asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new factories have been opened in the silk or artificial silk industry, and the number of hands employed since 1st July of last year?

I understand that 10 artificial silk factories have started in this country since 1st July, of which five are in the experimental stage and five are producing; six more are expected to be started shortly. As regards silk factories, I have no information other than that appearing in the Press. This indicates that extensions are being made, and that several new undertakings are equipping factories.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue which has been collected by His Majesty's Customs and Excise in respect of duty on silk and silk products imported into this country since the imposition of the Silk Duties; and the amount of revenue which has been collected by His Majesty's Customs in respect of fines levied on persons attempting to evade the duties on silk and silk products?

The net Customs revenue collected in respect of imported silk and artificial silk goods between 1st July last and 31st March, 1926, was approximately £2,591,000. The fines received up to 28th February, 1926, in connection with attempts at evasion of the Silk and Artificial Silk Duties, amount to £3,103.

Can. the right hon. Gentleman tell us how those figures compare with the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that in recent marine disasters in many cases the death of passengers or members of the crew has resulted from exposure in the water, or the consequences thereof, where persons were equipped with the regulation lifebelt; whether he has considered the desirability of introducing regulations compelling shipping companies to adopt more up-to-date and modern life-saving devices; and whether he will take steps to amend the present regulations in order to make the safety-first principle applicable to crews and passengers on sea as it is on land?

I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Report made by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee in December, 1922, on life-saving appliances, and would call his attention to the remarks made by a subcommittee of that body on the question of exposure. The possible value of special appliances was recognised, but on practical grounds it was decided not to suggest a compulsory requirement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the price paid for land to erect steel houses upon in the Shettleston district of Glasgow, and what was the rate-able value?

I am informed that the price paid for the site for steel houses at Shettleston was £10,425, and that the rate-able value of the land as appearing in the valuation roll was £133.

Are the Government, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, going to take any steps to prevent this big difference between the rate-able value of the land and what they pay for it when they want to build houses?

No, Sir.

Have the Government instructed the right hon. Gentleman that in future land shall be bought at the rate-able value?

No, the land is being bought in the ordinary open market at a most reasonable price.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think the difference between the price he gave and that at which it is valued is a fair price?

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House, in as few words as possible, what has happened to the land that there is such a difference in the price when once we are going to acquire it in order to build upon it?

That is a matter of debate.

What steps is the right hon. Gentleman going to take to prevent this profiteering by the people owning land?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the extra cost of foundations for steel houses in the Garngad area are to be borne by the Government or by the Second National Scottish Housing Company?

The extra costs of foundations for the steel houses in the Garngad area will be borne by the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited.

Since before purchasing the land no particular pains were taken to see whether it was suitable for building or not, is it not the fact that the Government have to pay this money?

Does the extra cost of the foundations include the increased wages which were promised to the labourers but which have not yet been paid on the Weir houses?

The question of foundations and the price paid for the land have nothing to do with the rate of wages.

The question says "extra cost of foundations." That, I take it, includes the extra wages promised to be paid to the labourers on these foundations.

No. When the company bought the land the cost of the foundations was taken into consideration when the price was paid for the land.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the extra cost will not mean an increase of the proposed rent for the houses?

Since there are extra costs, are they to be borne altogether apart from the calculations made on the cost of the houses and the rent that will be based on that cost?

No. In this case the land was already laid out for housing, with drains and roads already made, and the cost was based on these circumstances.

Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take any steps to suppress individuals who charge that exorbitant price?

That is a matter for legislation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think the people of Scotland are more interested in the building of the houses or the cost of the foundations?

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Union of South Africa allows exchange copies of newspapers published in that Dominion, and destined for other newspaper offices within the Empire, to be sent free of postal charges: and whether he will consider an extension of this measure, framed for the purpose of giving more space to inter-imperial news. being put into practice by his Department in this country?

I was not aware of the arrangement to which my hon. Friend refers; but in view of the fact that the postage rates upon newspapers sent to destinations overseas are already low and unremunerative, I do not feel justified in granting free postage as suggested.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has considered the Report of the Credit Insurance Committee; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to give effect to the Committee's recommendations?

I am giving most careful consideration to the valuable Report which has been furnished by the Credit Insurance Committee, and hope soon to be able to make an announcement on the subject.

Is not this a case of another Government subsidy?

On no account, so far as I can see.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Government, in coming to the decision not to sign the optional clause of the Statute of the Permanent Court, consulted the Dominions, and if so, what views were expressed by them on the subject; and whether it is proposed that this should be one of the matters discussed at the Imperial Conference in October?

Yes, Sir; the views of His Majesty's Government on this point were placed before the Dominions. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the correspondence with the Dominions on the subject of the Geneva Protocol (Cmd. 2458), and to page 3 of the statement made to the Council of the League of Nations by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs an the same subject (Cmd. 2368). The suggestion contained in the last part of the question will be borne in mind.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House the total amount it is expected will be expended on the Bombay reclamation scheme; the total amount of the contracts at present placed for this work, together with the names of the contractors who are carrying out the work, and the value of each contract; and can he tell the House the reasons which led the Governor of Bombay to override the decision of the Legislative Council not to proceed with the scheme, and by the exercise of his powers as Governor compel the people of Bombay to finance a scheme the elected authority considered inadvisable?

The Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee appointed by the Government of Bombay thought it safe to assume that if Blocks 1, 2 and 8 are carried to completion, as is proposed, the net expenditure on the scheme, after allowing for receipts, will be something under £2,675,000. The estimates on which this opinion was based are under examination by a committee of engineers. The work is being carried out by the Development Department of the Government of Bombay, and I have not the information asked for by the hon. Member as to contracts placed by that Department. I know of no resolution by the Legislative Council against proceeding with the scheme.

Will the Noble Lord get the information as to who are the contractors carrying out this work, and will he inquire about these Regulations?

I can answer the second point at once. What the hon. Member has in mind was a resolution, moved in the Legislative Council but defeated, by the Legislative Council. In regard to the first point, I regret that I did not make it clear in my answer that this work is being carried out by the Development Department of the Government. As regards any sub-con- tracts given by the Department, I have no exact information, but I will endeavour to get it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the size of the establishment of the Railway Police Force set up by the Treaty Powers in China, and state the nationality and numbers of the foreign officers in charge of this police force?

The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. There is no Railway Police Force in China set up by the Treaty Powers.

asked the Minister of Health whether numbers of subsidy houses in various districts are remaining unoccupied with a view to their sale by speculative builders; and, in view of the housing needs of the country, will he consider the advisability of withdrawing the subsidy in respect of such houses not occupied within a certain time after Completion?

My right hon. Friend has no doubt that from time to time there are a certain number of houses standing unoccupied pending sale, but he does not think that there is ground for such general action as the hon. and gallant Member contemplates.

asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to meet the views expressed by the recent deputation from the joint council of qualified opticians with regard to the practice of sight testing; and if he will state the attitude of the Government with regard to the proposed Bill for the registration of optical practitioners?

For reasons explained to the deputation referred to by the hon. Member my right hon. Friend does not propose to take any action in the matter and the Government are not prepared to grant any facilities for the passage of the Bill.

asked the Prime Minister if he can now state when the Report of the Departmental Committee on necessitous areas will be available?

I anticipate that the Report will shortly be considered by the Government, and publication will be made as early as possible.

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to set up a committee of all parties to consider the question of unemployment?

No, Sir. I doubt whether any practicable purpose would be served by the adoption of this suggestion. I explained my reasons at some length in a reply on 7th July last to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to establish any committee to deal with this question in any way?

