PREVENTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

HC Deb 12 May 1922 vol 153 cc2541-618

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I desire to claim the indulgence of the House while I introduce what I consider to be the most important Bill of the Session. This Bill is going to bring the Act of Elizabeth up to date. I think that the Bill is important because, directly and indirectly, it affects every home and every industry in the land. It is unnecessary, or hardly necessary, for me to point out that Parliament has, on several occasions, recognised that the problem of unemployment is one that calls for provision by the community. It used to be thought, a century ago, that unemployment arose as a result of the vices of the poor. I do not think anybody believes that to-day. Even the Minister of Labour and his sympathetic staff, I know, do not believe that to-day. Unemployment is a phenomenon which lies outside the control of the individual worker, and, indeed, outside the power of control of the individual employer. It may originate abroad. A financial crisis, say, in New York, or in some other part of the world, may be the herald of dark months of unemployment to miners, men in the metal trades, cotton operatives and other workers in this country. In fact, I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that unemployment is a world problem, and, though it may appear to be outside the bounds of practical politics to suggest that it must be met by some international policy, or some international form of organisation, I am convinced that the logic of facts will drive Governments ultimately to make common cause against this great evil. However, in the meantime the Labour party is concerned with the imperative need for a national policy aiming at the prevention of unemployment so far as possible, and the minimising of its evil effects where it cannot be prevented. As a Labour Party we regard it as one of the fundamental duties of the State to use every possible means to avert the sufferings and miseries which accompany the recurrent periods of unemployment, and the tremendous national waste which the enforced idleness of large masses of willing workers inevitably causes.

The situation to-day is, of course, accentuated by the war—a fact on which we are all agreed, and also, I may add, the failure of the Allied Powers in 1919 to face economic realities. These effects are which invariably follow a collapse in trade. During the last 18 months the great army of unemployed workers and their dependants have lived on their savings, on trade union out-of-work pay, on unemployment insurance benefit, and also on relief obtained from the boards of guardians. To me it is a wonderful preparation by the worker when he was unemployed. In the first place when working he tries to save; in the second place he makes provision by contributing towards his trade union for out-of-work pay, and in the third place he contributed towards hie unemployment insurance, and also to meet the terror of unemployment —which is the fear of his life—and the greatest—he has to contribute towards the local rates so that there will be sufficient funds there that he can draw upon from the board of guardians when all the other funds are exhausted.

I want to deal with some of these various items. The State insurance scheme has never provided funds on a scale sufficient to maintain the unemployed worker. Even when the Minister of Labour and the Government raised the benefit to 20s. per week, it was not sufficient to provide food for a household to say nothing of the rest of the ordinary necessaries of life. The Government has recognised, though very tardily, and on too meagre a scale, the need for supplemental assistance, but its Unemployment Workers' (Dependants) Act was a device which consisted largely in making the poor keep the poor, because there were those contributing who under no circumstances could get additional benefit, while they were called upon to support those who were out of work. In addition to the State benefits, the Minister of Labour will agree with me, that the trade unions have disbursed large sums in out-of-work pay. Since the beginning of last year at least £10,000,000 have gone in this way, and more would have been spent from trade union resources had the unions had the money to enable them to continue out-of-work pay. It may be interesting to the House if I give an illustration from my own society.

The society I am connected with has been catering for the men in the metal industries, the iron and steel, and tin plate and sheet industries, for the last 40 years. I claim that we have been a conciliatory society because we have established in South Wales conciliation boards, and lately Whitley Councils. I think I am safe in saying that during the whole of that 40 years, while we have had a dispute here or there, we have never had a national dispute with the employers which has brought about a stoppage of work. The result of this was that in 1920 our funds had accumulated to something like half a million. If a man met with an accident and was unable to follow his usual employment we used to pay that man £100 in order to assist him to open some little business so that he might not fall back on charity, or on the relief given by the board of guardians. We used to pay members from £20 to £30 funeral benefits. We used to provide superannuation benefit of 5s. to 7s. 6d. per week. But the trade slump of 1920 meant that we had to commence to pay our men all over the country unemployment benefit. Hon. Members may be surprised to know that within six months the money that we had accumulated in all the other years was exhausted. We had to close the box. It was one of the most painful, and it was the most unhappy moment of my life, after being connected with that trade union for so long, to tell the men who had contributed towards the benefits for 30 or 40 years that the box had to be closed and that we had no further benefits. That is the position so far as I was concerned.

To what extent savings provided in former years have been exhausted in order to keep the pot boiling in working class homes it is impossible for me to say. Trade union funds, of course, are one form of working class savings, but not the whole. As the Minister of Labour knows working people have invested considerable sums of money in War Savings Certificates. While in 1919, a year of good trade, only £19,000,000 of War Savings Certificates were repaid, no less than £31,000,000 were repaid in 1920, during which year unemployment began to increase. During that year also the sales of War Savings Certificates amounted to only £44,000,000, as compared with £97,000,000 in 1919, the year of good trade. This decrease the National War Savings Committee—not myself or the Labour party—in then-last Report—attributed in large part to the general trade depression and the unemployment existing during the year. These figures give some little idea of how the workers were eked out the inadequate State insurance benefits before they were driven in large numbers to seek relief from the boards of guardians.

At the beginning of January, 1920, one in sixty-five of the population of England and Wales was in receipt of outdoor relief from the boards of guardians. At the beginning of last year the proportion had risen to one in fifty-seven of the population. At the end of September last year no less than one in twenty-eight—mark the figures—of the population of England and Wales were drawing outdoor relief from the boards of guardians. In this time of our civilisation those are appalling figures which will stagger future generations—one in sixty-seven, one in fifty-five, and now one in twenty-eight. I give these figures to illustrate the enormous cost of unemployment. It is obvious that trade depression is a great drain upon the community, and, particularly, upon the working population, who, for the most part, are separated from destitution by but a very thin wall of scanty savings. It is a drain which the community can ill afford, for it means that, while the people as a whole must in some way or another maintain those who have the misfortune to be unemployed, the national production is also diminished and the capacity of the community to meet the additional charge is reduced. The nation cannot afford unemployment, and we ask that the Government should make adequate provision for its prevention and for the maintenance of unemployed workers, partly in the interest of national economy and partly in the interest of the mass of workers upon whom the greatest burden falls when employment is not available.

The Labour Party's Prevention of Unemployment Bill is intended to deal with these two aspects of the question. In the first place, measures for dealing with unemployment must be conceived as the responsibility of a single Minister, and the Bill proposes that the Minister of Labour shall have transferred to him the necessary powers to frame and to carry into effect a co-ordinated national policy. We do not believe, however, that a centralised bureaucratic scheme will meet the end. There must be full cooperation between the national Government and the local authorities As regards the national aspect of the problem, it will be clear that the satisfaction of the multifarious needs of the State provides in the aggregate a large amount of employment. Apparently, it has been the practice of the Government to satisfy its requirements without paying any regard to the state of trade, and stores and requisites might even be ordered when trade was booming, though the things were not required for immediate consumption. It is laid down in the Bill—I suppose the Minister has read it—that, in order as far as may be practicable to maintain at an approximately constant level, the national aggregate demand for labour, both by private employers and private companies, and thereby to prevent irregularity of employment, the Minister of Labour, acting in consultation with the several departments ordering works and services, shall from time to time advise the Treasury how the various works and services can be best organised and apportioned among the different seasons of the year and spread over different years so as to regularise the national aggregate demand for employment. It is suggested also that in making grants in aid to local authorities for the erection of institutions and other works, the same consideration should prevail. This proposal that the flow of Government orders or orders instituted by Government action should vary with the; state of the trade, being retarded when trade is good and increased as trade begins to flag, is one which, I believe, will commend itself as eminently businesslike.

It should, of course, be reinforced by the preparation and submission by the Minister of Labour of schemes for useful employment to be carried into effect as and when the state of the labour market demands it. In other words, national reconstruction and development should as far as possible be concentrated in the lean years so as to assist in maintaining at an approximately uniform level the aggregate demand for labour. In practice, this means that schemes of afforestation, fore- shore reclamation, land drainage, road development, harbour development, and similar work would as far as practicable be reserved for the time when trade was declining. Railways, canal companies, and public utility companies of all kinds, as well as the local authorities, could in these directions play a very important part. The same general policy as regards reorganisation and the preparation of schemes of work should be adopted by the local employment committees of borough and urban districts, which we propose in the Bill should be established. We make provision for the appointment of these committees consisting of representatives of employers and workmen so that they may be fully in touch with economic conditions and industrial experience. Each local employment committee would be required to consider and decide how all the work done by the local authority involving the employment of minor and clerical labour can best be organised and apportioned amongst different seasons of the year and spread over in such a way as, without inconvenience to the public service to maintain employment in that particular area.

By national and local action on these lines the Labour Party believe that the fluctuations in the volume of employment between good and bad years could be largely diminished. I need not point out that the result would be immensely to the national advantage, although we attach first importance to this part of the Bill, we cannot ignore the other provisions as well. We think that there should be transferred to the Minister of Labour the powers and duties relating to the regulation of the hours and conditions of labour so that, if necessity demands it, alterations in them may be made in order to spread the available employment as widely as possible. We think that coordinated effort should be brought about with regard to the powers exercised by the Home Secretary and that these offices and works should be taken up by the Minister of Labour. If, in spite of all these efforts of the Government and local authorities, unemployment remains —we do not suggest that unemployment can be altogether eliminated—it is the duty of the community to make adequate provision for the maintenance of those who are denied the employment they seek.

In the first place, the Labour Party propose that the Government should establish and maintain institutions for the training of unemployed persons. Training institutions, it is true, would be only of limited use, but it is undeniable that they might be places of great social value, where men and women in those training institutions could add to their skill and experience, and so add to the national wealth. Every unemployed worker's maintenance must be provided for in some way or other. The Labour party believe that whatever form it takes, it should be adequate and should have regard to the responsibility of those who receive it. The present scale of benefits under the State insurance scheme is miserably inadequate. Our contention is that the community must necessarily in one way or another supplement this payment. At the worst the community pays a terrible price in the lowered vitality, impoverished health, and energy of the workers and their dependents. Let us, therefore, acknowledge that the price of unemployment must be paid somehow and decide on the simplest and most economical method by which this hardship can be met. In my view, and the view of the Labour party the most satisfactory method is that of a weekly money payment bearing relation to the needs of the worker and his dependents. We want full recognition of the fact that They also serve who only stand and wait. We want a recognition of that fact because the maintenance of the industrial army during times of partial inactivity is essential to its full efficiency during times of intense activity. We have not included in the Bill any precise figures as the sums which should be paid depend mainly on the cost of living entirely. But there are two principles on which we insist. In the first place the amount received by the unemployed workers should vary according to the number of a person's dependents, and secondly that the total figure, including the unemployment benefit, if any, should be such as to enable the worker to maintain himself and his dependents in efficiency. We demand that semi-starvation during unemployment is not economical from the broad national point of view, and any other policy than one of adequate maintenance is short-sighted and disastrous, and I say unjust as far as the worker is concerned. We have been told by economists that though profits at times may be high, the risk of industry and commerce may be great. We are told that profit is the reward of those who bear risks. In the past the workers have borne a disproportionately large share of the risks of industry, not as the better-to-do section of the community do, by cutting down luxuries, but by being deprived of the bare necessaries of life. The chief price of unemployment has been paid by the workers and our demand is that maintenance should be paid on a scale which would remove a substantial part of the burden from the shoulders of the workers.

