out, they will do so, and their protest, and their demand for economy in regard to a Vote of this description, will melt into thin air. In connection with the amalgamations we are wholly in favour of the proposals, but we are against a salary of this description.
      Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I wish to intervene in the Debate for two reasons. The first reason is, that I wish to congratulate the Government on having secured the services of Sir Ernest Gowers. When I had the privilege of being the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry, Sir Ernest was the Permanent Secretary of the Mines Department, and my colleagues and I formed the very highest opinion of his capacities. I feel convinced that a better chairman of the Commission could not be found. I should like to give this testimony to the Committee at this moment. My second reason is, that it seems to me most unfair to suggest that Sir Ernest Gowers is to receive a salary of £7,000. That is, not the salary that he is receiving. He is receiving a certain salary, and he is also receiving a commuted compensation for his pension rights, which is included in his salary. Here is a man who has been serving all his life in the Civil Service and has reached one of the highest posts in the Civil Service. He is within sight of his retiring age, and he has through his long service earned very considerable accrued pension rights. I do not know what the capital value may be of what he will sacrifice if he remains with this Commission for the remainder of his working days. When it is said that he is receiving a salary of £7,000 a year, it must be remembered that a large part of that sum has to be assigned to the fair compensation which he is fully entitled to receive for services that he has already rendered, and for pension rights already accrued.
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: We have had a very interesting contribution from the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), and we are entitled

      2425
      to know now whether this distinguished chairman was nominated by the Liberal party.
      The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to keep to the Supplementary Estimate.
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I ask whether there was any consultation?
      The CHAIRMAN: I have asked the hon. and gallant Member to bear in mind that we are in Committee dealing with Supplementary Estimates. We have had a good deal of repetition already.
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: With great respect, we have just had a very interesting contribution on this subject by the right hon. Member for Darwen, which certainly raised an issue. If you will not allow me to go into the matter, of course, I must obey your Ruling.
      The CHAIRMAN: Any question on the issue must be directed to the Minister.
      Sir D. HERBERT: On a point of Order. Am I not right in saying that in this Supplementary Estimate we have a new Service, which covers the salary of the official concerned? If this is a new Service, are we not entitled to discuss anything connected with the appointment of that particular official?
      The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but you are not entitled to discuss whether he was appointed by the Liberal party.
      Sir D. HERBERT: I am asking for a definite Ruling on that particular point, whether, this being a new Service, we are entitled to discuss the question of the appointment of the gentleman whose salary is included as a new Service in this Estimate.
      The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what we have been doing for an hour and a half.
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am much obliged, and I will address the Minister through you. Did the Minister consult the right hon. Member for Darwen on this appointment?
      Sir H. SAMUEL: It may shorten our proceedings if I say that there was no consultation, and that the first I knew of the appointment was when I saw it announced in the Press.
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I take it that there was no consultation with him as to the salary?
      Sir H. SAMUEL: None whatever.
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: This has been a great personal triumph for the Secretary for Mines, upon which I heartily congratulate him. He was faced with a serious revolt on the benches behind him, but a cheery inspiration suggested the word "amalgamation," and immediately he had drawn this red herring across the trail hon. Members behind him went after it, now he has a united party behind him. I congratulate the Secretary for Mines. They have forgotten all about this salary. We have had a very interesting contribution to the Debate from the hon. Member who belongs to the party led by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). He was anxious to vote against this salary of £7,000 until the word "amalgamation" was mentioned. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bridgeton and his followers have not the courage of their opinions on this matter, and that is why the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) is stealing their thunder. This is the party which talks about wages and salaries! This afternoon an hon. Member was suspended who alleged—
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member will kindly discuss the Supplementary Estimate.
      Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Hon. Members opposite who talk about wages and salaries are supporting this £7,000 salary. There is another side to this question. We have had a circular from certain Barnsley miners pointing out how the question of reorganisation is going to affect them, that they cannot get work when they want it, that if they want work they are sent away, and if they do work they have to work at the wrong time. It is perfectly obvious that a reorganisation commission is badly required. All this has happened since the passing of the Coal Mines Act. It was Mr. John Burns who said that no man was worth more than £500 a year, yet this Socialist Government is paying these enormous salaries and at the same time is talking about cutting down the wages of

      2427
      many civil servants who are earning about £3 per week.
      Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I cannot remember when this Committee has had to discuss such a melancholy business as this. I should not be in order if I emphasised the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) that on the very day when we are reducing the wage of the poor postman by 5s. we are appointing a man at a very considerable salary to reorganise the mining industry. We are appointing a man to discharge that duty at a salary which is 50 per cent. higher than the salary of the right hon. Gentleman who is chosen to amalgamate the various groups of the Labour party, and no one will deny that the right hon Gentleman in the task of amalgamating those discordant groups—
      Mr. EDE: What is the matter with amalgamating the groups of the Liberal party?
      Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the hon. Member has followed the happenings of to-day he will realise that "all one body we," and just as we are standing up in another place for a great principle and are not concerned with a form of words—
      The CHAIRMAN: We are not concerned here with anything other than the Estimate before the Committee.
      Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am sorry if I have strayed from the subject in reply to the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman himself provoked the interruptions.
      Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I content myself with saying that in this case we are concerned with a principle, and not with a man, because, on the merits of the appointment, no one who has any contact with Sir Ernest Cowers would deny that he was the best possible man in the country for this work. There is one point, however, which I would like to have made clear. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) suggested that this salary of £7,000 included commutation of pension rights. Is the right hon. Gentleman
      2428
      right in that suggestion? If any civil servant who occupied the post which Sir Ernest Gowers occupied has taken on a job which, by its nature, must be temporary, without getting a capital sum for his pension rights, he has been very unwise indeed, and should not we have a plain answer from the Minister as to whether in addition to this high salary—which is 35 times what a working miner earns—there is any capital sum not hitherto revealed, and somewhere hidden in this Vote?
      Mr. SHINWELL: I can answer that question at once. There is no capital sum.
      Mr. DIXEY: The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said that he could not vote for the reduction of this Estimate because, if he did so, he might jeopardise the amalgamation proposals. If that were the case, I might have to give serious consideration as to how I should register my vote, but I understand that a reduction in this case, if we were successful in carrying it, would only mean the reconsideration of this particular salary. Perhaps the Minister will confirm me if I am right in saying that such a vote would in no way jeopardise the position as regards amalgamation. I listened with great respect, as the Committee always listens with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman who is more or less the father of this Coal Mines Act. He said that included in this salary was a certain amount in respect of pension, which would be due to this distingushed gentleman in the future. What amount would that gentleman have been entitled to in pension There should be no difficulty in the hon. Gentleman informing the Committee. Then we can judge how much of this £7,000 is salary and how much is relied upon as computation. Distinguished as the gentleman is—and I understand that he is a very distinguished civil servant—I should take the same line that I am now taking if, in these times, this proposition had been made by a Conservative Government.
      Mr. MAXTON: Do not talk nonsense! You have a dozen people in the same position.
      Mr. DIXEY: I am as much entitled to my convictions as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and, however much he may have taunted me across the Floor, I have stuck up for my convic-

      2429
      tions as much as he has stuck up for his. I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that in these times of bad trade, when he and his Government are supposed to encourage everybody engaged in trade to cut down; when we have examples of railway companies curtailing directors' fees, and examples of cuts all over the country, it is singularly inadvisable for a Government Department to pay a salary such as this to any gentleman, however distinguished he may be. I suggest that even now at this late stage the hon. Gentleman should accept what is the real feeling of the Committee. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side are making an excuse of amalgamation. They know as well as we do that this is a proposition which the country will not have, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Vote.
      Commander SOUTHBY: As the Mover of the reduction of the Vote by £1,000, I should like to make a point clear in reply to the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). The point has been raised that this is an attack upon amalgamation and reorganisation in the coal industry. There was nothing of that kind in my mind when I moved the reduction, much as I should be glad to make a bad Act better. When a Division is taken on this Amendment, only one issue will be before the Committee, and that is the issue of economy, which people on both sides talk so much about and practise so little. An opportunity is given to the Committee of practising it to-night, and those who go into the Lobby for the reduction will be voting against what is not a proper salary to pay at a time when economy is so necessary.
      Major SALMON: I should like to put to the Minister a question that exercises my mind. Is it a fact that the officer who has been appointed as Chairman of this Commission and who is receiving a salary of £7,000 a year, will be entitled at the end of the five years for which he is appointed to receive a pension in respect of the period up to his appointment as Chairman?
      HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
      The CHAIRMAN: That question has been asked several times.
      Mr. BRACKEN:This is a matter of very considerable importance. I do not
      2430
      doubt that Sir Ernest Gowers' services are of the highest value. It happens that his salary has been very greatly increased by his translation to this new office. This is a matter of great importance, because I understand that Sir Ernest Gowers previously received a salary of £3,000 a year. Why it should suddenly be raised to £7,000 passes my understanding. [Laughter.] I do not think this is a matter for hilarity. Hon. Members opposite object to the payment of very large salaries to anybody. I wish the Minister would tell us directly why this great increase should have been granted.
      The CHAIRMAN: This is all repetition. I have heard that question asked at least six times and it has been answered.
      Mr. BRACKEN: With great respect, Sir—
      HON. MEMBERS: Divide!
      The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is rising for the purpose of asking the same question again I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
      Mr. BRACKEN: With great respect, I myself have not been involved in any repetition, because I am afraid I was not present earlier.
      The CHAIRMAN: That does not; excuse the hon. Member.
      Mr. BRACKEN: Quite so, but I, like every other Member, have a duty to my constituents.
      The CHAIRMAN: I have a duty to this House.
      Mr. BRACKEN: Yes; and I feel that it is a duty to this House that I should ask why £4,000 should be added to the salary of a civil servant and no explanation be given to the House? I do not wish to press this point unduly, but it would facilitate business if we could have an answer.
      Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: It has been answered four times.
      Mr. BRACKEN: The reorganisation of the coal mining industry is a very large undertaking and it seems to be a very bad beginning to add greatly to the salary of the chief civil servant entrusted

      2431
      with the task. I feel it is a duty to the House to ask for an answer on this point.
      Sir D. HERBERT: The Minister interrupted one of my hon. Friends some time ago to say, if I understood him rightly, that the whole question of this gentleman's salary was in the original Estimate. I would like to know where it is to be found.
      Mr. SHINWELL Mr. SHINWELL indicated dissent.
      Sir D. HERBERT: As the Minister apparently does not propose to give any further answer than shaking his head, I desire to call the special attention of the Committee to the remarkable fact that a Minister of the Crown attempts to stifle the criticism of the Opposition by a statement on the Floor of this House that certain things are included in the original Estimate when such is not in accordance with the facts, and that he has not got the grace to apologise for an incorrect statement misleading the House.
      Captain CROOKSHANK: As the Minister does not appear to wish to reply, perhaps I can put the hon. Gentleman right.
      The CHAIRMAN: The same question has been pat and answered many times. I do not say that the reply was satisfactory, or that it was unsatisfactory, but hon. Members must at least accept the explanation.
      Major SALMON: May I have an answer to the question which I put to the Minister?
      The CHAIRMAN: The same question has been put, perhaps not in the hon. Member's words, but in other words.
      Mr. DIXEY: May I put one question which has not been answered? What is the amount of the pension to which this gentleman would have been entitled if he had remained in his other position?
      Mr. ALBERY: I think we are entitled to know the exact position of this gentleman with regard to his pension, and I hope the Minister will give us a reply on that point.
      Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I think the Committee is entitled to an answer to
      2432
      this question. We know that the salary is £7,000 a year and that Sir Ernest Gowers has sacrificed some pension rights. We have also been told that there is no capital sum, but we have not been told what is the amount of the pension rights. Surely the Committee is entitled to that information, and I see no reason why we should not have it. If there has been no capital sum, if pension rights have been relinquished, we should be told what is the amount of those pension rights.
      Mr. SHINWELL: I have replied to these questions on more than one occasion, and I reserve my right to reply on the variations of those questions which have been raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I did not raise the question of pension rights in my original speech, and that was put to me afterwards. The Government defence for paying this salary is that we were desirous of securing the best possible man for this post. We tried in many directions. Eventually we secured the services of Sir Ernest Gowers at the salary which has been announced. If hon. Members object to Sir Ernest Gowers occupying this position, they must say so, but hon. Members have ventured the opinion that he is the right man for the post. The hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken), who made a very belated appearance in this Debate, is hardly a competent judge, but responsible Members on the other side who have given the Debate very serious attention are entitled to some consideration in reply. The position is that we had to secure the best man we could, and, in our judgment, Sir Ernest Gowers is the best man. We think, in all the circumstances, he is receiving a salary commensurate with the task involved. I have said more than once that if I had to frame a salary in different circumstances in terms of economic equality I should be very reluctant to do so, but when we endeavoured to secure the services of Sir Ernest Gowers and found that only on the condition that such a salary was to be paid could those services be secured, we felt no reluctance whatever, having regard to the need for his services, in paying the salary.
      The question of pension rights was superimposed by hon. Members opposite. It is perfectly clear that Sir Ernest

      2433
      Gowers, in stipulating for this salary, had in mind the loss of pension rights—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"]—involved in severing his connection with the Civil Service. Hon. Members are hardly entitled to ask me what exactly the amount of the pension rights is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For the reasons I have stated. First of all, this is not the appropriate occasion for considering all the details involved in the original Estimate. That occasion will arise at the appropriate moment when the Estimate is presented to the House, and, no doubt, I or a responsible Minister, on behalf of the Treasury, will be able to furnish the necessary answer. For the moment, the question does not arise. Lastly, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the opposition on the other side is inspired by one consideration, and one consideration alone, and that is their definite opposition to amalgamations. We on this side are not to be deceived by such a subterfuge.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman has fenced with the question which has been put to him quite courteously and in a straightforward way. He knows as well as I know that civil servants are entitled to a pension calculated on a proper formula which is known to the whole House. There is nothing secret about it. He can tell us the number of years standing to the record of this very excellent civil servant and multiply them by the appropriate formula, and we can then hear without any fencing what was the amount which was surrendered. He has answered all in-
      quiries by saying there is nothing wrong and nothing to conceal. There may be, and probably is, nothing wrong, but why should he want to conceal anything?
      We can hear in a moment how much the surrender has been. When Sir Ernest Gowers made his terms, we understand from the hon. Gentleman that he surrendered a certain amount of rights—[Interruption]—all his rights, and the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway elaborated that theme. He said, with what justification I do not know, that in the £7,000 a year there was included something to cover the amount which was due to Sir Ernest Gowers and which he had surrendered—the amount which he could have taken in cash if he had retired and not taken on this job. The hon. Gentleman said, if I remember rightly—I hope I am not misrepresenting him—that in calculating this salary some consideration was included for whatever would be the cash value of the amount of pension due, and we want to know what that consideration was. We are perfectly ready to believe that there is nothing sinister behind this, but, when an attempt at concealment is made, we attach to it a very serious interpretation.
      Mr. SHINWELL Mr. SHINWELL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
      Question put, "That the Question be now put."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 90.