I think that point is dealt with in the answer to which I have referred.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since last July the unemployment figures have remained extremely heavy, and, as his Government have failed to reduce them substantially, will he take other persons into consultation?

They are still heavy, but I think they are considerably better

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that old age pensions committees, whilst disallowing old age pensions under the 1908 to 1919 Old Age Pensions Acts, do not inform applicants who are insured under the National Health Insurance Acts of their rights under the 1925 Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; and will he give instructions that such information shall be given to all such applicants whose claims are disallowed between now and next July?

I have been asked to reply. At the end of last month a revised form of claim for old age pension, specially designed to meet the situation arising under the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, was substituted for the form previously in use, and under the new procedure all claims for old age pensions are forwarded to the Ministry of Health in the first instance for examination with reference to title under that Act. A revised explanatory leaflet, together with the new form of claim, can be obtained at any post office.

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to give temporary instructions to Old Age Pensions Committees to advise pensioners that they have certain rights under the new Act?

There is no reason to think that such action is necessary. If the hon. Member has any Committee in mind and will send me particulars, I will look into the matter.

Is it not the case that Old Age Pensions Committees have been turning down claims and have not informed applicants that they have these rights?

No, Sir. And if the hon. Member will send me particulars of any such cases I will have them investigated.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that pensioners have found great difficulty in getting their claims recognised; and does it not appear to be the business of the pension officers to discourage claims rather than encourage them?

No, Sir. And I am not aware that any great difficulty has been experienced in getting claims recognised.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of reparations received by this country and the Dominions since the 1st January?

The total amount paid by the Agent-General for Reparation Payments to or for the account of the British Empire from 1st January to 31st March, 1926, was 54,666,000 gold marks (£2,733,300). Out of this amount, approximately £1,715,000 represents the United Kingdom's share of reparation, and approximately £258,000 the share of the other parts of the British Empire, the balance being receipts on account of the Army of Occupation and Belgian War Debt.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any part of the East African Loan will be offered in East Africa?

No, Sir. The loan will be issued in London in the usual way.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the policy of offering the loan to the East African Colonies?

It has been considered.

Is there any chance of Scotland getting part of this loan, so that we may buy some of the land, and put people who are unemployed on it?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what increase in staff in the Inland Revenue Department has been necessitated since the introduction of the last Finance Act; and what is the approximate annual cost of such additional staff?

Between the 1st July, 1925, the date of the commencement of the Finance Act, 1925, and the 1st April, 1926, the staff of the Inland Revenue has increased by 117 persons, namely, from 19,720 to 19,837. The approximate annual cost of such additional staff is £17,600.

Does that include a number of additional Customs officers?

The hon. Member is apparently not aware that the Inland Revenue and the Customs are separate Departments.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information about the reported fighting in Iraq; what forces were engaged; and whether there were any casualties?

A party of Syrian tribesmen crossed the frontier between Syria and Iraq on the 2nd April and attacked the tribesmen on the Iraq side. A section of armoured cars assisted the latter to repel the raiders and action was subsequently taken by aircraft. As a result the raiders withdrew across the frontier into Syrian territory; it is believed that they lost about 30 killed. The Iraqi tribesmen lost one killed and two wounded. No British casualties have been reported.

Do I understand that these tribesmen came from territory under French control, and, if so, are we making any representations to the French authorities in Syria to prevent these raids?

The matter was purely a local raid between frontier tribes. No doubt the attention of the French Government has been drawn to the matter.

Are we to understand that the same Government which protests against the use of aeroplanes elsewhere justifies the use of air force in Iraq?

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by whose instructions the police were authorised to attempt to break up the demonstration marching from Wandsworth Prison on Sunday evening last at Battersea Rise; can be inform the House how many persons were injured, including members of the police force, by the constabulary on that occasion; is he aware that many persons who witnessed the disturbance in Hyde Park on Tuesday, 30th March, were of opinion that that disturbance was caused by the provocative behaviour of the police; and will he inform the police authorities that it is not illegal for persons taking part in demonstrations to march back to their homes together when the demonstration is over?

The police acted under their general authority to control the traffic, and on this occasion did so with great care and success until near Battersea Rise, when part of the procession became disorderly and spread across the road blocking the general traffic, which was fairly heavy at the time. The police then tried to reduce the procession to order, when the crowd began to shout "Up the rebels," "Come on, Reds," etc. No one was injured except one constable. In reply to the last part of the question, persons who desire to march through the streets of London must do so in an orderly manner.

Is the same treatment to be meted out to the workers marching through the streets, and the same liberty given them, as is given to medical students, university students, and others who parade the West End? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two women were knocked down in that scrimmage on Sunday, that two men were knocked down, that there was no blocking of the traffic, that the whole of the disturbance took place on the other side of Battersea Rise, where there was no traffic blocking whatever taking place, and that the police authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order ! "] Very well, I will ask another question later.

It is a little difficult to answer all those questions. I am not aware of any other injuries, and no injuries were reported to the police other than that to the one constable. With regard to the question of differentiation between medical students and others, there is no differentiation at all. The police take the same measures in regard to all processions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these two women were removed from the ground, from the roadway, having been knocked down, and is he aware that the police authorities put a cordon of police into the procession to march with it, and that that caused considerable disorder and disgust amongst the processionists?

Has the right hon. Gentleman made special arrangements for the demonstration taking place next Saturday, when a lady who calls herself "General" Drummond is going to organise a demonstration against the miners, and will he see that they get the same kind of treatment as working-class processions get when they take advantage of the opportunity?

Yes, they will get exactly the same kind of treatment and will have to obey the same rules.

I beg to give notice that, either to-night or at the most convenient opportunity, I shall call attention to the facts connected with this matter.

(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary what instructions as to reporting speeches are given to police reporters attached to the special Department in dealing with speeches at Communist, Labour and other meetings; are they instructed to take verbatim reports, or only such portions of speeches which, in the opinion of the person reporting, are considered to be illegal or seditious?

Metropolitan Police officers engaged on such duties are told to exercise their discretion in this matter. Speeches are not reported verbatim without necessity.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it quite fair to leave the reporting of speeches to a man whose instructions are to take out only certain portions of what persons may say, and is that conducive to their getting a fair trial if the Attorney-General prosecutes them?

That is not the instruction given to the police. The police are certainly not told to pick out any special remarks. I will say to the hon. Member, for his own satisfaction, that I have special reports of his speeches.

I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I intend to raise this matter also at a convenient opportunity—not about the verbatim reporting of my own speeches.

Are the reporters who are sent to these meetings expert in the law with regard to sedition, and are they competent to judge whether an utterance is seditious or otherwise?

That depends on the report.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he was aware that the tenants of 16 houses, the property of his Department, occupied by 103 persons in St. Helens, have been notified by the local county court officials that an Order of the Court secured by his Department for possession, will be executed on Thursday next by forcible eviction, and themselves and their household goods thrown on the streets, there being nowhere else for them to go owing to the doubly congested nature of the neighbourhood; and whether, in view of the fact that the local authorities, in order to meet the circumstances of the case, have so expedited house-building as to guarantee to provide full accommodation for these people in six weeks, he will take the necessary immediate steps to prevent the evictions pending the expiration of that period?

Since the eviction orders were obtained, I have heard from the Town Clerk of St. Helens, offering four houses immediately and 12 more in six or eight weeks, for the accommodation of the people referred to in the question. I have therefore issued instructions for the suspension of the eviction from Thursday to Monday next, and an application to the Court will be made to-morrow to extend the time for the execution of the warrant, so that the present occupants may have an opportunity of going in to the new houses as they become ready.