As regards the finance of the scheme, if we receive proposals for regularising the demands for labour, the scheme will not be any additional charge on public funds. National schemes of work would entail expenditure which, of course, ought to be charged to a sort of development fund and should be regarded as a national investment rather than as an unproductive burden. This leads me to consider the expenditure upon maintenance. In this connection I must point out that the constructive proposals contained in the Bill for regularising employment would reduce applications for benefit. A reasonable scale of maintenance would not result in an entirely new financial burden on the community. To find the net cost, it would be necessary to deduct from the aggregate cost of maintenance grants, apart from unemployment insurance benefit, the total cost of out-relief arising from unemployment. It is, of course, impossible, without the assistance of the Government actuary, to submit any statement of the probable net cost to the community of adequate maintenance allowances.

I have already said something about the present cost of unemployment to working people. I would only remind the House that this cost and the expenditure of poor relief falls upon the shoulders of those who are least able to bear the burden. The Labour party protests against the assumption that the cost of unemployment should be largely met out of the scanty resources of the workers or out of the local rates. Unemployment is a national responsibility, and the cost of meeting it ought primarily to be a national obligation. I have attempted to explain to the House the main features of the Labour Party's Bill. It is a measure on which we place great store.

The fear of unemployment, as the Prime Minister declared, three years ago, has gone more deeply into the minds of the working classes than any problem in modern society. There are so many of them who have gone through the experience of unemployment that the dread of a repetition of it haunts them through life. Those are the Prime Minister's words. I may as well, perhaps, give another quotation. In September, 1919, the Prime Minister declared in the columns of "The Future" for a new world:

Sir F. BANBURY

Hear, hear!

Mr. GRIFFITHS

I hope the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will cheer the next sentences. The Prime Minister said: The old world was one where unemployment, through the vicissitudes of industry, brought disaster to multitudes of humble homes. If we renew the lease of that world we shall bet-ray the heroic dead. The old world must and will come to an end. No effort can shore it up much longer. If there be any who feel inclined to maintain it let them beware lest it fall upon them and their households in ruin. This Bill will give the Government an opportunity to usher in the new world so eloquently foreshadowed by the Prime Minister. It is a sincere and serious attempt to deal with the gravest problem of modern society. Its rejection depends upon the Labour Minister and his followers. If they take the responsibility of rejecting it, it will be their duty to produce an alternative policy. I am convinced that there is no alternative policy. Every hon. Member in the House fully realises the nature of the tragedy and the cancer of unemployment. If it costs money to deal with it, our failure to do so will cost far more to the State in money and in human energy and health, and even in life itself. Therefore, while the present depression is with us, while we are face to face with what has accompanied the depression, I ask that we should boldly determine to put our house in order, so that when the wheels of industry turn again and prospects of bad trade become visible, we may be fully equipped with a plan ready to be put into immediate action in order to make the miseries of prolonged unemployment a memory of the past. In conclusion, I want to say that I have been brought up in a religious Welsh atmosphere, and I may be, perhaps, a little bit old-fashioned. I believe, however, that Heaven and earth are going to look upon the work of this House to-day. If we can do something to prevent a repetition of the misery, the poverty and the suffering that have taken place during the last two years, then I believe that civilisation and this country will look upon our work with approval, wonder and admiration.

Mr. WIGNALL

I beg to second the Motion.

My duty is, to-day, very light, and I shall be very brief because my hon. Friend, the Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths), has covered the whole range of the subject. I shall not repeat statements that have been made, but rather emphasise the importance of the Bill before us. I had expected, realising the importance of this question and all that is involved in it, that at least we should have had the privilege and pleasure of seeing the front bench opposite pretty well filled with representatives of the Government. We are very pleased, and we naturally expected to see the Minister of Labour here, because the question particularly affects his Department; but we were hopeful of seeing other members of the Government here, and also a representative of the Treasury, when we were dealing with a matter of vital importance to the nation and to the welfare of the people. I have probably no right to complain, because these right hon. and hon. Gentlemen can do as they like, but I hope it is not an indication of their estimate of the value of our suggestions to-day that the Government Bench is empty, except for the presence of the Minister of Labour. If that be the value that they place upon our suggestions, it is a mistaken estimate of the real position of the nation at the present time. Although, however, the Government Bench may be empty, there are a few sharpshooters here and there, either in the trenches or hidden away ready to fire into and try and destroy this Bill. We shall welcome most heartily the severest criticism, but I hope it will be helpful in trying not to destroy the Bill, but to make it better and stronger.

12 N.

The tragedy of unemployment is with us, and we know and understand it, but it is only those who have passed through it who really appreciate its horrors. To deal with it is a stupendous task under the present capitalistic system, and it is still more stupendous than it otherwise might be because the worker, whether by hand or brain, is the wealth producer of the nation. The employé, whether in the factory, the mine, the workshop, the counting house or the office, is subject to the decision of a board of management, of directors, or whoever has control, and if they say that the machine shall stop it is stopped. No matter whether the workmen complain or appeal, if the industry does not pay sufficient to provide interest on capital and dividends to shareholders, it has got to stop until it does, and in the meantime the great mass of people, who at least can be considered as the human machines in the industry, have to stand idle and wait until trade improves and profits can be earned again. There are, of course, various sections with which we have to deal. There are what might be called the stabilised trades—trades that go practically from January to December until something such as we are passing through now intervenes to stop them. Then we have what may be called seasonal trades, in which the work only comes along at certain seasons of the year; and we have the trades that fluctuate as may be required, to start or stop as need be. But in all these things the worker, the toiler, has no share. He is not consulted about it; he is simply engaged. We often see the insulting statement put up, "No hands required," in forgetfulness of the human being who is behind it, and in it, and of all the responsibilities attaching to it. The worker has no standing so far as the management is concerned; he has to be engaged or dismissed, as the case may be. Looking at the economic position of the country as it is to-day, we say that it cannot continue as it is going on. Men and women have a right to live, and they cannot live without sustenance. They cannot maintain their homes without the means of paying for them. If there is no work, if nothing is provided by which they can earn, we say that the State, which is the great parent of the nation, must look after those who belong to it. We, at least, have been thinking this matter out and giving our best consideration to the problem, and, although this Bill may be ridiculed, and called a feeble attempt which does not touch the fringe of the garment, which does not even meet the Preamble, To make provision for the prevention of unemployment, to provide for the proper treatment of unemployed persons, and for other purposes connected therewith, at least it is an attempt to go as far as we think we can go in dealing with this great problem, which has baffled the cleverest politicians and the brightest geniuses the world has ever produced. Therefore, we are trying to deal with this problem in as practical a way as presents itself to us. Another feature of the Bill is to co-ordinate into one centre the whole question of employment and unemployment. Although we are face to face with that terrible volume known as the Geddes Report, in which the axe is being held over the head of the Minister of Labour, with a threat to chop it off right away and destroy his Department, we still believe that the Ministry of Labour is essential, that it must be maintained. It has accomplished work in the past which we are prepared to praise. There is a greater scope for its operation, and a greater chance of development, and we attempt to co-ordinate all the various sections and Departments that are now dealing with this problem, so that the Ministry of Labour shall be the centre of authority, shall be the very hub of the whole work. We are not appealing for charity; we are not trying to perpetuate a system of—as we have heard it dragged out here with emphasis—doles. We have heard that like the crashing of wheels many a time. Men do not want doles, they do not want charity, but they do want work provided by which maintenance can be obtained. If work fails, and cannot be obtained, then we say that the Government must maintain people so that they will not be allowed to starve. It is said that they should go to the boards of guardians. Yes, and let the ratepayer pay rather than the taxpayer out of some national provision for relief. Let me close by saying that a nation's wealth built up on a nation's poverty is a nation's disgrace, and will ultimately result in a nation's disaster. Where there is one section that is wealthy even beyond the dreams of avarice—where there may be 25 per cent, of a nation rolling in wealth and luxury, another 25 per cent, in a medium state of comfort, another 25 per cent, on the verge of destitution, and possibly the remaining 25 per cent, in abject starvation and misery— that nation canot continue. Therefore, where there is an abundance of wealth on the one hand and poverty on the other, there should be some medium at least by which the poor worker shall not starve, but shall be provided with work or maintenance. Although this is a subject which is so near and dear to our hearts, and upon which we could enlarge and would desire to enlarge, we wish to give fair scope to all those who desire, I hope in a spirit of fair criticism, to attack the Bill. We do not care a fraction whether the Bill in its present form is acceptable to the House or not. If the Bill can be improved, enlarged, or bettered in any shape or form so that those for whom we are pleading can be benefited or provided for, we will gladly welcome any such alteration, modification or reconstruction of the Clauses. I, therefore, have pleasure in seconding the Motion for Second Reading.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

Everyone in the House and in the country will recognise that there is no greater problem than the problem of unemployment and that one of the chief duties of a Government is, as far as they can, to administer the laws that are in existence and to pass such laws as will conduce to the prosperity of all classes. That is a commonplace, on which I need not enlarge. The only question is whether the proposals outlined by hon. Members opposite or the facts which have made England prosperous in the past are the best methods of carrying out what I have said is the duty of every Government, namely, to see that all classes are, as far as it can ensure, prosperous. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) quoted from a pamphlet called "The Future," and I think he was under the impression that I was not acquainted with that pamphlet. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I have carried that pamphlet about with me ever since it was issued, and I have got it carefully preserved in a room in my house in London. I have already quoted it in this House, and I thought to myself this morning, as I came down here—I knew where I could put my hand on it at once, such is the importance which I attach to it—I thought, Shall I put it in my pocket and bring it down? I did not do so, but the hon. Member has quoted it for me, or one of the chief points in it. I would ask the hon. Gentleman this question—Does he not think that the example set by that paper shows that you cannot deal with this question in any heroic or sentimental manner, and does he not think that the author of the passage which he quoted has failed in bringing about a new world? He has had three years in which to do it, and I think I shall have the consent of everybody in the House, except possibly those who are on the Front Bench, that the present condition of the country is worse than when the writer of that pamphlet said he was going to make it better. That being so, may I ask whether the hon. Member considers that where one Welshman has failed, another Welshman, not so prominent, is likely to succeed?

