There is a very simple method by which the Attorney-General can set this matter right without any further discussion. I quite acknowledge that he is as sympathetic as any other Member of the House to the claims of the disabled men, but he is now defending an entirely unsympathetic scheme for dealing with them. There is only one safe rule—a rule which this House refused to adopt, but which the nation would favour if it had an opportunity of expressing its opinion. That rule is that every man who was fit to fight is fit to be pensioned. That is the only rule by which the Government can settle this question satisfactorily. I know these Appeal Tribunals. I have appeared before them. I went before one last week on behalf of a discharged soldier in Canada who nominated me as his representative, and I secured the continuance of his pension. I am perfectly certain if the discharged man had gone instead of me he would never have smelt his pension. The average discharged man does not possess the intelligence of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), and would never be able to make his own case and secure his award. It is ironic that the Government to-day are paying doctors as members of these tribunals, who formerly accepted men as fit to go into the Army, and who are now proving that these men are not fit to receive pensions. It is all humbug, and the Government know that, and the Attorney-General ought to be ashamed to make that defence of these tribunals. The real truth is that when we needed these men to fight hon. Members opposite went down on their bended knees to get them to do so.
If the hon. Member will allow me to make this speech it will be all right. Now when these men require pensions the "stunt" on the Government Benches is "economy." You must not pay those men to subsist now in the country for which they fought. Is it not a matter for comparison that the Prime Minister, who is absent now, who is always absent when ex-service men's claims are being put forward—[HON. MEMBERS "Withdraw!"]— who is always absent when ex-service men's claims are being put forward, thought it worth his while to come down this afternoon to plead with this House for 2,500 civil servants in India, who are drawing good pay and who will draw good pensions, and whom he asks this House and this country to support in carrying out their trust. We will do that. The Indian civil servant took on his occupation, knowing what he was doing, on the terms on which his occupation is based, and this country will see that man through. Nobody in this House will ever go back on the conditions laid down for that man; but the Prime Minister has thought it worth his while to spend a couple of hours this afternoon in pleading for 2,500 civil servants, who are not hard up, who will have pensions, and now, when we are discussing the question of pensions for disabled men, and I am going on to discuss the question of the employment of the men for whom we promised work, where is your Prime Minister?
I did not say the hon. Member was not in order, but I was only suggesting that a number of red herrings were being drawn across the trail from various quarters of the House.
I have not touched any of the red herrings yet. The point I want to address to the House is the cognate case of the pledge made by this Government to our ex-service men. There arc to-day in our Civil Service something like 40,000 ex-service men who are hoping they will be retained inside the Civil Service. The Government have adopted a rather curious method of selecting these men. There have been different methods of selecting men throughout history, from the days of Gideon to the days of the Coalition Government, but this Government have adopted a most extraordinary method of selecting ex-service civil servants. The House will remember that those men have been fighting for five or six years. They are suffering from all kinds of physical disabilities, and, instead of being given posts in the permanent Civil Service, they are being examined in order to find out whether they possess the requisite abilities for posts in the Civil Service. For the information of the House, I have secured a copy of the question papers which were set for our temporarily employed ex-service civil servants on the last occasion. There are many Members of this House who not only have sat at examinations, but who have set examinations, and they will be interested in the kind of tests put to men who fought in order to defend the Empire so that they might achieve a salary commencing at £80 a year. Here is a paper set in December, 1920. The first question says:
Write here the name of the first liquid in the following list, if it is commonly drunk; but if it is not put a cross instead, and if it has an 'e' in it, underline whatever you have put:
House, bean, sugar, paraffin, coffee, milk, cheese.
Here is another question which, I think, would puzzle the ingenuity of most of us:
If 5 x 6 = 35 write down 'right' here. If 9 x 9 = 72 write down 'wrong' here. If you have written down 'right,' cross it out; if you have written down 'wrong' alter the figures preceding that word so as to make them really wrong.
Let me read one other test in this peculiar examination. This is put within quotation marks:
earth the the warms sun.
Then the discharged temporarily employed Civil Service ex-service man is asked this problem:
Rewrite the above sentence so that the word that would be the middle one if it were re-arranged so as to be true now comes last, whilst the remaining words are in the right order, but the one now first is spelt backwards.
I am quite sure there is only one in the House who could do it, and that is the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), who can do everything, see everything, and think everything. That is a typical test which I have read. I am not unfair. I have not read some of the worst ones. That is a typical examination paper sent to men who have served in the War, in order that they may pass on from a temporary post to their first stage in the permanent Service, which carries with it £80 a year, which is the sum that the Government is prepared to pay even to youths of 18 or 19 beginning their service. What is the use of talking about the sacrifice made in the War, and to talk about the pledges made by the Government to ex-service men, if at the end of their five years' fighting they have to answer conundrums of that kind? He might as well be asked what is the difference between a Coalitionist and a Co-optimist!
What do the ex-service men ask should be done to-day? They say, "After all, we are men of experience; we gave up our careers to fight; we sacrificed five years of our professional advancement, either industrial, trade, or professional, in order to fight; if we are going to get a place at all in the Civil Service, give it us on the experience you have had of our temporary service." Their terms are perfectly simple. They ask that if you will not permit that, to either suspend the examinations for the Civil Service or, if you cannot do that, give them a percentage of the appointments. What reply has been made? That it would not be fair to the boys of the public schools. But these boys, and later the young men from the universities, starting out in life, have every profession before them to enter except this one. Surely no one is now going to say that these posts ought not to be given to the ex-service men that have fought in preference to boys who are leaving school and have the world before them? There is a very great difference between the man who has the world at his feet and the man who has the War at his back. I say deliberately that the Government are not playing fair to the ex-service man, and not making it easier for him to attain to these positions in the Civil Service. There are others who do not agree with me politically but who are quite with me on this question and who wish to support these points; they wish to speak, and I shall leave it to them to fill in some of the details. I pass over the question of the difference in salary offered to the ex-service man and the man who is in the Civil Service, to approach a more difficult question, which I am not afraid to face, in the continuous employment of women as against the ex-service men.