      Division No. 172.]

      AYES.

      [10.57 p.m.

      Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

      Cameron, A. G.

      Glassey, A. E.

      Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

      Cape, Thomas

      Gossling, A. G.

      Ammon, Charles George

      Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

      Angell, Sir Norman

      Charleton, H. C.

      Gray, Milner

      Arnott, John

      Clarke, J. S.

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins)

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Cluse, W. S.

      Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

      Ayles, Walter

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

      Barnes, Alfred John

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

      Barr, James

      Daggar, George

      Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

      Batey, Joseph

      Dallas, George

      Harris, Percy A.

      Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

      Dalton, Hugh

      Hastings, Dr. Somerville

      Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Haycock, A. W.

      Benson, G.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hayday, Arthur

      Birkett, W. Norman

      Dukes, C.

      Hayes, John Henry

      Blindell, James

      Duncan, Charles

      Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

      Bowen, J. W.

      Ede, James Chuter

      Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

      Broad, Francis Alfred

      Edwards. E. (Morpeth)

      Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

      Bromfield, William

      Elmley, Viscount

      Herriotts, J.

      Bromley, J.

      England, Colonel A.

      Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

      Brooke, W.

      Foot, Isaac

      Hoffman, P. C.

      Brothers, M.

      Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

      Hopkin, Daniel

      Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Eiland)

      George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

      Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

      Caine, Derwent Hall

      Gill, T. H.

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Leil (Camborne)

      Milner, Major J.

      Shiels, Dr. Drummond

      Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

      Montague, Frederick

      Shillaker, J. F.

      Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

      Morgan, Dr. H. B.

      Shinwell, E.

      Kelly, W. T.

      Morley, Ralph

      Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Mort, D. L.

      Simmons, C. J.

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Muggeridge, H. T.

      Sitch, Charles H.

      Lathan, G.

      Murnin, Hugh

      Smith, Ben (Sermondsey, Rotherhithe)

      Law, Albert (Bolton)

      Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter)

      Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

      Law, A. (Rossendale)

      Noel Baker, P. J.

      Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

      Lawrence, Susan

      Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

      Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

      Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

      Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

      Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

      Lawson, John James

      Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

      Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

      Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

      Palin, John Henry

      Sorensen, R.

      Leach, W.

      Palmer, E. T.

      Stamford, Thomas W.

      Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

      Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

      Stephen, Campbell

      Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

      Peters, Dr. Sidney John

      Strauss, G. R.

      Lewis, T. (Southampton)

      Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

      Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

      Lindley, Fred W.

      Phillips, Dr. Marion

      Thurtle, Ernest

      Lloyd, C. Ellis

      Pole, Major D. G.

      Tillett, Ben

      Longbottom, A. W.

      Potts, John S.

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Longden, F.

      Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

      Toole, Joseph

      Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

      Rathbone, Eleanor

      Walkden, A. G.

      Lunn, William

      Raynes, W. R.

      Walker, J.

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      Richards, R.

      Wallace, H. W.

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

      McElwee, A.

      Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

      Welsh, James (Paisley)

      McEntee, V. L.

      Ritson, J.

      Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

      McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

      Romeril, H. G.

      Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

      MacLaren, Andrew

      Rosbotham, D. S. T.

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      McShane, John James

      Rowson, Guy

      Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

      Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

      Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

      Mander, Geoffrey le M.

      Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

      Wilson, J. (Oldham)

      Manning, E. L.

      Sanders, W. S.

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

      Marley, J.

      Sawyer, G. F.

      Wise, E. F.

      Marshall, Fred

      Sexton, Sir James

      Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

      Mathers, George

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

      Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

      Matters, L. W.

      Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

      Maxton, James

      Sherwood, G. H.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Middleton, G.

      Shield, George William

      Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

      Paling.

      NOES.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Falle, Sir Bertram G.

      Muirhead, A. J.

      Albery, Irving James

      Ferguson, Sir John

      O'Connor, T. J.

      Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

      Ford, Sir P. J.

      Ramsbotham, H.

      Aske, Sir Robert

      Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

      Remer, John R.

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

      Ganzonl, Sir John

      Reynolds, Col. Sir James

      Bird, Ernest Roy

      Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

      Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

      Boothby, R. J. G.

      Glyn, Major R. G. C.

      Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

      Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

      Greene, W. P. Crawford

      Ross, Ronald D.

      Bracken, B.

      Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London]

      Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

      Briscoe, Richard George

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Salmon, Major I.

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

      Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

      Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Burgin, Dr. E. L.

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Simms, Major-General J.

      Butler, R. A.

      Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

      Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

      Colville, Major D. J.

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

      Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

      Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

      Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsay, Gainsbro)

      Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

      Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

      Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

      Inskip, Sir Thomas

      Southby, Commander A. R. J.

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

      Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

      Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

      Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

      Little, Sir Ernest Graham

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

      Llewellin, Major J. J

      Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

      Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

      Dixey, A. C.

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

      Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

      Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

      Womersley, W. J.

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

      Elliot, Major Walter E.

      Morris, Rhys Hopkins

      Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)

      Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

      Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

      Sir George Bowyer.

      Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £13,100, be granted for the said Service."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 156.

      Division No. 173.]

      AYES.

      [11.7 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

      Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

      Birkett, W. Norman

      Albery, Irving James

      Aske, Sir Robert

      Boothby, R. J. G.

      Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

      Bird, Ernest Roy

      Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

      Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

      Ganzonl, Sir John

      Peters, Dr. Sidney John

      Bracken, B.

      Glyn, Major R. G. C.

      Ramsbotham, H.

      Briscoe, Richard George

      Greene, W. P. Crawford

      Remer, John R.

      Bromley, J.

      Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

      Reynolds, Col. Sir James

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

      Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

      Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

      Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

      Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

      Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Ross, Ronald D.

      Burgin, Dr. E. L.

      Harris, Percy A.

      Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

      Butler, R. A.

      Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

      Salmon, Major I.

      Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

      Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Colman, N. C. D.

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

      Colville, Major D. J.

      Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

      Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

      Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

      Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

      Simms, Major-General J.

      Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

      Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

      Inskip, Sir Thomas

      Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Lamb, Sir J. Q.

      smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

      Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

      Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

      Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

      Little, Sir Ernest Graham

      Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Llewellin, Major J. J.

      Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

      Dixey, A. C.

      Locker-Lempson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

      Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

      Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

      Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

      Thomson, Sir F,

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

      Elliot, Major Walter E.

      Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

      Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

      England, Colonel A.

      Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

      Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

      Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

      Morris, Rhys Hopkins

      Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

      Womersley, W. J.

      Falle, Sir Bertram G.

      Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

      Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

      Ferguson, Sir John

      Muirhead, A. J.

      Ford, Sir P. J.

      O'Connor, T. J.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

      Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

      Commander Southby and Captain

      Hudson.

      NOES.

      Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

      Herriotts, J.

      Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

      Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

      Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

      Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

      Ammon, Charles George

      Hoffman, P. C.

      Phillips, Dr. Marion

      Angell, Sir Norman

      Hopkin, Daniel

      Pole, Major D. G.

      Arnott, John

      Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

      Potts, John S.

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph

      Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

      Ayles, Walter

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

      Rathbone, Eleanor

      Barr, James

      Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

      Raynes, W. R.

      Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

      Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Richards, R.

      Benson, G.

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon George

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Broad, Francis Alfred

      Lathan, G.

      Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

      Bromfield, William

      Law, Albert (Bolton)

      Ritson J.

      Brooke, W.

      Law, A. (Rossendale)

      Romeril, H. G.

      Brothers, M.

      Lawrence, Susan

      Rosbotham, D. S. T.

      Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

      Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

      Rowson, Guy

      Cameron, A. G.

      Lawson, John James

      Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

      Cape, Thomas

      Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

      Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

      Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

      Leach, W.

      Sanders, W. S.

      Charleton, H. C.

      Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

      Sawyer, G. F.

      Clarke, J. S.

      Lewis, T. (Southampton)

      Sexton, Sir James

      Cluse, W. S.

      Lindley, Fred W.

      Shaw, Rt. Hon, Thomas (Preston)

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

      Lloyd, C. Ellis

      Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Longbottom, A W.

      Sherwood, G. H.

      Daggar, George

      Longden, F.

      Shield, George William

      Dallas, George

      Lunn, William

      Shiels, Dr. Drummond

      Dalton, Hugh

      Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

      Shillaker, J. F.

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Shinwell, E.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      McElwee, A.

      Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

      Dukes, C.

      McEntee, V. L.

      Simmons, C. J.

      Duncan, Charles

      Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

      Sitch, Charles H.

      Ede, James Chuter

      Mander, Geoffrey le M.

      Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

      Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

      Manning, E. L.

      Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

      Elmley, Viscount

      Marley, J.

      Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

      Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

      Marshall, Fred

      Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

      Gill, T. H.

      Mathers, George

      Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

      Glassey, A. E.

      Matters, L. W.

      Sorensen, H.

      Gossling, A. G.

      Middleton, G.

      Stamford, Thomas W.

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

      Milner, Major J.

      Strauss, G. R.

      Gray, Milner

      Montague, Frederick

      Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).

      Morgan, Dr. H. B.

      Thurtle, Ernest

      Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

      Morley, Ralph

      Tillett, Ben

      Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

      Mort, D. L.

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

      Muggeridge, H. T.

      Toole, Joseph

      Hastings, Dr. Somerville

      Murnin, Hugh

      Walkden, A. G.

      Haycock, A. W.

      Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

      Walker, J.

      Hayday, Arthur

      Noel Baker, P. J.

      Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

      Hayes, John Henry

      Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

      Welsh, James (Paisley)

      Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

      Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

      Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

      Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

      Palin, John Henry.

      Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

      Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

      Palmer, E. T.

      Williams, David (Swansea, East)

      2438

      2439

      Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

      Wise, E. F.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Wilson, J. (Oldham)

      Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

      Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

      Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

      Paling.

      Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VIII.

      MERCHANT SEAMEN'S WAR PENSIONS.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for War Pensions and Allowances (including cost of Treatment) to Merchant Seamen and Fishermen and their Dependants and the Administrative Expenses connected therewith."
      Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I rather welcome this Supplementary Estimate, and I hope that it is a sign that the cases of those seamen and fishermen who suffered during the War are going to receive somewhat more sympathetic consideration than they have received up to the present. I will go as far as to say that I am rather glad to think that a case which I brought forward may in some way actually be responsible for playing some part in the responsibility for this Supplementary Estimate. The case, of which there have been a very large number in the constituency which I represent, is that of a man who was not in the Navy and not even in the mine sweepers but who performed useful service in working between England and the Continent. His vessel was torpedoed, and although he was not actually injured, he spent a very considerable time immersed in the icy waters of the North Sea. After some little time and recuperation, he was able to carry on his normal duties, and was even well enough to keep on for some years, but the time came when he was unable to carry on his work as usual, and in due course he died. Although it was not actually possible to say that his death was directly attributable to that long immersion in the ocean, the fact remains that the doctor said that there was not the least doubt that it was at any rate partially due to it. I am thankful that some compensation was granted to his family. That is typical of many cases that have occurred in my constituency. I take it as a hopeful sign that this Supplementary Estimate may indicate that cases like that, of which there are several coming
      2440
      on at the present time, may receive somewhat more sympathetic consideration than they have received up to the present time.
      Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  REPORT [19TH FEBRUARY].
  Resolution reported.
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.
    CLASS II.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £400,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid."
  REPORT [24TH FEBRUARY.]
  Resolutions reported.
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930.

    CLASS I.
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons."
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."
    3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries of the Establishment under the Public Works Loan Commission and the Expenses of the Commission."

    CLASS III.
    4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in

    2441
    course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department, the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."