I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Pontypool commenced his speech by saying that he wished to bring an Act of Queen Elizabeth up-to-date. Quite wrongly, I have been called reactionary, but I have never been so reactionary as to go back to the Middle Ages and require an Act passed in the Middle Ages to be brought up-to-date at the present moment. Does the hon. Member remember one thing that Queen Elizabeth did with regard to this House? Queen Elizabeth sent a message to this House informing the House that their duty was, not to discuss matters, but merely to say "Aye" or "Nay." Does the hon. Member wish to bring that up-to-date at the present moment? Queen Elizabeth was, as far as history tells us, a very great lady and a very kind-hearted lady. In fact, I am not at all sure that probably in the mind of the hon. Gentleman she is not something like the Sultan we used to read about in the "Arabian Nights," who used to go round with his Grand Vizier, see where there was poverty and misery, and order somebody to put it right. I rather think it is a pity the hon. Member did not suggest that one of the lady Members of this House should take the place of the Labour Minister and so follow in the footsteps of her illustrious predecessor, Queen Elizabeth, but what he desires to do, as I under- stand it, is to invest the right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench, and any other right hon. Gentlemen who may follow him, with absolute powers to go round and put everybody into comfortable positions. Everybody is to have enough to live upon, and the only person who is to decide is the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he is going to have a lamp, which he will rub, and the genius of the lamp will appear and solve the question for him. If he is not going to do that, but has got to solve the question himself, I pity the right hon. Gentleman.

I think it was the Colonial Secretary who said the Labour Party were not fit to govern. My impression is that that is what the right hon. Gentleman said, and that statement was received, not unnaturally, with doubt by hon. Members opposite. They did not agree with it, but I must say that I think they have gone out of their way to prove that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary is right by bringing in this Bill, because of all ridiculous Bills, a Bill which is more likely to create unemployment instead of remedying it, was never put before any House of Commons. One can only judge of the future by the past. That is another commonplace, but I think it is admitted that it is true. Has something of this sort been tried before, and has it been successful, or has it failed? I will not go as far back as Queen Elizabeth, but I will go back to 1848, which after all is comparatively modern. In 1848 something of this sort did occur in Paris. Municipal workshops were started in that year, because there had been a revolution—and I commend this to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) with whom I am going to deal a little later. The result of the revolution was to create unemployment, and it was attempted to be remedied by the creation of municipal workshops. What happened? The same thing happened there as is happening in Russia at the present moment. The municipal workshops were found to be an absolute failure, and they were closed, and how were they closed? It was necessary to bring troops. I daresay my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) knows the number of people, but I feel sure I am not exaggerating when I say that many hundreds of people were killed, and lives were lost in order to go back to the system that prevailed before the municipal workshops were set up. Those are facts, and you cannot get over them. There is history, and it shows that anything of this sort is bound to be a failure.

What is the work of a country? How does it produce? A small country like this with a large population cannot live upon itself. It can only live by exporting the product of its labour. That is a commonplace, but we have to remember these things. I was reading last week a little article in "Punch," which recognised that fact. This little article detailed a conversation between two Scotsmen. One said to the other: "Mac, the prosperity of the country depends upon its exports, and so long as we can export politicians and other Scotsmen to England we shall be prosperous." That is very true. The prosperity of the country does depend upon its exports, but if you have a Bill of this sort, what are you going to export? You will have nothing whatever to export. Consequently, we shall be living upon ourselves, and there will come a time when there is nothing left, and instead of preventing unemployment, you will make the whole country unemployed, and without money.

The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean is extremely eloquent, and the hon. Member for Pontypool is also eloquent, but it is not always a good thing to be eloquent. It very often misleads people, especially if the eloquent man is a Welshman. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean says that the present want of employment comes through the capitalist system. Let us go back and see what is going to happen if we abolish the capitalist system. We have an example, not in the days of Elizabeth but two or three years ago. Russia has abolished the capitalist system.

Mr. WIGNALL

I am sure that the right hon. Baronet does not desire to misrepresent or misinterpret anything that has been said. I did not attempt to argue for the abolition of the capitalist system. I said that so long as that system remained the employé is at the mercy of a board of directors, or other employers, or a general manager, and that he has no voice in the keeping of the machine going. That is an entirely different thing from the argument that the right hon. Baronet is trying to put before the House.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have no wish to misrepresent the hon. Member. This is much too important a question upon which to misrepresent anybody, even if one wanted to misrepresent. The hon. Member says that under the present capitalist system the workmen are depending upon the will of the capitalist, and that if the industry does not pay, it is shut down and the employee is turned off. Therefore I think I was justified in saying that the hon. Member meant that the capitalist system was not a success, and that if it was not a success it ought to go. In Russia, something of the same ideas were held a few years ago; the result has been that the capitalist system was abolished, and it was supposed that everybody could be maintained by the State. That is what this Bill endeavours to do. The result has been poverty and misery in Russia, I will not say greater than has ever occurred in the history of the world, but nearly as great as has ever occurred in the history of the world. I do not know whether' the Minister of Labour listened to everything that was said on the other side, but ii so, he must have felt greatly impressed by the confidence reposed in him, especially by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, who said that the right hon. Gentleman was the hub of the, universe.

Mr. WIGNALL

The right hon. Baronet has a very bad memory to-day. I never said that the Minister of Labour was the hub of the universe, I said that he would be the hub of the machine for dealing with unemployment, which is an entirely different thing.

Sir F. BANBURY

I think the lion. Member did say that he was the hub of the universe. His actual words were, "the hub of the whole world." Now, I will deal with the Bill. We are going to create a very great department, as if the Ministry of Labour was not a big enough system already. I do not exaggerate when I say that we pay £20,000,000 a year for the privilege of having the right hon. Gentleman and his numerous satellites. Under Clause 1 the right hon. Gentleman is to absorb everybody: There shall be transferred and attached to the Minister of Labour such of the persons employed under any Government Department or local authority…as the Minister of Labour may, with the consent of the Government Department or local authority and the Treasury, determine. A very excellent idea! If a sudden desire for economy should pervade the Government, any State servant who is dismissed would be put into the pocket of the right hon. Gentleman. Clause 2 provides that The Minister of Labour shall, in addition to all powers he may now possess under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1922, or otherwise, have all the powers and duties relating to or connected with the prevention of destitution among or the relief of the able-bodied poor, including workmen in distress from unemployment and vagrancy— In distress from vagrancy! A great many vagrants like to live that way, and by no manner of means do they regard themselves from the point of view of being in distress— and which are now vested in or imposed upon parishes, townships, distress committees, central bodies, boards of guardians, churchwardens, overseers of the poor, justices of the peace, and the Ministry of Health. How many millions of people will then be employed by the right hon. Gentleman? It is also provided that the Minister of Labour shall consult with various Government Departments and advise how certain Grants-in-Aid may most conveniently be distributed and spread over different years, in order, as far as may be practicable, to maintain the national aggregate demand for labour, both public and private, at an approximately constant level from year to year. A lovely sentiment! But it is nothing more than a sentiment. It is quite impossible, even for the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) who is the hub of the whole world. It is provided in Clause 5 that:— If it appears at any time to the Minister of Labour with regard to any trade or occupation in any district, that the method c employment is generally of such casual or intermittent nature as to give rise to, or in the case of children or young persons is likely to lead to, widespread under-employment, he may, after public inquiry in such manner as he may think fit, make an order declaring employment in such trade or occupation, either generally or in particular districts, to be casual labour of an undesirable character. Then it is provided that employers who wish to engage any person must enter into engagements through or with the approval of an Employment Exchange, and at no other place. Talk about monopoly! There must be a conspiracy between the hon. Member for Pontypool and the Minister of Labour, because the House and the country are of the opinion that the best thing we can do in the interests of employment is to abolish the Employment Exchanges. Now, here comes this Bill, and an employer is not to be allowed to engage anybody in certain industries except through the Employment Exchanges. If he commits a breach of this provision he is liable to a, fine of £5. Then the Minister of Labour shall establish and maintain in such district as he thinks fit such institutions and day residental colonies as he shall deem requisite. I am not sure that I am a democrat. I rather think that I am not. I understood that democracy means allowing the people's representatives to have a say in the matter, but though I understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite were democrats there is nothing of democracy in thi6 proposal. The right hon. Gentleman will not have to come down to the House even to ask for the money, because under the Bill he will have all the money which he wants. He is going to be an absolute monarch. Is the right hon. Gentleman fit to be trusted with such enormous powers?

Those wicked people who by their industry and thrift have saved a little money already have to pay out of their income to the State something like 10s. in the £. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is going to have the other 10s., because that is the only way in which he can get the money. There are a good many others of these sorts of Clauses, and then we come to Clause 17. It is, I believe, in force at present, and I am very sorry that it is, because what it amounts to is this. When you have got 50 per cent, of the population doing no work, but being kept by the State, that is, by the remainder of the population, who do work, if you are going to say to that half of the population which is kept by the other half, "You must have the power to send representatives to the House of Commons who may advocate that not only are you to receive adequate maintenance, but you are to have champagne and oysters as well," then, as human nature, whether a man wears a black coat or any other coat, or has got £10,000 a year or nothing, is all pretty much the same, if you create a class dependent upon another class and give them power to impose taxation, or rather to say, "We are going to take your money in order that we may live upon nominal work," this country will go back into the state in which Russia is now. You cannot give a man who is doing nothing himself, who is being kept by other people, the power to decide how much he is to have at the expense of somebody else. As one of the Liberal Members observed more than 50 years ago, when the Reform Bill of 1866 was passing, "What will happen if the many are to make the laws and the few are to find the money?"

I will not go through any more of the extremely ridiculous provisions of this Bill because, I presume, hon. Members have read the Bill themselves, but I would like to impress on hon. Members opposite that everybody in this country is desirous of making the country prosperous. You can only make it prosperous by one thing. You must protect the life and property of the people in it—and I would recommend this to the right hon. Gentleman as regards Ireland. You must allow a man to reap the benefits of his own labour. You must encourage saving and thrift. Without saving and thrift no country, even a sparsely inhabited country, whose inhabitants can live upon its produce, can possibly thrive. But a country like this which cannot support the very large population which is in it now, and can only be prosperous if its resources are developed and capitalists are encouraged to invest their money in undertakings which will enable goods to be made at a profit— you cannot make goods at a loss—and be sold to other countries that want them. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) alluded to a Trade Union which was unable after a certain time to pay any unemployment benefit. I agree that that is a very unfortunate case, but how much of these funds that belonged to the Trade Union had been spent on fighting and how much on the salaries of officials and on expenses? A lot of the money that goes into Trade Unions is wasted in those ways. I sincerely hope that the House will reject this Bill by a large majority.