As a matter of fact, we do know that during the War many women came into offices and into the public service because the men were fighting. Far too many of these women have been retained after the fighting men have come back. I certainly say that it is not only ironical but scandalous that after the fighting man has come back he has to walk about unemployed, as often is the case, or stand in queues at the Employment Exchanges while these women are retained in these offices. There are in the Pensions Issue Office a large number of women who might easily be dispensed with as long as the ex-service man is outside and unemployed. There is another class of which we have heard a good deal, and that is the man in these services who has not fought and who was taken on temporarily. There is a peculiar case which we had in Question and Answer the other day in regard to the Post Office. The Postmaster-General was appealed to by the ex-service men, and by many Members of this House, in regard to an intelligence officer who was appointed about ten months ago. In dealing with the reason why he should not dispense with the services of that man, the Postmaster-General said that he had considered the suggestion made by the ex-service men, but that the man—I will not mention his name—did his best to join the Army, and it was unfair that he should be penalised because that effort was not successful. That is the real reason why the Postmaster-General turned down the claim of that man. Surely there is an enormous difference between a man taken into any of the services since the War began or since peace was declared, and the man who joined any of those services at the beginning of the War because he could not fight.
I will give an instance. I remember when the War broke out my own political agent in Edinburgh was of military age, and he tried over and over again to join the Army. It was found that he was absolutely unfit to join the Army, and when he had any leisure he used to spend it attending medical boards. Later, he became very efficient in the administration of pensions and, when the Pensions Ministry was set up, the authorities came to me and asked me if I could find them a man who understood pensions who could help them at the Ministry of Pensions in Scotland, and I allowed them to have my political agent. He was taken into the service when everybody else was fighting, he has been there ever since and has done excellent work. His services are now being dispensed with because they are employing Service men, and I do not complain. In the case I have referred to in the Post Office it is a man who was taken on only ten months ago, and yet the Postmaster-General says he cannot be got rid of for an ex-service man, whereas my agent, who could not get into the Army and has done admirable work, is being sacked. The Postmaster-General ten months ago took a man into the same service and yet he says that he cannot substitute an ex-service man. I say that is nonsense, and this kind of thing makes the ex-service man sit up and take notice.
It is not fair and it is just what makes so many of these men suffer. After all, we were either honest or dishonest about the things we said during the War and the sacrifice these men made. I think it is somewhat ironical that at half-past ten o'clock to-night we should be beginning a Debate in order to stake out a better claim for the redemption of a pledge made by the Government to these men. It is ironical that the ex-service man should be put through it in this way. This is not a party question, and if I thought it was I would not speak upon it. This is the redemption of a pledge, and we are all in this, particularly those in the House now who were with me during the War. We know what was said, we know the kind of instructions we were given when we were requested to go into the country to ask the men to join up. Having accepted those pledges from the Government and having appealed to the country and said those things, I am not prepared to keep silent until the Government are prepared to face the facts. The facts are these. You have got your 40,000 temporarily employed ex-service men in the Civil Service. If the present system goes on they will be driven out a few at a time so quietly that public opinion will not be aroused. They will be forgotten. For Heaven's sake do not let us forget them. Let the House redeem its pledge to them. I hope those hon. Members who are going to do me the honour of supporting me will regard this matter from the point of view that we should continue to be associated in the spirit which was begun during the War, when many of us who were violent opponents dropped party and acted in the spirit of community. Let us continue in that spirit until at any rate we have redeemed our pledges to these men.
I am very glad, although it is so late in the Session, that we have had an opportunity of raising the question of the treatment of ex-service men in the Civil Service. I do not think that treatment is what public opinion would support, and it certainly is not what the Lytton Committee recommended. That Committee recommended that the claims of ex-service men should be paramount. It further recommended that suitable ex-service men and women should have priority in the nation's service, and I am sure that opinion was endorsed, not only by the country but by everyone in the House, except hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who are responsible for their Departments. The problem of these men in the Civil Service was not at all an unmanageable one. There were only 45,000 of them on a temporary basis who had to be dealt with. There is a wastage of from 8,000 to 10,000 a year in the Established Civil Service, and I am informed that during the next two years it would have been quite easy to absorb ail competent ex-service men who had been taken on on a temporary basis. That would have been an advantage not only to the men but also to the State. They are men of experience; men who have learnt their work not at school like boys of 19, but in various businesses and in Government offices. Further than that, the State would have had this advantage. These men came in late in life—the average age was 33—and would have involved a lesser pension bill at the end of their service than would have been incurred in the case of boys, because the pension is based on the number of years' service; if a man came into the Service at 33 years of age instead of at 18, when the State had had full value out of him, that man would get far less pension than the boy of 19, who it is apparently the policy of the Government to prefer to the men who fought for us during the War.
The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) gave us some very interesting examples from the examination papers which these men have been called upon to do. No doubt the examination test is reasonable in theory, but it is not a good method in cases where you can have the test of experience of a man's work. You have to eliminate the unsuitable in some way. That is admitted by the ex-service men themselves. But I do not believe that the examination test is satisfactory. In the first place, out of 20,000 recently examined 16,000 have been turned down. Surely it was an impossible standard that was set up. I believe that when this House agreed, if they ever did, to this examination being set up for ex-service men, they meant it to be a qualifying examination, and not a severe competitive examination of this kind. I should like the House to hear a few more of these questions. The hon. Member who read out the others was dealing with the general paper, which, apparently, was a test of wit and humour. That is the only motive that I can find for it. I now come to arithmetic. Arithmetic is supposed to be an exact study, and in arithmetic, at least, there certainly ought to be no room
for wit and humour. What is the object of this question:—
If the line A B below represents a length of 10 feet, find the length and breadth, to the nearest square foot, of the room C D E F.
