§ Again considered in Committee.
§ [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
§
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,593,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Removal of Workers and their Dependants; Grants for assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War.
§ Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,592,900, be granted for the said Service."
§ 9.58 p.m.
§ Mr. BATEYWhen the interruption came at half-past Seven o'Clock I was dealing with the item of £25,000 for charity organisations and asking why the item had been increased from £10,000 to £25,000. We object to any money going to any charity organisations. Money which is raised and comes within the domain of the Unemployment Insurance Fund ought to go to the unemployed and not to any charity organisations. When the House voted £10,000 last year, we understood that it was to be given to the National Council of Social Service. The money was given principally for the purpose of helping social services, and the chief reason given by the Minister was that the money was for the purpose of encouraging physical training. I notice in the Estimate this year that the 634 Minister has dropped the words "National Council of Social Service," and in page 25 of the Estimates says:
Grants in respect of arrangements for assisting and stimulating voluntary efforts to provide occupation for unemployed persons.It is clear that what the Minister has in mind is that the money shall be given to voluntary organisations for the purpose of finding employment. As this is public money voted by the House of Commons, we are entitled to ask what voluntary organisations have already received money or are to receive it? If an organisation claims to be a charitable organisation and to help the unemployed, we should be extremely careful in voting it public money. The money should only be granted to such a voluntary organisation provided we are able to keep a thorough grip upon the organisation not merely in regard to providing work but in keeping in touch with young men and women so assisted. The Minister should give us the names of the voluntary organisations, because there are so many of them in the country.I understood, when we voted the £10,000, that the money was largely for social centres. Is the Ministry of Labour keeping in touch with those social centres, because they are springing up all over. Some of the social centres are making articles which are being sold in shops and are really blacklegging employers who are producing similar articles under trade union conditions. Articles are made in the social centres without any payment of wages and at a very cheap rate, and they can be sold cheaply to the shops. Therefore, they are really injuring the employers and trades which are paying trade union rates of wages. I should like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that these social centres are not doing more harm than good.
I would draw the attention of the Minister to the huge sum of money required for the cost of administration, which amounts this year to no less than £7,100,000. When the public see that £83,000,000 is to be provided for the Unemployment Insurance Fund, they get the impression that all the money is to go to the unemployed, but here we are with an item of no less than £7,100,000 which is being paid in respect of the cost of administration. I urge the Minister of Labour, as I have done in former years, 635 to give his attention to the huge cost of administration when so many of the unemployed are suffering so acutely. The Minister should, if he can, reduce this huge cost. We also have to complain that £2,000,000 of the £7,100,000 I have mentioned is to be used for the administration of transitional payments. The Minister should not go to this additional cost, under the means test, in regard to what is really duplicate machinery. The Employment Exchanges established throughout the country should deal with all the unemployed instead of having the additional machinery of the public assistance committees and the commissioners. There is no reason whatever for the duplication of machinery. The Ministry ought to aim at the simplification of the machinery.
There is another item about which I was not clear when my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was speaking. He referred to the saving on the Estimates. If I understood the Minister aright he said that under the means test the Ministry saved last year, in round figures, £30,000,000. What we want to know is how much does the Minister anticipate will be saved under the means test this year? I cannot believe that the Ministry has not formed some estimate as to the amount of money that will have to be paid for transitional benefit this year. As £30,000,000 was saved last year, are we to understand that the Minister expects to save an additional £30,000,000 this year? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had provided for the payment of only £22,000,000 for transitional benefit. But the cost is about £54,000,000. So it rather seems that the Ministry expects to save this year an additional £30,000,000 under the means test. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make the figures clear to us.
I drew attention earlier to-night to what had been said about the means test not merely from these benches but by supporters of the Government. Let me put a question to the Minister. Does he intend to go on with the means test, seeing that it is condemned from these benches and by Conservatives and by the country generally? The Minister ought to tell us what the position is. The test is one of the most obnoxious things that 636 any Government could devise. I heard the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) say yesterday, in reference to another country, that its conduct was unchristian, and ungenerous, and so forth. Of the means test we could use all those words and many more. In my opinion it is one of the meanest things of which anyone could be guilty, and it is one of the most unchristian things.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member can discuss the administration of the means test, but he cannot discuss a proposed abolition of it.
