DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).

HC Deb 26 April 1922 vol 153 cc656-99

Major JOHN EDWARDS

I beg to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should be called upon fully and with the utmost promptitude to fulfil its obligations to the disabled ex-service men who have been or are now being trained and to the disabled ex-service men now awaiting training. In moving this motion I am not unmindful of the efforts of the Minister of Labour in the matter of training these disabled ex-service men and finding employment for them. His sympathy and his good will are worthy of a son of an ex-service man, but his efforts have been cramped because he has relied upon the good will of individuals to carry out the obligations of the State. It is not his efforts that are in question, but his methods. We are told there are 20,000 disabled ex-service men now unemployed, and as long as that is the fact we cannot consider that we have carried out the promises given or implied during and after the War. Whatever may be the position of non ex-service men who are unemployed, whatever may be the position of fit ex-service men who are unemployed, it comes doubly hard upon a disabled ex-service man to be unemployed. It falls very hard upon one who has been robbed of the recreations and diversions he was able formerly to pursue to be robbed of employment as well. My right hon. Friend has relied upon the good will of individuals in his efforts to place these men in employment. Originally it was a voluntary matter whether employers employed these men or not. Later, a little encouragement was given to or mild intimidation brought to bear upon employers in the form of the King's Roll. There are 30,000 firms whose names are on the King's Roll, some of them having joined quite voluntarily and others after a little gentle persuasion; but it must follow that there are a large number of firms whose names are not upon it, and who are unwilling, therefore, to undertake to include among their employés 5 per cent. of disabled men. The local authorities on the King's Roll number 1,010; here, again, a large number have not yet discharged their duty, and there seems no prospect of their undertaking it. There are 1,800 local authorities not on the King's Roll.

These figures show that not half the local authorities have yet undertaken to employ 5 per cent. of disabled ex-service men. As long as these numbers are so unsatisfactory it cannot be said that we have, through relying upon voluntary methods, been able to fulfil our obligations to these disabled ex-service men. My right hon. Friend has as much as admitted this. A few weeks ago he said he was not satisfied with the increase in the number of firms on the Roll, and that he was very far from satisfied with the number of local authorities—that the increase was far too slow. He has been urged by many to publish the names of the firms and the local authorities who are not on the King's Roll. I do not think it will make very much difference whether the names are published or not. Those who are left are hardened sinners. The Government's action in giving contracts as far as possible to firms who have employed 5 per cent. disabled ex-service men has not produced a very large increase in the number upon the King's Roll. That being so, it is my contention that the period for relying upon individuals to keep the pledges of the State to disabled ex-service men has now passed, and that the time has come when other means must be adopted by the State to keep its pledges. If, during the three and a half years since the Armistice, individuals have not come to realise their responsibilities to these men it is very improbable they will do so afterwards, and to my mind some compulsory method must now be adopted. In Germany and Austria employers are compelled to take a percentage of disabled ex-service men, and I understand that in France and Italy Acts have been or are being passed with the same object in view. If the Government do not feel inclined to compel firms to take a percentage of disabled ex-service men there is only one other alternative, and that is they must employ them direct. To leave unemployed thousands of disabled ex-service men who have been trained by the Government is to squander the money spent on their training, for they quickly forget all they have learned. My right hon. Friend has informed us that 63,000 have been trained. Not everyone is satisfied with the training given to them. I have no doubt improvements will be made and, perhaps, a further delegation of authority to the divisional directors might achieve something and a great deal might be done for the welfare of these men while they are actually in training. In that respect I would commend to my right hon. Friend the report of the Committee which was set up by the Trainees Guild more or less at the instigation of my right hon. Friend. Sixty-three thousand have been trained, but some of these are only half trained. We cannot consider that men who have merely been through a Government Instructional Factory are fully trained. In many trades and industries it is necessary that they should go as improvers for a certain period. There are something like 3,000 men who have been dismissed from the Government Instructional Factories without an improvership of any kind. As long as the right hon. Gentleman allows these men, half trained as they are, to be dismissed from the factories, he is not carrying out the Government's obligation towards them.

It is true that my right hon. Friend has lately resorted to the humiliating device of canvassing employers in order to induce them to take a certain number of these men who are in the stage of improvers, and his efforts have resulted in places being found for about 3,800. As long as men are without improverships the Government will not have fulfilled its obligations to them. The only alternative is that employers should be compelled to accept these men as improvers, and if the Government does not feel disposed to introduce compulsion in this matter, then it ought to employ the men directly and so transform its factories as to enable them to undertake work directly from the Government. In addition, it has to be remembered that there are 29,000 men who are not trained at all. They are on what is called the Waiting List. The admission of men into training depends on trade conditions which are decided by Technical Advisory Committees. If my information is correct, one man on a Technical Advisory Committee can prevent any trainee going into any workshop in the particular district in which the Committee sits. These Committees have not always given good advice in the past, and one result is that we have 20,000 of these disabled ex-service men still unemployed. Is it not possible that their advice now may be as wrong in the right direction as in the past it has been wrong in the wrong direction? Is it not possible that by the time these men have been trained positions will be open for them? My right hon. Friend should be urged to get these Technical Advisory Committees to relax their conservatism. It is true that many unions have been very generous. There are some that have been very conservative. Some have admitted more men than they need at present. Others have admitted fewer than they require even at the present moment. Let these others relax their conservatism and admit more men. Either they must unbend or my right hon. Friend must go on with the training of the men. And must train them in what they desire to be trained. If a man applies to be trained in a particular industry he is told there is no room in that line, but that he may be trained in another line. I venture to say that the man trained in such a way cannot; make an efficient and contented workman.

After all, it was the State that took away from these disabled ex-service men their chance of earning a livelihood. It was through serving the State that they were rendered unable to follow their former employment, and, that being so, they should be given just as free a choice in making a fresh start as they were able to exercise in the first instance. They served the State in fair weather and foul. It seems to me that the State wishes to serve them in fair weather only. They said to the State, "We will defend you whether the fighting is rough or smooth," and these men are a living witness that it was mostly rough. The State serves them, it would appear, only as far as the Technical Advisory Committees will permit. They are twice disabled. The State promised to reinstate them in civil life. Instead they are setting a net to prevent them getting back. It was by means of this policy that my right hon. Friend was able to save a considerable amount of money during the past year, and by means of the same policy, with the assistance of these Technical Advisory Committees, he intends to save £3,000,000 in the coming year. Yet my right hon. Friend says he is prosecuting with vigour the policy of training these disabled ex-service men! How can he reconcile the saving of this money, the closing down of the Government instructional factories, and the curtailment of the training of these men with an ardent desire to train them?

This is not the time to limit Government activities in this direction. It is the time to maintain them and even to increase them, for there are many men yet who are liable to break down, men who went back to their pre-War occupations, but who are now feeling the strain of their work and are unable to carry on. My right hon. Friend is putting a barrier in their way. He says that applications after the 30th September, 1921, cannot he considered unless the men were demobilised after that date or are in hospital. I say these men to whom I am referring are especially entitled to a chance, for they are the very best, men who courageously attempted to tackle what they had been doing before the War. Many of these men have broken down, and, in view of the fact that there are now 29,000 men awaiting training and in view of these breakdowns, this is not the time for contraction. It is a time for expansion of effort. I appreciate very highly the effort of my right hon. Friend. He has relied upon the good will of individuals, with perhaps a little persuasion, cajolling, wheedling, and canvassing, but it has proved to be a partial failure. The individuals composing the nation have failed to realise their duty towards these ex-service men, but that does not excuse the State. The right hon. Gentleman must proceed boldly with the training of these 29,000 men, and secure them employment when trained. If he cannot do that, there is only one alternative, and that is for the State to employ them directly. For it must not be forgotten that these men are the wards of my right hon. Friend; they are the children for whom he has an especial care. Whoever else is sacrificed upon the altar of economy, these men must be preserved.

Captain TUDOR-REES

I beg to second the Motion.

