Mr Thomas Macnamara: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the matter again, because of the great anxiety of which. many of these men, who have given efficient service—some of whom are over 40 years of age while others are over 50—and in view of the general feeling that it is not expedient to submit these men to examination, will he reconsider suspending these examinations until we can fully discuss the matter?
Mr Thomas Macnamara: I can only indicate my assent. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very frank statement. I think I may thank him on behalf of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I am very glad to hear that it will be in such a form that we can reach a decision. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Thomas Macnamara: I am sorry to detain the House at this late hour, but I feel I am bound to ask the attention of hon. Members for a little while to the case of the pensions which have been paid to certain ranker officers. On 13th March, on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker, do now leave the Chair," on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Nottingham...
Mr Thomas Macnamara: The Prime Minister's undertaking.
Mr Thomas Macnamara: No. The undertaking given by the Prime Minister was as follows, if the OFFICIAL REPORT be right: The whole matter should come before an authoritatively agreed committee, so that this House can act upon whatever report the committee present to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1924; col. 2665, Vol. 170.]
Mr Thomas Macnamara: Legal.
Mr Thomas Macnamara: To justice.
Mr Thomas Macnamara: Legal obligation.
Mr Thomas Macnamara: Who suggested it?
Mr Thomas Macnamara: It is.
Mr Thomas Macnamara: I only intervene to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take care to represent to the Prime Minister that, without dissent in this discussion, it is agreed among us that undoubtedly the House gave the vote which it did on the 30th March on the definite understanding, arising out of what the Prime Minister said, that it would come before the House if the Committee turned it down....
Mr Thomas Macnamara: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not told us that he himself will support it. That is all I want. He has come as near to that as he can, and I beg to ask him to say that he does support it.
Mr Thomas Macnamara: The Committee has listened to a very interesting speech, which has manifestly made a profound impression upon hon. Members. I make no complaint of the many sound economic propositions as to the importance of foreign trade and so forth with which the right hon. Gentleman opened his remarks, and do not suppose anybody will complain of them. Indeed, so fascinating was a great deal that the...
Mr Thomas Macnamara: A lot have come in since then, but it has approved of 177 in four months. It has allocated £144,000 in grants, according to that Paper, in the four months. It is in the table. But in the previous 10 months, when the late Government were in office—and they have been denounced on the ground that their schemes were wholly inadequate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, certainly they have been...
Mr Thomas Macnamara: Well, I will make any comparison my right hon. Friend likes. I think his point was that the figures carried us beyond June. If that be so, I have nothing more to say. I am dealing with the printed document. I will take the grants which the Unemployment Grants Committee make towards the interest and sinking fund charges of works covered by loans. Five hundred of these schemes have been...
Mr Thomas Macnamara: The Minister will take part in the discussion later. It is a very simple point. Here you have a "Road and Bridge (February, 1924) Programme." Is that part of the scheme of which we have just heard, or is it a scheme involving an entirely new provision of money? I should be glad if it is. Whether it is or is not, has Parliament sanctioned this new Road and Bridge Programme, and has my right...
Mr Thomas Macnamara: For that you may require Parliamentary powers?
Mr Thomas Macnamara: I have not yet been told whether this £13,500,000 in this programme is included at all in the Chancellor's statement?
Mr Thomas Macnamara: I did not ask for that. I am not pressing this out of pure partisanship. We are entitled to know the facts. What I am asking is whether that £13,500,000 covered any part of the Chancellor's statement to-day? Take the roads mentioned—the Liverpool-Manchester Road or the Edinburgh Road. May I take it that the Chancellor's statement is entirely outside anything now in existence or...
Mr Thomas Macnamara: The Chancellor contradicts me. He ought to know. The statement shows that past expenditure by the Exchequer on forestry for 1923–24 was £100,000. Provision for 1924–25 by the Exchequer on forestry was £30,000.
