Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 180: debated on Monday 23 February 1925

House of Commons

Monday, February 23, 1925

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

Private Business

County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [ Lords ] (by Order),

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [ Lords ] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

Tyne Improvement Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Walsall Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Dundee Corporation and Water and Gas Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

India

Army (Indianisation)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what the attitude of the Government is towards the proposal recently made in evidence before the Reforms Committee to Indianise the Army in India?

The Report of Sir A. Muddiman's Committee is still under consideration by the Government of India, and I am not able at present to make any statement.

Railway Extension

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to encourage the extension of railway mileage in India either by State or private enterprise; and at what rate the promotion of feeder lines by private enterprise has proceeded since the War as compared to pre-War?

It is the policy of the Government of India that the extension of railway mileage in India should in future be carried out by the State or the existing main line companies, and not by branch line companies. This is in accordanie with the recommendation of the Acworth Committee. Since 1918 no feeder lines have been promoted by branch line companies.

Foreman's Association

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received a representation from the Foreman's Association of India appealing for more liberal treatment in respect of the financial position of its members; and whether he will consider including them in the cadre of specialist officers so that they may receive consideration in connection with any reforms of pay or leave contemplated?

My Noble Friend is aware of the nature of the claims which have been submitted by the Foreman's Association and will take them into consideration as soon as he is in possession of the Government of India's views.

Child Mortality (Bombay)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the official medical evidence shows that 98 per cent. of the children born in the industrial area at Bombay are drugged with opium, so that while the mothers are at work in the factories the children will sleep and not cry for food; that in 1921 the infant mortality in Bombay was 666 per thousand as against 80 per thousand in London; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

My Noble Friend is informed that the question of dealing with the administration of opium to children is receiving the consideration of the Government of Bombay. According to the official statistics infant mortality in Bombay was 17811 per thousand in 1921, not 666 per thousand as stated by the hon. Member.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that the figures stated in my question were supplied by His Excellency Sir Leslie Wilson, Governor of Bombay

No. My attention has not been called to that fact. The figures which I quoted are taken from the official report supplied by the Government of Bombay.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer I beg to give notice that at an early date I will raise the question on the Adjournment.

Prisons (Punishments)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that frequent complaints are made as to the inflicting on prisoners in the Nabha gaols of the punishment known as gidar kut; that complaints are prevalent concerning the supply of food and its poor quality; that prisoners are kept for long periods without water; and whether he will cause, an impartial inquiry to be held into the administration of Indian gaols?

I am not sure whether the hon. Member is referring to the ordinary gaols of the State or to the camps temporarily established for the reception of Akali prisoners. The latter were visited in December last by the Inspeotor-General of Prisons, Punjab, who reported that conditions were generally satisfactory, including food of good quality on a liberal scale and an abundant supply of water. Nor am aware that the grounds of complaint suggested in the question exist in the case of the ordinary gaols. It was announced shortly after the administration of the State was taken over by the British authorities that the gaol administration was being thoroughly overhauled. As regards gaols in British India, the Indian Gaols Committee of 1919–20 presented a very full report, and the reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that C. Ram, an ex-prisoner of Multan Gaol, was subjected to the punishment of kan parade, in which the prisoner was forced to pull his own ears by passing his hands through his legs, and was then thrashed while in this position; whether this form of punishment is recognised by the prison code; and, if not, whether he will cause the persons who inflicted it to be suitably dealt with?

I have heard nothing of this case, and shall he glad to have inquiry made if the hon. Member can give me any details as to the allegations. The form of punishment described is, of course, unknown to the prison code.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Vasawa Singh, aged 50 years, who was convicted in 1915 in connection with the Lahore conspiracy case, has been subjected in the Multan gaol to the punishment known as gidar kut, indiscriminate beating, on 15 separate occasions; and whether he will take steps to have this punishment stopped in Indian gaols?

I have seen only a newspaper report of a libel suit, which seems to be still sub judice. I understand that this prisoner did not allege that he had himself been punished in this quite illegal way. The Government of India are being; asked to report on the case.

Army Officers (Pay and Pensions)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any decision has been arrived at regarding the proposed reduction in pay and pensions of officers of the Indian Army and officers on the retired list drawing Indian pensions: and whether, having regard to the inconvenience involved in the uncertainty with regard to the final decision on this proposal, he will take steps to accelerate the decision?

I regret that I cannot yet make any statement, but my Noble Friend is fully alive to the importance of reaching an early settlement. As regards pay, the cost-of-living reduction, to which my hon. Friend doubt- less refers, has already been applied to leave pay at home rates. The new Indian rates are still under consideration, but I am able to say that these as a whole will generally show an improvement on the present scales. As regards pensions, I hope that a separate decision will be announced very shortly.

Government of India Act, 1919 (Amendment)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state, in connection with the pending legislation necessary to give effect to the findings of the Lee Commission, whether such legislation will take the form of a new Bill or an Amendment of the existing Government of India Act, 1919?

The legislation to which my hon. Friend refers will take the form of an amending Bill to the existing Government of India Act.

Suket (Disturbances)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received any further information with regard to recent troubles in the State of Suket?

Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into the matter?

As far as I recollect, I stated on a previous occasion that inquiries would be made. A letter has been sent on the subject.

Public Health Commissioner

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India has confirmed and made permanent in the post of public health commissioner with the Government of India an officer who does not hold a diploma in public health, notwithstanding the fact that it is specifically laid down that no officer is accepted for any post in the public health department of India unless he possesses such a diploma; whether he is aware that when in 1918 a similar case arose the officer holding the post temporarily was not confirmed in the appoint- meat; and whether he can state why the appointment is confirmed in the case, of the present officer, thus blocking promotion to men in the service who hold the obligatory qualification for the post?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Government of India have furnished a detailed statement of the high qualifications and wide experience which, in their opinion fitted him for the appointment. A copy of this statement is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD OF SERVICES OF LIEUT.-COLONEL J. D. GRAHAM, C.I.E., I.M.S., PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSIONER WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

Lieut-Colonel Graham graduated, M.B., C.M., Glasgow, with high commendation in 1895, and prior to entering the Indian Medical Service spent 4½ years on post graduate work and hospital residentships. He passed into the Indian Medical Service in January, 1900, being the first in the London examination, and again headed the list on passing out of Netley, where he gained the De Chaumont prize in Hygiene; while at Netley he also attended the public health course of the Medical Officer of Health, Southampton.

In 1906–7 he passed the examination of D.T.M. and H., Liverpool University, and obtained the certificate of the Liverpool Tropical School, taking the first place on both occasions. He also devoted six months to special courses in the various branches of medicine, surgery, etc., in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

In April, 1908, he entered the United Provinces Civil Medical Department and from then, with the exception of 11 years during which he worked as a civil surgeon, he was engaged on research, epidemiological and public health work until mobilised for the Great War in 1914. During this period he wrote many original reports on malarial surveys and cognate matters, served from time to time on various sanitary and public health committees in the United Provinces and on three occasions received the thanks of the local Government for his services.

During the War he was on field service continuously from November, 1914, to May, 1920, in Egypt, Iraq and Persia, all the time being employed exclusively on sanitary and public health work with the various Forces.

In November, 1914, he was appointed Deputy Assistant Director, Medical Services (Sanitary), Suez Canal Defences, served on the Suez Canal Malarial Committee and made a malarial survey of the Canal from Port Said to Suez. In 1915 he served on the Suez Canal Sanitation Committee under the Inspector General of Canal Defences.

In 1916 he was appointed under General Headquarters, Mediterranean Expeditionary Forces (General Sir Arch. Murray) as Instructor in Field Sanitation to the nine Southern Divisions on the Canal and Sanitary Adviser to General Officer Commanding, 2nd Corps of Australians at Tel-el-Kebir. Later he was appointed Assistant Director, Medical Services (Sanitary), 9th British Army Corps (General Lord Byng), at Suez with five divisions under him.

In May, 1916, he was transferred urgently to Iraq (Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force) and placed at once on an inquiry into epidemic disease in the City of Basrah with a view to determining the presence of plague and cholera, controlling them, opening an infectious disease hospital, and reorganising the health side of the municipality. This he did, and his scheme formed the basis of the present municipal health administration in the city.

Transferred in July, 1916, as Sanitary Adviser to the Tigris Corps (4½ Divisions) he was, in December, 1916, appointed Chief Sanitary Adviser to the Forces at General Headquarters (Assistant Director, Medical Services, Sanitary) under General Maude in which position he remained for 3½ years during the subsequent phases of the campaign, the occupation of Bagdad and Mosul, the taking over of Kurdistan and Northern Persia and the post-War reductions. He was responsible for the commencement of all civil health control throughout the occupied area in Iraq, for the sanitary control of all prisoners of war and 50,000 Jelu refugees from Persia and for the line of communications to Kurdistan and on through Persia to the Caspian. He was also the Chief Health Adviser on all health problems of the Force of nearly half a million.

In 1918 his services were asked for by the Sirdar and High Commissioner, Egypt, for employment as Director-General of Public Health in Egypt, but they could not be spared. In May, 1920, he took over the posts of Director-General of Health Service and Adviser to the Ministry of Health, Iraq. Later he was appointed Inspector-General of Health Services, and controlled all civil health and medical work, including railways, port, Iraq levies and Shiah pilgrimages to the Holy Cities.

On his return to India in January, 1924, he was appointed officiating Public Health Commissioner with the Government of India, which post he still holds.

For his services during the War he was four times mentioned in despatches, and awarded a Brevet Lieutenant-Colonelcy and the C.I.E. For his services in Iraq he received the thanks of His Grace the Duke of Devonshire (then Colonial Secretary), of the Prime Minister, Minister of Interior and Adviser to the Minister of Interior, Iraq. He was also very favourably reported on confidentially by the High Commissioner, Sir Percy Cox.

Questions

South Africa (Colour Bar)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State or the Government of India have made any representations as to the proposed colour bar legislation in South Africa, and the possible effects upon the amicable relations of the Union and India?

My Noble Friend has authorised the Government of India to communicate with the Union Government on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Bill recently introduced by the Government into the Legislature of the Union of South Africa, establishing a colour bar to apply to natives and Indians, but not to half-castes, to prevent them engaging in skilled trades; whether the Government of India have made any representations on the matter and whether he proposes to take any action?

I am aware that a Bill of this nature has been gazetted by the Union Government. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for India. In the circumstances, the last part of the question does not arise.

Irish Free State (Prison Officers)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there was any agreement reached between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Free State governing the pay and conditions of service of the Irish prison officers when transferred to the Irish Free State?

I would refer the hon. Member to Article X of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, published as Command Paper No. 1560 of 1921, Article 7 (ii) of the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1922, and Articles 77 and 78 of the Schedule of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922.

Empire Settlement

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the terms of the Draft Agreement submitted to the Commonwealth Government of Australia regarding the joint scheme of migration; and will he say whether a reply has been received and, if so, what is the nature of the reply?

I regret that, as the proposed Agreement is still under discussion with the Commonwealth Government, I am unable to make any statement on the subject at present. I shall be happy to furnish my hon. Friend with the information whhich he desires as soon as I am in a position to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say how many persons have migrated from Canada to the United States of America since the Armistice?

No, Sir. Persons emigrating from Canada to the United States are inspected at ports of entry to the United States by the United States emigration authorities, and the Dominion Government have no statistics of such persons. It should, however, be borne in mind, in considering any figures that may be unofficially published, that there is constant crossing and recrossing by temporary visitors from both sides of the International Boundary.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information which would show whether the people whom we emigrated for Empire settlement in Canada have subsequently gone into the United States?

No. We have no accurate information, but we have no reason to suppose that the great majority have not remained in Canada.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British people have migrated from this country to Canada during the five years ended 31st March, 1914; and how many migrated to Canada during the five years ended 31st March, 1924?

The numbers of emigrants and immigrants, as distinct from passengers, were not recorded before 1st April, 1912 The passenger movement of British subjects between the United Kingdom and British North America shows a balance outwards of 565,290 for the period of five years ended 31st. March, 1914, and a balance outwards of 263,287 for the five years ended 31st March, 1924. Statistics obtained from Canadian official sources show that, for the same periods, the numbers of English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish immigrants ("Declared Settlers") into Canada from all countries were 614.088 and 280,312 respectively.

Does it not appear that the emigration has gone down since the Armistice?

Kenya

Nairobi (Unimproved Sites)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Section 14 of the Amendments to the Nairobi Unimproved Site Values Ordinance has been assented to by the Crown?

The Amending Ordinance was assented to by the late Governor and therefore came into operation. Correspondence in regard to the Measure is still in progress with the Colonial Government, and so far no advice as to its allowance or disallowance has been tendered to His Majesty either by my predecessor the right hon. Member for Derby or by myself.

What was the decision of the Supreme Court in connection with the application made in respect of the decision of the magistrate?

Samburu Tribe

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further information regarding the contemplated removal of the Samburu tribe in Kenya from the lands now in their occupation.

No, Sir; I have not yet received a reply to the despatch which I sent to the late Governor of Kenya as a result of the hon. and learned Member's previous question.

Is it not a fact that the Samburu tribe have already been transferred to the new area?

Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Member would give notice of that question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether they have already been transferred?

Native Affairs Department

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the head of the Native Affairs Department of Kenya Colony submits to the Government there an annual Report upon the work of his Department; and whether, if such is the case, the annual Reports for the last few years may be called for from the Colony and be published as a White Paper?

Yes, Sir. Such Reports have been regularly submitted and have been forwarded to the Secretary of State. They have, however, none of them been printed, with the exception of that for 1923, and I am reluctant to incur the expense of printing. I will place a copy of the Report for 1923 in the Library of the House.

Is it possible to have all these Reports for the last three or four years placed on the Table?

These Reports are of some length. I am not sure that it would be worth while incurring the expense. I will see that this one is laid in the Library, and that future Reports will be printed and laid in the Library.

Questions

Malta (Lieutenant-Governer and Legal Adviser)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of years established in Malta for the duration of the appointment of Lieutenant-Governors and legal advisers appointed by the Secretary of State and under his orders; what is the length of service and age of the present holders of these offices; has any exception been made in Malta to the rule that after the transition from Crown Colony government to responsible government, as soon as conveniently possible, a change is made as to any Imperial officers who were personally responsible for the policy followed in the Crown Colony period?

Both officers hold during pleasure; there is no fixed term for the duration of their appointments. The Lieutenant-Governor is 57, and the legal adviser 54; they have served in Malta 7½ and 3½ years respectively. The case of Malta is different from that of Colonies possessing full responsible self-government because, under the Constitution, important powers were reserved to the Imperial Government; and the most important part of the duties of the two officers referred to is to advise and assist the Governor in the exercise of these powers. Neither officer was responsible for the policy pursued prior to the grant of the Constitution; that responsibility rested, primarily, on the Governor and ultimately on the Secretary of State for the Colonies and His Majesty's Government.

West Indies

Wireless Stations

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in connection with the arrangements for the erection of wireless stations in the British West Indies for the improvement of telegraphic communication between the islands?

The wireless stations at St. Kitts, Antigua, Dominica, St. Vincent, Grenada and Barbados have been completed and handed over to the Pacific Cable Board for operation. The only station remaining under the general scheme is that at St. Lucia, which it is expected will be handed over to the Pacific Cable Board to-day. In addition to the stations provided for under this scheme a contract has been made by the Government of Monserrat for the erection of a station in that island.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the local stations to be completed?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that as a separate question on the Paper?

All-Red Cable

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the extension of the all-red cable system from the Western Caribbean to Barbados, British Guiana, and Trinidad is now in working order; and whether the new service will bring Bermuda, Jamaica, and Turk's Island, by means of this exclusively British cable service, in direct contact with the Eastern Caribbean Colonies?

Yes, Sir. The cable from Barbados operated by the Pacific Cable Board links up at Turk's Island with the existing cables from that island to Jamaica and to Bermuda.

Trade Facilities Act (Grant)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, under the Trade Facilities Act, any grant has been made, or is contemplated, to any sugar estate in the West Indies?

I have not yet been able to get this information. I understand that my right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is looking into the matter.

British Empire Exhibition

Non-Empire M

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it has been made a condition of continued Government support to the British Empire Exhibition that strict regard shall be had to Section 9 of the Agreement between the Dominion High Commissioners and the Exhibition Authorities, 1924, providing for the use of no non-Empire materials or products unless with the consent of the standing administrative committee of the Exhibition Association and the High Commissioners?

The conditions attached to the Government guarantee to the British Empire Exhibition are laid down in the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Act, 1920. It. is not proposed to modify those conditions, but I am informed by the British Empire Exhibition authorities that in the new agreement which is being drawn up with the Dominion Commissioners at the Exhibition it is proposed to insert a clause providing for the use of Empire products and materials in the Exhibition wherever such a course is reasonably possible.

Will a provision be made similar to that made last year, that no non-Empire material shall be used except with the assent of the High Commissioners?

Opening

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can state at what date approximately it is intended to open the British Empire Exhibition, and for what period approximately it is to remain open?

I am informed by the British Empire Exhibition authorities that it is proposed to open the Exhibition during the first week in May, and to keep it open until the end of October.

Questions

Lobito Congo Railway

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received a fresh application from Mr. Robert Williams for assistance for the completion of the Lobito Congo Railway, part of which is in Portuguese territory; whether he is aware that a former application was opposed by General Smuts; and if he can give an assurance that no financial assistance for this purpose will be entertained by the Government?

I understand that inquiries have been made of the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee whether they would entertain a fresh application. No decision has been taken.

Agriculture

Milk (Cost and Profit)

asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken or are going to be taken for the ascertainment of costs and profits in the distribution of milk as outlined in the King's Speech?

I have been asked to reply. As has already been stated in this House, the Government expect to receive an interim Report from the Royal Commission. In these circumstances, it is proposed to defer the introduction of the special legislation referred to until the Government have received the Report of the Royal Commission.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the number of pro- ducers of certified milk as compared with a year ago; and whether, in the interests of public health, he will recommend that the licence fee for such producers be made purely formal so as to encourage farmers to produce this milk?

The number of producers of certified milk at the present time is 74. I cannot give the number for this date last year, but the numbers at the 31st December, 1923, and the 31st December, 1924, were 55 and 71 respectively. The licence fees have been settled on a basis estimated to cover the special expenses of the Ministry of Health in respect of inspection and bacteriological examinations, and my right hon. Friend does not think that he can recommend any reduction.

Waste Land

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of land capable of cultivation are at present waste land; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation compelling owners or occupiers of land to cultivate same?

There is considerable difficulty in defining what is waste land. The land which is included annually in the Returns made to the Ministry is used for agricultural purposes, that is, either for the cultivation of crops or for grazing, and my right hon. Friend is not aware that there is any appreciable area which is suited for these purposes which is not so used. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Will the Minister institute a survey in time to ascertain the which under-cultivation prevails?

Wages Committee (Lincolnshire)

asked the Minister of Agriculture when the agricultural wages committee was set up for Lincolnshire; when did they first meet; when did they agree upon the hours and wages to be paid throughout the areas covered by that committee; and what are the wages and conditions to be observed?

The two agricultural wages committees for Lincolnshire were established on the 18th October, 1924. The Kesteven and Lindsey Committee held its first meeting on the 31st October, and decided on the minimum rates to be proposed for the various classes of workers at meetings held on the 20th November and 2nd December. The Holland Committee first met on the let November and decided on the minimum rates to be proposed at meetings held on the 14th and 28th November and 11th December. After the period of advertisement of the proposed rates had expired, Orders giving effect to the Committee's decisions were made by the Agricultural Wages Board to take effect on the 16th February The wages and conditions are set out in these Orders, copies of which my right hon. Friend is sending to the hon. Member.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me why there was so much delay between October and February before the Board sanctioned this amount?

Fruit and Vegetable Industry

asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in the efforts of his Department to secure agreement between both sides of the fruit and vegetable industry for the amending of practices injurious to the producers which the Linlithgow Committee declared to exist among some fruit and vegetable salesmen?

My hon. Friend no doubt realises that the negotiations involved in this question present unusual difficulties. My right hon. Friend understands that the matter is to be further considered by representatives of growers next week. In the meantime, he regrets that he is not yet in a position to add anything to the statement contained in his reply to the question on this subject put by my hon. Friend on the 15th December last.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend remind the Minister of Agriculture that as a matter of fact this Report was issued something like eighteen months ago?