My hon. and gallant Friend, if he will allow me to say so, has moved it in a speech of very great thoughtfulness and power. I should like to join him in his tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, not only for his sympathy and kindness towards ex-service men, but also for the courtesy and promptness with which he always receives and considers the representations made to him both by them and by others on their behalf. In my right hon. Friend the ex-service men have a friend. They know they have a friend. It is because of that that they, through us, appeal to him with confidence to-night. Of one thing I am well convinced, and it is this; that if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour had not to subordinate the sentiments of his heart to the logic of his head, and both to circumstances consequent upon national impoverishment, there would be less need for this Debate to-night. But he is engaged in the exacting and uncongenial task of endeavouring to cut a very large coat from a rather short length of cloth, and I want to join, in so far as these men are concerned, in the few observations I address to the House, to assure him that our complaint is not altogether the insufficiency of the cloth, but is in the want of skill and precision in the cutting of it. There is an old saw which says: When troubles arise, and war is nigh, God and the soldier is the cry. When war is o'er, and troubles righted, God is forgotten, and the soldier slighted. Upon the theological aspect of that proposition I am not capable of making any pronouncement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, I leave that to hon. Members above the Gangway. But of one thing I am convinced, and it is this: there is real danger lest the passage of time should dull and diminish our clear recognition and consciousness of our obligations to the men, of whom, unfortunately, there are many thousands, who for the rest of their lives will bear upon their bodies the marks of their heroism, loyalty, and devotion. Our gratitude to these men is a continuing gratitude. Correspondingly our obligations are continuing obligations. This is not a business which we can wind up by paying a composition to our creditors. Lately I have been reading an article written by the present Secretary of State for War in September, 1919, when he was Minister of Pensions. In the course of that article he said: It will be the policy of the Pensions Ministry to fulfil the premises made, to the men when they went to fight in the Great War for freedom. Intentions are all very well in their way. I am sure the intentions of the Government in those days were very good. No doubt they are very good to-day. But good intentions themselves are not quite good enough. When any representations are made in regard to these disabled ex-service men, generally the cry is raised of the great financial stringency and the need for economy. In the course of the article to which I have just referred I read further: The nation will honour its promises whatever be the cost. I cannot reconcile that statement solemnly made by the then Minister of Pensions with the fact that during the last financial year we even did not spend the Estimate for disabled ex-service men that this House authorised, and with the fact that in the present financial year the Estimate is down by £3,000,000, notwithstanding the fact that at the present time, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, there are 29,000 ex-service and disabled men on the waiting list for training. Further, in the course of the article the right hon. Gentleman said: The Ministry of Labour is quickly adding training facilities so that each of these men may be taught to be a skilled man. I cannot reconcile that statement with the policy of the Government, because during last year, certainly in the last two years, not only have we 29,000 men awaiting training, but the Government have actually closed down instructional factories. Yet, according to the then Minister of Pensions, in September, 1919, the Minister of Labour was quickly adding to the training facilities. During the last year, apparently, instead of quickly adding to them they have been very seriously diminished.

What are the chief defects in the present training? What is it of which the trainees complain? Allow me to summarise. So far as I can ascertain— and I have been brought into very close and intimate contact with these men—the chief defects are these. First of all, in the training itself. There is lacking in many of these training institutions the human touch. The training is too formal. There is too much red tape. What I should like to see in these institutions is an endeavour on the part of the managers to bring out the best that is in the men, and this is not always done. I know of my own experience that some of these factory managers, instead of encouraging the men and treating them sympathetically, have bullied them, and if they come across a dull or stupid man they make fun of his dullness or stupidity, rob him of all ambition and encouragement, and dishearten him generally. Complaint is made with regard to the supervision exercised over these institutions, which very often is not only merely formal, but very unkind. They also complain of the personnel of these institutions, and they say that those who supervise the men are not ex-service men themselves, and in some cases they are actually conscientious objectors.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara)

I do not think so.

Captain TUDOR-REES

The Minister of Labour assures me on that point, and I accept his assurance. I hope it is the case that conscientious objectors do not exercise any control over these men, because conscientious objectors are not fit to associate with decent men, let alone exercise any control over them. [An HON. MEMBKR: "That is offensive!"]

Dr. MACNAMARA

There are no conscientious objectors supervising these men now.

Captain TUDOR-REES

I know there have been conscientious objectors supervising the training of these men.

I do not think there has been enough elasticity in the instruction factory. A man in need of training is informed that there is no vacancy in one particular calling but there is in another. I know a case where one man wanted to learn brick-laying. He was told there was no vacancy, but was informed that there was a vacancy where he could train for the making and repairing of watches. I have seen a man who before the War was a labourer, an honest, horny-handed son of toil, who was actually learning how to do the extremely delicate work in connection with the making and repairing of watches.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Why not?

Captain TUDOR-REES

Because he was not fitted for that particular task, and he did not want to do it. I am suggesting that a little more elasticity should be introduced, and instead of telling a man that there is no vacancy in one particular trade and there is in another, he should be allowed to wait for a vacancy in that employment for which he is best fitted. If you train a man in a profession for which he is not fitted you are wasting time, and you are wasting the money of the Government as well. In addition to that, if you train a man in a business or profession for which he is not by nature fitted, or if after training he has not turned out a skilled craftsman, practically you are sending that man into a cul de sac. The vast majority of these men feel that after their training they are not at all satisfied that there is going to be employment found for them. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to say something on this point. The spectre of unemployment is steadily before these men, and the way to make them happy and their period of training satisfactory is to make them feel that when their training is over there will be work for them.

That brings me to this proposition. I do not think that the State's obligation is over or satisfied merely by providing a period of training. He is a very poor father who brings up his eon to a trade or profession, and at the end of the training turns him adrift. I do not think the State's obligation is satisfied simply by training these men, and we should find employment for them. Why is it that improverships are so scarce? In the first place it is owing to the inadequate training; in the second place, employers are suffering from a want of confidence in the trainees; in the third place, employers do not like filling up innumerable forms; and fourthly, they are doubtful as to the attitude of trade unions. I do not want to come into conflict with my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, but I know the trade unions have been suggesting that proportions of these men, or at any rate limitations should be imposed with regard to the number of trainees to be absorbed in certain trades. I am very glad to find that probably these difficulties have now been got out of the way, because I observe that the Chairman of the Labour Party, in a very able speech to these trainees not very long ago, said: The immediate, if not the sole object of the organisation under whose auspices we are speaking is that of providing adequate training for the disabled men. I think the State ought to do that not only in the interests of the disabled men, but in its own interest. And I am sure the Labour party will do all in its power in Parliament to secure the absorption of these men after training. I feel it an honour to be associated with you. … I shall go back encouraged and emboldened, with other Members of the House of Commons, to press to the fullest possible extent the claims made by the Trainees' National Guild. Another member of the Labour party said: Although there may be prejudice in the trades union movement, just as in any other movement, the heart of the trades union movement is sound on this question. Therefore we may regard this question, of which we have heard so much, as settled, and I hope we shall hear no more about the difficulties of getting these trainees absorbed in particular forms of employment. One further word I wish to say with regard to a very important, instructive, and in many senses a remarkable document which I have been reading, which is called the Faber Report. A committee was appointed by the Trainees' National Guild to investigate this question, and I should like to pay a tribute of gratitude to Colonel Faber, the man who is responsible for that Committee, and to whom all ex-service men owe a greal deal. I am not going now into the findings of that Committee, but I should like very humbly to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the adoption of the recommendations of that very representative Committee.

I do not know whether the Mover of this Resolution intends to pursue it to a Division, but if he does I shall certainly support it. I notice that the chief Liberal and Conservative Whips have both sent messages to the Trainees' Guild, saying that they have read the Faber Report, and most heartily agree and sympathise with all the recommendations and suggestions contained in that report. Under these circumstances, of course, they cannot tell against the Motion, which I am seconding. What I suggest is that the Minister of Labour should introduce more elasticity into the training of these men, and endeavour to give them some assurance after training that they will be absorbed into that trade or industry for which they have been trained. In addition to that, immediately introduce further machinery, if necessary, to absorb the 29,000 men who are still waiting, although it is more than three years after the Armistice, for the training of which they stand so much in need. Introduce elasticity; give the trainees assurance that they will get work. In addition, get the 29,000 men in training at once. Train them well; train them quickly; make their period of training happy, and give them the assurance that, after finishing their training, they will be given a chance of using it.

Major COHEN

I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words a Select Committee of this House be appointed to examine and report upon the systems adopted in other countries to provide employment for disabled ex-service men, and to recommend a system under which men who have suffered disablement in the service of the country may be secured employment. In pressing for this Select Committee, I do not wish to dissociate myself in any respect from the Motion on the Paper. I entirely agree with everything that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberavon (Major J. Edwards) has said, but I feel that if this Amendment be acceptable to the House, it will be a practical way of arriving at what, I believe, is the desire of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. There is only one point on which I disagree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Motion, namely, as to his figures of disabled men who are out of employment. In answer to a question which I asked the Minister on the 10th April, as to the number of disabled ex-service men awaiting training, I was told there were 26,000. In addition to that, the ministerial figures of disabled men out of work were 18,000, making a total, therefore, of 44,000. I would like to go further than that, and quote figures collected by the various relief committees, in the different towns in this country, of the British Legion. Those figures show that 60,000 disabled ex-service men applied to them for outdoor relief. I agree that those figures are probably in excess of the official figures, because the official figures only deal with those who are officially reported on their register as unemployed. The total number of disabled ex-service men with which the British Legion deals as applying for outdoor relief is 60,000, and it is that figure which I will use. To my mind, an even more important work than training disabled men is that of finding them work when they are trained, and if I may have the temerity to quote a couple of sentences in a speech I made in this House over three years ago, I would like to do so. I said then: It is not a question so much of teaching a man a trade, though that is a very important question. What I think is still more important is to find that man a job when he has learned his trade. It is no use teaching thousands of men to cobble, thousands of men tailoring, and thousands of men diamond cutting, if, when they have learnt these trades there is no place for them to go to earn their living. That is, I think, one of the chief objections to the training centres which it is proposed.—["OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1919; col. 456, Vol. 112.] 9.0 P.M.

