If hon. Members will look at the Estimates for last year under Item (d) Maintenance and Repairs, they will see that a sum of £10,100 was taken for the restoration of the stonework of this House. Hon. Members who are familiar with Office of Works Estimates probably know that it is customary in the case of building estimates to make a lump sum deduction from the Estimates on account of possible and probable delays which may take place, owing to weather conditions and other circumstances of that kind. If we did not do that, the result would probably be that we should have to surrender votes of money at the end of the year, which I think hon. Members agree is undesirable. On this particular occasion we did not appreciate that we should reach a decision in regard to the Stone to be used and be able to make greater progress in the preparation of the scaffolding for the Central Tower, as has actually been the case. The result is, that we have practically spent the whole of the £10,000 originally voted. Although we have made savings which amount to £2,500, the additional £5,000 is necessary because we have spent the lump sum deduction which we normally make.

I will explain to the Committee what progress has been made. Those hon. Members who are interested in this question, will remember that in answer to a Question some time ago, I explained that it had been decided, after consultation with the Fine Arts Commission and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, that the right stones to use were Clipsham and Ketton and, as far as some of the ashler work is concerned, selected pieces of Anston stone, which is the stone used in the original building. There is not objection to Anston stone if it is used for ashler work, and properly selected and bedded. Some hon. Members have suggested, on more than one occasion, that we ought to repair the House with Portlandstone.

Hear, hear.

That might be quite a goad suggestion from one point of view, because we know that for the London atmosphere Portland stone is probably the most suitable to use; but it is quite a different colour from Anston stone, as any hon. Member can see for himself if he goes into the yard and looks at the colonnade running along to the subway, which is built of Portland stone. If we were to repair the House with Portland stone, the only satisfactory way would be to reface the entire building with Portland stone, but that would mean a prodigious expenditure, which I do not think we could undertake at the present time.

Why not do it with granite?

I ought to point out that in connection with Supplementary Estimates, other than a new service, only the reasons for the increased Estimate should be discussed. It appears to me that if we embark upon a debate as to the merits of Portland stone or granite, or possibly marble, we shall have a vary long discussion really unconnected with the Vote for £5,000.

Yes, but may I suggest that the whole of the Office of Works expenditure for Parliament buildings is in a lump sum, and it may be that too much has been spent on something else, and that that has caused the Supplementary Estimate? Therefore, I hope your ruling will enable us to discuss those other matters which may have been the cause of the Supplementary Estimate being asked for.

That point of Order shows greater ingenuity than candour, but I could not admit that precedent.

Can we discuss any other stone?

Not unless the hon. Member can show that it would not cost more than £5,000.

In that case, I will abide by your ruling and not pursue the question of other possible stones.

Is it not a fact that the reason for this Supplementary Estimate is the choice of stone? Is not the choice of stone something which affects the Supplementary Estimate?

No, Sir. The reason for the Supplementary Estimate is that we came to a decision in regard to the choice of stone at an earlier date than we had expected. It is not the same thing.

Surely, it is relevant under the circumstances?

It is relevant if the hon. Member can prove that it affects the £5,000, and nothing more. He cannot discuss on this Supplementary Estimate what the cost would be for refacing the whole of the Houses of Parliament.

Can we discuss the question of £5,000 worth of stone?

The right hon. Baronet can do that if he desires.

Would it be in order to discuss the decision of the Government to do this particular work? They have not the authority of Parliament to do it. If it is relevant to discuss the use of a particular stone, surely it is relevant to discuss the authority for doing the work.

The hon. Member cannot discuss the reason why the work has been carried on. It has been carried on in the past, and it has involved an extra amount in the Estimate. What I am protesting against is that the whole question of principle and the kind of stone employed, except in so far as it is shown that it is considered within the £5,000, cannot be raised on this Supplementary Estimate.

Would it be in order to suggest that the £5,000 should be spent on Portland stone?

I think that would be just in order.

If I can show that it would be a great saving to use Aberdeen white granite, would that be in order?

If the hon. Member can show that the £5,000 would have been saved by the using of Aberdeen white granite for this particular bit of work, he would be in order.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Gardner) says that we never had the authority of the House. I must contradict that statement. Not more than a year ago I answered a question on the subject, and explained what stone was being used. No protest of any kind was raised. When the Estimates were under discussion last year it was open to the Opposition to put down any particular Vote on any Supply day but no attempt was made to put down the Vote for the Office of Works or the Vote for the Houses of Parliament and, therefore, I am quite right in saying that we have the authority of Parliament to proceed as no considerable body of opposition has been raised to it.

The House was under the impression that the whole question was still in abeyance and that experiments were still being carried out to find out the best stone to be used. That was the general impression of the House, and that was why we did not put any Motion on the Paper.

For my part, I understood that Stancliffe stone would not be used and that experiments were to be made with other stone. I am unaware of any answer given by the Under-Secretary of State to the effect that we should use the stone suggested.

The hon. Member is wrong. I certainly answered a question to that effect. It was a very long answer and caused me a considerable amount of trouble. The point, however, is not relevant, because there was no considerable body of opinion in the House opposed to the policy of the Government. If there had been it was open to them to have raised the question on Supply last year. The decision to use Clipsham and Ketton stone has enabled us to make greater progress with this work, and has resulted in this Supplementary Estimate. It has also resulted in our being able to get on with the repair of the House itself. I have been asked several times why the work on the Central Tower has not been started. Hon. Members will have seen the scaffolding which has been rising recently around the Central Tower. I hope it will be completed by an early date next month. We have also made progress with the work on the south front overlooking the Victoria Tower Gardens, and it is making good progress.

If it is in order I should like to say that this work, which has now begun, will go on for a matter of 10 or 12 years before it can be completed, and, as it will make considerable difference to eventual expenditure whether we go on with a regular ordered procedure or are brought to a stop for one reason or another, the First Commissioner of Works has decided that it is desirable to have an Advisory Committee, who can advise him and both Houses of Parliament as to the way in which the work should be carried out and do their best to try and meet the convenience of both Houses in the matter. He has therefore established a Committee consisting of himself, Mr. Speaker, the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Lord Chancellor, and three private Members of the House, representing each party, and one Peer representing the House of Lords Offices Committee. This Committee will ensure that the convenience of Members is not unduly interfererd with and at the same time that the work makes steady progress. Time will not be unnecessarily wasted, which would result in greater expense.

Has that Committee been appointed?

Yes, Sir.

May we have the names?

I cannot give the name of the Conservative Member because his consent has not been obtained. He is ill with influenza. The Labour representative is the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy) and the Liberal representative is the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir H. Hutchison). I do not think I have anything further to say, but if any hon. Member desires to raise any point I should be pleased to give him an answer.

I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising the matter I desire to bring before the Committee. This is a Vote for the buildings of the Houses of Parliament and I am not sure whether we shall not have to confine ourselves to stone alone. The point I want to raise is the very indifferent way in which the windows in these buildings are cleaned.

I am afraid that I cannot allow a discussion on it on this Vote.

Can you tell me when I shall have an opportunity of discussing the way in which the windows are cleaned?

Yes. The hon. Member has only to approach the proper authorities in his own party with a view to that being discussed on the Vote of Account.

They are as black as soot.