How are you to find the length in square feet, or the breadth in square feet? The most excellent arithmetician might be puzzled by that sort of question. Then let me take a question from the general paper—
'The whole of a thing is greater than part of it.' If that statement is untrue, underline the word in it having the largest number of letters. Otherwise, write 'yes' at the end of this instruction, and if you have not had to underline any of the words before, do so to the word you have written.
Add together the first three odd numbers, and if the sum is not an exact multiple of three, draw a line through every three in this instruction, except the second, but otherwise draw a line under instead of through the same words.
I do not know whether this paper was set by a conscientious objector to knock out all the men who have fought in the War. I think it would be an admirable paper if an examination were being held for testing candidates for fitness to be employed as attendants in a lunatic asylum; or I think any of us who have had experience of children, and who remember the craze that children at certain periods of their life develop for idiotic riddles, might feel that it was a fit examination paper for nursery maids; but I think that men who are able to answer such idiotic questions are best kept out of the Civil Service.
Again, nearly half of this paper, which I see is called an "Intelligence" paper, is composed of elaborate missing word competitions. This is the sort of thing—there are six different tests—
Public-house is to Barman as Hotel is to …
We can all think of answers to that. One might answer, "As hotel is to 'maid,' or 'waiter,' or 'groom,' or 'porter,' or 'ostler,' or 'manager'"; and I dare say any hon. Member can think of further answers. How is that any test of a man's fitness for the Civil Service? It is a matter of luck. It is not the same examiner who is going right through 20,000 papers, and it is an absolute gamble, in a missing word com-
petition, whether you get the right answer. Then there is:
Body is to Heart as Clock is to … "—
I know not what. Then there is another kind of competition where the right word is to be chosen out of four supplied—
Bubble is to Temporary as Universe is to"—
"planet," or "space," or "immense," or "permanent"—which? I could go on convulsing the House with this paper, but that is not my object. I think the taxpayer will object to the Civil Service being recruited owing to their proficiency in these missing word competitions. Perhaps it is the idea of the Government that the civil servant is so underpaid that he must eke out his salary by competing in competitions in "John Bull" and other organs of the Press. I think that is a very humiliating position for the Civil Service. They ought to be selected, not for their skill in these idiotic riddles, but for their fitness for the Service. This test has knocked out men of long experience in various professions—men with university degrees, barristers, and men of all kinds of different occupations—and it is perfectly absurd, on the test of this sort of paper, to knock four-fifths of these mature men out of the Civil Service. This ridiculous examination system should be brought to an end, and the men should be made permanent on the recommendation of the heads of their Department. If anyone ought to be turned out of the Civil Service, it is the men who set these riddles. Examinations are very good for testing people if you have only a short. time, but these civil servants in a temporary capacity have been tested now for three or four years, and surely there is nothing like so efficient a test in a haphazard examination of this kind as there is in the test of proficiency by men who have worked with approbation in a public Department.
Now let me come to the position of those fortunate people who have satisfied the examiners. What are they going to be paid? The Lytton Report recommended a certain scale of pay. Although coming to this Service at a considerably greater age than the boys who are normally recruited, they recommended that they should get exactly the same pay as the
boy who came in at the age of 18. Look at the effect. Men who have been employed in a temporary capacity have to drop a great proportion of their pay when they get established. Grade 3 temporary men, receiving £188, will be dropped to £164, and Grade 2 temporary men, with £228, will drop to £184—that is pay and bonus in each case—and Grade 1, £249, down to £200. That is a big penalty for this great prize of establishment, to lose a fifth of your pay and to drop a man of 33. which is the average age, to a basic salary of 280 plus bonus, which works out at £164 at present, is to drop into a disgraceful and sweated wage. That is out all. Take the case of men on a rather higher grade—temporary officials who work up to £400 to £700 per annum. They drop at one step from £700 to £272. It is simply a method of driving out these men of experience and ability from the Civil Service. It was most unsatisfactory that the Lytton Committee should have reported on this at all. I do not think it was their province. It was not in their terms of reference. The Lytton Committee were told to report "as to the existing arrangements for the appointment of ex-service men to posts, whether permanent or temporary in His Majesty's Civil Service, and to advise what modifications, if any, should be made therein." Anyone reading that would not expect they were going into the matter of pay, especially as that matter of pay for ex-service men who were to be established had already been worked out by the sub-committees of the Whitley Council. Because it was not in the terms of reference the Lytton Committee never really heard the case. The Whitley Council had recommended a very much better scale. Instead of a man starting uniformly at £80 a year, as a basic salary, whatever may be the age, they recommended that men should start on a certain scale, giving them weight for age. I understand that the Treasury dispute that, so let me read what the Subcommittee of the Whitley Council recommended, so that they do not ride off on that pretence. This is a paragraph in the Joint Committee on the organisation of the Civil Service, which reported on 17th February, 1920, before the Lytton Report—
We recommend for male members of this class"—
That is Grade 3, to which I have been chiefly referring—
the following scales of salary:—£60 a year on entry, rising to £80 a year at the age of 18; thence by annual increments of £5 to £100 a year; and thence by annual increments of £10 to £120, at 24,
and so on, the scale for age going right up to the age of 36. It cannot be pretended that that was not to apply to ex-service men, because I have an extract from the Sub-Committee on Temporary Staffs, also of the Whitley Committee, which reported on 24th February, 1920. They recommended that this weight for age system should be adopted. They say, in paragraph 9, that
Members of the temporary staffs appointed to the establishment should be eligible for age pay so far as that is provided in the scales of pay of the established classes.