Is there to be no explanation of this very important Resolution? We are all waiting to hear.

The Resolution has one effect and one only, namely, that it enables the members of the fighting forces in future to obtain additional benefits beyond the benefits which are provided under the existing National Health Insurance Act, and it calls upon the Slate to contribute one-seventh of the cost of those benefits, and consequently throws a liability upon the Exchequer and necessitates this Resolution. The estimated cost falling upon the State of that addition to the benefits is £3,000 per annum. Perhaps I had better explain briefly what are the existing provisions of the National Health Insurance Act with regard to serving soldiers, sailors and airmen. Under the Act the soldier—I take the soldier as an example, but the same arrangements apply to the airman and the sailor—pays nothing to the National Insurance Fund so long as he is in the Service, but the Department makes a contribution to the National Insurance Fund which enables the soldier, while he is in the Army, to receive maternity benefit, but no other benefit, because the other benefits are already provided by the terms of his service. Further, in the contribution made by the Department, there is a sufficient sum to enable that soldier, when he leaves the Service, to join an approved society, if his health permits him to do so, as a fully paid-up member. He can, from the moment of his re-entry into civil life, receive exactly the same benefits as he would have received had he been a member of an approved society during the time he was in the Army.

There is another class, however, to whom that arrangement does not apply. There is the man whose health has been impaired during service and whom no society will accept as a member, and for that man there is the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund, set up under the Act of 1911 and consolidated under the Act of 1924. A soldier in impaired health can remain a member of that fund, and I think about 23,300 are now members of it. Under the Act, however, they are only entitled to standard benefits and not to any additional benefits such as they would have received as members of approved societies. The alteration we are now making will give the Navy. Army and Air Force Insurance Fund the right to pay, not merely standard benefit, but also additional benefits equal to the average benefits payable by approved societies. In order to do so a fund is created which I shall have to explain on the next Resolution. There will be an annual charge. The State will have to make a contribution of one-seventh to the benefits that will be payable, and consequently, a liability of about £3,000 a year will be thrown upon the State. This Resolution is required in order to permit that to be done.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee who determines the additional benefits, and what they are?

That is a question which I shall be very glad to answer, but it would be more appro- priate to deal with it on Clause 5 of the Economy Bill relating to that matter [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]

In Clause 5 of the Economy Bill you are robbing the Fund, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to explain these additional benefits and to state what they are, under the Resolution with which we are now dealing. Clause 5 takes away money which was for additional benefits.

The right hon. Gentleman, under the cloak of a question, makes a serious accusation which he has no right to make, and suggests that we are robbing the Fund—

I have given full attention to this Resolution as well as to the Resolution which will follow in Committee of Ways and Means, and I think it will be for the convenience of Members to discuss the two subjects together now. I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee in this matter, but I think it would be inconvenient if I had to rule very strictly throughout a discussion confined to one of the Resolutions. I, therefore, suggest that both might be discussed now without prejudice to any Division which may take place.

I think the Committee appreciate your difficulty, Sir, and your genuine attempt to get over it; incidentally, that is the answer to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that I am using a cloak under which to make a charge. I think hon. Members would be wise to accept the suggestion of the Chair without any prejudice to a Division afterwards.

I quite agree that it is impossible to discuss this subject piecemeal and I only intervened originally because I desired to get a general exposition from the Secretary of State for War of what the actual proposal was, so that the Committee might be in full possession of the facts. If I may respectfully say so, I think the Chairman's suggestion is admirable and it would answer the purposes of debate very much better if we were prepared to discuss both subjects upon the one Resolution and under the usual conditions.

If that be the desire of the Committee, I shall be very glad indeed to deal with the other question and, incidentally, to answer the charge of robbery which was quite unjustly made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I have already explained what the particular Fund is, and I had better add to that explanation, a statement of the financial arrangements which will maintain that Fund in solvency and render it able to pay the additional benefits which are intended. If hon. Members have read the Report of the Government Actuary which has been circulated with the Bill, they will see that there was a surplus as at 31st December, 1924, of £1,424,000 on the Army, Navy and Air Force Insurance Fund, after providing for all liabilities for ordinary benefits, but not for additional benefits. It is there stated that the value of that money is now about £1,500,000, because interest has been added since. It is proposed to transfer, not £1,500,000 but £1,100,000 of that surplus, or, in other words, to leave in that Fund £400,000, and the Government Actuary has advised us that the £400,000 would be sufficient to enable the Fund to bear additional benefits to the average of those which are paid by the approved societies.

In which paragraph of the Report does the Actuary say so?

I thought it was in the Report, but if it is not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman can take it from me that I have been advised by the Government Actuary that £400,000 is sufficient for the purposes I have stated. I thought, however, it was actually set out in the Report.

It may be. Is it in paragraph 17?

By implication it is in paragraph 17—in fact, I think hon. Members will find there a direct statement which substantiates what I have said. I think they will find it stated that, after assigning a sum of £400,000 to the provision of additional benefits, the balance of the surplus is £1,100,000 and that this it is proposed to carry forward to the Exchequer. I can relieve the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject, in any case, because, supposing by any chance a miscalculation has been made, the solvency of the Fund is guaranteed by the Department and always has been so guaranteed. Under the 1911 Act the contribution to be made by the Government Department in respect of certain men is to be a sum sufficient to keep the Fund solvent and this provision has been repeated in the Act of 1924. Section 59 (B) of that Act says:

"The weekly contributions to be made by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council in respect of men of the forces shall be such as may from time to time be required to keep the Fund solvent."

It is an unconditional guarantee by the Government Departments to make weekly contributions sufficient to keep the Fund solvent. Therefore, the whole of the story that is embodied in these two Resolutions is this, that whatever hon. Members opposite may say about other parts of the Economy Bill, this part of the Economy Bill gives a greater benefit to the serving soldiers, sailors and airmen than they had before. It gives them a right, not merely to ordinary benefits, but to additional benefits equal to the average of the friendly society benefits.

The object of this Resolution is to give the soldier the same advantages as the civilian for additional benefits. If that be so, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the additional benefits contemplated are the benefits now given by the best or any approved societies, whether they are also the benefits foreshadowed in the Commission's Report, and, if the latter, whether the £1,100,000 that he is taking away is not money that was contemplated as a surplus for additional benefits?

No. Let me answer the last part of the question first. because it deals with figures and is rather more difficult to follow. The right hon. Gentleman says, "There is a surplus of £1,100,000; was not that intended to be a fund out of which further benefits could be obtainable by the soldier?" No, it was not: and it never was, because under the Act the benefits that the soldier remaining on this Fund was to get were limited to ordinary benefits. There was a specific provision that he should not get additional benefits of any sort at all, and the reason for that was that the Departments were guarantee- ing the Fund. They were not guaranteeing more than ordinary benefits; they were not guaranteeing additional benefits. The ordinary benefits are payable to-day, but what I want to get for the soldier and sailor is something equal to the average of the benefits paid by the approved societies. If they are in good health when they leave the Service, they go to an approved society; if they are in bad health, I do not think the State ought to give them less because their health is bad in the service of the State than they would have got if their health had not been bad in the service of the State, and, consequently, they are going to have benefits equal to the average benefits paid by the approved societies.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether they were specified. No, they are not. They are going to be specified in the regulations which will be made under the Act. Obviously, you cannot specify them in advance. Far from there being any robbery of £1,100,000, that is a pure surplus. It is not available for use for additional or any other benefits. It is there, and if it were not transferred under the Economy Bill, the soldiers would not get it. What would happen to it would be this, that the Departments, instead of contributing 3½d. a week for those who were insured in their service, would make a lower contribution, and gradually the £1,100,000 would be absorbed by lower contributions. None of the serving soldiers, sailors, or airmen would get it at all. All that would happen would be that in future lower contributions would be paid, and it would be gradually absorbed over a series of years. Instead of doing that, we are taking every precaution that the Fund shall be solvent. On our actuary's advice, we are widening the benefits to be given, and transferring the surplus to the Exchequer, which badly needs it, but not as a robbery, because the guarantee of the Government of the solvency of the Fund still remains.