Mr. THOMAS SHAW

I, like every other Member of the House, have enjoyed the exquisite humour of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), but I live in a North Country town of some 40,000 inhabitants, where the majority of the workers for the last two years have seldom known what it was to draw a week's wages. I can appreciate humour, but I can also appreciate the fact that literally starvation is staring our people in the face, and references to champagne and oysters and other allusions made by the right hon. Baronet will fall with a blasting effect on those people who are willing to work, who always have been willing to work, and through no fault of their own are facing starvation. What is the use of talking about champagne and oysters to people like those? If the right hon. Baronet had half the kindness for human beings that he has for dogs, our people would appreciate his services to the country much more. I agree that the business of a Government is to guard life and property, and it is because our proposals are meant to guard life that we ask for the support of the right hon. Baronet. May I call attention to one or two facts on the state of the country, largely due to semi-starvation recurring quite as badly as before the War? We were told of the condition of the working population before the War. Not one person in six of the working population of Lancashire, amongst the textile operatives, was fit for service m the Army before the War. In the five counties of the West Midlands the medical reports on the working population were appalling. There was another Geddes as well as the right hon. Gentleman who swung the axe. There was a Geddes who is now His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington. He was a man not only of very great ability, of very great professional knowledge, but esteemed universally by the medical and surgical professions. I heard him say, with the whole wealth of statistical knowledge he possessed added to his professional knowledge, that the working population of this country have never had a chance of becoming healthy. It is because unemployment is one of the principal causes of that physical condition and because we believe that the Government ought to guard life, that we are in favour of these proposals and that we expect there should be more than destructive criticism of them.

If there be an alternative let us discuss it, but merely destructive criticism and the palpable and miserable humbug of the champagne and oyster story are not worthy either of the danger of the situation or of the sufferings of the people who endure the misery attendant on unemployment. We are told that we cannot deal with the question on sentimental lines. That is agreed. Let us deal with the question on hard practical lines. Is it an economy that people should be under-fed? Is it an economy that people should be idle when they might be producing something? Wealth is not anything that is outside and cannot be understood. Wealth consists simply of the number of useful things that we produce, and if production stops wealth stops. Let people produce something useful rather than waste surplus wealth in keeping them idle. If someone came along with a criticism that would attack the principle of this Bill and yet suggest a better way of using national funds in a manner to produce wealth, we could consider it; but the mere paying out of sums of money to keep people in a state of semi-starvation, while all the time we might be using those people to do useful things, is to us an abomination and not economy. It is true that the right hon. Baronet made great play with the statements and promises of the Prime Minister. It is also true that the Government was elected on those statements and promises. I think it is also true that most Members used those promises and statements for their election. Whatever the right hon. Baronet may think, we have a right to ask "Were those promises given in good faith, and, if so, in what way are you going to redeem them? Evidently you have not given us a new world."

Sir F. BANBURY

The promises of the Prime Minister, referred to by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths), were made in September, 1919.

Mr. SHAW

I fought an election and I know what statements were made during the election. My contention still holds good. These were definite pledges on which a majority of the Members of this House were elected. We say, "Either you knew what you were talking about or you did not. If you knew what you were talking about, then keep your promises. If you did not know what you were talking about and cannot keep your promises, give way to those who do know what they are talking about and will attempt to keep their promises." We have had great play made with the statement of the hon. Member for Pontypool, that he wishes to bring up to date a statute passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Is not this rather too serious a matter to be made the subject of a debating point I Is it not a matter that ought to be approached with sympathy rather than with levity? Is it not a matter that demands serious consideration? Would not the right hon. Baronet feel, as most of us feel, if every week-end he saw in his own town decent people who were suffering, decent people who for two years had never known what it was to have a real wage? Would he not think that though "Punch" might be a delectable companion for an hour in the smoking room, it is scarcely a means of dealing with a condition of affairs such as that which now exists? Then we had the suggestion that some lady Member should be the Minister for Labour, and all the rest of it.

I want to leave that subject and to make an appeal to the right hon. Baronet whom most of us admire, whose wit we listen to with pleasure, to exercise his wit on subjects less serious than this and to give us the benefit of his experience and his suggestions on matters that are too grave for joking. We have the statement about everybody being made comfortable in their circumstances by the Government. We have heard the statement that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had been proved to be right in the Bill we have presented. We had the statement again that in some way this Bill bears a comparison with the experiments of Louis Blanc in 1848 in Paris. I have heard many comparisons, but I have never heard a comparison in which there was less justice or wisdom than the comparison between experiments made by Louis Blanc after a revolution in France and the Bill which is now submitted. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that next time, instead of confining himself to the mere statement, he might tell us where he sees the analogy. Either I am too dull or the right hon. Baronet is wrong. One or other must be true, because I, personally, can see no analogy whatever between this Bill and the French experiment. We had a homily on the production of wealth. I think we do know something about the production of wealth. We know that wealth is not produced either by idle men in the streets and the tap-rooms, or by idle men in the smoke-rooms, and we would like, if we could, to eliminate both types, and make every man do his share either by hand or brain, to make the country richer and better in every way.

We have also had an attempt to prove that, in some way, the present condition of Russia is due to an attempt to put these principles into practice. I have already said that to compare the experiments in Paris with this Bill is neither wise nor just, but I cannot see how any Member of the House can for one moment, even in the wildest flight of imagination, compare this Bill with the Soviet system. Every provision in this Bill is anti-Soviet in essence, and no hon. Member speaking with a sense of responsibility, with the intent to get at the truth, and with any knowledge of the subject—which is also an important proviso—can attempt to demonstrate that this Bill bears any resemblance, in any way, to the Soviet system of Government. As a matter of fact it recognises in every Clause the type of Government known by the Communists in Russia as a bourgeoise government, and it is quite contrary in spirit to what the right hon. Gentleman represented it to be. Again I ask that serious subjects should be treated seriously. While humour is always a delightful thing, there should be some attempt to stick to facts, and humour should not be allowed to run wild, in such a way as to twist the truth, until one can no longer recognise the lady's features. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should seriously study the Bill firstly, and the Soviet system of government secondly, because prejudice might be raised against the Bill owing to the statement of a responsible Member of the House, who, in a weak moment, had committed himself to an inaccuracy.

I am leaving the statement about 50 per cent, of the people keeping the other 50 per cent, and keeping them on champagne and oysters, and things of that description, and I am going back to the essential facts of the situation. They are undeniable. A tremendous proportion of our population is suffering physically and mentally from unemployment. This curse of unemployment needs the most careful and detailed study, and if there are better suggestions to be made we ought to hear them, and the subject ought to be treated with due gravity and consideration. The essential principles of this Bill are simple. They may be impracticable; that I leave to others to argue. I think they are eminently practicable, but in effect they are very simple.

Under three headings, I could state the whole purport of the Bill. The first thing it attempts to do is to create one central authority to deal with the problem of unemployment, and it provides that the central authority shall be the Minister for Labour—not necessarily the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister, because he may pass, but his Ministry will remain. The second proposal of the Bill is to attempt to employ unemployed people on productive work— in the actual production of wealth—rather than to pay benefits for enforced idleness. That may be practicable or impracticable, but we believe it to be practicable. We believe it to be economical and sound and in the national interest. So long as we have a foreshore unreclaimed, so long as we have land on which we can grow timber, so long as we have canals which need developing, or roads that need mending, there should be no unemployed persons who can do that work drawing a dole. They should be working on valuable and necessary work. That is the second great outstanding principle of the Bill.

The third principle is this—and we make no apology for it, but claim its acceptance as a right—that if this work of a useful and productive character cannot be given, a sum should be paid which will keep the unemployed person in physical efficiency and comfort. Here, for once, I am glad to say I agree heartily with the eight hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I believe it is the duty of the Government to maintain life and property, and because I believe it necessary to maintain life, I suggest it is the truest economy to give the worker a sufficient quantity of food and of all the things necessary to maintain him in ordinary physical efficiency. If we are to go back to the black days of the C3 population we can never be considered a great country. I want to see the time when, if we are again faced by an emergency, we shall face it with a people who are physically fit to deal with it. I know from my own personal knowledge, from speeches and from reading, what the condition of a very large part of the population of this country was before the War. We are getting to a condition as bad or even worse, and it is a positive danger to the State. It is a positive blot on the escutcheon of humanity that such a condition of things should arise. We ask the House to consider these three main principles—the centralisation of authority, the giving of useful work, and the keeping of the people in sound physical health. Hon. Members may disagree with our methods, but Surely they cannot disagree with our principles, and we ask hon. Members to discuss the Bill from a sympathetic point of view, and while allowing their humour to have play on other subjects, on a problem so serious as this, to confine themselves to criticisms of the proposals we make, and to give us some constructive ideas as well as destructive criticism.

Mr. G. ROBERTS

I am sure my hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat may accept it that the House, without exception, approves the purpose of the Bill, even though they may deem it necessary to offer some criticism. My hon. Friend who introduced the Bill stated the problem of unemployment to be a world problem. We have had evidence in recent years of the fact that depression in one part of the world reacts very rapidly on every other country in the world, and if we have only learned that one fact, that the problem is not a question confined to any one country, but is a world-problem, we shall get some appreciation of the duties sought to be imposed upon the Minister by the Bill. My hon. Friend who introduced the Bill also stated that the problem we are now-confronted with is in large measure due to the fact that the Allied Powers in 1919 failed to face economic realities. Of course there is a great deal of truth in that assertion. After all, it shows us that the conditions of the various countries are so dissimilar that it is extraordinarily difficult to get unity of conclusion or unity of purpose. The Allied Powers when engaged in fashioning terms of peace are each influenced by the fact that the conditions of their various countries are of prior concern to them.

1.0 p.m.

We regret that it should appear at the moment that the relationship of this country with France should be slightly strained. For political and other reasons, I should deplore any rupture in our relationship with France. Nevertheless, we have to appreciate the fact that when French representatives are in conference with representatives of this country, the economic facts of the two countries are so dissimilar that it is extraordinarily difficult to get the two sets of representatives to come to a like conclusion. France is largely an agricultural country. An agricultural country will always recover from depression much more rapidly than a country that lives so largely on export trade as we do. Therefore I think the slightest possible reflection on the conditions of the various countries is sufficient to show us that this problem is extraordinarily complex and needs very wide consideration in order to provide a solution. My hon. Friends have at least on this occasion avoided the error that others have committed, because they have not put forward this Bill as offering an absolute solution of the unemployment problem. Reference has been made to the statements of the Prime Minister and others. Undoubtedly when we are on the platform many of us are prone to indulge in rhetorical flourishes, and we may say a great deal more than we know to be practicable. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak for yourself."] I certainly include myself, and I am not going to exclude my hon. Friends opposite. We used to talk all too lightly about the solution of the unemployment problem, and to come to Parliament and think that the presentation and passage of a Bill would be sufficient to solve the question. We know better to-day. There is no such thing known to humanity as an absolute and permanent solution of the unemployed problem. That is to say, we recognise that it is impossible to so order a complex state of society as to secure that none shall ever be out of work. Therefore we have combined in this country— and others are doing the same—the regularisation as far as practicable, of industry with insurance in order to meet periods of enforced idleness.