That is, that they should not all go in at the uniform pay given to a boy of 18, though they are married men, but should get the same allowance as if they had worked up from the age of 18. There is no doubt that that is the distinct meaning of this recommendation of the Sub-Committee of the Whitley Council.
It was with great astonishment that ex-service men found that the Lytton Committee upset the whole of this arrangement, and, without having heard any evidence from the men concerned, threw aside this agreed basis which had been gone into by both the staff side and the official side, and substituted a much lower scale of pay, starting at the same basis of 18, but without any weight, for age of any time. The ex-service men appealed to the Civil Service Arbitration Board. They did not appeal, as they might have, for the full benefit of this supplementary pay recommended by the Whitley Sub-Committee, because there was a cry for economy, and as patriotic men they recognised that they, like others, had to make sacrifices. So they only applied that men up to 26 should get this weight for age, and that if over 26 they should start on a scale as though they were only 26 when first established. The Civil Service Arbitration Board admitted the justice of the claim. This is an extract from their Report. They say you must have one principle, but
The Board feel that in the application of this principle to a class of employés comprising officers of widely different qualifications and ages it may be practicable for the
employing Departments, in consultation with their Lordships' officers, to mitigate any hardships which may arise in individual cases.
That admits the justice of the claim, but it brings forward an absolutely impracticable method of dealing with it. You cannot leave it to Departmental action to give special rates of pay to special cases.
I would urge that we should have another inquiry and allow these ex-service men to state their claims and grievances. I do not think you can reestablish the Lytton Committee, because Lord Lytton is now in India, and of the two Members of this House, one, who used to sit on this bench—the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Edward Wood)—has, I regret to say, departed and joined the Government. So we have to have some other sort of tribune, and I suggest that a Select Committee of this House he set up to consider the whole of this grievance.
As I have kept the House so long on this point, I will not develop any others. There are many other unsatisfactory features in the position of the ex-service men. The scale seems tilted against them in every direction. The Lytton Committee recommended that messengers should only be recruited from ex-service men. That has never been adopted. These messengers, the lowest-paid men, get no sick pay. The recommendations as to substitution have been continuously evaded. Various public Departments, especially the Post Office, have consistently ignored the rule that they are only to appoint men through the Joint Substitution Board. Then there is the point raised as to the staffing of the Pensions Ministry. All these questions ought to go to a Select Committee. I do not know what is the reason of this defect in these matters. It may be the fault of the officials, or it may he the pre-occupation of the Ministers in other matters. If you go into these cases, you get the impression that the Government is grossly indifferent to the claims of these ex-service men. Whatever the Government may have done, I do not believe that the country has forgotten the men who fought. It is in no spirit hostile to the Government, but in their own interest, that I beg them to appoint a Committee and to get their house in order so as to avoid the just arid inevitable reckoning if the present injustices are allowed to continue.
I am sorry that this Debate has come on so late to-night, because the problem of the ex-service man in the Civil Service is one involving such important principles that it is impossible to explain the position in the time at our disposal. I wish to impress the House with the circumstances under which the majority of those men entered the temporary Civil Service, and the reasons why they have a claim for sympathy. When the. War was being fought the business of the country had to be carried on, and it was carried on properly and efficiently by the people who stayed behind, some of whom were women, some old men, and some men whose consciences dictated to them that they could better serve their country by pursuing their usual avocations. Whether they were right or wrong in that view, the dominating fact remains that when the ex-service man returned from the War—this fact is not completely understood by the civil population—he found every position in the industrial, professional and business world and the Civil Service occupied and entrenched against him. That was the case in regard to all the great professions. In my own profession it was almost impossible, owing to the manner in which the tactical positions had been occupied and dominated, for a man who had served his country to get a fair living.
These were the men who relied upon the promises made by the Government. They are crowded out of their own professions; they are crowded out of occupation in civil life, and they took refuge in the temporary Civil Service. I believe that in many respects the Government has done its best. I make the point, because, in regard to these temporary men, I would join issue immediately with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who, if he is reported correctly, dealing with this particular problem, laid down the dictum that you can judge of the adequacy of a man's salary by his willingness or otherwise to accept it. At normal economic times that may be true, but when you had 6,000,000 men who could not possibly be replaced in civil life, for whom there was no room, it is not right to say that because a barrister or doctor or accountant is willing to take £3 a week rather than starve, therefore he is worth only £3 a week. The hon. Member for Mosley, speaking in the House last week, said that the ex-service man wanted to be only a member of the civil population—he was no longer an ex-service man. Unless you are willing to treat this man on a basis that is not entirely an economic basis, he can never regain his position in the civil life of the country.
There is talk now of cutting the pay of these temporary men. These ex-service men in the Civil Service are fighting I understand for a pre-War grade of 38s. I dined to-night with a gentleman who is not particularly interest ed in this problem, and he told me that in his room as Grade 3 clerks, now fighting for 383. a week, he has an ex-architect, an ex-Guards officer, an M.R.C.S. and an L.R.C.P., and these men are glad to be getting that pay. It is unfair to insist on treating these men simply upon an economic basis. That is a consideration which I urge upon the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he is dealing with this point. I am well aware of the sympathy which he has with ex-service men and the extraordinary difficulty presented by this problem. As to permanency the ex-service man says:
It is not right that anybody with a less claim than myself should be introduced into the Service from outside until every competent ex-service man—and no claim is made for incompetent men—who is inside has been absorbed into the permanent Service.