§ Mr. BATEYI was not advocating abolition. I simply want to know what the Minister is going to do with it, whether he proposes to continue it or to reduce benefit or what? I want to know the mind of the Minister.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member can ask questions about the mind of the Minister, as to how the Minister is going to carry out his duty in regard to the means test, but he cannot ask whether the Minister is going to abolish the means test, because that would involve legislation.
§ Mr. BATEYI do not think I used the word "abolish." I want to know whether the Minister is satisfied with the means test. But I leave the matter there, because I want to refer to the question of administration. In my opinion the administration of the means test is bad, but let me pass to the administration by commissioners of supplementary benefit, which is far worse. We come from an area where we still object not only to the means test but to the administration of supplementary benefit by the commissioners. I want the Minister clearly to understand that, although we may not be putting as many questions to him now as we were putting some weeks ago, we are still strongly embittered by the administration of supplementary benefit by the commissioners. All that I have said about the meanness and the unchristian character of the means test can be applied doublefold to the administration of supplementary benefit by the commissioners.
Let me give the details of a case of which I heard last Saturday. A man in my constituency said to me: "I am over 637 60 years of age. I am still working in the pit for a low wage. I have a married daughter. My wife said to me, 'As our daughter's husband has been out of work for some time we will bring her and her husband and their two children here to live with us.'" The daughter and her husband and the two children went to live with the father and mother, whereupon the commissioners reduced the benefit by 2s. 6d. a week. How the Minister can justify an action like that or continue this system is beyond me. We cannot speak too strongly of the administration of supplementary benefit by the commissioners. Does the Minister propose to continue administering supplementary benefit through the commissioners, or has he seen the wisdom of doing away with commissioners and dealing with the matter in an altogether different way?
The Minister told us to-day that the figures for unemployment during the first three months of this year showed a fall of 200,000, and he added that the figures gave cause for encouragement. I was reminded that the Minister really is an optimist. But sometimes he is not justified in his optimism. May I remind him of a speech that he delivered in March last year, when he said that he believed we were justified in entertaining feelings of restrained optimism as to the future, and that the facts justified some hope that the corner had been turned? We have not got round the corner yet, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in his optimism to-day on the figures that he presented to the House. I do not believe that they give cause for encouragement. He confessed that in two important trades, cotton and coal, there was a very large decrease in employment. I want the Minister and the Government to turn their attention to those trades. Until they can put the cotton trade and the coal trade on their feet they will not be justified in being optimistic and in believing that we are likely to get round the corner. Therefore, I would like the Minister to impress upon the Cabinet that something should be done in order to help those trades.
The Minister, to justify his position to-day in regard to the coal trade, quoted the recent trade agreements with Denmark, Germany, Argentina, Norway and 638 Sweden. Those agreements will do very little for the coal industry. Last year we sold 16,000,000 tons of coal less than we did in 1930. In 1930, with all the faults of the Labour Government—
§ Mr. SLATERWhat about 1926?
§ Mr. BATEYThe hon. Member must recollect in regard to 1926 that the trouble was due to the fact that we wanted to maintain a decent standard of life for our people. Does he say that we were not justified in that?
§ Mr. SLATERIt was the wrong way to go about it.
§ Mr. BATEYDoes the hon. Member say that we were not justified in trying to maintain a decent standard of life for our people? When hon. Members quote 1926 to us we feel that they do not want the people to have a decent standard of life.
§ Mr. SLATERThat is not so.
§ Mr. BATEYThat is the interpretation we put upon it. In 1930, when the Labour Government were in office, we exported 54,000,000 tons of coal. Last year we only exported 38,000,000 tons. The trade agreements, at the best, will only increase our coal export by a little over 3,000,000 tons a year, so that there is a long leeway to make up. We are still a long way short. I would like the Minister to give far more attention than he has yet given to the question of doing something to help the coal industry. He said that the Government cannot find employment. I believe the Government could find employment and that it is their duty to do so, or to maintain the men at a decent standard of life. The Government could find employment for the people if they had the will to do it. The Minister says that we must leave the finding of employment to private enterprise. That is what we have done, and private enterprise has been an absolute failure.