I feel sure the Committee will agree when I say that the right hon. Gentleman has not given an adequate explanation of these two Motions. In fact, he has made the most amazing statement I have ever heard from that Box. He has told the Committee to-day that the Government, while taking ½1,100,000 out of this Fund, are not robbing the Fund at all. If I under- stand English vocabulary, that is simply robbing and nothing else. It cannot be anything else.

Whom does it rob?

You are robbing the Fund and the soldiers and sailors who contribute to it. The points I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman are these: There is a series of Regulations governing this Fund, and one of them refers to the setting up of an advisory committee. I will read the Regulation, so that the right hon. Gentleman might know exactly what I am aiming at. It declares that,

"For the purpose of advising the Minister as to the administration of benefits payable out of the Fund, and as to the admission to benefit of seamen, soldiers, and airmen, there shall he constituted an Advisory Committee."

As far as I understand Regulation 20, the Minister is supposed to ask the advice of that Committee before tampering in any way whatsoever with the Fund. I want to know, in the first place, whether this committee has been set up, and, if so, what is the personnel of the committee, and what is the advice given by the committee to the Minister in respect of this Fund.

I am astonished at the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman. He has tried to make the Committee believe that the soldiers, sailors, and airmen under this new scheme are going to get benefits equal to the average additional benefits, I took him to say, payable by the approved societies. Several of the approved societies, on the second valuation, will be able to pay additional benefits covering five out of the 14 comprising the Schedule. Other approved societies will be absolutely in deficiency. I take it from the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman that what is intended to be done under this scheme is to say: "Deficiencies and surpluses of approved societies will be pooled, and we will strike an average, and then base the additional benefits to be paid from this fund on the average payable by approved societies."

The other question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: The contributions to this Fund for the last year for which figures are available, are as follow: The gross contributions are £35,738, but the total benefits payable from the Fund, according to the last balance-sheet, amounted to £49,000. That, in effect, shows that the Fund disclosed a loss of about £14,000 in one year. If the Fund shows £14,000 lass in one year, and the Government are taking in addition £1,100,000 from the Fund, how is the Fund then going to pay additional benefits on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman? The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman really will not do. He has not told us how many members there are in this Fund. Am I right in stating that this Fund has to provide ultimately for 33,000 men? Am I right also in assuming that when the £1,100,000 is taken from the Fund, there will be £400,000 only left available for additional benefits for these men?

I take it that is the case. Now let us see where we stand. The right hon. Gentleman states, and the Regulation proves in part what he says in this connection, that this Fund does not belong now to the men who served in the last War. This Fund deals exclusively, as I understand, with men of the Regular forces. You must, therefore, divide the men who served in the Army during the last War from the men who are now serving in the Regular forces. There are 33,000 men, I understand, in this Fund. Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to this question? I understood him to say that the Government make themselves responsible for any insolvency which may occur in this Fund. Do I understand that the Fund is going to be treated as if it were an approved society? If so, is it going to be dealt with under one of the Clauses included in the Economy Bill, where, upon the certificate of an actuary submitted to the Ministry of Health and the Treasury, the Government will make good any deficiency in connection with the Fund?

Let me put another question appertaining to that point. What additional benefits is it proposed to pay from this Fund? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health knows a great deal about the number of additional benefits which are contained in the Schedule of the Act of 1911. He knows, too, that Approved Societies, in the main, have adopted not more than three of these additional benefits—dental treatment and appliances, optical treatment and appliances, and surgical appliances. A few approved societies have adopted convalescent homes; others pay contributions to hospitals, voluntary and otherwise. Will those 33,000 men, or that number of them who are dischaged from the Army, automatically come on to the Fund for additional benefits both in cash and in kind, just as if they were members of Approved Societies? The right hon. Gentleman surely ought to have read the Report of the Royal Commission on this subject before he spoke.

I am very glad that it is possible by your ruling, Mr. Hope, to discuss Resolutions 1 and 2 upon this fundamental issue. This question we are discussing to-day is a very important one, indeed, especially to the men who are discharged from the Forces suffering from disease. They are compelled, in fact, if they are well in health, to return to the Approved Society of which they were members before they joined the Forces, but there are hundreds upon hundreds of men discharged from His Majesty's Forces suffering from consumption, and the Government Department declare that the disease from which they are suffering is not attributable to their service with the Regular Forces. Does this proposal of the Government mean that additional benefits in kind which may be paid under this scheme are going to be extended to cover the cases of men suffering from consumption, or are they going to be confined purely and simply to dental, optical and surgical appliances, and so forth?

Let us now see what the Royal Commission say upon the subject. This is their recommendation; but this Government have a habit of taking no notice of recommendations just now. They take no heed at all of the Report of their own Commission. The Royal Commission was composed of persons appointed by the Government some time ago, men and women well versed in National Health Insurance. They know the administration of the scheme from top to bottom, and this is what they say:

"That members of the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund who transfer to an Approved Society on their discharge from the Forces should for the purpose of title to additional benefits, be treated as though they had been members of the Society from the date of their joining the Forces, and that to enable this to be done the transfer values payable out of the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund in respect of such men should be augmented by the estimated share of surplus earned during their period of service."

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that part of the £400,000, to which he has referred is to be handed over to the approved societies who accept men who come out of the Army and who are compelled by Regulations to join an approved society; or is he keeping the whole of the £400,000 to pay additional benefits to men who form this new approved society called the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund Society? The Commission go further and say:

"That, apart from the modifications to which we have referred, no change should be made with regard to the insurance of men serving in the Forces of the Crown."

That is definite enough. The Commission request the Government not to interfere in any way whatsoever with this Fund, and the Commission knew quite well how the Fund was established. They knew the amount of contributions paid by the Government and the men towards the Fund. They knew the exact weekly contributions paid by the men and the Government; and, still, after careful consideration, they came to the conclusion that the Fund should not be disturbed. Yet to-day the Government come forward with a Resolution saying that they propose taking away £1,100,000; and, in order to delude these 33,000 men, they turn round, after stealing £1,100,000 from them, and say, "We are not going to take anything from you; in fact, we are going to give you additional benefits just as if you were members of an approved society." I have never heard anything so hypocritical before. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was in his place. He has been making excuses for the Government in respect of this Economy Bill and has recently issued an edict from the Ministry of Health; and this is what he says:

"A disposable surplus of £9,000,000 is available as a result of the first valuation of Approved Societies, and the still larger disposable surplus "—

How can the hon. Gentleman connect this with an argument relating to the Army and Navy Fund?

I was only using that as an illustration because the Government propose by these two Resolutions to connect the additional benefits they propose to pay under this Fund with the additional benefits payable by approved societies. Now, having used it only as an argument, I will refer to another point I desire to make. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken into account the position of men who were serving in the Great War, and do not in fact fall within the scope of this Fund. I am wondering whether the Government have really taken heed of that point, as there are thousands upon thousands of men who served in the last War, and in respect of whom contributions were paid to this Fund. Many are now thrown on the funds of approved societies. They are receiving nothing at all from Approved Societies, except one shilling a week by way of disablement benefit, and I should have thought, instead of taking £1,100,000 in this way, in order to relieve the taxpayer of his Income Tax, that the Government, which talked so glibly during the War about the rights of men serving His Majesty and all the rest of it, could give that money in order to help these poor fellows, who get so little through approved societies, and so fulfil the glorious promises made during the War.