That was discussed by the Lytton Committee, and this was what the Lytton Committee agreed to: First of all, on behalf of the ex-service men, they stated that, in their opinion, in order to secure efficiency, seeing that these people were no longer children of 18, but men of 34 or 38, some barristers, some accountants, some doctors, their Bar degrees, their doctors' degrees, their architects' degrees, or their accountants' degrees, might be taken into consideration and be regarded as a primâ facie test of efficiency for a Grade 3 clerkship. It was urged that the ordinary tests which are applied in business might be made to apply in these cases, in view of the special difficulties. But it was pointed out by the permanent civil servants that it was necessary to have some kind of primâa facie test as to competency for a particular job. It is strange that the
Government was not able to trust its Own heads of Departments, because the ex-service men asked for no more than that. The ex-service man said: "Let me be judged by my own head of Department as to my efficiency!" Nevertheless, it was agreed that this examination should be held. It was clearly recommended by the Lytton Committee—and the promise was given that the recommendation would he observed in the spirit as well as in the letter—that this primâa facie test should be applied. In fact, what did we get? We got the type of examination paper which has been quoted to-night well suited to a child of 18, but ridiculous in this connection, and not calculated to find out the most competent man. It was a direct violation of the spirit of the Lytton Report.
I want to deal briefly with the question of the initial salary received by these men. I have some responsibility here, because I had the honour of serving on the Lytton Committee which made the recommendation. It is right and proper that I should say that I was wrong in my opinion, and I know that other members of the Committee think that they were wrong in regard to the recommendation made for the initial salary. We would join with both the hon. Members, who have spoken on this subject, in pressing for a solution of this matter. I hope it will be agreed to send the question to some Committee, which will review the recommendation made. I do not think I am called upon now to state the reasons for my change of opinion. I was deceived, not intentionally, of course, by certain evidence which was brought before us. It was brought forward at the fag-end of a very long Sitting. I think it would be well to get that initial salary reviewed. We did not realise that the sliding scale did not apply to the temporary salaries, but did apply to the permanent salaries. This was the simple point. The salaries of these men did not increase with the rise in the cost of living, yet, when they became permanent, their salaries decreased. The result of practical experience was that no man could afford to become permanent if he remained temporary he was better off. It is absolutely impossible in the time at our disposal to make out the case adequately, but I sincerely hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will view with sympathy the request for a Committee to review the question of initial salaries.
This subject is not one to which there are two sides. There is only one side—the desire to do everything to recognise the debt of the State to the ex-service men, compatible with the over-riding interest of the public service and national welfare. There is only one side, but there are two ways of approaching the question. There is the method of looking at it only from the ex-service man's point of view, and very naturally and rightly the advocates of the ex-service man, as such, have looked at it from that angle. I think they have in many respects over-stated their case—very much over-stated it—and in many particulars misstated the position of affairs— very gravely misstated it. Nevertheless, the point of view from which I approach it is not devoid of sympathy. It is, I say, the desire that the utmost possible should be done to recognise the high debt of the State to the ex-service man, only, of course, one has to temper that, from the standpoint of a Treasury Minister, with what is possible and practicable, in view of the overriding interests of the nation as a whole. Let me deal, in the very short time I have allowed myself, with one or two of the chief points of criticism which have been raised. It is, I think, definitely suggested by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that the Government are not giving due preference to the ex-service men in admitting them to the temporary ranks of the service. The phrase was used, I think, that we are giving preference to boys.
I do not wish my hon. Friend to put the case wrongly. What, I said was that the only objection I had ever heard urged to the admission of temporarily employed ex-service men to permanencies was that it would destroy the ordinary admission to the Civil Service of boys coming from public schools. What I then said was that these boys could go in for every other profession, while the temporarily employed ex-service man was precluded from going in for these professions.
I accept the correction. I probably misunderstood the bearing of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I want to get, quite shortly, a general view of what is being done for the ex-service men as regards appointments and so on, in order to remove the impression, which I am afraid was created by some of the overstatements which have been made, that the Government was not doing its best. We have the recommendation of the Lytton Committee that 70 per cent. of the vacancies in temporary appointments shall be reserved to the ex-service men. That is being done and carried out. Until April next year 70 per cent. of all the positions that fall vacant in the temporary branches of the Service will be filled up with ex-service men. After April next year the percentage will be reduced to 50, until all qualified ex-service men have been worked off. That is being done, and we are absolutely fulfilling the undertaking.
Now let me deal with the next point raised in criticism, which is the point of the examination. That is the result of a recommendation by the Lytton Committee, who set out, in their Report, the arguments in favour of an educational qualifying test. In one of the paragraphs, the Lytton Committee say:
We are of the opinion that some form of examination is necessary to test the relative efficiency of those now in temporary employment for selection for permanent posts, if only for the purpose of a general review of the qualifications of ex-service candidates.
The alternative suggested to us of inviting the heads of the various offices to recommend the retention of those whom they consider efficient would not, in our opinion, prove a satisfactory or even an equitable solution, inasmuch as there are upwards of 80 different Government Departments to be considered.
That is the whole point. You have to get a uniform test, and I think it will commend itself to commonsense that it is necessary to have some simple educational test. After all, the temporary branches were recruited in a very rough and summary way during the War, and, in the interests of the efficiency of the public service, before passing temporary men on, it is necessary to have some simple educational test to make sure that they are capable of performing their
permanent duties. As to the nature of the questions put, they ale drawn up by the Civil Service Commissioners in their wisdom.
I am not sure that it would not be possible to make fun of any examination paper, and some you can make more fun of than others. I thought the paper which was quoted was a good paper in one way, in that there was a definite graduation in the difficulty of the questions asked. I mean that there was one which I knew I could have answered, then one I thought I might have answered, and then one I was quite sure I could not have answered, and that is the right way in which questions ought to come in examination papers. There must have been difficulties in devising an educational test for ex-service men, who have long left school and are not prepared for examinations, and I am sure that every effort has been made to adjust the papers in question to the purposes of the examination. As regards the number of rejections, the answer to that is that 70 per cent. of the vacancies, carrying out the recommendation of the Lytton Committee, will actually be filled as vacancies fall in, and they are being filled new and we are taking, in fact, all the ex-service men for whom we have room.