Coast Erosion

asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the fact that the cost of land drainage and defence against coast erosion is borne entirely in some counties by local rates, he will consider making this, in some part, a national charge?

Substantial assistance from public funds has been given during the last four years to schemes of land drainage and coast defence work for the alleviation of unemployment. I may say, however, that the question of coast erosion was investigated by the Royal Commission, who reported in 1911 very definitely against placing the burden on the Exchequer.

Scholarship Scheme

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the number of persons receiving instruction under the Ministry of Agriculture scholarship's scheme and the number of these whose parents have been agricultural workers?

One hundred and sixty-eight students are at present receiving instruction under the scholarship scheme for the sons and daughters of agricultural workmen and others. The occupations of the parents are:—

while the remaining 43 students were themselves bona fide agricultural workers, whose parents are dead or who are as regards financial circumstances comparable with agricultural workmen.

Marketing Officers

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement on the progress of the investigations of the marketing officers appointed in 1924?

The investigation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are making steady progress, but he will appreciate the extremely difficult nature of the task. A report on cooperative marketing in England and Wales has been completed and will be published as soon as possible. A report on the co-operative purchase of agri- cultural requisites is in course of preparation. A report on co-operative marketing in the United States is well advanced, while it is hoped to have a comprehensive report on the marketing of wool ready for publication in the early summer. Other reports are in hand.

Can the hon. Gentleman say that the reports will be published as soon as possible?

Cattle (Railway Transport),

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many cattle have been killed during transport on the railways during the year 1924?

Returns are not made to the Ministry of Agriculture as to the number of casualties amongst animals during transport on the railways in this country, and say right hon. Friend regrets that he has no information on the subject.

also asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has received any complaints regarding cruelty to cattle during transport from one place to another in railway cattle trucks due to overcrowding; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take to avoid cruelty of this description?

My right hon. Friend has received no complaints during the last twelve months of the kind to which the hon. Member refers. I should add that the Animals (Transit and General) Order of 1912 at present in force, provides that a railway company shall not allow any truck used for animals on a railway to be overcrowded so as to cause injury or unnecessary suffering to the animals therein. It is the duty of the local authorities and. police to enforce the Order, and legal proceedings have been taken from time to time against railway companies and the owners of the animals in respect of contraventions of the Order.

Wages Areas

asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking, or proposes to take, directly or through the Agricultural Wages Board, to decide what scale of wages is applicable to an agricultural holding lying in more than one wages area, when the scales in those areas differ?

My right hon. Friend recognises the difficulty caused by varying rates applicable to parts of such a holding as is referred to by my hon. Friend, but any action to deal with the difficulty must be taken by the District Wages Committee and not by the Minister or by the Agricultural Wages Board. I would remind my hon. Friend that the rates fixed by the Committee are simply minimum rates, and that any difficulty in regard to holdings lying in more than one Committee area can, in practice, be overcome by the employer adjusting the scale of wages which he actually pays so as to cover the higher of the different rates.

Snows (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the exaction of the Entertainments Duty under certain Department Regulations from breed societies for agricultural shows because competitions. by amateurs in the nature of races by local ponies or musical rides have been held as part of such shows; and whether he will arrange that such shows are exempt in future, in accordance with the decision of the House of Commons last year?

The conditions under which exemption can be granted are contained in Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1923, as amended by Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1924. These provisions do not allow of exemption front Entertainments Duty being granted in the case of an agricultural show at which there are races or musical rides.

Fishing Industry

asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount that has been expended in grants and relief towards the harbours, motorboats, etc., for the purpose of developing the fishing industry in England and Wales during each of the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924?

I have been asked to reply. As the reply consists of a tabular statement, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Year.

Harbours

Motor Loan and Construction of Fishing Vessels.

Employment of Surplus Admiralty Trawlers to relieve unemployment among fishermen.

Herring Guarantee. (a)

Payments.

Receipts (repayment of loans, etc.)

Net payments or receipts.

Payments.

Receipts (fishing operations).

Net payments.

Payments.

Receipts (sale of her rings).

Net payments or receipts.

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

1917–18

250

30,936

4,782

26,154

1918–19

250

40, 075

26,436

13,639

1919–20

50,517

27,950

22,567

1,012,007

104,649

907,358

1920–21

447

40,749

15,481

25,268

1,652,694

72,489

1,580,205

1921–22

500

12,266

12,170

96

250176

203884

46,292

125,714

19,511

106,203

1922–23

3,097

8,519

* 5,4225,422

3,052

548

2,504

7,831

* 7,8317,831

1923–24

1,571

550

9,241

* 8,6918,691

656,391

* 656,391656,391

1924–25 (to 31st Jan., 1925.

15,620

662

5,851

* 5,1895,189

Totals

18,638

178,852

110,430

.68,422

253,228

204,432

48,796

2,790,115

860,871

1,929,544

(a) The bulk of the herrings purchased under the 1920 Guarantee were sold by the Disposals Board and proceeds of the sale were accounted for by that Department. The Ministry is informed that £113,953 has been already received by the Disposals Board and sums of £21,000 fall due for payment on lot April, 1925 and 1st April, 1926 respectively. The sum of £656,391 received in 1923–24 was in "respect of the 1919 Guarantee in respect of which a further sum of £487,827 falls due for payment in June, 1920.

* Receipts.Receipts.

NOTE.—The years prior to 1920–21 have been added in order to make the figures under "Motor Loan, etc." and "Herring Guarantee" cover the periods or inception of these schemes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of men and boys engaged in the fishing industry in England, Wales, and Scotland in the years 1913, 1920, and 1923?

As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The estimated number of men and boys employed in sea fishing for the years specified as shown in the Annual Statements of Navigation is as follows:

England and Wales (including the Isle of Man).

Scotland.

Total.

1913

45,382

34,504

79,886

1920

41,117

31,491

72,608

1923

38,145

27,735

65,880

Unemployment Relief Schemes (Liverpool)

asked the Minister of Labour the extent of the schemes approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee for Liverpool; how many are at present being worked, and by what authorities: and whether he will state the

percentage of local labour employed on unskilled work?

As the reply involves a number of tabulated figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May we know if the claims of local people to employment are being held superior to the claims of imported labour under these schemes?

I must have notice of that question.

Following is the reply to the Question on the Paper:

In all, 117 schemes, submitted by three authorities, involving an estimated cost of £2,973,431, have been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee. The Returns received give the following particulars for the date 31st January:

No. of Schemes in operation.

No. of Men employed.

Liverpool Corporation:

(Surveyor's Dept.)

4

36

(Engineer's Dept.)

13

183

West Derby Union

3

57

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board

3

1,372

Questions

Great Britain and Russia

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the policy of His Majesty's Government is with regard to settling outstanding questions between the British and Russian Governments; and whether, in view of the large number of Powers which have full diplomatic representatives in Moscow, he can state when it is proposed to send an Ambassador to Moscow and to invite the Union Government to accredit an Ambassador to the Court of St. James's?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Shoreditch on the 10th February and to the hon. Member for Brightside on the 18th February.

Can the hon. Gentleman inform us as to the policy with regard to the exchange of Ambassadors, as I do not think that matter was dealt with in the previous answers?

I think that question is answered by reference. If my memory serves me aright, one of the replies to which I have referred the hon. and gallant Member would carry him back, by a further reference, to a speech which I made in the Autumn Session, and the fact of the matter is I have nothing to add to the statement which I then made.

I have read these answers most carefully, and have also read with great attention the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. May I ask him, are we going to send an ambassador to Moscow?

No, Sir, not in present circumstances. I said in the speech which I made during the Autumn session that I did not think, at the present time, there were any further steps which it was desirable that His Majesty's Government should take, but that we should watch the situation and should be guided by what happened.

Turkey (British Representative)

asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been reached regarding the appointment of His Majesty's representative in Turkey as an Ambassador or as a Minister?

A decision has been reached in consultation with the Allied Governments, but, pending communications with the Turkish Government, I think it is inexpedient that I should say more.

Singapore Naval Base

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any representations expressing the feeling of any portion of the Japanese people regarding the execution of the naval base at Singapore; and, if so, whether he can state their nature?

It is, I believe, the case that certain sections of opinion in Japan have felt some suspicion that the works at Singapore indicate a lack of confidence on our part in the peaceful intentions of our former allies; but in Japanese official and other well-informed circles it is fully realised that improvement of the Singapore dockyard is a normal development of naval policy. Its immense distance from Japan—about 2,300 miles—prevents it from being considered as a threat; moreover, the two countries are firmly united by their common interest in the preservation of peace, by the treaties signed at Washington, and by the special bond of an historic and valued friendship.

In what form will the House receive proof of the Japanese views just expressed?

Have not responsible Japanese officials already stated that they do not look upon this proposal as a menace?

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) to the speeches which have been delivered in Japan on the subject.

In reference to the Treaty of Washington, were the Japanese envoys at the Conference informed that we intended to fortify Singapore?

Have not statements been made by Japanese in this country on the subject?

Widows and Old Age Pensions

asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to introduce legislation this Session dealing with the question of pensions for widows?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Committee which is considering the scheme of improved old age pensions and widows pensions, referred to in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, have completed their labours; whether the result will be presented to Parliament in a White Paper; and whether he proposes to provide facilities for legislation to give effect to it in the present Session?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to introduce a Bill to give old age pensions at the age of 60, in view of the large number of men between the ages of 60 and 70 who are being refused benefit by the labour exchanges on the ground that they have failed to prove that in normal times insurable employment suited to their capacities will be likely to be available for them?

These questions are being studied but I am not in position to make any statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government study this question—what are the old men between 60 and 70, who are not in receipt of unemployment benefit, to do in the meantime?

I think they will do what they did when the last Government were in power.

Is it not a fact that men between 60 and 70 received unemployment benefit under the last Government and are being denied it under this Government?

Can we have an answer on this point? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who has blamed the last Government if he is not aware that under the last Government no man was debarred from receiving benefit between 60 and 70, and that under the new regulations, recently issued, they are being deprived of it; and what steps is he taking to see that these men are maintained in decency until they reach the age of 70?

Is it not the fact that myself and many of us on this side of the House won the election on pledges given on this very question?

It is true, and the study of the question by the Government will result in legislation.

Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's first reply, if he is lieu satisfied that there is a change in the unemployment payments to these old people, will he rectify the suffering caused to them in this way as distinct from anything they may have suffered under the late Government?

Disarmament

asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to include in the discussions place between representatives of His Majesty and representatives of other Governments, with regard to the holding of a new conference on naval armaments, the question of extending the scope of the suggested conference to include aerial and land armaments?

No such discussions are at present taking place, and on the general question I cannot add anything to the answers given to the hon. and gallant Member on the 18th and 19th instant.

I do not press the matter, if the right hon. Gentleman does not wish it, but he has informed us that unofficial conversations have taken place, and may we know if those were only in connection with naval armaments, or were other armaments included?

What I said was that this subject had been unofficially mentioned in a conversation which I had with the late American Ambassador to this country. No communications have passed between the two countries on the subject at the moment, and I think it is undesirable I should make any further statement.

Forestry Commission

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Forestry Commission is a nominated body which is not represented in this House by a Minister of the Crown, and that in the last financial year its gross expenditure provided from public funds was £399,300; and whether, in view of the importance of maintaining direct Parliamentary power over the spending Departments, he will take steps to bring the Forestry Commission under the Board of Agriculture or other Department represented in this House?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 18th December last to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), in which it was stated that the Treasury is responsible for the Estimates of the Commission. I see no sufficient reason to reverse the policy embodied in the Forestry Act of 1919.

Is it not the case that a Member of the House desiring to ask a question regarding the operations of the Forestry Commission is not allowed to put such a question to any of the Members on the Treasury Bench?

The person responsible for answering questions in the House, on details connected with the work of the Forestry Commission, is the Forestry Commissioner, and I have often heard questions answered by him.

Shop Rents

asked the Prime Minister whether he will extend the terms of reference of the Royal Commis- sion on Food Prices so as to include the question of the effect on food prices of high rents of retail shops?

I have been asked to reply, but I cannot usefully add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member on 12th February last, a, copy of which I am sending him.

Why did not the Commission, which had the retail butchers and others before them, ask questions in relation to the increase of shop rents. I want to know from the Prime Minister, if the other hon. Gentleman cannot answer, whether he is going to inquire into the extortionate rents on retail shops and let the public know whether these rents are being taken out of the retailers' profits or are passed on to the consumer in the prices of the articles? Has the right hon. Gentleman not power to get a Commission to do that?

Can the hon. Gentleman state the extent to which these excessive rents are due to the restriction of output in the building trade?

Housing (Stamped Steel Ceilings)

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a metal stamping company, who are the manufacturers of stamped-steel ceilings, had orders from the Gateshead and Newcastle Corporations to fix their ceilings in houses in the corporations' areas waiting for the ceilings in such houses to be finished; that when the employés of the firm started fixing the ceilings the officials of the Plasterers' Union intimated that their men would be called out on strike unless the men fixing the metal ceilings at once ceased from work; that in consequence of this action the orders given to the company have been cancelled, whereby some 45 houses which might have been made ready for occupation in one or two weeks remain unfinished; and whether he will grant facilities for passing the necessary legislation to secure freedom of contract in the building and fitting up of houses and generally to prevent interference by interested parties with the completion of houses urgently needed by the public?

My right hon. Friend has asked the local authority to furnish him with particulars of the case to which my hon. Friend refers.

Assuming the facts to be as stated in the question, will the Prime Minister take immediate steps to protect the public, who desire houses to be completed as soon as possible, against this interference with individual liberty and liberty of contract?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authority have succeeded in getting that work done by work which is not blackleg labour?

Pensions Regional Office, Cardiff

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the dissatisfaction existing among the people of Wales, he is prepared to reconsider his decision to close the Welsh regional office at Cardiff?

Having regard to the facts stated by me in the course of debate on the 18th instant in connection with this matter, my right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to adopt the course which the hon. Member suggests.

I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the decision, I will call attention to this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment of the House.

May I ask if the resolutions passed by over two hundred councils in Wales are to be treated as so much waste paper?

No. I venture to hope that after the explanation given the other night in this House, they will realise that their objections were based entirely on a misapprehension of what is really going to happen in this particular case.

Flora Macdonald's Birthplace

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is now in a position to intimate the result of his inquiries regarding the desirability of safeguarding the ruins of the house in South Uist in which Flora MacDonald was born?

It is proposed to ask the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland to advise in the matter, and it may be some time before they are in a position to consider it. The hon. Member will be informed as soon as a decision is reached.

Bird Sanctuaries (Royal Parks)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what number of bird sanctuaries have been created in the Royal parks; and whether the experiment is proving successful?

There are in all nine enclosures which are specially maintained to encourage bird nesting in the Royal parks. The maintenance of these enclosures as bird sanctuaries has, in the opinion of the Department, been so far very successful. The annual report, containing interesting details of the birds which have visited or nested in these sanctuaries, will shortly be issued. I am sending copies of previous reports to the hon. Member.

German Import Duty (Alsacelorraine)

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that up to 10th January metallurgical products and textiles from Alsace-Lorraine entered Germany free of duty, whereas they are now required to pay the same duty as goods entering Germany from other parts of France; and, seeing that this is likely to result in an increase of goods imported into this country at a price lower than the cost of production, does he propose to initiate immediate measures to counteract the effect of this proceeding upon British manufacturers?

I have been asked to answer this question. The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, while I should doubt whether the results which my hon. Friend fears are to be expected, in any important degree, I may remind him that where imported goods are being sold, or offered for sale, in the United Kingdom at prices below the foreign cost of production, it is open to the industry affected to apply for the imposition of a duty under the prevention of dumping provisions in Section 2 (1, a ) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921.

Territorial Army

Commissions

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware; that the rule that young men applying for commissions in the Territorial Army have to spend three weeks on detachment, in addition to two weeks in camp in the same year, to some extent accounts for the Territorial Army being at present under strength; and whether he can see his way to Make some relaxation of this requirement, at any rate in the case of applicants who have had training in their public school officers' training corps?

The Territorial Army officer's initial course of 24 days' attachment to a Regular unit must be completed within three years of date of commission, but the whole course need not be taken in one year; it may be split up into two or three periods. Applications for an extension of the three years' limit, or for exemption from annual training, on special grounds receive full consideration. It is realised that Territorial officers are devoting their spare time in, the service of their country, and their difficulties in regard to training are dealt with as sympathetically as possible, but, it is essential that a certain standard of proficiency should be maintained.

Recruitment

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the slow recruitment in the Territorial Army, he is considering the introduction in any form of compulsory service to meet the deficiency, or whether he is considering the re-establishment of the Militia Act?

The answer to the first part, of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend recently received a deputation which represented the value of the Militia, and he has promised consideration of their views.

In view of the statements that have appeared in the Press lately, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the advisability of denying officially rumours in the Press?

I am afraid I am not aware of the statements in the Press to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.

I will have much pleasure in sending them to the hon. and gallant Member if he will deny them.

Questions

War Graves (Removal of Remains)

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will grant permission to relatives to move, at their own expense, bodies of their near relatives, who fell during the Great War, from abroad to this country?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) on the 10th December, in which he explained that the Imperial War Graves Commission had come to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that it would be opposed to the policy of equality of treatment of the fallen to permit the removal of the remains of soldiers to this country in particular cases.

War Credits (Re-Insurance)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade whether His Majesty's Government had under consideration any scheme whereby the Government might assume responsibility for re-insuring against risks of war credits granted in foreign countries by British undertakings; whether any conferences have taken place on this subject with insurance companies undertaking this class of business; and what steps the Government is proposing to take in this direction to increase for British manufacturers opportunities for selling their products in foreign markets?

The whole question of credit insurance is receiving my very close attention in consultation with the interests concerned, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement upon the subject.

Telephone Exchanges

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the Post Office is unable to comply with the large number of applications for the installation of telephones owing to a shortage of suitable accommodation for telephone exchanges; and if he will state the number of sites approved by his Department during the past year; the number upon which building operations have been started; and the number of sites at present under consideration?

I have been asked to reply. It is seldom that applications for telephone service have to be refused temporarily by reason of a shortage of exchange premises; although, under the general housing difficulties, it is not easy at present to secure suitable accommodation for new, or extension of existing, exchanges—especially where those of the smaller type are concerned. If the hon. Member will acquaint me with any particular case he may have in mind, I shall be happy to investigate it. The number of sites for exchange buildings approved since 1st January, 1924, is 83; the number of sites for such buildings for which negotiations are in progress is 80; the number of exchanges on which building work is in progress or will start before the end of the current financial year, excluding minor adaptations, is 117.

Ex-Service Men (Civil Service)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that in the recent agreement concluded with the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants establishment was refused to executive and administrative officers on the grounds that no vacancies were available, his attention has been drawn to the fact that within the last few weeks a Mr. Hughes, a non-service man employed at the National Savings Committee, has been granted pensionable establishment; and will he say why, if it is not possible to grant establishment rights to ex-service executive and administrative officers, it has been found possible to make exceptions in the case of non-service men?

The Committee under Lord Southborough state in their final Report the reasons for their recommendations, which are accepted in the agreement referred to, as regards the executive class and administrative class. The post of Director of External Organisation under the National Savings Committee is not regarded as belonging to either of those classes but is a special post which in the interest of the public service should continue to be occupied by the officer who has filled it satisfactorily for a number of years.

Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Albanian Concession)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has official knowledge of an oil-boring concession granted to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company by the Government of Albania; whether any protest has been received from any friendly Powers with regard to this concession; if so, from which Government; and on what grounds are the protests based?

In the course of 1920 the Albanian Government, exercising the indisputable right of Albania as a free and independent country, granted a concession to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company which enabled that company to prospect over a large area for oil, and out of that to choose a lesser area for exploitation. This concession was subsequently modified and the area of exploration substantially reduced. In its amended form it has now been approved by the Albanian Assembly. As regards the second part of the question, conversations with the Italian Government are at present in progress which, if pursued as I hope they will be in amity and good will, should end in a friendly solution.

