Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at on 14 May 1924.
I do not rise to delay the Committee for more than a moment or two, and I certainly do not desire to say anything which might in any way impede or imperil the passage of this Resolution or of the Bill to which it is designed to give effect. I welcome the attitude of the Government in affording time for a Measure in which I personally, as I think the Attorney-General knows, have taken a very great interest, and which, as he has very well said, does tardy justice to a very deserving class of men. I should like, however, if I may, to reinforce the suggestion that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), that it would be desirable that detailed financial information should be given to the House before Members are asked in Committee to deal with a Resolution of this kind. In the present instance I do not suggest that it should be done before the Resolution is passed, because that would cause a delay, which we are all anxious to avoid; but I would suggest that even in the present instance it might be a good thing if, at least to the Members of the Committee who will presently have to look into the Bill upstairs, there could be given the detailed information from which the summarised figures which the Attorney-General has mentioned were derived.
The reason why I venture to press this suggestion just a little upon the Attorney-General is that, at the time when I was interested in the Bill, I had certain figures before me as to the estimated cost, and those figures did not altogether tally with the figures which the Attorney-General has just given to the Committee. The information that I had was, that the total cost, even including the registrars, would be £79,000, which the Attorney-General gave as the cost, excluding the registrars. Further, it was anticipated, according to the figures that I had, that the whole of the cost would be covered by the County Court fees which would be received, so that the net cost to the revenue would be nothing at all. Of course, it may be that further investigation of the figures has shown that those results were not quite accurate, and I do not, in the least, desire to challenge the statement which the Attorney-General has made, but the fact that there is that discrepancy emphasises, I think, what my hon. Friend—