I am speaking of the clerical ranks now, as they are so very much the most important numerically. The others are worth not nearly so much attention from that point of view. Besides, the House will remember that in accordance with the recommendation of the Lytton Committee, a special procedure has been adopted for giving a man a second chance if he fails to qualify. If the head of the Department thinks that a man ought to be taken on, even although he has failed to qualify, he has the chance of going before the Investigation Board and getting another opportunity.
As regards the general fulfilling of the pledge, let me give the House the figures of what has been achieved in the substitution of ex-service men for non-service men and women for temporary employment in the Civil Service. The figures are so striking that I think they will create an impression. Between the 1st January, 1920, after the first effort at substitution had been made, and the 1st March, 1922, ex-service men in temporary employment had increased by 30,000. During the same period, the total number of civil servants in temporary employment had decreased by 35,000, so that, even while the great decrease was going on, owing to the exigency of national finance, the actual increase of ex-service men in temporary employment had been 30,000. Let me take a wider case of what has been done for ex-service men since the Armistice. In rather less than three years the total of the temporary personnel of the Civil Service has decreased by 50 per cent. During that great effort at reduction of temporary staff, the total ex-service men employed in temporary work had increased by 100 per cent. I think that those figures, which are all in the White Paper, speak for themselves. At the present time, the percentage of the total ex-service personnel in temporary employment is over 60 per cent., and the percentage of disabled men in temporary employment and in permanent employment is 13.75. Anyone who compares those figures with those of any other employers will see that they are figures of which we need not be ashamed, but of which we may be proud, indeed, and they are positive evidence that in this respect the Government is setting an example. So it ought, of course. It is doing no more than its obvious duty, but I think there is good reason to suppose from those figures that the duty is being adequately performed.
Let me pass to the other criticism that was raised, which was as to the commencing salary of ex-service men who are transferred from temporary employment to permanent employment. There, again, you have a very difficult middle path to steer. In taking on men in an irregular way at a more advanced age than usual, they cannot, of course, expect to be earning the same wages that men of their own age are earning who have long experience of the Service. On the other hand, you have to make some allowance for the hardship of their position, and take into consideration the interruption of their careers during the War. That was exactly the question investigated with great care by the Lytton Committee. They came to the conclusion that the fairest way to combine the interests of the State with the interests of the ex-service men was to start the man in his permanent employment on the basis of the salary that he was earning in his temporary employment. There is essential reasonability in that. It has been suggested that ex-service men were started in their employment at £80 a year.
It is only in Grade 3, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman so justly reminds the House, that that figure of £80 comes in at all. It comes in only as the basic rate of salary. A man getting that with bonus has £164 a year, and that is the lowest rate. In Grade 2 he begins on a basis of £90, the actual salary being £184. Other salaries are: basic rate £100, actual salary £200; and in the few cases of larger salaries; basic rate £150, actual salary £274. These salaries will be found by hon. Members who take the trouble to make the comparison with the salaries paid for not dissimilar services outside to be not unreasonable in relation to the scales of salaries in ordinary employment—and that is an ascertained fact. Allowance is made in the scheme for differences in the attainments of the men, and a reasonable adjustment made between the claims of the public interest and the very great consideration that ought to be paid to the interests of the ex-service men. An appeal is made for the further consideration of this matter. Naturally one is always ready to give the most careful consideration to a matter so vitally affecting the welfare of the Civil Service clerks. But this question was considered by the Lytton Committee judicially and impartially, a committee containing ex-service men, among whom was the hon. and gallant Member for East Bradford (Captain Loseby). He seems to have changed his point of view.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman does an injustice to the extremely experienced and able Members of the Committee if he suggests that many of them were under the impression that the salaries of the temporary members of the Civil Service were on a sliding scale. The system must have been known to those highly-experienced gentlemen who so thoroughly, and for so prolonged a time, investigated far more intricate and far more advanced matters in connection with the rates of pay. That is an error which cannot have been present in the mind of any other Member of the Committee. Again, the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) has made one error of fact, and a very natural error in a field of administration so complicated. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the original scheme drawn up by the Reorganisation Committee of the National Whitley Council would have given the ex-service men any better result than that recommended by the Committee; in fact, the contrary is the case. The original scheme drawn up by the Reorganisation Committee, reasonably interpreted, is that all temporary ex-service men would have come in at the basic rate of £80 a year, which is worse than the actual scheme recommended.
Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman hear the quotations which I gave, because the second one distinctly recommended that the men coming in should have this weight for age allowance.
That is a technical matter. The actual words of the recommendation were that they should have the weight for age allowance so far as it is applicable to the Department concerned. The only case where weight for age allowance arises is where the applicant is under the age of 18.
The recommendation was that weight for age allowance should be given so far as it was applicable to the Department concerned, and the only applicable weight for age allowance would be for boys under 18, and there were none. That point was actually raised before the Civil Service Arbitration Board and was dismissed as being of no substance. This case was thrashed out with immense vigour and fullness before the Civil Service Arbitration Board as between the staff side and the official side, and they came to the conclusion that the decision of the Whitley Committee was a right one, and that is what the Government are now upholding. We have really as regards the commencing salary adopted a scheme which on its basis is a reasonable one and probably the only practical one that could have been arrived at which gives actual salaries which are not out of relation to what they ought to be in comparison with outside rates. Hard cases must arise and hon. Members are aware that they are not confined to the Government service; they occur among all classes of clerical salaries, but that is no reason why the Government should pay better salaries than the best paid by good employers outside.