Have any notes on this matter been received from any other Government beside the Italian Government?

No. I think I have had no communication from any Government except the Italian.

Why should an English Member object to a British company making progress

Marylebone Police Court (Edward Archer)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the remission, in whole or in part, of the sentence of three months' imprisonment imposed on Edward Archer, aged 22 years, at the Marylebonc Police Court., on the 14th instant, in view of the excellent character and circumstances of the prisoner, as related in the evidence of detective-officer Shipley?

My right hon. Friend has considered this case, but finds no ground for recommending any reduction of the sentence. The prisoner has been four times previously convicted—twice for housebreaking.

Dunstable Portland Cement Company, Limited

( by Private Notice ) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the prospectus of the Dunstable Portland Cement Company, Limited, issued to-day, inviting subscriptions for £150,000 ordinary shares of £1 each at par, contains no reference to the value of the land which the company has been formed to work; whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government is guaranteeing a loan of £100,000 to the company, he can state how much of such sum is deemed to be secured upon the land; whether the land has been independently valued and the amount of such valuation; when the said corporation purchased the said land, and from whom and what was the amount paid?

The issue in question is a private issue, not guaranteed by His Majesty's Government, though the same company has received a guarantee of-£100,000 for the purchase of machinery. The information to be given in a prospectus is governed by the Companies, Acts, and the Stock Exchange rules, and is not a matter over which the Treasury have any control, or with which they are in any way concerned. The Treasury were satisfied, on the advice of the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee, that the security for their guarantee was sufficient.

May I ask whether, in view of the importance which the investing public attaches to the fact that the Government is guaranteeing a loan to the company, he proposes to take steps to see that the prospectuses of such companies contain reasonably full information as to the assets of the companies

I have seen the prospectus in question. It seems a perfectly normal prospectus, but, in any case, we have no need of checking prospectuses issued in which we have no concern.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of suggesting to the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee that a guarantee shall be taken from companies who are getting guaranteed loans from the British Government that no public issue will be made for a certain period, unless on terms approved by them?

When these grants of public money are made, are the Committee informed that money is to be invited from the public?

There is no question of a grant of public money. It is merely a guarantee—[HON. MEMBERS: "The same thing !"]—and it would, obviously, be impossible to prevent further application for capital in those cases where it is required.

In the case of a guarantee being given by the Government, and a public issue being made, cannot the Government immediately exercise some control to see that everything is in order before making the original guarantee?

I do not think we could possibly undertake to verify all the strings of facts which hon. Members seem to have in mind, providing that our guarantee is covered, as it is now, upon the whole assets of the company. That is all we are concerned about. We do not pretend that the Trade Facilities Guarantee should be the sole means by which a company should raise its money.

In view of the guarantee to this cement corporation, are the Government taking any steps to secure that there shall not be any differential charges for cement?

May I ask whether it is not the fact that, as disclosed by the prospectus, the sole asset of the company at the present time is a piece of land, the value of which is not given in the prospectus? There is also a prospective asset, consisting of certain machinery, which can only have a certain break-up value on the winding-up, and, in view of those facts, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it desirable that the Treasury should ascertain the value of the one tangible asset, namely, the land?

Surely, if the Treasury guarantee £100,000, the company have some assets? Is this company at the present time floating the capital on the guarantee of the Government?

The land in question is only about £60,000 out of £375,000 capital, and it is only a small part of the total assets on which the Treasury have a lien.

Is it not the case that the mere fact that the prospectus contains the guarantee for a certain sum will assist the company in catching people with money?

Business of the House

Inasmuch as for the first item for the Air Estimates is to appear in the Navy Estimates, is it the intention of the Government that the First Lord of the Admiralty should attend the Debate on Thursday?

I think my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that that point will be looked into.

May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-day?

I propose to go as far with the Supplementary Estimates as the House will allow us to go. In the event of the House finishing all the Estimates, I do not propose to ask them to do any more business to-day.

I ask because in the Blue Papers issued to-day the Resolution relating to the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) appeared as though it would be taken first. Have the Government any intention of taking it this week?

Something has happened which is very, very rare—a misprint in the Blue Paper. It is not our intention to take that Resolution to-day.

In the event of the Supplementary Estimates not being finished to-day, is it the intention to resume them to-morrow?

The first Order to-morrow. I understand, through the usual channels, that the Opposition Leaders have been advised as to this.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Resolution, which stands in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in regard to the Church of Scotland, will be taken this week?

I should not like to say for certain, but notice will be given of it. Certainly it will not be taken to-day, and I do not think to-morrow.

Bills Presented

Protection of Birds Bill,

"to provide for the further protection of Birds," presented by Sir HARRY BRITTAIN; supported by Sir Douglas Newton, Sir Martin Conway, Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. William Graham, and Mr. Wignall; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

Bona Fide Travellers Bill,

"to amend the Law relating to the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor to bona fide travellers," presented by Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS; supported by Rear-Admiral Sir Guy Gaunt, Colonel Applin, Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Colonel Molder', Major Barnett, Captain Gee, and Lieut.-Colonel James; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

Imperial Institute Bill,

"to amend the Law with respect to the management of the Imperial Institute," presented by Mr. AMERY; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

Orders of the Day

Supply

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

Civil Services and Revenue Departments Supplementary Estimates, 1924–25

Class VI

Ministry of Pensions

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,096,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, 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."

It be for the convenience of the Committee, and may save time, if I at once say what is in order and what is not in order on this Vote. It is quite clear that this is a Vote which arises from the original Estimate not having been sufficient to defray the charges mentioned. Therefore the only thing that really is in order in discussing this Vote is for hon. Members to show that by some other form of administration these extra charges need not to have been incurred by the Ministry at any particular time.

On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions in the discussion of these Supplementary Estimates last week made certain statements. I should like to know, Sir, if your ruling means that no reply can be permitted to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman

Of course, where the Minister has made a statement, I shall have to allow some reply, and am perfectly willing that hon. Members should reply, but I would ask them to keep strictly to the point.

On a further point of Order. Are not the appropriate headings which have been taken and discussed in previous Debates not to be within the rights of discussion of hon.

Members taking part to-day? Debate on these should be justified and in order, I submit?

To discuss matters under the appropriate headings will be in order, that is, to speak about the expenditure that has been incurred.

I desire, if possible, to follow the lines that you have laid down in speaking upon a matter which, 1 find, is in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are quite aware of the considerable difficulty surrounding these various cases, and, personally, I am quite prepared to acknowledge the sincere desire on the part of those on the Front Bench, representing any particular Department, to facilitate what is a matter of common concern at the moment. Judging, however, from my own experiences, it does certainly appear that the forces behind a particular Minister, or Ministry, are much more powerful than the Minister himself. In some of the cases which we have had before us there is a very marked failure to do justice to the numbers of men who have been turned down. Most of us know cases of those who have gone into the Army with a clean sheet and physically fit, a fact that was well substantiated; yet such are the disastrous results that they have been even landed in our mental institutions after having been turned completely down. It is exceedingly difficult to see where there is an honest, straightforward effort to meet requirements in cases of this sort, There is a marked disparity between the medical handling of the situation at the beginning of the War and what has followed after the fellows have gone through the job

In the matter of these final awards, the statement made by the immediate predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject did not show that the Government, the predecessor represented, was particularly satisfied with the system, but it is only right to point out on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman who was then Minister of Pensions that he marked his position somewhat differently at a later stage, and was prepared fully and freely to consider any application that was submitted to him, particularly as regarded the deep satisfaction with the method of handling the final awards. We have got away finally from the experience of the severe limits which intensified the case of the men suffering from physical disability being turned off in this way; and I think I should be in agreement with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who made the proposel that there should be a committee to investigate the actual workings of this system of dealing with the final awards. The Minister of Pensions under this Government had not then arrived at the conclusion that there was need for making any departure, but the fact that these circumscribed applications, represented from various parts of the House, testify to the deep-seated dissatisfaction on this very matter in itself warranted the serious consideration of the Minister—notwithstanding his strong views on the matter—to satisfy the House and the desire of Members to see if anything could be done. In my view there could be a better plan for dealing with these cases. There was a remark made by the hon. Member for Salford West (Lieut.-Colonel Astbury) with regard to the assesors being required by the regional officers to reduce a certain number of cases weekly. That, I acknowledge, was pointed out by the Minister of Pensions as not coming directly under these particular Estimates to-day; therefore I do not pursue that any further. I want to keep myself in order, but at the same time I should think that that statement was so made that I fully anticipate the Minister of Pensions will investigate that declaration, and ascertain and' report to the House at the earliest opportunity whether or not it is correct. There is no doubt there is a very strong view in some quarters, and that statement certainly strengthens the view that something of the kind——

I think I ought to say now that I have written to the hon. Member asking him to let me have the evidence on which he made the statement, and so far I have not received an acknowledgment of my request.

Any colleague of the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House will doubtless be respectful to him, in view of the subject in question, and send him the evidence, because any hon. Member making such a statement would feel certainly bound to comply with the request, courteous as it would doubtless be. I shall anxiously wait to see what becomes of the query, because from a study of the very large proportion of cases coming under purview in the Dundee district I do feel very seriously that every attempt seems to be made to cut down these cases if there is a chance at all.

The Minister has stated, in defence of the final award system, that we must have a final settlement of the State's debt to the men. That does not fit so well in with the excellent phraseology with which we have been treated in the past that the State can never discharge the debt due to these men. We continually informed the man that we would give him back all we could in every case, and yet he was assumed to be in debt to the State; I should say that the outcome of that would not be a very helpful prospect to the proposal to strengthen the Army; it is not likely to facilitate an acquisition to the strength of the Army. The value of those men who have passed hence has also gone through a strange development in the settlement of allowances. After years of operations the Department has come to the discovery that the man was not of the same value to his immediate relatives as had originally been allowed. Then we have these allowances to widows. It is very remarkable that even where allowances have been made previous to the death of the husband, that just at the very point where the husband passes away a reduction, and sometimes a substantial reduction, is made, and owing to the procedure of the Department it is a very long time before one can get a rectification of the error.

In regard to the trainees, a very awkward situation arises, as was pointed out recently by an ex-service man, in the cases of men who have been trained for agricultural work under a classification such as "gardening." If work is unavailable, the man is refused employment benefit at the Employment Exchange on the ground that he is not in an insurable occupation. That aspect of the matter is one evoking strong protest, and when this Vote is under consideration this matter and others ought to be pressed very strongly upon the attention of the Department. As I said at the outset, I recognise that the Minister may be very anxious to facilitate matters along the lines we are indicating, but he must be a very aggressive personality and throw himself very strenuously into what, I feel confident, needs to be a conflict with the officialism of the establishment. I have come across cases where any layman who was asked to express his opinion on the facts disclosed in the official papers would be bound to say there was something radically wrong with the medical decision which has been arrived at and which cuts the man out. I have no difficulty in expressing that view very strongly after the experiences we are having, and on behalf of the men I urge that the Department should be asked to give this matter sympathetic consideration. I do not say that what I have referred to appeals particularly to the period during which the present Government has been in office. I have not expressed my view until opportunities had been given for both Governments to take action, and I have had to deal with the immediate predecessor of the present Minister.

There is one case in particular which has been before the Department for about two years. I put it before the Department in question form the other day. In the City of Dundee police officials and public representatives say they simply cannot understand why the man's application has been blocked. It may he said, and it is said, that these cases form a small number relatively to the larger number of people who are being provided for by the Department, but that does not affect the matter at all. To my mind there is as strong a case if it concerns only one man as if 10 or 100 were affected. The whole thing is a question of principle.

There is one question I should like to put to the Minister arising out of Item K. 2, dealing with treatment and training allowances to disabled pensioners. This follows up the question I addressed to the Minister in the House the other day when I asked if he would modify Regulations which in some cases prevent allowances being paid to pensioners who are only receiving outpatient treatment. He replied that he thought I must be under some misapprehension as to the effect of the Regulations, as in a large number of cases treatment allowance was being paid. Since then I have refreshed my memory, and have ascertained that there are a large number of cases where a man is receiving out-patient relief, is unable to follow his work, and is not receiving the treatment allowance. I suggest to the Minister that the sympathy of his Department should be extended to such cases, so that where a man is unable to follow his work, even though he has not to attend the outpatient department frequently, he should receive treatment allowance. It is a conflict between the doctors, I believe. The doctor of the Ministry may say that the man attends only once or twice a fortnight, and that he will still be able to follow his employment. The man's doctor, on the other hand, says the man is not fit to follow his trade. Because of that the man cannot get unemployment benefit, and at the same time the Ministry, by their Regulations, refuse him treatment allowance. Cases like that, I submit to the Minister, call for a more sympathetic interpretation of the Regulations. Where a man, owing to his disability, is receiving out-patient treatment, and is unable to follow his vocation he should be entitled to treatment allowance. Otherwise he is thrown on to the rates, on to the Guardians, which is certainly not the right policy from the point of view of finance. The burden is one to be borne by the State through the Ministry of Pensions, and not thrown on the local ratepayers. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some sympathetic reply. He may say the number of cases is not large, and I hope they are not, but whether they be large or small they are responsible for a great sense of injustice to the pensioner who is affected, and if they are small I hope the Minister will be the readier to put them right, seeing that the total will not be considerable.

With regard to the administration of the regulations dealing with training, may I again ask for a sympathetic interpretation of them. A case was brought to my notice the other day of an ex-service man who, rightly or wrongly, had his pension committed some little time ago. With the money he started a little shop, which unfortunately was not successful. When he applied for training, he was told he was barred by the regulations from receiving any training because he was not in receipt of a pension. That may be strictly in accordance with the regulations if so, so much the worse for the regulations. They hit the man very hard, and I hope the Minister, whom we know is personally very sympathetic, may be able to get that same spirit of sympathy permeating his Department and that the regulations may be interpreted with that warm-hearted sympathy which we know the Minister possesses.

4.0 P.M.

I want to put before the Minister and the Committee, very shortly, the position in which we are in regard to this Supplementary Estimate to defray the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Pensions. Almost every speech deals with the point which the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) has just addressed to the Committee, and to which also the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has referred, namely, the question of asking for sympathetic treatment and the question of hardship. What is the position? There are 615 Members in this House, and no doubt only a fraction of the cases of hardship reach Members as appeals from constituents who fought in the War and find themselves up against the regulations. I think I should be unstating it if I said that on the average Members have at least 30 cases each. That means a body of some 20,000 ex-service men who are all up against these regulations, and it means that all these cases are submitted, not only once, but very often two or three times, after these rapid General Elections, to the Ministry of Pensions. They invariably get the same ultimate reply. It is always sympathetic, but it costs a good deal to write 20,000 sympathetic letters, very often twice in a single year after two General Elections.

I want to suggest that we might avoid a great deal of this expense in salaries and the like, consumed in writing out these innumerable letters, and investigating these cases again and again with the foreknowledge that not a single additional penny will reach the pensioner, or the man who ought to be a pensioner on account of the hardship of his case, if the right hon. Gentleman will adopt the suggestion by the hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate and who asked for a Committee of this House to consider and advise on the present position of final awards. I do not want to pre-judge what would be the finding of such a Committee, but I do say that what, we want is some- thing more than a tribunal that will simply administer the regulations as they exist, that is bound by those regulations, and cannot take into consideration special conditions of hardship where those regulations act hardly and even unjustly in individual cases. What we want, instead of innumerable letters of the Ministry, who are bound by their own regulations, is another appeal tribunal which would be empowered to consider and decide cases where the regulations operate hardly, unjustly, and not in accordance with the pledge given to these men when they were asked to fight.

That is my view, and I say that it would save a great deal of this diversion of public money in salaries and expenses. It would bring some fraction of it, at any rate, to deal with the cases with which we are all charged; I will not say burdened, because it is a duty which we owe, not only generally to our constituents, but, in particular, to these men. It is an unsatisfactory duty, because we consume an infinitude of time which is not paid for; we know that we are causing salaries and expenses to mount up to the Ministry, and we know that the net result be absolutely nothing. That has been so in practically every case that I have had to put before the Ministry. It is not because he is not sympathetic. We have heard that word "sympathy" until we are sick of it. I want to appeal for a tribunal, not to administer the regulations, but to say whether they have operated hardly or unjustly in any individual ease, and with power to divert the (expenses of the Ministry into the pockets of these people who deserve to have some fraction of the money which we are asked to vote.

The question of the Welsh Region is a very sore one in Wales at the present time, and probably, if I dwell too long upon it, you, Sir, may say that it is not germane to the Debate. Last week when this Vote came up for discussion time was allowed for dealing with various grievances. I said then, and am only going to say as much to-day, that when we were discussing this matter in Wales, the answer was given us that all the regions connected with the payment of pensions were going to be done away with, and it was said that the Scottish region would be included. We have a distinct and an acute grievance, and all we asked was that we should be the last region to be removed. I am sorry that the Minister of Pensions has not heard the last of it. I think all the Members from Wales will worry him and the Parliamentary Secretary in every possible way until that decision of removing the Welsh region has been revoked, and until we have had it established that the Welsh region will be the last to be taken away, on account of the fact that a large number of our people are not able to understand the English language at all. These regulations are difficult enough, as has already been pointed out from all sides of the House. Every Member taking part in the discussion both on Tuesday and on Friday last has emphasised this point, and, though I do not want to attack either the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, I do say that the confusion and muddle arising from the plethora of regulations and systems in existence is to some extent possibly responsible for the Minister having to ask for some part of this Supplementary Estimate.

I also want to endorse every word that has been said by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). I went with these boys to the War, and, I hope, did my little bit in a very humble way. I have been dealing with every possible case, and can bear out what has been said by hon. Members from my own experience. We have scores of hundreds of men in Wales, and a few hundreds in the Rhondda Valleyalone, who are suffering from the system that has been set up with regard to the treatment and allowances to men. As the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said on 19th February, when the War broke out an appeal was made to the country in general, and out of an adult population of 44,000 men in the Rhondda Valley, 16,000 new men came to Kitchener's Army, with 2,000 in the Reserve. Those who came back, came back to an occupation similar to that which they enjoyed before they went, namely, the occupation of mining. We have now hundreds of men whom their own medical attendants say it is impossible for them to attend to work, because mining—working underground—is a laborious and onerous occupation. The doctors of the Ministry, however, say, "Well, he can attend the clinic once a week and he must be there on Wednesday at 11 o'clock every week to get treatment." The man's own doctor who knows him, and has probably known him for years, who attended him before he went to the war, and has attended him since his demobilisation, says that it is impossible for him to work. The man is between the devil and the deep sea. He is unable to work, and he does not get a pension. The doctor at the clinic says, "Oh, you can attend to some work." The result is that he is without any pension at all, and he does not get any treatment allowance in order to enable him to live.

I do not want to take up the time of the Committee. I have had a kind of discursive debate with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. But I do not care who is responsible. Ever since I came back from the War and became a Member of this House grievances with regard to the payment of pensions have been cropping up, and because of the Regulations, as the hon. Member for Barnstable said, men are deprived of their pensions, and you cannot get the idea out of their heads that all these systems and Regulations are put up in order to deprive them of their rights. I am not going to dwell upon the fact, but. I think it was the hon. Member for Southport (Lieut.-Colonel D. White) who said that a system has cropped up—T do not know whether there is any authority for it in the warrant —under which you have assessors who go through these awards. Although I have been a member of the Advisory Committee for Wales, and my wife is a member of the Local Pensions Committee, and have attended as often as I could, T did not know until very recently that there' was such a system, and that all the awards made by the Regional Medical Board in Wales go up to headquarters in London, to be there examined. If they are found to be inconsistent with some Regulation or standard laid down by the assessors here in London, they are sent back to Wales, and the attention of the medical men there is called to it, and their opinion is asked with regard to it. They are asked whether they have taken certain things into consideration. Then if it is successful, and the assessors have given 80 per cent., their attention is called to it, and they are told, "You ought to have given only 60 per cent. in this case"— or 100 per cent., if you like. In addition to the Medical Board in Cardiff and the assessors here, there is a Board of Referees appointed to decide as between both parties. All this tends to give a certain disadvantage and injustice to the patients in Wales. I am only pleading now for the people I know something about.

I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee. If there is any difference, the final decision rests with the Board which examines the man.