    CLASS VII.
    5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £70,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Property in the occupation of the Crown for the Public Service, and for Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers; and to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."
    CLASS VIII.
    6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Expenses of Pensions, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities awarded to retired and disbanded members and staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to widows and children of such members, including annuities to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of commutation of Compensation Allowances and certain extra-Statutory Payments."
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL [Lords.]
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to ancient monuments, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of all expenses incurred by the Commissioners of
  2442
  Works under the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Lansbury.]
  Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea what this is going to cost?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): This Bill has been unanimously agreed to by another place, and the expenses that will be incurred are in connection with compensation if we require to take any property, and also to pay some Stamp Duties which are necessary in the transfer of certain property under the Bill. It is not expected that the expenses will be heavy in any one year, but no expenditure can be undertaken without the assent of the House being given to the particular item.
  Major ELLIOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the general principles upon which the Bill is framed? I understand that it will secure the preservation of the Roman Wall, a question in which the right hon. Gentleman has taken deep interest.
  Mr. LANSBURY: There are two purposes upon which the money may be used. We shall be able to come to the assistance of local authorities under the Town Planning Act, if they consider that any property needs preservation. In the case of the Roman Wall we shall be able to preserve the amenities of the wall as well as the Wall itself. The Bill also applies to other ancient monuments. We do not expect that large sums will be required for anything of that kind, and every claim for compensation will go to arbitration in exactly the same manner as claims in connection with a town planning scheme.
  Major ELLIOT: Does the Minister expect to be able to lay a scheme dealing with the wall before the House of Commons in the near future?
  Mr. LANSBURY: That we are not sure of. While I have said "in the near future," it will take us a good time to get it all surveyed and to know exactly the parts we want to schedule under the new Act.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty - Six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  CADETSHIPS (CANDIDATES, SCHOOLS).
  CADETSHIPS (CANDIDATES, SCHOOLS).
  RECRUITING STAFF OFFICERS.
  RECRUITING STAFF OFFICERS.
  SUPPLY PROBATIONERS (EXAMINATION).
  SUPPLY PROBATIONERS (EXAMINATION).
  ADMIRALTY STAFF.
  ADMIRALTY STAFF.
  CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIRS, PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.
  CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIRS, PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.
  MEAT SUPPLY.
  MEAT SUPPLY.
  SCHOOL OF MUSIC (QUARTERS, EASTNEY).
  SCHOOL OF MUSIC (QUARTERS, EASTNEY).
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  SURPLUS WHEAT STOCKS (CONFERENCE).
  SURPLUS WHEAT STOCKS (CONFERENCE).
  PETITION, MACEDONIANS.
  PETITION, MACEDONIANS.
  BURMA DEFENCE FORCE (COMMITTEE).
  BURMA DEFENCE FORCE (COMMITTEE).
  TRANSPORT FACILITIES, RIVER FORTH.
  TRANSPORT FACILITIES, RIVER FORTH.
  NURSERY SCHOOLS.
  NURSERY SCHOOLS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  CARPET-MAKING INDUSTRY.
  CARPET-MAKING INDUSTRY.
  NEW EXCHANGE, MACCLESFIELD.
  NEW EXCHANGE, MACCLESFIELD.
  INSURANCE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  INSURANCE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  TEMPORARY EXCHANGE PREMISES.
  TEMPORARY EXCHANGE PREMISES.
  TAILORING INDUSTRY.
  TAILORING INDUSTRY.
  CLERICAL STAFF (COST).
  CLERICAL STAFF (COST).
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CHANNEL ISLANDS.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CHANNEL ISLANDS.
  MAIL BAGS (MANUFACTURE).
  MAIL BAGS (MANUFACTURE).
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX NUMBER.
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX NUMBER.
  ALIENS (MINISTRY OF LABOUR PERMITS).
  ALIENS (MINISTRY OF LABOUR PERMITS).
HOUSING.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  SLUM CLEARANCE SCHEMES, LONDON.
  SLUM CLEARANCE SCHEMES, LONDON.
  LIGHTING AND HEATING.
  LIGHTING AND HEATING.
  RURAL AREAS.
  RURAL AREAS.
  LOANS.
  LOANS.
RATING RELIEF.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  ISLE OF WIGHT.
  ISLE OF WIGHT.
POOR LAW.
  INSTITITUIONS (COST).
  INSTITITUIONS (COST).
  TEST WORK.
  TEST WORK.
  RATES (POUNDAGE).
  RATES (POUNDAGE).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  VACCINATION (OFFICERS).
  VACCINATION (OFFICERS).
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  MUNICIPAL EMPLOYES (SUPERANNUATION).
  MUNICIPAL EMPLOYES (SUPERANNUATION).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (Ex-SERVICE MEN).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (Ex-SERVICE MEN).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (JOURNAL).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (JOURNAL).
  SALARIES.
  SALARIES.
  PENSIONS.
  PENSIONS.
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  LAND PURCHASE, IRELAND.
  LAND PURCHASE, IRELAND.
  SILVER (STABILISATION).
  SILVER (STABILISATION).
  SOCIAL SERVICES.
  SOCIAL SERVICES.
RUSSIA.
  TRADE, UNITED KINGDOM.
  TRADE, UNITED KINGDOM.
  EMBASSY, LONDON (RATES).
  EMBASSY, LONDON (RATES).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS.
AGRICULTURE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  WAGES, SUFFOLK.
  WAGES, SUFFOLK.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  GOVERNMENT BILLS.
  GOVERNMENT BILLS.
  ARABLE FARM WORKERS.
  ARABLE FARM WORKERS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CALDER AND HEBBLE NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
NEW JUNCTION CANAL BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

BUCKROSE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Special Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMIT) REGULATIONS, 1931.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Regulations, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Regulations as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not know whether I might ask my noble friend to tell us exactly what this Resolution means. I am afraid I have not been able quite to follow it. It is a Resolution which appears to alter the Schedule of the Act of last year. I do not know whether it would be in order, but perhaps I might ask my noble friend when the Highway Code is likely to be presented to your Lordships for approval, and whether,
140
before it is presented, it will be possible for the Government to give some information as to how far the Road Traffic Act has been successful in diminishing the number of road accidents.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, with regard to the second question which the noble Viscount put to me, the Highway Code has now been drawn up, and is in the printers' hands, and will be submitted to both Houses of Parliament quite shortly, with due notice. With regard to the possibility of the Ministry of Transport being able to give any list of accidents comparing the period since the Road Traffic Act has been in force with the previous period. I would not like to commit myself. After all, the period has been a comparatively short one for us really to draw any inferences. The noble Viscount asked for some explanation, as he very well might, of this Regulation, which is the first of its kind that has been submitted in this way. There is really no variation of speed in the strict sense of the word. It is a correction in the First Schedule of the Road Traffic Act under which at present the maximum speed limit of five miles an hour would be enforced on goods-carrying motor cycles. This was never intended, and therefore goods-carrying motor cycles are being put into the list of those vehicles which are allowed to travel at a maximum speed of thirty miles an hour. There is also a Regulation to authorise a fire engine or ambulance when being used for its proper purpose to exceed the speed limit.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHINA INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, this Bill is entirely of a non-controversial character. As the former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Locker-Lampson, said in another place, it carries out substantially the policy of the Foreign Secretary in the last Government. Nevertheless, perhaps I should give some little explanation of the Bill with a short account of its history, as your Lordships may desire

141
to know why the Act of 1925 should be repealed and this Act substituted for it. Your Lordships will remember that the British Boxer Indemnity was £7,600,000 in 1900, and it was bearing interest at 4 per cent. Payments ceased in 1917 till 1922, and the period of repayment was extended to 1945. Payments were resumed in December, 1922, and, up to June, 1930, amounted with interest, roughly, to £3,500,000. To the end of 1945 the further sum receivable will amount to £7,850,000.
His Majesty's Government in 1922 announced that they desired to devote the proceeds of the British share of the Boxer Indemnity to projects equally beneficial to China and Great Britain. A Bill was prepared and eventually passed. An attempt was made in 1924 when the Labour Government was in office. It was revived in 1925 and that Bill—the China Indemnity (Application) Bill—was passed into law. By it payments were to be devoted to such educational and other purposes beneficial to the mutual interests of His Majesty and the Republic of China as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, after consultation with an Advisory Committee established under the Act, might from time to lime determine. An Advisory Committee was set up consisting of eleven persons, three of whom were Chinese. Subsequently, in order to get first-hand information, a delegation under Lord Willingdon was sent to China and submitted a detailed Report. This Report by the Advisory Committee was issued in 1926. Perhaps I might be allowed to pause here in order to offer a tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, who I am glad to see in his place here to-day.
EARL PEEL: In his new place to-day.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am not quite sure where the Liberals will sit next. The noble Earl who was Chairman of the Advisory Committee, not only devoted time and labour to the production of the Report but has rendered signal service in formulating the lines on which various educational objects in China may best be stimulated. The thanks of His Majesty's Government, as well as those of our predecessors, are due to him for this very fine piece of public work, which is by no means wasted under the new provisions contained in the present Bill. It was recommended that
142
the Fund should not be limited to strictly educational purposes, but that a considerable portion should be invested in useful reproductive undertakings directly advantageous to China, that this investment should ultimately provide a permanent educational endowment, and that the word "educational" should be approached in its widest sense to include research. Then, from 1926 to 1928, came the disturbed period in China, when there was civil war and no Government that could be recognised. Everything was suspended during that period and it was not until comparatively recently that we got into touch with the Chinese Government and came to an agreement with them.
Your Lordships will be acquainted with the contents of the White Paper on this subject and will see there the correspondence between His Majesty's Minister in China, Sir Miles Lampson, and the Chinese Foreign Secretary, Dr. Wang. At the request of the Chinese Government, the new proposals were made. That is a point which has to be borne in mind because it is a change in the objects which were intended in the 1924 and 1925 Bills. Whatever change there is, those who criticise it because it, appears on the surface not to be strictly devoting this sum of money to educational purposes, must exonerate from any blame on the subject the Ministers who dealt with this problem and must know that the proposition for the change in question which I shall describe came from the Chinese Government. I was responsible for the Bill in 1924 and the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, was responsible for the Bill in 1925. I believe it is possible in going through the debates to find that we contradicted ourselves and it is possible, as they did in another place, to quote both of us against the present Bill. But circumstances have changed and the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, were he here to-day, would, I am sure, be in agreement with me that the present proposals, although differing superficially from those contained in the Act of 1925, do really carry out the purposes to which successive Governments desired that this large sum should be devoted.
The administration of the Fund is to be handed over to the Chinese Government in return for an undertaking that they will proceed generally along the lines of

143
the educational programme of what I may call the Buxton Committee, and that a considerable portion of the funds will be used in the first instance for the purchase of railway materials in Great Britain. Clause 1 repeals the Act of 1925. In subsection (2) of that clause, provision is made for the payment of £265,000 to the Hong Kong University—that is direct—and £200,000 to the Universities' China Committee in London for certain specified purposes. These were inserted in another place on the representation of the Universities, and with the assent of the Committee who interviewed the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and their Amendments were accepted and put into the Bill.
LORD DANESFORT: Would the noble Lord allow me to ask a question upon subsection (2) of Clause 1? Are these payments referred to in the First Schedule to be made out of the existing Indemnity Fund or out of funds received after the commencement of the Act? It looks in subsection (1) as if the payments were to be made out of funds received after the commencement of the Act.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: No, they will be payments out of the existing Fund—the £3,500,000. Subsection (3) provides that one-half of the annual payments shall be made to a Board of Trustees. That Board of Trustees will be appointed by the Chinese Government, and British subjects will be upon the Board. The money will be expended on objects wholly beneficial to both countries, for half will be paid to the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission, together with the balance of the accrued amount of the Indemnity, about £3,000,000.
Clause 2 provides for the establishment of the Purchasing Commission, which is to consist of the Chinese diplomatic representative in London (the Chinese Minister) as Chairman, a representative of the Chinese Ministry of Railways and four other members appointed by the Chinese Government from a panel, recommended by His Majesty's Government, of persons of standing with wide business experience. The Secretary of State will submit names from which these four members will be selected. The proposal to invest the money in railways and the income derived from it in education came, as I have said, from China, and we were
144
very ready, as will be seen in the White Paper, to acquiesce in this suggestion. The rehabilitation of the economic life of China is a matter of considerable importance to them, and opportunity is also afforded for giving work in this country which is very sadly needed. At the same time, there will still be an endowment for educational purposes. The Chinese Government are most anxious that this agreement should be implemented by an Act of the British Parliament, and the Chinese Minister has pressed us at the earliest possible moment to get this Bill through the two Houses of Parliament, in order that work may be begun which will be mutually beneficial to the two countries. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD DANESFORT:My Lords, I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will not think it unnecessary on my part if I ask him a few questions to elucidate the real nature of this scheme, which I have been totally unable to find out from the terms of the Bill itself. I ventured to ask him, in an interruption in the course of his speech, whether payments under subsection (2) of Clause 1—namely, £200,000—and the £265,000 mentioned in the First Schedule were to come out of the existing Indemnity Fund or from moneys received in respect of that Fund after the commencement of the Act, and he was good enough to tell me that those sums were to come out of the existing Indemnity Fund. Let me call his attention to Clause 1, which says that—
"The China Indemnity (Application) Act, 1925, is repealed and the China Indemnity Fund formed thereunder and all sums received after the commencement of this Act.… shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this section."
I do not think the Bill makes it clear where those two sums of £200,000 and £265,000 are to come from, whether from present or future sums paid into the Indemnity Fund. Perhaps that might be made clear, though I am afraid we shall not have an opportunity in this House of making it clear, inasmuch as this is certified as a Money Bill.
Perhaps the noble Lord could also tell me what is the existing amount of the Indemnity Fund? I gathered from his speech that something like £3,500,000 had already been paid. I am not quite sure

145
whether that is the existing amount of the Fund. That would leave an equal sum to be paid by the year 1945. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me whether I am correct in that view. As to the £200,000 that is to be paid to the Universities' China Committee in London, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to show what that Committee is or how it is formed. I am afraid I have not had an opportunity of looking into previous Acts to see whether they provided for its formation. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me whether this was done in previous Acts.
As regards the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission, I notice from subsection (2) of Clause 2, that it is to consist of two members of the Chinese Government and four other members appointed by the Chinese Government from a panel of persons recommended to the Board of Trustees by the Secretary of State in this country. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me what sort of persons will be put on the panel. Will they be British, Chinese or others? This Commission will have very large sums paid into its coffers, and it will have the very important duties to perform that are specified in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (1) of Clause 2. I venture to think, therefore, that since the interests of this country will be very largely concerned in seeing that those objects are carried out, we should have an opportunity of appointing members from our own people to the Board of Trustees. On the face of the Bill there is nothing whatever to show how the panel from which these four members of the Commission are to be drawn is to be constituted, but I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that it would be very desirable to put into the Bill some provision that would protect British interests in this matter and secure that this country is properly represented on that Commission.
There is one other question that the noble Lord may perhaps be good enough to answer, regarding the Board of Trustees, who are referred to in subsection (3) of Clause 1. These are to receive one half of every sum received after the commencement of this Act on account of the indemnity. As to the other half, the wording of the clause is rather singular. It is to be paid—
146
"to such persons including persons who are British subjects (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board of Trustees') as the Chinese Government may from time to time appoint to be trustees for the purpose of receiving those moneys.…"
What does that mean? How many members of that Board are to be British subjects? It is obviously very important that this country should be properly represented on the Board. There is nothing in the Bill to show how many are to be British subjects and how many the subjects of some other country, possibly China. I would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be very desirable, somehow or other, either in this Bill or in some supplementary Bill, to make provisions that the Board of Trustees shall be properly constituted so as to protect British interests. Those are the only questions that I propose to ask, and I have ventured to ask them because I fear that we shall not have an opportunity of considering this Bill in Committee. I should be glad to hear from His Majesty's Government that they will, either by supplementary legislation or in some other way—I do not know how—make provision for the case to which I have referred.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes but, having been Chairman of this Committee and since the Bill is somewhat different from the Report of the Committee, I should like to say a few words in recommendation of the Bill as it stands. My noble friend has gone through the history of the proposals and I will not repeat them. It is very probable that no noble Lord has read the whole of the White Paper, which goes into the matter in great detail, and I am obliged to the noble Lord opposite for having made so clear a statement as to what has occurred. I should like just to endorse what he has said. This matter, at all events, is in no sense a Party question. The original pledge was given in 1922 by Mr. Bonar Law, who was then Prime Minister, that this Boxer Indemnity of about £11,000,000 should be handed back to the Chinese Government as—a term that is too frequently used nowadays—a gesture of friendship towards the Chinese. Since then there have been, I think, four different Governments in this country—a Conservative Government, a Labour Government, a Conservative Government and