In the third place, this point has been thrashed out by impartial expert bodies and by a responsible body like the Civil Service Arbitration Board, and, therefore, we could not serve any useful purpose by referring the matter again to another body. I think I have now dealt with the principal criticisms advanced against the manner in which the ex-service man is being assisted in Government Departments. I think the key to the difficulty of giving assistance to the ex-service men lies in the work of the Departmental Committees which are carrying on the work of substitution in every Department by which ex-service men are being substituted, and in the way in which the whole administration of the Joint. Substitution Board by which all the various Departments of the Civil Service are co-ordinated is carried out because they have to see that no opportunity of an efficient ex-service man being employed is dismissed for lack of information. The Joint Substitution Board is a bit of machinery by which we get these posts made available for ex-service men, but the real harvest of substitution has already been reached. Nevertheless, the work is still going on, and I renew the assurance which has often been given to the House that it is the policy of the Government to continue this work of substitution up to the limits of the recommendations of the Committee, and to see that it is entirely and honestly carried out in every Department of the Government service, and to make sure that no single opportunity is overlooked where it is possible to find employment in the Government service for an ex-service man.
I wish to raise an extremely important subject, and apologise for having to do it at such a late hour. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made out a most convincing case for the side which he represents, and although he has shown that the Government have done a great deal, we ought not to rest satisfied until we are sure that the Government have done all they can do. There is one thing that is apparent. It is quite clear that there are many things which could have been done which the Government have failed to do. The Financial Secretary told us that 70 per cent. of the permanent staff vacancies were being absorbed by temporary ex-service men, but that only applies to the clerical staff and all the higher branches are closed to the ex-service men.
Then I will put it that no privilege was given to the ex-service man and has not now been given by which he can enter the higher branches. There, is an age limit for all those branches, and if an ex-service man is above that age no facilities are given and he is shut out.
I am quite sure that the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House. So far from no privilege having been given to the ex-service men, hitherto the appointments to the higher branches have been confined to ex-service men.
It is no good telling these men that they have as good a chance as other men, because that is not the case. I hope that the Government will give a chance to the ex-service man who is now doing most important work. He gave up valuable civil employment to help the country. He cannot go back. Let him have a chance of getting to the higher branches and getting pay which is something above £80 and a generous bonus.
The Financial Secretary defended this examination paper. The questions which have been read out are selections from 14 tests. Each test consists of six to nine questions. The candidate is not allowed to look at them until a whistle goes, and he is allowed two minutes in which to answer the six or nine. I ask hon. Members who have had any experience of examinations is it fair to give that type of question to a man who has long passed the school age, has lost the examination habit, and is possibly some way below normal health, in addition. We know quite well the nervous strain. Under these special circumstances, when a man's whole career is involved it is monstrous to give 14 tests of that sort, and to call it an examination in general intelligence. I seriously doubt whether some Members of the Government, if these questions were flung at them, could answer them sufficiently satisfactorily for some examiners. The Financial Secretary said there is an appeal above that. They can go to the Investigation Board, and if they have failed they can be allowed to take a position. I do not know what the value of that is, but I find that only 1,300 cases have been passed by the Investigation Board and 16,000 rejected, and out of the 1,300 allowed by the Investigation Board only 700 have been taken up by the Government. When the Arbitration Board approved the Lytton Committee they wrote a letter to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury saying there would be many hard cases and suggesting that the Government should mitigate the hardship and make some concession in those individual cases. So far as I can ascertain not one single case has been helped on the lines indicated by the Arbitration Board, and if I am wrong on that I hope the Financial Secretary will put it right some time during the evening.
Among many things the Financial Secretary omitted to deal with was the question of the pension issue office. The House might like to know the figures. There are 5,000 non-service staff in the office, and against that there are 1,000 competent ex-service men to-day with previous experience in the Civil Service awaiting reallocation on the books of the Joint Substitution Board. Do the Government think it is satisfactory that there should be 5,000 non-service staff in the office when they have 1,000 men on the books fully qualified and awaiting employment? As the Financial Secretary is so fond of the Lytton Committee, he will forgive me reminding him that the Lytton Committee found this Department was specially suitable for the employment of disabled ex-service men.
May I say a word in regard to the question of the intelligence officers who have been appointed lately, because I think the conduct of the Government Departments in this matter has been nothing short of a public scandal. There are many men fully qualified to discharge these duties. It is not disputed. They do not get the post, but someone who is a non-service man who can pull the strings in the office gets the job. It is not only one Department that is at fault. I find the Ministry of Health is another. They have appointed a non-service man as intelligence officer, and they have taken good care that he shall not be shifted, because they have put him on the permanent staff. The Pensions Ministry, whom we should expect to be a little more particular, have appointed a non-service man. They have given him a five years' agreement, so he is pretty safe for some time to come. The War Office have some of these non-service intelligence officers. They refuse to displace them. They say they are only temporary, and it is not worth while to shift them. It is a little strange, because one of the officers of the Department is putting men on the permanent staff, another is given five years, and the War Office say it is not worth while interfering because the job is a short one. The worst case is that which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), of which I have some personal knowledge. Captain Rusham was engaged as a journalist before the War, and resigned his position in order to join up. He joined with his brother, who was killed. He was himself seriously wounded, and to-day has 40 per cent. disability and is attending hospital. It is admitted that he has all the qualifications for the post. He has journalistic experience, and he was practically employed for two years in the Air Ministry as President of the Publicity Department. He has excellent testimonials wherever he has been. He was on the books of the Joint Substitution Board. The Post Office never went to the Board at all. They made no inquiries from anyone as to whether an ex-service man was available, and they appointed a young man who was never in the Army.