That was said over three years ago, and J see no reason to reconsider those words. Since then, the King's National Boll has been set up, and the figures of that have been dealt with by the previous speakers. I think all will agree, including the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, that that voluntary system has not been satisfactory. We are told that a little more than one-third of the local authorities are on that National Roll. We are told that there are just over 30,000 private firms on the National Roll. I do not know what the possible total might be—perhaps the Minister might be able to tell us—but I feel sure that this number falls very far short of the total. It does not seem to me fair that those who are on the National Roll, and are doing all they can, should be penalised by those who are not, and that they should all be tarred with the same brush in the eyes of the public. I know that trade conditions are very bad; I know there are nearly 1¾ millions of unemployed in this country. But I also know that there are 60,000 men disabled in the service of their country who are out of work, and that is the only fact I think it is my business to keep before my eyes. If I owned a newspaper, instead of having headlines on the top of each page about the circulation I achieve, or the wonderful insurance bonuses I am giving, I should have on the top the statement that there are 60,000 unemployed disabled men.

Although they are a small section, the Royal Warrant holders should not be overlooked. There are 1,181 Royal Warrant holders, and only 589 are on the King's Roll, or less than one half. I believe that some of these Royal Warrant holders are very small firms employing only one, two or three men, but they are in a minority, and it does seem most scandalous that firms that are proud of having the King's arms over their shops or their businesses, should be allowed to do so, and not have the King's Seal on the other side. From what we have heard and what we know about the King's Roll, it has had a fair trial for over two years, and has not achieved the results we would desire, and I feel that the time has arrived for some form of compulsion. I attended a conference at Geneva three or four weeks ago, held under the auspices of the National Labour Bureau. There were representatives there of this country, France, Italy, Germany, Austria and Poland. They had all, or were going to have, some scheme of legislation for the compulsory absorption into industry of ex-service men. I do not know whether in all cases it has been successful: all I know is that it exists, and that, possibly for other reasons, there is less unemployment in those countries than there is here. I feel that, by pressing for a Select Committee of this House to go into these problems, there cannot possibly be any harm done. The expense must necessarily be very little. It is net necessary to go to the expense of calling witnesses from all these foreign countries; a great deal of the information desired can be had in manuscript form, and I feel that a great deal may arise out of it. If we only arrive at the fact that compulsion is not a good thing, that these systems do not work in other countries, and that the voluntary system of the National Roll is the best, we shall achieve something very considerable. On the 6th February, 1920, over two years ago, the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers sent to the Prime Minister a deputation, who voiced the then opinion of ex-service men, and I have no reason whatever to believe that it has altered. They said that voluntary results had not been satisfactory, and that legislation was the only means left to ensure the employment of these men in industry. It is interesting to consider the Prime Minister's reply to that deputation. It was this: The proposal regarding compulsion requires very careful consideration. It affects not only the employers but it affects the trade unions and it affects also the workers. A man who is forced into a works, and has thereby a statutory right, is not always very helpful. It would be dangerous to the man himself. After all, there are all sorts of men amongst us, and if a man had an Act of Parliament behind him he could snap his fingers and really destroy the discipline of the works. For the last two years there has been a good deal of snapping of fingers on one side or the other, but whoever have snapped their fingers, it has never been done by the ex-service man. The Prime Minister says there are all sorts of men amongst us, and I agree, but we must not, therefore, presume that they are all black. If there are black sheep amongst the ex-service men, and no doubt there are, as is the case in all sections, we shall know how to deal with thorn. They are in a very small minority, and it is not fair to judge the whole of the ex-service men by the few amongst them who are not all that they should be. The Prime Minister went on to say: There is no doubt you will find a great deal of resistance on the part of organised labour to any proposal of that kind. That may or may not be so, but personally I doubt it. Most of those men about whom we are talking—those disabled ex-service men—belong to that section of the community whom the Labour party are always telling us they represent, and I cannot see, therefore, how they would willingly do anything that would not be to their benefit. Again, even assuming the hypothesis that organised labour did disagree, I cannot see that even that fact, if it were right to have compulsory employment of these men, could prevent us from trying to get it. All that it would mean, apparently, is that the Prime Minister will give to organised labour, or to organisation of any sort, or to force, what he will not give to reason, and if that be the case, all that the ex-service men have to do is to organise themselves sufficiently to be able to present a pistol at the head of the Government, and they will then achieve by force what they cannot achieve by reason. I do not, however, think that that is necessary, and, apropos of that, I should certainly like to associate myself with all that the previous speakers have said about the Minister of Labour. I know that he is most sympathetic in regard to the ex-service men. I am not saying that as a form of soft soap, in the hope of getting the right hon. Gentleman's agreement; I know, and it is well known to everyone, that that is a fact. I do not like compulsion. It is foreign to this country to have compulsion in any form. But we had compulsory service during the War, when it was thought necessary in order to save this country from outside peril. We had no qualms about having compulsion then, and surely the least we can do, if necessary, is to have compulsion to help these men who fought in the War. It is for that reason, and in the hope that we shall be able to get some more knowledge on the subject, that I move this Amendment.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like, in the first place, to say that I sympathise tremendously with the Minister of Labour, because the whole preconceived idea as to finding employment for these men has been capsized by the enormous wave of unemployment which, unfortunately, has flowed over this land. Here we are, three-and-a-half years after the War, and, as the hon. and gallant Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen) has said, there are 60,000 of these unfortunate disabled men still seeking employment or training. That is a most unhappy fact, and if anything can be done towards remedying it by the appointment of such a Committee as is suggested in this Amendment, I think it is most desirable that such a Committee should be appointed. I think they could do something, also, to help the Minister of Labour. I associate myself entirely with what fell from the Mover and the Seconder of the Resolution. I regret several of the charges that were made by the Seconder against the administration of the training, but I gather from what he said that they are irrefutable, and, if so, that is all the more reason for the appoint- ment of a Committee of unprejudiced men, such as Members of this House, to investigate those charges and, if necessary, to correct any such unfortunate circumstances as have been demonstrated by the hon. and gallant Member. I do not wish to speak at any length, or to enter into any particulars or suggestions in this connection. I merely rise to second the Amendment, and I think that the Mover of the Resolution would be well advised to accept it, because it is helping him just as much as I hope it will help the Minister of Labour.

Mr. CLYNES

The speeches which the House has already heard have been examples of brevity, and have been directed straight to the questions covered in both the Motion and the Amendment. I agree with what has been said with respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, whose sympathy with the men in question is very real, and whose personal efforts have been sustained in relation to anything he personally could do to help them. I think, however, that he must have been a little shaken, particularly by the indictment of my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Motion, and who pressed the figures under the three heads as illustrating how, after all, so much has been left undone, and how, after all, even money, which has been allotted to the purpose, has not been spent in due time to meet the admitted necessities of the men in question. The House, I am sure, awaits with some interest, a reply to the points which have been put from quarters evidently well informed on this very important question. It is bad enough to refrain from putting these men into training for such tasks as they might be fitted for, but, surely, it is equally bad, if not worse, to have trained men and turn them adrift, as to keep out altogether any opportunities of training of such a considerable number of men as is represented in the figure of 29,000, since corrected by the later figure of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment, who mentioned 26,000 as the number totally unable to get any opportunity of training at all—I mean 26,000 on what is termed the waiting list and, therefore, as yet unable to get any opportunity of the training that they desire.