147
another Labour Government—and they have all undertaken to carry out the pledge given by Mr. Bonar Law. If the country had been fortunate enough in the interval to have had a Liberal Government, I am quite sure that they would have endorsed all that has been done in regard to this matter.
I should like to explain, if I may, why this delay has occurred. I know there has been some feeling in China that we have not generally carried out the undertaking that we have given. As my noble friend has said, the first Act was passed as long ago as 1925. Even then difficulties with regard to Parliamentary changes, General Elections and so on, and Parliamentary pressure of work, had delayed the passing of that Act for three or four years, and that Act created the Advisory Committee of which I had the honour of being Chairman. We were appointed at the beginning of 1926, and finally reported in October, 1926. So far as we were concerned there was no great delay in our operations, but unfortunately directly after we reported the unfortunate events at Shanghai and the sending of an Expeditionary Force to Shanghai created at that time great friction between the British and Chinese Governments. That caused considerable delay, although we attempted in other ways to carry out the proposals of the Committee.
When finally the matter was cleared up to a certain extent and there emerged a Chinese Government sufficiently representative and with sufficient authority to carry out the proposals which had been suggested, the matter at that time was an entirely different one. It had become obvious that this money should be handed over to the Chinese Government, not under conditions, as the original Act contemplated, from this side. The Chinese Government met the British Government and made certain proposals which are before the House in the Bill the Second Reading of which we are now considering. My noble friend has already detailed what the proposals are, and they fall short, in some ways considerably short, of the proposals of the Advisory Committee, which were that this money, the £3,500,000 already in hand and the subsequent £7,500,000, should be applied to educational matters
148
or matters of that description. We have taken a very wide interpretation of what educational matters would mean. This Bill proposes that the bulk of the money, £7,000,000 out of £11,000,000, should be applied not to educational purposes in the first instance, but to the rehabilitation and extension of the railways, although in the end, after the railways have been made successful and the money is repaid, it is also to be applied to the educational purposes agreed on by the Committee.
After all, my Committee, I think, were sensible men and women, and saw that the position had altered very considerably, that there were urgent and clamant demands for railway rehabilitation, and that these proposals were not proposals dictated here but made by the Chinese Government themselves, to which the British Government agreed. On those grounds, speaking on behalf of my Committee, I wish to say that we entirely endorse the conclusion which the Chinese Government have come to, with the assent of the British Government, to apply this money as proposed in the Bill and as explained by my noble friend. There is one matter which has been touched upon and which was the cause of the main objection taken in the other House—namely, that the bulk of this money, which was to be directly applied to the railways, was to be spent in this country, under a Commission to which my noble friend behind me has referred. That was, after all, a proposal which the late Government had in mind, and on which they had prepared a Bill on the same lines. Therefore I do not think the present Government can be blamed for carrying out those proposals, and for undertaking that this expenditure should be largely applied in this country.
That is really all I desire to say in order to show that so far as my Committee are concerned we endorse the proposals made in this Bill which the Government have brought forward. I was indebted to my noble friend for the fine compliment which he was good enough to pay me. My Committee included three Chinese members, and I do not think we could have had more loyal colleagues. I am greatly indebted to my fellow members, but especially to my Chinese colleagues.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Earl for the support he has given to this Bill. His endorsement of the action taken by the Government will have very far-reaching effects and will give, I am sure, in China just the sort of blessing to this measure for which we had hoped. He has sketched to your Lordships the various stages through which this rather vexed and complicated question has passed, and your Lordships will appreciate the great assistance which the noble Earl has given in bringing this matter to a successful conclusion.
May I very briefly pass to the questions which Lord Danesfort asked? With regard to the two sums to the Universities' China Committee and the Hong Kong University, they will come out of the £3,500,000 now at our disposal. The amount that is due to the end of 1945 from further sums receivable comes to £7,850,000, which will be paid in instalments from time to time. The noble Lord wanted to have some particulars about the Universities' China Committee. It is perfectly true that that body has only quite recently received its charter—only within the last few weeks—but it is a body which was initiated by the Society of Friends as far back as 1925 with the object of promoting closer cultural relations between China and Great Britain. The Universities of the British Empire took up the scheme at the request of its Standing Committee of Vice-Chancellors, and the Universities' China Committee held its first meeting in 1926 under the Chairmanship of the late Sir Arthur Shipley, Master of Christ's College, Cambridge. Its objects are to promote cultural relations by lectures in England by eminent Chinese, by work among Chinese students, and a number of other objects, which have proved successful, and it is eminently a body to be supported.
LORD DANESFORT: Are the educational people on the Committee all British subjects?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: That I cannot answer. The noble Lord enquired who would be the four members to be put on to the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission. The panel from which those four members are to be selected is a panel prepared by the Sec-
150
retary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I really think in this matter one can trust the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the time being to see that British interests are thoroughly well represented, and to see that people interested in this sort of question—people of some eminence—have their names submitted for selection. With regard to the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission, the noble Lord will see that Dr. Wang, in his Despatch of September, 1930, quoted on page 8 of the White Paper, says that the Board of Trustees in China will include a certain number of British members. I think it would be rather unnecessary for us to force him to say more than that, and the Government have not thought that there was anything in that which required any sort of criticism.
LORD DANESFORT: Is there any minimum number of British subjects appointed to this Board of Trustees?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: No, no number.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I think the House is entitled to some brief explanation of the objects and meaning of the Bill. In December of last year I presented the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and the remarks I made then apply equally to the present Bill, and I shall merely bring up to date the statistics which were involved at that time. The objects of the present Bill are to raise the borrowing power of the Unemployment Insurance Fund by £20,000,000 from £70,000,000 to £90,000,000, and also to extend the period during which transitional benefit is payable from 36 months by a period of six months, making 42 months in all.
I want to say one word about transitional benefit, because I know it will interest your Lordships to understand the

151
position in that connection. The transitional benefit payments were started in April, 1928, as a result of the Blanesburgh Committee's Report. The Blanesburgh recommendation replaced the extended benefit which then existed, and the Act which was passed to put into force the Blanesburgh Report introduced transitional benefit for a period of twelve months from the passing of that Act. In March, 1929, the then Conservative Government extended by a further twelve months the twelve months introduced by the original Act; and the present Government, in February of last year, added another twelve months, making thirty-six months in all. The provisions of the present Bill include an additional six months, making an arrangement whereby the claims which would normally have run out between the months of April, 1931, and October, 1931, endure until the period from April, 1932, up to October, 1932. The reason why the normal twelve months has been reduced in the present case to only six months is that it is expected that the Report of the Royal Commission will be received, and it is hoped that legislation will be passed before October of this year.
Your Lordships will understand that if we do not extend the transitional benefit period, persons who have been expecting this payment will be deprived of benefit under the existing legislation day by day throughout the year, and therefore I am quite sure you will realise that it is obviously impossible not to extend this benefit. At the present moment members are being transferred from the Unemployment Insurance Fund to transitional benefit at the rate of about 5,000 a week, and to-day something like 430,000 are receiving transitional benefit at a cost of something in the neighbourhood of £480,000 a week. The total estimated cost of this extension is about £20,000,000 of which £13,000,000 will fall in the financial year from April, 1931, to March, 1932.
EARL PEEL: Is it assumed that the transfer from the Insurance Fund to transitional benefit is to continue at the rate of 5,000 a week?
LORD MARLEY: It is impossible to say what will be the rate of transfer.
152
It depends entirely on the number of people whose ordinary benefit runs out.
EARL PEEL: Of course, I would not have asked a question of that sort, but the noble Lord has given a figure based on certain assumptions. I was only asking what was the assumption as to transfer which would make up that number.
LORD MARLEY: At the present moment the rate of transfer is what I said. Sometimes it is up and sometimes it is down; but the tendency must be to increase.
EARL PEEL: Might I press the question? For the purpose of arriving at the amount of transitional benefit, what average figure is taken for the next few months as the figure of transfer from one fund to the other?
LORD MARLEY: That is a calculation by the statistical advisers to the Ministry, and is based presumably on the rate of about 5,000 a week, and not based on any extension other than that which can be actuarially calculated by our knowledge of the present position of unemployment in this country.
EARL PEEL: That is, the assumption of 5,000 a week.
LORD MARLEY: Yes, with the additions which we know will take place. Other additions are incalculable, but certain additions we know will take place by a simple actuarial calculation as to the number of people who will cease to have ordinary benefit. With regard to the Fund itself, by to-morrow the debt to the Treasury will be about £69,000,000 and the number of unemployed on February 16 was 2,631,000, of whom, as I said, 430,000 were receiving transitional benefit and about 2,000,000 were on the Fund. The remainder were either not claiming or had been disallowed or were not insured. The total payment to these 2,000,000 persons amounts to £1,800,000 each week; the present rate of benefit is 17s. a week for a man, 9s. for his wife and 2s. for each child. That is not an excessive rate. I am not giving it because I expect any of your Lordships will claim this benefit at any time, but it is well that we should know it. The balancing point of the Fund, which I mentioned in December, 1,275,000,

153
is the same at the present moment. There is no change in that. In this connection your Lordships may like to know that the total number of insured persons is about 12,000,000 and that 9,500,000 of them are contributing every week to the Fund.
With regard to the question of how to deal with those who are unemployed, apart from the human side, which I do not propose to stress, it is quite obvious that they must be kept either by rates or by taxes, and it is generally felt that the method of taxation and the method of the Unemployment Insurance Fund is better than denying this organised method of assistance and putting people on the rates. Taxes are fairer and the Fund is surely a reasonable method of administration, while such improvements as are necessary in the administration of the Fund will be suggested by the Royal Commission which is now sitting and which is carrying through its work at the maximum speed possible.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Can the noble Lord say when the Royal Commission is likely to report?
LORD MARLEY: In that connection I have already said that we hope that the Report will be made and legislation enacted before October of this year. I cannot say whether there will be a Report or an Interim Report in May or June, but it is hoped that the Report will be issued in time for legislation to be enacted by October. One other point I wish to mention before I leave that is that the employment exchanges have been used recently more effectively for their proper purpose of placing unemployed men in jobs. There has been an increase in 1930 over 1929 of 173,000 extra men who have been placed in jobs by the exchanges. The figures are that in 1930 1,727,000 unemployed persons were placed in positions compared with 1,554,000 in 1929.
It may be asked why the proposal is to extend the borrowing powers by £20,000,000 instead of by £10,000,000, and the answer is, broadly, that, when the £10,000,000 was the extension by the Conservative Government, the deficit was increasing at the rate of £350,000 a week, whereas at the present moment the deficit is increasing at nearly three times that rate. It is essential, there-
154
fore, that we should have a larger borrowing power than the £10,000,000 then provided. I suggest to your Lordships that, in the difficult circumstances which are facing the country, this is the best means we can employ to deal with the situation.
We should remember that the position of this country does compare favourably with other industrial countries. From June, 1929, to December, 1930, unemployment has increased in this country by 132 per cent., but in Germany the increase in the same period has been 248 per cent. and in Italy 232 per cent. In France we were told for a very long time that there was no unemployment, but we are now told that there are 350,000 unemployed and about 1,000,000 partially employed. In The Times of February 25, in an article dealing with this matter, it is said:—
"It will be seen from the above figures that unemployment in France is and has been for years far more serious than any published statistics would suggest."
In the United States it is exceedingly difficult to get accurate information, but we have various estimates and we are told that the number of unemployed may be as high as 9,000,000. Lower estimates put it at 6,000,000 or 7,000,000. That is in a population of 123,000,000. In Italy we are told that those wholly unemployed at present number 642,000 out of a total population of 42,000,000, while in France they number 350,000 out of a total population of 40,000,000. In the United States we learned from an article in The Times a few weeks ago that 23.8 per cent. of the industrial workers of the United States were without employment in the first week of last December and that 21.3 per cent. were working only part time. Only 54.9 per cent. of the industrial population had full-time jobs at that time in the United States.
When we realise the appalling suffering that is going on in the United States at the present moment, the bread queues, the soup queues, the charitable organisations which are failing to deal adequately with the problem, your Lordships will be thankful that we have got a system of unemployment insurance in this country which, while the industrial system has been unable to avoid unemployment, at least has mitigated the sufferings of many of those who are com-

155
pelled to suffer unemployment at the present moment. I do not want to deal with the causes at all. In the circumstances, I think I can leave the matter at that, but I shall be very glad to do my best to answer any questions which any of your Lordships may desire to put. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Marley.)
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I am well aware that this Bill is a certified Bill and that in that sense your Lordships have no control over it, but I make no apology at all for addressing your Lordships for a few minutes upon it, because another place can, I regret to say, in present circumstances only be called the guardian of our finances with certain very strong reservations. The noble Lord introduced this Bill and discussed it as if it were a mere matter of statistics. I am bound to say I followed his cold statement of these terrible, growing figures with the greatest anxiety. I can assure him that on this side of the House we do not regard it as merely a question of figures, but as the gravest matter which is before your Lordships and before the country to-day.
I should like first to call attention to the Memorandum on the Financial Resolution proposed relative to unemployment. These words are rather remarkable:—
"The deficiency period is defined in Section 16 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921, as the period between the passing of that Act and the date when the Treasury certify that the Unemployment Fund is solvent. Such certificate may not be given while any advances to the Fund are outstanding."
One wonders whether there is not a touch of irony about that observation by the official who drew up this Paper as to when this debt, now growing up to £90,000,000, is to be paid so that the certificate of the Treasury may be forthcoming stating that the Fund is solvent.
Next I should like to call attention to one or two grave statements made in connection with this Fund in the evidence that has been given before the Royal Commission. The noble Lord tells us that that the Royal Commission is going to report in time for certain legislation. I venture to assert that this Royal Commission will not report before
156
the next Unemployment Insurance Bill is brought before your Lordships' House, and that then we shall have a similar speech, with perhaps similar excuses, probably made by another member of the Government from the opposite Bench. Sir Francis Flood, who is Permanent Secretary of the Labour Ministry, is reported to have said:—
"First the Fund was heavily in debt and the debt was increasing rapidly. The increase of the debt was taking place—
and these are the significant words—
"although the Exchequer now made an additional grant equal to the whole cost of transitional benefit, thereby relieving the ordinary revenue of the Fund."
When your Lordships are considering this vast increase in borrowing which we are asked to pass to-day, I would ask you to remember that that Fund is relieved entirely, by fresh contributions from the State, from all that heavy amount of transitional benefit.
I said that I would suggest that this is far more than a mere question of statistics. Let me quote from Sir Richard Hopkins, who, in his evidence before this Commission, said:—
"The State has every year to borrow large sums for various productive purposes. This additional borrowing for purposes other than productive is now on a scale which in substance obliterates the effect of the Sinking Fund."
Considering the enormous importance we have paid not only before but since the War to the reduction of our vast Debt by means of the Sinking Fund, considering the immense efforts successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have made to increase that Sinking Fund, it comes with a terrible significance from this representative of the Treasury that this borrowing is practically doing away with any effect of the Sinking Fund upon our finances. I remember making that very suggestion myself not long ago and we were told that it was the view, I think, of the Government that that was not so; that this money was secured on a particular Fund, and had nothing whatever to do with the Sinking Fund. But now we have it on the evidence of this leading member of the Treasury that it is in effect doing away with the Sinking Fund itself and with the consequent effect upon our finances.
I should like further to call attention to the observations made—I referred to