Yes, and 99 per cent of the cases are reduced and not increased.

We are now discussing a Supplementary Estimate which has been rendered necessary largely by increases given on the recommendation of the Medical Boards.

If the whole of this sum is required to meet the increases, then, of course, my point is out of order. All I want to say is that we shall return to this subject, because we are not satisfied with the administration of pensions in Wales and, more particularly, in the Rhondda, Valley, where it is a standing disgrace to the British Empire. I took 1,400 men with me to the Colours in 1914, who have returned and who have been disabled in the War, and to-day they are on parish relief. I want to see some improvement made, and I am only asking that these men should have their rights. I promised these men when they joined that if anything happened to them this country would see that they were cared for to the end of their lives.

We have now over 400 appeal cases in Wales under Regulation 30 dealing with final awards. We are anxious to put these things right and save a good deal of the money, if we can, being spent in drawing up Regulations to prevent these men getting their pensions. We appealed under the final awards Section in 400 cases and we have only had one case re-opened. The Medical Board have said to us: "You are out of date and you should have appealed before 12 months were over, and therefore your case is closed." I wish to inform the Minister of Pensions that we shall return to the question of the region for Wales. We want to protect these men with regard to their pensions, and make it easier to make their claims. This is a point of paramount importance, and the Minister ought to see that this is done as quickly as possible.

Whatever my views may be on this subject, I think I ought to congratulate the predecessor of the Minister of Pensions and also his successor on the fact that this Vote is asking for £2,000,000 in addition to the money already granted to ex-service men. The Pensions Department is the one service to which we are all anxious to grant a Supplementary Estimate. I think, however, we must look to the reasons why this is necessary. I want to allude to the question of gratuities to widows and children of deceased seamen and soldiers.

I wish to raise the question of the method of granting pensions to the dependants of ex-soldiers in the Army. I want to know whether in the spending of this additional money any line has been drawn to secure uniformity of treatment, whether this money is being properly spent, and whether the pensioners who are going to receive it are getting a fair deal. I think that question is quite in order. When the present holder of the office of Minister of Pensions held the same position before, in his higher wisdom —or in my opinion rather a want of it—he issued a Circular to a large number of the parents and dependants of those who had met their death in the War——

The question of gratuities to widows and children does not come under this Vote, and any allusion to the relatives would he out of order.

I understand that part of this Vote covers the question of benefits in cases here increases had been granted.

The original Estimate in this respect has not been exceeded, and therefore there is no provision in this Vote for dependants at all. There was money in hand when the change was made.

I know that there has been an increased sum of money spent, and when that is so, the matter usually comes before this House in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate. I am sorry the point I wish to raise cannot be dealt with. In the spending of this money I want to ask if it is not possible for the Minister to reconsider this further point. The great issue is the question of final awards. We all feel that there is no justice about what is now being done. I know the Minister of Pensions can get up here and make an excellent statement showing some degree of finality, but there is a feeling amongst the then themselves that they have not had fair treatment, and one of the things the Minister should consider is that of allowing the pensioner or claimant for a pension to bring with him a doctor, and that doctor's expenses should be met out of public funds. The main deciding factor is the medical evidence brought before the board.

There is no trade union when negotiating with employers which does not go fully acquainted with the points to be dealt with. Even in the case of a criminal trial the Crown or the Government secures the best counsel they can for the criminal, and why should a man faced with a purely medical test not have the same chance on a matter as serious to him as in the case of the man being tried for a crime? Why should a man in those circumstances not be provided with the best medical advice? If the Department would allow the pensioner to bring a doctor to give medical evidence they would go a long way in the direction of wiping out a most serious injustice from which these men now suffer. I want to compliment the last Minister of Pensions for helping to bring forward this Estimate by certain reforms which he instituted, and I hope the present Minister will carry on the good work commenced by the last-Minister of Pensions.

As this is only a Supplementary Estimate, we are precluded from going very far into this subject. There is one aspect of pensions which is very much open to serious criticism, and it is that six years after the War pensions have not yet been stabilised. If the Minister of Pensions had been seriously engaged in winding this matter up and bringing it to a conclusion surely he ought to have succeeded by this time, and then supplementary estimates of this kind would not have been necessary. I want to see a stabilised pension.

Of course it should be generous on all points and in favour of the pensioner, but the matter should be brought to an end, and then the Ministry over which the right hon. Gentleman presides could be abolished.

I know how deep is the irritation all over the country because of the instability of these pensions, not that the decisions are wrong but because the unhappy man is kept in doubt whether his pension is going up or down. You want stability in order to bring an end to the insecurity of this system which reflects the greatest discredit on the Department. The wonder is that we have put up with a system like this for so long, and the feeling has grown up that those in the Department are more concerned about keeping their own jobs than bringing the system to an end. I urge upon the Minister of Pensions the desirability of bringing this state of things to an end. The eases ought to be decided generously, and when once you get a stabilised system it should not be altered.

The Committee generally seems to be in thorough agreement with the Supplementary Estimate which has been submitted by my right hon. Friend, because, if all the suggestions were carried into effect which have been made to-day, then, rather than a reduction of the amount which has been submitted, a considerable increase would certainly be necessary. I am sure there will be general satisfaction in all quarters of the Committee with the desire to lift pensions matters altogether out of the arena of party politics. I think that everyone has striven to do that as far as they possibly can, and I, for one, hope that there will be a continuance of this very laudable endeavour. T feel compelled, by one or two observations made by my right hon. Friend during the discussion of these Supplementary Estimates last week, to make one or two observations. In the first place, my right hon. Friend said that the Supplementary Estimate is due, not to any great change of policy, but to a miscalculation made by the Labour Government. I am certain that my right hon. Friend has no desire, even by suggestion, to be in the least unfair in the proposition which he submits to the House, but I am quite certain in my own mind that, if he looks at his observation again, he will almost—in fact, I think wholly—agree with me that that observation does not quite put the position as correctly as it might be put. It seems to me that, if there were any miscalculation on the part of the Labour Government with regard to the original Estimate for pensions, our miscalculation lay in the fact that we had too great an abundance of confidence in the judgment of our predecessors at, the Ministry, because, as I understand it, the original Estimate was prepared, and to all intents and purposes was agreed to, prior to the advent of the Labour Government.

And, if there had not been any change of Government at that particular time, I believe it is correct to assume that the Estimate, as originally presented to the House, would still have been made. It seems to me that, if one considers the errors under this particular heading, they demonstrate more than any words can possibly convey that we did desire to remedy, as far as we possibly could, the defects in administration, and to secure that measure of justice which has been so eloquently pleaded for in all quarters of the Committee to-day. As one piece of evidence, at any rate, that this Supplementary Estimate did in part go to meet that desire which Members have expressed, I need only quote these figures: In 1923, the proportion of claims which matured for pension was 23·7 per cent.; in 1924 the percentage rose to something over 29. In 1923, I understand, the average assessment was somewhere in the region of 30 per cent., but in 1924 it rose to something like 38 per cent. or just over. It seems to me that these two figures demonstrate that there was some improvement during the last year, and I only hope that, in response to the general request which has been made as to trying to remedy some injustices which are still, apparently, in existence, my right hon. Friend may find it possible to continue, not only the corrections which he himself instituted before he left office—some of -which it was my privilege to accept and follow—but others which I was privileged to introduce. I hope he will find it possible, in the interest of the pensioners themselves, to continue that wise and generous policy which I know animated him.

I venture also to make one other reference to the speech of my right hon. Friend. I did venture to make a correction at the close of the discussion the other night. My right hon. Friend quoted from a speech which I made in which I said that between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the cases were perhaps covered by the Regulations, but I am sure the deduction. which my right hon. Friend has made from that observation is not quite the one which I intended to convey, and I do not think it is the one which can be drawn from the speech which I delivered. What I meant to imply, and what I think is implied in the speeches which I made, was that the Regulations gave the opportunity for increasing pensions where the amount had not been assessed at its proper value. Outside these 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of cases, I said, there was a margin of cases which could not be met by these Regulations, but which could be met by individual consideration of each claim, and I am satisfied that that is a policy which can still be well adopted. I hope that no Regulations are going to be framed with such rigidity that the application of a little common sense is not possible in connection with them.

Let me say, in conclusion, just one word with regard to final awards. I want to express the hope that my right hon. Friend will, as I said in reply to questions time and time again, keep his mind as Open as possible with regard to this question of appeals and final awards. I trust he may find it convenient to be guided by the evidence which is now being sought in connection with the correction of errors methods. Big as this present Supplementary Estimate may be, and much as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may deplore the fact that a Supplementary Estimate has to be introduced, I am certain that neither the nation nor Parliament is going to begrudge the money necessary to meet these cases.

I should like to reinforce by all the means in my power the appeal which has come from all quarters of the Committee, without distinction of party, for a reconsideration of the system under which we are voting this Supplementary Estimate this afternoon. I think the volume and character of that appeal must have impressed everyone. There is a widespread feeling in the House of Commons, as throughout the country, that the system has not been working fairly, in spite of sympathetic administration, during the last two or three years. Every Member of the House must be conversant with hard cases. I have come across very large numbers of them in my own constituency, and instances have been already given in the Debate. I could give instances of other kinds. One of these is the case of widows of men who intended to marry, but never got leave and could not marry during the War. The difficulty there is to prove intention to marry. I know of a very hard case of that kind, and it is one of the kinds of cases that I think ought to be reconsidered.

Another, which has been mentioned by several speakers, is the question of the final award in cases of under 20 per cent. disability. Everyone knows what great hardships that causes" and I am sure tie: time has come for a reconsideration of the system of final awards altogether. Another class of cases of hardship of Which I have found a considerable number is that in which the man dies after the War and his widow applies for pension, and she has to establish the fact that his death is in some way due to die-ability contracted in the War. There I think the letter of the law is certainly hard. I have come across a large number of cases in which the hardship was considerable, and in which one feels that somehow or other the benefit of the doubt might have been given more generously to the applicant. I do not wish to delay the Committee by enlarging upon this theme, of which every speaker has given examples, but I am sure it will be generally agreed that the time has come when the whole system should be reconsidered, and I think the best way of doing that would be to appoint a Commission consisting of representative men who would command the confidence of the whole nation in this matter. I do not think an expert Commission is needed, but if a representative Commission were appointed, consisting of men whom people would respect and trust, they would get volumes of the most, valuable evidence from people up and down the country who have had to administer the present system and are familiar with all its technicalities. Let us have a representative Commission which the whole nation will trust, and in the regulations under which cases of hardship are known mostly to occur let the whole system be reconsidered ab initio, so that we may see that in future the regulations laid down give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant and are such as can be administered with common sense.

I am sure I may sincerely begin by saying how much I appreciate the absence, almost throughout the whole discussion, of any party feeling in this matter. I may say that I regret very much that my predecessor should have taken the opportunity, quite unwittingly, of attempting to throw upon me the responsibility for the present Estimate. It is obvious that it is impossible for me to enter upon a general Debate, because I should not be in order, and, therefore, I will simply try and deal with the points that have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) spoke of attempts to cut down assessments, and to cut down the results of Medical Boards. I can assure the Committee that that charge, though it is often made, has been completely disproved. The Ministry has never, under any of its Ministers, given instructions to try and cut down the assessments. The matter was fully inquired into by a Departmental Committee, on which all parties in the House were represented, and which included also representatives of the ex-service men, and they unanimously reported that no such attempt was being made.

I would only remind the Committee that we are at this moment discussing Supplementary Estimates which have become necessary largely because of the large number of increased assessments given by Medical Boards. I think the reason why hon. Members do not naturally realise that is a very simple one. The pensioner whose pension is increased by a Medical Board does not trouble the Minister, or Members of the House, very much with correspondence; but when a man's pension is cut down, or rather, when his assessment is lowered, naturally the man is apt to make a complaint. Therefore, the whole of one side of the cases is presented to Members of the House, and all the cases in which the assessments are raised are never heard of. I am glad to be able to assure the Committee that for some considerable time—sinee about the middle of 1923—the net result of all Medical Boards reviewing pensions has been an increase and not a decrease. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members, before they repeat the perfectly sincere charges which they bring forward that Medical Boards are ordered to cut down pensions and are doing it, will bear in mind that the truth is that no such orders have been issued, and that Medical Boards are, as a matter of fact, increasing pensions. That differs somewhat from the case that is generally presented on the platform.

Then the hon. Member for West Middlesborough (Mr. T. Thomson) spoke of treatment allowances. The figures are these: There were 6,000 men getting full treatment allowances, and 14,000 getting allowances for loss of time. It is obvious, however, that the proper form of compensation always decided upon by every Government has been to compensate the man according to the extent of his disability, and not to mix up this Ministry with the question whether the man is unemployed or whether he is not. Think what it would mean if that were done. It would mean that this Ministry, if it compensated men for being out of work, would have to watch all its pensioners, and, if it caught them working, would have to lower their pensions. It is quite impossible to mix up the two things, and it is neither in the interest of the State nor of the pensioner.

Where a man's unemployment is entirely due to disability, surely, then, he is entitled to pension?

The rule has been invariable, I think, for many years, that if a man is unable to work by reason of the treatment he gets full allowances, but ordinary compensation is based upon his percentage of disability. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) complained of letters to Members of Parliament. I hope on another occasion to speak a little more freely on that subject, but I would say this, that, taking the letters to Members of Parliament and all the complaints received by the Ministry, they only come to 11½; per cent. of the pensioners. I do not know whether hon. Members who have relations in their constituencies with such people as miners, farmers, or others, and discuss with them their daily work, find that only 1½ per cent. of them are discontented; but I consider that 1½ per cent. of complaints is not a large proportion, and I am not prepared to admit that every man who complains is necessarily in the right.

Yes; I have great sympathy with them, and it is very difficult to get at them. I find that the cases about which there is the most excitement in some of the daily papers are not always genuine cases, and our difficulty is to get at the genuine cases behind the amount of trouble that is given us by the cases which are not genuine. My hon. Friend also said he wanted some tribunal to administer it which was not bound by regulations. How you are going to achieve justice between individual men if you allow things to be settled by a tribunal bound by no regulations I cannot conceive. If you are going to get justice between individuals, you must have regulations. My hon. Friend's proposal would effect more injustice than any other scheme that has hitherto been proposed. It would mean that a man would go to his Member of Parliament to get his pension.

My right hon. Friend is hardly fair to me. I never made any such suggestion.

I understood my hon. Friend to say these cases should be decided by some other tribunal. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) referred to Wales, but I understand we are going to have another opportunity of discussing the matter more fully, which I shall welcome, because I am anxious to remove a misapprehension as to what the, late Government did and what we are doing.

And what was done before the late Government carne into power.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think, is wrong in raising all the grievances which he feels with regard to the administration of pensions in 1924, for instance, as attributable to any proposal to do away with the Welsh region.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not misunderstand me. I am simply referring to the hope that we shall inquire and have a field night as to what the Minister and his advisers did in 1923, what was done in 1924 and what eventually will happen in 1925.

I think that is hardly a matter that arises on a Supplementary Vote. On one matter I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the fuller the discussion the better, and we shall welcome a full discussion of the Whole matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Sir E. Grigg) wanted to reconsider the whole question from the very beginning. When the pensions system has been laid down for upwards of eight years, when we have had Ministers of Pensions from all parties, I cannot imagine anything more disturbing to a pensioner than that the whole system is to be upset from top to bottom. As a matter of fact, the particular people he referred to—the under 20 per cent. awards—are dealt with on a plan which has been part of the Ministry's arrangements from the very first. That is, that under 20 per cent. cases shall be dealt with by lump sums and final payments. We cannot discuss the whole question of the Pensions Ministry on this Vote now. The late Minister of Pensions forces me in self-defence to make a point which I should certainly not have made in the House of Commons if it had not been for the line which he took. I am sure it was done quite in innocence. He said we declared this Estimate to be due to an error on the part of the Labour Government in estimating the necessary money for the present year. I understand he said it was not his fault and that he relied on the preparations for the Estimates made by his predecessors, the Conservative Government. Is that correct?

I said that the miscalculation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech, if miscalculation there had been, was due to too great an abundance of confidence in the judgment of our predecessors.

I am only doing this because I am directly challenged. Before leaving office I took the precaution to take away with me a copy of the total of the Estimates as the Conservative Government thought they would be when I left office. I have the figures. The Estimate which I thought was the right one for the present year was £67,821,810. The Labour Government went into the question anew and decided—I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman in the smallest degree—that the Estimate ought to be, roughly, £800,000 smaller than that which was prepared under the Conservative Government. I think the right hon. Gentleman was not entitled to place reliance on the Estimates because they were departed from and reduced to the extent of over £800,000.

I am quite satisfied to take the full measure of responsibility which attaches to myself as Minister. I have thought the right hon. Gentleman's observations last week were due to a misconstruction, but I am quite prepared to accept the explanation he has now given.

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the explanation, which is simply this, that it is the Labour Government which is responsible for the Estimate being not the same as the Conservative Estimate, and I am sorry he has intervened because I was not going to mention the fact, as I do not want to make difficulties between parties. It was the decision of the Labour Government as a whole.

Some hon. Members opposite have suggested that there is something very satisfactory in Supplementary Estimates. I do not share that view. There is nothing satisfactory to the pensioners in a Supplementary Estimate, or in a surplus at the end of the year. The only thing that matters to the pensioner is how much is spent in the year, and it is the duty of every Government to get as near the right figures as they can. It is not the case, I may as well say at once, that the late Government spent more than their predecessors. The late Government will have spent, if these Estimates are correct, about £3,000,000 less than their predecessors. The reduction, of course, is in no way due to any harder treatment of the pensioners, but is due to causes which are operating under all Governments. Those causes are the fact that children reach the age of 16, and that is happening at present at the rate of 36,000 a year; the fact that widows remarry and that a certain number of the men have in the past been getting better. But one of the main reasons for this Supplementary Estimate is that we have left on our hands now, many years after the War, a number of men who, I fear, are incurable or whose health is in a serious state, and many of them are getting o worse. The fact that they are getting worse has resulted in an expenditure which is larger than either Government anticipated.

Now I come to the most interesting speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). It is not the case that the staff of the Ministry are influenced by personal considerations. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman opposite would say on the subject, but I hardly think the post of Minister of Pensions is one of such exceptional opportunities of leisure and enjoyment that it is a position to which people would cling. Rather he, I think, and I would regard it as a duty to be undertaken, if we are asked to do it, to the best of our ability. When the Noble Lord suggested that the staff of the Ministry are prolonging their existence, I wish to say that throughout the staff have been 'as zealous and keen for the interests of ex-service men as any Member of this House has ever been, and naturally so, because a staff, 97 per cent. of whose male members are ex-service men, is not likely to be behind any other body in its solicitude for ex-service men. Further, when the Noble Lord suggests that we are endeavouring to prolong our employment there is no Ministry I know of which has more consistently taken the initiative in reform. We are asked for a Select Committee. We had a Committee which went into the whole of these points and sat for seven months. A brilliant individual wrote to the newspapers and suggested that it would be rather a good thing to have an inquiry into the Ministry of Pensions. That was after I had been sitting on such an inquiry for seven months and the Report had just been published. I wondered that this gentleman who took so much interest in it had not taken the trouble to read the Report instead of writing about it. From first to last the Ministry have taken the initiative in reform. In the early days, when Members of the Labour party and when a Liberal was Minister, great reforms and improvements were made, and I hope under myself that will continue. So far from our having endeavoured unnecessarily to maintain a large staff, we have, through reforms which met with a good deal of opposition, reduced it roughly from 32,000 to 16,000. At the end of that heart-breaking work—because it often means unemployment—it is suggested that we are endeavouring to make work and to prolong our existence.