The central proposal of the Bill is that the Minister of Labour should be charged with handling this great problem. My right hon. Friend ought to feel flattered. I am afraid when I occupied that position I should not have inspired such confidence. On the other hand, if I were still responsible, I should be dismayed at the prospect of the duties which were being imposed upon me. Let us see what it means. My right hon. Friend is to be charged with the responsibility of taking steps exercised under the widest possible powers to prevent unemployment. My right hon. Friend, like myself, may feel at times that trade disputes may be a fruitful cause of unemployment. In fact there is no denying the fact that the present problem of unemployment has been greatly exaggerated by the recurrent industrial disturbances which have taken place since the Armistice. Do you desire that my right hon. Friend shall be able to say, "I forbid this dispute. I will deny to employers or to trade unionists the right to precipitate a strike or a lockout because in my opinion it will cause unemployment"? Of course merely to state the fact, however desirable it might be, is to prove its impracticability. Employers will never tolerate a Minister or a Government exercising such power, while we know it is utterly impossible to compel a body of workmen, seized with a great sense of grievance, to continue at work at the behest of a Minister or any other person.

Again, during the War the Minister of Labour was invested with the power to impose compulsory arbitration. I have always been opposed to that principle. There are friends of mine who think the state of the country will justify the Government in enacting that principle. If it were proposed, I should still offer opposition to it, but still, as I read this Bill, it would confer upon the Minister of Labour the right to say to the two parties in industry. "I am not going to risk industrial upheaval. The dispute which is now agitating the industry must be submitted to compulsory arbitrament." I recognise that that may not be the intention, but it certainly seems to me to be implied in the Measure, though possibly my right hon. Friend might not seek to exercise it. But we have got to recognise that some other Minister, with a different outlook altogether, might so interpret his powers, and, I think, under the Bill, be able to prove that he had been endowed with them, and be entitled to exercise them.

Mr. MOSLEY

In what Clause is that?

Mr. ROBERTS

I take it, the whole Bill. It does not state it specifically. I am endeavouring to face the situation seriously. I have occupied the position now filled by my right hon. Friend, and, if I presume to intervene in the Debate, I think the House and the country are entitled to know how I stand. I think what I have said is implied in the Measure. Moreover, it must follow that the Ministry of Labour must exercise wide control over industry in general. We, at least, in this House, and in the country, have criticised sharply the results of Government interference in industry and I thought it was commonly accepted by all parties that the less we allowed Government Departments so to interfere, the better it would be for all sections of the community. In my opinion, we have been proceeding along rather different lines from those laid down in this Bill. I do not think a Government Department, however well equipped, is the best means of handling industrial affairs, and I thought we had in recent years moved in the other direction of devolving upon employers and employed the responsibility of conducting their own industry, and that we intended to increase the responsibilities we imposed upon them, by asking them to accept greater responsibility for such problems as that of unemployment. After all, the parties in an industry are much better qualified than civil servants, remote from industry, to deal with these questions. Joint Industrial Councils, in constant touch with these matters, must be far better able to provide solutions for these recurrent problems than any Government Department, and I had thought I was representing the best labour opinion in the country when I expressed a preference for looking towards the scheme of Joint Industrial Councils to deal with this problem and kindred problems, rather than trust a Government Department in Whitehall.

That is my honest view, and I say I had thought that it was fairly representative of a large volume of labour opinion. I am told, on the one hand, that the policy is to cultivate conciliation, to promote friendly relationship with the employer, to enter into counsel with him, to consult in a friendly atmosphere upon all these questions. We have got to make up our minds whether that is the policy we are going to pursue, or whether we are going to support the other policy of constant war on capitalists and constant disturbance in industry. I had thought, I repeat, that we had decided in favour of friendly understanding, joint responsibility in order to seek wiser and better solutions of the various problems of industry, of which the most grievous and worst is that of unemployment. Latterly, we have been talking a good deal about, if not superseding, at any rate, supplementing the Government provisions against unemployment, by schemes of insurance by industry. Nobody ever argues here—at least I do not—that the present benefit is at all adequate; in fact, most of the statements of my hon. Friend are not questioned anywhere, but we are recognising that we are groping towards a better sense of adequacy. When I was a trade union official, I used to seek to attract members to the organisation I represented by a promise of unemployment benefit—of what? Of 8s. I never argued its adequacy, but it was providing something to supplement what might be the resources of the particular individual. And so it is in a State scheme. We have never contemplated that it represented adequacy. It was a contribution to the problem, and a very acceptable one at that.

I often meet the point of view of trade unionists, that if the Government do make provision adequate, then it is likely to hinder the growth of the trade unions, because there are large masses of people who, if provision be made for them by an impersonal abstraction like a Government Department, are not likely to be attracted by the benefits offered by a trade union, and we have to look at all these facts, as to whether proposals are likely to assist the organisation of labour, or, on the other hand, whether, by blending Government aid with voluntary provision, we are not doing the best to promote real progress in industry. I would like to see insurance in industry by industry experimented with, and I am certain that the more we bring the two parties together, the more shall we do towards steadying conditions in industry. I agree with all that has been said about the desirability of Government Departments and municipalities having some regard to the state of the labour market when they are proposing to place con- tracts. I believe something has been done in that direction. At any rate, I remember when at the Ministry of Labour instructions were even then issued to Government Departments to have regard to the state of labour, in order that something might be done to regularise employment in the country, and, in so far as that part of the problem is concerned, I think we can find that all parties in the House and in the country are prepared to work together. But, after all, again, we come up against the primary fact of Great Britain, that we depend so much on foreign trade, and we cannot possibly regulate as a Government the conditions in the various countries with which we have to deal. By international conferences something is being done. Let me show by one or two illustrations what I mean. My constituents are largely concerned in the manufacture of boots and shoes. A large export trade has been built up. Some of the Dominions were among our best customers, South Africa included. Recently South Africa has embarked on an intensive campaign with a view to making herself a self-contained Dominion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but having imported from this country large amounts of machinery —all for the good of machinery manufacturers—and they have also availed themselves of the acquired skill of men from my constituency and elsewhere—today they have within their own confines a well-organised and efficient boot and shoe industry. But how have they done it I They have put barriers up against the products of my constituency in order that they may build up their own.

Again, take the cotton industry. I heard an hon. Member, speaking from the other side of the House a short while ago —and we know that that hon. Member speaks with great knowledge—he told us that 75 per cent, of the textiles manufactured in Lancashire were intended for export. Then we know there was a large market in India, but the Indians now have set out on a policy of developing their own textile industry, and in order to assist that project, as they esteem it, they have put up a barrier against Lancashire goods. I am not speaking here either from the point of view of Tariff Reform or Free Trade. You cannot put either label on me. I believe in looking at these matters on their merits, and I say that you must simply have regard to the fact that we cannot possibly live in this country without foreign trade. It is for the parties to get together and study the means whereby they can produce efficiently, so that they can open up markets essential to the consumption of goods they create. My right hon Friend the Minister of Labour, however clever and beneficent he may be, cannot possibly conjure up persons to buy unwanted goods. The goods have been made. They have been manufactured, but at such a cost that those with whom we have usually traded have been unable to purchase them, and they have been left on our hands.

These are really the questions which, in my opinion, affect the great problem of unemployment. It is not alone a question of Government Departments and municipal authorities acting to regularise the placing of contracts. It is not alone a question of employers and workpeople entering into arrangements to study conditions; it is the conditions which prevail within all the countries with whom we have to deal, and without whose trade we cannot possibly exist. Therefore, what I want to see is that we should settle down, employers and employed, for whether we like the present system or not, it will remain as long as we are here. We ultimately have to live together, and whether a strike lasts one month or three, in the ultimate you have to get round a table, and I say that it is better that we should do it now, because by that means we are certainly getting nearer a solution of the problem, than by looking towards a Government Department, however competent it may be.

There are many aspects of the matter which might be considered, but I must not make too heavy a demand upon the time of the House. I anticipate that some may think I am merely concerned to destroy this proposal. That certainly is not my intention. There is not a man in this House who, convinced that something could be done to provide a reasonable and abiding solution of this problem, but would accept such a solution from whatever quarter it originated. It would ill become anybody to retard such a solution. I am not concerned with party or other considerations. I want, as fervently as anybody, to help towards a solution of this problem. I feel that while it is beyond our power and beyond the power of any party or Government, which may ever be in existence, to provide an absolute solution of this problem, yet we can by co-operation do much to steady and regularise conditions and to stabilise employment in this country so far as practicable; then, when men are suffering from enforced idleness, they should be maintained under the supervision of their fellows in a state which will keep them well and efficient and well qualified to resume their occupation as soon as trade improves. I want all that, and I am prepared to co-operate in promoting Measures that may ensure that much. On the other hand I think one should not join in anything which will delude the workers of the country into the belief that we have in our power a panacea and a solution which has only to be adopted to bring them certainty of employment and good wages for all time. The unemployment problem is not to be solved by a Government Department. Let us face the difficulty. The repetition of formula or the passage of a single Act of Parliament will not solve it.

There are one or two changes in the Bill before us as I note it. I remember the first Bill of this character which was drafted 16 years ago and which was very largely inspired by the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission. We never expected in those days that this would provide a solution of the problem, but we did want to compel the parties in the country to seriously face the unemployment question. To that extent the introduction of a Measure like this year after year has had, and is having, a good effect, because we have made some contribution towards fair dealing with this problem, although, of course, it must of necessity be very incomplete. The new provisions of the Bill are all to the good. But I must say again that I feel that the powers proposed to be enforced upon local authorities require very careful consideration. Here it is admitted that n figure previously incorporated in a Bill of this character has been omitted. No definite figure is included owing, as we have been told, to the constant fluctuations in the cost of living. To impose upon the medical officer of health the determination of the benefit to be provided is a responsibility that no such local official should be called upon to bear. After all, the benefit will vary in localities. You will get some authorities very generous and others quite niggardly. Where the benefit is generous, you will naturally attract Labour towards it, and you may find that there you are building up a much worse problem than the one you are seeking to solve.

After all, in dealing with this problem it is not merely a question of locality, but it is rather one of industry, and you will find that with a little more mobility in industry you can do a great deal more to regularise conditions. On this subject I feel I have some title to speak, because I have had some responsibility for administering legislation within the Ministry of Labour. I know its powers and I appreciate its possibilities, and I do not think we ought to expect more than is practicable from that great Department. I feel that Debates of this character lift everybody above party lines because, after all, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) was not lacking in sympathy for those who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed from time to time. Irrespective of party we are concerned to do what we can to promote employment and make it more regular and well paid, for thereon rests the permanent prosperity of this country. We shall be compelled to rely less and less in the future upon the possibilities of foreign countries. What has happened in South Africa and India will be repeated elsewhere, and whether we like it or not this country will be compelled to adopt a policy of becoming more and more self-contained, and then our markets will be found to consist very largely in the consuming capacity of our own people, and in order to enable them to consume I want to ensure that they shall have regular employment and good wages for their labour.