The Government might take a lesson from the President of the United States. He wants to raise £660,000,000 in order to find employment for the people of America. There is friendship between this country and America, therefore let us see if we cannot get a new idea from the President of America. He realises that he can help America by raising a fund for the purpose of finding work for 639 the people, and I want our Government to copy that example and see if they cannot do something more than they are doing in order to find work for men who have been out of employment for so many years. The Minister mentioned the fact that there are 50,000 fewer miners employed to-day than at the beginning of the year. The mere recital of those figures does not give a correct idea of the condition of things in the North of England. In the North of England we have whole districts derelict, and there is no hope of employment. These districts simply make one feel that something out of the ordinary must be done, and that the Minister ought not to be satisfied with merely coming down to the House, submitting the Estimates, having an academic Debate and then going away and thinking that everything is right. We have had so many of these Debates that we are apt to get a little tired of them. I put it to the Minister, and to the Government, that there is an absolute need for something to be done, far more than is being done now. The Government must wake up and stimulate employment, if necessary find employment so that these men may find work.
§ 10.21 p.m.
§ Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSONI had not intended to address the Committee this evening but I cannot help commenting upon one or two remarks of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). When he went back to the record of the Labour Government I was hoping that he was going to refer to the remarkable growth of unemployment under that administration of 150 per cent. and to the fall of 1½ per cent. under the present Government. Unlike him I am not going to attribute everything that has gone wrong to the fault of any particular Government, that is highly unreasonable. I want to refer to the work of the National Council of Social Service. The hon. Member for Spennymoor rather attacked social service centres and implied that the Government were not justified in granting sums of money to them. From my personal experience of these social service centres I should like to pay my tribute to the work of the National Council of Social Service and my criticism of the Minister is not that he spends too much in grants to the 640 council, and to kindred associations, but that he has spent far too little. From my experience in my own constituency, which I am certain can be paralled in other constituencies, it is my firm conviction that the vast Majority of unemployed men approach these centres most willingly and are most anxious that they should flourish.
In one town in my constituency during the last two or three months, the unemployed men themselves, out of their pennies every week, have amassed a reserve fund, over and above working expenses, of £16. That is a contribution from men who are receiving unemployment insurance and transitional benefit, which is truly remarkable. The point which I do not think the hon. Member has realised is that the money from the Government grant is not going to recreational centres, it is being given only in order to form occupational centres, where the men can learn a trade. I am certain he is wrong when he says that to a large extent the products of the occupational centres are being sold in ordinary shops to the detriment of ordinary tradesmen. I hope the Minister in framing his Estimates for another year will pay far more attention to the vast amount of salvage work among the unemployed which can be done by these centres. They do not tend to make the men contented with their lot, they do not undermine their independence of attitude and independence of spirit, but they do enable them to feel that they are doing something for themselves and something for the community. I believe that every penny spent in this work produces far more result than many shillings spent in transitional benefit or unemployment insurance.
The hon. Member for Spennymoor, as, indeed, most Members who have spoken in the Debate, has referred to the means test. In common with all supporters of the National Government I am convInced that a means test is absolutely essential—I say that quite definitely—but I should not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not say that there is profound misgiving amongst Members of all parties who represent industrial constituencies as to certain types of administration, certain methods of administration, of the means test. I only heard to-day of a town where the 641 public assistance committee had a certain amount of discretion up to a few weeks ago. That discretion has now been taken away, and a Revisory County Committee, as it is called, has been appointed with the result that 200 or 300 cases, particularly hard cases, which had been sent up to the revisory committee were dealt with in an hour or an hour and a half. I can imagine it being done by the office boy. Every grant of money from public funds over and above a certain statutory limit has been cut down ruthlessly. If industrial districts are not to have a sense of profound grievance, a wide range of discretion must be left to the local public assistance committees.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) the other day jibed at the Government for being what he called a South country government. I do not think it was a just jibe. I think this Government have paid far more attention to the mining industry than any preceding Government. But there is a danger that hon. Members living in the South of England, and the Government, may forget that there is all the difference in the world between a district in the South where unemployment is sporadic, geographically speaking, and a district in the North or in Wales where it is constant and where it affects the whole district. If one family out of 10 is dependent on transitional payment, they get an enormous amount of help from their neighbours. But when it is a case of five or six families out of 10, neighbourly feeling cannot provide the requisite help. I am not attacking the Minister or the Government because I have the utmost faith in them. But I should not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not point out the profound misgivings and uneasiness which exists among people of all varieties of political opinion at the extraordinary anomalies in the administration of these means test provisions.