I have not yet been furnished with the answer which the Under-Secretary says authorised the Government to proceed with the work in this stone. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not confusing a conversation he had with me with a question in this House. I did not move a reduction in the Estimates last year because I understood the Government were experimenting with Ketton and Clipsham stone. Ketton stone is known to be of excellent quality and so also is Clipsham stone, and as far as colour is concerned it is the most suitable stone that could be used in this building. The point I want to raise is that the Office of Works has given no evidence to the Committee to show that the present stone that is being used is durable in the London atmosphere.

The hon. Member will pardon rue. I have said that we have the authority of the Scientific and Industrial Research Committee who assured us that this stone is suitable.

You had the assurance of scientists and experts years ago and you see the result to-day. You have had the opinion of select committees and other recommendations and you see the result. This is one of those cases where the scientists have always been at fault and common sense has been disregarded. With regard to Clipsham stone it has not been used in any building sufficiently long to enable one to form a judgment as to whether it can be used with advantage in the London atmosphere, but the present stone which is being used is a soft stone and for that reason it will not stand the London atmosphere. If you start patching with it you will have to keep on patching. When the Government brought forward their programme for patching the Houses of Parliament, I told them that when they had finished they would have to start patching all over again, with the expenditure of many more thousands of pounds. However anxious the Government may be to exercise economy, there are only two ways of facing the problem. One is to spend no more money at all now, and to wait until money is available for tackling the problem properly. The method that the Government have adopted is wasteful and extravagant, and will lead only to further expenditure. There is another point that is all important. The Minister has not assured us that there is any guarantee that the amount of stone necessary is available. The Ketton quarry has been exhausted long years ago, and those who know say that at Clipsham there is not enough stone available for the job. The Government ought to tell the Committee whether or not that is the position. The cloisters outside the House have stood for 700 years, but the stone of the building has not lasted for eighty years.

I would like to reply to the last speaker with regard to the durability of the stone. The Scientific and Industrial Research Committee, who looked into the matter, decided that if the stone is laid in the building in the same way as it lies in the quarry, it will stand. The trouble in the past has been that the stone has been cut and put up in blocks on end, and not in the strata as found in the quarry. So laid it will not last. The experts are satisfied that it would be safer to replace the stone in this building with similar stone, but that it should be laid in the right way.

We have no guarantee that we are not going to make the same mistake as was made when the House was originally built. It is all very well to say that the stones are to be laid as taken from the quarries, but there is no guarantee that at the quarry there has not happened what has happened before, namely, a geological disturbance that has caused fissures in the stone. In the past that has been one of the main causes of the trouble we have had. When this matter was under discussion before, I suggested that we ought to face it in a practical way. As far as architecture is concerned, the buildings here surpass anything that we know of in this country. If we are going to start with a process of patchwork we are not tackling the problem in the right way. It is just as well that we should face the fact that, sooner or later, the whole of the buildings will have to be refaced. There is no, denying that. One has only to go round the buildings, and to make a close inspection—as some of us have had the privilege of doing when the matter was first discussed—and one becomes painfully aware of the fact that no patching, will be successful.

We are starting with the Tower, and putting in certain stone there, not because we are sure of its durability, but simply because the colour is pleasing. There are many other stones of a colour which approaches that of the stone in these buildings. Portland stone has been mentioned before. We know from past experience with London buildings that are made of Portland stone, that in the London atmosphere there is no stone approaching Portland stone for durability. We have had no reason advanced to-day against the use of Portland stone. I think it would have been far better if the First Commissioner of Works had taken Members of the House into his confidence and set up a Committee to consider the advisability of approaching the problem in a practical way, so that whether the work is to go on for 10 years or for 20 years, we would be prepared to do the work thoroughly. We are handing on buildings to generations that are to follow, and it is property that from an architectural point of view is well worth preserving in every way.

In these days no one would be prepared to put in two or three different kinds of stone in a building like this, but that is the sort of thing that has been advocated by the Minister in charge of the Estimate. I hope that the Department will give further consideration to the question and consider the advisability of approaching the problem as it should be approached, that is with a view to having ultimately to reface the whole of the building. The Department, is going to the expense of erecting a scaffold at one end of the building, and is putting in a few stones. A considerable amount of money is being spent on that scaffold, and when it is removed from the South to the North end of the building, for repairs to be effected there, I predict that in the course of 12 or 18 months it will be necessary to o back to the Tower to do more repair work where it was originally started. Such a piecemeal policy ought not to commend itself to the House. I plead with the Department to realise that what will ultimately be necessary is the refacing of the whole building.

I think I shall be obeying your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, in suggesting that, as the Minister has told the House that this Supplementary Estimate of £5,000 becomes necessary owing to a decision having been reached earlier than was anticipated, the decision was reached too quickly and even with unseemly haste, and was a wrong decision, and that the £5,000 ought not to be voted. With much that the last speaker has said, I fully agree. I think it is more than doubtful whether any patching will prove satisfactory. We know that the stones of this building have in the past shown signs of decay a few months or a few years after they were apparently sound. It may be taken as absolutely certain that when this patching has been completed in 12 or 20 years, another patching of a great part of the structure will be necessary. For that reason the only satisfactory way of proceeding would be to tackle the whole problem of refacing. But, even without raising that question, I believe it is a very great mistake to use any of the stones, excellent as they may be in many ways, that have been used. They are all of them stones containing a very large proportion of lime. All of them are suitable enough, even in the atmosphere of London, for use in flat planes, but for the very intricate Gothic work that is necessary in this House, I believe it is certain that no calcareous stones can possibly survive very long.

A day such as to-day, with fog and frost, is and must be destructive to stone containing lime, and stone as soft as any of those which have been suggested. The Anston stone has already decayed and I see no reason to suppose that the Clips-ham and Ketton stone will not decay in the same way. I would ask that reconsideration should he given to the decision, which was very hastily abandoned, to use at any rate for portions of the work a siliceous stone, which cannot possibly be subject to decay to the same extent as limestone is when exposed to the chemical action of the London atmosphere. I quite agree that there are difficulties about the harmonising of the colour but in places where the colour will not show, and where the quality of the stone is of great importance, I suggest that the work should be done in siliceous stone, such as was recommended by the Commission which originally dealt with this matter.

The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Clayton) was interesting when he spoke about the natural lie of the stone. I understood him to indicate that if the stone was laid in the lie of the natural strata, and given the same level in the building, there was less chance of its deterioration, but that if the same stone were placed on edge, lamination would occur and there would be scaling. I should like with all deference to the hon. Member's scientific knowledge, to point out some things which he may not have taken into account. In the municipal buildings of Glasgow a similar problem arose and for 20 years experiments were going on to find out whether or not this question of the natural lie of the stone had anything to do with the question of resistance to the effects of the atmosphere. I take it that what we are fighting against here is the effect of sulphur in the London air and it does not matter whether the stone is laid in its natural lie or the reverse—it is not going to prevent the action of the sulphur. I think the hon. Member for Widnes will agree with that view.