4.0 P.M.

I want to press the two main questions I have put to the right hon. Gentleman. Have the Government yet appointed the Advisory Committee according to Regulation 20? Can he say, yes or now now? It will help me if he can. I would not be surprised if the Advisory Committee had not been appointed at all. As a matter of fact, even when this Government does appoint a consultative council or advisory committee in this connection, they never take their advice; they just do what they like. That was their attitude with regard to the Consultative Council of the Ministry of Health. They took no account at all of the decisions of that Consultative Council. I take it for granted, as the right hon. Gentleman does not reply, that the Committee has never been appointed. I understand, according to Regulation No. 20, issued in 1924, some representatives on this Advisory Committee were to come from the men themselves in respect of whom contributions are paid, and, after all, these 33,000 men who are serving in the Forces are the people most concerned in this question. They are the people who suffer from the diminution in benefits as a consequence of the proposals of the Government.

I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman comes to argue that these men will not suffer in the least in spite of the fact that over £1,000,000 is taken from their funds. I will try and explain to him what the Government are doing. It is quite true that these men will not suffer any reduction in benefit now, but, if the £1,100,000 remained in the Fund over a period of three or four years, they would then be entitled to benefits which they will not receive if the £1,100,000 is taken away, and we on this side of the House protest against this method of dealing with the accounts of the National Insurance Acts. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be more happy when he stands up at that Box again. I think the Government, or some members of the Government are absolutely sick of the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this connection. I felt, when the Minister of Health was speaking the other day on the Bill, and when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking this afternoon, that they were absolutely unhappy —I do not know whether this is Parliamentary language or not—in doing what I regard as the dirty work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer: because it is nothing more nor less than that. We on this side of the House propose telling the people of the country the whole truth of what is happening in this connection. If the Government will not be frank and will not declare that they are actually depriving these million people of this money—

The hon. Member himself has just stated that there are only 33,000 of them.

But the 33,000 are surely related to the other millions. They are sons of some of the millions. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give the Committee this afternoon very much more details of the proposal of the Government than he has yet done. There are other points in this connection which we shall put later on to-night; and, whenever the Bill comes before the House again, we hope to pursue our opposition to it, because it is unfair and unjust, and it limits definitely the benefits that ought to be paid and promised. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he knows as well as I do that, if you take £1,100,000 from this Fund, you will reduce the benefits of these men that otherwise they would be entitled to receive.

indicated dissent.

Of course, you would. The same foolish argument has been used throughout in connection with the finances of this scheme. One right hon. Gentle man said the other day: "Of course, we are going to take £8,000,000 away from the funds, but we are not going to reduce your benefits." You are not going to reduce the current benefits, but what we protest against is that you are going to reduce the prospective benefits to which these people are entitled and which, in fact, they have been promised. We, on this side of the House, shall protest against the way in which the Government are handling this problem. They are taking away money to which the Treasury is not entitled. They are going to take £1,100,000 from serving soldiers in order to relieve the taxpayers; and, so far as we are concerned, we shall object at every stage to the way in which the Government are performing their ugly tasks.

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has proposed two Resolutions, by one of which the Navy, Army, and Air Forces are to benefit to the extent, we are told, of £3,000 per annum, and by the other of which they are to be deprived of £1,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to draw a nice distinction between what he calls a "transfer" and what other people call "robbery." Why cannot he be honest about it? If he is taking this money away from the soldiers and sailors, why cannot he admit it? After all, they belong to a Service which understands the ordinary meaning of the English language, and they will not be in the least deceived by the refinements of expression used by the right hon. Gentleman. Where does this money, which the right hon. Gentleman is taking, come from? He says that it belongs to nobody. If it belongs to nobody, he is the last person who has a right to transfer it to the Exchequer. This money comes partly from the living and partly from the dead. It is the money, not only of the living but of those who fell in the War, that he is robbing by these Resolutions. The Actuary's report says that this reserve, which he is plundering, has accrued in respect of men who were killed during the War or who died as the result of wounds received or diseases contracted during the War. That is the money that the right hon. Gentleman is taking. He represents a Government which expresses much solicitude for the Service and for ex-service men, and this is one of the methods by which he demonstrates the effectiveness of that solicitude. It is a cruel and a callous thing to choose this moment after the Great War, because the Exchequer is in need, to come down upon a helpless body of men who cannot go on strike as the miners can to defend their rights.

Under the original Act, this money was contributed by the sailors and soldiers themselves. They made a direct contribution under the original Act out of their own pay. It was stopped out of their own pay. Later on, for the purpose of facilitating the administration, the State paid the money directly instead of paying it to them in the form of their weekly emoluments. That is the history of the transaction, and, whichever way you put it, there can be no doubt whatever that this money which comes out of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Votes is the money of the sailors and soldiers and airmen. The right hon. Gentleman says that the money is useless where it is. It was destined to provide maternity benefits, and we cannot use it for any other purpose. Surely, it would have been perfectly simple, if the right hon. Gentleman's Government had cared for the sailors and soldiers, to have provided some other method of expenditure which would have redounded to their advantage. The Government have just reduced the pay of the sailors and soldiers. New entrants are getting a lower rate of pay than those serving under existing contracts. This is a double reduction of their pay, because the right hon. Gentleman is taking from them that to which they are entitled, and, in addition, he is taking away the means by which they keep their families alive.

The sailors and soldiers, as a whole, have never had any advantage from this fund. All they get is £2 when their wives have a child. That sum is paid outright as the fee of tire midwife, or for something else. The sailors and soldiers have many needs which are generally recognised, and, instead of allowing them or their wives or widows to be thrown upon charity, this money could have been used to provide them, as in the case of foreign seamen, with a pension fund to improve their status and to facilitate their passage through life. There are a thousand and one things that the right hon. Gentleman could have done with this fund. He is just reducing the marriage allowance of naval ratings. Could he not have kept the marriage allowance at its present figure rather than take this money away for the benefit of the Exchequer? How is this benefit of £3,000 which comes under the first Resolution to be given to the sailors and soldiers? It is to be given to them at the expense of the approved societies. He is throwing these men on to the funds of the approved societies. There never was a more damnable piece of robbery, not only from the sailors and soldiers—

I think the hon. Gentleman is now getting beyond the line.

It is difficult to find relevant language in which to condemn the action of the right hon. Gentleman. It is useless for him to say that he is taking this £1,000,000 away for their own good. I remember when I at school that whenever the cane was administered to me I was always informed that it was for my own good. I used to be very sceptical about that at the time, but, however much I may have deserved the cane while at school, there is no justification whatever for taking this money away from the sailors, soldiers and airmen who helped us during the War and informing them gladly that it is done for their own good.

I should like to say a few words about this matter before we come to a decision. This is in a different position than even the transaction we discussed at some length before the Recess. That was discontinuing to the extent of £2,800,000 a grant which was annually voted by Parliament. We maintained that that was a breach of a pledge, but this is in a different and a worse position than that transaction. This is taking away an accumulated fund which belongs as much to the people for whom it was designed as any investment belonging to any person in this Kingdom. It is taking away money which belongs to another as much as if you raided the reserve of a bank or the reserve money of a public company. The fact that it has been accumulated in pennies and three-halfpennies makes it worse and not better. If you set aside £150,000 out of the profits of the year to a reserve fund and you build up a great reserve to meet a rainy day for a company, anybody who came and proposed that it should be taken away would be called a robber. That is a word which we have been taught by hon. Gentlemen opposite whenever we have put up the Super-tax. It would be regarded as confiscation. What is the difference between £150,000 voted out of profitable transactions at the end of a year to a reserve and money which has been accumulated out of the pennies and three-halfpennies of sailors and soldiers who have been risking their lives for their country? This is worse. [Interruption.] There is an hon. Gentleman who says that it is a laughing matter. Let him say so in public. He laughs when one refers to the sacrifices of the soldiers and sailors. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] He certainly did.

