May I ask any representative of the Home Department who may be present if he can give the House any information regarding the tragic assassination, to the universal sorrow, of Sir Curzon Wyllie and another gentleman, reported this morning?

I understand that the case is being tried in the police court, and that the Home Office have no information beyond what appears in the Press.

I handed in at the Table an Amendment to this Motion, and I should like to ask whether it would be in order to move an Amendment limiting any money which is spent under this Motion to such buildings as can be acquired rather than building them?

Where does the hon. Gentleman propose to bring it in?

At the end.

I cannot say that it is out of order, but it is entirely unusual. It seems to me that it ought rather to be put in the Bill than here.

I handed the following Amendment to the clerk at the Table: "Provided always that the sum spent in any one year does not exceed £150,000." I wish to know whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Captain Craig) would in any way interfere with my Amendment. I think if the hon. Member's Amendment were rejected mine could then be moved. I wish to know the position.

The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member should come first.

I beg to move to add at the end of the Resolution: "Provided that no capital expenditure be made by the Board unless Government or leasehold premises suitable for the purpose of Labour Exchanges are unobtainable in the locality."

I wish to make it quite clear that I have no objection whatever to the establishment of Labour Exchanges, and to voting the money necessary to carry them on. Anyone who examines the financial statement carefully will see that it covers quite a large number of the items for which it is necessary to provide under the Bill. I have no objection whatever to money being given for the objects stated, except as regards the laying of foundation stones now for buildings to be erected hereafter. I object to that on the ground that whatever sum of money is taken now for that purpose will only be the beginning of a large scheme for erecting fresh buildings of a very elaborate character, presumably at the centres indicated in the Bill. There are a very large number of buildings in these centres suitable for Labour Exchanges. Everyone knows that there are old exchanges and old prisons in certain large towns which could be used for this purpose. I am glad to say that there are prisons in some populous parts of the country which are not now used as prisons. They would make most admirable Labour Exchanges. I know three or four populous towns in Ireland where there are well-built and conveniently situated buildings which could be so utilised. In Downpatrick, in county Down, a large and prosperous town, there is an old gaol which has been lying idle for 20 years or more. It is substantially built, and it occupies about the best site in the town. It seems to me that we ought to restrict the money under this Resolution to the utilising, as far as posible, of such buildings, and in that way allow all the more money to be paid to the staff. If the money is used for beginning the erection of new buildings, it will be some years before they can be used for the purposes for which they are intended. The Government have in view legislation with regard to the reform of the Poor Law. That reform will, of necessity, mean the closing of a large number of poor-houses and workhouses throughout the kingdom, and, on account of the grouping of the inmates more in large centres, we may anticipate that a large number of the buildings will become vacant, and consequently available for the purpose of Labour Exchanges. The Exchanges would be able to get to work at once if these buildings were used in the way suggested, and even present distress in various trades throughout the country would be relieved in some measure by taking advantage of the earliest opportunity of using the money voted under the scheme.

I do not see that this has anything to do with the proposal in the Resolution. The hon. Member is now arguing that it is desirable the Act should be got to work at once. He must confine himself to the question whether it is proper that there should be capital expenditure or not upon this scheme.

I was only trying to show that if the money which is to be used as capital is used for the erection of new buildings, it will mean that less money will be available for the purchase of buildings already in existence, thereby preventing the Exchanges from getting to work at once. This, after all, is the beginning of a new scheme which, I understand, is to cost £2,000,000. I wish that as much as possible should be devoted to the working of the Act, and not for the purpose of being sunk in bricks and mortar throughout the country. Another effect would be to bring prosperity to some of the smaller towns which have those buildings and are anxious to have them occupied. If my Amendment is accepted, it will give great satisfaction throughout the country.

I have endeavoured as far as possible to facilitate discussion to-day by publishing a statement setting forth in considerable detail the general purposes for which the money is required under this Bill. I hope that the Committee will not adopt the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member (Captain Craig). I agree with him that it would foe very undesiraible for us to spend a lot of money on bricks and mortar in a scheme of this character. I think we have got to work gradually in the matter of permanent buildings. The proposals which I have submitted do not provide for building permanent premises for even the first Labour Exchanges. Until 10 years have passed the new buildings will not be completed, and meantime the Exchanges will be housed in hired buildings. The hon. Member would like to go on permanently in hired buildings. I do not think that that would be economical, foe-cause there would be an expensive charge for rent, and the adaptations necessary are also expensive. As shown in the statement which I have made in the Paper, the result of the building of permanent premises, which will be gradually undertaken year after year at the rate of three or four each year, will be sensibly to reduce the charges for rent, and the fact that permanent buildings are going to foe put up in certain places will relieve us from the expensive adaptations that will have to be made in those places. Because where we are going to build a permanent structure shortly we are going to try to get along as best we can with the minimum of expense of adaptation. Where no permanent structure is to be provided for seven, eight, or nine years, there, of course, the adaptations will have to be of a more extensive character. Of course, no merely adapted buildings will really foe suitable for the purposes of a first-class Labour Exchange. We want two or three or four considerable waiting-rooms, with special lavatory accommodation, and two or three other rooms for the purpose of the service and the administration; and there are several special circumstances connected with this business which will ultimately require a proper building to be put up for us, and I am sure that in that respect the hon. Gentleman will do me the justice of admitting that I have tried to give the fullest information to the House to-day, and that in addition to that we are not launching out in any ambitious scheme of bricks and mortar, but we have tried to develop a plan which in a humble and modest way will enable us to put our project into operation and not commit the country to any undue expenditure until it has been proved by the working to be a necessary part of our social arrangements.