One finds cases such as that of a father who is at work with two sons who are out of work. The sons live in outhouses or in huts on allotments, in order to be able to draw their transitional payments. There is another hardship involved which is not reflected in the ordinary unemployment figures. When a pit is shut down for eight days in a fortnight, it may be that the whole income of a town, in- 642 stead of being the wages of 12 working days in the fortnight, is restricted to the proceeds of four days' work in the fortnight. Turning to a different subject, my own experience has been that no praise can be too high for the managers of the Employment Exchanges and the Ministry certainly deserve a tribute on that score. FiNaily I beg of the Minister to remember that while, in the attacks of the Labour party upon the Government, in connection with the means test, 80 per cent. of their criticism merely arises from the fact that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, yet there is 20 per cent. which is common to all parties—and that many of us are very uneasy about it although our faith and trust in the National Government are not diminished.
§ 10.28 p.m.
§ Mr. LANSBURYTo-night's discussion has been a little different from most of those which have preceded it on the Ministry of Labour Vote. We have had several speeches like that of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson), more or less advocating the view that we ought to consider this question in a nonpartisan spirit. The hon. Member said that it was the duty of the Opposition to oppose. I assure him that in any good which the Government seeks to do we shall be glad to support them. We do not take the attitude that our business is merely to sling stones at the Government or at anybody else. It is our business to put a point of view, and, if we cannot get the whole of our views accepted, to get as much of it accepted as we can. What amuses me is that hon. Members who appeal for a non-party view of this question, generally start by attacking the late Labour Government. Whenever any hon. Member is hard put to it to find an argument, he turns round and says: "This is what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said"—somewhere, some time, years ago. I am beginning to feel quite swollen-headed about it, because apparently what George Lansbury said a century ago, the Tory party thinks to-day. I cannot help feeling that, because hon. Member after hon. Member, when they want to defend some rascality, call me in aid. I feel very proud, because it shows how hard-up they are for arguments themselves, that they have to fall 643 back on what I said in my prehistoric days.
There is one point about which I would like the Minister of Labour to give us a little more enlightenment. It was raised by one of my hon. Friends. It is on page 4, and it has to do with the figures of savings on transitional payments. This will have some bEarlng on what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) spoke about earlier in the evening, as to the deterioration in the health of the people and the fact that in all kinds of districts there is dissatisfaction with the administration of the means test. If these figures are right, I think we have enough reason for the dissatisfaction. The Minister budgets this year for £31,400,000, and last year he spent, apparently, £54,350,000. I would like to know whether he did spend that, or-whether it is an estimate, because it says in the last column that that is a decrease of £22,950,000 for this year. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me whether the £54,350,000 was spent last year. When it came forward we understood that it was a saving of £10,000,000 on the previous year. The only point that we want cleared up is whether you are going to save this year nearly £23,000,000, because if you saved £10,000,000 last year, it means that you are really going to take £40,000,000, as compared with the expenditure of the Labour Government. We would very much like to have those figures cleared up, because if you save the money, it is certain that the unemployed cannot have it.
I want to raise the question of training. I am of opinion that no young man or young woman ought to be kept in idleness. I have always maintained that, and I have always maintained also that no able-bodied man with a wife and family, able and willing to work, should be refused absolutely full maintenance for his wife, his children, and himself, if the State and no one else can find him the means of earning his living. With regard to young men, when I spoke in the House some months ago, on the day when we had a free discussion without any vote, I dealt with this question, as I thought, on the common-sense lines. There is here a figure of £448,000 for the training of young unemployed men. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) 644 and those who have asked: "When you have trained them what are you going to do with them?" Where are they to go?" This is not a new problem. It is a problem which all of us who have dealt with unemployment have been up against all our lives. It is futile to train men without having any occupation for them when they have been trained. The hon. Member for Wallsend said that they were to go back home reconditioned—a foul word to apply to human beings. We have no business to let them get into that condition. It is like talking about old junk.