Major BARNES

I have listened with great interest to the speech which has just been made, and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) is just as much determined to arrive at the objects which the promoters of this Bill have in mind, but he does not propose to go along the road proposed by this Bill. Therefore we shall have to console ourselves with the loss of his company on the way. We have had two very effective contributions to this debate from the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I agree with what the hon. Member for Preston said, that you cannot take this problem of unemployment too seriously, but I suggest that we should not take the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London too seriously, because I look upon the right hon. Baronet more as a disciple of a celebrated Archbishop who once said that the more he knew of men the better he liked dogs. I am afraid the right hon. Baronet is so much concentrated on the canine world that he does not give sufficient attention to his fellow-creatures. The sort of thing which has been proposed to-day was inevitable, and is bound to come more and more before us as time goes on. Prior to 1846, when this House was very largely influenced and controlled by the landlord class, legislation in those days was very largely directed to making rents secure. Since 1846 the traders have been in possession, and they have done all they could to make the conditions of trade secure and prosperous. Now we are getting an electorate which depends for its prosperity on continuous employment, and therefore we are bound to have efforts made here to secure for them the conditions upon which their material prosperity is based. This Bill has for its first idea that the question of unemployment is one which must be dealt with as a national problem. In that idea the promoters of this Bill are proposing to proceed on sound and prosperous lines. I think hon. Members opposite ought to do all they can to encourage the Labour Party in their historic studies and in their effort to place legislation on the traditional lines of the past.

I could not help feeling interested at the thought that here we are sitting to day in the House of Commons which has existed for hundreds of years, and 220 years or more ago Members of Parliament, not in this House but in another room not very far from this spot, were discussing this very problem, and applying their minds to its consideration and solution. I must confess as I listened to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that I thought he appeared to me to be a natural survivor of that party, because he brought into the Debate not the spirit of that time but the time before it, because before that time it was treated as an individual matter and the community had no concern with it in any sense. At that time you had certain organisations of the Church who were dealing with it, but the State was not dealing with the problem in any shape or form. They had in those days to recognise that the time had arrived when they could no longer leave the problem to individual effort and they placed the burden on the parish. Everybody who reads the Act of 1601 will see that even in those days they were not considering simply giving relief to destitute people, but the question of actually setting men to work, and they authorised the overseers to provide themselves with such materials as were required to set men to work. That sort of thing has lasted for a considerable time and apparently for 200 years the parishes have been prepared to bear the burden.

Afterwards we pass to the Napoleonic wars and the burden was found to be altogether too great in those wars to be concentrated on a single parish, and the House of Commons of a century ago dealt with this problem by enlarging the area and spreading the burden not making it a purely parochial question, but uniting parishes and constituting larger areas in order that they might be able to draw upon more considerable resources. We have passed to another stage to-day. We have passed through the recent Great War beside which the Napoleonic Wars are insignificant, and now we realise that the burden is too great even for the larger areas set up a century ago. It is no longer a parochial or a district question, and it has become so great that it must be treated nationally, and it is in that spirit that my hon. Friends have approached the problem. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Preston, the first provision of the Bill is that there must be one central authority for dealing with all questions affecting unemployment. I think that perhaps the title of the Bill is rather larger than the actual scope of it, and I am not quite sure that it should not have been called rather the Remedy for Unemployment Bill than the Prevention of Unemployment Bill, because it really deals with a state of unemployment after it has arisen. As my right hon. Friend opposite has shown the causes of unem- ployment are manifold and to enter upon a discussion of them is to enter upon a very wide field indeed.

It does seem to me that one cannot deal with this question without giving serious attention to the fact that unemployment arises out of causes which have their origin outside the borders and boundaries of the country. In some cases unemployment arises from some defect, physical or moral, or infirmity of purpose or incapacity in the individual himself. That cannot be remedied by the Minister of Labour. You have to find a remedy for that in matters of health and education, and economies in that direction may be very short-sighted economies indeed. The main cause of unemployment, however, is the fact that you have either satisfied your market or lost it. There is such a glut that production has slacked or has ceased altogether, or you have actually lost the market itself. The first cause is a very difficult one to deal with. I suppose it is generally admitted that the capacity for production in the world is very much greater than its capacity for consumption. My hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Jesson) does not agree with me, but it is so. One result of the War, and the tremendous developments during the War in machinery and the rest, has been to put this country, and certainly America, in a position to turn out an enormous product.

Mr. JESSON

I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the capacity for consumption is unlimited.

Major BARNES

My hon. Friend is using the term "capacity for consumption" in the sense that our appetites are almost unlimited. Give us the opportunity of indulging them, and it is difficult to know where the end comes. The capacity for consumption, however, depends upon purchasing power, and in that sense the capacity for consumption is at any time always less than the capacity for production. I do not know how we are going to remedy that, and this Bill does not attempt to deal with it. My hon. Friend opposite dealt with the other cause—the loss of the market. He said that we found that we were losing markets in South Africa and India, and there is a great deal of truth in what he said. Probably the principal reeason why markets are lost is because costs of production go up. It is impossible to retain markets, because we cannot sell the goods sufficiently cheap. Therefore, everything that sends up the cost of production helps to bring about unemployment. The cost of production is sent up by political as well as by economic causes. The cost of production may be sent up by a Government, and we on this side of the House believe that we are suffering in this way at the present time. If you have a Government which has an aggressive policy abroad, whether it be in Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, or Russia, and has an extravagant policy at home, it will be reflected in high taxation, and increased taxation enters into the cost of production. One of the first things that ought to be done to bring down the cost of production and thereby to lessen unemployment is to replace this Government by one whose policy is peace abroad and retrenchment at home.

Then we believe that unemployment would be very largely prevented if we could get rid of the steadily growing entanglement of protective legislation. My right hon. Friend opposite spoke about the textile trade and the effect of the tariff duties in India upon that trade. During the last year or two I have had the opportunity of going to Manchester fairly frequently, and there is no doubt that there is a very strong feeling in Manchester as to the effect of the increased tariffs in India upon textile goods. There is a strong belief that those tariffs are not put on in the interests of the people of India, but in the interests of a very small section of producers in that country. While it is true that they have that feeling with regard to these tariffs, it is also true that they do feel themselves hampered equally, if not more, by some legislation passed by this House during the last year or two. I refer to the Dye-stuffs Bill among other things. The cost of production is sent up also by the artificial monopolies which arise out of trade associations and combines. We believe that another step in the direction of solving the problem would be to prevent the creation of these things.

This Bill was stigmatised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London as a Bill advocating certain things to find an analogy with which he had to go back to the Commune of 1848 and to the recent Revolution in Russia, and he said, and I think everyone will agree, that you cannot have any state of society in which life and property are not protected. I would suggest that the Commune in Paris and the Revolution in Russia, playing havoc with life and property, had their causes behind them. What produced them? The misery of the people. I would recommend Members of the House who want to see that pictorially represented to go and see the film "Daughters of the Storm," which is being shown at the present time. It brings vividly before one's mind that cause prior to the Commune and the Russian Revolution. It was because you had the grossest neglect of the condition of the common people that these great events came to pass. I do not believe any greater security for life and property could be offered to this country than by the right handling and even the partial solution of this problem of unemployment.

What does this Bill actually suggest apart from the central body which it is suggested should be set up? The next great thing is that there should be a seasonal distribution of different works, whether done by the State or the local authorities, and that some effort should be made so that these works should be done at a time when unemployment is rife. There is nothing very revolutionary about that. It is already in practice to some extent. I had the opportunity of spending the week-end with the mayor of one of our great towns, and on the Sunday he took me into a beautiful park. I asked him the history of it. He said, "We got this during the last period of unemployment. John Burns gave us £10,000, and we set men on and got this park as a result." Then he took me to see some very fine roads being made at the present time. That is the kind of thing that is already going on where you have enlightened local authorities. My hon. Friends who are bringing in this Bill want to make that sort of thing more general. There is nothing revolutionary about that. It is something in which we all may agree. Most exception has been taken to Clause 4, which states: The Minister of Labour shall, after consultation with the Treasury and other Government Departments concerned, take steps for the preparation and submission of such schemes as shall enable a national aggregate demand to be maintained, as far as may be possible, for labour of all kinds at an approximately uniform level. This is the revolutionary Clause, I suppose. After all, to what does it amount? It simply amounts to this, that the Minister of Labour is to be given powers for getting such opinion on the subject as no Minister of Labour has yet had. After he has got all that opinion and has taken consultation with people likely to help him, he is to prepare some scheme and to submit it. There is nothing in this Bill that says that schemes have to be put in hand without the approval or without the decision of this House. All this Clause asks for is that the mind of the Ministry should be applied to the problem, and that whatever solution suggests itself to the Ministry it should be put before the House. Surely we do not want in any way to block the way, and say, "This is a dead end and we do not want to go beyond it." We must do our best to solve the problem, and that is all this Bill does.

There is not anything in this which should need terrorise the most timid Conservative in the House. It establishes machinery and provides that that machinery shall begin to work when it is established. Last of all, it deals with the question of maintenance. We are a curious people who do not, it appears, seem to mind spending money so long as we do not know how we spend it, but when it is put before us as a concrete proposition that we should make definite provision for the unemployed we are inclined to treat it as if we had never done anything of the sort before and were not doing it now. People cannot be allowed to starve and die. We got away from that point in 1861, and we are not going back to it. The relief of the poor is actually going on, and large sums of money are actually being spent, not by one authority only, but by more than one authority. There is overlapping and waste; and people obtain so much from the Unemployment Exchange and then go on to the guardians and obtain so much more. My hon. Friends who have introduced this Bill want to do away with all that; they want to be able to ascertain definitely and decidedly just how much is being spent and to get all the money from one source. That, again, is something to which we might commit ourselves without any great fear of the consequences. The Bill appears to me to be wisely conceived and moderate in its proposals, and for all those reasons I shall support it.

Sir G. CROYDON MARKS

It is rather refreshing to find that everyone who has spoken to-day is sympathetic towards that which is concerned with maintaining employment in this country. I do not propose to follow my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken in matters which are essentially controversial, and which, I think, were brought somewhat unwisely into this matter in which there should be no suggestion of party when examining the details. I fear, in connection with this Bill, sympathetic as we all are, that one great point has been overlooked. The greatest amount of employment in this country is required, not for Government service, but for private work. The private work that is provided in connection with our industries is work that no Government Department can ever know anything about or in any way control. The huge sum of over £1,100,000,000 was spent last year by those purchasing from this country manufactures produced in this country. Those who purchased those commodities and manufactures were not foreign Governments, but consumers and persons in a private capacity all over the world. That being so, to require that any new Department to be created should have centred in it authority and the necessary right to intervene and determine and forecast what orders may be expected and what work is required for the coming season is to leave out of account altogether the competition which must necessarily arise between individual employers and manufacturers all over the world if contracts are to be obtained in this country. The energy, therefore, which is to be exercised by our employers is something which no Government Department can possibly touch or be familiar with.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS

I wish to put the hon. Gentleman right. Where it is a question of private work, it does not mean the private work of employers all over the country, but the work of private employers from whom the Government purchase by Government contracts. It does not mean the trade of the country in any way.