I do not know whether the hon. Member (Captain Craig) who brings forward this Amendment is serious or not, but if it goes to a Division I hope he will be left in a minority of one. It seems to me that if Labour Exchanges are to be set up at all he wants them set up on the cheap. Speaking as one with some knowledge of labour and workmen generally throughout the country, I want to say in my judgment if any spirit of that sort should creep in in setting up Labour Exchanges it would be absolutely fatal to it. I take it that the Labour Exchanges have nothing compulsory about them, but being voluntary in character, must be of such a kind as to attract workmen and employers to get into co-operation to make them a success, and anything more calculated to defeat the object in view I do not know than to send workmen to register their names in old prisons, or as the hon. Gentleman suggested, old workhouses and small-pox hospitals. I can only say that if anything of that sort is done it will defeat the purpose of the Bill, for workmen will never go near them. As has just been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill), we want even the cheapest of these exchanges to be of such a character as to afford all facilities whereby you may have divisions of the separate groups of trades treated according to their special needs; and all this involves, as he said, buildings put up for the purpose and the whole scheme being started in the manner in which it is to go on, that is to say, in a manner to attract the workmen and the employers to co-operate to make the scheme a success. This Amendment is calculated to defeat that object, and therefore I hope it will not be pressed; but if it is, I hope that it will be defeated by an overwhelming majority.

The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Barnes) has told us that he did not want Labour Exchanges in a cheap form. I presume, of course, that the cost of these Labour Exchanges is to be put on as a super-tax on those who have more than £5,000 a year. I think that the idea of the hon. Member is that all people who have got money should be taxed for the benefit of his own class. I suppose that as he has not got to pay he prefers the expensive kind of Exchanges; but from the point of view of economy and business it does seem to me that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is not only a serious Amendment, but an extremely sensible and proper Amendment to be moved. I fail to see why workmen should not be attracted because the buildings are not of a magnificent character. The object of the workmen is to be at work, and if the place is dry there does not seem to me any reason why the workmen should not go to a building because it has been a prison or a workhouse any more than they should not go to a building that has been newly erected and finished like some of these elaborate municipal buildings on which the money of the ratepayers is being unfortunately wasted. Prisons, as far as I know, are always extremely well-built structures, and the roof is sound. What more is wanted I really fail to see. I should have thought they would be extremely good buildings, and buildings which would be as well adapted for this purpose of making inquiries as to what the industries in the neighbourhood are as buildings specially erected. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Churchill) says that he has given us a very complete financial statement. May I save personally, I thank him very much for the statement which he has issued. I think it is a very good move. I quite admit that it is a new precedent. It has never been done before, and I think we ought to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting this new precedent, and enabling us to form some opinion of what the object of the financial Resolution is. For my part I thank him for the course he has adopted. But while I say that I think from the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made that he advances strong arguments in favour of accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Captain Craig). The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not intended to build permanent offices because of the cost. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend he could, when ten years have passed, obtain a fresh Resolution, if necessary, to erect permanent buildings. If it is his intention not to have permanent buildings until ten years have elapsed, he ought to welcome this Amendment, because it will prevent pressure being brought to bear on him to exceed his original intention not to erect these permanent buildings before ten years. Then, as he says, there will be heavy charges for rent; on the other hand, there will be heavy charges for interest. If you erect permanent buildings no doubt you will save the rent, but you will have to pay the interest on the money which has been borrowed to erect the buildings. That would be extremely expensive, especially as it is cheaper to rent than to build. You may buy a building cheaper than you could build, and all my experience is—and I have had a good deal in different parts of the country—that it is always more expensive to build than to hire or to buy an old building. Then as to the question of special accommodation. After all, it is not so very difficult to adapt an old building, especially if it is a large one, and that is why I think that my hon. Friend's suggestion about prisons is a very good one. Under these circumstances, I can see many reasons for supporting the Amendment if it goes to a Division. I do hope that in these days, when there is an enormous expenditure going on, that economy will find true champions on the other side of the House. The acceptance of the Amendment will in no way interfere with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman himself does not contemplate building within ten years, and under these circumstances, if it is desired that these things should be done economically and in a businesslike manner, the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend should be welcomed.

I do not quite agree with the hon. Baronet that the right hon. Gentleman is going to confine buildings to a period after the lapse of ten years. It is a very important point whether these cheap buildings are to be only leasehold, and that at the end of ten years, when they have got sufficient information, they will decide which sites are suitable on which to erect buildings. I gather, however, from the Memorandum which has been circulated, that it is proposed next year, or the year after, to obtain some sites—at any rate, to begin the work of building. I gather that this is very likely to be the plan. But where you have leasehold premises you can change the situation to another part of the town or city, whereas if you have bought a site you are tied to it and you will have to erect your building there, although it may afterwards turn out to be in not the most convenient situation for your purposes. The whole thing is an experiment. It may exist abroad, but I have not had an opportunity of seeing it. I am quite sure, however, that it is a novel experiment, and we would be wise as business men to go very slowly, particularly in a case like this, where you would fix yourselves by buying a site. It is not yet known whether the buildings which you proposed to erect would be more convenient for the purposes of Labour Exchanges on sites in the centre of the town, or in the workmen's quarters. In London, for instance, it is a very important point whether the site should be in the centre of the town, where land is very dear.

This is quite out of order. The only point with which we are now dealing is whether we are to spend money on capital expenditure.

I was trying to argue that we should not spend capital on any particular site, because it might be in the wrong situation, and that, therefore, it would be a great mistake to have a capital expenditure on buildings. I say this is an experiment, and it cannot be denied that there is no similar thing in the country. I would suggest that you should take premises for a short period, and then, if you find a place turned out to be too small for your requirements you could easily make a change. There are many reasons which will readily occur to business men why you should go slowly, and why you should be very guarded in select- ing places for labour exchanges. On the whole it would be just as well not to put more into bricks and mortar than you can possibly avoid at the present time.

Hon. Members will have realised from the speech of my hon. Friend that there is nothing in the least bit hostile to the Motion in his Amendment; at the same time it is clearly directed to the proposition laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, who pointed out that it was the intention of the Government to erect permanent buildings at the rate of two, three, or four yearly. We on this side of the House feel that this proposal is altogether an experimental one, though the actual results of it we have very little doubt are likely to be good, useful and valuable. At the same time it must pass through the experimental stage, during which it would be very undesirable to have a large capital outlay. It is merely on that ground that hon. Members on this side of the House support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I suggest that leasehold property should be obtained where at all suitable in various localities. I heartily support that proposition because one feels that the work of the Labour Exchanges is one which will vary very much. Some of them may cease to be of any importance at all when a class of occupation in the district develops satisfactorily, and when employment becomes general. The whole operations of the Exchange may have to be centred in some other localities. It is clearly desirable at any rate for a time that there should not be permanent buildings. In many places there are leasehold properties which would adapt themselves with very little expense to the requirements of this work.