The hon. Member for Wallsend went on to say that they should have their unemployment insurance paid while they were being trained so that when they finished training they would be eligible for unemployment pay. There is a fine sort of prospect to put before a young man! You are to train and refit him—or recondition him, as you say—and at the end he is to walk about doing nothing. He will have 15s. a week and when he gets out of condition he will be again reconditioned. All that is nonsense. Anyone who has ever heard me speak in the House knows that I have taken up that line in regard to ordinary training. I was a minority on this subject in the Government of which I was a Member, and they stuck to transference until they could stick to it no longer. I spoke against transference when the Treasury Committee first brought it up some years ago, when there was an investigation in South Wales. Everybody said then, as a great expert said when Employment Exchanges were instituted, that we wanted to secure mobility of labour and that would settle unemployment. The assumption underlying transference and training is that there is a job waiting at the end. Everybody knows, however, that there is no work waiting to be done to-day, and all that happens is that if you train a man he gets a job if there is one, and the man who is not trained does not get it. The business of the Employment Exchanges is to give the first opportunity of work to people who have been trained.
What could we do with this £400,000 and a great deal more that is in these Estimates for unemployment and training? If the Government are unwilling to undertake the drainage and reclamation of land and the bringing of derelict land into cultivation, they could do all the 645 drainage and the prevention of flooding that needs to be done by getting contractors under ordinary conditions. The only thing that I would stipulate is that they should take the young men and employ them ordinarily as they would if they had a contract to build a railway. I cannot understand why the Government should continue to spend money in this way and refuse to do such useful work as the prevention of the flooding which takes place every year. I have seen miners doing this kind of work, and there are no men who can do it better, and none better than young miners. Instead of putting these young men into occupational centres or into training centres and giving them a fairly easy and good time for a few weeks, I say that the Minister of Agriculture and all concerned with the land should supply the right hon. Gentleman with the schemes and that the money which is in this Vote, and other money which we ought to insist upon the Treasury providing, should be used to carry out this useful work.
The next thing I would do with these young men would be to allow them to undertake the work of turning the land they had reclaimed into farms, either smallholdings or big farms, just as the experts said was best, and I am certain that 90 per cent. of them could, if properly dealt with, ultimately get their living on the land. About that, also, I have had experience. I never speak on these subjects without experience. The district I represent has, ever Since I was born, been a district with multitudes of unemployed. Anyone who has done administrative work in Poplar or East London has had to face the unemployment problem for the last 50 years. Men have gone from the East End of London into the eastern counties, and are to-day getting their living in the eastern counties, after having passed through Laindon colony, and the Hollesley Bay colony when it was under decent administration. We are crying out that the export trade of the country is going down, and that we ought to develop agriculture, and yet we are spending all this money on training men for occupations in which there is no outlet for them. We should employ them instead on reclaiming land which is at present derelict, on draining land that needs draining, and also on the prevention of flooding.
646 Ever Since unemployment has been discussed in this House we have talked about taking in a great area of land in LinColnshire connected with the Wash. I believe that scheme is in the pigeon-holes of the Board of Agriculture. When I hear hon. Members and others say that it would not pay to reclaim that land, I look across the North Sea to Holland and see what they have done there. They have reclaimed from the sea miles of land which the Dutch will put to productive purposes. I have got up to say that I consider it is a waste to spend this money in the way which has been proposed by the Ministry. I have been round these centres. It looks fine to see young men getting good food for a few weeks. I have been also to the settlements where we have trained men to go out to the Dominions. I do not want to see young men kept in idleness, because that is the worst thing that can happen to any human being, and especially to the young, but I do not want them to be dragooned in the fashion suggested earlier and to have only pocket money. I want them to be employed in the ordinary manner, as my forbears were employed in building railways up and down the country; only instead of building railways I want them to be employed along the lines which I have suggested. There is no earthly reason why the Minister should not put his two feet down and say to the Treasury and to the Board of Agriculture "I will not spend this money in this wasteful manner; I will spend it in a way that is useful both to the country and to the men with whom I am dealing."
§ 10.46 p.m.
§ Sir H. BETTERTONI propose quite shortly to answer some of the points which have been raised in what, to me at any rate, has been a very interesting and in many respects very satisfactory Debate. In the whole course of this discussion, no one on any side of the House has done anything but recognise the difficulties of my situation and, in more than one instance, to pay a well-deserved tribute to the efforts which the officers of my Department are making in that most difficult situation. I wish to make that recognition at once.