157
this six months ago, but I think it will come with greatly added weight now—by the Minister of Labour, I think over a year ago, when she was bringing forward another Bill for borrowing. She then said:—
"If you come forward and wipe out the limit of borrowing powers at £40,000,000, and went on borrowing to £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 it would be a dishonest course."
And the reason given was this—"because it would be contracting a debt that you saw no possible way of paying off." Six months or more ago, when the question of borrowing beyond £40,000,000 came forward, it was denounced by the Minister of Labour herself, on the part of the Government, as being a dishonest course because they saw no possibility of that money being repaid. They now come before us and want to increase that debt to £90,000,000—more than double the amount that we then dealt with. Are those words still true, and are the Government coming before us and telling us we must borrow up to £90,000,000 when, on the words of their own Minister,' there is no possibility of that money being repaid? We are not the guardians of the country's finances. We can only comment on them, and all I can do is to brand as doubly dishonest Ministers who come before your Lordships and borrow another £20,000,000 on the security of the Fund, and do not tell you that though they borrow on the security of the Fund there is no chance of that money being repaid out of the Fund itself.
You have only to look, indeed, at some other observations made to see how difficult, if not impossible, it is for that money to be repaid. May I cite another piece of evidence? I am not giving my own facts and figures; I am taking the figures and evidence given by these officials. I want to quote from Mr. Bowers, Accountant-General of the Ministry of Labour. He says:—
"The annual amount which would be required for interest—assumed at 4¾ per cent.—and to amortise a debt of £100,000,000 in ten years was £12,800,000, equivalent to 6d. per week in contributions, and in thirty years was £6,320,000, equivalent to 3d. per week in contributions."
Are there any of your Lordships who think that it is likely the contributions will be raised at that rate? Is there any one of your Lordships who does not realise that the chances of that debt
158
being repaid out of the Fund are exceedingly small, and that when you talk of borrowing on the security of that Fund you are not borrowing on a good security and that you are really borrowing on the security of all the taxpayers of this country, so that that sum is nothing else but an addition to the general Debt of the whole country?
Let me refer next to observations made by different Ministers when they bring, every three months or six months, Bills before your Lordships and in another place for the purpose of borrowing money. I will only take one example of this. There were three Bills in April, July and November of last year, in each of which £10,000,000 was to be borrowed. On the first occasion the reason given for this further borrowing was that some twelve months must elapse while the question was being critically examined and therefore you must allow this money to be borrowed. The next time they came before your Lordships and another place in order to get the money, the difficulty was skated over by saying there was going to be a three-Party Conference which was to be a Council of State. Then they told us that the Committee was an entire failure, that apparently nobody on it had any ideas worth noticing, and that we were going to have a Royal Commission—a Royal Commission which was going to investigate the whole thing, which is going to report some time (we do not know when, possibly before the Summer Recess) and then we are going to have, at some unknown time, legislation. If the Government could only govern as well as they are ingenious in finding excuses for producing these Bills, I should have nothing but praise for noble Lords opposite.
The noble Lord has also raised the question of why it is that we are borrowing £20,000,000 at a gulp this time instead of only £10,000,000. He says the reason—and it seems a very unsatisfactory reason—is that the money is going so rapidly that you will spend nearly £20,000,000 in something like the same time as you spent £10,000,000 before. I cannot help thinking that there is a certain carefulness or reticence on the part of the Government, and that one reason is that they do not want to come before your Lordships' House in another three months and make another set of excuses for having to borrow another

159
£10,000,000 or £20,000,000, as the case may be. The noble Lord who introduced this Bill gave a great number of reasons and excuses, and he seemed to find a certain satisfaction in the fact that certain figures from other countries showed that they were labouring in troughs of unemployment as badly as we are. He gave certain percentages, but as he did not give positive figures of unemployment it was difficult to calculate in one's head whether these percentages corresponded to the numbers we are suffering from here.
But of course the charge one brings against the Government is that, owing to the changes they have been making in the unemployment insurance scheme, they have blurred the distinction between what is really insurance and what is merely another form of public assistance. The whole scheme now has become a sort of jumble of insurance and assistance, so that nobody knows where one begins and the other ends. You cannot imagine anything more demoralising not only to the moral fibre of the country but to the financial understanding of the country than a system with these vague distinctions. It is unfair to those persons who are really insured, who make their contributions with their employers and the State, that they should in the public mind be apt to be mixed up with those who are merely receiving the "dole," so that there is no clear distinction drawn between the two classes. In addition, there is no doubt that the work of the Fund is gradually being demoralised by certain laxities of administration. I refer, first of all, to some of those legal laxities under the Act, such as the case of women who marry and go to another part of the country and remain for a length of time on the Fund. Then there are those who earn substantial sums in part of the week and live for the other part of the week on the "dole." These laxities are growing to such proportions that they constitute a very heavy and unfair charge on the Fund.
Moreover, the Government have very largely assisted the break-down of the Fund by the changes which they introduced in the provision as to seeking work. Again, I want to quote. I will quote from Mr. Price, who is Principal Assistant Secretary in charge of the Unemployment Insurance Department at
160
the Ministry of Labour. He says there is no obligation on an individual now to look for work. The onus has been removed from him to seek work. While I admit the terrible wave of unemployment now in this country, I think it is true that the Government have substantially added to it by taking away, as they have done by legislation, the incentive that before existed for a man to seek work.
There are just one or two other points I want to deal with. We have heard a great deal about economic troubles and about the shortage of trade in other parts of the world, but I submit to your Lordships that it will really not do for the Government to sit back and say that they can do nothing because of this world disturbance that is going on. If really nothing can be done to assist trade and diminish unemployment in this country, then the Government becomes a superfluous and unnecessary luxury and might as well be done away with altogether. But I submit further, that the Government have not only not assisted, but really have done everything they can by their actions to increase unemployment. I need hardly refer to their sweeping away of Safeguarding Duties. They have, in addition to that, consistently laid fresh burdens and duties on manufacturers and intend to lay more. In face of foreign competition against our manufacturers, they have done nothing whatever to assist them.
Looking at the actions of the Government and examining their functions, I am afraid that I do not see that they really are interested in the question of unemployment. The matters that really seem to interest them are such matters as the Trade Disputes Bill, the attempt to make general strikes legal, or perhaps some tampering with the electoral system of this country which may be necessary as they have to keep their bargains and arrangements with another Party. These matters seem to be in the forefront of their minds and the great matters of trade and business and unemployment seem to have slipped aside. They have given them up because they say they are involved in these general world economic difficulties.
I must say this, lastly, that this Government and their followers have done great harm in this matter of unemployment by going about the country making,

161
as they do, constant attacks on capital and capitalists, so that manufacturers have been instilled with fear as to the risks they run if they try to develop their business or try to extend their production. They tell us that the capitalist system has broken down when they have done their best to break it down, and then they turn savagely and attack manufacturers because they do not borrow large sums to develop their business when they do not know that the products can be sold. There are great difficulties in connection with this unemployment question. I am convinced that the Government hang like a blight over the manufacturing trade and commerce of this country, and the best thing that they can do to assist employment and reduce this borrowing, to staunch this flow of this money to the unemployed, is to retire gracefully and, by a great act of self-abnegation, allow better men than themselves to try to govern the affairs of the country.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl who has just sat down will allow me to say that I listened with a great deal more interest to the first part of his speech than to the second. I was glad to hear the speech, but the first part of it seemed to me to be the more valuable contribution to the general discussion of unemployment insurance. I hope and believe that his remarks will be brought to the notice of the Royal Commission that is now enquiring into the subject. As one of the authors of the Parliament Act, I remember very well being told, when that Act was passing through your Lordships' House, that a certified Money Bill could never be discussed by your Lordships. We said this was not our view, but that we thought that such Bills would be discussed, and that the discussion that took place would be very valuable. After all, we in this country are governed by public opinion, and speeches in this House help to govern public opinion. I hope and believe that the speech that has just been made by the noble Earl will have considerable influence, especially in its first part, in forming public opinion with regard to unemployment insurance in this country.
From my own part, like most members, I think, of your Lordships' House, I look upon this Bill as a disagreeable neces-
162
sity which we are obliged to pass in the present situation. We wait with anxiety for the Report of the Royal Commission, whether it be a full Report or an Interim Report, enquiring into the irregularities. I should like to press upon His Majesty's Government the great desirability, if they have proof of administrative laxity in the evidence which comes before them, of taking immediate steps in these administrative cases to deal with them without delay. They can wait to deal with legal matters until the Report which deals with those matters is produced. There is a clear distinction between the two subjects, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will bear that distinction in mind. I notice that the noble Earl did not suggest any alternative to this Bill, and perhaps this is not a proper occasion. I think it would be a very valuable thing if, on some future occasion, we could have another discussion upon unemployment insurance and the administrative irregularities which are alleged to have taken place.
EARL PEEL: Admitted.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I feel this rather deeply, because when I was in the United States the other day there was a good deal of discussion on this insurance, and it was almost taken for granted that there was an immense amount of irregularity. I am not quite sure that it is so, but if those who think it is the case would present their instances in your Lordships' House, I think it would be very valuable for His Majesty's Government to be able to go into all these cases and see what amount of truth there is in the charge. I would venture before I sit down to say how fervently I hope that the Royal Commission will report as soon as possible. I assume that the intention is that they will report at such a date that we may be able to get legislation through this House before the end of this Session of Parliament. I do not think that I am anticipating the position when I say to His Majesty's Government that, if they do produce legislation to deal with these irregularities, there is nothing that your Lordships will not do to assist them in passing the necessary legislation through this House.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES IN THE DOMINIONS.
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to appoint an accredited representative to His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia, and whether the Letters Patent and Royal Instructions issued to Governors-General and Governors have recently been varied; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands in my name on the Paper this afternoon, I desire in the first place to make it clear that I make no reflection of any kind on the recent appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. Sir Isaac Isaacs has been for many years in public life in the Commonwealth, and he is a well-known member of the legal profession. Your Lordships are all aware of the prominent, perhaps I might say predominant part which noble and learned Lords take in the proceedings of this House, and the fact that Sir Isaac Isaacs is a well-known lawyer will certainly be no disadvantage to him in discharging the duties of his new office.
At the same time, this appointment is important in that it marks a departure from the hitherto accepted practice, at all events in the case of the Commonwealth of Australia. In one sense, perhaps, it may be said that it is the direct outcome of the Imperial Conference of 1926 and, in view of the Conference, and of the agreement that was reached in it, no one could question the right of the Government of Australia or the Government of any other Dominion to recommend to His Majesty any one whom they think fit to fill these posts. It is interesting to observe in this connection that, with the exception of the Irish Free State, no other Dominion has, hitherto at all events, adopted the course which Australia has recently taken. The noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, has but lately gone out to take up his appointment in South Africa. Another well known member of your Lordships' House, Lord Bessborough, is to succeed Lord Willingdon in Canada. I listened the other day to an address to the Empire Parliamentary Association by the Attorney-General for New Zealand, Sir Thomas Sidey, in which he stated that New Zealand was
164
well content with the hitherto accepted method of appointment from this country, and that the Government of New Zealand preferred that, in the case of that Dominion, the Governor-General should remain the channel of communication between the Government of the Dominion and the Home Government.
Then there is the case of the Australian States. The Governors of the Australian States are still appointed from this country and, so far as I am aware, they still correspond direct with the Dominions Office. Your Lordships are aware that the Commonwealth of Australia is a federation—a rather loose federation—of the Australian States. These are sovereign States with their own rights, and they have hitherto jealously resisted any encroachment on those rights. I believe I am right in saying that they were not consulted as to the agreement reached in the Conference of 1926, but resulting from that. Conference the curious position has arisen in Australia at the moment that, whereas the Commonwealth was a party to the agreement of 1926 and is acting on that agreement, the Australian States have not hitherto followed the example that the Commonwealth has set in this matter.
Your Lordships will observe that I have a Question on the Paper with regard to the Letters Patent and Royal Instructions issued to Governors-General and Governors. I am informed that some modification in one or both cases has now become necessary. That is a rather technical point with which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is more familiar than I am, and which I leave him to develop should be take part later in this discussion.
I now come to the most important of the Questions that I have put on the Paper this afternoon. It is this. At the present time the Home Government have no longer a representative in the Commonwealth of Australia. The Governor-General of the Commonwealth obviously cannot act in that capacity. He is no longer the channel of communication, and I imagine that it is only by courtesy of his Ministers that he even sees copies of the Despatches which pass between the two Governments. He has no responsibility of any kind to the Home Government. In Canada and South Africa, under somewhat similar condi-