The difficulty of finding out whether a stone is durable or not—apart from long experience—is one on which science has not yet got a full grip. Take the case of hair faults. If you take a stone freshly quarried it may look absolutely solid, just as the stones in this building looked when they were first put into it. But after being under the action of the atmosphere for some time, especially if the atmosphere contains sulphur, faults begin to show themselves in the form of a sponge growth. There is no guarantee in regard to the stone which has been chosen here, as to the absence of what has been found in the stone used previously. Nothing has been said to show that there is any proof, which we could ask anyone to accept, in this respect. In t:, considering the change in the character of stone, especially in a wall, you have to take into account, not only the action of the atmosphere but the weight which the stone is bearing. The character of the stone at the base of a building is quite different from the character of the stone at the top of a building because the latter does not sustain the same pressure. All these things ought to be seriously considered. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury smiles, but I ask him to remember that this is a question of money. We are always crying out that we have no money for the things that really need attention. It is by inattention to details such as I have been mentioning that this Supplementary Estimate is due. All this could have been avoided by attention to details 80 years ago. I am trying to save money and to get at something which will make this building permanent.

We are told that the progress of the restoration of the stonework has been greater than was anticipated. We have not been told what has caused this great change from advancing two steps at a time to advancing four steps at a time. Why has this progress been possible? Has it been found by experience that taking out the defective stone and replacing it with the other stone, is easier than was expected? Has some better and cheaper method of scaffolding been found, or has it been found possible to ascertain, by tapping the stones, those which require to be replaced and those which are sound? With regard to the turrets, I would like to know if this stone is to be used for replacing those turrets which have been removed? If these turrets are to be carved like the existing turrets, the argument of the hon. Member for Widnes fails absolutely. If you are going to have perforated turrets like those which now appear on the top of the building, you cannot carve them without having the stones placed on the vertical. Consequently, the hon. Member for Widnes, with all his scientific experience, cannot give any guarantee that this stone—which must be placed on edge if we are going to have these turrets—is not going to scale just the same as any other kind of stone under the action of the sulphur. The question of money is a very serious consideration, especially with a Government of the type which we have in charge. It is always lack of attention at the foundation of things which leads to these Supplementary Estimates. How much better would it be if we could say that this building differed from the present Government in that it was not decaying?

That might have been said last year when the Estimate was first brought in.

While the gaps were very wide last year, it is this year that pieces are beginning to fall.

I would like to ask if, in connection with this Supplementary Estimate, any consideration has been given to the question of treating the surface of the stone. Does this expenditure include any treatment of the surface of the stone with preservatives instead of replacing the stone? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to reply to give a little further detail as to how the economies amounting to £2,500 have been effected.

I wish to raise the question of the selection of the stone. I am assuming that the Office of Works have finally decided what stone they are going to use, and I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that when this fabric was being erected we had about the first known labour troubles as far as building is concerned. The builders were treated badly and we had successful strikes. When the stone was being quarried it was quarried at piecework rates. Therefore, the only object of the men was to get the stone out in blocks and to get paid for the largest quantity possible. One of the interests I have in life is to ramble over our ancient buildings. I have been in scores of old churches, I have explored nearly every cathedral in England, and I have been over the vaults of one or two of the naves, but I have never seen any of our old fabrics which have the stone so shamefully chosen as in this fabric.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie), with his knowledge of scientific matters, has told us that many of the faults, when stone is quarried, are hidden. I assume that he means that they are hidden from the ordinary observer, but I suggest that the expert quarryman will recognise those faults when he sees them, and I would suggest to the Office of Works that, instead of trying to get the stone cheap by allowing the men to be employed on piece work, so that their only object, and probably the only object of the owners of the quarry as well, is to get as much stone out as they can, regardless of quality, they should go back to the same way that the mediaeval builders used and send men to quarry stone with instructions to give us the very best stone and reject all stone that has any indication of faults. Let them exercise the same loving care over each block of stone as the mediaeval builders did, and we shall have a fabric which, in succeeding generations when we are gone, will be found to have stood the test of time. If we do not do this, I am sure we shall have the same trouble a few years hence as we are having to-day.

I do not know whether I should be in order in attempting to answer all the questions that have been put to me, but I would like to reply in particular to the question which the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner) put. I made a mistake when I said that I answered a question on this subject a year ago. As a matter of fact, I have answered a number of questions on this subject, going back for more than a year, but the actual decision was given last November when, in answer to, I think, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power), I explained that the First Commissioner had definitely come to the decision, in repairing this House, to draw the stone from Clipsham and Ketton quarries and that Anston stone would also be used in certain positions. No supplementary question was put to me on that question, and nobody has ever raised a question since, nor, either on the Consolidated Fund Bill or on any other occasion, has the matter ever been raised. Therefore, I think I was right in assuming that the House was satisfied with that decision.

I suggest that when the Estimate was originally before this House, there was an understanding given to the House that every consideration would be given, before this work was proceeded with, that the best possible stone would be selected, and the House, if I sensed it correctly, was under the impression that, a decision having been arrived at, the matter would be brought before this House before the work was proceeded with. Rightly or wrongly, that was my impression of the Debate when the Estimate was passed.

The hon. Member is referring to a matter of two or three years back. This Estimate was not discussed last year at all, and I think it Las not been discussed for two or three years. I certainly do not agree that it was the decision that nothing should be done until the actual Estimate had been discussed. I think it was the decision that nothing should be done until a question had been put in the House and the feeling had been expressed as to whether or not the House agreed. It is frequently the custom to get the sense of the House by getting a question put and judging from the way in which the answer is received whether or not the House agrees. Frequently that is done. With regard to the other point that has been put, I would like to stress the point that the First Commissioner must be guided by his technical advisers. In this matter his technical advisers are the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the principal architect, and it was their opinion, after lengthy tests, that Clipsham and Ketton stone was suitable for this purpose. I understand there is sufficient stone in the quarries to serve the purpose for which we require it. If that is the decision, I think the First Commissioner must naturally be guided by it.

You do not yet know the quantity that will be necessary.

Roughly speaking, we do know what it is. Therefore, I do not think it can be suggested that the Minister has not taken the best advice. He has taken the only possible advice that he can reasonably take, and he has been guided by that advice and has acted on it.

I hope we shall reverse it.

It would mean the most prodigious expenditure entirely to reface this House with a new stone altogether, which is in no way in keeping with the existing stone, and for these reasons I hope the Committee will pass the Estimate.

Is there not an easy way out of this difficulty? I once heard it said that on any subject under the sun you could find an expert in this House, and I am quite sure that there is a large number of Members who have come here this morning without the least idea what it is all about, and who are about as wise on the merits of the stone now as they were before. But the fact remains that the Debate has already shown that there are hon. Members who take the keenest interest in the subject, to the general advantage of the community, and the position at this moment is that the expert advice on that side agrees with the Minister and his technical advisers, but that expert advice does not square with the practical and expert advice on this side. The difference is that an impartial observer, listening to the Debate, would be bound to drop down on this side, because we have got expert advice as well as practical knowledge.

That being so, while I quite see the difficulty of any attempt to interfere with the money already spent, could not the Minister, in order to bring that peaceful, Friday afternoon atmosphere into the Debate, get up and say, "I came down to the House this morning entirely ignorant of the subject—in other words, in the condition of most Ministers—but, having heard the advice given, I propose to benefit by the experience of the Opposition, and I will go further into this matter and get additional advice and assistance." I will pledge, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that they will give to the Government, gratis, all their knowledge and experience, and with that combined knowledge surely the country will benefit. Let the Government give further consideration to the technical difficulties in regard to this stone, where they should get it from, how they should get it, how it ought to be faced, and so on. Indeed, I want to say that I am somewhat disturbed as to whether this stone comes by road or rail, and I can quite conceive that perhaps most of this damage has arisen because it has been coming here by road. All these are practical matters which might reasonably be reconsidered, with a view to getting hold of all this Parliamentary experience in the matter.