I smiled at the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

The hon. Gentleman thinks it is very amusing in me to use an argument which says that it is wrong to take away the reserves of a profitable company and to compare that with taking three halfpennies away which have been saved by soldiers and sailors. I say it is the same transaction and that it is infinitely worse. I will give him an argument from one of his own leaders, and I want him, if he will, to laugh at that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the Minister responsible for this transaction, and he is never here to defend it. I remember during the War there was a legend at the front that the soldiers never got anything but plum and apple jam, and that somebody at the base took away the strawberry jam. The gentleman who is intercepting the strawberry jam is not here, and he has left it to a War Office "dug-out" to defend his action. Now I am to point out, not merely for the benefit of this hon. Gentleman who is so amused, but for the benefit of others, that the proposition laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that all this money is in the nature of an investment. This is what he said about it last year:

"In the new Pensions Bill now before Parliament they had one method of multiplying the small property-holder, for, after all, insurance on the contributory system was a very direct and obvious form of thrift and saving."

That is the proposition. The three halfpennies is thrift and saving; it is the creation of a small property, and all the money which has been put in and accumulated to the extent of £1,100,000 is a property which has been saved by those soldiers and sailors, and no one has any right to rob them of their little property. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I am giving them £3,000 a year." £3,000 a year at 5 per cent, is £60,000. He is taking away £1,100,000 and he says: "It is perfectly true that I am taking away that sum of your savings, but I am giving you£60,000 until another Chancellor of the Exchequer comes again and takes it away. We are gentlemen robbers. We do leave at any rate a little behind." He may say that is not robbery. Would he mind explaining it in view of the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these accumulated funds belong just as much to the contributor as any savings or any money which you have invested by your thrift in the bank? What is the difference between them?

That is why I thank this transaction is infinitely worse than any transaction which up to the present we have been criticising and condemning. Surely, as my hon. Friend who has just sat down has pointed out, this is hardly a time to do it. Before the War we owed a good deal to these gallant men, hut since then they have undertaken to defend the honour and safety of this country at the risk of their lives, and they had to face the greatest and most terrible war in history. They have had to face privations and perils, such as no sailors and soldiers in the history of any war have ever had continuously to face. During the Recess I was reading rather an interesting account in a. very brilliant book which has been issued about the fighting in Flanders, written by a soldier.

He says it was not so much the perils to life but it was the privations they endured, which were inconceivable. I come from reading that book to be asked to vote that £1,100,000 of the money which has been saved by those men out of their pennies and three halfpennies should be taken away—money that was accumulated in consequence of the fact that many of them have sacrificed their lives.

It is one of the most discreditable transactions in the history of any Government, and I do hope that the appeal will not be made in vain to many hon. Members and right hon. Members on the other side of the House. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War really has his heart in this transaction. With his usual chivalry, he comes forward to defend it, but I do not believe that in his heart he approves of it. I am sure he thinks it is a mean transaction. It is a foolish one from every point of view. You are dealing with men who, by the very discipline of the Forces, cannot protest. Approved Societies can pass resolutions; they can hold great gatherings during the Easter Recess and protest and send in resolutions; they can go to meetings at East Ham and elsewhere, and protest very effectually, and they can write to Members of Parliament to protest. But the anon we are concerned with cannot do it, under pain of infringing the strict Army Regulations. I think you might leave them out. It is not worth doing. It is not as if the country were in great distress and needed the £1,100,000. It needs nothing more deeply than the loyalty of the gallant men who helped to save its honour, and to save the freedom and independence of the whole world. I beg the Government to reconsider the proposal. Even if they cannot meet us on other things, I ask them for their own honour and the honour of the House of Commons not to proceed with this discreditable transaction.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech which makes me wonder whether he has any knowledge of the proposals of the Government Measure, or any recollection of what he himself put into the National Insurance Bill in 1911. I am not a bit surprised that my friend beside him laughed at the absurdity of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. He was not laughing at his references to the sacrifices of the men in the War, and the right hon. Gentleman knew it, but he chose to turn round upon him and saddle him with a laugh at something which he never was laughing at at all. The right hon. Gentleman says we are robbing the accumulated savings of the soldier.

Yes.

It is untrue. This Fund was compiled by contributions of the soliders' arid sailors' three-halfpence which was deducted from their pay for a few years, but, after that, the Department themselves took upon themselves the full payments, and no deduction was made from the soldiers or sailors or airmen's pay.

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I was just as much in that transaction as he was. There was an arrangement made to increase the soldiers' and sailors' pay, and this was simply taken as part of that transaction, and, since he has been good enough to say I knew a certain thing, then again I say that he knows that when he makes that statement.

No. Let us see what this fund is. Whether this fund is built up from the pennies of the soldiers and sailors, or from the Government Departments, it is, as a matter of fact, built up from the money voted by this House in the Army, Navy and Air Votes. At the time of discharge those men whose health was unimpaired were able to join approved societies and get full benefit, and those men are not affected by anything we are doing in this Bill. The only people who could in any way be affected are the 23,000, not 33,000 who are now there, and those who are being discharged in future with impaired health and who are unable to join friendly societies. They are being discharged at the moment at a rate of about 400 a year. What benefits are they entitled to receive? The men in the forces, discharged, etc., shall be entitled to benefits other than additional benefits at the ordinary rates. That is all they are entitled to at this present moment. The Government Actuary says that, after making all provision for payments under that Section of the Act of Parliament, there is a surplus of £1,500,000.

That surplus is not the result of the savings of the three halfpennies and the pennies. These were only to give maternity benefits, and give the men their right to join approved societies. This fund is accumulated out of Government contributions.

And the men's contributions.

No.

Surely under the Act of 1911 the men contributed 1½d. of their pay?

Up to 1920 that was the ease, but since 1920 it has been paid by the Government Departments out of the funds voted by this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was part of the wages!"] it does not make any difference whether it is deducted from wages or added to the wages.

If the right hon. Gentleman admits that this may be regarded as partly a wages deduction, then the £1,100,000 does not belong to the Government at all.

The right hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. The penny halfpenny contributed was not more than the amount required for the maternity benefit, and for making the man free of the approved societies as at the age of 16, although he joins when he leaves the Army, whether at the age of 26 or 30 or 36.

Where does this surplus come from?

From the Government contribution. Let us take this one step further. Let us assume, for the purpose of argument, that the surplus, if you like, arose out of the men's fund. Under the Act, they are only entitled to benefit. without those additional benefits, at the ordinary rates.

In order to complete the argument. under the Act the Government are not entitled to help themselves to the £1,100,000. They have, therefore, to produce a new Act to give them power to use that money. Why are they taking power to take the money for themselves without making an equitable distribution of that surplus?