165
tions, High Commissioners have been appointed to keep touch between the Home Government and the Governments of those Dominions. In South Africa there is, of course, the special reason that the High Commissioner is responsible for the welfare of the native races. If in the case of Canada, which is less than a week's journey from this country, it is found necessary that a High Commissioner should be appointed to keep touch with the Government at Ottawa, surely it is all the more necessary in the case of Australia, which in point of distance is so much more remote, that we should have some representative to keep in touch with the Government at Canberra.
There is this special reason at the present time. Australia is passing through a period of depression, of severe, though I hope and believe only temporary, depression. Important decisions, we gather from the Press, are being taken from week to week and almost from day to day. I submit to your Lordships that a representative should be appointed without delay to keep the Home Government in touch with the Government of the Commonwealth, to inform the Home Government of the trend of events in the Commonwealth, to interpret public opinion in this country to the people of Australia, and so to serve as a link between this country and the Government and people of the Commonwealth. I hope that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, may be able to give me something more than a non-committal answer on this point this afternoon. Your Lordships will observe that I have a Motion asking for Papers. If there is any correspondence which the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, can lay that has taken place between the Commonwealth and the Dominion Office, I hope he will do so. I beg to move.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I must apologise for speaking again so soon, but as I was the last member of the House to be in Australia I feel anxious to take some part in this discussion. I find myself between the speech made by Lord Denman and an engagement of a public character in the not very far distant future, and therefore I beg leave to say something to your Lordships at once. The really important thing, I think, is that people in this country do not quite realise the change
166
which has taken place in the position of Governor-General since the time when Lord Novar was there. There has even been a very considerable change since Lord Stonehaven was out there. The house in which he lived in Melbourne has been turned into a high school for girls.
I should like, however, to take this opportunity of expressing my admiration for the work done by Lord Stonehaven while he was in Australia. He devoted a great deal of energy and ability to carrying out his duties, and he travelled, mostly by air, all round that great Continent. I doubt if anybody, even any Australian, knows so much of Australia as does the noble Lord who was the last Governor-General. There has been a great change even since his time. In addition to the change of housing there has been since 1926 changes with regard to the powers, duties and emoluments of the Governor-General. No longer is he the channel of communication between the Dominions Office and the Prime Minister of Australia. In future he will live at Canberra. I have had the pleasure of seeing Canberra. It is the most beautiful garden city in the world, but nearly all garden and very little city. There is a charming house for the Governor-General, who will live in beautiful surroundings, but it is far remote from centres of population, and a Governor-General who lives there will find it very difficult- to keep himself in touch with the current and trend of public opinion in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and elsewhere.
More than that it is not as if the Governor-General would be constantly in touch with Ministers. Generally speaking their offices are not to be found in Canberra. The Royal Military College has been moved from Duntroon, and altogether I am afraid the Governor-General will find himself in a rather isolated position, with a small Civil Service, and without any University. What is he to do when he wants to get in touch with Australian feeling and sentiment? He might go occasionally and stay with the Governors, but I am not sure that the Governor-General would be welcome if he went and stayed too often with the Governors in those various big cities. Apart from that the only practical solution that I have heard is

167
that he should take up his quarters on an Australian man-of-war and travel round from one big city to another, occupying the quarters of the Admiral. To find somebody who is a good sailor and well qualified to cross the Australian Bight several times each year, without being the worse for it, would make it rather difficult to find a suitable person to occupy the office. Sir Isaac Isaacs is well able to carry out the duties of the office. To go out from here demands great sacrifices, and it demands when we do send anybody out that he should be the very best that England can find, and I ask myself whether in most cases men of that kind are not able to do better work for the Empire here in London than out in Canberra.
The change which has taken place in no way reflects upon the loyalty of Australia. The change that has taken place is in the position of the post of Governor-General, and in view of the change which has taken place, a change desired by Australians themelves, it does not seem to me at all surprising that there should be a change in the source to which the Australian Prime Minister looks to find the Governor-General. In view of this change I do most heartily support the urgent appeal made by Lord Denman that there should be a High Commissioner appointed, if possible without delay. I believe that in Canada the High Commissioner has rendered very valuable services, officially and unofficially, and I am sure that with the appointment of a suitable person in Australia equally good work will be done. In the absence of a Governor-General appointed from home, I think it is desirable that the appointment of a High Commissioner should be made as soon as possible.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I join with reluctance in this discussion. Having been for six years Governor-General it is difficult to abandon the detached, nonpolitical habit of mind which is so essential in that office. I must own, however, that I strongly opposed the alteration in the status of the Governor-General effected by the Home and Dominion Governments at the time of the Coalition Government in this country. In my experience when delicate matters had to be handled the Governor-General was a useful shock-absorber,
168
intervening between the Home and Dominion Governments, at a time at any rate when both Prime Ministers were what may be described as dominant personalities. Party politicians are seldom the best instruments for dealing at a distance with inter-Imperial affairs, and it was part of the business of the Governor-General to keep Ministers, both at home and in the Dominions, conversant with the trend of affairs in both countries, also to tone down asperities when conflicting opinions occurred and to choose a propitious moment for discussing them. The Governor-General's whole time should be given to this, while Ministers have little leisure except for what is forced upon their attention by the exigencies of modern political life.
Under the new arrangement these duties, as has been so well described, have been removed from the Governor-General's sphere, and in Australia they have been delegated to no other official. Consequently, His Majesty's Government is deprived of the advantages of the services I have described, which were formerly rendered by the Governor-General, who, to my mind, was, thanks to the prestige of his office, far the best instrument for their performance. The anomaly of this state of affairs is increased by the fact, of which mention has already been made, that Governors of States still represent both His Majesty and the Home Government, and communicate, so far as I know, with the Secretary of State for the Dominions. Since these alterations have been made in the status of the Governor-General, a new situation has arisen through the appointment of a local Governor-General. I have much regard for Sir Isaac Isaacs, and would only question the method of his appointment, and express my fear lest the Governor-General should come to be looked upon as a mere Party appointment, a state of affairs which would entirely alter the character of the office, and leave the State without an impartial head possessing the confidence of all Parties in the country and able to give impartial information to the Crown. I could name men I have known overseas who were as well fitted to represent the Crown as any of His Majesty's subjects, but, even so, it is hard to think of one who, for some political cause or another, is as well suited to the office as the best of those sent out from home.

169
As I have indicated, I have never been reconciled to the alteration in the status of the Governor-General, yet I never anticipated so complete a change in the nature and system of the appointment as has recently occurred. This has happened owing to the omission, when the change took place which made the Governor-General solely the King's representative, to safeguard His Majesty's Prerogative in the matter of the appointment of His representative, and so make it impossible that His hand could be forced. Mistakes in procedure are no doubt due to inadvertence, for one has to remember that ingrained respect for tradition and constitutional practice is a plant of slow growth, and that time alone can convince a young community and inexperienced politicians of its importance. But the growth of such an understanding should be encouraged. The Governor-General is now the last remaining link between the Crown and the Dominions. It should lie made as effective as possible.
My noble friend Lord Denman has referred to the subject of the High Commissioner. I can well understand his doing so, but I am not prepared to welcome the multiplication of posts. There is much too much of that going on already. The High Commissioner from the home country to a Dominion is a political appointment, and likely to be a costly one. Dominion High Commissionerships in London are necessary, as we all know. The Trade Commissioners were useful overseas, but in what respect a High Commissioner can with advantage supersede a Governor-General, I Own, is entirely beyond my comprehension. One can speak the more freely on this subject with respect to Australia for I am confident that the Commonwealth, which is as loyal to the Crown as the old country herself, will consider long and well before she permanently differentiates her practice from that of the sister Dominions overseas in the nomination of His Majesty's representatives.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I venture to approach this subject rather from the point of view with which I have been particularly associated, the point of view of the States of the Commonwealth. When the Balfour Declaration of 1926 was made it was pos-
170
sible, and even perhaps wise, to apply that Declaration to Dominions which had a unitary form of Government; but to apply that Declaration to a Federation, such as Australia is, involves you in many constitutional difficulties which I see no possibility of surmounting. For, remember what the Commonwealth is.
The Commonwealth was created by the assent of the States created by this Imperial Parliament, and at the request of the States which then held all the sovereignty which had been delegated to the Australian people; and that Commonwealth was an assembly of certain powers which previously had belonged to the States in the hands of one Federal Parliament. But the powers which were delegated to the Federation were enumerated and limited. It was only those powers which were given to the Federal Parliament which could be exercised by that Parliament. All the remaining powers which an omnipotent Parliament can exercise remained in the hands of the States. And my experience has been—I am not sure whether that is not the experience of those who have more recent knowledge of Australia than I have—that any proposition to extend the legislative or administrative powers of the Federal Parliament have been, almost invariably, strenuously objected to by the States themselves. But—what is more significant still—when these powers have been submitted to the people of Australia by a Referendum, I think without exception the people of Australia have declined to allow the extension of the Federal power.
You have, therefore, a Parliament representing the Federation of Australia, which is not all-powerful, but is a Parliament for dealing with certain subjects. You have a Government which is a Government which does not hold total sovereignty over the whole of Australia, but exercises certain functions of sovereignty, and only those functions. Now, attempt to apply the Balfour Declaration to such a situation as that. Attempt to apply the formula, which is that Dominions are self-governing communities, owing no subordination, either in domestic or external matters, to any other part of the Empire. Perhaps I have not got the words exactly, but that is the sense. In the first place, the Commonwealth Parliament has not got

171
complete control of its internal affairs. A large part of the internal affairs of Australia remains and will apparently continue to remain in the hands of the States. The whole of the territory of Australia, with the exception of the Federal Government area and the Northern Territory, is physically under the administration of the States. You have not got the condition sine qua non which enables the application of the Balfour Declaration to the Commonwealth of Australia.
As a consequence of that division of sovereignty, you have the division of the representation of the Sovereign. As has already been pointed out—and I need not enlarge upon it—the Governors of the States are still appointed, and must he appointed, from this country. The States have their rights by the Statute which created the Commonwealth. It is impossible to alter the legal condition of things in which the sovereignty is partitioned between the Commonwealth and the States, save by one of two methods. Either the Imperial Act of 1900 may be amended—it would need to be drastically amended—or, I admit, it is within the power of the people of Australia, through their own Federal Parliament, to alter their own Constitution. But, observe that to give effect to that it is necessary to have a very special system followed there. You have to have the assent of the States and the assent of the majority of the people of Australia, neither of which, it seems probable, will be obtained by a Federation desiring, as they may desire, to rectify the present condition of things.
I come to the existing state. As I understand—and I shall be corrected by the Secretary of State for the Colonies if I am wrong—the present system of appointing a Governor of a State is by the recommendation of the Secretary of State for the Dominions to His Majesty the King, who appoints a person on the advice of the Secretary of State. That Governor, when he has been appointed, receives certain documents, Letters Patent and Letters of Instruction as to what his conduct shall he when he exercises the office of Governor. Those Letters Patent and Letters of Instruction in my time certainly contained instructions which severely limited the power of the State Government to exercise those
172
functions which are laid down in the Balfour Declaration. Certain Acts of Parliament were peremptorily ordered to be reserved for the approval of the Crown, such approval being then, at least, exercised on the advice of the Secretary of State.
What is the present position? The Secretary of State will no doubt inform us whether those Instructions still hold good and whether the reserved Bills, which deal with a great variety of subjects, which are enumerated—I need not weary the House by enumerating them—are still submitted to His Majesty for approval by the Secretary of State. I maintain it cannot be otherwise because you cannot submit them on the recommendation of the Ministers of the Commonwealth, because the States would strongly object, and it would be wholly unconstitutional to allow a Commonwealth Minister to interfere between the self-governing State and the Secretary of State and His Majesty. Yet is it a fair use of words to describe Australia, which in the vast majority of its area is governed by a Governor who is appointed from this country on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, and who is under obligation to submit the legislation or certain classes of legislation to the Secretary of State—for that is in fact the case—for his approval, as fulfilling the description of it and of the other Dominions in the Balfour Declaration? The fact is that the Imperial Conference of 1926 and the Imperial Conference of 1930, not having the advantage of the presence of representatives of the States, were misled into forgetting that there is a vast constitutional difference between a Federation and a unitary Government. What was applicable, and easily applicable, to the Dominion of Canada, to the Union of South Africa, and to New Zealand, is inapplicable to Australia because of her constitutional situation.
I must pass on from that to matters which are more germane to the Question which my noble friend Lord Denman has asked and the matter immediately before us. I should like to ask whether the Royal Instructions and Letters Patent issued to Governors of States remain as they were prior to 1926 or whether they have been altered, and in what respect they have been altered. I can hardly

173
conceive they can have been altered, but no doubt the noble Lord who will reply will give a definite answer to that question. The Governor-General is appointed on the recommendation of the Ministers of the Commonwealth. I should like to get perfectly clear on that matter. His Majesty appoints the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Ministers of the Commonwealth. Has airy Minister of the Imperial Government here in London got any shadow of responsibility for the advice which is so given? I understand not, that they have divested themselves in some way of all responsibility, and that it would be irregular and unconstitutional to use the only method which lies in the hands of Parliament for criticising the action of Ministers. If, for in-stance, there was an attempt made in the House of Commons to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for the Dominions on the ground that a certain person had been appointed to a certain Dominion, the answer would be that this had passed from his control and that the Government were not in any sense responsible for the advice which had been given.
There is a certain uncertainty existing in the minds of a large and not unimportant section of the people in Australia on that subject. The noble Lord has perhaps had the advantage, and the Dominions Office certainly have had the advantage, of reading the opinion of two very distinguished lawyers in Australia on this question. Sir Edward Mitchell, who is a leading K.C. and a person with the very highest reputation in Australia as a lawyer, has been officially and professionally consulted by certain persons in Australia as to the legal position of the recently appointed Governor-General and he has expressed an opinion in which he says:—
"Granted that the Ministers of the Crown in England have divested themselves of all responsibility for the appointment, then I have a certain opinion."
The opinion, I understand, is not accepted, nor would I press for the opinion to be accepted by your Lordships, but it is of importance to remember that there has been a legal opinion given by two gentlemen of very important position in the Bar in Australia to the effect that if there had been dissociation of the Minister of the Crown from advice to the Crown on the subject of appointment
174
then certain consequences follow. In addition to the opinion expressed by these two gentlemen, there has been a letter, of which I have a copy, written by the Chief Justice of Victoria, who is also Lieutenant-Governor of that State, expressing the same views.
Now when those views are expressed, not by irresponsible persons but by lawyers of the first eminence in the State, it is necessary, I think, in the interests of the people of Australia, that these questions should be clearly stated. I do not ask the Secretary of State to express a legal opinion, but I do ask him to make it clear to the people of Australia what the actual situation is. There should be no confusion nor uncertainty in their mind. They should know the conditions under which this appointment has been made, by whose recommendation it has been made, and who assumed the responsibility. One further question on that. If there has been a transfer of responsibility from the Secretary of State in this country to Ministers in Australia, then I presume the King has accepted his new advisers on the advice in the first instance of somebody. I take it the advice to change his advisers—I dare say the Secretary of State will understand what I am driving at—must have been given as a consequence of the Declaration of 1926. I do not know whether the advice was given during last year when the appointment was made first of all to New Zealand, subsequently to South Africa, and finally to Australia, and I do not know whether the change of advisers was accepted on the advice of Ministers, or whether there was an earlier advice given to His Majesty to accept a change of advisers.
May I say a word regarding the office of Governor-General? It is quite clear that if a Governor-General is appointed on the advice of certain Ministers then, in the event of the necessity of his recall, the advice must be given from the same Ministers who recommended his appointment. That is to say, if the Governor-General in any Dominion falls foul of or falls out with the Ministers to whom he is accredited, whether he be a citizen of the Dominion or whether he is sent from here, it is within the scope of the Ministers first giving advice that he should be appointed to advise His Majesty that he should be recalled. Now advice given for the recall of a Governor