With regard to what has just been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I confess that I have a very great deal of 647 sympathy with him. He talks about putting people on to the land, which we should have reclaimed. Obviously, before you can put people on the land, you must make agriculture in this country pay. That is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture is trying to do at this moment. I have hopes of the future that, when agriculture, as a result of the efforts which are being made, is a paying proposition, you might ask men, with a reasonable prospect of making their livings, to do those things which the right hon. Gentleman suggests should be done. I have no sympathy at all with the suggestion that you should encourage men to go on the land or to go into anything else unless you are reasonably satisfied that, when you put them there, they have a reasonable chance of making a living.
The first point that was put in this Debate was a comparatively small one, and it was put by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). He asked that more publicity should be given in regard to the facilities which Employment Exchanges offer. Certainly I will consider that, and when I say that I will consider it I mean that I will do my utmost to ensure that the fullest publicity is given in the exchanges, in order that it might be well known what facilities the exchanges offer. The next of the points raised was by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) about the courts of referees. He pointed out that there is a decrease of £74,000 in the Estimates, and he wanted to know why there was a decrease. The Estimate for 1932 was £124,000, and that for 1933 Was £50,000—a decrease of £74,000. The decrease has taken place for two reasons. The Estimate only provides for the courts of referees up to the end of June. That is the main reason for the decrease, and it accounts for £50,000 out of the £74,000. The second reason is that there is an anticipated reduction of the number of cases coming before the courts and in the average number of cases expected. The number coming before the courts is now fairly constant, whereas last year there was an increased number in the early part of the year, as a result of the Anomalies Act.
§ Sir H. BETTERTONOf course we are, but this Estimate only provides up to the end of June. There is another point which caused a great deal of interest—and I am not surprised—and that is as to why it was that we were asking the comparatively small sum—it is rather anomalous to talk about the "comparatively small sum"—of £22,500,000 in the Supplementary Estimate to provide for transitional payments over the remaining three-quarters of the year. It is pointed out that up to June the amount provided for transitional payments is £31,400,000, which is a decrease of £29,000,000 as compared with last year.
§ Mr. LAWS0NOn page 4 of the Estimates it will be seen that last year, 1932, the Estimate was worth £54,350,000, and this year it is £31,400,000, which shows a decrease of £22,950,000.
§ Sir H. BETTERTONThat is not quite the point with which I was dealing. The reason for this apparent discrepancy in the amount which we require after June, as compared with the amount that we are spending up to June—which is one quarter of the financial year—is that provision is made in the Estimates for transitional payments for the whole year for those persons who come on to it by reason of the fact that they have exhausted their 26 weeks standard benefit, whereas provision is only made up to 30th June for those who come on to transitional payments by reason of the fact that they no longer satisfy the 30 stamps contribution qualification. So you must divide into these two classes those who are entitled to transitional payments—the first class being those who come on to it by reason of the fact that they have exhausted their 26 weeks standard benefit and these are provided for up to the end of the year. Those who are not provided for up to the end of the year and for whom we shall have to make provision to the extent of £22,500,000 are those who come on to transitional payments by reason of the fact that they have not got 30 stamps to their credit.
The point which I think the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) had in mind was this: The White Paper issued in the autumn of 1931 gave the estimated saving which would result from the application of the means test at £10,000,000. That gave an estimated Cost of transitional payments of £37,500,000. 649 In fact transitional payments cost £54,000,000 in 1932–33. If the means test had not been in operation at all this figure would have been increased by nearly £16,000,000. The increase is not due to harshness of administration in any way at all. It arises from the fact that more persons were entitled to transitional payments than was expected and the total cost of transitional payments in 1932–33, namely, £54,000,000, is actually £6,500,000 more than was estimated would be the cost even without the needs test. That is the explanation of what is really a very complicated figure.
§ Mr. LAWS0NYou are only asking for £31,400,000 this year, and that is £23,000,000 less than last year.
§ Sir H. BETTERTONYes, but here again it is explained by the fact that only part of the cost of transitional payments is provided for up to the end of the year. Part of it, on the other hand, has to be provided for out of the Supplementary Estimate. That is the explanation.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), in, if I may say so, a most interesting and not unhelpful speech, called attention to the difficulties which the whole Committee will appreciate, namely, the difficulties which have arisen from difference of treatment, and therefore apparent anomalies, between one district and another. She read passages from the report of the Royal Commission, and she said, "The Royal Commission said you could do this and you could do that; why on earth do you not do it? If you would only give these directions which the Royal Commission recommend, the anomalies would cease." She suggested, naturally enough, though without fully appreciating the position in which I am, that I must be held responsible for all these doubts and difficulties and hardships which arise in various parts of the country.