There was, however, a point in the Noble Lord's speech in which I am in thorough agreement with him, and it was a great pleasure to me to see the approval shown in all parts of the House of his desire that it is time all these things were settled, that it is time all these uncertainties came to an end, and that it is time these men were no longer subject to medical boards. That is the whole object of final awards, to get the men away from these medical boards. One of the reasons for this Supplementary Estimate is that the final award work has been so well done that while we have given final awards to a large number of men who are not ill we so successfully sorted out the men who are still uncertain that we are saddled among the conditional pensioners with an unexpectedly large burden of treatment allowances, and we find an exceptionally large number of the men still on our books are receiving increases and not decreases as the result of medical boards. Although only one Member of the Committee has spoken in favour of final awards, general sympathy was exhibited in all parts of the Committee with the Noble Lord's statement that it is time we had a settlement of these pension questions, and we are ready to proceed with our policy of final assessments. The pensioners do not want to be left in this uncertainty, and we ought, as far as we can, to settle their cases and put an end to the uncertainty of their getting their pension rights it is not in my power to reply on the whole case. There are many points which are clearly out of order that I should like to speak about. I can only thank those who have spoken for their kindly references to the work of the Ministry. We are doing our best, and I hope the Committee will now see their way to grant us this Supplementary Estimate, which, if due to miscalculation, is none the less an estimate to pay more money to those who have been disabled and to provide more treatment for those who are sick.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if it is correct, as the British Legion has been informed, that the Scottish Offices are to be disestablished and the business transacted from London?

No such order has been issued, and we are not at present even considering the question of the abolition of the Scottish Region.

5.0 P.M.

I have for many years listened to Debates on this question, but I have not ventured, except some years ago, to intervene. However, some of the speeches that have been delivered today compel me, in justice to the Ministry, from what I know, to intervene. I have had considerable experience of this question. When the pensions question was first dealt with, it was proposed and carried in this House that it should be dealt with by a Pensions Committee. I opposed the proposal then, but I was asked to serve on the Committee. I sat on the Committee, which, I suppose, would answer to something of the kind that has been suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir E. Grigg), in the form of a Commission drawn from all classes. I prophesied that that Committee or tribunal would not work well. We spent days and months of labour over it and came to no conclusion. A sum of £1,000,000 was put at our disposal, but at the end of about 18 months it was found, in spite of my protests as to the urgency of the matter, that we had not spent the interest on the million pounds. The tribunal that has been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member would not result in regularity or in the gradual settlement which has been evolved by the painstaking and earnest work of the Pensions Ministry, but in absolute confusion and the doing of nothing.

It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member for Oldham to say that we should have some entirely new system. We have tried one system, and we gave it up and got another. We have plenty of experience of how the other has worked. I can testify to the efficient way in which the Ministry has worked under my right hon. Friend and under the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. Roberts), who for some months administered the office with great ability. I have found that the Ministry have clone justice, over and over again, in the majority of cases which I have brought before their notice. It has been proved to me, when I have gone into the cases with care, along with the Minister, that the cases were not so strong as I had thought. In a few cases I have secured careful reconsideration, but in the vast majority of cases I found, on examination, that the Minister had gone as far as, and perhaps even further than, ordinary indulgence would permit him to go. It is ail very well for the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) to speak about the absolute necessity of stabilisation, and to say that the reason why stabilisation has not come about is because the Minister and his subordinates are preventing it.

I said that reasonable suspicion was excited by the delay in regard to stabilisation.

I think those reasonable suspicions had bettor not be uttered openly and avowedly unless there is better ground for them. I have had a long and intimate acquaintance with the work of the Ministry, and I can testify not only to the careful and considerate but even the indulgent treatment that has been meted out to pensioners. With respect to the suggestion about orders being issued to certain medical boards, I should like to know what the hon. Members who speak of those orders think the Medical Boards consist of. Do they think that the medical men—many of whom are the constituents of the Noble Lord and also constituents of mine—are men who are likely to take orders as to the verdict they are to pass upon the people who come to them?

That was not my point. My point was that six years after the War it is very surprising that final awards have not been generally come to.

It is not desirable in all eases that there should he final awards. The man may become worse, and stabili- sation in his case might prove an injustice. Otherwise, if the man becomes worse he might be able to put in for a higher pension; but if you stabilise him you shut the door to his obtaining an increase in the event of his condition becoming worse. Sometimes these reconsiderations are very much to the advantage of the pensioners. I have had experience of trying to administer pensions by a Committee of which I was a member, and that Committee absolutely broke down and had to be taken over by the Ministry. I have had experience of that Ministry, and I know from many of my constituents who are members of medical boards how free their judgment is left to them by the Ministry. When constant cases of hardships are being brought up and suggestions are being made against the administration of the Pensions Ministry, it is well that one voice, at least, should be raised in acknowledgment of the profound consideration and the indulgent care that has been shown in regard to the cases brought forward.

The expression used by the Noble Lord, that one of the main necessaries for the successful administration of pensions is that the pensioners should have a complete sense of security and a complete sense of certainty in the just administration of the pensions system, was assented to by the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has claimed, and I do not dispute the claim, that he has done his best to administer the office in a sympathetic manner, but, at the time when sense of certainty is one of the essential elements of the successful administration of his office, he is proposing to remove from Cardiff the Welsh Regional Pensions Office. He is destroying the sense of security among the pensioners in Wales.

I am afraid that I cannot allow discussion on this question of the removal of the Welsh Regional Office on this Vote.

This involves the successful administration of the office and how the money is spent. In connection with the sum required for the administration of the Ministry of Pensions in Wales it is necessary that the pensioners should have satisfactory treatment and should have a sense of confidence in the administration of the Ministry. If the proposed change is made there will be an abolition of that sense of confidence, and pensioners in Wales will not trust the administration as it is being trusted at the present time A good number of these very hard cases, which are more satisfactorily met because the pensioners have confidence in the present administration in Wales, will be cases of greater hardship in the future. I do not dispute that we shall get sympathetic treatment from the Minister and his staff, but the sense of confidence in Wales will have been shaken.

I have viewed the question of final awards with some doubt, but I am now absolutely convinced of the wisdom of them. I wish to put a question with regard to the administration of the final awards. Through the courtesy of the Ministry, I was able to tell some of the men who have received final awards how to set about getting further help if their cases become worse. One such case arose three or four months ago, and heard on the 17th February that the man had been before the medical board and the clinic and had satisfied the Ministry of Pensions that, although he had had his final award, this case had become very much worse, and that he has been granted a pension of 60 per cent. I would like to draw attention to the following words in the letter which has been receivd from th Aylesbury office with reference to this pension. Notice is given:

"That a pension has been granted of 60 per cent. from the 7th May, 1924, as an act of grace."

I shall be much obliged if my right hon. Friend would tell me what is meant by the words "as an act of grace"? Does it mean that this pension is not to be a permanent pension for as long as the man's disability exists? I do not like the term "as an act of grace." If the man has satisfied the Ministry of Pensions that it is his War disability which has entitled him to get another pension, and the pension is one of 60 per cent., surely it is not quite an act of grace, because I thought I was satisfied by the Ministry of Pensions that in these cases where the Ministry was convinced that the man's disability had become worse he would be entitled to another pension.

I am afraid that I cannot undertake to reply on individual eases in this way. It would not be fair to the committee or to the man. I am often asked to reply to individual eases but until I get the papers I cannot possibly give an answer.

The suggestion that I made was so completely misunderstood by the Minister of Pensions and the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) that I venture to explain what I meant. We have had a system of pensions in force and I think everybody will agree that in the main it has been a generous and fair system, which has worked well, but there have been cases of hardship. If these cases were investigated by a committee, it would be found that they occur, the great majority of them, under certain specified branches of the present Royal Warrant. What I propose is, that we should have a representative Commission, not to inquire into the whole system of pensions, not to uproot it and to try to establish some new system in its place but to inquire into these special cases of hardship which arise under the present system, and to give to the nation something that would be regarded as a satisfactory and fair verdict upon such cases. The right hon. Gentleman has said and the Committee have agreed, that finality is very desirable, but I prophesy that there will he no finality until some such inquiry as that which I have suggesting has been held.

I should like to draw attention to a matter with which not only the right hon. Gentleman but the former Minister of Pensions is familiar, and that is, the complaints made with reference to the hearings by the Leeds appeal tribunal, particularly with regard to men who have a pension arising through war service, who have apparently become well and subsequently have had a breakdown. In these cases there is a great deal of grievance amongst ex-servicemen in Yorkshire as to the general system of administration in Leeds. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that there are complaints, especially by ex-service men in Hull, of the rather cavalier and, in some cases, rather harsh treatment which they receive from the appeal tribunal in Leeds. I have looked into one or two actual cases. I would ask the Minister to remember that this sense of grievance does exist. I hope that he will look into it and see whether there is some misfit at Leeds, or what is the reason for the recurrence of these complaints. I believe the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Roberts) will bear me out that there have been many complaints in regard to this region. Where there are these complaints, I think that there must be some ground in some of the cases, and I trust that they will receive the attention of the Minister.

I want to ask the Minister if he will look into the question of the pensions of widows who have been deprived of their pensions because of alleged misconduct. I have in mind one particular case in which, I think, no impartial tribunal would have taken the widow's pension away. She did meet with two misfortunes in a period of some five years, but what I wish to complain of is that this woman who has four children dependent upon her, has had her pension taken away, without ever having been given the privilege of submitting her case to any impartial body at all. It seems to me that there is something to be desired in the methods employed in dealing with cases of this description. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiries into these cases of women who have lost their husbands in the War, and who after all are more or less encouraged to take to themselves another husband. A woman of that kind must come in contact with some man before re-marriage takes place, and, if misfortune follows a preliminary courtship, that is no justification for taking away the pension of such a woman, without at least giving her an opportunity of explaining the reason for her misfortune. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter, and see that such women shall have a reasonable and impartial tribunal inquiring into their cases before their pensions are definitely and finally withdrawn.

Question put, and agreed to.

Unclassified Services. Relief of Unemployment

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment (luring the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1925, for Relief arising out of Unemployment, including a Grant-in-Aid."

This is a token Vote which arises out of our responsibility for action taken by the Minister of Labour in the last Government in increasing the grant from the Exchequer to local authorities from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. for the service of juvenile unemployment centres. That action, we think, was well taken, and has been amply justified. A year ago, when that action was taken, there were 91 centres, and there are now 134. The centres were attended by 5,000 children a year ago, and the number of children now attending is just under 10,000. If it had not been for the action then taken, these additional centres would not have been started, and many of the centres then in existence probably would not have been continued.

I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether his Department is doing all in its power to see that these centres are established in as many different localities as possible It is a serious matter to the local authorities to have these large numbers of young people who are unable to find work at present, and who, if it were not for these centres, would be running wild in the streets. It is a great misfortune when, through unemployment, the child has to leave school at an earlier age than it otherwise would, because the parents cannot afford to continue it in school, and there is no chance of getting unemployment benefit, and would impress on the Minister the necessity of encouraging the local authorities to start these centres, in the absence of which such children as I have referred to would be running wild in the streets.

I can say at once that we are doing everything possible in that direction, and we have already announced that we are going to continue the grant at the rate of 100 per cent. for another year.

Question put, and agreed to.

Northern Ireland Grant-In-Aid

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £1.250,000, 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, 1925, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Revenues of the Government of Northern Ireland."

I only rise to ask a question in regard to this Vote. From year to year it is apparent that we have been voting very large sums of money to Northern Ireland. How long is it anticipated that this Vote will recur in our Estimates?

I should explain that this really is a matter more for the Treasury than for the Home Office. Technically it is under the Home Office, but, so far as arrangements made with Northern Ireland are concerned, the Treasury was in charge. I understood that the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden) was to move reduction of the Vote, and my right, hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Churchill) is present to answer any questions.

I am afraid that there has been some confusion. I understood from the statement from the Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) just now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come into the House to give us some information.

I understood my right hon. Friend wished to comment upon this Vote, and therefore I attended in order to listen to what he has to say, and, if I can, to add to his information on the subject.

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

It is a most extraordinary proceeding that we should have what is, in effect, a new Estimate, for a sum of £1,250,000, and that this is proposed to the Committee without one word of explanation or justification by the party responsible for it. I can well understand, however, that there would be no anxiety, and no enthusiasm on the part of either the Home Office or the Treasury to explain the Vote. It is ostensibly a Vote on behalf of special constabulary in Northern Ireland. It is nothing of the sort if it were permitted by Parliamentary usage, I should describe this Vote, and quite accurately, by a very ugly word. This proposal is the last concession—the latest rather: not, I am afraid, by any means the last—which has been wrung by the Government of Northern Ireland from the British Exchequer without any justification and quite illegally. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said just now that he expected that I should seek enlightenment upon this matter. I can assure the Committee that I need no further enlightenment upon this matter. I had a great deal to do with it during the time I was at the Treasury.

From the time of the passing of the Act of Parliament which conferred self-government upon Northern Ireland, the British Treasury has been subject to constant demands from the Government of Ulster for illegal financial assistance from the British Exchequer. These demands had become so intolerable that in November, 1922, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was suggested that the whole question should to referred to a special committee or tribunal. That was subsequently done. But I would like to mention to the Committee the terms of the agreement which was made by the present Prime Minister and Sir James Craig in regard to the Committee, which was later known as the Colwyn Committee. It was agreed that all financial questions, with the sole exception of the question of the Special Constabulary, which was reserved for later consideration, should be referred to this Committee, and it was also agreed that this Committee was to be set up for the purpose of finally settling all financial questions between Northern Ireland and this country, so as to put a stop to the persistent demands from the Government of Northern Ireland. Sir James Craig himself agreed to that, and, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote accepting the terms of reference to this Committee, Sir James Craig, in reply, reminded the present Prime Minister that he had omitted to state that the findings of this Committee were to be binding on both parties.

I have not got the exact terms of reference, but they were to consider the outstanding points of financial difference between the British Treasury and the Government of Northern Ireland. In a moment I will mention one or two decisions at which this Committee arrived. The Government of Northern Ireland Act provides that grants or contributions out of the money provided by the Imperial Parliament for the Special Constabulary Service shall cease. I want particularly to impress that fact upon this Committee. Under the Government of Ireland Act it is illegal for this House to make the grant which is now proposed. It is quite true that similar grants have been made in previous years, but they have never been made except after a long contest between the Government of Northern Ireland and the British Treasury. The British Treasury have invariably resisted this demand until the pressure upon them by their political friends has become so strong that the Treasury were unable any longer to continue resistance. The British Treasury had not a few months ago—and I do not believe they have now—any full information about this Special Constabulary. They have no exact figures as to the number of men who are supported under this grant. I would call the attention of the Committee to the footnote below this Vote. It says:

"This Grant will be paid to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland as a contribution towards the expenses of the Northern Ireland Special Constabulary arising out of the present exceptional circumstances. The grant of £1,743,336 in the year 1923-24 included £1,500,000 in respect of the Special Constabulary."

This is the point to which I specially desire to call attention:

"The expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will not be audited in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, nor will any balance of the sums issued remaining unexpended at the close of the financial year be liable to surrender."

That means that this Committee is asked to vote this sum of one and a quarter millions and to hand it over to the Government of Northern Ireland without any guarantee, without any assurance, without any account showing that the money has been spent. Before I sit down I think I shall be able to convince all impartial members of this Committee that this money is being, or will be, given to the Government of Northern Ireland, not for the purpose of maintaining law and order at all, but that it is a grant for an entirely different purpose. So far as the British Treasury had any information upon this matter a few months ago, there were about 3,000 Royal Ulster Constabulary in place of the old Royal Irish Constabulary, of whom something like 2,500 were formerly stationed in the six counties. Since 1921 there has been a large force of Special Constabulary maintained. Notwithstanding the provision to which I have referred, this has been maintained at the cost of the British taxpayer. In 1922–23 there was a grant of £2,700,000; in 1923–24 a grant of £1,500,000. This constabulary force is entirely under the control of the Ulster Government. It is believed to number about 35,000. About 5,000 of these are full-time men. The rest receive a retaining fee. That means that there is one full-time policeman for every 100 of the population of Northern Ireland. That is one full-time policeman for every 30 families. If we include special constabulary, we get a policeman for every six families in Northern Ireland. What is the explanation? It is this: That these special constabulary are neither needed for, nor are they being used for, the maintenance of order in Northern Ireland. This is a back-door way of illegally bleeding the British Exchequer for the maintenance of these men.

On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman within his rights in casting aspersions upon the Government of Northern Ireland.

I did not gather that that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman.

Did the right hon. Gentleman not expressly use the word "illegal" in connection with the Government of Northern Ireland? Is that in Order?

Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in saying that a duly constituted Government, like the Government of Northern Ireland, is acting illegally?

It all depends on the way in which the right hon. Gentleman uses the term. I did not understand that he was directly accusing the Government of Northern Ireland.

The right hon. Gentleman added to what he said about the Government of Northern Ireland by stating that that was his point. His charge was that the Government of Northern Ireland were acting illegally.

On a point of Order. Is it out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to accuse the British Treasury of acting illegally? I understand that the point he was putting was, not that the Government of Northern Ireland were asking for the money illegally, but that the British Treasury were acting illegally in handing it over.

I would like to hear the right hon. Gentleman develop his argument before giving a ruling.

My point, which I have stated more than once, is that under the Government of Northern Ireland Act this Service, the maintenance of law and order, is a financial obligation placed upon the Government of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is not legal, under the Government of Northern Ireland Act, for this House to vote money for the maintenance of that service, the obligation for maintenance being upon the Government of Northern Ireland. Stigmas as to the responsibility for this illegality must be shouldered by the people who are responsible for it. I will not attempt to allocate the blame as between the Government of Northern Ireland and the British Treasury. The responsibility is the responsibility of the House of Commons. I say that this money is not required for the purpose of maintaining law and order in that part of the United Kingdom. It is being used for the purpose of maintaining the unemployed. Sir James Craig——

These statements are absolutely untrue. The right hon. Gentleman has not said one word to substantiate them and I ask him to withdraw them. On a point of Order.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a deliberate charge against the Government of Northern Ireland. That charge is absolutely untrue, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it is untrue.

Is it in order for any hon. Gentleman opposite deliberately to accuse a right hon. Member of stating a deliberate Untruth? Is not that contrary to Parliamentary procedure?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman used any language which I can describe as un parliamentary. The question at issue raises a very difficult point relating to the position of the Government of Northern Ireland as it stands towards this Parliament. It is rather a constitutional point, and I would like to hear the Debate before giving any opinion.

May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately said that the Government of Northern Ireland, while ostensibly asking for money for the purpose of a force of special constables, is in reality using that money and is asking for it with the object-of using it for the relief of unemployment. Is not that a deliberate attack on the Government of Northern Ireland, a Government which this House has deliberately set up for the government of Northern Ireland?

On that same point. Is it not a fact that the Government of Northern Ireland stands in a position utterly different from that of the Government of any Dominion, because it is represented in this House by hon. Members?

It is true that the position of the Government of Northern Ireland in relation to this House is different from that of any other Government, in that. Northern Ireland has representatives in this House. But the Government of Northern Ireland is not represented in this House, and to that extent it is exactly the same as the Government of other countries.

Is it not in a, different position from all other Dominion Governments, since some members of the Northern Irish Government are also Members of this House and can place the claims of the Northern Irish Government before this House?

Hon. Members who sit for constituencies in Northern Ireland do not sit as representatives of the Government of Northern Ireland, and it is a mere coincidence if they happen to be members of both Chambers. They sit as representatives of constituencies in Northern Ireland.

It will be remembered that when I was dealing with the setting up of the Colwyn Committee I mentioned that Sir James Craig had called the attention of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to the agreement that the recommendations of that Committee should be accepted by both parties. The report of that Committee conferred very substantial advantages upon Ulster. It modified the scale of the Imperial contribution. Ulster's Imperial contribution was originally £6,740,000. In 1923–24 it was reduced to £5,500,000, and it was in future to be reduced to £5,000,000. In addition, the British Exchequer made a grant of £400,000 for teachers' training colleges and other institutions. It made a grant of £500,000 towards malicious damage in Ulster in addition to £1,500,000 voted by this Parliament prior to 1922. The previous Government to the Labour Government accepted that Report, but as soon as eves that Report had been received, Sir James Craig began to contest it. He began to make appeals to the British Treasury for concessions which he had failed to establish before the Colwyn Committee. I need only mention one of these demands which the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland made. Of course, this confirms what I said just now, and which appeared to irritate hon. Members from Ulster very much. He sprang a demand on the British Treasury for further assistance for unemployment insurance. Under the Government of Northern Ireland Act that is solely Ulster's own responsibility. During the whole time I was at the Treasury Sir James Craig was pressing this demand, and only a week or two before I left he made an imperative demand—not direct to me, because Sir James Craig very carefully avoided coming into personal contact with myself —[HON. MEMBERS: "He knew you!"] He did.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that Sir James Craig sent his Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was the proper person, to discuss finance with the right hon. Gentleman.