A great deal could be said to amplify and to corroborate the evidence adduced already regarding the solemn and repeated public pledges of the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Crown as to the obligation of the Government to the men who risked their lives to save their country during the years of the War, and if we are to break any pledge it ought not to be this. This clearly, of all others, is an instance where faith must be kept fully with the men who kept faith with their country during the time they were called to serve. I do not know how far the Government has found its difficulties increased under this head by the laxity of some employers who because of thoughtlessness or selfishness have not responded to the promises which even they gave to many of their men during the years of the War. But this is a matter where that condition of compulsion that applied to the men themselves in respect of their military service might very well be applied even to employers of labour in respect to keeping the general pledges which they gave. This, of course, is not the ordinary case of compelling an employer to do something contrary to the national interest, or even contrary to his own business interest. These men who had to leave their work left with either the assurance, or a belief amounting to it in their minds, that if they returned after their military service was completed they would be fairly certain of their job. Just as they were seeing the country through it, they believed the country would see thorn through it if they returned, and I can recall many eloquent passages in the speeches of nearly all the big men during the years of the War as to the great debt of gratitude under which these men have placed their country and as to the faith which would be kept with them when they came back from the War.

So I rise to associate my hon. Friends on this side of the House with the terms of the Motion. I do not think these terms are too strong and I cannot as yet divine why the Government can have any preference for the Amendment, if preference of that kind exists. The speech of the mover of the Amendment from beginning to end was a very strong speech in favour of the Motion. It was a speech in favour of thorough immediate action. The Amendment would surely involve some delay. It presupposes that there is some stock of information not yet revealed to us in this country to be got by inquiry in other lands. This is pecu- liarly a matter which we can settle for ourselves and the country has, I hope1, a sufficient sense of gratefulness towards the ex-service men to keep its word and not to require any of the delay involved in what I think would be a fruitless search for information elsewhere. We could not in all these matters go to the length of imitating other lands. For instance, we did not imitate what was done in other countries in respect to the pay of our soldiers find the conditions of their treatment during the War. We paid our men rates far below the rates of the American soldiers and far below the rates of those who came into the Army of the Empire from the Dominions of the Empire. I am not now complaining of the rate of pay, but we cannot always trust to these comparisons, and if we are to act upon them in one regard we certainly should have acted upon them in the other. So far as anything can be said of the position of the trade unions, or the labour movement generally, in respect to this question, it is that there have been a few odd instances of ungratefulness, perhaps a mere act of selfishness on the part of some individual branch of a trade union, some very secondary and unimportant matter as compared with the general attitude of labour and of the trade unions towards the claims of the ex-service men, so that I recognise the meaning behind the allusions which have been made to this aspect of the question, and I think it is now universally admitted that there has been no desire of any important or of a general character on the part of the trade unions to put difficulties in the way of those who have these strong claims on the State.

Let me say a word in reference to what I think was the totally unnecessary and abusive reference to conscientious objectors made by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion. His speech was a well-informed utterance, and I am sorry that a blemish of this kind should have marred its character. The conscientious objector merely took advantage of the law made by this House in relation to men with a conscience. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of other men took advantage of the law which enabled them to go before hundreds of tribunals and get exemption from military or naval service, and it is known that in the main those who were correctly described as conscientious objectors were men of the deepest and most honest conviction who for the honesty of their convictions suffered physical punishment and privation in the pursuance and in the support of their convictions even greater than they might have had to endure had they actually gone into the Army. So I think it is too late in the day, years after the War, when all passion ought to have subsided, to insult and affront men because of the sincerity of the conviction which, at that time prompted them to make very real sacrifices, as many of them did.

I hope that the Government will see' their way to accept this Motion. It merely calls for the fulfilment of the Government's obligations. That appeal, I agree, is surrounded by rather strong language, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will in no sense be scared by that; indeed, it might prompt him, if he is able, with the means at his disposal, to hurry up as much as he possibly can. There is nothing in the Motion, so far as I read it, putting any difficulty in the way of the Government fulfilling their obligations, and with the utmost promptitude, in order that we should make up for any arrears or laxity exhibited in respect of the claims of these ex-service men. The Report known to us as the Faber Report I have read with care. I regard it as a very human and restrained document, stating in terms of very strong appeal to all those who are interested in this question, what might be done, and I think that in addition to accepting the Motion on the Paper, with very few exceptions the Government should have no difficulty in accepting also the recommendations or suggestions in the Faber Report. A Debate of this kind should not conclude without some definite service to the men who are affected by this Motion, and I am certain that outside these walls there will be to-morrow a very close attention paid to what has to be said on behalf of the Government to-night. The remedy will have to be found. This is not a matter on which we can afford to economise, or on which we ought to economise if economy in that sense means a breach of faith with men to whom these public pledges were given, or if in any sense it means depriving a man of an opportunity to restore himself to some form of productive service. It was from such service, in many cases, or the opportunity of such service, that a man went to serve his country either in the Army or the Navy, and that service was the ground of his appeal. I trust that now his appeal will not be rejected by the right hon. Gentleman who has to speak for the Government in the course of the Debate.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

The ground has been so well covered by previous speakers, particularly by the very able speech of the Mover of this Resolution, that I feel there is very little fresh light I can throw on the subject. As, however, I have the friendship, and I hope the confidence and support, of the ex-soldiers in my constituency, I feel I should be lacking in loyalty to them if I did not say a few words in support of this Resolution. I have no wish to minimise the difficulties of the Ministry, or to take up an unfair attitude towards him. On the contrary, as has been said, I think he should have our sympathy seeing the great wave of unemployment that has no doubt made his task much more difficult. On the other hand, I confess that I find great difficulty in reconciling his statement that he has shown no lack of vigour on behalf of the ex-service men with the fact that he proposes to cut down the services arising from the War by a sum of no less than £5,000,000. In the Debate which took place just before this House rose, he said that the economics would be only administration economies, and that no damage would be done to the interests of the ex-soldier. If that is true there must have been a colossal amount of waste in administration, and I do not understand, if there has been no lack of vigour, why the right hon. Gentleman has failed to spend within £2,000,000 of the sum voted by this House on behalf of the training of ex-service men. Last year he spent £4,000,000 instead of £6,000,000, the sum voted by this House. The reason he gives is the greater unemployment in trade. I am afraid one cannot accept that as an adequate excuse. Not only this House, but every Member of this House, is pledged up to the eyes to see that the ex-service men are replaced in civil life. The ex-service men themselves, I am perfectly sure, do not accept that as an excuse. They say that they left their education, their trade, and their businesses at the call of the country just as they were settling down in commercial or industrial life, that they were taken away, had their lives broken into, were pulled up by the roots, their industrial and other education stopped, and that all they were taught was how to dig a trench, how to dig a bayonet into a German, and how to polish a button, accomplishments of very great value at the time, no doubt, but of very little use in peace.

The Minister, I know, says that his activities have been governed by the advice of the Technical Advisory Committees. No doubt the Technical Advisory Committees have adopted rather a conservative attitude. What I would like to know is how far has the attitude of the Technical Advisory Committees been governed by the knowledge that the education given in the Government factories has been of a very inadequate character. I confess I have no evidence on that head myself, but at all events we do know that the men themselves consider their education to be very inadequate. If the House will follow mc, I will read a paragraph from the Faber Report: Under the present system it has been found that in a large number of cases the trainee is discharged from the factory without any possible hope of an improvership being found for him within a reasonable period, or, in other cases, insufficiently trained to merit an employer's consideration. They go on to make what I cannot help thinking is a very valuable suggestion, that there should be an opportunity when a certain period of training has elapsed for every trainee to be tested as to whether he is worth further training. They say that some of these men through their physical disability are unable to profit from training, and some other alternative method should be found for securing them employment. They also say that there are a considerable number who do not mean business, and are only idling away their time. They suggest that those should be dealt with, and the result would be that the Government would be able to give those who do mean business a better education and enable room also to be found for the absorption of the 29,000 who are awaiting their turn. They further go on to make a suggestion with which I associate myself, that it is the duty of the Government to keep these men in employment on Government orders until improverships are found for them. I heartily associate myself with the idea that it is the duty of the Government to find these men employment, and, if necessary, to open still more Government factories for their employment. Of course, it may be said to be the thin end of the wedge, a dangerous step in the dark, and all that sort of thing, but, after all, there are 20,000 disabled soldiers out of employment, for whom we are pledged up to our eyes to find employment, and it is our duty not to be frightened by shibboleths, by bogies, or by catchwords, but to get a move on. I should like to be allowed to read a quotation from a speech of an hon. Member whose orthodoxy as a Conservative cannot be questioned. I allude to the hon. Member for the Royton Division of Lancashire (Mr. Sugden). Speaking at a mass meeting of trainees, he said: I am an employer of labour, and as I go to my duties, both at Westminster and in the north country, I see advertised all around me that there are certain great houses full of machinery for sale, great workshops, great factories, great manufacturers' premises, which were rightly required in War days to supply the material we used across the water. Now many of these works are replete with the machinery, such as lathes, presses, stampers, slotters, cutters—all those things that go to make great plants—but these houses of industry are lying empty, waiting to be sold. Certain manufactures are required in this country. For instance, supplies for great sections of electrical engineering are not produced in this country, but are all imported. Some come from neutrals, who made money out of us in the War days. I am not a Socialist, but a Conservative, and yet, though a Conservative, so long as these great factories are lying empty, replete with machinery, I, for one, am prepared to say-that the Government should take on these places and utilise some of the labour represented by you to-night, until such time as they can he carried on by private enterprise. That is an opinion which, if the hon. Member were in the House, he would advocate with his usual eloquence. The British Legion propose that we should pass a Measure compelling employers and local authorities to employ a certain number of disabled soldiers. If the Government cannot reopen the factories, I think they are morally bound to take a step in the direction of compulsion. The Germans have done something practical. They have established a bureau whose duty it is to find employment for disabled ex-soldiers. Every employer who employs more than 20 men is bound to notify his vacancies and to keep any vacancy open three days until the bureau has had an opportunity of filling it with a disabled soldier. That is a proposal which, I think, would meet with the approval of this House, and the Government need not fear in proposing it. If the unspeakable Hun, who during the War we held up as the last thing in callousness and brutality, can have the good feeling and kindness of heart to bring in a measure like that for his disabled soldiers, we should not be behind them in that respect. We are not doing what we ought to do for these disabled men. These men form a most splendid element in our society. They are tired to death of doing nothing. They want to add to the wealth of the country and not to be mere idle consumers of wealth as they are at the present time. I hope that the House will bring all possible pressure upon the Government to do something practical for them.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON

There is no question on which there is greater unanimity of feeling than on the one we are discussing to-night, and I join in the appeal that something more should be done. I should like to give an illustration of a case which came before me recently, bearing out the need for more elasticity and less red tape in dealing with some of these questions.

Dr. MACNAMARA indicated dissent.

Mr. THOMSON

The right hon. Member shakes his head. I know his sympathy is great, but it must have come within the knowledge of most Members that at times excuses have boon given for refusing requests that were made, on the ground that it did not come within the power or province of the Department to do what was required. The case I have in mind was that of a naval officer who had been given disability treatment because he was unable to follow his pre-War occupation in the merchant service. He was apprenticed to the grocery trade. After a lapse of time he had to move from one Department to another and eventually he went to his own doctor and said: "Don't you think that I am now fit to go back to the merchant service?" The doctor said that he would be much better and that his health would improve if he went back to his original profession in the merchant service. He applied to the Minister, but the Minister turned it down because it was not possible to transfer his training from that of the grocery trade for which it had been sanctioned to that of the merchant service in which he was originally employed. I saw the correspondence. Certain provisions were quoted which made it impossible for this apparently reasonable action to be taken. I suggest to the Minister that there are cases where a greater amount of freedom and less regard of red tape and restriction would enable more service to be rendered to these men than has been done in the past. It is a case where greater human sympathy is required and less of rigid adherence to detail which we so often find in Government Departments.

The right hon. Gentleman is full to overflowing with the milk of human kindness and everything that he can do would be done, but hon. Members must have had brought to their notice cases where the Department has had to rule against that which seemed the sane and sensible thing to do because some Regulations prevented them doing what they otherwise would do. I join in the appeal that on this smaller, minor matter of administration, the greatest latitude should be exercised, so that these disabled men may have the advantage of any doubt which may arise in the treatment of their cases. Although something has been done it does not go far enough, and the fact remains that 26,000 men are awaiting training and that 60,000 are unemployed. No amount of sympathy will help them unless it is converted into practice. I hope this discussion will mean that the Minister can make a definite pronouncement that he will put in hand schemes far beyond those which he has hitherto contemplated. Economy is necessary in every way, but it must not be at the expense of our pledge to these men. Reference has been made to the obligations of the Government, but I suggest that the House has an obligation in this matter, and if the question goes to a vote I hope the House will show the measure of its obligation in the Division Lobby, so that the disabled men may know that they have the House behind them as well as the sympathy of the Minister.

Mr. J. JOHNSTONE

I am afraid that some of my hon. Friends do not appreciate the difficulties which the Minister has encountered in the training of dis- abled men. I have been Chairman of a Technical Advisory Committee since the inception of the scheme, and I know something of the difficulties. I know that the Ministry of Labour have exercised all their influence and power to promote these schemes, and it has not been for the lack of pressure on the part of the Minister and his Department that the achievement has not been a greater success. To talk about compulsion in this matter is to fail to realise what is involved. To compel employers and trade unions to accept a certain quota or to absorb the whole of the disabled ex-service men may seem on the face of it a matter which this House could impose. But if we impose compulsion we must also impose penalties, and if a trade union objects to ex-service men being employed in a preferential manner, irrespective of the conditions of trade, in workshops, factories and business premises, where the full number of employés in that trade are not at present employed, how are you going to impose the penalty? You could put an employer in prison or fine him, but you would have some difficulty in imprisoning a trade union. I think that if a scheme cannot be put into effect by the co-operative action of employers and trade unions, the Ministry will have to seek some other remedy than that of compulsion.

I have been associated with a trade in which the employers' and workers' representatives were most enthusiastic at the beginning in absorbing their quota of ex-service men. Latterly, when the Ministry asked us to absorb our proportion of the waiting list, we were unable to do so. The objection did not come from the employers, who were willing to do what was asked, but from the trade union side. I do not censure the trade union for their action. The trade union have urged objection—and they had good grounds for it— that at present trade is very bad and a large number of men for whom they are responsible are walking the streets. The trade union representatives contended that, in accordance with the Motion that is submitted to the House, the obligation is laid upon the State, if the State could not make the scheme a watertight compartments scheme, whereby the men in the waiting list who have been trained could be absorbed into industry, then it was the duty of the State to support those men. I think that you are tied up to that. Either this scheme should be tightened up and made effective, or else some other measures should be adopted whereby the State will make itself fully responsible for the maintenance of those men.

In reference to what has been said as to the elasticity of the scheme, the House will bear in mind that the men who come before the local technical advisory committees to be absorbed are just the men who are unfitted to go back to the former occupations in which they were engaged before the War. If the men were fitted by their physical condition to resume their former employment there would not be much difficulty in the matter. The great bulk of employers during the War promised that the men who returned from the War should get their situations back. I think to a very large extent that that has been done. Employers, in my experience, have made it their first obligation that the men who returned, disabled or not, should receive their old employment, and I know many factories where a large proportion of disabled men are employed, who never would have got under this scheme at all, but came back as former employés. My experience of these training factories is that if it were a question of this kind, that a watchmaker seeks employment in his own industry, there would not be much difficulty, or if a bricklayer wanted a job building houses you would not require a scheme at all. The difficulty occurs when a man is unfit to follow his former employment and, owing to his physical disability, some more suitable employment must be found for him.

On the occasion of one of my visits to a training factory, I saw a young lad who had only one arm. He was engaged at cabinet work, and was making some very beautiful tea trays, and was making a very good job of it, I asked him what he had been before he went into the Army, and he said that he had been a coal miner. When he came before the technical Advisory Committee they asked him what he would like to do. He had a notion of joinery work. He felt he had a bent in that direction. They put him to that work. In a very few weeks he made very good progress. That is the difficulty of local Technical Advisory Committees. They have got before them a class of people who have to choose some form of employment in which they were not engaged before, and they have to put them to the occupation for which they think them best fitted. To that extent there is as much elasticity in the scheme as could be expected. The Ministry have very efficient up-to-date training factories, where fully qualified instructors give instruction. If it is said that some instructors were not sympathetic and were somewhat brutal in their treatment of the workmen under their care, such cases must be a rare exception. I never heard of a single case of the kind. The rule was the utmost kindness in the treatment of the men under their care, and the utmost attention was paid to them in their period of training, so that they should get suitable instruction to qualify them for employment.

I had in my own factory a number of those men who had been trained in training centres, technical schools and Government factories, and who came to me after getting only 12 to 18 months' training altogether, and in a very short time they qualified themselves for very substantial wages, and made remarkable progress. The reason is that a man who has been a soldier, and comes back from the War, and is of a responsible age, is more ready to adapt himself to training than a young lad of from 14 to 16. Therefore men of that kind will pick up training vary much more quickly, and, under the present system of training factories in this country, it is easy for a man of that sort with 18 months' training to adapt himself to a certain specialised line of work in a factory that will fit him to earn a decent wage. The difficulty we had in the National Technical Advisory Committee—a difficulty which was appreciated by employers as well as workmen—is that in the present state of unemployment in this country with the number of factories in which only a small portion of the former staff are engaged, it is hard to get into those factories the men who have been put through the training schools and to fit them into jobs there. We met the trade union representatives and the case put up was that, while their men were walking the streets idle in such large numbers, it would be cruelty to the ex-service man to attempt to absorb them into an industry in which there was no possibility for some time to come of finding employment after they had passed through the Government training factories. What the trade union representatives said was that the Government had no right to evade their responsibility to these men, that if this scheme did not achieve complete success and that if they had not been able to get the men absorbed in industry, then it was the duty of the Government to provide for these disabled men. That was, perhaps, carrying the argument too far, because provision had been made for these people. They receive their pensions, and their pensions are supplemented by finding employment for them.