The right Inn. Gentleman is not following the point. The Government pledge was not to the men who wanted to join, but to the men who did join. It is a pure shuffle to talk about a man doing his best to join. The fact is that he did not join. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that they never made any inquiries fox ex-service men. Is there not one in all the country capable of filling this post, and if there is, why did they put Chapman there? It is this kind of thing that makes ex-service men sick. It is all very well for the Government to say they are doing their best, and they are doing this, that and the other. When you have these grave abuses going on, and you have Members on the Treasury Bench defending them by an evasion of the sort we have just had and have had for months from the Postmaster-General, it is no wonder that people are discontented. I do not know what power the House has in such a case. I trust it will not be allowed to stop where it is. It is an outrage on all the pledges the Government have given and on the wishes of this House and the country that a young man who has never been in the Army should be pitchforked into a job, in the place of a man who has suffered from serious disability. As I understand, it does not stop at the Post Office. In the Board of Trade they employ accountants. Quite recently they have discharged a chartered accountant, an ex-service man, and are retaining a non-service man to do the same work. I should like to give the House particulars about the Air Ministry did the extra-ordinary things that are going on there, where you have a superintendent who completely flouts every direction of the Government given in regard to substitution of service for non-service labour. Direction after direction has been given by the head office for the substitution of ex-service tracers in place of women tracers, and not a single man has been taken on. He dismisses when he likes, and engages without going to the Joint Substitution Board, and so on. In the last two or three months there have been 500 discharges from the gradings, and not a single appointment has been given in any one case to an ex-service man. I have avoided going into detail, because of the lateness of the hour. I hope the House is not going to let this matter rest where it is. I think the Government want to do the right thing, but they have one or two weak-kneed Ministers, who are afraid to stand up to officials who do not want to do the right thing. There are in the Government Departments officials who never went to the War, who stopped at home and did very well, while others were fighting, who object to this Government pledge, and are doing their best to prevent its being carried out. I hope the House will see that the Ministers get rid of the recalcitrant officials, or else that the House will get rid of the Ministers.
It has been part of my duty to receive a good many deputations of ex-service men on this particular question, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I have been in correspondence with the Department on the matter. The impression left upon my mind by these deputations is that there is very little satisfaction on the part of the men whom I have received. They certainly think that the Lytton Committee was not properly seised of the position the ex-service men had taken up in regard to the matter before pronouncing their decision; that the question of the initial salary was not sufficiently referred to them, and that no evidence at all was given on the subject by these men, who were not afforded an opportunity of stating their case. They feel that that is a great hardship and ought to be put right. I also had brought, to my notice the fact that the Arbitration Board itself called attention to the exceptional cases which exist and which ought to be treated in an exceptional way. Altogether, the impression left upon my mind—I have tried to impress it on the Chancellor of
the Exchequer and others concerned—is that, at all events, the matter has been left in a very unsatisfactory position. It is very desirable indeed to get it settled, as it apparently can be settled, by appointing some sort of Committee in order to give these men the opportunity, which they have not had, of stating their case, and of having it reviewed. I hope it will be possible to get this clone.
It is out of no opposition to the Government that we are making these criticisms. The Civil Service is a great service. It had many gallant men who went out and fought, and a great many other men who did not go out and fight. Age, infirmity, Conscientious scruples, and anything else prevented them doing so—perhaps they were indispensables. I will not offend my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches by using the term "trade union," but the Civil Service is a close corporation, and I think that many of its members have a great objection to the intrusion into its ranks of people who have not been brought up in its traditions. Ministers, also, are, to a certain extent, at the mercy of their permanent officials. I do not think they are always informed, as they ought to be, of the facts. Then difficulties arise, which are very difficult for them to brush aside. I believe we are doing our duty, and also a service to the Government, in pressing for the appointment of this Committee. The Government do not realise the way in which we who live in the constituencies, where this is a very vital matter, are inundated with cases of gross injustice and hardship. They do not realise the feeling of the country, as well as the feeling in this House. We are doing the Government a service in pressing them, before it is too late, to take the very reasonable and moderate step of appointing a Select Committee to go into the whole question, and to set these obvious injustices right, so that real justice may be done to the men who have suffered for their country.
|Division No. 272.]||AYES.||[11.55 p m|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Atkey, A. R.||Barlow, Sir Montague|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Barnett, Major Richard W.|
|Armstrong, Henry Bruce||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Barnston, Major Harry|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.||Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Bollairs, Commander Carlyon W.|
|Birchall, J. Dearman||Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Robinson, Sir T, (Lanes., Stretford)|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)||Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-||Hood, Sir Joseph||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hopkins, John W. W.||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Briggs, Harold||Houfton, John Plowright||Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Inskip, Thomas Walker H.||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Bruton, Sir James||Jameson, John Gordon||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Jodrell, Neville Paul||Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Kidd, James||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Churchman Sir Arthur||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)||Sugden, W. H.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.||Sutherland, Sir William|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Lort-Williams, J.||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)||Vickers, Douglas|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Wallace, J.|
|Ednam, Viscount||Mason, Robert||Walters, Rt. Hon Sir John Tudor|
|Evans, Ernest||Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.||Waring, Major Walter|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert||Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Murchison, C. K.||White, Col. G. D (Southport)|
|Flldes, Henry||Neal, Arthur||Whitla, Sir William|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Williams, C. (Tavistock)|
|Forestier-Walker, L.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Wise, Frederick|
|Forrest, Walter||Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)||Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)|
|Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John||Parker, James||Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Parkinson, Sir Albert L. (Blackpool)||Young, E. H. (Norwich)|
|Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike||Younger, Sir George|
|Gregory, Holman||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.||Remer, J. R.||Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.|
|Hailwood, Augustine||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Hogge, James Myles||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Banton, George||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Lawson, John James||Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)||Windsor, Viscount|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Naylor, Thomas Ellis|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)||Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)||Mr. Sutton and Mr. Penry Williams.|
|Gee, Captain Robert||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment agreed to.