I am very glad to answer that. Under the Act as it at present exists the whole of that surplus could be absorbed by the Government without any further sanction from the House at all. It would be absorbed in this way. The Government are now bound to make weekly contributions sufficient to keep the Fund solvent. That is provided in the Act. It would absorb, therefore, the whole of this £1,500,000 by reducing the weekly contribution. That is what would happen supposing this House were to reject the proposals now before it. I hope the House will not reject them for this reason, that, far from robbing the sailors and soldiers and the airmen, we are giving them, not £3,000 a year only, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, but £400,000, which is taken from the £1,500.000 and is set aside—for what purpose? For the purpose of giving additional benefits to which the men are not now entitled. Am I not right in saying that this is a gift to the soldiers, sailors and airmen? Hon. Members will not realise what it is a serving soldier is now entitled to. He is entitled now to ordinary benefits and not to additional benefits. We are now providing that he shall have additional benefits equal to the average of those benefits given by the approved societies, and in order that the Fund shall remain solvent we are giving £400,000 for that purpose. There is £1,100,000 to be transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if it were not now transferred it would be absorbed in the course of the next years by the reduction of the contributions required under the Act.

How can anyone say, as has continuously been said, that some harm is being done to the members of the fighting forces? Quite the contrary. Not only is no harm being done, but a great benefit is being given to them, because they are being put on a par with the average of the approved societies, though for the purposes of prejudice and party advantage hon. Members and right hon. Gentleman opposite do not appear to be ashamed to call this proposal, which they ought to understand, by names which will mislead those who have not the opportunity to study the matter carefully, and I can only regret that the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has joined their ranks.

I can quite understand the heat of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in suggesting that any Member of the House should ever make party capital out of an Insurance Scheme, but I am rather amazed at the exhibition we have had of the new morality of the right hon. Gentleman. He has the morality of the schoolboy who robs the nest, and hopes it will be all right if he puts one egg back. That is one line. The other line we have had is, "Oh, but this is not really robbing the soldiers and sailors, because this Fund does not really belong to anyone, and so we just came along and thought we might take it." That is the second line. Then there is the third plea of saying, "Oh, no; we are not really committing any act of robbery; it is true we are taking the £1,100,000 in order to make up a deficit in our Budget, but we are not robbing anyone except future generations." Future Chancellors of the Exchequer apparently will have to make payments into this Fund year by year from their Budgets in order to make up for the luxury of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being able to balance his Budget by stealing this £1,100,000 at this time.

Let us look at the real facts of the case, because they have been a good deal clouded by the diverse explanations we have had from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. This Fund has been built up out of contributions. I rather like to take the Government Actuary's statement. as to how this Fund has been built up, because I think it is really more straightforward and fuller than that of the right. hon. Gentleman opposite. First of all, we find it has been built up by contributions made by soldiers and sailors. I do not think we need go any more into any of those questions whether it was paid as direct wages or in deductions, or whether it was paid by the Government in lieu of advances in pay. The fact remains it was built up by the contributions of soldiers and sailors. Next we find that this surplus has arisen because of the greater interest than 3 per cent. which has been paid on the Fund. I wonder why the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not go elsewhere and look around and find out other rentiers who have profited by the rise in interest. Our soldiers and sailors are not the only ones. who have profited by this rise in the rate of interest on the Fund. What about the banks and all the other people?

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is getting rather away from his argument.

I will not labour that. I think it is sufficient to indicate the reply to the argument that this advance over three per cent. is a special reason why this should be done. I should like to know why it is wrong that a Fund which belongs to a number of rather impecunious individuals should not have the profit which has come to great numbers of people through the rise in the rate of interest. But there is an offset to that. Take the instance of a sergeant-major who joined the Army before the War, and paid in his pence to this Fund. He paid in his pence, and if they amounted to a pound, that pound was then worth 20s. When he comes to draw his benefit he is only going to get a pound worth 12s. If it is fair to say he should not have the advantage of any advance in the rate of interest, why should he have the disadvantage on the other side by the change in prices. I should have thought that ought to be taken into account.

Let us look into the matter a little further. We find that this Fund was built up by various contributions. There were the contributions of a number of men who joined it for the duration of the War, and therefore contributions were paid, and they afterwards did not come back to insurable employment. They paid that money and it went into the Fund. I do not think those people who paid that money wanted that Fund specially to go to relieve the needs of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who finds himself in difficulties owing to his over-generosity to his wealthy Income Tax payers and Super-tax payers last year. Then a large amount of this Fund was from the reserve values in respect of the men who died in the War. It is an extraordinary thing, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who actually served in the War, collects moneys which became due in respect of those who died in the War and puts them to the benefit for the most part of people who did not take part in the War, but did well out of it. He has not shown that he has any right to take this money for this purpose. He has not shown in the least why he should not use it for some other benefits for the class of people by whom this Fund was accumulated, namely the soldiers and sailors. He has said "If we had left it in, it would only mean a reduction of State contributions." If he can bring in a Bill to take £1,100,000, he could easily produce a Bill by which this money could have been utilised to reduce the amounts to be paid in by the soldiers and sailors of to-day, or have used it to formulate a scheme of additional benefits to the men who come on to the Fund.

I have looked into the Government Actuary's statement, and there is a very heavy incidence of sickness among these men who come on to this Fund. It is obvious because they are not taken by any other society. Although they require additional benefits, they are going to get not even those given by the best societies, but only the general average. And yet these are the men who ought to get something more and who have been paying in for years good money and get post-War money on the exchange when they come out again. Why should there not be additional benefits there? You could easily have made a scheme to give additional benefits to these men so that those who suffer specially from sickness should get it. Why should not that have been done? Whoever has a claim to that Fund, the soldiers and sailors certainly have a better claim to it than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even if this will not do, there are other purposes, and purposes which would have been nearer to the hearts of the men who have actually built up this Fund, because we all know why the surpluses really accumulated.

There have been opinions here and there about the cost of administration having been less, but the real reason why this surplus exists is the late War, because the War killed off numbers of people who would have participated in the Fund. After all, I think we might try to get some kind of idea of what those men would have wished. I doubt if many of them would have voted to give this Chancellor of the Exchequer carte blanche for this £1,100,000. I think they would have voted that something should be done for the men who fought in the War. This £1,000,000 might have been used, if the surplus was lying there as a hen roost ready to be robbed, for some purpose for the permanent benefit of the men who come out of the Army and the Navy, such as their settlement on the land at home or overseas. There would have been something there that could have been done. But no! The Chancellor of the Exchequer has obviously been hunting round to see where he could get hold of some temporary financial assistance, and he found here a Fund piled up by the contributions of men who were not in any way organised, of men who come out of the Army, whose voting strength is not known, and who are therefore a very ready prey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But does he know of no other cases of funds lying in this country which certainly could just as well have been used as this Fund? It is quite clear why this Fund was selected. It was selected because he thought there would not be very much opposition. I think there will be very strong opposition. It is perfectly useless for the right hon. Gentleman to contend that he is not going to do any harm to those men that would not have been done without the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have touched the Fund unless there had been this Bill. The whole purpose of the Bill is to touch this Fund. We want the soldiers and sailors to touch it, and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What he has done here is this: He is bringing in a Bill by which he takes this £1,100,000. and then just to mask it over, he gives a little miserable hit back.

I think those who have said that this is the meanest dodge that even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has produced are right. It is a most extraordinary example of sheer robbery of potential benefits, benefits of a Fund which ought, under any decent interpretation of the reasons for which the Fund was formed, to have been used for the beneficiaries, and the Chancellor tries to take advantage of a technicality to use that Fund for entirely different purposes, and for purposes which would not have been approved by the contributors to the Fund.