The truth of the matter is that I am bound by the Order-in-Council, which is the existing law, and which came into effect in September, 1931. These recom-
§ mendations, many of which, if I may say so, are very good ones, were made in the report which came out subsequently to the Order-in-Council. Under the existing law I have no power at all to give directions of any sort or kind; but the very points to which the hon. Member called attention—and I agree that they are all points which must be fully and carefully considered—are being carefully considered, and will, I hope, be dealt with in the forthcoming legislation. Really, however, the hon. Member must not blame me for or charge me with not doing something which the House of Commons has given me no power whatever to do, namely, giving directions with regard to these cases of anomaly. We have done a great deal by way of administrative action in endeavouring as far as we can to smooth over these difficulties and anomalies as between one part of the country and another, and we have not been unsuccessful.
§ I very much regret to say that I cannot deal as fully as I should have liked with the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey)—I mean, deal with the points that he raised; but I will endeavour to answer as best I can the questions that he put. He raised doubts and criticisms about the administration in Durham. It is not the first time he has done that, and I do not suppose it will be the last, but I would remind him of the promise that I gave earlier in the Debate, when I told him that, in pursuance of the request which he himself made, I had called for a report on that administration, and that the report will be laid on the Table. I am reminded that I have no time to proceed any further with answering the questions that have been put, and, therefore, I must reluctantly forego the pleasure of dealing with them. I will end as I began, by thanking the Committee for the way in which they have received my Estimates.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,592,900, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 187.
651| Division No. 181.] | AYES. | [11.0 P.m. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Cape, Thomas | Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) |
| Batey, Joseph | Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Cripps, Sir Stafford | Edwards, Charles |
| Buchanan, George | Daggar, George | Grenfell, David Root (Glamorgan) |
| Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lunn, William | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Hicks, Ernest George | McEntee, Valentine L. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Jenkins, Sir William | Mainwaring, William Henry | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Maxton, James | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Milner, Major James | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley} |
| Lawson, John James | Parkinson, John Allen | |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Price, Gabriel | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. John and Mr. Groves. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Hales, Harold K. | Pickering, Ernest H. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) | Potter, John |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Hanbury, Cecil | PowNail, Sir Assheton |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Hanley, Dennis A. | Procter, Major Henry Adam |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Bateman, A. L. | Harbord, Arthur | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Hartland, George A. | Ramsden, Sir Eugene |
| Batterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rankin, Robert |
| Borodale, Viscount. | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Ratcliffe, Arthur |
| Bossom, A. C. | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Boulton, W. W. | Hepworth, Joseph | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) | Robinson, John Roland |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y) | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) |
| Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Rutherford, John (Edmonton) |
| Burnett, John George | Iveagh, Countess of | Salmon, Sir Isidore |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Jackson, sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Jennings, Roland | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Selley, Harry R. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Law, Sir Alfred | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Clayton, Dr. George C. | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Slater, John |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Leckie, J. A. | Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) |
| Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Liddall, Walter S. | Soper, Richard |
| Copeland, Ida | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. | Llewellin, Major John J. | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Crooks, J. Smedley | Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Spens, William Patrick |
| Cross, R. H. | Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Stevenson, James |
| Crossley, A. C. | McCorquodale, M. s. | Storey, Samuel |
| Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Culverwell, Cyril Tom | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Strickland, Captain w. F. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Dickie, John P. | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. |
| Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | McKie, John Hamilton | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Eastwood, John Francis | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Magnay, Thomas | Thompson, Luke |
| Elmley, Viscount | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | Vaughan, Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Fermoy, Lord | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Fleming, Edward Lascelles | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | White, Henry Graham |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Milne, Charles | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Ford, Sir Patrick J. | Mitcheson, G. G. | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
| Fox, Sir Gifford | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Fremantle, Sir Francis | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Gledhill, Gilbert | Muirhead, Major A. J. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Goff, Sir Park | Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Goldie, Noel B. | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Womersley, Walter James |
| Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Wood. Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff) |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Nunn, William | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) | O'Donovan, Dr. William James | |
| Greene, William p. C. | Palmer, Francis Noel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Pearson, William G. | Captain Sir George Bowyer and Dr. Morris-Jones. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Petherick, M. | |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'vsrh'pt'n, Blist'n) |
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
652§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.