This discussion may be of great value if it should inspire the Minister to find some other means of improving the present scheme and of doing something more to allow these men to be absorbed in industry or to extend their training. In my own trade, the trade union representatives were not willing that any more men should be taken into the factories. A factory was closed down and the instructor dismissed. I do not censure the trade unions for a moment, for they have co-operated most loyally throughout; but they were up against the stern facts of the present state of unemployment, and they felt that it would be a cruelty to these men to encourage them into this particular industry where there was no hope of employment for them after they had passed the training factory. It may be said that the training factory could have extended the period of training. It has been urged also that the Government should take more factories and run an industry on their own account to produce goods manufactured by ex-service men. That might be a dangerous course. I sympathise with hon. Members who urge upon the Government that, in view of the unwritten pledges to disabled men, there is a great obligation upon the House and the Government to find a way of escape for those who cannot follow their former employment.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON

I wish in a few words to support the Amendment. In the course of his speech the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) said that he could see no object in the Amendment. I see a considerable difference between the Motion and the Amendment. The Motion is too indefinite. Everybody agrees that it is the business of the Government to fulfil its obligations to ex-service men. The whole point at issue is, what is the Govern- ment's obligation? The Government's view on that subject may be quite different from the view of many hon. Members, and hon. Members themselves may differ on the subject. That alone is sufficient justification for having an inquiry into the matter. Any hon. Member, who has sat through this Debate, must have been convinced that there are many different opinions even among the small number of Members present. Simply to state that it is the business of the Government to fulfil its obligations may mean something or absolutely nothing. Several hon. Members have referred to the Faber Report. That Report is an excellent Report, but I doubt whether the Minister of Labour is able to say that he or his Department has studied every one of its recommendations, and has decided whether they are justifiable and practicable or not. I do not expect my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity yet of coming to a conclusion regarding the suggestion as to Royal Warrant holders and the National Roll being made compulsory, or that he has been able to obtain all the evidence as to the system tried in other European countries for the employment of disabled men.

10.0 P.M.

Assuming that I am partially right in my statement, that alone justifies some further inquiry. We have in this country now a better system of pensions than any other country in the world. That is something of which we have every reason to be proud, because it shows that we have at least attempted to fulfil our obligations as to pensions for ex-service men. I see no reason why we should not also have a system of industrial training better than or as good as that of any other country. We can have that system only when we are satisfied, by careful inquiry in other countries, that we have nothing to learn from them, and that we have nothing to learn from consulting people outside official circles, who may be able to put forward views different from those held in the Ministry. Even though this inquiry may take some time, it will serve nothing but a useful purpose. It may result in nothing, but, at any rate, it will clear the air. The right hon. Member for Platting was wrong in saying that it will cause delay. There is nothing to prevent the Government carrying out any recommendations they may now have before them for improving the existing system, and meanwhile the Committee could inquire into outstanding questions, and at the end of the inquiry we could be satisfied whether there is anything further to be done. I feel certain that the recommendation of a Committee of that kind would be accepted by the Government. Ex-service men would realise that we are making an effort to clear away all difficulties and doubts on the question.

Dr. MACNAMARA

We have had a Debate of kindly sympathy and solicitude, which itself is a witness of the desire of the House and the country to do the right thing by the ex-service man. Without invidiousness I will congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend, the mover of the Resolution, on the great charm and eloquence of his advocacy. We do well to take counsel together as to the extent to which we have been able to requite the services and sacrifices of the men who saved us from destruction. I dismiss at once the unspeakably mean suggestion sometimes made outside this House that we made promises to the fighting man' that we never really intended to carry into effect. The nation which would do that is not worth fighting for. If we have not been able to do all we would wish, believe me the reasons have been beyond our control. When I came to my present office two years ago I found the training and re-settlement in civil life of ex-service men, written in very large type across my commission. I was proud of that fact. Who would not be? Every Member of the House would be and everybody outside the House, too. In the five months from April to September, 1920, trade continued prosperous. I was able to push ahead with the several undertakings for the ex-service men with gratifying success. Then in September, 1920, as the House knows, we began to run into heavy weather. There was grave and persistent trade depression and consequent unemployment, and we have been struggling along ever since with but an occasional and fitful lull in the storm. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Shettleston (Rear-Admiral Adair) put his finger on the spot at once when he said that has been the difficulty. Do what we could the fortunes of the ex-service men have suffered from this grave depression in common with those of the rest of the community, though everywhere we have given every preference to the ex-service man as employers ourselves, and we have pleaded with other employers of labour to do the same.

So far from suggesting indifference or ingratitude, what has been accomplished in the teeth of events during 18 months of continuous depression is, in fact, a fine tribute to the sincerity of purpose of the British people in their attitude towards the ex-service men. As regards employment, the ex-service men, like the civil population, have felt the effects of the heavy weather through which we have been running, but they have not caught it quite so badly as the civil population generally. As regards the disabled ex-service men, there is this striking fact; the number of disabled ex-service men unemployed to-day remains pretty much what it was in September, 1920, after 18 months of real and continuous bad times. I say it is a very remarkable fact that the number has not increased in all that time, although the number of civilians unemployed, and the number of ex-service men generally unemployed, has gone up considerably. It is thanks to the King's Roll that the position is as it is in regard to the disabled men. Reference has been made to the fact that local authorities have not done all they might have, done in this respect. That is true, but it is not for want of asking—not by any means. I have published a White Paper in response to the appeal of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Woolwich (Captain Gee), and it should be in the Vote Office now, or at any rate to-morrow. That White Paper will give the names of all the local authorities on the King's Poll. T was asked to give the names of those not on the Roll.

Mr. MILLS

And private employers.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I am now talking about local authorities. There are some local authorities and employers also who are already employing the quota and more than the quota necessary to come on the King's Roll, but who, for some reason or another, sufficient to themselves, say, "We do not want advertisement; we do not wish to go on the Roll." I keep saying to them, "Do not talk like that, but go on the Roll to encourage others," and that, I believe, is sound advice. If I were to publish a list of those not on the Roll, I should be including quite a number who are really employing the quota and more than the quota of ex-service men. Therefore, I am publishing what I may call a white list.

Mr. HURD

Why not publish a black list?

Dr. MACNAMARA

No doubt my hon. Friend will see the paper, and he will see whether his own local authority is on it or not. Ho knows what to do in that event, and I am quite sure he will make such representation to the local authority if their name does not appear as will secure the appearance of this name in the next white list.

Mr. HURD

My right hon. Friend will help me if he will give me a black list, and if I see the name on the black list.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Let us be quite fair. I have given the names of all the local authorities who are on the Roll, and if my hon. Friend will look at it he will be able to see whether his local authority is there or not, and that, I think, is preferable to the publication of a black list. Speaking further with regard to the King's Roll, there are now, as the Mover of the Amendment told the House, 30,000 firms on the King's Roll. I have now left the local authorities and I am dealing with private employers. The Mover of the Amendment asked how many are not on the Roll. At the present moment there are 20,000 private employers each employing 25 employés or over who are not on the Roll, but the King's Roll with its 30,000 enrolled firms is securing employment for 360,000 disabled ex-service men. Let the House appreciate this remarkable fact, which is a tribute to the sense of gratitude felt by the British people even in hard times. Eighteen months ago, when the slump came upon us, the number of disabled men being employed by firms on the King's Roll was 190,000. Notwithstanding the hard times since then and the dismissals right and left everywhere, the number of disabled men employed by the firms on the King's Roll has during this 18 months of depression grown from 190,000 to 360,000. Let me, before I come to deal with the Motion and the Amendment, complete the story of our efforts for the ex-service men. I shall do so in a few sentences, for I can only deal with these points in a passing way. We have completed 45,000 apprenticeships that were broken in upon by the War, connoting the fact that the boy who went to the War came back a man and had to be trained. We have found billets for over 63,000 ex-officers. We have given training commercial, industrial, and professional to no fewer than 47,000 ex-officers, and through the Civil Liabilities Department, since the Armistice, we have dispensed over £3,500,000 to set up men in business. Although I dislike stating the measure of our efforts in money terms, let me point out that there is an annual pension roll of £90,000,000. Over and above the £90,000,000 annual pensions roll this country since the Armistice has found in one way or another for the assistance of the ex-service men no less a sum than something like £100,000,000 of money. There I am not referring to relief works. I wish we could have done more, but where is the country so heavily embarrassed as we were, which has done so much? With that general statement, I come to deal in specific detail with the question of the industrial training of the disabled ex-service men, which has formed so large a part of this Debate and is the point with which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Barnstaple Division (Captain Tudor-Rees) is concerned.