I am sure it is within the experience of hon. Members that in almost every locality there are lots of buildings which would adapt themselves to this purpose. It seems unnecessary at this stage of the proceedings to involve the country in a large expenditure for permanent buildings. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) estimates that it may be ten years before those permanent buildings in the principal localities may be erected. Before that period has elapsed large expenditure clearly must be involved as the work goes on, and even the permanent buildings will have to be re-adapted. We all know how difficult it is to acquire an addition to a site where a Government building already exists. If the Government from time to time has to acquire sites immediately adjoining in order that they may extend, readapt and alter and change the construction of existing buildings, then we shall be face to face with the purchase of land and the erection of buildings under most disadvantageous conditions. Those are reasons which must be present to the minds of hon. Gentlemen. It is in no hostile spirit we bring this Amendment before the Committee. We quite realise it would be entirely out of order to make any reference to the work of the Bill or the nature of the Bill, or to our sympathy with the Bill. We feel that sufficient steps should be taken to ensure that unnecessary and especially wasteful expenditure should not be made. That would be clearly the result if in the early stages we were to lay down in any sense, as the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, the proposition that without waste of time we should proceed to the extent of two, three, or four permanent buildings every year, and buildings which cannot fail to be of an expensive character, and at the same time, merely perhaps of a transitory and experimental character.

I must point out that the hon. Member is not only repeating what other hon. Members have said, but he is now beginning to repeat himself.

I had not the advantage of hearing the other speeches.

That is precisely why the hon. Member is likely to repeat them.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. I took it that the permanent buildings would not be erected until 10 years had elapsed; and my hon. Friend is under the impression that this capital expenditure will be commenced at once, and proceeded with for 10 years.

The second statement is the correct one. There will be so much expended each year. Three or four first-class Exchanges will be erected each year, until at the end of the 10 years 30 or 40 will be built. In that way the expenditure is spread over a long period. If he will look at the statement of annual expenditure he will see we so spread it as to avoid any undue expenditure in any one year. The sum of £210,000 is the highest amount we arrive at, then £200,000, until in the tenth year, with the economy in the erection of these buildings, you have a sum of £180,000.

In reply to the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) I wish to say there was nothing derogatory in the suggestion I made as to prisons. I forgot to mention about barracks, which are also Government property. Therefore, the hon. Member's argument about the rent of those buildings, of course, does not apply. It was for the purpose as much as possible of conserving the capital that I pointed out where these barracks happen to be lying vacant, or Government buildings of any sort, the Government should convert those buildings to this use rather than have capital expenditure. That is the real meaning of the Amendment. Hon. Members below the Gangway did not quite clearly see what the effect would be if the Government spent this money. The less spent on capital expenditure the more will be available otherwise. From the financial statement they will see that this year £65,000 is ear-marked for capital expenditure, while the salaries are only to cost £15,000. My argument is if you do not spend the money in bricks and mortar you will be able to add a great portion of that £65,000 to the £15,000 for salaries, and the indirect result of that would be to get the Labour Exchanges into full working order at the earliest possible moment. I cannot see how the Labour Members can complain of the Amendment. It struck me—the moment I saw the Resolution— that the effect of my Amendment would be to facilitate the right hon. Gentleman in the very purposes for which he is asking the sanction of the Committee to-day. I thank the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) for his courtesy in putting this financial statement into our hands, and I wish his example were followed by other Members on the Front Bench. I think the whole Committee will agree with me that it has facilitated us in being able to understand the matter. Hon. Members on the other side smile and laugh, but may I point out they have not got the financial statement in their hands, and, therefore, it is of no use to them. I think this Amendment will commend itself to anyone who is desirous of conserving this large amount of money, for the purposes for which Labour Exchanges should be extended throughout the country. Therefore, I shall press the matter to a Division.

moved to add at the end of the Resolution the words "not to exceed the sum of £150,000 in any one year."

I am aware that £150,000 is not as much as the right hon. Gentleman says he will require in some years, and if my hon. Friends agree I should be prepared to substitute £200,000, so as to allow the right hon. Gentleman the money he says he will want, but at the same time to put a limit on the spending power of the Department. In all probability it will fee said that as the amounts will appear in the Votes there will be an opportunity to discuss and, if a majority of the House desire, to reduce them in Committee of Supply. But it is not certain that any particular Vote will come on during the twenty days of Supply, so that we cannot be sure that this Vote would be discussed. It is true that the Opposition are generally allowed a voice as to the Votes to be put down for discussion. But there are many questions which the Opposition would naturally desire to discuss, and this is a comparatively small sum, therefore it would not be safe to rely upon that as a protection against any extravagant expenditure under this Resolution. Then again, of course, we know very well' with the mechanical majority in power at the present time that it would be useless to move the reduction. We should only be voted down. There is very good ground for limiting at the present moment, and at the outset of the matter, the expenditure to be levied in any one year. If I had put down a very small sum it might have been said that my desire was to injure the Bill. I do not believe the Bill will have a very great effect. I believe the money will be wasted. I have put down such a sum as I think reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but we will have a little conversation on the matter five years hence. The sum I have put down is larger than the right hon. Gentleman proposes to spend next year, though not so large as he proposes to spend later on. I should like to give the Bill a fair trial. I am prepared to extend the amount in my Amendment to £200,000. It will be some advantage to have the sum fixed. It will give a little backbone to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not suggest that he is deficient in that respect—and a little backbone to the officials of the Department. When people come and say: "Oh, we want this, that, and the other, we must have the money," the reply can be made that the House of Commons has limited the expenditure, and that will be an unanswerable argument. I beg to move the Amendment.