Now that all the experts have spoken, there may be an opportunity for those of us who are not experts. I have heard the word "robbery" thrown around the Chamber, which is not supposed to be a dignified term in which to describe the exploits of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they never like to be associated with Robin Hood or gentlemen of that description. They do their robbery in a more scientific way. In 1911 we had explained to us the kind of paradise we should have an opportunity of entering if we only swallowed this great. scheme of National Insurance. The right hon. Gentleman who explained it was an expert then in explaining things to those who did not know, and now he is an expert in trying to fog us, and he is trying to show that the benefits we expected are not going to materialise. The victims of this particular form of robbery are to be the men who were held up to us as great examples of patriotism fighting for their country. They used to be told "Your King and country need you." That was in 1914. But in 1926 they are told "Your King and country want to bleed you by taking your contributions, either directly or indirectly." I cannot understand the quibbling on this point. The Secretary of State for War has told us that these are not direct contributions by the men, because from 1920 onwards the Government have paid them, and, therefore, they are not contributions made directly by the men themselves. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that when the pay of the sailors, soldiers, and airmen was taken into consideration, their contributions to the National Health Insurance was taken into consideration at the same time as part of their pay. He knows that as well as we do, yet. he advances arguments of that character.

Now there is a surplus. Who has produced it? is it the Government or the men? The Government are only accidental for the time being, and they were a very bad accident. We have now £1,100,000 at stake, and that money does not belong to the Government. This is an example of the kind of legislation which I, as a Socialist, would like to introduce on the other side of the House. and on such an occasion when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite come forward with arguments against confiscation, I shall be able to use this proposal as a magnificent example of confiscation by a Parliamentary majority, because the Government are now pinching the money of the poor to save the pockets of the rich. Every Clause in this Bill means that—

We must not discuss the Bill now.

I am discussing the bill We have got to pay. Before we have finished with this Clause we shall discover that the workers will have to foot the bill right through, and no other class is being called upon to make the same sacrifices. Part of this money which is going to be taken to meet the Chancellor's necessity is being taken from the widows and the children of the men who died during the War. The various approved societies and friendly societies gave extended benefits to those who qualified before they joined the Army and many of those men were members of their various societies before the War took place. The best of those men who answered the call of the country were members of the old-established friendly societies and approved societies. Part of this money belongs to them, and they paid it into their societies not so much for their own benefit but for the benefit of those who came after them. This money is now being deliberately taken by the Government. I would like any hon. Member opposite to visit East Ham and endeavour to defend the Government policy in this respect. Let them go into any constituency in London or in England generally and attempt to defend the policy advocated in this so-called Economy Measure.

In my own constituency some 44,000 men volunteered to fight for their country, and after paying into their friendly societies they find that the money which ought. to have been devoted to providing them with increased advantages is being taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says to them, "It is all quite right, wait and see, hope against, hope. We are only putting a little of your money by for the future." The supporters of the Government made much political capital out of a famous Red Letter at the last election, and probably at the next election this will be used as a red herring, and we shall be told that the necessities of the nation demand that the other £300,000 which they have retained will also be required for national purposes, and gradually a much larger inroad will be made on these savings and the workers will have to suffer. This should not be called National Health Insurance but national robbery of the people, who were led to believe that they would benefit by these payments. We are opposing this proposal on behalf of the whole of the workers because the Government seem determined to rob the workers all the time, and this Clause is just as, objectionable to us as any other Clause in the Bill.

I wish the Secretary of State for War to consider the effect that this proposal is going to have on the men in the Army. After all, the chief people who benefit from this scheme and have been in existence since 1911 are the ex-service men, and it seems to me that this money belongs to those men who have subscribed it, although I know the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the contributions to this Fund have come from the State since 1920. May I point out, however, that although the State has been paying the whole contribution since 1020 it is, in effect, part of the men's pay, and there is no reason why this Fund should not have been used for the benefit of very hardly pressed ex-service men. During the late War these men suffered. very much, and many of them were not able to take any part of this benefit. This only emphasises the fact that those who remain ought to get an additional benefit from the existing Fund. Why should not additional benefit he given to the widows of those men? Under the Widows' Pension Scheme the amount is much too small for the needs of the widows and children of the men who died abroad, who are trying to exist on a very small sum. I cannot help wondering why the Government came forward and proposed such a preposterous scheme by which they rob the men who are the very foundation of the State.

These, contributions have been willingly paid by the men in the past and the effect of this Financial Resolution and this Bill will be to undermine the confidence they have in headquarters. I only need to remind the War Minister of the trouble we had in regard to a much smaller point than this on the Rhine where the men who enlisted should have been paid in sterling but they were paid in marks which were continually depreciating, and they suffered severely in this respect. The same kind of thing is being done now. The men have contributed to this fund and this money is now being taken from them. I entirely fail to see how the men can benefit as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman by the taking of money from this fund. If the £400,000 can be used for the benefit of the men, how much more benefit could you confer on the men if you also had the other £1,100,000? It seems to me very wrong that this fund should be taken in order to help the national Exchequer. This money belongs as much to the men as if they had put it into a savings bank; therefore, it seems to me very wrong to take this money in this way. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, will think of another way by which money can be got for the national Exchequer.

There is one point which I think has been overlooked, and it is that there are a great many very hard cases of ex-service men who do not come inside any fund, and they are men who owing to bad health have not been able to get the benefit from this Fund which they ought to have received. Surely this money could have been used to alleviate the sufferings of those men. I could give many examples, especially from the North, of men who are not able to exist on what they are receiving to-day. It seems to me very strange that a Conservative Government should be making a proposal of this kind, and I hope that some of my late colleagues in the Army who are now supporters of the Government will get up and protest against the taking of this money, because it really is a thing that the men will not understand. No matter how often the right hon. Gentleman says lie is going to give them additional benefits, the fact remains that under the Resolution you are taking £1,100,000 from this Fund which has been subscribed by these men from 1911 to 1920, and afterwards by the State, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find it very hard indeed when he tries to justify this action.

I do not remember the House of Commons ever experiencing what has happened this afternoon. We have in power a Government who got their majority largely on the advocacy of economy, and now when these proposals are being considered hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are silent and impotent, and dare not even open their mouths on this question. I wonder what the constituents of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will say when they get a true record placed before them of this afternoon's proceedings? We say deliberately to the other side that this is robbery of the worst kind. We go beyond that, and say that, camouflage it as much as you like, if you were here, dealing with it on its merits, you would say the same as we are saying.

Worse!

I would not say worse, because the language that might be employed might be such as I could not understand. We have stated these cold, hard facts, and we are still waiting to see some supporter of the Government have the courage to get up and say something. I can quite understand certain Members who have not a cat's chance of ever coming back not bothering to say anything, but it is really difficult to appreciate the point of view of those who have. Will the Secretary of State for War answer this specific question, which was put to him by my hon. Friend in the first part of his speech? Ah! I thought that would immediately disturb the right hon. Gentleman. Just let us see. The right hon. Gentleman has the document in his hand. If he will turn to Regulation 20—I see he is getting uncomfortable—

I am certainly comfortable, and I have not the document in my hand.

I shall be delighted to supply you with this one, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has it in front of him. and, if he will turn to Regulation 20, he will see that it says:

"For the purpose of advising the Minister as to the administration of benefits payable out of the Fund, and as to the admission to benefit of seamen, soldiers and airmen under the provisions of paragraph (e).…there shall be constituted an advisory committee, hereinafter called the Advisory Committee, consisting of six members, of whom one shall be appointed by the Minister, one by the Minister of Labour for Northern Ireland, one by the Admiralty, one by the Army Council, one by the Air Council, and one by the Secretary of State for India. The Minister may appoint such person as he thinks fit to be secretary to the Advisory Committee."

There is a lot more.