What did we undertake to do for the disabled men? We said, "If your disability is of such a character as prevents your going back to your old craft, we will teach you a new craft in which your war disability shall be as little of a handicap as possible." That is why a labourer is now making and repairing watches, much to the astonishment of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain TUDOR-REES

I said he was unfitted for the job.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Let my hon. and gallant Friend look a little more closely into it. We say to the disabled man, "While you are in training your disability pension will be suspended, but you will have a personal allowance of 40s. a week—which is the maximum disability pension—there will be an allowance of 10s. a week for your wife, there will be 7s. 6d. a week for the first child under 16, and 6s. a week for each additional child under 16. If you have to live away from home for training purposes, there will be a living away from home allowance, and there will also be a rank allowance, based upon your rank when a soldier, and throughout your training you may earn an efficiency bonus at the rate of 5s. a week for every week of your approved training." At the present time these allowances average out, married and single, at something over 60s. a week, including the efficiency bonus; and that goes on side by side with an intensive training—a first-class training; let there be no mistake about it, these are first-class craftsmen—in such crafts as they take up. We have opened training establishments of our own, and we have the enormous advantage of institutions, of power, of plant, and of teaching capacity placed at our disposal by the education authorities. I cannot overstate my gratitude to the education authorities for their assistance. We have trained 63,500 men, we have got 22,699 in training, and there are 29,000 still on the waiting list, but it should be observed that quite a large number of those men are not yet ready for industrial training; they are still receiving hospital treatment.

Major JOHN EDWARDS

Would the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these men are not ready? Is it a large majority?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend to-morrow, but I cannot at the moment.

Major EDWARDS

Is it a large number?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I would not like to say how many, but it is quite an appreciable number. We train these men in over 500 distinct crafts, from engineering to watch and clock making and repairing, tailoring and musical instrument making, and dental mechanics. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnstaple is astonished that an ex-labourer is a watch and clock repairer. I am not. I have myself seen an ex-jockey learning to write shorthand, and making considerable speed with it.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

There is the case of a miner who went to the War, and failed to go back to the pit, because of disablement, was trained as a cinema operator, is now blind, and has no pension or anything else. How are you going to deal with him? The accident he got through his training has made him blind.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I am very sorry for that. Let us have the particulars, and see whether we are responsible.

Captain TUDOR-REES

My proposition was that a man ought to be trained according to his natural aptitude.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I am afraid that would not apply to a lot of them. I will come to that in a moment. We formed local and national Technical Advisory Committees in each craft, composed of an equal number of representative employers and workmen. These Technical Advisory Committees helped us to settle the syllabuses and length of courses, and, above all, agree with us as to the numbers to be admitted to training from time to time, with duo regard to the possibility of regular employment at the end of the course of training. It is in respect to the numbers to be admitted from time to time that the technical advisory committees have exercised a potent influence upon our scheme of training. When trade was flourishing—and I speak with great deliberation about this—some were very generous indeed in the numbers they agreed to train. Most were not ungenerous—not at all—but a few, even when trade was prosperous, did keep the bottle neck rather tight, and I should have liked them to have heard the speech of the hon. Member opposite endorsed as it was by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Labour party. Of course, since trade depression set in we have found there is not a vacancy. We cannot admit another builder. My hon. Friend says, "Well, keep him on the waiting list." But we say, "No, we cannot get you a vacancy as a builder; what about a French polisher, a cabinet-maker or something of that sort?" My hon. Friend says that is not trying to meet the men's aptitudes. We are doing the best we can in the circumstances, and the great bulk of the men do very well.

Since trade depression came upon us it is not surprising that the number of men recommended for admission to Training by the Advisory Committees has fallen off very seriously. That is why there are 29,000 men on the waiting list. That is the beginning and end of our trouble. The idea that the long waiting list is due to any economy campaign is the sheerest nonsense. There is not a Member—not even a Member of the Anti-Waste party—in this House, or out of it, who would wish to do the soldier down. This waiting list is due to the fact that grave trade depression is upon us, and the Technical Advisory Committees consider that with lots of their own men walking the streets, many ex-service men, some disabled, what is the good of taking more men for training at the present time with nothing but unemployment at the end of it? Therefore our steps in that have been very slow. They have been dogged by this serious depression. Of course, I am appealing to the Technical Advisory Committees all the time to take risks. I am putting to them that there is no risk they can take comparable with the risk which the soldier took. I know that the fear of unemployment is the shadow that haunts the footsteps of self-respecting workmen. We do not want to keep large numbers of these trainees on the waiting list of the Government factories. Precisely the same trouble to which I have referred arises with the placing of trainees as improvers with employers. In regard to these improverships, most of these courses are partly intensive training, and part of the time is with the employer as improvers.

During my first five months, September, 1920, onwards, with prosperity upon us, I had no difficulty at all in getting jobs for those needing them. But directly bad times came my difficulties came with them. Employers were turning off their own old hands, many of them ex-service men, and as I have just said, many of them disabled men. My appeal to employers to take on as improvers other ex-service men was not one with which, with the best will in the world, they could readily concur. What did we do? During the winter 1920–21 the Government kept all the men who had completed their instructional courses—all for whom we could not find employment—in the training establishments. That means that these men have received their full course as promised; many a good deal more than the full course. We shrank from turning them into the streets, and to go back to their disability pensions and such unemployment benefit as they were entitled to——

Mr. LAWSON

So did the guardians in some cases.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Through the winter of 1920–21 we kept them—those whose courses had been completed. From May to October of last year we had to dismiss—I may as well be quite frank with the House—2,600 trainees who have gone through their courses in the training establishments, and for whom we could not find places. I then appointed special canvassing officers, 30 in all, beyond the usual staff already engaged, and, despite the bad trade, they were able to get 1,230 improverships up to the end of October for these men. That left 1,370 who had finished their courses, and more than finished them, and for whom we could not find employment. From November and through the winter, I did the same thing, and into March—we could not turn them out in the winter—we have adopted the same plan of retaining men in training establishments for whom work could not be found. During March men went out who had received eight months more than the recognised course. During April we shall have to dismiss those who have received six months' extension of the ordinary course. During May we had proposed to send out men who have had five months' extension or more, and during June we had proposed to send out the men who had had three months' extension or more. Things have not taken up so well as we could have hoped. I have been in communication again with the Chancellor of the Exchuequer on this matter—and I would say that notwithstanding his many embarrassments—and let me say this at once—the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always made every effort to meet me in this matter of the ex-service men—and the disabled men in particular. We, therefore, now propose to keep the men for whom we may be unable to find improverships in May, as in April, till they have had six months' extension of the ordinary course. During June men will be discharged who have had four months' extension, instead of three. During July we will carry the matter one stage further. We have not brought July into the original scheme. Men will be discharged after they have had throe months' extension. By that time we hope that our canvassing activities will have made the situation much easier. These concessions apply to the men who do not during the extension reach the end of the whole period for which, under the Scheme, we can give any maintenance or part maintenance whatever.

Here is another evidence of the sincerity of purpose of the British people. Notwithstanding the very grave industrial depression between the beginning of September and Easter which has just passed we obtained 4,063 improverships at a time when men were being dismissed for want of work. That fact alone is a witness of the desire of the industrial community to do its duty. A number of men, partly trained, are still waiting for improverships. There are some men who have had improverships whose employers cannot keep them to the end of their term. I think this Debate would have done a bit of first-class business if it brings home to employers the facts I have stated and brings forward offers from employers who are prepared to take on improvers, and then we shall be more than satisfied with the result of this Debate. I can assure the manufacturing community that when they take one of our improvers they take on a man who has made a good beginning towards ultimate first-class craftsmanship and they take on a man whose thanks are more easily won and secured than any other class of men I know.