175
does not frequently occur, but it does occur. It has occurred in the past, and it is conceivable that when the Governor-General or the Governor of a Dominion is the nominee of a particular Party, as he will be under the new system, that he may have to occupy one of two situations. He may either have to accept without question and without comment the advice which is given to him by his Ministers, whatever that advice may be, or he must expect, if he declines to accept that advice, that the Ministers will recommend to His Majesty that he should be recalled.
I do not know whether your Lordships are very familiar with Australian local history, but if you are not may I recall to you what took place in Queensland some ten years ago perhaps? I can put it very briefly indeed, but it is significant and illustrative of the case I wish to make. In Queensland some ten years ago there was a desire on the part of the Ministry of the day to abolish the Second House of the Legislature. They brought in Bills for the abolition of the Second House, which Bills were rejected by the Second House itself. They then adopted the constitutional procedure for solving a deadlock. There was a Referendum on the subject whether the Bill passed in the Lower House should become law despite the opposition of the Upper House. The Referendum took place, and the people of Queensland, by a very large majority, declared that they did not desire the abolition of their Upper House, but, as democracy frequently does queer things, they at the same time re-elected the Party which supported the Ministry that brought in the Bill.
The Party coming back into office then presented an advice to the Governor of the State to appoint sufficient members of the Upper House—it was an appointed and not an elected Upper House—to swamp that Upper House, and so carry the Bill through against the desires of the Upper House. At that time the Governor of Queensland, Sir Hamilton Goold-Adams, was on the verge of retiring, and had in fact retired before the matter came to a crisis. The man who succeeded him was a locally appointed Lieutenant-Governor, who assumed the reins of office as Governor. He was a friend and supporter of the Party in
176
power, and he had no hesitation whatever in disregarding the opinions of the electorate as expressed in the Referendum: he created a sufficient number of members of the Upper House to swamp it, and that Upper House was in fact abolished. I am not discussing whether it was wise or unwise to abolish the Upper House, but it does indicate, when you have a Governor who is a nominee of a particular political Party in any country you like, that Governor is likely to be under the compulsion of accepting the advice of the Ministers who created him, or, if there is a change of politics, he may find himself advised to do things which in his conscience he thinks he ought not to do and find himself recalled on the advice of the Ministers who are responsible for his appointment.
I do say rather seriously that Constitutions generally in this world require something in the nature of a protector. It is not peculiar to Australia that it is desirable that the Constitution should have somebody who can protect that Constitution against the excesses of any particular Party. The Governor-General in the past has been such a protector of the Constitution. The Governor-General in the future, if he attempts to exercise that office, will, I think, find himself rejected and recalled by the faction who happen to be in power. I know that very large numbers of people in Australia desire to see their Constitution protected. They do not desire to hand over the control of the Constitution to the Party which happens to be in office for the time being. Democracies change their ways, so do oligarchies. Anyhow democracies do change their mind, and it is important in the interests of Australia—I speak here for a large number of Australians—that there should be a protector outside the influence of political power in Australia to protect the permanent interests of the people of Australia against the passing whims of those who happen to have achieved power for the time being.
I must apologise to your Lordships for having detained you longer than I intended, but the matter is really of some importance, and not merely to us here. It is important that there should be close relationship between the Australian people and ourselves. It is of even greater importance to the Australian

177
people. They have not many opportunities of expressing their views to the people of this country. They are remote. They are very often of necessity inarticulate in public life—anyhow in the public life of this country. But those of us who know Australia—and there are some in this House—who are intimately acquainted with Australian feeling, have almost an obligation to speak when occasion arises in order to assist Australians. A large section, it may be a large majority (I am inclined to think it is) of Australians look upon recent changes which have taken place with regret. They desire to maintain a relationship free from political influence over their Governor-General, a relationship in which their Governor-General can exercise real functions, not merely rubber-stamps as they are sometimes described, but functions to protect the people and protect the Constitution of Australia against the assault of those who may very easily have ceased to represent the majority.
There is only one further question which I should like to ask the noble Lord. It is whether he has any correspondence on this matter. In 1926 when the question of the substitution of locally-appointed for what is sometimes called in Australia imported Governors, was under discussion, there was a White Paper issued by the Government dealing with the correspondence. It was Command Paper No. 2683 of 1926 and it sets out the argument—and a very vigorous argument—by the Government of Victoria against the substitution of a local Governor for one from this country. I am informed that there is no correspondence extant on this subject. It may be that there is correspondence which is of such a confidential nature that it cannot be published, but I would urge upon the Government, if they can see their way to publish the origin of this very important constitutional change, that they should do so, not to satisfy the curiosity of people in this country, not to satisfy those who are students of the constitutional and historical development of our Empire, but to satisfy the reasonable desire of the people of Australia to be informed how it has come about that this very large constitutional change has been effected.
LORD STONEHAVEN: My Lords, craving as I do the indulgence which I understand your Lordships are accustomed to accord to members who address this House for the first time, I am moved by very special circumstances because I have only recently given up the office which is under discussion. Having had experience of it both under the old régime and the new, I am very well aware of the delicacy of discussing at all a post which is in essence the representation of the Sovereign. But having had that experience, and realising the importance of one part certainly of the speech of my noble friend Lord Denman, I feel that I should be lacking in respect to your Lordships' House if I did not endeavour to contribute such experience as I can.
The essence of this new system is that it represents the growth of the feeling of nationality which is a prominent feature in all sections of the Empire. Australian nationality is a very real thing to an Australian—just as real as Scottish nationality is to a Scotsman—and it is absolutely compatible, indeed it is only compatible in its present form, with absolute loyalty to the Empire and particularly to the King. It is only in England, I think, that that question of nationality does not hold so prominent a place. I have seen many instances of Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen occupying high positions in England and nobody appears in the least surprised. In Glasgow, I met two Englishmen holding high positions and they were pointed out as rather curiosities. The same is more or less true of other parts of the Empire. It is only in London apparently that we are so broad-minded that nationality is overlooked.
But there is a very important point in that connection; that is that now, although the Sovereign is represented in the Commonwealth, the British people as such and the British Government as such have no representative there at all. That, I think, is the essence of the whole question which your Lordships are considering to-day. My noble friend Viscount Novar and other noble Lords who have preceded me have drawn attention to the changes which have occurred in the position of Governor-General. I had experience for two and a-half years of the old system when the Governor-General was the representative of the Govern-

179
ment as well as of His Majesty, and latterly I had experience under the new régime when the Governor-General represented only the Sovereign. I had experience also of two Governments drawn from opposite political Parties in the Commonwealth. May I say at once that both Governments carried out in the letter and in the spirit the obligations imposed by the Declaration of the Conference of 1926, that the King's representative should occupy so far as public affairs are concerned mutatis mutandis the same position in the Dominions as His Majesty occupies here at home.
I say that in particular with regard to a reference made to Despatches. I think either my noble friend Lord Denman or the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, said that the Governor-General would never see Despatches except through the courtesy of Ministers. That is not so. The Governor-General receives copies of Despatches both in and out and copies of telegrams both in and out as a matter of right. The only change that has occurred in that respect is that instead of his receiving two sets of Despatches and telegrams and sending one copy to the Government, the Government receive two copies and send one copy to him. I myself was not so strongly opposed as my noble friend Viscount Novar to the change, because I could not help contemplating the possibility of a situation arising such as has in fact arisen, when there might be matters that would form the subject of discussion between His Majesty's Government at home and the Federal Government in which opinions might differ acutely, and I thought it was better that the King's representative should not act as the channel of communication in such circumstances.
But that does not alter the fact that all the duties so well described by my noble friend Viscount Novar still require to be done—such matters as glossing over differences of opinion, discussing matters in a friendly way with Ministers, keeping Ministers here at home thoroughly and intimately informed of changes of opinion and of the general point of view in the Dominions. All that work ought to be done, but I frankly say that the analogy of an Ambassador who in a foreign country represents the Sovereign and does perform all those duties as well, is not, in my humble judgment, applicable
180
to a Dominion because the status of the Sovereign in a Dominion is quite different from the status of the Sovereign in a foreign country, so that if it may seem an anomaly that any subject should be considered capable of pretending that he is the King—because that is what it amounts to—we are not a logical people, and our Constitution is not a logical one.
The fact remains that, having had experience of both types of Governor-Generalship, I never noticed the slightest difference in the attitude of the public at large, of His Majesty's subjects in Australia, after the change occurred. An expression was used on one occasion that I always think very accurately descriptive of the real position of the Governor-General. The Chairman at a dinner which I attended, in proposing my health—an experience which we all had such an enormous number of times that we ought to enjoy permanent good health for the rest of our lives—said: "You, Sir, are not the link that unites us to the old country, but it is your mission to keep the link bright."
The difficulty of the new situation is that the link must manifestly be attached to both ends, and my successor lacks the attachments in this country which would enable him to act as the visible being who is sent out by the King for the purpose of representing His Majesty, and who, equally, is a stranger in any connection in the Dominion, except as Governor-General and as representative of His Majesty. I do not think the point is very important, so far as the Governor-General is concerned, because no one could deny that my successor, Sir Isaac Isaacs, is certainly as distinguished a man as could possibly have been sent out from here. He has risen to the highest office. A man who is considered fit to be Chief Justice of the Commonwealth is surely equally fit, from his attainments and experience, to be the representative of His Majesty. There remains, however, the question of the link, and for the moment the link requires re-establishing. I hope that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, will be in a position to give us a very satisfactory assurance on that point.
Let me refer for a moment or two to the magnitude of the material interests. I have alluded to the more or less sentimental interests, and no one who

181
has had experience of life in the Dominions, or indeed of public life in this country, will under-rate the inestimable value of the sentimental ties. After all, it is sentiment that is responsible for nine-tenths of the great deeds that have been performed, and the sentiment that attaches Australia to this country is so strong that I believe it will stand us in good stead in future, in peace time, just as it did in wartime. I think the point of view that we should take is that we should give the opportunity for the expression of that sentiment to someone who goes out with the mission of representing the people from whom the Australians are mainly sprung.
I hope it will not weary your Lordships if I invite you to consider the position of Australia and its population. It is often stated that Australians boast, and boast quite rightly, that they are, to the extent of 90 per cent., British in origin. The latest figures are those from the census of 1921. The population of the Commonwealth was then just under 5,500,000, and of that number over 4,500,000 were born in Australia; 459,000—almost half a million—were born in England; Scotland was responsible for 108,000; Ireland for 105,000; New Zealand came next with 38,000; and then Germany with 22,000. Those with other birthplaces represented a very small number. I think that gives you a picture of a country which is not only intensely British by origin, but intensely English. The English are not a demonstrative people and—I speak with respect of Scotsmen: I have not found them demonstrative either. I think my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley was quite right in suggesting that there is probably more feeling in the Commonwealth than has been given expression to in regard to the change, but I would venture to suggest that this is a matter which we would do much better to leave alone, that we cannot help by discussing it and we might say things that would be resented in Australia from the point of view of Australian nationality.
I say this for a very simple reason. Noble Lords who preceded me referred to the various sources of the Commonwealth Constitution. Since the Commonwealth was created, there has come into existence a new body, the Imperial Conference, whose authority has never been
182
clearly defined. There again I think we have to fall hack upon the, perhaps, illogical but common-sense way in which we do things, for I take it that the authority of the Imperial Conference has to be referred back to the Parliaments that send the various Ministers who come to the decisions taken at the Conference. I suppose that, if the Parliament that sent a Minister to the imperial Conference did not endorse the decision taken in the name of that Parliament at the Conference, then the decision would be turned down. In no other way would it be possible to prevent effect being given to a decision of the Conference such as has made possible this far-reaching change in the appointment of the Governor-General.
But it is for the Government of this country, as it seems to me, to decide to take the indispensable step of appointing the best man they can find to perform the duties, which are not being performed now, of representing the interests of the average man in the street, whose interests are, I suppose, to be looked after by His Majesty's Government—the interests of English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh in Australia. There are in Australia, at the moment, only two representatives of the British Government. They are both very able officials, but they have not the status which would enable them efficiently to discharge these important functions. This is most important, perhaps now more than at any time, and it will be increasingly important, for Australia is passing through very great difficulties, out of which I firmly believe that we shall help her before very long. But there are a great many things that Australia must do herself before she can be helped. When Australia realises the need for taking the action that has already been indicated to her, and when she takes that action, I hope that this country will be the first to lend her a helping hand and that, by so doing, we shall contribute to overcoming the period of difficulty through which she is passing.
Let me give you one example of a practical kind of intervention which the High Commissioner is in a position to exercise in this country, but which nobody is in a position to exercise in Australia. The noble Lord's successor at the Dominions Office made a state-

183
ment, in the course of a debate on a Vote of Censure in another place, with regard to the higher duties which, he said, were imposed on British goods entering Australia as compared with the duties on similar goods entering Germany. The High Commissioner at once took up the point, and pointed out that that statement was incomplete, because in spite of the higher duties that Australia charged Australia imported £144,000 of sewing machines as against Germany's £57,000. So that from our point of view Australia was still a more valuable customer than Germany.
I recall an analogous case in Australia where lack of someone occupying the position of High Commissioner was very much felt. Australia owes the world £1,100,000,000. £526,000,000 is owed in Australia, £520,000,000 in this country, and £47,000,000 in the United States. Of that Debt £290,000,000 is represented by War Debt, and of that War Debt the amount owed to Great Britain is £92,000,000. The amount of that Debt, compared with the whole Debt of Australia, is not very important, but a great deal of prejudice was stirred up in Australia, representing the attitude of the British Government as being inconsiderate towards Australia in regard to her War Debt. There was no one who had the right, or whose business it was, to reply effectively, as would have been done by a High Commissioner, in the Australian papers, although it is true that Australians themselves in a great part of the Press countered this allegation, pointing out that it was not the whole story. That is not enough, and as times get more difficult, and as Australia emerges from the difficulties in which she finds herself at the present time, there will be many opportunities which can only be taken by some one enjoying the confidence of the Government here, and who by his personality can earn the confidence of the Australians. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that the Government have found the right man for this important work, and that he will be sent out to take over at the earliest moment his important duties.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, no one can have listened to the instructive debate, or rather to the series
184
of expositions of experience to which we have listened, without feeling what an advantage it is that this House should have present here those who have acted as Governors and Governors-General in our great Dominions. Unfortunately these expositions of experience have taken up a good deal of time, and I cannot venture to detain your Lordships very long in answer. Yet I must in justice to what has been said do what I can in that matter. I shall save time and possibly obtain a better statement if I arrange my reply with reference not to particular speeches but with reference to the subjects referred to. The debate has ranged over a rather wide area, but I think noble Lords will not feel I am discourteous in confining my reply to the three main points, in which I think I can include some reference to some other of the details mentioned.
The most important subject that has been running through nearly all the speeches to which we have listened is the changed position of the Governor-General. That changed position of the Governor-General, is a matter, as Lord Stonehaven very properly mentioned, of some delicacy, and there are some things which, as he suggested, we cannot help by discussing, but we may injure. Therefore if I observe a certain restraint I hope your Lordships will not think it is reticence. It is because the subject is a little difficult, and it is difficult to speak plainly without being liable at a distance to be misunderstood. Of course the guiding principle which has led to the change is not the making of the present Government. It all arises from the declaration of the Imperial Conference of 1926, and I must recall to your Lordships that that was not a decision, as was incidentally said by Lord Novar, of a Coalition Government. It was actually a full-blooded Conservative Government which was in charge of affairs in 1926.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I never attempted to evade the point that it was so. In fact I rather emphasised that I thought they had rather made a slip.
LORD PASSFIELD: I know the noble Viscount did not wish to evade the point, but he referred to a Coalition Government. It was a slip on his part. The guiding principles in the matters referred to in the Motion are to be found in two