May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to give some answer to the points which have been raised? We have had no information yet as to why the decision has been arrived at not to use siliceous stone from Derbyshire, lie cannot ride off on the advice of his experts. His experts advised him, and he tore up their advice and took outside advice. I think the Committee is entitled to know the reason for the decision of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department.

I should have thought we might have had some scientific advice this morning. Reference has been made to people having knowledge and people having none. There is always plenty of flatulent phrases in this House, and when it comes down to hard facts, of course there is a sneer, but it is better to have something in your head than an empty head. This is not a matter of which to make fun. The maintenance of this building is a very serious matter, and I hope the hon. and gallant Member in charge will tell us whether the scientific committee has gone into the matter of whether stone laid vertically or at an angle prevents it from being attacked by the sulphur in the atmosphere.

Really the answer e have received is not satisfactory. When this topic came before Parliament we had an excellent book prepared with an estimate. The First Commissioner has revised his decision and there is no estimate now of the total cost. I am afraid that this Vote will go through without protest, and that the Government will continue on the lines they have adopted. I am fully aware that the Fine Arts Commission turned down the stone that was recommended. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that we cannot afford the sum necessary to replace the stone. There is only one way of dealing with this job. I am sure if building experts—I am not talking about scientific experts—were asked, they would say that the proper way would be to begin it all over again, and replace the present stone with stone known to be durable. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to ask the Committee to pass this Vote in the circumstances.

Derbyshire stone was turned down because it turns a dead black colour. We showed in the courtyard of this building a specimen of this stone to show how it did turn, and it was because of the colouring that the Fine Arts Commission refused to agree to its use. For that reason Stancliffe stone was turned down. An estimate has been made but it is early yet for us to consider whether the cost for this building is going to be exactly within the Estimate or not. I can only give my hon. Friend the assurance that if the Committee passes this Supplementary Estimate to-day obviously the First Commissioner will not immediately decide the whole question. We are experimenting in this matter as much as anyone else. We have to try to learn as we go along, and we can only learn by experience. When we have done the two bays of the south front we shall have more experience but after all those are small bits corn-pared with what we have to do.

rose—

I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt. If they wish to raise further points they must do so later.

I will ask hon. Member, to realise that this ƒ5,000 is not to do with the actual stone work of the Central Tower. We cannot repair until we have put up the scaffolding and made our survey, but before making our survey we must put up our scaffolding. Having done that, we shall be able to, decide perhaps what the cost of the Central Tower is going to be, and we shall have experience on the south front and be able to judge what this stone looks, like when completed.

May we take it, then, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in a position to say now that before further expenditure is incurred in the direction he has indicated, Parliament will have another opportunity of expressing an opinion on this subject?

Parliament will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on this subject on the Office of Works Estimate, which is generally put down at the time of moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, early in the financial year before any expenditure can be incurred. If the House desires, I can quite well arrange for this Estimate to be put down early.

And we may take it that further expenditure will not be incurred before then?

It cannot be without the sanction of Parliament.

The Committee has been informed that it has been decided that preparations are already being made for the use of this particular kind of stone?

At two places on the south front, as an experiment.

This is far too serious for anyone to be joking. Here is public money being expended, and, as an experiment, we are going to put in two different kinds of stone, because the colour blends with that of the existing stone, and not because we are persuaded of the durability. Before anything further is done, the whole matter ought to be reviewed by this House and thoroughly discussed. The advice of the experts is being turned down in connection with one type of stone for which the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has pleaded. It is quite possible that, in the light of existing knowledge, we should turn down even this particular type of stone, because some of us are persuaded that there is one type of stone which alone, as the result of practical experience, can be used for this work. If we repair one portion, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested, in Clipsham stone, we may feel ultimately that money has been inadvisably spent, in so far as we have to review the whole problem and get a stone of different colour in order to get durability. I hope that this matter will be reconsidered before we spend any more money in this direction.

Has this Estimate anything to do with preserving the face of the fabric?

No, it has nothing to do with that.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what he means by experimenting with this new stone?

I have tried to explain that to repair a building of this size is something which stands by itself, and that therefore we must to some extent experiment and judge by results as we go along. Hon. Members are wrong in thinking that we have no experience of Ketton stone. The South African Committee Room is of Ketton; and Clipsham and Ketton are very similar. To suggest that we are working in the dark is to suggest something which is inaccurate, as we are taking the advice of the Department of Scientific Research who know as much as hon. Members opposite.

The additional expenditure on the Colonial Office Vote is due to two main causes. It is due, in the first place, to the increased effort which we are making to bring the Department itself in touch with the Colonies and the services outside, both by encouraging individual members of the Office to visit the Colonies as secretaries to commissions, and by attaching members of the Colonial service temporarily to the Colonial Office. Last year members of the staff of the Colonial Office were attached to the commission for closer union in East Africa, to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his visit to the eastern Colonies and Java, to the visit undertaken by the permanent Under-Secretary of State, Sir Samuel Wilson, to the West African Colonies; also the head of the Appointments Department of the Colonial Office attended the forestry conference in Australia as representing the Colonial forestry services and discussed with local education authorities and Governments in Australia and New Zealand arrangements for recruiting for the Colonial services. The expenditure in these directions accounts for an extra total of £1,700.

The other main item has been due to the reorganisation of the Office as a result of the Colonial Office Reorganisation Committee which reported in June last. The General Department of the Office has been greatly strengthened, and a great deal of routine work which used to be done by higher grade officials has been devolved from their shoulders on to clerical officers, greatly to the increase in the general efficiency of the Office. The strengthening of the clerical staff of the Office has been responsible for an increased expenditure of over £2,000. Against these increases there has been some saving in connection with the cost of living bonus and the temporary non-filling of one or two posts, leaving a net increase of nearly £1,500.

Lord Onslow has been appointed Paymaster-General for the purpose of helping in the Debates while the Local Government Bill is being dealt with in the other House. This Supplementary Estimate is presented to the Committee because the post, which does not normally involve very substantial duties, has been shown in the Estimates as unpaid. Therefore it is necessary to lay this Estimate on the Table.

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

This is the most amazing Estimate which has come before the Committee for a long time. A few years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in announcing his Budget, proclaimed to the country in reply to pressure from his own side, and from outside the House, that as further evidence of their economy campaign the Government proposed to abolish two Ministries, the Department of Overseas Trade and the Ministry of Transport. Questions were put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether this proposal had received careful consideration, and whether he himself was satisfied that there was no further use for these Ministries, and the answer was, "Not only is it my view, but it is the considered view of the Cabinet." Since then nothing has happened. The Ministries are still in existence. The position of Paymaster-General was in existence at that time, but it was an unpaid position. It is an appointment which has been used by various Governments for various purposes. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health nods his head as acquiescing in that statement, but I have known it used for different purposes than those which, I think, he has in mind. I remember that it has been said that this was an easy portfolio, to be held by someone who could be a sort of Jack-of-all-trades.