On a point of Order. The Estimate expressly states that this sum will be paid to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland as a contribution towards the expenses of the Northern Ireland Special Constabulary, arising out of the present exceptional circumstances. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in detailing conversations which he or his deputy had with Sir James Craig about another subject altogether?

I am taking it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to the question of how this grant for the Special Constabulary has been or is to be expended. Of course, if it is his contention that it has been diverted to some other service, that would be in order, but it is not in order to go into any question proper to the Ulster Government. The right hon. Gentleman has the right to follow this money but not to criticise the Ulster Government in any other particular.

Is it within the right of the right hon. Gentleman to cast aspersions on a particular gentleman in Northern Ireland like Sir James Craig?

The hon. Member who interrupted just now said that Sir James Craig sent to consult with me the proper Minister of his Government. Sir James Craig, at the same time, was taking a hand in this matter with other Ministers of the Labour Government. Sir James Craig wrote to me, and I wrote to him in reply and asked him to see me and to discuss this matter of the grant for the Special Constabulary. He never came, but instead of doing so he went to other Ministers of the Labour Government, and then wrote to me to say had their assurances that they agreed with this grant being placed upon the Estimates. I was dealing with the demand made by Sir James Craig for special assistance on behalf of unemployment insurance. That demand was submitted to my immediate predecessor, and three weeks before I took office he summarily rejected that demand on the ground that it would not be legal to grant it without an alteration of the legislation under which the Governments of Northern Ireland and Great Britain operate. It is quite true that the Government which we succeeded had provisionally agreed with the Government of Northern Ireland to place in this year's Estimate a sum of £1,000,000 under the heading of "Special Constabulary," but that had only been agreed to after that Government knew that their days were numbered. Previous to that, a long correspondence had passed between successive Chancellors of the Exchequer—all Conservative—and Sir James Craig and the British Chancellor of the Exchequer had upon each occasion, protested against this Vote. Two years previously the present Prime Minister in agreeing that an Estimate should be put into the Votes for, that year for this purpose impressed upon Sir James Craig that he hoped it would be the last occasion upon which any such demand would be made. Let me go back again to the connection between the Unemployment Grant and the Special Constabulary. It will be remembered that I said that as soon as the Colwyn Committee Report had appeared, Sir James Craig began to insist that there should be consultations for the alteration of the recommendations of that Committee, and up to the time we left office he was pressing on the Report of the Colwyn Committee for the reopening of the question of the special grant for the relief of unemployment in Ulster.

Up to last October there had never been a suggestion that the grant under this head in this year should be more than £1,000,000. How does it come to be £1,250,000 7 I cannot prove it, but it seems to me perfectly obvious why the grant has been raised by a quarter of a million since November last. Sir James Craig has not been able to get a special grant towards the relief of unemployment, and that, it seems to me, explains why another quarter of a million has been placed on this Vote under the heading of Special Constabulary.

On a point of Order. I have listened with great patience to the right hon. Gentleman. As I gathered his argument it is that Sir James Craig asks for £1,000,000——

That is not a point of Order. This is not the Ulster Parliament, it is the British Parliament.

I must deal with one point of Order before I come to a second. What is the point of Order of the hon Member for Down (Mr. Reid)?

The right hon. Gentleman say:, that Sir James Craig asked for 21,000,000, and that the sum has been increased to £1,250,000, and that the only reason for the increase is that Sir James Craig wants to apply the extra £250,000 for the relief of unemployment. Is not, that a definite charge of fraud against Sir James Craig, and should it not be withdrawn?

If that were a definite charge of fraud many of the instances of environment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would lay them open to such a charge. I have not heard the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's case, but so far he has said nothing out of order.

I quite understand that hon. Members representing Ulster do not like what I am saying. These are not the sort of things they would like to hear.

The sum has grown from £1,000,000 to £1,250,000, and I call the attention of the Committee to the note that the sum of £250,000 has been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund and that a corresponding amount of this Vote is required to enable repayment to be made to that, Fund. The Civil Contingencies Fund is a fund which enables the Treasury to make advances in very exceptional and very urgent cases where the opinion of Parliament, although not yet expressed in the form of a Vote, is well known and it is certain there will be no opposition to the expenditure. The Government have apparently, without the consent of Parliament, given a quarter of a million of money to Ulster, and already handed it over, without any Parliamentary authority whatever, although they must have known that this was a Vote which would be hotly contested when it came before the House of Commons. It will be urged, of course, by hon. Members from Ulster that this Vote is really for the purpose of maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland; that is to say, that Great Britain has to find funds sufficient to maintain one policeman for every six families in Ulster. That simple statement of fact entirely disposes of the contention that this sum is necessary for the maintenance of law and order there. My points are, therefore, that the British House of Commons has no legal authority to vote this sum, that the maintenance of law and order is an obligation laid upon the Government of Northern Ireland, and that, in view of the persistent demands which have been made by the Government of Ulster upon the British Treasury for additional grants for the relief of unemployment in Northern Ireland, which is undoubtedly their financial obligation, it is at least suspicious that the original proposal of £1,000,000 should have been raised to £1,250,000. This money is not required for the purpose for which it is stated. I do not expect the House of Commons will reject this Vote. The Government have the numbers to carry it, but if this case were submitted to any impartial body of men, and if they considered the facts, I am confident that no such tribunal could be constituted which would not give a unanimous vote against this proposal. I go further, and I say this, that if the House of Commons rejected this Vote, there is no man in the House of Commons who would be better pleased than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) concluded his speech by several rather sweeping assertions, of which the last that I can remember was that if the House were to reject the Vote which the Government is now inviting it to pass, no one would be more pleased than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Considering that I am personally responsible for having entered into the arrangements with Sir James Craig which are the basis of this Vote, it is very difficult for me to see how I could adopt the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman suggests while maintaining the slightest contact either with good faith or with reason. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to express the complete confidence with which he would remit this matter to an impartial tribunal, however constituted, and said he was sure that, after examining the whole matter, they would be unanimously in favour of the view which he had expressed. We can all say that sort of thing in regard to any matter on which we feel strongly, and I think everyone understands that the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly on this subject. He has also charged us with an illegal procedure. He appears to suppose that the House of Commons has not got the power correctly and properly to make this grant to the Government of Northern Ireland. There is nothing illegal about this; there is nothing unprecedented about it. The House of Commons, in passing the Appropriation Act, makes its will effective in the most complete legal form in respect to this matter; and, as for precedents, every year since the Irish Treaty—1922, 1923, 1924—it has been found necessary for this House to give a substantial grant-in-aid of the constabulary of Northern Ireland. So there is nothing illegal and there is nothing unprecedented in this matter, and those are points of view which I might cheerfully submit to any impartial tribunal with the confidence that, unless they flatly departed from the ordinary interpretations of law and constitutional practice, they would have to be unanimously favourable to the view which I am submitting.

This is a Grant-in-Aid of the upkeep of something like 35,000 Special Constabulary in Northern Ireland, distributed in various classes. The cost to the Northern Irish Government will be greater than this grant. They will still be left with a substantial sum to defray, even in respect of the Special Constabulary, from their own resources, and, in addition, they have to maintain the 3,000 Royal Ulster Constabulary, who may be taken as being a permanent portion of their police forces available for the maintenance of order. It is quite true that the details of the expenditure of this grant are not submitted in the ordinary way, like expenditure which takes place in this country, to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but there again the precedents of former years have been strictly followed. The use of the Civil Contingencies Fund is entirely appropriate to emergencies of this kind, and this enabled the money to be supplied to the Government of Northern Ireland at the time when they needed it and required it, and when, owing to Parliamentary procedure, the actual voting of the money in this House could not be contemporaneously secured.

But, although there is no audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the whole of the expenditure of this money has to be accounted for in the light of day to the Ulster Parliament. Sir James Craig—and I have the utmost confidence in his bona fides, that when he says a thing it is what he honestly believes to be true and when he makes a declaration it is resolutely carried out; I am sure all of us who have been in the House with him for many years have derived that impression of his character—will not misapply this money to other purposes. He will not, for instance, ask for it for the Constabulary and use it in relief of unemployment. That would not be a proper way in which to treat the Government of this country with whom, under any parties, he had any official relations. But Sir James Craig has invited me at any time to send over any inspectors we might choose, or any auditors we might like, to examine all these accounts in detail, to inspect the Constabulary, to comment on any details of their administration affected by this Grant-in-Aid, with a view to making sure that there was a thoroughly bona fide expenditure of the money, and that there was no waste or misappropriation of the funds in any detail or any respect.

This matter has nothing to do with the Colwyn Committee. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was perpetually harping on the Colwyn Committee, which, he says, has reduced the amount of contribution which Northern Ireland was to pay to the Imperial Exchequer. That is quite true, but the Colwyn Committee is virtually an arbitration. It is not for the purpose of granting favours to Northern Ireland; it is an arbitration, which has been proceeding under three Governments, on purely non-party lines, with a view to ascertaining chat is the fair quota which Northern Ireland should contribute, and it is quite true that that Committee has reduced the quota below the figure originally fixed by the Treasury advisers in the days of the Home Rule Act, but that has nothing to do with this Grant-in-Aid, which is a matter, not of right, but of concession, freely made by the House of Commons, by the British Parliament, in aid of the Government of Northern Ireland, for high reasons of State policy.

I trust that this matter will not be decided by this Committee on any small or narrow basis. I think we must keep steadily in mind the large objectives which we had in view at the time of the Irish Treaty. For many years Ulster's repugnance to Home Rule denied Home Rule to the rest of the island which desired it so keenly, but in 1921 the attitude of Ulster changed. Ulster, not out of any wish on her own part, contrary to her inclinations and contrary to her interest, consented, in the Imperial interest, in the general interest, to accept a form of government which separated the administration of Ulster from the administration of Great Britain, and which established them as a small separate community in the North of Ireland, with many difficulties, many embarrassments, and many perils which they had to face. I say that that was a great sacrifice on the part of Ulster, and no one who cares about the principle of pacification embodied in the Irish settlement ought ever to ignore or be forgetful of that great sacrifice. It has imposed hardships upon Ulster. They did not want any change, and were contented with the situation that existed. Having regard to the Imperial interests, however——

I am afraid that this is leading to a Debate that may be carried still further by others.

I was trying to give a justification of the Vote, but I will keep strictly within the limits which you would consider appropriate, Mr. Chairman. I say that, from this point of view, it seemed to me always that it should be a point of honour with the British Parliament to sustain and support the Ulster Government during these early, difficult years under the new conditions. That is exactly what we are doing. I have heard several rather mocking cheers, or jeers, at different moments in this discussion from the benches opposite. Do not forget the horrible conditions which prevailed in Belfast in 1922 ! [An HON. MEMBER: "Your speech was the spark that started them!"] My oratory must be of a very enduring character if a speech delivered in 1912 can still be producing results in 1922.

The hon. Member is quite right; there are many elements in Northern Ireland which are in the nature of sparks in a powder magazine, and it is far better that there should be order and peace established through the whole of that region, as these have been established by the efforts of Sir James Craig and his Government, in the face of extraordinary difficulties. It is far more important to the well-wishers of Ireland that there should be peace and order there than that we should economise at this juncture on a sum which is absolutely needed for the maintenance of this special force. Order will be restored, but there is still a pall of uncertainty hanging over the country. There are many disorderly elements who are far better retained in a state of discipline. It is also far better that there should be no feeling of fear arising from weakness, which might easily lead to the committing of acts of violence. For all these reasons, the Committee would be wise, acting upon the responsibility which the right hon. Gentleman has freely assigned to it, to support the Government in this policy. It is a policy of succouring and sustaining the Government of Northern Ireland during these early difficult years, and it is a policy which, I firmly believe, should be supported by those who still persevere in the direction of the great ideal of a united Ireland, loyal to the British Commonwealth of nations.

The speech which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just delivered would, if it were carried to a logical conclusion, justify any demand which is made by the Government of Northern Ireland to succour and assist it. I hope he and the Committee will believe that we all recognise many of the difficulties which the Government of Northern Ireland have had to face, and we recognise, also, that from time to time they have had thrown upon them abnormal expenditure which, owing to the exigencies of the moment, they have been unable to avoid, But the sole question before the Committee to-night is not their difficulties, not the peril through which they have passed, not the ideal of a united Ireland. The question is, are we to pay a quarter of a million more as a Grant-in-Aid towards the revenue of Northern Ireland than was arranged in the summer and autumn of last year?

Not in the autumn of last year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the previous Government had made an arrangement with the Irish Government a year ago last month. As a matter of fact, it was the 3rd January, 1924.

I find it a little difficult to follow exactly the moment when the requests were made and the arrangements were made, owing to the rapidity with which we pass from one General Election to another, but the fact remains that, since the autumn of last year, the request of the Irish Government for the extra quarter of a million has now been granted, and payment made from the Civil Contingencies Fund. I think the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps, interpreted a little strictly the rules which have been followed by the Treasury in making grants from the Civil Contingencies Fund, but it is rather an unusual procedure, for which, I am sure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find it difficult to dig up any precedent, for an amount to be taken in this way for a new service, without any indication having been given to the House beforehand in any shape or form that the payment was likely to be justified.

The whole point before the Committee to-night is whether this extra quarter of a million should be paid or not. I do not feel much concerned as to whether the money is to be used for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or for the Reserve Force, or for any other grant in Ireland, but if the statement in the printed paper be correct, this is a Grant-in-Aid of the Northern Ireland revenue. No charge of misfeasance can be brought against Sir James Craig and his Finance Minister if the money be spent on anything else. You cannot say to what every sovereign is to go. The amount is transferred to the revenue of Northern Ireland, and it goes to aid the sum total of the year. You cannot say whether it is to be spent on the Special Constabulary, or the relief of unemployment or anything else. It goes in relief of charges which would otherwise fall on the Ulster people. The procedure is certainly new. The service is not a new one, but the amount is certainly a quarter of a million more than, apparently, last autumn would have been granted if there had been no change of Government, and it is quite clear the justification given for it on general grounds cannot be a complete and accurate justification for the £250,000. If the justification is complete, there is no reason why we should stop there. The sooner we bring to an end these grants in aid of Northern Ireland, or the Irish Free State, or any other part of the British Empire, the better. All their Budgets ought to stand upon their own feet, and because this is a bad precedent, I shall certainly go into the Lobby against this Vote.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer made one of his characteristic speeches, but I could not help noticing how he religiously avoided making any reply to the statement of my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. In a great burst of eloquence, he told us that he had full confidence in Sir James Craig, and that there was not the slightest shadow of doubt that the money would not be misapplied. There is no need why the money should be misapplied in any sense at all, seeing that the Government of Northern Ireland are not called upon to spend this particular money in any specific direction. The grant is, of course, to assist the Northern Ireland Special Constabulary, but we are told that this money will not come under the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and if the whole of the money is not expended for the, purpose intended, no money will be refunded to the British Government. Consequently, if they can maintain law and order in Ireland without the aid of one policeman for every six families—and one has no reason to doubt that order will be maintained without this very excessive proportion of policemen—and the Northern Ireland Government can retain a very large proportion of this £1,250,000, on what does the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer expect that this money will he expended? He cannot call for any refund once the money is handed over. It is not going to be dealt with by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, so that if only a quarter of the money is utilised for the purposes of the Special Constabulary, 75 per cent. will remain in the hands of the Government of Northern Ireland to do with as they wish, and it seems to me the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly correct when he characterises this Vote as something in the shape of blackmail, or bordering on bribery for anticipated service, or for some service given in the past. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his great burst of eloquence that this grant has to be given for very high reasons of State. I should like to know what the high reasons of State are. It seems to me that if we have a quarter of a million to threw away, we have necessitous areas in England where unemployment has been severely acute for long periods.

The hon. Gentleman would not be in order in suggesting alternative subsidies.

I quite agree that I was straying beyond the mark, but I want to submit that if the British Government have any sums of money at their disposal, which they can hand over to any part of the Empire, there are many directions in which the money could be expended. If any really useful purpose was to be served by the handing ever of this extra quarter of a million pounds, then I should not hesitate to give my support to this Vote; but feeling, as one must do, after the statement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Parliament of Northern Ireland have been so persistent in their demands for money grants from the British Parliament ever since 1922, the time has arrived when we ought to put an end to these grants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there is ample precedent, that in 1922, 1923 and 1924 sums of money have been handed over to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and that we are merely doing in 1925 what we have done in the three previous years. On the basis of that argument, it would almost appear that the precedents with regard to our attitude to Northern Ireland are capable of enabling this Government to do almost anything. He told us the British Parliament had freely made this concession to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. As a matter of fact, there has been no freedom about it all. The present Government have entered into an arrangement, which, obviously, suits the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Northern Ireland Premier, and that appears to be his conception of what pleases the British Parliament. I shall follow the late Chancellor of the Exchequer into the Lobby against this Vote, for I feel it is neither more nor less than an illegal extraction from British funds, that it is bordering on blackmail, and that it ought not to be permitted to continue.

I should like to address one or two Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, very largely arising out of his own speech. He told us, that although it is perfectly true the Comptroller and Auditor-General will not have any jurisdiction over this money, he has been invited to send any inspector or auditor to examine into the expenditure of this grant. I am not here to make any sort of attack on any other Government, least of all the Northern Ireland Government, and I am very glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself that matters have settled down there, and everything is perfectly peaceful, that there is no disorder, no political crime, and, in fact, it is a land flowing with milk and honey, or, at any rate, with many good things.

Might I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will accept the invitation to call in inspectors, or experts, or accountants to look into the expenditure of this public money. Very serious charges have been made. Perhaps I should not put it that way, or use the word "charges," but suggestions have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), and I think that the very least we can expect is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should accept the invitation and send competent persons to look into the expenditure of the money. Just now I congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on being able to report a peaceful state of affairs in Northern Ireland. Why in the name of goodness, in the face of that, do we need a potential army of 35,000 Special Constabulary, in addition to the regular constabulary, and in addition to the considerable British regular forces that are now there? This is a larger army than Bulgaria is allowed to have. The whole of Germany under the Peace Treaty is only allowed to have 130,000 men. It is also a larger army than Austria is allowed. I suppose there is some physiological effect in the force suggested. At any rate, I accept the fact that Northern Ireland is peaceful, however that may have been brought about, and I am very glad of it.

May I then put this further question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: Can he give to the Committee any sort of assurance—I think we should be informed on this point—that, providing there is no unforeseen cause or unforeseen outbreaks or insurrections, that this is the last payment that will be made I think we are entitled to know that. This is a large sum of money. It would have gone a long way to pay for one of the cruisers the construction of which the right hon. Gentlemen nearly succeeded in postponing. It is a very large sum of money will not follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in discussing what other forms of expenditure there might have been: but I ask for the assurance so that next year, or in 1927, this Government, or another Government, may not put forward a request for a similar sum. The arguments put forward in favour of this grant can be used for years to come. I am glad to know that things are settling down in Ireland, and that Ireland appears to be working out its destiny, but this is a serious matter for the overburdened British taxpayer. I am not making an attack on the Northern Government of Ireland. I am thinking of the overworked and overtaxed people of this country. What is the assurance that this is the last grant-in-aid of this sort? What assurance have we also—and this is my last question—[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear !"]—well, we can spare a few moments of Parliamentary time, for Parliament is supposed to be the watch-dog in these matters. [An HON. MEMBER "Get on with it!"] I propose to on with it. What assurance have we that at the earliest possible moment these forces will he finally disbanded That is an important matter. So long as you have, I am afraid, partisan forces, so long as you have these forces in being, there will be the risk of danger and trouble. I think we need an assurance that these forces will be used only for purposes of keeping law and order.