185
passages of the Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference, 1926. The first is as follows:—
"In our opinion it is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations that the Governor-General of a Dominion is the representative of the Crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the Dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain or of any Department of that Government.
"It seemed to us to follow that, the practice whereby the Governor-General of a Dominion is the formal official channel of communication between His Majesty's Government in Great Britain and His Governments in the Dominions might be regarded as no longer wholly in accordance with the constitutional position of the Governor-General. It was thought that the recognised official channel of communication should be, in future, between Government and Government direct. The representatives of Great Britain readily recognised that the existing procedure might be open to criticism and accepted the proposed change in principle in relation to any of the Dominions which desired it. Details were left for settlement as soon as possible after the Conference had completed its work, but it was recognised by the Committee, as an essential feature of any change or development in the channels of communication, that a Governor-General should be supplied with copies of all documents of importance and in general should be kept as fully informed as is His Majesty the King in Great Britain of Cabinet business and public affairs."
May read another paragraph:—
"A special aspect of the question of consultation which we considered was that concerning the representation of Great Britain in the Dominions. By reason of his constitutional position, as explained in Section IV (b) of this Report, the Governor-General is no longer the representative of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain. There is no one therefore in the Dominion capitals in a position to represent with authority the views of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain.
"We summed up our conclusion in the following Resolution, which is submitted for the consideration of the Conference:—
'The Governments represented at the Imperial Conference are impressed with the desirability of developing a system of personal contact, both in London and in the Dominion capitals, to supplement the present system of intercommunication and the reciprocal supply of information on affairs requiring joint consideration. The manner in which any new system is to be worked out is a matter for consideration and settlement between His Majesty's Governments in Great
186
Britain and the Dominions, with due regard to the circumstances of each particular part of the Empire, it being understood that any new arrangements should be supplementary to, and not in replacement of, the system of direct communication from Government to Government and the special arrangements which have been in force since 1918 for communications between Prime Ministers.'"
Your Lordships will notice that there is the change in the position of the Governor-General, and then there is the further change in the channels of communication supplementary to the Governor-General.
With regard to the change in the position of the Governor-General—and this has a bearing on the delicate question of how the Governor-General is now appointed in the Dominions—the subject was a matter for consideration at the Imperial Conference of 1930, and the Imperial Conference of 1930 quoted the passage I have just read, and the conclusion which they drew from it was that the parties interested in the appointment of the Governor-General are His Majesty the King, whose representative he is, and the Dominion concerned. Now, it is not for me to put a gloss upon that. The subject is one to which it is not possible to give a plain and universal reply, because the Dominions all differ among themselves in the degree in which they have been evolved and the wishes of the Dominion Governments with regard to this matter. But, of course, any questions as to the propriety of the action which has been taken by Dominion Ministers in relation to the appointment of a Governor-General is peculiarly a matter for the Dominion Parliament concerned and not, I suggest, for this Parliament. Now, that is about as far as I think we can usefully go with that particular matter.
With regard to the channel of communication, there again the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this country—the previous Government as well as the present Government—has been to go slow, let constitutional practice work itself out, following the desires and the need of the several Dominion Governments from time to time. In 1928 the late Government did appoint a High Commissioner at Ottawa, no doubt—I do not remember—but no doubt, at the request, and certainly with

187
the warm concurrence, of the Dominion Government concerned at the time. With regard to South Africa, a different arrangement was made. In South Africa the Governor-General had an Imperial Secretary, and it was arranged that the Imperial Secretary should act as United Kingdom representative in the South African Union. And now that arrangement has been altered. The present Government, on the retirement of the Earl of Athlone, took the opportunity of separating the offices of Governor-General of the South African Union and High Commissioner, and a High Commissioner has been appointed. That High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Stanley, is entrusted with dual functions—namely, those previously performed by the High Commissioner in South Africa, in particular the administration of the three Native Territories in South Africa, which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is still responsible for, and also the representation of the United Kingdom Government to the Union Government. That is only an instance of how we have had to take into account the particular circumstances of each Dominion with regard to this attempt to get another channel of communication.
Now, in Australia the circumstances have been different, and the system adopted—in fact during the lifetime of the late Government—was that the Dominion Government maintained a liaison officer in London, in close touch with the various Departments of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Now, I think we may say that, as far as it went, the value of that system was fully recognised, and I should like to bear testimony to the good work which was performed by Major Casey in initiating that service. Major Casey has just retired, and it is only due to him to say that the late Government, I believe, and certainly the present Government, have found that form of connection between the two Governments of the greatest value. The same facilities as were afforded to Major Casey will, of course, be extended to his successor, whom His Majesty's Government are very pleased to welcome. Now, that is another way of having the connection. It was not thought wise by the late Government, nor has it been thought wise by the present Government, to impose any one method of communication between the two Governments. We
188
feel the need for it more or less in particular Dominions. At the present time, the Dominion of New Zealand has not asked for any change, either with regard to the Governor-General or with regard to the representation of Governments—from Government to Government. And I think the wise course has been adopted of not hurrying New Zealand, not attempting to influence them. As long as they are contented with the older system there is no reason why His Majesty's Government should wish, out of any desire for a logical uniformity, to make any alteration there.
The particular Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Denman, and again by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley—the position in the Commonwealth of Australia—is that we have, as has been mentioned, a Trade Commissioner there. He, of course, does not fulfil these functions, but there has been a special representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for migration purposes, appointed under arrangements made by the late Government. That has been of considerable use within the limited sphere of migration purposes, and my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs has already indicated, in reply to Questions in the House of Commons in December, that it was the intention of the present Government to review the question of the representation of the United Kingdom in the Commonwealth of Australia. This review is at present in progress, and I am not in a position to say what will be done. But the importance of the subject is fully recognised, but also the importance of not, shall I say? forcing the pace. We must proceed with the cordial concurrence which His Majesty's Government in Australia has always shown, and will continue to show, we are quite sure; but we cannot go too fast.
One other word about the channel of communication. The noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven, whom I may take the opportunity perhaps, unworthy as I am, to welcome to this House, referred to the happy expression of a link which has got to be kept bright. He pointed out that a link, to serve its purpose, must be attached at both ends. My Lords,

189
metaphors are a little dangerous. I thought at first it was a very brilliant metaphor, especially the keeping it bright; but, of course, a link which is attached at both ends might become a chain. I do not want to follow the metaphor at all. I appreciate the necessity for a link, but I am quite sure the noble Lord himself would be the first to say that a link which looked like a chain, even if it were not a chain, would not be the most suitable—
LORD STONEHAVEN: The noble Lord will forgive me. I quoted what an Australian said.
LORD PASSFIELD: I am afraid the exuberant gentleman at the dinner who proposed the toast did not sufficiently think where the analogy might lead him. But still, I think it is a very happy analogy, so far as keeping the link bright is concerned. But when we are attempting to find ways of attaching things to both ends of it, as we are, we have to be extremely careful that we are not misunderstood, and that we do not go further in the direction of these attachments than is required for communication and expression of the feelings of the respective Governments, and the danger always is that it may be considered as a chain.
Now two other words about the Governor-General. I am aware of the legal controversy which has taken place. I am only a very amateur lawyer but I always look upon counsel's opinion, even that of the most eminent counsel, with a little bit of suspicion, because it all depends on the case and on how it was put to them, and I have not seen how the case was put. In so far as it is a question of law, which, of course, means the interpretation of the Commonwealth Constitution, that appears to be essentially a matter for the consideration of the proper authorities in Australia, and at all events it is not one on which His Majesty's Government in this country had better express any opinion. In so far as it is a matter of constitutional practice and propriety, we must be guided, at any rate, if not governed, by the conclusions of the Imperial Conference. These things have been built up
190
not by correspondence but by oral communication at the two Imperial Conferences. If the noble Lords who raised this question would be good enough to refer to the Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference, 1930, they would see that consideration had been given to some of the points that have been raised. It is proposed, in order to clear up some of the ragged ends, that there should be new legislation in this Parliament, which will appear in due course and which has been agreed to in advance by all the Dominions.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: By all the Parliaments?
LORD PASSFIELD: I cannot remember exactly. In substance, yes; the Parliaments have expressed their approval. It has been done in general, if not in all. We shall not proceed, of course, without the express assent of the Dominion Parliaments. In that Summary Report of the Imperial Conference, 1930, there will be found as much as is possible of the considerations that have passed on some of these subjects. There has been no alteration made recently in the Royal Instructions to the State Governors. These State Governors still correspond direct with the Secretary of State and the Royal Instructions still provide for the reservation of Bills on certain subjects for the Royal Assent and also for the Veto. Those are points which, as regards the Dominions, were specially considered at the Imperial Conference, 1930, and there would have to be legislation on those points in order to bring the present constitutional position into harmony with the law or to bring the law into harmony with the present constitutional position.
Your Lordships will have seen that the Government are fully alive to the importance of providing some one in addition to the Governor-General, whose functions, I believe, will remain of the greatest importance still under the new system. We may exaggerate perhaps the amount of change but there will be functions he will not be able to fulfil under the new system and the Government are fully alive to the importance of providing for those as far as possible. I do not know whether a High Commissioner, such

191
as we have at Ottawa or as we have now at Cape Town, would be able to exercise quite all those very valuable functions, which the Governor-General used to exercise in tactfully dealing with his Ministers, in bringing things to their notice, removing misapprehensions, reminding them perhaps sometimes of things they had forgotten—all those things that pass between a Constitutional Monarch and his Ministers, into which we had better not enquire too closely, which are very private but extremely useful. I am not quite sure that a High Commissioner could quite fill the bill and do all the things that ought to be done but we recognise there must be some such person. Nor do I think a High Commissioner, unless of a rare personality, would really be able to represent the British people to the Australian people. That would be very difficult. I am not sure that he ought frequently to write letters to the newspapers. In some way or other we shall have to be represented.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, asked why we should apply the Balfour Declaration to the Constitution of a Dominion like Australia which is a tight Federation, a very limited Federation. Undoubtedly the Imperial Conference of 1926 meant it to be applied to Australia because it made no distinction between one Dominion and another. Consequently, I do not think it is profitable to discuss whether it was wise to take that step. It was taken and it is irrevocable. We have had, as the late Government had, to work it out as well as we could. There has been no difference of opinion between us and it has been worked out very patiently and purely empirically from point to point. I ask if that is not the better way. At any rate, it is the only way open to English people. We could only do it in that way. No change has been made with regard to the formal law on the subject. There is still the provision about reservation and about the Veto which has, of course, become obsolete.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: And the Governor-General's Instructions?
LORD PASSFIELD: Of course, there will have to be alterations. That is part
192
of the legislation which will have to be brought before your Lordships at a later period following upon the Conference of 1930. On that your Lordships will be satisfied that every care has been taken and will be taken. Now I really would ask your Lordships' permission not to go further on this matter. I have endeavoured to answer the chief points which have been raised. I can only say that the British Constitution is not a logical Constitution. There are lots of things which ought to be put right in form, which can only be put right bit by bit, and sometimes it is better not to attempt to be too logical. Certainly, that has been the practice since 1926 and we have done best by going on those lines. When your Lordships see the new legislation which is indicated in the Report of the Conference of 1930, your Lordships will see that it is proposed to put right several of those loose ends. There is no correspondence that can be produced. It has been done over a table at these two Imperial Conferences and of course a great deal was published in connection with the 1930 Imperial Conference. The Legal Committee, over which I, in another capacity, had the honour to preside and only to preside, went into all these points and produced a Report on these points—I contributed nothing to it—which is really a volume of very great value.
THE EARL OF STAIR: Before the noble Lord sits down, will be tell us if this is the only Parliament that will have no say in ratifying the decisions of the Imperial Conference?
LORD PASSFIELD: This Parliament will have a say. I cannot say it had any say with regard to the 1926 Declaration, which is, after all, the big thing. There was no debate. Undoubtedly the necessary legislation will be brought in, which can only be effected by this Parliament, for this Parliament is the only one in the whole world which has unlimited functions, and it cannot divest itself of them. Therefore it will come before your Lordships in the form of a Bill, which will give the opportunity of expressing an opinion.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the courteous reply

193
which he has made on the debate. I would like to urge upon him, if a representative of this country is appointed in the Commonwealth, that too much caution should not be exercised and there should not be too much delay, because, certainly in the opinion of Lord Stonehaven, which is much more valuable than my own, the matter is rather urgent.
194
In his opinion someone should be appointed without undue delay.
LORD PASSFIELD: I will certainly represent that to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.

LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—

E. Spencer,

E. Effingham,

E. Strafford (Chairman),

E. Iveagh,

L. Monson:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

YORKSHIRE (WOOLLEN DISTRICT) TRANSPORT BILL. [H.L.] ROYSTON AND BRODSWORTH GAS BILL. [H.L.] LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.] NEATH CANAL NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—

E. Beauchamp (Chairman),

V. Esher,

L. Sandys,

L. Templemore,

L. Annesley (V. Valentia):

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Thursday next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.] BACUP CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.] GRAND UNION CANAL BILL. [H.L.] NORTHAMPTON EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—

V. Chelmsford (Chairman),

L. Erskine,

L. Chesham,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Addington.

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly; The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 10th of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:—

E. Radnor,

V. Burnham (Chairman,)

L. Braye,

L. Monkswell,

L. Marks.

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly; The Committee to meet on Thursday the 19th of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

LONDON SQUARES PRESERVATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.