I think the hon. Baronet has spoken with a little less than his usual logic. In the first place, he thinks all this money will be wasted: how, then, does he find it consistent to suggest the £150,000? Such a proposal, I confess, is likely to make it difficult for the hon. Baronet to maintain that high reputation that he has for financial orthodoxy. Secondly, I think the hon. Baronet is a little illogical in punishing me for my virtues rather than for my vices. He has very courteously expressed appreciation of the financial statement and information which I have prepared for the House. It contains just that sort of information of the estimate of expenditure for future years that might easily have been covered up by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and it is just that information that has suggested the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. I am quite sure that the hon. Baronet wishes to adhere to the cause of financial virtue, and is anxious to encourage me in that Parliamentary procedure that he has expressed approval of. Therefore, I trust that he will not proceed with his Amendment. As a matter of fact, the limitation of £150,000 would absolutely hamper the administration of this Act. We only require £100,000 this year, but we shall want £210,000 next year. All our plans are being made upon that basis, and to arbitrarily cut that estimate down by £50,000, or even by £10,000, would do no good, but only hamper the experiment at a later stage.

I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should take exception to the eminently reasonable Amendment of the hon. Baronet. By it there will be a larger sum available for the first year than the right hon. Gentleman says that he desires to utilise. The £150,000, I think, is by no means an unreasonable limit. With it he could erect two buildings at £75,000, or three buildings at £50,000—though the right hon. Gentleman is very vague as to the number of buildings that he proposes to put up.

May I say that it is really an error to suppose that all this money will be spent on buildings. Only a small proportion will be thus spent. Most of the money will be for salaries and general administration.

I have not had the privilege of examining the financial Paper, but I understand from the hon. Baronet that what I say will be so. However, when my hon. Friend suggests £150,000, and has even expressed his willingness to extend—with almost unwonted generosity for him—that sum by 30 per cent., surely that offer should have been at once closed with by the right hon. Gentleman! I think the Amendment is an eminently reasonable one and the right hon. Gentleman should accept it. The principle underlying the Amendment is that there should be a limit. In our own private life we would require to know what the limit of expenditure is to be in any course we may adopt. It seems unreasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should expect the Committee to sanction an unlimited expenditure The Amendment of the hon. Baronet is not moved in any narrow spirit, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to meet in a conciliatory spirit Members sitting upon this side of the House. We are in no sense obstructing the Bill, but we want to see it worked upon lines which will show the House and the country the amount of expenditure to be incurred.

The first advocacy we have had from the Opposition side of the House is that we might save money by going into second-hand buildings, and now we have another form of suggestion to reduce expenses. Yet hon. Members declare themselves in favour of the Bill.

So we are.

"Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love. But why did you kick me downstairs?"

You want the Bill, but you refuse the necessary money. One Member wanted second-hand buildings, and from the last hon. Member who addressed the Committee we have had a second-hand speech, for he admitted he knew nothing about the financial statement which had been made by the President of the Board of Trade, except what someone told him. He wants a limited expenditure, but that is to be found in the financial statement—

The Motion, as put from the Chair, gives an absolutely blank cheque.

We have the Estimate, which the right hon. Gentleman says will not be exceeded. The fact of the matter is we are not here to argue the points in this Bill, or to argue the Estimate. What some hon. Members are here to do is to argue the hands of the clock round to five, in order that they may possibly prevent something else useful from coming on. The fact is this scheme cannot be worked without money. One hon. Member argued if you spend the money on buildings you cannot have it for salaries. I suppose the hon. Baronet the Member for the City wants a limit to the amount for buildings, and would give a carte blanche for salaries. If the proposal was for salaries, the hon. Baronet would then turn round and ask what authority there was for the expenditure of such money, and we would have half a dozen proposals to kill the Bill. The suggestion was made to use prisons; what a nice thing it would be to suggest to working men that they should go to Wormwood Scrubbs and see if there was anything going, or to the casual wards, or to the Metropolitan Asylums Board to see if there was any chance of being wanted in the small-pox hospital, or to any empty lunatic asylum. We are out to do some good, and we think there is a fair opportunity of doing it here.

The hon. Member is not to talk about the merits of the Bill, but about the Amendment which has been moved to the money Resolution.

I apologise, but the four last Members talked about how to save money, and as this is a proposal to spend money upon some useful purpose, I thought I was in order in trying to show the absolute futility of such suggestions as were made. The statement issued shows what can be done, and I hope the Committee will without delay vote the money.

The hon. Gentleman has, I think, misunderstood the terms of the financial Resolution. There is no sort of limit in the financial statement. This Amendment proposes to limit the amount of expenditure in any one year—

The statement says: "The total expenditure, so far as can be estimated at present, will be approximately as follows," and so on. That is the usual way. If you need more money, you get a Supplementary Estimate; if less, the balance is paid over to the Treasury.

This is not an Estimate in any way. It is what the right hon. Gentleman anticipates is likely to be spent. If this Amendment is not passed, the right hon. Gentleman would be entitled to spend a much larger sum than has been mentioned, and the word "Estimate" is not used in that sense. I would also point out to the hon. Member, he need not be in the least nervous about the 5 o'clock rule. The attempt to limit the expenditure, while at the same time approving the Bill, is a perfectly legitimate position to take up. The object of the Amendment is to put a limitation on the money to be spent, quite apart from the merits of the Bill.

rose, whereupon—

claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

There is no need for that Motion. I do not intend to press the Amendment.

I think the Committee is prepared to come to a decision.

I do not intend to divide. I will simply let the Amendment be negatived. I will not withdraw it, because I believe it is a good Amendment. I think it is in the interests of economy that there should be a limit. Perhaps I should alter the amount to £200,000 instead of £150,000.

Does the hon. Baronet withdraw his Amendment?

Yes; I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move to add at the end of the Resolution the words "not exceeding the sum of £200,000 in any one year."