During this Debate a wrong impression has got abroad to the effect that the Labour Government was responsible for £1,000,000 of the sum now before the Committee, and that in addition a further quarter of a million has been put forward on the responsibility of the present Government. That is not so. The Labour Government is not responsible for any portion of the amount now before the Committee. I am sure that everyone in the House welcomes the appeal which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for steps to be taken towards a United Ireland, and if any such condition should he apparent, or produced by any considerable sum of the British taxpayers money, I for one would be willing to make a big contribution. The Chancellor referred just to one subject. He is not given, if I may say so, to evading the point of argument; but I submit to the Chancellor that he did not touch upon the main point of the argument submitted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. That point of argument was that this procedure is not in accordance with law, and. generally, with our constitutional practice. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should be with us on this side in this matter, for if in nothing else they claim to stand up as examples of constitutional practice on all occasions. My right hon. Friend pointed out that in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the obligation was placed upon the Parliament of Ulster for the maintenance of law in the six counties over which that Parliament rules. As I understand it, his point was this: that it is by some further Act of Parliament on our part, and certainly not by the means, or the instrument of, a Supplementary Estimate, that a step of this kind ought not to be taken. I think, therefore, there is a great deal of force in that argument as well as in others which I submit the right hon. Gentleman did not touch. His speech was an appeal to pass this Estimate for reasons rather other than the ground upon which it has been submitted to the Committee. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to clear up what is an important point.

As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is now in his place, he possibly carries in his mind exactly the conditions under which the Civil Contingencies Fund was increased some four years ago? Could he say whether an undertaking was not then given to the House by the Treasury when that capital sum was increased that the Fund should not be used for any new services? The Fund was to be increased for purely mechanical purposes—that is to say the making of payments before due sanction was given by way of Estimates, before the Finance or the Appropriation Bills had been duly passed through the House. If the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is refreshing his memory—as he no doubt is now doing, seeing he has left his seat—we ought to know exactly what passed when the capital sum was increased, and we should have some explanation of the attempt now being made to legalise the advance of a quarter of a million from the Civil Contingency Fund?

We all understand the willingness with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer redeems his past in the matter of Ireland. The way he was greeted by his new associates were almost equal to the cries with which he used to be heard in the old days; but there is another Government in power with different views. That is merely the psychology of it. There is the technique also, which is of some importance in this matter of the Civil Contingency Fund, for it is at least open to question whether we are going to get rid of this burden. If it were a continuing burden there might be something said for the Civil Contingencies Fund being used to make good. If it is an exceptional service, then I say the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund is utterly improper, and I am perfectly certain the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will agree with me in that. My recollection is refreshed by my hon. Friend who was Secretary to the Treasury in the Coalition Government that when the capital sum was increased the fund was only to be used purely as machinery, and was not to be used for any purpose of making grants-in-aid for new and special purposes. Indeed it is highly improper that the fund should be used for any such purpose, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this is not a new and special service then we may be landed for some years to come with a charge on Northern Ireland which no longer should be asked from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country.

Of course, it is not possible to prophesy what may happen in the future, but Sir James Craig gives me every reason to hope that if the state of peace continues, as we trust it will, in Ireland during the present year, the demobilisation and reduction of these constabulary forces will be rapid and far-reaching. I am not committed to any promise in the new year, but it is possible, if that process is not delayed, a very much smaller sum than this year might be asked for. That will be considered in relation to the general situation.

is there any assurance—have we any hope—that this is the last Estimate?

There are very good hopes that the sums of money required will diminish year by year, and it is hoped that the authorities will be able to make a reduction in the constabulary. Consequently while I do not guarantee the House that no demand will be made upon us, I shall be much surprised if the sum is not a much smaller sum than it has been.

Let me deal with the point forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and one or two others as to whether in a new service of this kind we are not expressly debarred from the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund by action taken some years ago. I am not able to trace any such arrangement. On the contrary, we have used the Fund all along for services of the kind for which authority was subsequently obtained. Of course, the safeguard of the Fund is that it is the duty of the Treasury at the earliest possible moment to see that the matter is put right.

It seems to me we have not had a complete answer to the ease submitted from the two Opposition Benches. I would like to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the special grounds for coming to the House with an Estimate for £1,250,000, when it was stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) that the sum agreed upon with the previous Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 3rd January, 1924, was only £1,000,000. We are told in the interjections of Members from Ulster that there is absolute law and order there, that things are quite quiet, and yet without explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer we are asked to accept, willy nilly, an additional charge of £250,000 on the Treasury. Really, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give some further explanation.

It ought to be made quite clear to the other members of the Committee that the Government preceding this one refused entirely the whole of the grant on the ground that it was an illegal charge, and, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the process of dealing with this matter by means of the Appropriation Pill, it must seem to the House of Commons a doubtful proceeding. After a special Act has been passed dealing with the Government of Northern Ireland, containing a sixth Schedule, which specifically excludes these particular services from being charges on the Imperial Exchequer, surely it is a doubtful procedure to come to the House year after year and ask for money from the Imperial Exchequer for these services, and ask us to meet it in a roundabout way through the Appropriation Bill. If the House of Commons, in passing the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, decided what were the functions of the Government of Northern Ireland, and what were the remaining charges on the Imperial Treasury, surely we ought to be able to rely on it that the charges we are asked to meet are confined to those things which were specified in the original Act.

I am anxious not to keep the Committee from going to a division, but, of course, I wish to answer the specific questions which have been addressed to us. The story is a simple one. In January of last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that date, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham (Mr. N. Chamberlain), in discussion with Sir James Craig, agreed to give him £1,000,000 in aid of his Constabulary during the forthcoming year. Then my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Snowden) came into power, with this demand and provisional agreement before him, and he did not, as I understand it, dismiss the matter. He agreed that the matter was still under consideration. Obviously, any Government in power would have to face the serious financial difficulties into which Northern Ireland would have fallen in the course of the year had nothing been done, but during the period when the right hon. Gentleman was in control he was not content either to support or approve this grant, or finally to reject it, as I understand it.

Then the Government changed, and Sir James Craig came over here and laid his requirements before the Treasury, and before me as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he explained and proved that in the intervening year, during which there had been a great deal of uncertainty of one kind and another, owing to the setting up of the Boundary Commission and so forth, he had not been able to reduce his constabulary as he had hoped. He had had to keep more men on his pay list during the year, and the expenses had been greater than he had foreseen in the preceding January. That is what happens in a great many Departments of Government. In consequence of this, he required, I understand, £1,400,000 in aid of the Ulster Constabulary, the rest being found from the resources of the Northern Government. I discussed this matter with him at great length, and he discussed it also with my officials, who went into the accounts very carefully, and in the end it was agreed that a sum of £1,250,000 should be granted to him and that the extra burden should be borne by the Northern Government from its own resources. That is, I think, a perfectly simple account of what actually took place, and with the other answers which have been given I am under the impression that all the questions asked have now received an answer.

That is exactly what has been done every year since the Treaty has been passed. I quite agree that there is a certain antagonism between the Schedule and what we are doing, but the Appropriation Act will override than and re-adjust the position, end will legalise in every way the procedure which we are adopting, which is the only one that could be adopted in the circumstances, and the only one which has been adopted in every year that the matter has been in this position. I hope now that, as I think, every question has been answered—I will not say answered to the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite; but as the Government have stated their case in respect to each point—we may proceed to a Division.

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman in his hope, but the explanation he has given to the Committee is so entertaining that I think it should continue. He has submitted very well to the cross-examination, and borne up under it with remarkable vigour and courage, but it now transpires that the real culprit in this matter is not the right hon. Gentleman at all, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. K. Chamberlain), and it would be a matter of courtesy if the Committee could be given his evidence to supplement what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. It is most extraordinary to reflect that we have not yet heard one word from the Ulster Members. They could speak with first-hand knowledge about this particular force, and the purpose for which it is being employed in Ireland, and I think they owe it to the Committee which is so generously voting them this money to tell us what they propose to do with the force. It is not quite fair to the Committee that those Members should come here and take our money in this way and not give us one single speech by way of explanation. All that has happened so far is that when the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden) was speaking an hon. Member from one of the Ulster Divisions said, "You wait till I get up and tell you what I think about you." That was a very entertaining prospect, and I hope the Debate will not be allowed to conclude without some entertainment being given to us, some explanation from the hon. Members who are so well qualified to give us that entertainment.

I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain the constitutional reasons underlying the presence of these words at the bottom of the Estimate.

"The expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will not be audited in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General."

I was interested when I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer state that Sir James Craig had invited him to send auditors or inspectors. Surely it is a constitutional axiom with us that the Comptroller and Auditor-General was appointed, by Letters Patent under the Crown, in order to see that money voted by Parliament was expended in the precise direction which Parliament had intended. What surety have we, what guarantee is there, that this money will be expended in the direction in which Parliament is asked to grant it? I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain exactly how that constitutional change has been arrived at. Members may smile at the thought that from these benches I am standing up for the Constitution, but many battles have been waged in this country on behalf of our constitutional life and in order that Parliament should have every control over expenditure, and I think we are foregoing many of the rights we have fought for when we grant moneys and deliberately exclude the right of the Auditor-General to see that it is expended in the precise direction for which it is granted. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer apply the same system to expenditure connected with the Army or Navy, or the Ministry of Health, with special reference to West Ham or Poplar? He would not, and I ask him what check he has on unwarrantable expenditure.

The hon. Member may rest assured that no guarantee for the proper expenditure of this money will be missing through the fact that we have substituted the certificate of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor for that of the Comptroller and Auditor-General who reports to this House. Under the Act of 1920 the Ulster Government set up a counterpart of our auditing machinery, and they have exactly the same system of appropriation accounts as we have. Everything is audited in detail by a staff modelled on our staff, and brought into being by officials who were lent to Ulster from the experienced staff which reports to the House of Commons. There will be no feature of our audit system missing from the appropriation of this money. This is fully in accordance with the precedent that all grants which are made to Dominion or 'Colonial Governments are exempted from close audit by our own Comptroller and Auditor-General's Department. The other day a grant was made to Dominica, and it was felt that it would be very ungracious where we made a gift to help that Colony in a great misfortune to insist upon auditing. There are three or four instances in these Supplementary Estimates where we make Grants-in-Aid to Governments which are independent and where we accept the certificate of that. Government that the money has been properly applied. Of all cases, I can imagine no stronger case than that of Ulster, because they have machinery modelled on the example of this country.

7.0 P.M.

I think Members of the Committee who have sat through this Debate will agree with me that it has been very interesting, if not very illuminating. It began by the Treasury Bench shirking on explanation of the reason why the Vote was being submitted to the Committee. During my observations I was interrupted continuously by hon. Members from Ulster sitting below the Gangway. I was told that, when I sat down, we should hear the ease for Ulster stated. This Debate has now been going on for an hour and a half, and the strength of the Ulster case may be judged by the fact that every Member for Ulster has remained silent. Their reason is that they apparently think that the case would be much stronger if it be unspoken. My concluding observation in my first speech was to the effect that no Member of the Committee would be better pleased if this were rejected than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I hardly expected that the resourcefulness of the right hon. Gentleman would have faded him on this occasion to such an extent that his speech amply confirmed the statement I have made. The right hon. Gentleman never said one word in defence of the Vote. He never gave one single fact to show that there was need for this extraordinary police force in Ulster. In very eloquent terms he spoke about the trouble during the last few years, and the firm government of Sir James Craig, and, as an hon. Member pointed out, that is an argument against the granting of this Vote, and it was very extraordinary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have used it in support.

In regard to the question of the right of the House of Commons to make this Vote, I never challenged it. I never denied the right of the House of Commons to make this Vote. The House of Commons can vote what money it likes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deny my statement that under the Act of o Parliament constituting the Government of Northern Ireland the maintenance of law and order was an obligation resting upon that Government. Therefore, if we make such a grant as we are making now, we are making it is a sort of charitable gift to the Government of Northern Ireland. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman considers a state, of unrest a normal condition in Ireland, and in that sense he regards the present condition of peacefulness, which he so eloquently described, as the abnormal condition for Northern Ireland. The only explanation the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave this Vote was the ambiguous concession of the Exchequer to the Government of Northern Ireland. No such ease has been admitted. The statement has simply been made. Hon. Members who heard my first statement remember that the main point of my objection to this Vote was that it was being put down for a declared purpose, that there was so need of much a grant for that purpose, and that there was every reason for the suspicion that the money would he applied to other purposes.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his first speech, said not one word in ex- planation of the reason why the Vote had been raised from £1,000,000, which it was the intention of the Conservative Government, had they remained in office during the present financial year, to make it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea West (Mr. Runciman) quite misunderstood when he assumed that the Labour Government would have been responsible, had they remained in office, for the Vote of £1,000,000. I can assure the Committee and the Chancellor of Exchequer that if I had continued to occupy the position I held no proposal would have been submitted to a Committee of this House for any grant whatever.

The right hon. Gentleman made no explanation whatever in his first speech of the reason why the grant had been raised from £1,000,000 to £1,250,000. He was non-committal in reply to a question put by an hon. Friend sitting behind me as to whether this was to be the last of such grants. In 1923, when the present Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, reluctantly agreed to put in the Estimates for that year a certain sum for this declared purpose, he told Sir James Craig that he hoped that would he the last time any such request would be made. The Chancellor admitted that just before he left office my immediate predecessor had agreed to put a sum of £1,000,000 in the Estimates under this head. He also, the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, did it with the utmost regret, and referred to his regret when he wrote to Sir James Craig. He quoted words of his predecessor, the present Prime Minister, written the year before, that he then hoped that that would be the last time that such a grant would be made.

I wish every Member who is going to vote in this Division could have heard the first speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He never said one single word in defence of this Vote. He made a great appeal to the sympathies of hon. Members and waved the Union Jack so to speak. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Why do not you wave it, too?" He made a great appeal to the sympathies of the Committee. He told them of Ulster's sacrifice by being made an independent self-governing State, called upon the House of Commons still to be true to Ulster, but not one word of justification did he give for this Vote. It was simply an appeal to sympathy and sentiment. If there be a need for these 35,000 policemen—that is one policeman for every six Catholics—we had not one single word of justification. The Government majority will carry this Vote. It is a grant which has been reluctantly agreed by the Conservative Government during the last three years.

When he says that this money is a grant given by the Government for the support of its friends, does he mean that we are individually bribed to support the Government.?

I want to ask the Minister responsible for this Vote to explain what it is that this Vote really means. I heard the speech of the Under-Secretary and one from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have not gathered whether the auditors—the specially trained expert auditors—will be entitled to pass expenditure of any kind out of this money. We do not think that the hon. Gentlemen and the right hon. Gentlemen who represent Ulster, or the Ulster Government, are going to spend this money on their own personal ends, but we do think that that Government might spend it on purposes of which this House would not approve. For instance, if there be an unexpended balance, will the Ulster Government be able to use it to send missionaries into this country for the purpose of political propaganda? I have read a lot of communications, and I do not want to increase the possibility of having to wade through that sort of stuff day by day. I would like some assurance that the House of Commons will know how the money is spent. Why should we, not know? For what reason should the Northern Government be given this amount of money? To-day in London we have witnessed a few unemployed marching through the rain. We have been to the Ministry, and we cannot get any help from them.

Quite obviously, the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss that matter under a Vote for Irish Constabulary.

I am only trying to give it as a reason why the money should not be voted at all, unless we know it is really needed in Ireland. Another reason why I will not vote for this money is because the Northern Government are keeping in prison a lot of men whom I think long ago ought to have been out, of prison. It is perfectly scandalous that this House should vote money for a constabulary and police force over whose doings we have absolutely no control whatsoever, and if one-tenth of the stories as to the treatment of political prisoners one hears are true I think no one here will vote it.

Those who are in prison are not warded over by members of the Special Constabulary.

I beg your pardon. But I should think some constable has to arrest them. In all probability some of

the gentlemen who are being paid out of this fund do the arresting. The fact that you have this constabulary very probably leads to a number of persons being in prison who ought not to be there. I quite seriously ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to tell me whether this money can be spent for any purpose the Northern Government pleases, and whether this House may not know how it is spent and on what it is spent. If that be the fact, I do not think this House should vote money for any such purpose whatsoever. It is worse than the secret funds of party organisations.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,249,000, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 271.

Division No. 17.]

AYES.

[7.15 p.m.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Hastings, Sir Patrick

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Ammon, Charles George

Hayday, Arthur

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hayes, John Henry

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Simon. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Barnes, A.

Hirst, G. H.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Barr, J.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Batey, Joseph

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Snell, Harry

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Broad, F. A.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Stephen, Campbell

Bromley, J.

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

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Buchanan, G.

Kelly, W. T.

Sutton, J. E.

Charleton, H. C.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Corn. Hon. Joseph M.

Taylor, R A.

Close, W. S.

Kenyon, Barnet

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

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kirkwood, D.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Lansbury, George

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Compton, Joseph

Lee, F.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Connolly, M.

Livingstone, A. M.

Thurtle, E.

Cove, W. G.

Lowth, T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Crawford, H. E.

Lunn, William

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Dalton, Hugh

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Viant, S. P.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Day, Colonel Harry

March, S.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Dunnico, H

Maxton, James

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Fenby, T. D.

Montague, Frederick

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Morris, R. H.

Welsh, J. C.

Forrest, W.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N)

Wignall, James

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gillett, George M.

Rating, W.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

Ponsonby, Arthur

Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Potts, John S.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

Windsor, Walter

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

Wright, W.

Groves, T.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Grundy, T. W.

Saklatvaia, Shapurji

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Salter, Dr, Alfred

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Hardie, George D.

Scrymgeour, E.

Warne.

Harney, E. A.

Scurr, John

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Atholl, Duchess of

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Albery, Irving James

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Berry, Sir George

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Betterton, Henry B.

Apollo, Colonel R. V. K.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Apsley, Lord

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Blundell, F. N.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Nicholson, William G (Petersfield)

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Oakley, T.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Harland, A.

O'Connor. T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

Pease, William Edwin

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Haslam, Henry C.

Penny, Frederick George

Briscoe, Richard George

Hawke, John Anthony

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Perring, William George

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Pilcher, G.

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Ramsden, E.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk Peel

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Herbert. S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Bullock, Captain M.

Hilton, Cecil

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Burman, J. B.

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

Rice, Sir Frederick

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Ropner, Major L.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Holt, Captain H. P.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Campbell, E. T.

Homan, C. W. J.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Rye, F. G.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Horlick, lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Christie, J. A.

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hume, Sir G. H.

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Clarry, Reginald George

Hurd, Percy A.

Shepperson, E. W.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hurst, Gerald B.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

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

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Skelton, A. N.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Jackson. Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Cooper, A. Duff

Jacob, A. E.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Cope, Major William

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Smithers, Waldron

Couper, J. B.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lamb, J. Q.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Crook, C. W.

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Lister, Cunliffe-.Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Storry Deans, R.

Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Loder, J. de V.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Looker, Herbert William

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hernel Hempst'd)

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Templeton, W. P.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Lumley, L. R.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Tinne, J. A.

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.

M'Connell, Thomas E.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Drewe, C.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Ellis, R. G.

MacIntyre, Ian

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

McLean, Major A.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Macmillan, Captain H.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Everard, W. Lindsay

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Watts, Dr. T.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Macquisten, F. A.

Wells, S. R.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

Fielden, E. B.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Fleming, D. P.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Ford, P. J.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Wilson, Sir C. H (Leeds, Central)

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Margesson, Captain D.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Meller, R. J.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Ganzoni, Sir John

Merriman, F. B.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Gee, Captain R.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Wise, Sir Fredric

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Womersley, W. J.

Goff, Sir Park

Mitchell, Sir W. Lana (Streatham)

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Gower, Sir Robert

Moles, Thomas

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Grace, John

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)

Grant, J. A.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Gretton, Colonel John

Murchison, C. K.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Nelson, Sir Frank

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E

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

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Major Sir Harry Barnston.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 112.

Division No. 18.]

AYES

[7.25 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Albery, Irving James

Everard, W. Lindsay

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Macintyre, Ian

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

McLean, Major A.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Fielden, E. B.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Apsley, Lord

Fleming, D. P.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

Ford, P J.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Atholl, Duchess of

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Macquisten, F. A.

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Gee, Captain R.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Margesson, Captain D,

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Goff, Sir Park

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Gower, Sir Robert

Meller, R. J.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Grace, John

Merriman, F. B.