The curious position, however, is that the Government, after having announced their intention to abolish two Ministerial positions, but having failed to do so, have now, towards the end of their life, decided that there is a new job for the occupant of the position of Paymaster-General, and that the position is now to be made a salaried one, though only temporarily and for one specific purpose. They have had to take this course, it seems, because there is no one in the other House who is capable of defending the Government. There can be no other explanation. The only object of making this a salaried position is that the Paymaster-General is to conduct the de-rating Bill through the other House. Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say that every effort was made to get someone in the other House to support the Bill, and are we to understand that there were no Ministers in the other House capable of dealing with it; or is the explanation that they all chucked up the job f At all events, we certainly do not accept the explanation which has been put forward.

We say that it is contrary to all the promises which have been made by the Government that at the end of their life they should come along with this proposal instead of abolishing Ministries and practising economy. Hitherto Conservative Governments have always been able to rely upon their friends in the other place taking up the required attitude towards any Measure, but now they have reached the stage where they have to pay someone to defend them there. We sympathise with them in their difficulty. I can quite understand that there are a number of Noble Peers who would refuse to touch this Bill. But while we can understand that reluctance, it is our duty to draw public attention to the fact that instead of abolishing Ministries the Government are creating this paid position for no other reason than to defend a Bill which nobody in the other place, I assume cares to touch.

I have, much pleasure in supporting the reduction of this Vote. In doing so, I would say that I can understand the desirability of the person who may be chosen to defend the Local Government Bill in the House of Lords being paid a considerable sum. I think there are few people who would care to get up and defend by real argument and in a discussion this ill-founded, ramshackle pro- posal, which is, unfortunately, nearing the end of its career in this House. I have not noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has become thin and anaemic as the result of his attempt to defend the Bill here; but in another place it is quite possible that the defence will have to be conducted on sounder lines. In this House a great part of the Bill has never been discussed at all, and where inconvenient matters were likely to arise, it has been easy to have them brushed aside until the Guillotine fell. In another place it will be necessary to tackle each part of the Bill as it, comes along. For instance, the defence of the formula, which has never been made here, will have to be undertaken in another place; and perhaps an attempt will be made there to explain why the unemployed woman should count as only one-tenth of an unemployed man.

(Mr. Dennis Herbert): I hope the hon. Member will resist the temptation to make a Third Reading speech about that Bill.

I am quite aware that it would be improper for me to proceed at any length with my argument, which I was only touching on in order to illustrate the task which is being set to a Noble Lord in another place in defending this Bill. I was trying to ascertain how this salary would be earned. We are confronted with an attempt to do something which is somewhat new, that is to pay a man on piece-work for defending a Government Measure. It is one of the general methods adopted in this country that a salary should be paid to a Minister for looking after his Department and conducting the Debates in one of the chambers of the Legislature. Here we are specifying that certain work must he done for which a payment is to be made, and we seem to be getting down to the position of a lawyer's office. We are all familiar with the sort of letter one gets from a lawyer containing a long bill which may run something like this:

"Writing letter, 3s. 6d.

Calling upon you, £1."

And so on. It seems to me that this proposal is based on something of that kind. I notice that two months have elapsed since this salary began. So far there has been no defence of this particular Measure in the House of Lords, although £250 salary has been incurred since the 17th December. I will use a colloquialism, and suggest that an account might be made out as follows:

"To mugging up the Bill, £50.

To reading the speeches of the Minister of Health, £40.

To reading the speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, £20.

To reading speeches of Members of the Opposition, £150.

To inquiring what are the real answers to the speeches of the Opposition, £50."

Now I come to the actual defence of the Measure in another place. I suppose in that case it will be so much a day whether the Bill comes on for discussion or not, so much for getting up, and so much for each speech made. Of course, these payments will continue until the Bill passes through the House of Lords and receives the Royal Assent, and that means that the longer the Bill is delayed the larger will be the salary paid to this gentleman. Hon. Members opposite are fond of saying that in some trade unions it is customary for the workmen to go slowly in order that a job may be protracted. If this is the way the Government are going to deal with this matter, then they may be open to the charge that they are giving a salary, not for genuine services to the country, but simply for defending a particular Bill in a particular place.

Coming down to the more serious side of the question, I would like to ask: Is not this new procedure rather a scandal, and is it not a rather curious criticism of the friends of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in another place. If anyone sitting on this side of the House had got up and said to the Government: "You have such a contemptible lot in another place that you cannot trust a single one of them to defend this particular Bill," that would have been called an insult, and probably the hon. Member who made such a statement would have been called upon to withdraw it. Although hon. Members opposite are not making that statement in words, that is really what they are doing by this proposal. Without any doubt, they are practically saying that there is not a single member of the Government in another place capable of defending this Bill, and therefore we have to find a man and fee him at the rate of £125 a month either because there is no other man competent in another place or because this Bill is such an extraordinary piece of legislation that we must have a man specially for this purpose.

This proposal entails many reflections. The first is: What is going to accrue to the present Paymaster-General? We know of a Paymaster-General in the eighteenth century who made a profit of over £1,000,000. This Vote for a salary of £1,500 is not only a reflection upon the methods of the Paymaster-General, but it is a double reflection upon the Conservative personnel in the House of Lords. This kind of thing would not have been possible if Lord Birkenhead had not flown to the City, think Lord Birkenhead's criticism about his colleagues and first-class brains is borne out by this Estimate. We have had this Bill explained and defended in this House, first of all by a Cabinet Minister, and then by a potential Cabinet Minister, and yet in the House of Lords a minor member of the Government is considered sufficient to defend it. The Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary have had the assistance, not of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—they have done without him—but also the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Agriculture, and various other Ministers affected by the Bill. If the Government had desired to be economical, they might have sent the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to the House of Lords as the Marquess of Woolwich, and then I am sure the Bill would have been fully explained. If the Paymaster-General in the House of Lords is capable of understanding and explaining 127 complicated Clauses and 12 Schedules, it seems to me that £1,500 cannot be called an extravagant salary. I cannot take the serious view of this question which has been taken by those sitting on the Treasury Bench. This money might be saved by sending the Parliamentary Secretary to the House of Lords to defend this Measure.

I am hardly surprised that the easy method of disposing of people which the Liberal party has adopted has not commended itself to the Government.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), that the first thing the Labour Government did was to create five Peers, and to do that they were obliged to take men who had left the Liberal party? I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, or the Government, should go outside their own ranks to bestow honours, but I am suggesting that they should select, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to do the job to which he has given many months of hard work in this House, and in regard to which he has displayed such great ability. I think the Paymaster-General will find before he gets this Bill through another place that he will need some assistance in explaining to the other Chamber the complicated details of this pantechnicon of a Measure.

I only want to put one further point before the Committee. The work that is going to be done by the Paymaster-General will certainly be a great deal more adequate and less remunerative than that of his predecessors in this office two centuries ago. One may feel, also, that it will be at least equal in responsibility to the work of the two Ministers who together have been so ably conducting the Bill through the House of Commons. It must be recognised by the Committee that this is no passing requirement. The present payment, apparently, is simply to last for three and a half months, namely, to the end of March, but I suggest that there is an abiding need for this requirement, and that the need for an increase rather than a reduction is strongly supported by the precedent of the other Ministries which, at the present time are able to indulge in one Minister and two Under-Secretaries, or an Under-Secretary and a Financial Secretary, a practice which has already been recognised from time immemorial. Both the War Office and the Admiralty are thus privileged to have two Ministers of the rank of Under-Secretary, one of whom sits in this House and one in the other House.