This Bill is one which carries out in the main the recommendation of the Courtney Commission, and in that respect is, I believe, agreeable to the main body of Civil Servants. There are, however, in this measure one or two points which require some explanation from the Government, and I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to explain them. Civil servants consider that Clause 3 excludes existing servants over 60 years of age from the benefits of the Act, and there does not seem to me to be any satisfactory reason rendering it necessary for these persons to be so excluded. If any man who has done his long service period under the Government is retired he should have all the advantages afforded by the Act, and his age should not exclude him from those advantages. The argument put forward is that for those particular years he will be drawing both his pension and his salary. At any rate, this is a point which requires some explanation. The main point to which I desire to direct attention is Clause 6. In that clause it is proposed to repeal section 7 of the Superannuation Act of 1859. That section gives the Treasury the right to grant to any person who is retired for the good of the public service compensation for the abolition of his office. As I read this clause, it will take away from the Treasury the right of giving this extra allowance, and it will only enable them to give the retired Civil servant the amount which he would have been entitled to had he retired on the ground of ill-health, without any extra consideration whatever. That seems to me to be giving too much power to the Treasury. We can all trust the Treasury to apply these rules very conscientiously, but at the same time, if a man is removed from the public service for the advantage of that service in which he has spent the prime of his life, he should have some compensation above that which he would receive if he retired through ill-health. On this point I hope we shall have some assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury. The commencement of the same clause is a quotation from Clause 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, but when you come to line 11 you find it is laid down that "such special annual allowance or allowances shall be given by way of compensation as the Treasury may think fit to give." In this Bill the word "annual" is left out, and the Treasury are taking away from themselves the compulsory power which they have at present to give an annual pension, and it will be possible for them to give merely a gratuity, which would not be sufficient compensation to the retired civil servant. There is nothing in the Bill to say that the gratuity shall be equal to the amount of the pension to which he would be entitled, so that practically it gives power to give a less sum than he is entitled to at present. I think words should be added to the clause making it clear that new entrants in the Civil Service should not be so entirely in the hands of the Treasury as they will be if this clause passes as it stands. Under Clause 7 the Treasury has also power to make rules to carry this out, and I hope some words will be put in to ensure that those rules shall be made without much loss of time. Civil servants welcome on general grounds some change on the lines of this Bill, but they are rather afraid there may be some dilatory methods of carrying it out, and that they will not have the advantages of those conditions they wish enforced very quickly. Some assurances will be gratifying to them that the rules will be made by the Treasury as quickly as possible when the occasion arises for them, and also that those rules and regulations will be laid before Parliament as they are to be according to section 2, in as short a time as possible. I do not see there is any time laid down when the Act is to come into force. I do not know whether the words applying to cases of Civil servants who enter the service after the passing of the Act mean that it comes into force as soon as it becomes an Act. If not, I think some date should be put in the Bill when it is to come into force. I have been to some trouble to obtain the views of the Civil servants regarding this Bill, and I believe, generally speaking, it is more popular with the lower divisions of the service than it is with the higher grades. Still, if those points to which I have alluded are ad- justed, I believe it will be received with welcome by the Civil servants as a whole.

I have been asked to bring forward one or two matters in connection with this Superannuation Bill. I am glad to see the Postmaster-General (Mr. Sydney Buxton) in his place, because I wish to allude to a very simple matter, which concerns his Department. It refers especially to a certain class in Ireland. They feel a considerable grievance that they are not included under the Superannuation Bill or because they fear they are not included. I would ask the Postmaster-General whether service as Royal Engineer telegraphists is included in the time served in the Post Office as counting for a pension. There are very few of these men, and they have made strong representations to me on the subject. The point they take is that they were practically serving at the same class of work in the Royal Engineers as they now perform in the Post Office, and the Postmaster-General—I am told—is not able to include perhaps their five, seven, or nine years' service before they actually come under his jurisdiction in the time which is calculated for superannuation allowance. It is a case with which, I am sure, the Postmaster-General must be fully acquainted, and one point which will appeal to him is that these men are really penalised for having served in the Army in the first instance. They serve the State both in the Army and the Post Office, and only the latter time counts towards the superannuation allowance. I would like, therefore, to ask the Postmaster-General or the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could state if it would be possible to allow the time served in the Royal Engineers. There are a very small number of persons affected, and it would not be a very large charge to include them under Clause 3 of the Bill. I hope, although they are a small section, their claims will not be overlooked on an occasion of this sort. There is an opportunity now to right a wrong, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will bear in mind the claim these men have put forward for equal treatment with others in the Post Office.

I want to add my word to the appeal of the hon. Member who has just sat down (Captain Craig). There is a feeling of considerable hardship in the service, and I could only wish there were a few affected. There are others from other branches of the Service than the Royal Engineers who have served in what is arbitrarily known as the Unestab-lishment Service, and whose time in that service, when they are put on the Establishment Service, does not count for their pension. They think this is a very great hardship. Of course, when you make representations to the head of the Department, whichever it is, you get a sympathetic reply that it is not his fault, but that it is the fault of the Treasury, who will not allow it. Now we are face to face with the Bill of the Treasury on the question, and it certainly seems to me to be most desirable to meet their case. Within a week or two you have discharged from the Government service a man whom I will not locate who served 30 years on the Unestablishment staff, and who gets absolutely nothing, whilst a man of less importance in the service, who has done only 20 years gets a pension. Naturally, that makes bad feeling between the men. I hope that when the Bill comes to Committee there will be serious consideration given to the claims of Civil servants who have got in unestablishment time and have a right to claim that time as counting for their pension. It is practically the same position, and they render the same service to the State. I hope something will be done to correct that curious anomaly, which breeds a good deal of dissatisfaction.