Berry, Sir George

Grant, J. A.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Betterton, Henry B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Gretton, Colonel John

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Grotrian, H. Brent

Moles, Thomas

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Blundell, F. N.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C

Boothby, R. J. G.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Murchison, C. K.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Nelson, Sir Frank

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Harland, A.

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

Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

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

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Haslam, Henry C.

Nicholson. O. (Westminster)

Briscoe, Richard George

Hawke, John Anthony

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Oakley, T.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Pease, William Edwin

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Penny, Frederick George

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

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Perring, William George

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Pete, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Burman, J. B.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Pilcher, G.

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Hilton, Cecil

Price, Major C. W. M.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

Ramsden, E.

Campbell, E. T.

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.)

Homan, C. W. J.

Rice, Sir Frederick

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Christis, J. A.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Ropner, Major L.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Rye, F. G.

Clarry, Reginald George

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hume, Sir G. H.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Cooper, A. Duff

Hurd, Percy A.

Sandon, Lord

Cope, Major William

Hurst, Gerald B.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

Couper, J. B.

Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Mld'n & P'bl's)

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

Jacob, A. E.

Shepperson, E. W.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Crook, C. W.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Skelton, A. N.

Crookshank, Cpt.H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

Knox, Sir Alfred

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Lamb, J. Q.

Smithers, Waldron

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Stanley, Col. Hon. C. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Loder, J. de V.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Looker, Herbert William

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Starry Deans, R.

Dixey, A. C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Drewe, C.

Lumley, L. R.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Ellis, R. G.

M'Connell, Thomas E.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Templeton, W. P.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Watts, Dr. T.

Womersley, W. J.

Tinne, J. A.

Wells, S. R.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Commander B. Eyres Mansell and

Warrender, Sir Victor

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Major Sir Harry Barnston.

NOES

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Hayday, Arthur

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Ammon, Charles George

Hayes, John Henry

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hirst, G. H.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Barnes, A.

Hore-Belisha. Leslie

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Barr, J.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Batey, Joseph

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Snell, Harry

Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Stephen, Campbell

Broad, F. A.

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

Stewart, J. (St. Rolfox)

Bromley, J.

Kelly, W. T.

Sutton, J. E.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Taylor, R. A.

Buchanan, G.

Kenyon, Barnet

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

Charleton, H. C.

Kirkwood, D.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Close, W. S.

Lansbury, George

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lee, F.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Livingstone, A. M.

Thurtle, E.

Compton, Joseph

Lowth, T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Connolly, M.

Lunn, William

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Cove, W. G.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Viant, S. P.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Dalton, Hugh

March, S.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Maxton, James

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Day, Colonel Harry

Montague, Frederick

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Dunnico, H.

Morris, R. H.

Welsh, J. C.

Fenby, T. D.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wignall, James

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Forrest, W.

Paling, W.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Garro-Jones, Captain G M.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Gillett, George M.

Potts, John S.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Caine)

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

Windsor, Walter

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

Wright, W.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Groves, T.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Grundy, T. W.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Scrymgeour, E.

Mr. Allen Parkinson and

Hardie, George D.

Scurr, John

Warne.

Harney, E. A.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Civil Pay (Arrears)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £2,895,000, 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, 1925, to meet the balance of Civil Pay to certain Civil Servants who served with His Majesty's Forces during the Great War."

There are just one or two points that I want to put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury arising out of this matter, which I think will he strictly within the ambit of the Vote that is now before the Committee. As the Committee are probably aware, this matter originated out of an announcement, which appeared in the Treasury Circular of 1914, whereby civil servants who enlisted in the Forces were told that, in addition to their ordinary military pay, they would receive full civil pay. That was denied by the Crown at the time. Subsequently a telegraphist named Sutton took the case to the Courts, and finally, after it had been carried to the House of Lords, judgment was given in favour of Mr. Sutton. Later the case of the single men in other units was raised in respect of another Circular, in which the phrase "civil pay" was used, and it was then contended that the phrase "civil pay" meant the same as "full civil pay." This was contested, but it was taken to the Courts and was won both in the lower Court and in the Court of Appeal. That gives rise to the Vote that we now have before us, and I might point out that the large sum of money involved is an indica- tion of the large number of men who are concerned and who enlisted in the Forces at the outbreak of war.

I desire to ask for one or two assurances. The first is that, as this represents an accumulation of money since March, 1915, we should be very glad if an undertaking could be given that payment will be expedited, since, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand, there is a good deal of concern about the matter. Then, as he also knows, it is anticipated that, although a number of actions designed to cover every case have been settled in the Courts, there are, possibly, still a number of cases outstanding which may be disputed. In the normal course all these disputes would have to be proceeded with, first of all by petition of right, and then by litigation, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it will not be possible for some other machinery, mutually agreed upon, to be set up which will enable any cases in dispute to be settled without the necessity of recourse to litigation.

Does the hon. Member contend that these cases which he has in mind ought to follow as the result of the judgment?

My point is that cases will he submitted as coming within the ambit of the judgment, and we want these to be settled by mutual arrangement rather than by recourse to litigation or petition of right. Then it will be remembered that it was proposed that some men should be excluded from benefit, and a circular has been issued, of which I have, a copy in my hand, indicating those persons to whom payment will be made; but there is a number of men who volunteered for service long before the passing of the Military Service Acts, and these men, in the normal course of events, would have come within the ambit of this judgment. They were, however, prevented form enlisting owing to the exigencies of the Service. It is now asked that, having regard to this, these men, and those who afterwards became eligible, but who had previously volunteered and were medically rejected, should also be allowed to come under the operation of the decision which has been given by the High Court and by the House of Lords. In this connection I would bring to the attention of the right hon.

Gentleman a circular which was issued by the Postmaster-General in 1916, and which reads as follows:—

"Military Service Act, 1916

Any members of the Staff who are required to report themselves for military service under the Military Service Act should notify their superior officers in order that the necessary arangements may be made for their release.

Post Office servants who are released for military service under the provisions of the Military Service Act will be entitled to the same privileges in regard to civil pay, etc., as those who have volunteered."

Does the Treasury propose to honour the undertaking in the terms of the legal decision? There are two other points upon which I should like to ask for the decision of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote. There are about a score of men—messengers and attendants —at the House of Commons, who will come, as far as one can see, within the decision which has been given, and it is a little difficult to see on what Department or what section of the Votes they will be borne. They feel that in the ordinary way they come within the terms of the circular, and of the judgments which have been given on that circular, but we are unable to see where they are borne in the Schedule to the Vote. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give us some information with regard to that. The other point is, in what position do the women civil servants who enlisted in Queen Mary's Auxiliary Corps and in the Women's Auxiliary Army Corps stand in regard to this Vote? Are they in any way excluded, and, if not, will some attention be given to them when other matters come up for consideration as to whether or not they come within the terms of the judgment given in the High Court and according to that of the Lord Chancellor? It is a matter of importance to the thousands of people concerned that an assurance will be given that at last the money will be paid out immediately and that also those people who were prevented from enlisting when they were willing to do so, through no fault of their own, should not be in any way injured and refused to be allowed to come within the operation of the decision.

I wish to ask one or two questions more or less on the lines of those put by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The Sutton judgment, as I understand it, established the principle that the words "full civil pay" meant bonus as well, and the subsequent judgments which had given rise to this Supplementary Estimate have established the principle that the words "civil pay" mean bonus also. But the point behind the judgments is that at the beginning of the War when the Treasury, like private employers, were anxious that their servants should enlist in His Majesty's Forces, offered the inducement to those servants that if they did enlist they would in no sense he penalised and would be in a position of actual equality as regards emoluments with those who remained behind. At that period the bonus had not been instituted and, when it was subsequently instituted, the Treasury withheld it from these men. The Courts having established the principle that the word bonus is included in the term "civil pay," it stands to reason, if not to law, that every one who enlisted in those particular circumstances, and every one who was offered this inducement that, he or she would he in no worse position by enlisting, should he brought within the ambit of this Supplementary Estimate. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman who is excluded from this Estimate and who is included? As one looks down the, list one can obtain absolutely no indication of what classes are going to be treated as exceptions to this Vote. The hon. Member who has just sat down has, for instance, asked about the women civil servants who joined the W.A.A.C.s or the W.R.E.N.s. I gather he also wished to ask a question about those boys who were not 18 at the time when they wished to enlist and who when they reached the age of 18, which was the qualifying age, were taken into the Army or the Navy under the Conscription Acts. There is the case of these civil servants who were considered to be indispensable and who were nevertheless impelled by the desire to serve their country, and it was only subsequently, when the Military Service Acts were passed, that they were allowed to relinquish their positions in the Civil Service, when substitutes could be found for them, when arrangements were being made in order to draft every available man into the Services. There was a large class of industrial workers who enlisted under precisely similar conditions to these, who were in many cases paid their civil pay and of whom no mention has been made throughout these cases.

Yes, they are civil servants, and I am only asking for information as to whether or not it is proposed to bring these industrial workers within the Supplementary Estimate or whether they are excluded because there is no indication from the list here as to what classes of workers are included except that the names of certain Government Departments are mentioned. These cases have cost the Civil Service, as I am informed, £8,000 to fight. These men have had to collect by subscription amongst themselves that very vast sum of money in order to establish their claim which, as the Courts have found, should never have been denied to them. If it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government to exclude certain classes because they did not precisely fall within the terms of these judgments, he is going to set up a host of anomalies, and Heaven knows there are enough already, and he is going to sow grievances of which there will be no end, and he will at any rate bring this about, that every aggrieved class of civil servants, however small and however poor, will he forced to go before the Court and be a suppliant for its rights upon a petition of right. That would obviously he unfair and it obviously sins against the principles of these judgments, if I understand them aright, and the principles of the judgments are that those who enlisted at the beginning of the War should he placed upon a plane of absolute equality with those who stayed at home. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether it is intended to exclude any sections of the Civil Service men, women or boys from the benefit of these judgments. The judgments do not only apply against the Government. Other judgments have been obtained against the Port of London Authority and other public bodies which have established exactly this principle. I should be very much obliged if he could hold out some hope that the results of these judgments will not he to create a whole host of anomalies and grievances throughout the Civil Service of which we shall never hear the end.

The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) has, f know, been called away, but he has left someone to note the replies to his points, and I will do my best to answer him. He was most anxious to be assured that no further delay would take place in these cases which have been outstanding for so many years. It is the object of this Supplementary Estimate, as far as possible, to get these payments cleared up during the current financial year. If it is not possible in all cases, owing to difficulties in administration, they will be paid as early as possible, and they will be paid out of the ordinary Departmental Votes for the next financial year. The hon. Member for Devonport (Major Hore Belisha) asked whom we were going to exclude. As far as possible we shall include everyone whom the test cases have covered, and the test cases were agreed with the solicitors representing the Union of Post Office Workers and the Civil Service Federation. As far as we know they cover every class of case and we are proposing to pay the bonus to all those who were effectively enlisted. If people were kept back after enlisting under the Derby Scheme they are, I believe, held to be effectively enlisted. The case of the women who joined Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps and other bodies is not covered because they enlisted on the express condition that they would not receive bonus, and they are clearly excluded from the scope of the judgments. The case of those who were employed in the House of Commons is under consideration by the Commissioners of the House and I believe a decision as to their detailed claims should be reached in a very short time. It is not the object of the Government to keep people out of their claims, and if there are any cases of doubt I hope hon. Members will communicate them to me and I will do my best to see that they are equitably dealt with, but I think the Committee may feel confident that there should be no such cases seeing that the test cases, eight in number, which were taken to the Court were chosen to cover all cases of doubt. It was the agreed procedure that these cases should be taken.

I should like to ask, in order to be quite clear about this point, what the procedure is going to be. It is possible on the one hand that every case where application was made to the right hon. Gentleman will be sympathetically considered. On the other hand it may be that he intends to notify every person who is entitled to this money that he is entitled to claim it and do away with the idea of the Treasury that the obligation should be on the individual to make the claim. Having been associated a good deal with these different actions before I happened to be in the Government I think they cover a very large number of cases and possibilities where the individual will never know what his rights are unless some intimation by circular or otherwise is given to him. I am sure it is the intention of the Government that now that the Supreme Court has decided that these men who volunteered for service are entitled to this money every man should receive what is due to him, and I appeal to the Minister to tell us that the Government will bring to the notice of every person who they think is reasonably entitled under these different subheads of the Estimate what the claim is on an appropriate form which they can fill up stating their conditions.

8.0 P.M.

One other matter which has not been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman is the question which was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell as to a Committee which might be set up to consider doubtful cases. He is anxious—I do not know that from a professional point of view necessarily I am anxious, but he is anxious on behalf of the men he represents, and I am sure the Government will be anxious, to bring this litigation to an end. It has been extremely costly and extremely uncertain. Therefore what we should propose is something in the nature of an arbitration which might deal quite properly with the borderline cases. I am sure there will be in this matter a large number of borderline cases. We have a decision which defines that full civil pay includes bonuses which have accrued to members of the same class during the War. The question arises whether a particular man is in a class and whether the phrase used in his particular inducement to join the Army is or is not covered by the Sutton case or the other cases. A settlement of these little matters could be expedited if there was some small Committee set up which could deal with the matter without recourse to a petition of right and a Court of law. I am not optimistic enough to think these two decisions in the Sutton case, and the Court of Appeal are going to deal with every borderline case. You will find, I think, when you come to examine the conditions of entry into the Army and the promises which were made, that there were little differences between one Department and another, between one man's status and another's, and all these things require to be cleared up and emphatically do not require separate litigation. Therefore, my suggestion is that some body should be set up to deal with this matter by way of arbitration. I suggest, first, that a circular be issued notifying the people whom the Government think are affected what their rights are, and, giving them some sort of form on which they can state their case, and, secondly, that a Committee should be set up to deal with doubtful cases. In that way we shall be relieved of a difficult and troublesome matter as regards the individual man, and the Treasury will have the advantage of knowing within a short time where their liability ends and where they stand.

The Committee will have learned with pleasure and will have welcomed the announcement of the Financial Secretary that the Government do not propose to exclude on narrow grounds those who may be entitled, or who think that they are entitled, to come within the judgment. There its a variety of cases which I and others regard as border-line cases, and in regard to which very great care will have to be taken in order to avoid trouble in the future. I have received a number of letters this morning from civil servants residing in my constituency who, at the outset of the War, moved by their patriotism and a desire to join the Army, made application to their respective Departments, but permission was refused. Later, despite the absence of permission, they joined the Forces. Whether they come within the provisions of the judgment or not it is not my business to say; but there must be a number of these cases, and from the correspondence that I have received it is clear that these members of the Civil Service believe that their cases should not merely receive consideration but, having regard to the patriotism which they displayed in the hour of the country's need, that their claims ought to be met in the same manner as the claims or other people will be met under the judgment. I shall be very happy if the Financial Secretary will have regard to these cases. I welcome his announcement that the Government will not be moved by considerations of excluding members of the Civil Service, but, as I understood it, that they will deal generously with the judgment, and bring as many people as possible, even these border-line cases, within the judgment.

The hon. and learned Member for East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) wished to make sure that none of the people entitled to payment should be in doubt as to their rights. The Government will do everything in their power, by Departmental action, to bring to the notice of all these people who have claims the decision of the Court. There may be those who have left the public service who cannot easily be traced, but in all cases where men are still in Government employ steps will be taken, Departmentally, to bring to their notice the situation that has arisen since the recent judgment, and the efforts that the Government is going to make to satisfy the claims. In some cases it will be done by Circular, and in other ways through the pay-book. Forms will be provided on which claims can be sot out.

With respect to the industrial workers, I may say that a large number of them are covered, and provision is made in these Estimates for their payment where they are not members of the fighting services. A large number come under the fighting services, and the expenditure in the case of the fighting services does not appear in this Supplementary Estimate. The hon. and learned Member for East Leeds suggested that we should have an arbitration tribunal for borderline cases. I do not think it would he wise at this stage to commit myself to any particular machine. We have no evidence that such border-line cases will arise. I am told that the test cases were selected with such care that it is believed to be quite evident who is covered. The case put by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) of people who tried to enlist and were kept back by the exigencies of the public service, is quite clearly covered. If they effectively enlisted, although they were not allowed to join until after national service has been instituted, they are covered. If there are borderline cases, clearly we must find some way of dealing with them rather than by litigation. We had the test cases in order to finish with litigation.

Perhaps I ought to make myself clear. The case I had in mind was that of a civil servant who sought to join the Army in the early days of the War, and asked permission of his Department. That permission was not granted at the time. Later on, moved by patriotism and by consideration of the needs of the country, the particular civil servants joined the Army. That was the case I had in mind, and I would like the Financial Secretary to consider it. I do not say that it comes within the judgment, but I hope it does. The Financial Secretary seems to suggest that it does. If so, there are no grounds for complaint. It is one of those cases which I am very anxious that the Financial Secretary should seriously consider, and if it is not within the judgment to bring it within the judgment.

if the case to which the hon. Member refers was one of voluntary enlistment, it certainly is covered. The only cases which are excluded are those of men who did not join under the voluntary conditions or under the Derby scheme, whether they were called up or not. The people who did not join up then, and who were called up under national service are, clearly, not included. It is the last thing that we contemplate to have any further litigation, and if there are border-line cases we shall find some way of dealing with them without recourse to the Courts.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Report [11th February]

Resolutions reported,

Civil Services and Revenue Departments Supplementary Estimates, 1924–25

Class I

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £58,000, 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, 195, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,020, 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, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding 54,000, 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, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, and Brompton Cemetery."

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exeeedng £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, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of the erection of Houses by the Office of Works on behalf of Local Authorities proceeding with assisted Housing Schemes approved by the Ministry of Health in accordance with the provisions of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1919."

5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £61,975, 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, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of Housing Schemes under the Management of the Office of Works."

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £47,000, 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, 1925, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."

Class II

7. "That, a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 1,000, 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, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including the News Department."

8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,000, 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, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade."

9. "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, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, a Subsidy for Steamer Services to the Hebrides, and Grants in respect of Unemployment Schemes."

Class III

10. "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, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts, including Bonus to County Court Judges."

Class V

11. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding 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, 1925, for sundry Colonial Services, including Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State and certain Grants-in-Aid."

12. "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, 1925, for sundry Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid."

13. "That a stun, not exceeding £657, 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, 1925, to make good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1923–24."

14. "That a sum, not exceeding £10, he granted to 11 is Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for a Grant-in-Aid to the Sudan Government."

Class Vi

15. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,000, 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, 19'25, 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."

Resolutions agreed to.

Report [12th February]

Resolutions reported,

Civil Services Supplementary Estimates, 1924–25

Class VI

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £158,500, 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, 1925, for Expenditure in connection with British Government Exhibits and Sundry Displays at the British Empire Exhibitions, 1924 and 1925."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in Bourse of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for a Grantin-Aid of the Mission of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to South Africa, other parts of Africa, and South America."

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £509,885, 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, 1925, for a Grantin-Aid of the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £17,500, 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, 1925, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."

Resolutions agreed to.

Report [13th February]

Resolutions reported,

Civil Services Supplementary Estimates, 1924–25

Class VII

1. "Thai a Supplementary sum, not exceeding 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, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, Public Utility Companies, etc., sundry Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1924, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."

2. "That a Supplementary SUM, not exceeding 5210, 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, 1925, for the Salaries mid Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., sundry Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1924, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."

Resolutions agreed to.

Report [17th February]

Resolution reported,

Civil Services Supplementary Estimates, 1924–25

Class VII

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £422,000, 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, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and to Special Schemes, and Payments to Associations, Local Education Authorities and others for administration under the Unemployment Insurance and Labour Exchanges Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); and certain Grants-in-Aid."

Resolution agreed to.

Privileges

Ordered, "That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Ten Members."

"The Prime Minister, Mr. Attorney-General, Lord Hugh Cecil, Colonel Spender Clay, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Sir Ellis Hume-Williams, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Mr. Rawlinson and Sir John Simon nominated members of the Committee."

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."

Ordered, "That five be the quorum." —[ Colonel Gibbs. ]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment,

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Commander Lyres Monsell. ]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Three Minutes after Eight o'Clock.