It is a very useful provision, and it is one that seems to me to be required above all for the complicated and extraordinarily important work of the Min- istry of Health. If there is to be economy, as many of us wish there could be, in these as in other matters, I should have thought that there was a sufficient case for investigation as to whether this should not be made permanent, perhaps by reducing the number of Under-Secretaries at the War Office and at the Admiralty, and, instead, appointing one to represent the Ministry of Health. With that idea before me, I naturally support strongly this proposal, in view of the extremely important work that it represents at the present time in the Upper House, and accordingly, I shall oppose the Amendment.

There is so much unrecognised talent on the back benches opposite that I hope the Chief Whip has taken note of the plaintive and subtle support that he will get if he will create new Under-Secretaryships. If he will do that, I am perfectly certain that he will be able to constrain some of his followers to undertake the duties. With regard to this Vote, I should like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us whether it is intended that the office of Paymaster-General shall become a permanently paid post, or whether the salary is to terminate at the end of the proceedings on the Local Government Bill? [Interruption.] I do not think that we want any help from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health; the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is quite capable of answering my question, and I hope he will do so, because I do not want to take up the time of the Committee if the criticism is unjustified. May I ask him, is it proposed that the salary shall terminate with these duties, or that it shall persist? There does not seem to be any answer.

The other day there was a Debate in the House of Lords, in the course of which a question was put as to how many days would be required for the Bill. The Leader of the House said that a day or two would be required for the Second Reading, and a day or two for the Committee stage. If that be so, it seems to me that this sum of £437 is a substantial sum to pay to any Minister for defending a Bill in any House for only two or three days, especially when there are so many Ministers in the other House who presumably, within the limits of the leisure permitted to them by their existing offices, could take charge of Government business. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury some further questions, and perhaps he would be good enough to indicate his assent or dissent by a gesture, because I have not been able to ascertain how many of these Noble Lords are paid and how many are not paid. I do not know whether there is any return on the subject, but we know of their existence, and these questions are often asked. Of the Noble Lords in the Upper House representing the Government at present, there is, first of all, the Lord Privy Seal. There are no duties attached to that office; may I ask whether he is a paid official? He is, of course, the Leader of the House, Lord Salisbury.

That is rather important.

Of course, but there are no duties attached to the office of Lord Privy Seal. Then there is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Since the return of the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Duchy has no duties to perform at the Foreign Office. Is he paid? He is a very capable defender of any Government Measure; would not he be available for this work? Then the Ministry of Agriculture is represented in the other House by a Noble Lord. Is he paid? Let me turn to other Noble Lords who seem to have even more leisure. There is the Lord Chamberlain. Could not he spare time for the four days required for this Bill? Then there is the Lord Steward. I do not know what onerous duties he performs it connection with his stewardship, but it may be supposed that he could pare an hour or two to take charge of the Measure. Ministers in this House who represent the Royal Household do perform arduous duties as Whips; why should not some of these Noble Lords defend these Bills if they receive salaries? Does the Lord Steward receive a salary? Perhaps the Financial Secretary can tell me. I am assuming that they all receive salaries; if there are any who do not, perhaps he will correct me. Otherwise, a substantial aggregate of money is being paid for merely ornamental duties in the other House.

There is the Master of the Horse. Why should he not do something? There are also other Noble Lords who would be eminently suited for this job, namely, Lords in Waiting, because they also serve. Then there is the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms. Is he paid, and why should not he do a job of this sort? Then, again, there is a Noble Lord whose title I have not had time to write down—the Captain of the King's Bodyguard of Yeomen of the Guard. I am assuming, for lack of contradiction, that all of these Noble Lords are in receipt of salaries, which amount in the aggregate to tens of thousands of pounds every year, and yet it is necessary to revert, as was said by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), to the practice of Lord Holland—I wonder that they did not go back to Sir Robert Walpole—and distribute these little titbits to supplement the resources of supporters of the Government. Could we not have an ex-Lord Chancellor who now earns a modicum by writing advertisements for foreign motor cars? I do suggest that, apart from its being a great joke, which it certainly is, it is a little bit of a scandal, and deserves some defence from the Government Benches.

I think that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. W. Benn), when he reads his speech, will think that, however amusing it may have been, his violent criticism of the other House is not quite worthy of him. There is one question which strikes me as requiring an answer from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and that is as to whether this Supplementary Vote involves an extra sum of £437, or whether it is merely a matter of accounting. It seems to me quite clear that it would be unfair that any Noble Lord holding office in one Department of the Government, who is asked to undertake a great deal more work, should be expected automatically for that reason to drop the salary which he has hitherto been enjoying. One understands something of accounting matters at the War Office, and it is quite possible that, in order to carry on the salary which the Noble Lord is to enjoy, an Estimate of this kind is required, although the net expenditure of the taxpayer is not in- creased. If we could have some consolation of that kind, we should be very glad.

I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is going to reply, because this is rather a grave constitutional question, that the Government should be guilty of what is really a species of political corruption in giving special payment to a Noble Lord to do what they consider to be an ex tremely difficult bit of work for them. In addition to the salaried Lords, there are about 600 Peers who are supporters of the Government, and amongst them not one is to be found who would undertake this job and support the Government in a dilemma, although it was only for three or four days that they had to de it. The very sum specified in the Estimate rather savours of some bargain with the Noble Lord in question. It looks as though he wanted a little more for the job and he was cut down by the Treasury. At any rate, this will go out to the country as an instance of the extraordinary pass to which the Government have been brought and the methods they adopt at the last moment in a reckless way in order to carry them just to the end. The question we want an answer to has been asked more than once: whether this is a terminable sum of money, whether it is only given for this particular job and will terminate in the sum put down in the Estimate, or whether it is intended that the Paymaster-General shall be a salaried official.

The salary is for the specific purpose we are now discussing.

Does that mean that the salary will terminate on the day the Bill passes, or is it intended to continue for some period beyond the life of the discussion of the Bill?

The salary is allocated to the Noble Lord who has been appointed for the purpose of assisting in the Debates on the Bill in the other House. When the duties connected with this matter terminate, no doubt the Noble Lord's salary will terminate. Underlying the pleasant irony of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the good-natured speeches on the other side, there was this suggestion, that no other Minister in the other House would accept this duty. Let us get down to the real facts. Lord Onslow has special specific knowledge and long-standing experience about these matters.

Why does he not serve his country?

He has served his country and he is still serving it. Up to the time when he was asked to take on this duty, he was Under-Secretary of State for War, and he surrendered his salary by taking over the position of Paymaster-General. For more than two years, from 1921 to 1923, he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. He, therefore, has very considerable specific knowledge of local government and, further, he has been and still is, Chairman of the Royal Commission on Local Government. There are certain points embodied in the Bill which have arisen from recommendations of the Royal Commission and its Chairman, Lord Onslow himself, will be able to give such assistance as may be asked for about these points. Someone talked about corrupt bargains. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman used that expression. In 1916, the right hon. Gentleman the present Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) who was then Paymaster-General, was appointed, very properly and usefully, Labour adviser to the Government. A salary was then allocated to his Office of Paymaster. I make no hostile comment about it, let us be just and fair. If a man is doing a duty, he should be paid for it. When another man was doing a duty he was paid for it. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley was appointed, the salary was allocated not at £1,500 a year but at the rate of £2,000 a year.