I have taken some part in pressing this measure upon the Government, and I should like to say one word before it passes its second reading. I think the Bill is acceptable to the Civil servants, for I have heard no protest against its principle, although in some of its details it is criticised. There are one or two questions I should like to put to my right hon. Friend. The Bill says (he Treasury may allow. On the face of it, therefore, it is permissive, but I believe those identical words are used in the Act of 1859, and I should like to hear from my light hon. Friend whether, although the words are permissive, they are in fact compulsory. It would relieve the minds of a great many in the Civil Service if he could give us an assurance to that effect. Civil servants of over 60 years of age do not come within the purview of the Bill, as it is drawn at present. It is rather hard upon a man if he is a little over 60 if he cannot take advantage of this Bill. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that in such a case he might allow him to take something less than one year's salary. I am quite aware that probably if you brought in Civil servants of over CO years within the purview of the Bill it might possibly affect the actuarial calculations on which it is based, but at the same time it is exceedingly hard on men of over 60, and still more hard on their wives at home. I should like to add my voice also to the appeal of the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Crooks) that the whole of the unestablishment service should count for pensions in cases where persons are promoted to the establishment service. The unestablishment service is precisely of the same character as that he fills afterwards. In such a case as that I think it is very hard it should not be counted, and I hope before this Bill gets through Committee some way may be found of meeting the case of men over 60 years of age, as well as of those who serve many years before receiving appointments on the establishment. On behalf of the Civil Service I thank the Government for having introduced this Bill. I hope they will press it forward with all speed, because every day Civil servants are dying who have been unable to make provision for their families.

I am glad to know that Civil servants welcome this Bill as a whole. I had a good deal to do with the administration of the Superannuation Act when I was at the Treasury, and I found the work very interesting indeed. There are two criticisms which I wish to make upon this Bill. It seems to me to place Civil servants in a position of much greater hardship than they occupy at the present time. The hon. Member who last spoke (Sir George Kekewich) dealt with the case of men over 60 years of age, and also with the provisions of the Bill with regard to the compensation to be paid on abolition of office. I do not understand why it is that the older Civil servants are to be treated in the manner proposed by this Bill, unless it be for the reason that their treatment is to be governed wholly and solely by considerations of the acturarial tables. That means that a man who serves after the normal period of Civil Service, and who is capable of rendering sufficiently valuable work to justify the retention of his services is to be penalised. Why, I cannot understand, and I should like an explanation from the Government. I should like to know also whether Civil servants who adopt the provisions of this Bill—I refer to the men now in the Service—will be able to get the full benefits conferred on them under Clause 3 without being subject to the maximum imposed under the clause, which says that a, lump sum, not to exceed 1½ times the yearly salary, shall be paid.

45–30ths.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me what the position of a Civil servant will be under the provisions of this Bill. I come next to the question of the abolition of office. I have looked through the Bill, and I cannot see that persons affected by the abolition of office are going to escape some worse fate than befalls them at the present time. Clause 6 says it shall be lawful for the Treasury in the case of abolition of office to grant such special allowances by way of compensation as may seem to be reasonable and just for the loss of office, but not exceeding in any case the amount which the civil servant would be entitled to or might be granted if he retired on the ground of ill-health. Then the Bill proceeds to abolish section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1859. That section allowed the Treasury to add ten years to a man's service when his office was abolished. I think it is very hard on the Civil servant that the power conferred on the Treasury by that section should be now taken away and that the abolished Civil servant should be penalised to that extent. I do not see why this discretionary power to add ten years to the man's service, and thereby give him one-sixth more than he would otherwise be entitled to, should be taken away from the Treasury. I think it would be a great mistake to lessen any of the powers possessed by the Treasury to deal generously and handsomely with Civil servants in exceptional cases. When I was at the Treasury I saw a great many of these cases dealt with. I know that each case is examined with the most minute care in order to see that the interests of the public are fully safeguarded, and I know also that they are examined with equal care, so that every circumstance which tells in favour of the Civil servant shall receive full consideration. I think it would be a great pity if you take away from the Treasury that discretion in dealing with the hard cases which must inevitably arise under this or any other scheme of superannuation. In my opinion it would be infinitely better to preserve the provisions of section? of the Act of 1859 in order that the Treasury may have power to give something extra in the case of abolition. The Act speaks of compensation for abolition of office, but it is not compensation if you only give the man the same pension as he would have if he retired on the ground of ill-health. I do not suppose it has occurred to anybody yet to insure against the abolition of office, although possibly that might be done at a very reasonable rate I certainly cannot see any element of compensation in the amount you are giving under the provisions of this Bill, and I trust I shall receive from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, some assurance that this matter will be very carefully looked into and dealt with on the Committee stage. I cannot help thinking that unless something is done in the directions that I have suggested the Civil servant of the future will be somewhat less well off than the Civil servant of the present, and I think that would be very undesirable, when we remember that the remuneration of people engaged in ordinary commercial, or professional life, is constantly rising, and that the cost of living is steadily going up. It would be a thousand pities to prejudice and worsen in the future the position of a class of men who deserve the highest consideration.

I wish to raise a question in regard to the Civil servants who are employed in His Majesty's dockyards. I was in Portsmouth when petitions were presented to the Admiralty on behalf of the men I represent, and one very important subject was dealt with under the present superannuation scheme. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware 1s. in the is deducted from the whole of the wages of the workmen employed in His Majesty's dockyards, and, just to give a particular illustration, I will point out that the men whom I represent—I speak of the establishment—they complain that 1s. 6d. is deducted from their wages. The establishment men receive 34s. per week and the hired men 36s., and when the men are superannuated they are superannuated at the low rate. I represented this matter on a previous occasion to the Admiralty, and I was informed that the Act would not admit of their receiving their superannuation on the higher scale. I think it was admitted by the Secretary to the Admiralty that it was a grievance which the men were justified in pressing, and now we are dealing with this scheme, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he could not see his way to grant these men what is perfectly just and legitimate, seeing that they have served a very long time under the Government at a low rate, and 1s. 6d. a week is deducted out of their wages. Surely they should receive the benefit of being superannuated on the higher scale. I hope he will deal with this matter in considering this important subject.