Sir CROYDON MARKS

I am very glad to have the hon. Member's explanation. I was not dealing so much with private work done by a private firm for the Government as with the private work that a private firm undertakes, about which no Government Department knows anything whatever. My point is that the largest proportion of work that must necessarily be undertaken in this country is work outside the control and purview of any Government Department. That being so, to ask any Government Department to take into their account the provision of a scheme or schemes which will provide for work for all hereafter must be fallacious, and not only fallacious but delusive. They cannot know the contracts that are pending, the estimates that are out, and the travellers who are s eking, in different parts of the world, to obtain orders that are to be sent to this country. No one knows anything about that but the individual firms concerned.

I want to reinforce the suggestions that have been made that industry itself has within its own power at the present time quite enough possibilities to make provision for the purposes of employment, provided there is good will between the employer and the working people concerned, and the human element associated one with another, so that it cannot be alleged, as has been suggested here to-day, that all the workers and the workmen are concerned with is to be at the mercy of a board of directors which will close the work whenever they feel so disposed, leaving the workmen with no remedy save just to go out, perhaps without any knowledge of why they are going out. I believe that the more we can combine the sympathy and knowledge of the workman with the sympathy and knowledge of the employer, and the difficulty of the employer with the difficulty of the workman, the better is going to be the result, not only to the industry itself, but to the national well-being. We are at the present time too often prone to look upon industry as being concerned with two classes of people, the employed and the employer; whereas industry should be taken as a collective and not as an individualistic concern, and there should be a blend of interest from the one to the other, without it being assumed that there must of necessity be some controversy between the one and the other, or that their interests are not similar. The proposal made in this Bill for dealing in advance with unemployment is right enough when you are about to consider work of a public character, work which must be undertaken for public needs and for development, and in connection with which people know what the public may need. It cannot possibly be of any avail, however, for dealing with the larger question which is concerned with contracts that go from private persons and private firms in this country to private persons and private firms all over the world.

The main part of our industries in this country are dependent upon demands that come from overseas, and not upon our own demands. The more that fact can be appreciated, the better blend there will be of the difficulties of the one class and the other who are interested, and orders will be obtained and maintained, provided that the men understand that there is not too huge a profit being taken by the one class at the expense of the labour of the other class, and, on the other hand, that the employers feel that labour is satisfied with what they are doing, and is giving the fullest out for that which it gets in return. I know of a contract that has been lost to this country this week, running into a quarter of a million of money. That was lost only on account of 1¼ per cent. One and a quarter per cent, determined that contract—it has gone to Germany. I believe that, if it could have been possible for the workpeople and the management to have got together and to have faced the difficulties, some adjustment could have been made which would have enabled that work to have been kept in this country. The difficulty, alike with the employer and the workpeople, is the assumption that they are separate bodies, too often antagonistic to each other, instead of being bodies mutually dependent upon one another and essentially concerned in the one product that they produce. The time has gone by when any one man, employing just half-a-dozen persons, can expect to live in idleness on the labour of those half-dozen persons. The time has also gone by when any collective body of persons, having a large sum of money invested in a business, can expect to be kept in opulence, simply because they have invested money in it, at the expense of the poverty and the lesser wage paid to the workmen producing that larger sum. That is being recognised right away through. I am speaking with some knowledge of work, and it will not be alleged that I am concerned in manufacturing, although, as some of my hon. Friends opposite know, I served my time in engineering workshops, and have worked harder than a great many of the younger men who now sit on the Labour benches feel it necessary or would think it right to work. That does not apply to those of my hon. Friends who are of my own age or about my own age, and whom I now see in the House; but some of the young men who go in and out of this House, and who sit, apparently, in sympathetic conference with some of my Friends opposite, but are about as far removed from their experience as if they never had been in the industry at all; and I have sympathy with some of my hon. Friends of my own age when they have to put up with some of the extreme views that these younger men advance and make them responsible for.

2.0 P.M.

As I have indicated, I know that of which I speak, and I know also that a newer spirit is arising. This Bill, however, does offer points for extreme criticism. Take the suggestion that you must not engage any person for less than one month for casual labour unless you do it through an Employment Exchange. People have got sick and tired of Employment Exchanges in this country. The manner in which they have been worked has made even the workers themselves decline to put their names down on their lists. They prefer to be seeking a job themselves rather than put themselves down under some official or on some list and be told to go here or there, when possibly they might themselves be looking about and finding a job with which they would be satisfied. That is not to be possible under this Bill. To suggest to a man that he is not to go and seek employment for himself is really to encourage the loafer and to breed idleness. To take away from the employer the right to find some man whom he thinks is quite suitable and knows to be unemployed, and to find him a job when there really may be no actual necessity for employing him—to take away from the employer the right thus to act, and require that he should do it through an official, is, I am afraid, to take away from that official any chance of having anyone for whom to find employment. Employers do not like Employment Exchanges, and workmen do not like them, and to make the suggestion that no man is to make a bargain with his employer, and that no employer is to engage anyone, without being subject to a fine of £5, other than through an Employment Exchange, is, I think, to load the Bill with a point of criticism which, perhaps, might divert the views of other people from those points to which they would undoubtedly give sympathetic consideration.

Another suggestion is that there should be provided, in certain centres of the country, hostels or homes for the men, who are to be kept there when unemployed, while their families are to receive maintenance away from them. That will, I fear, bring about a migration of one lazy person from one district to another district. Those who have had anything to do with boards of guardians know that there are some workhouses in this country which are looked upon with favour, and that men will walk from one district to another, because in one particular district there happens to be a more sympathetic master of a workhouse than in another. They trudge from place to place finding out these comfortable workhouses rather than doing any work. We have to take human nature on the average, and it is quite clear that at the present time we have a large number of people who do not want work, and who, if you offer them work, will find a great many excuses for not undertaking it. This Bill is going to provide a refuge for those people who do not want work. It is going to give them an opportunity of accommodation in a kind of home of rest, while their families have to be taken care of, and there is, therefore, to be no incentive on their part to seek work for themselves in order that they may do their duty to their families when the ratepayers or taxpayers are doing that which they themselves ought to do. Another feature of the Bill which rather alarms those of use who want to help, is the suggestion that you shall never employ any man upon any casual work unless you give him exactly the same money that he would be receiving if he were doing work of a remunerative character somewhere else: that you shall give the same rate of pay to a man, whatever work he may be doing, that he would be getting if he were in full work.

Why should a man work at all if he is to have the same amount of money when he is unemployed, or to be taken care of in a home, and his family also provided for, as he gets if he exercises his physical power and works for the same wages? To provide that a man shall always be paid a standard rate of pay, whether he is working or not, is going to encourage idleness and to perpetuate laziness in this country. The Bill probably does not intend that that shall be the case, but undoubtedly it will bring it about. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) suggested that they would welcome criticisms of the Bill, and therefore I offer this, and I seriously suggest that those with intentions that are sympathetically received in every quarter of the House have unfortunately loaded their Bill with bad points that when opposed make some people imagine that there is no sympathy anywhere, other than on the benches from which this Bill emanates, for the trouble from which we are now suffering. I fear that some of the proposals in this Bill are in the nature of making the remedy worse than the disease which it seeks to remove, but with the idea of helping our friends I think this discussion, although it may not produce the actual result of the passing of this Bill, will do a far greater good. It will show that the House of Commons as a whole is seriously concerned with the question of unemployment, and that it is determined that something shall be done, and that the discussion that is taking place may be the means to some practicable end whereby those on the one side and those on the other should come and sit at a table, not a table divided by a line, where there is the employer and the employed, but a round table, where there is neither beginning nor ending of the particular interests thus assembled.

If this can come about from this Debate to-day, it will be far better than to attempt to pass this Bill, which, if it were passed, would be ridiculed. It must be ridiculed elsewhere, and, being ridiculed, it would bring ridicule on the trouble that we are seeking to remedy rather than on the defects of the Measure we are now considering. Perhaps it might be to the advantage of the hon. Members opposite to carry this discussion right on till four o'clock, with the opportunity of gathering opinions from everybody in the House, and then, later on, because there would be no chance whatever of such a Bill as this coming into law, founding on the experiences of this discussion a Measure that could be something like an agreed Measure, about which there could be no ridicule, and concerning which there could be no controversy. If that could be done, the question of unemployment would be removed from the field of controversy and of ridicule. Nothing is easier than to ridicule some of these proposals, but, on the other hand, ridiculing the proposals may mean that a certain section of the country may be led not to be sympathetically inclined towards that which is a national and not a party problem.

Mr. JESSON

I join with my hon. Friends opposite and appreciate their keen desire to find a solution of the unemployment problem—one in which I have been deeply interested and to which I have given a considerable amount of study. But I am afraid that this Bill raises hopes which are impossible of being fulfilled, and it is from that point of view that I want to speak this afternoon. First of all, I think it is very necessary that we should go to the roots of this question. What are the causes of unemployment? I want to remind the House that during the past 50 years our population has increased by 50 per cent., and during that period we produced less food per head of the population than we did 50 years ago. That means that to-day we are in the position that four-fifths of our food supply has to be imported from other countries, and that is a very important factor to bear in mind, but it is not the only one. Nearly the whole of our raw materials, with the exception of coal, also has to be imported, because we cannot produce them here. The only way we can pay for these goods which we import is by exporting our manufactured goods, and I have yet to understand how we can compel people in foreign countries to buy our manufactured goods and to sell us their surplus food and raw materials in exchange if they do not desire to do so. I do not see how it is possible to do it. Unless we can sell our manufactured goods and buy the food and the raw materials which we do not produce here in exchange, I do not see how we are going to solve the unemployment problem.

I am in entire sympathy with a number of the points in this Bill, but there are conditions that cause unemployment which have never yet been properly dealt with, in my opinion, in this country, and for which the unemployed are in no way responsible. To that extent, I am in sympathy with my hon. Friends opposite in their demand that a certain maintenance ought to be given to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. I would like to remind the House of one or two instances in that connection. About 15 or 16 years ago there were on the streets of London thousands of horse-drawn trams, buses, cabs, and other vehicles of that kind. To-day those have been largely replaced by mechanically-propelled vehicles, and the question many of us have often asked ourselves is this: What has become of the drivers of those horse-drawn vehicles, the forage workers, the ostlers, the harness makers, and all those associated with them? Obviously they have either been absorbed into new industries or they are unemployed. We know that in the period of trade prosperity just prior to the outbreak of war, there were very few unemployed, and what were unemployed were recognised as unemployable, so that as far as those particular industries were concerned at that time, a large number of them had been absorbed into other industries. But we can all understand that there is a section of people in that particular calling who, because of old age or other infirmities, have found it very difficult to be absorbed into other industries, and those people, during the period of transition are undoubtedly amongst those who are unemployed.