We are entitled to know exactly the terms of this appointment in the matter of the termination of the salary. The hon. Gentleman says, no doubt this and no doubt that, but no doubts are not good enough. Here is a payment at the rate of £1,500 a year. What period is it for? Is it going to terminate when the Bill is through another place, is it going to terminate on 31st March or is it going on as long as the Government can go on, which is next May, when another Government will succeed it?

I can answer that specifically. When the duties terminate, the pay will terminate. He will do certain duties, and it is only right that he should be paid while he is doing them.

Will the duties terminate with the passage of the Bill or will they go on after its passage through the other place, and possibly after its passage into law?

The Prime Minister gave an answer on 10th December. He said:

"It has been decided, as a strictly temporary measure, to attach a salary of £1,500 per annum to the office of His Majesty's Paymaster-General. A Supplementary Estimate will be presented in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1928; cols. 1700–1; Vol. 223.]

That is the position.

That was a perfectly proper answer at the time but now, on the Supplementary Estimate, we are entitled to know exactly when the salary will terminate, and the Financial Secretary cannot tell us. It is rather an abuse of the principles of the House that we are to pass this Vote and are not to be told what the word "temporary" means. "Temporary" may be all right in the original statement, but when the Supplementary Estimate is before us we ought to know precisely what it means, and the hon. Gentleman cannot tell us.

On the question of termination I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be afraid that the precedent of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley will be followed in this case. If there is any question of termination, perhaps he will consult with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). As far is I remember, on that occasion the termination took place in a rather sudden fashion, and it would be an unfortunate thing if that should be held to be a precedent. At any rate, I think possibly we may rest assured that when the actual work for which this Noble Lord is appointed comes to a conclusion, he will also vacate the office for which we are now voting this money.

I should not have risen but for the reference of the Finan- cial Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson). I would remind the Committee that the two cases are not parallel. Everyone knows that the right hon. Member for Burnley had to earn his living —[Interruption.] That is nothing to laugh about. If he was applying his whole time to the services of the country, it was quite right that the country should remunerate him, but in this case the Noble Lord in question is in a different category. [HON MEMBERS: "Why?"] For this reason. He is being paid for a specific job which has never been paid for before on these lines in the history of this Parliament. The nobility serves under the motto—I am afraid my Latin will not allow me to pronounce it properly in that language—"Rank has its obligations." I have always been impressed with that. We have always been told by the party opposite that the necessity for a Second Chamber was to prevent hasty legislation. No one will deny that the Local Government Bill has been hasty legislation. There never has been more hasty legislation in the memory of man and yet, apparently, the Government had to go hawking the job round the other Chamber in order to get somebody to take it on, and they had at last to pay a salary in order to get this Bill through the House. That is an entirely different job from the post taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley. I do not think the comparison is a right one, but what we on this side of the Committee want to see is the House of Lords abolished.

There is certainly an impression in the country that Members of the other House are very willing, whenever Bills are passed on to them, to give their services for the purpose of furthering that legislation. But it is evident that when this Government have to send Bills to their—

The hon. Gentleman must not discuss the general usefulness or otherwise of the House of Lords.

I could not, because could find no usefulness at all in them.

I told the hon. Member that he must not discuss either their usefulness or otherwise.

I shall not refer to that matter again, at any rate this morning, but reference has been made to the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), during the War period. I do not know that that is a precedent upon which this Government should act. I do not know why a salary was accepted for that position. I think it would have been far better if those who cared to take up those positions during the War had taken them without troubling about salary, or at any rate about receiving a salary from the Government, because that was what a great many other people did in the country at that time. Many of them are now in the ranks of the Labour party. But if this is the only example that the Government can find, they must indeed he very hard pressed at this moment. Why, in order to take this Bill through the other House they have been compelled to create a paid office in the place of an office that had been unpaid during recent times. They are now making it a paid office, so that they can count upon the services of the Noble Lord who will be able to devote himself to this particular Measure. It certainly will not look well in the country for the general public to realise that Members of the House of Lords have to receive payment before they will do their duty as legislators.

May I ask one other question? I gather that the Vote that is now being discussed is one which merely has reference to the English Bill, and to nothing else. Do I understand that the Noble Lord who is to undertake this work will also take over the discussion on the Scottish Bill? That seems to me a very important matter. As I understand it, and if I am rightly informed, the Scottish Bill consists of some 60 Clauses and 7 Schedules. Most of us who were present during the discussion in Committee last week, know full well what a daring thing it is for a Minister who is an Englishman or a Welshman to have a word to say on the subject. Is this Noble Lord to be initiated into the mysteries of Scottish Local Government and to take over the job of speaking for the Government on this matter? I see the Secretary of State for Scotland in his place, and it would be very interesting to know what the answer to my question really is.

Might I ask one other question in order to clear up a remark made by the Financial Secretary He made some reference to the post which was occupied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) during the year 1916. I would like to know whether, as a matter of fact, in that year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley, in addition to the actual post which he occupied in the Government was also a Member of the War Cabinet at that time? I would like to know whether this particular sum to which the Financial Secretary referred did in fact cover the extra responsibility which membership of the War Cabinet involved? It may be said that that is a mere detail, but it is one which, I think, is rather important. I would especially like to have an answer in regard to my question on the Scottish Bill.

The Scottish Bill will be dealt with by one of the Scottish Peers who will speak for Scotland on behalf of the Government, but no doubt the Noble Lord will also give some assistance from his great knowledge of local government.

The situation grows more amazing. First one Noble Lord is to be paid for defending this Bill. This, as I have already said, is because they cannot get anyone else to do it. But when it comes to Scotland, it is to be a half-time job. [Hori. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is to be a half-time job in the sense that there is to be a Scottish Peer without pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It occurs to me that I canot conceive of an English Peer being paid and a Scottish Peer not being paid. But I am quite sure they will get over that difficulty. I would like to refer to the point which has been put by the Financial Secretary in regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson). That has been used as a similar illustration. It could not have been used by anyone with any knowledge of the facts, because the facts were that my right hon. Friend was appointed with four others as a member of the War Cabinet. The salary he re- ceived was as a member of the War Cabinet pure and simple, nothing else, and it is important that the Financial Secretary should have that quite clear in his mind.

I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland has come into this discussion, because the position is quite a peculiar one. There seems to be some doubt about the giving of the gift. To begin with, the Bill is of such a character that it requires some Peer specially to explain it. Since the English Bill is to have someone to explain it, I want to know whether the Scotsman who is to explain the Scottish Bill in the House of Lords is also going to receive a salary, and I want to know how much.

That is not in order on this Supplementary Estimate.

We are discussing the question whether—

The hon. Member need not repeat himself. There is nothing in the Estimate in reference to the point which he is now approching.

On a point of Order. Surely we are entitled to know whether the Minister who explains the Bill respecting Scotland is to be paid, seeing that it is part of the whole under taking.