I think the reception which the Bill has had at the hands of hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House has shown not merely that the Bill itself was desired by Civil servants, but that the provisions of the Bill, now that they have been examined by the Civil servants, have proved eminently satisfactory to those servants. I may perhaps remind the House in what circumstances this Bill has come into being. Throughout the four or five years between 1898 and 1903 there was considerable movement on the part of the Civil servants in regard to the terms of superannuation, which, owing, I think, entirely to a misconception on their part, they thought involved a very considerable reduction in their pay, and also resulted in a comparatively small number of those who contributed to the pension fund ever receiving any return from that fund. Owing to that feeling on their part, a movement was started by the Civil servants asking that the whole terms of superannuation should be reconsidered and altered, and so strong was that feeling that a Commission was appointed under the presidency of Lord Courtney, to go into the whole terms of the superannuation of Civil servants, and that Commission made certain definite recommendations which perhaps the House will allow me to recall to their recollection. Before I do that, however, I should like to point out that the original demand of the Civil servants was a very limited one; it was then confined to asking that there should be a refund of accumulated deductions from pay in case of any Civil servant who died while still in the service of the State. It was a very limited demand, confined strictly to that request. The Courtney Commission made certain definite recommendations. They suggested the alteration of the scale of pensions from one-sixtieth of the pay for every year's service to one-eightieth of pay for every years' service, and they also suggested a gratuity of a year's pay in the case of a Civil servant dying in the service, or upon his retiring after forty years service. They also suggested that in the case of a Civil servant who retired with less than forty years' service, he should get a gratuity of one-fortieth of a year's pay for each year's service.

These recommendations of the Courtney Commission were submitted to a plebiscite of the whole of the Civil Service, or so much of the Civil Service as can be reached by the arrangements of the Deferred Pay Committee. I need not go into the whole history of the plebiscites—there were two such plebiscites, and the last was taken on the simple issue whether they preferred the Courtney recommendations or whether they preferred the terms of the existing Civil Service superannuation, and the result was an overwhelming declaration—overwhelming in strength from those Civil servants who were consulted—80 per cent, in favour of the terms recommended by the Courtney Commission. When that plebiscite had been taken it was quite clear that some alteration in the terms of the existing superannuation scheme must be made in order to meet the wishes of the services as a whole. There were two distinct defects about the Courtney scheme, and I think in that the hon. Gentleman will entirely agree with me; namely, the hardships inflicted upon those Civil servants who died in the service were met entirely at the expense of the potential pensioner, and the next defect was that there was no provision made for those who retired from the Civil Service before they had completed ten years' service, and thus became pensionable, except that gratuity of a month's pay for every year, which really was quite inadequate. When it was clear that the Civil Service wanted a reconsideration of the terms of superannuation it was quite clear that the pensionable treatment which would have to be given—which could be given—would have to be considered very carefully from the actuarial point of view, and I have had the services of three eminent actuaries who went very closely into the whole of the calculations necessary to evolve a scheme, and this Bill is the outcome of that consideration. By it a pension of one-eightieth is substituted for the pension of one-sixtieth for each year's service given, and as the pension is confined to the earn-able period, is confined to the maximum of forty years, it is clear that the pension is reduced from a pension of two-thirds to a pension of one-half.

In order to make up to the servants the reduction in pension, the following pro- posals are made, and the first of these deals with the hardship resulting to the Civil servant who retires before he has completed 10 years' service. Any Civil servant who retires after two years' service gets in addition to the gratuity which he now earns an additional allowance of one-thirtieth for every year's service rendered. That is coupled with a deduction from his earnable allowance, if he serves to 65 years of age. Practically all Civil servants have to retire at 65 years of age, with the exception of one or two favoured individuals, who may serve for a year or two more, and also with the exception of a certain number of officers who are employed in and about the Law Courts, who may serve on for practically an indefinite period. It is quite clear it would be very hard to penalise the whole body of Civil servants to enable a certain small class of officers who can serve on indefinitely to obtain greater advantages than other servants can obtain at the expense of the vast majority of the Civil servants.

Why at their expense?

Because the benefits which could be given to the remaining Civil servants would have to be reduced in order to allow these other gentlemen to obtain the larger rate of allowance which they could thus obtain. Next, any Civil servant dying after five years' service gets a gratuity of a year's pay, and if a Civil servant dies after he has retired from the service, but before he has drawn a whole year's pay, the State makes up to him the equivalent of a year's pay, whether by way of additional allowance, or by making up the deficiency of the year's pay. These very favourable conditions, far exceeding anything that the Civil servants expected, are dependent upon two conditions, one that the option must be made within 12 months, and the other that the personnel of the service must be in a sound state of health. These are actuarial conditions laid down, upon which the whole scheme depends, and from which the Treasury would be quite unable to depart.

Then I come to the provisions by which only those officers who were under the age of 60 were allowed to opt. The age of 60 is the age at which the head of a Department has no power any longer to retain the services of an officer. An officer can go, if he wishes, the moment he reaches 60, and draw his pension. It would be quits impossible, having regard to the actuarial calculations on which the scheme is based, to permit an officer who attains the age of 60 to take advantage of the new scheme and leave the service, carrying off, perhaps £1,000. The possibility of doing that would clearly upset any actuarial calculations whatever. These proposals are to be made applicable to all future entrants and they can only be made applicable to existing servants if the actuarial calculations on which the scheme is based are observed. The whole of these proposals are based upon this, that no amount of money shall be taken away from the aggregate body of Civil servants, and that in making these proposals no additional expenditure shall be incurred by the State. We have a block sum which we do not intend to increase or to diminish, but within the capacity of that block sum we have redistributed the conditions under which the pension is payable. If the wishes of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir G. Kekewich) were accepted the other re-sulting benefits of the scheme would have to be reduced in order to comply with his wishes. I think it is very much better to give what you can to the great majority of Civil servants rather than to give an advantage to a small class of officials, none of whom will probably be in the service for more than two or three years longer.

A further advantage is given, namely, that all the existing Civil servants who do opt and take advantage of the scheme are to get ½ per cent, bonus for each year served before the passing of the Act. That would be a substantial advantage to the Civil servants, and it can only be done because in their case the State will escape the liability of life assurance which is receivable by all future Civil servants and all those who accept the scheme—a liability which may press heavily upon the State in their case. The scheme does not apply to women, because so many of the women who voted were against the application of the scheme to them, and although I should be prepared, if there were any evidence of a desire on the part of a large section of the existing women in the Civil Service to have the scheme applied to them to permit such an option, at the same time I have seen no indication of any desire on their part to have the scheme made optional.