I appeal to those with whom my voice has any influence that here are these men waiting for improverships, and if anyone wants one of them, now is the time. I look to better times ahead to enable us, not only to get these improverships, but also to secure that the Technical Advisory Committee will open the bottle neck a little wider in regard to the admission of men to the training establishments from the waiting list. There is one class of disabled men for whom at the present time we are most deeply concerned, and that is the men who, after training under the Ministry of Pensions, badly disabled men, who started a little training and are now on our books wanting an industrial training course. The Minister of Pensions and myself have in the last few days issued an appeal to Technical Advisory Committees in respect of these men in particular. It is to the Technical Advisory Committees in regard to the bady disabled men who are coming to us on our waiting list. I will, if I may, read it: As Minister of Labour and Minister of Pensions we earnestly desire to draw your attention to applications which from time to time come before you from men who have hitherto been inmates of Ministry of Pensions Treatment Training Centres. No cases amongst ex-service men claim deeper sympathy than these, for the men concerned have more than usually suffered from their War service. When they appear before you the expert medical supervision of the Treatment Training Centres has gone far to reestablish their health; what they then want above all is an opportunity to learn a craft, in lieu of the pre-War trade they can no longer carry on, which will enable them once more to face the world with the knowledge and self confidence of the skilled artisan. We realise fully the present difficulties of industry, but the men in question have already received a certain amount of training as a part of their treatment, buoyed up during their convalescence by the hope that with improving health they would be able to continue that training intensively under the Ministry of Labour. If this is now refused to them they will be left resourceless and stranded, and the refusal will not only seriously prejudice their industrial prospects but undoubtedly have grave effects on their health. We would therefore most earnestly beg you, in considering their cases, to bear in mind what an adverse decision must mean to the applicant—at the least a bitter disappointment; at the worst the collapse perhaps of his whole future. While recognising how generously local technical advisory committees have met their responsibilities, we venture to approach you specially in these cases, feeling sure that with the full facts before you your Committee cannot fail to accord them the sympathetic consideration which the circumstances eminently call for. I have no doubt that the local Technical Advisory Committees, after receiving that, if they have before them any of these men will do their best for them notwithstanding the industrial depression.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

Will the right hon. Gentleman contemplate the advisability of giving small subsidies to institutions or firms to employ these men? There are private institutions which would be willing to have, them if they could be subsidised to some small extent.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

What as to the men who, although partially disabled, went back to their work and have broken down in the last six or eight months? They cannot follow their employment. Can anything be done for them?

Dr. MACNAMARA

My Noble Friend knows we are making grants of assistance to Lord Roberts's Workshops——

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

There are other institutions.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Yes, and we have applications from them.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

Are you going to make the grants?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I will consider that. I mentioned Lord Roberts's Workshops as evidence of our desire to do what my Noble Friend wishes. All the applications we have received will have careful consideration. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan), I shall want to go carefully into that. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple said that some of the managers in the training establishments laughed at and bullied the trainees. It is his duty to tell me who those instructors are. I have never heard of such cases. I find that these instructors—life-long craftsmen—are deeply interested in their pupils and in their intensive training.

They have not to earn their living as productive workers themselves. I have been an apprentice, and I know the difference it makes, in learning a craft, if the instructor has nothing to do but teaching. The story of most apprentices is a very different one. They have picked it up, as best they could, with the help of a man at odd times who was earning his own living by his work. Here is a system whereby the instructor does nothing but teach, and I have watched with great interest, as an old apprentice, what an enormous difference it makes. These instructors are old trade unionists, old craftsmen, lifelong workers, deeply interested in their work, deeply interested in the progress of their pupils, anxious to give a disabled man a hand; and if my hon. and gallant Friend knows of any case in which an instructor was so ill-advised as to laugh at a man because he was dull, or to bully him, I should like to know his name.

Captain TUDOR-REES

As the right hon. Gentleman has challenged me, may I ask whether he has read the allegations contained in the Report of the Faber Committee?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Indeed I have, and I sent the most detailed, categorical replies to every recommendation in that Report. I read it with profound interest, and it is a very businesslike and workmanlike document. If my memory is not at fault, I said, "If you have any examples, let me have them." Perhaps the Trainees' Guild will publish the full and detailed reply that I sent.

Sir J. BUTCHER

Is that reply available to Members of this House?

Dr. MACNAMARA

No; it was written to the Trainees' Guild, and it is for them to do what they please with it. I wrote a detailed reply to every representation they made, and thanked them for the painstaking and businesslike way in which they had dealt with the matter.

Captain TUDOR-REES

Does the right hon. Gentleman authorise the publication of his reply?

Dr. MACNAMARA

It is a matter for the Trainees' Guild to do what they like with it. We have before us a Motion and an Amendment. The Amendment asks for a Select Committee. Let me say at once that I am by no manner of means hostile either to the Amendment or to the Motion, and if my hon. and gallant Friend presses his Amendment for a Select Committee I shall not divide against him. I do not think, however, that a Select Committee is going to help him at all. He particularly wants this Select Committee because he is in favour of compulsion.

Major COHEN

I am not entirely in favour of compulsion, but I want the question very carefully considered.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I know that a certain measure of compulsion is favoured by my hon. and gallant Friend. The Select Committee on Pensions, which was appointed in May, 1920, went into this question of the employment of disabled ex-service men very fully, and they had a proposal put before them that it should be compulsory upon employers of labour each to take his quota of disabled ex-service men. The Committee, however, turned down that proposal. There is compulsion, I believe, in Poland, Italy, Austria, and Germany. The only recent information I have as to the working of compulsion relates to Germany, where I am informed there has been much fric- tion over the working of the compulsory Act, and it does not appear to be regarded as satisfactory. I give that for what it is worth. I am convinced that the figures with regard to the King's Boll do prove that the British people are really anxious to do their bit in this respect, even through hard times. I am convinced that ours is the better system. I am convinced that it is better for the man that he should be taken on as a voluntary act than that he should be added to the employé list of a particular firm under compulsion. Therefore I am against my hon. Friend in his suggestion that we should have some form of compulsion.

Major COHEN

I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am not trying to make out a case for compulsion. My hon. Friend's point is that five other countries, which I enumerated, have a compulsory system—successful or not I do not know—and we have a voluntary system which is unsuccessful; therefore I press for a Select Committee to consider the question.

Dr. MACNAMARA

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman presses for a Select Committee I shall not resist it. It has been examined into thoroughly. If it is any satisfaction to the ex-serviceman witness he can come and state his case, and we can see how far he is bullied and all the rest of it. I do not think you will get anything out of the Select Committee. I do not want to overwhelm the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but if a Committee of this House, in a- time of prosperity, like 1920, when trade was expanding and people were taken on, turned down compulsion, what does he think they are likely to do to-day? But that is not the only point, I agree. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wants a Select Committee for other reasons. I do not think much good will come of it, but I shall not divide against it. As for the Resolution; if the Amendment were not pressed, I shall certainly recommend its adoption. No doubt the best interests of the ex-service men are in excellent hands in the hands of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Many who have not spoken to-night and those of us who did not serve with the armed forces of the Crown put in the forefront of our public utterances, quite sincerely, without any reference to party considerations, our obligation to requite to the utmost the services of these men. This Debate has brought up for review our obligations to the ex-service man generally and the disabled ex-service man in particular. Let us pass the Resolution, and renew again our pledge. It is a pledge which we all mean to carry out to the best of our ability. I hope for the early advent of better times and such an improvement of industrial conditions as shall enable us all—Government, employers of labour, and trade unions—to carry our pledge into more rapid effect.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am not quite certain that we have had any great advice from the Government. As far as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to take anything. He will take the Resolution or he will take the Amendment. He will take anything. If there was anything else before the House I am certain he would take it also, but those are the only two things before the House. I want to know what I am to do. I am desirous of supporting the Government. Shall I vote for the Resolution or for the Amendment? [An HON. MEMBKR: "Talk it out!"] We can talk for nine minutes and still vote. I should like some guidance from the Under-Secretary, a distinguished Parliamentarian, able to make a clear statement if he chooses to do so. I should like to know what I am to do. Am I to support the Amendment, or am I to support the Motion that has been moved? What is the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Motion going to do? Is he going to accept the Amendment, or is he not? I think there ought to be some little enlightenment as to what we are to do when we are in the mood that we are in for the moment, to support the Government.

Dr. MACNAMARA

The Government does not propose to put on any Whips.

Sir F. BANBURY

That is not what I want to know.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I am afraid I cannot help the right hon. Baronet. This is a case in which he can use his own discretion, of which he has a very large measure. What I have said is that if the Amendment be pressed I shall not vote against it, and that if the Motion goes to a Division I shall vote for it.

Major JOHN EDWARDS

As far as I am concerned, I shall be very pleased to accept the Amendment, which is really only an addendum to my Resolution.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to examine and report upon the systems adopted in other countries to provide employment for disabled ex-service men, and to recommend a system under which men who have suffered disablement in the service of the country may be secured employment.