The question before the Committee is the salary of the Paymaster-General.

Surely we are entitled to know what the salary covers?

That may be so, but the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) raised a point of Order which has nothing to do with the point on which I have called the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) to order.

On a point of Order. In the English Bill there is Clause 127. That Clause applies to Scotland certain other Clauses, namely, Clause 76 (4) and Clause 125 of the English Bill, also Schedules 3 and 11 of the English Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland will agree with me in that statement, because he gave me the information in an answer the other day. Are we not entitled to ask questions bearing on these four Clauses, one of which is a very large one, in the English Bill, and their bearing upon the Scottish Bill, and whether it will be the Paymaster-General, whose salary we are discussing, or some other Peer who will be paid in respect of the Scottish Bill?

Order, order! Mr. Hardie.

We were, in the first place, discussing on the Estimate the amount of money that was to be paid to someone who was to explain the Local Government Bill in the House of Lords. Then the fact was brought to light that because the Bill is in two parts, and one part refers to Scotland, someone in the House of Lords will take charge of the explanations on the Scottish Bill. Since money is to be paid to a Noble Lord who is to explain the English Bill, am I not in order in asking whether the same thing applies to the Noble Lord who is to be in charge of the Scottish Bill?

This Estimate has no bearing upon any other Noble Lord.

On a point of Order. I understood the Minister to say that a Scottish Peer would probably take charge of the Scottish Bill, but that the Paymaster-General would be there to assist. May I take it that while the Paymaster-General assists, the salary will cover the period of assistance?

The hon. Member rose on a point of Order, but instead of that he has addressed a question to the Minister.

A statement has been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I should like to know whether when the Secretary of State for Scotland made that statement, seeing that there was nothing on the Estimate in regard to it, he was out of order. Will the right hon. Gentleman bring in another Estimate in order to deal with the payment for the getting through of the Scottish Bill in the Lords? If there is to be no other Estimate, how can the question be approached by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Otherwise, how could it be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to speak on an. Estimate which is not here?

That is the point. That is what I have been suggesting to the hon. Member would not be in order for himself.

That is why I brought my argument to this particular point, to show that the Secretary of State for Scotland when he made that statement was absolutely out or order. In the provisions that have been made for piloting through the Bill in the House of Lords, what are the provisions in regard to piloting through the Scottish Bill?

The hon. Member must not return to that subject. The only question is the payment of the salary of a certain Member of the Government. It has been explained that that salary is in connection with certain work, and up to a point that is a legitimate subject of discussion; but the hon. Member must not ask what is the intention of the Government in regard to proceedings in the House of Lords not covered by this Estimate.

Since the Bill is said to contain two sections, may I take it that the Scottish part is to be piloted through the House of Lords by one Noble Lord. If not, can we have an explanation? Since this Estimate refers to what is known as the English part of the Bill, may I ask what arrangements have been made in regard to piloting through the Scottish part?

I must ask the hon. Member to devote himself to the Estimate before the Committee. He transgressed the Ruling on which I called him to order, and he must not repeat the same transgression.

My point is that an English Lord is to be paid. I want to know why a Scottish Lord is not to be paid.

A question has been asked as to how long a period this Vote covers the salary of a Noble Lord. If hon. Members opposite would take the trouble to look at the Estimate, and do a simple rule-of-three sum, they will find that the figure which we are discussing, namely, £437, carries the salary up to the 5th day of April.

There is some confusion. I understood the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to say that this salary would lapse when the duties were done. I understood that the duties appertain to one Bill, namely, the English Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland tells us that whilst Lord Onslow will not be responsible for the Scottish Bill, he will be there to assist, and I understood that the payment of the salary would continue during his service on the Scottish Bill. In that case, there is a plain contradiction between the two Ministers. If an English Peer is to be paid and a Scottish Peer explaining the Scottish Bill is not to be paid, it may embitter the relations between England and Scotland. I should like a plain statement as to when the duties of the Earl of Onslow will come to an end.

The Committee is already aware of the circumstances which necessitate this Supplementary Vote. The Slater case has been brought to the notice of the House very fully and the Government's intention to pay a sum of £6,000 as compensation, after the result of the finding of the Appeal Court, is already known. This sum has already been advanced from the Civil Contingency Fund, and this Vote is merely required to make good that payment. There has been sufficient Debate both by question and answer on this subject already, and I, therefore, beg to move.

I want to elicit some information from the Secretary of State regarding the allocation of this sum as between costs and compensation. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there has been sufficient Debate already by way of question and answer in this House, but there has been no actual Debate. All that has happened is that some questions have been put to him and to the Lord Advocate, and the question as to whether the answers have been satisfactory or not is for the moment beside the point. I want to know this—and much will depend on the reply as to the subsequent proceedings in this Committee—what actual amount was expended by Mr. Slater by way of costs associated with the actions, and how much remains for actual compensation? I submit that that is a very proper point to make. This man has suffered considerably because of his imprisonment. I need not go into the merits of the case beyond saying that the learned Judges quashed the conviction. That is quite sufficient. He suffered 18 years' imprisonment. Surely in such circumstances a reasonable amount of compensation should be paid to enable Mr. Slater for the remainder of his days to live in some measure of comfort.

That I understand is all that Mr. Slater asked for. Now we find that all he has been paid is a sum of £6,000, and although I am not acquainted with the whole facts of the case—I stand to be corrected by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate—it is supposed that a very large sum of money was expended in costs. That is hardly fair to Mr. Slater.

I submit that the £6,000 should have been paid over to Mr. Slater as actual compensation and that whatever costs have been incurred should be met by the Government. I should like to know whether Mr. Slater remonstrated with the right hon. Gentleman when he was informed that all he was to be paid was £6,000 to cover costs and compensation. Has he protested? If so, what was the nature of his protest, and what was the reply? Was any protest made by his legal advisers and those associated with him in the action? That is a proper, point to put, because some controversy arose after the action had been disposed of; it appeared in the Press and was also mentioned in this House, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The whole thing in my judgment is profoundly unsatisfactory. It is all very well for the Lord Advocate to quote precedents. Precedents in a matter of this kind have very little virtue and ought not to be quoted at all. It is idle to pretend that because someone years ago suffered similarly and was granted compensation that this ease should be treated in the same way. This case was unique and deserves unique treatment. The right hon. Gentleman is not providing sufficient amount of compensation if the costs are to be included in the amount provided.

I should first of all remind the Committee of the basis on which payments for compensation are made. The Government, of course, is in no way responsible for the verdict in any case. It has always been thought best and wisest in the interests of the country that judicial proceedings should be entirely independent of the executive. There have been one or two exceptional cases in which the Government have made a grant, purely an ex gratia grant, a, compassionate grant. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that in the present case, when the Secretary of State was being pressed, shortly after the decision last year when the conviction was quashed, as to whether he was going to make compensation, that my right hon. Friend said he would prefer to wan, until some claim was made by Mr. Slater. If Mr. Slater had made such a claim and specified the details and costs we should have known then what the actual costs were. After an article by Mr. Slater himself had appeared in the public Press saying that he intended to make no application at all we decided on the usual and customary lines in regard to a compassionate allowance, and the allowance that has been paid is the largest ever paid in any such case.

When the question as to whether costs had been included was raised in the House by way of questions in the autumn