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir C. Hill) asked why in Clause 6, which professes to re-enact the provisions of Clause 7 of the Act of 1859, the word "annual" was left out. The reason is quite clear. It is because Clause 6 applies, as Clause 7 did not, to those Civil servants who have less than ten years' service. The first part of Clause 6 re-enacts the existing law, the latter part legalises the present practice of the Treasury in connection with the grant of pensions and the last part practically enacts the recommendation of the Ridley Commission which reported in 1894. The Act will come into force immediately it is passed. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) asked whether it would not apply to the case of non-established officers, and whether it could not be applied to the case of ex-telegraph men in the Post Office service. The scheme cannot be applied to any persons to whom superannuation is not now given. It does not in any way pretend to extend to persons superannuation provision and assistance which they could not now enjoy.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible in this Bill to make it applicable to the point I have raised?

I am afraid not. The Bill must be limited to the amount available for the purpose of giving pensions. I could not accept any extension of the present system to persons who do not now receive pensions. It is merely a redistribution scheme. If the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind, he will see how I am hampered from accepting his proposals as well as that of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks). I was asked whether the Treasury had any option in the matter. The Act of 1859 says that it may be lawful for the Treasury, and it is only the word "may" that is changed to the word "shall." The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) asked about the abolition of office, and whether in that case Civil servants were going to be worsened. If the hon. Member will look at the Paper presented to the House of Commons on 15th February, 1894, by Sir John Gorst, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and the Report by what is called the Ridley Committee, he will see that the first recommendation is that there should be no addition to the years of a man's service in respect, among other things, of professional qualification. Then he goes on to deal with the question of the abolition of office. There was a Resolution of the House of Commons, and an expression of opinion by Lord Goschen in 1888, upon which expression of opinion the recommendations of the Ridley Committee were based. It has been the practice of the Treasury to give no additional sum in respect of the qualifications stated.

Was not the promise of Mr. Goschen a temporary promise?

No.

I think if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Debates, he will find that Mr. Goschen's pledge was for six months only, at the termination of which time legislation was to be undertaken.

I have looked into the matter very carefully, and whatever may have been the actual words used, the result has been that the practice of the Treasury ever since 1888 has been as I have stated. This Bill is of an entirely nonparty character. It is acceptable to both sides, and the terms are, I think, infinitely more generous than Civil servants ever at any time hoped for.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has answered my question as to the limit of the gratuity.

The limit of 45 will apply certainly.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question?

It would be impossible to include within the limits of the scheme the dockyard hands, on whose behalf the hon. Member spoke. It cannot be extended to those who are not now within the limits of the scheme.

Will it apply in future?

It will apply to all persons who in future become pensioners. I am not quite familiar with the practice at the dockyards, but I rather gather from the hon. Member's description that it depends on Departmental practice, and not upon provisions laid down in the Act of Parliament. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir C. Hill) asked whether the Treasury rules would be issued as quickly as possible. I assure him that we shall do all in our power to expedite their publication.

I am afraid Clause No. 6 is an attempt to stereotype the practice at the Treasury of granting what many of us think is an altogether inadequate compensation on compulsory retirement. It is quite true that they have been acting on the regulation that they shall grant as much as the circumstances seem to the Treasury reasonable and just. That also is embodied in this clause. The words at the end of the clause are "shall not exceed in any case the amount the Civil servant would have been entitled to, or which might have been granted to him had he retired on the ground of ill-health." I do not myself consider it is a reasonable and just position that a Civil servant who is compulsorily retired should have exactly the amount of superannuation which he would have had if he had not been compulsorily retired, or if he had retired from his own act, or by reason of his own sickness. If he is compulsorily retired by the Department, it seems to me that to subject him to the loss of several years' service which he might have rendered, and which would have entitled him to a larger pension, is to deprive him of something to which he is entitled. That is an injustice to him. I know that many members of the Civil Service feel it. I have in my mind at present the case of a gentleman who was in a high position and who has been compulsorily retired at the age of 52, and who is to receive the same superannuation which he would have received if he had gone out through infirmity. I venture to put quite respectfully to my hon. Friend that this is rather hard treatment. This man is cut off from the chance of eight years' more service at least. He might have retired at 60, and should have an annual addition of one-sixtieth of the salary up to 60. If he had remained up to 60 it would have entitled him to a larger pension. Probably my hon. Friend may think that what he has said is a sufficient answer, but Civil servants who have gone into this thing very closely indeed rely on section 7 of the Superannuation Act, which entitles them to this amount of compensation. They say that by this new practice they are being deprived of it. The only defence of the practice is that it has gone on for a great many years. That does not make it any more just. I hope that careful investigation of the claim now put forward will be made before this Bill is passed into law. Questions were addressed to my hon. Friend last November, and his reply to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. G. S. Bowles) was that in ordinary cases the amount of this annual allowance by way of superannuation does not exceed the amount of superannuation allowance to which the retiring officer would be entitled if his retirement was due to ill-health. This rule is the outcome of precedent, and it was stated in the House of Commons by Mr. Goschen as long ago as 1889, but he said that in less than six months there would be legislation. Twenty years have passed and there is no legislation, and when at last there is legislation proposed it is not to remove the grievance but to stereotype it and make it permanent. I believe also that Mr. Goschen was misled in saying that the House of Commons had by Resolution condemned the allowance. I believe that if the Resolution of 12th of June, 1888, is looked up it will be found that he was misled, and that the House of Commons, so far from condemning these allowances only condemned their abuse. This is not a matter to be quietly slurred over. If the Civil servants have a statutory claim, no amount of precedents on the part of the Treasury, even though they have gone on for 20 years, can justify the deprivation of the Civil servants of what they are entitled to by statute. If I can prove to the Committee that I am right in my contention I think they will admit that if the Civil servant has a statutory right to such and such an allowance, no amount of Treasury practice and no amount of precedents can deprive him of that right.