That is one instance, but to take a more up-to-date one, undoubtedly to-day the introduction of oil fuel into the Navy, into our great liners, and into many of our merchant ships is also causing a tremendous amount of unemployment. Those who remember the Navy in the old days will remember that it used to take a whole day to coal a ship. To-day that work is entirely done away with. An oil ship comes alongside a battleship, and the hose pipe and the donkey engine do the rest, while practically the whole of the crew walk about doing nothing. This has caused a displacement of labour. The Navy Estimates this year provide for 20,000 fewer stokers in the Navy, and that has a good deal to do with the fact that oil fuel does not require any stoking. It is all done by a man who can regulate the pressure of air with the flow of oil. There again, evolution in that particular direction means the unemployment of a considerable number of men. Therefore, to the extent that men are unemployed through that particular cause, for which they are in no way responsible, the nation as a whole, which benefits from the great changes that are brought about ought to bear the responsibility of seeing that these people do not become physically incapacitated because of their unemployment.

I was speaking recently to a boot and shoe manufacturer, who is in a large way of business, and he was deploring the fact that a good deal of unemployment to-day in the boot and shoe industry was caused because so many people had taken to wearing indiarubber soles and heels on their boots. That was the excuse put forward by this very practical man. He claimed that indiarubber footwear prolonged the life of a pair of boots at least 50 per cent., and that that caused a certain amount of unemployment. It cannot be suggested that mechanically propelled vehicles should not have been introduced simply because they caused a certain amount of unemployment amongst those employed in the horse-drawn vehicle industry, and you cannot say that people should not introduce indiarubber soles and heels to boots because it will mean unemployment to people employed in the boot trade. The money saved in boots will be spent in other directions. With regard to dealing with men who are unemployed the Bill says: It shall be the duty of the Council to provide such persons with suitable employment under the provisions of this Act. What is suitable employment? I doubt very much if anyone could give a definition. Take the position of the cotton operatives. It has been pointed out that a good deal of the unemployment in the cotton industry has been caused by the tariffs that are being imposed by the Indian Government, who have recently obtained a certain measure of self-government. One of the first things they did was to put a tariff upon goods imported from Lancashire, and that has undoubtedy caused a certain amount of unemployment. I do not see what we are going to do in the way of providing the Lancashire cotton operatives with suitable employment. Many years ago I served upon the Central London Unemployment Committee. That Committee tried to get the local authorities in London to hand over certain work for us to do as a central body, but when we approached them on the subject they replied, for the most part, that the work that they had was work that would be done in the ordinary way by their own employés, or the employés of their contractors, and that, therefore, they had no work that they could give to us. We wrote again and asked them whether they could not give us work which normally would not be taken in hand for a few years. The reply was that it was practically the same kind of work, and that the men of the same contractors would do it, as well as their own employés. We replied, "Never mind about that. We have these men immediately unemployed, and if you will give us this work now we will have it put in hand for you, and we will bear two-thirds of the cost." Therefore, the public authorities, including the London County Council, were induced to hand over this work to the Central London Unemployment Committee. The result was, that the work handed over was work which would have been done by our own people in the ordinary way, but it cost three times more to do that work than it would have cost had it been done by the people who would have done it in the first instance. When you look into this problem you will find that, whatever section of the community is unemployed, if you apply that principle you will get the same disastrous results, with no benefit to the unemployed concerned.

I want to deal with the question from an historical point of view. Has the country ever been faced with a problem before similar to this? We have had periods of unemployment before, and these have always been followed by periods of prosperity. Prior to the War we were at the top of the greatest wave of industrial prosperity that this country has ever known. There were very few unemployed at that time, and those who were unemployed were generally recognised, so far as the Central London Unemployment Committee was concerned, as unemployable. That is an important fact, especially considering that during the last 50 years our population has increased, ap- proximately, by 17,000,000. During that 50 years, we have found openings in our much-despised industrial system for 15,000,000 more workers to earn a living in this country. During that period also there was a tremendous slump in agriculture, and thousands of agricultural workers left the land and crowded into our great cities, where they competed for employment with the town workers. These people were also absorbed into our industrial system. In addition, there was an enormous development and introduction of all kinds of labour-saving machinery during those 50 years, which proves that labour-saving machinery does not cause unemployment, because in 1913–14 we had very few unemployed. Moreover, we found openings for these people at a very much higher standard of living than was in existence 50 years ago. The amenities and the facilities of life which we enjoyed in 1913–14 were certainly higher than our forefathers enjoyed 50 years ago. What was it that enabled us to find these openings for 15,000,000 of people at a higher standard of living than existed 50 years before? There were two great factors. One was we developed our old industries and initiated new ones, and it is here that I am in conflict with my hon. Friends opposite. Our old industries were developed by the introduction of all kinds of labour-saving machinery, and most of those old industries to-day are employing nearly 50 per cent, more men than were employed before that particular machinery was introduced. I will give an instance of the boot and shoe industry, with which I am somewhat familiar, because my family has been associated with the business for nearly 100 years. Years ago that industry was carried on practically all by hand. That work is now done almost entirely by machinery. Since machinery was introduced, two very important developments have occurred. The number of people employed by the industry in this country has been increased two or three times, while the wages to-day are twice, if not three times as high as they were before this machinery was introduced. The same principle applies to the engineering industry and to all our other staple industries.

Now as to the initiation of new industries—and I want to emphasise this fact, because it has an important bear- ing on the present situation. During these 50 years we introduced a number of new industries which now provide employment for millions of workers, which employment did not exist 50 years ago. Take, first, the electrical industry. It was initiated about 50 years ago and today provides employment directly and indirectly for from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 workers. When the system is properly developed throughout the country it will provide employment for many more. My hon. Friends opposite believe that Government trading or municipal trading is a very good thing for solving the industrial problem. May I point out that one of the greatest opponents to the introduction of electricity were those municipalities which had municipal gas undertakings? Public bodies, as soon as they engage in trading themselves, become extremely reactionary. Then you have the motor industry. It did not exist in this country 30 years ago, because the law forbade a mechanically-propelled vehicle to traverse our roads at a greater speed than four miles an hour. One of the most hopeful signs of the moment is that this industry is to-day one of the greatest industries in the country, providing employment for millions of workers directly and indirectly, and, more important still, turning out one of the finest motor cars in the world. That industry has been developed by the genius and initiative of the British people.

We should look at the question from the point of view of whether it is not possible for us to repeat what we have done in the past in the way of providing more employment. I believe myself, despite the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member of East Newcastle (Major Barnes), that we can get out of our difficulties very largely by increasing demands and increasing supply. In my judgment, the best way out of the difficulty is by increasing the supply of wealth in the country. By wealth, I do not mean money, but goods. If you increase the supply of goods, obviously someone has got to purchase them. I join issue with some of my hon. Friends opposite who claim that the interests of the workers and employers are diametrically opposed. They are nothing of the kind. There are three kinds of employers whom we can have. There is first the State or a local governing body, in which case our employers would be Govern- ment or municipal officials; then there are co-operative bodies, in which case the employers would be the shareholders; and in the third place there are private employers. To whichever section our employers belong, they have to provide the necessary capital to build and equip our works and factories before production can take place. They have then to supply the raw material necessary for production. Then they have to for supply sufficient liquid capital to pay the wages of the workers during the period of production.

When the goods have been produced I do not know how any employer is going to make a profit or recoup himself for his outlay or even to carry on business unless he can sell those goods to someone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that my hon. Friends opposite agree with me, because I shall come to another point on which they may not agree. If those goods are to be sold obviously we have to find out to whom they will be sold. We know that whatever goods are exported are paid for by imports. Therefore we have got to find markets in this country for the goods which we do not export plus the goods which we import. Those can only be sold to the public, and 99 per cent, of the public are the workers and their dependants. Why do my hon. Friends never define who is a worker or what constitutes work? I submit that the reason why they do not define who is a worker is because the personnel of their own party is similar to the personnel of other parties. I submit that every person who performs some useful service for the community either by hand or brain or both is entitled to describe himself as a worker. If that is so I submit that that man or that company which organises an industry or business which enables thousands of workers to earn a living performs a useful service.

Mr. MILLS

Two and two make four.

Mr. JESSON

Those are grounds on which some of the proposals of the Labour party begin to crumble away. If the workers, who with their dependants are 99 per cent, of the population, are to be relied on to purchase these goods directly or indirectly, they cannot do so unless they receive sufficient wages. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Then we are in entire agreement on that. Then what becomes of the theory that the workers' interests and those of the employers are diametrically opposed? Whoever the employers are, you must have some understanding with them as to what wages you are to receive. That is a matter of organisation. That is why I, as a trade unionist, desire to see every worker in his organisation, and every employer in his organisation, with the two co-operating together, instead of fighting each other. There is another point, which goes to the root of this Bill, If we can establish machinery which will ascertain and award to the workers all that they are justly entitled to for their labour, and at the same time have regard to a fair return for the use of the capital employed, the risks incurred in finding markets, and the provision of good management, a square deal all the way round, it would be to the interest not only of the worker, but of the general public, that all industrial capital should be owned and controlled by the best organisers of industries and by the men of greatest initiative and enterprise. Where do we find them? In Government Departments? I think not. I have been told by members of the Labour party that when that party comes into power it will introduce Government officials who can initiate new industries. An ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory. I am just as interested in the worker as any other Labour Members of this House. I have been a trade union official for 30 years, and am still connected with my union. It may seem rather strange but I am a member of the Labour party. My union happens to be affiliated to the Labour party, and I am therefore supposed to be a member of the Labour party because I have always refused to claim exemption from the political levy. I want it to be clear that I am paying my share towards the upkeep of the Labour party.

Fact is worth more than theory. One of the best tests of that is to be found in what already exists. There is the co-operative movement. It is owned and controlled and financed by the cream of the workers of this country. They have invested about £80,000,000 of their savings in that movement and it has a trade turn-over of, approximately, £350,000,000 a year. What do we find? Every one of the undertakings of the co-operative movement has been copied from what private enterprise has introduced. Not a single undertaking in the co-operative movement is a new industry initiated by that movement. I apologise to the House for having spoken so long. It is on the points I have mentioned that I join issue with members of the Labour party opposite. I believe that, for the past 25 years at least, the workers of the country have been led along false economic lines. We have to retrace our steps before we can get back to sound and practical methods for dealing with such problems as this Bill proposes to solve.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

Though I am by no means in agreement with every detail of this Bill, I intend to support it in the Lobby, because I am in general sympathy with the central idea of the Bill. That central idea is that there are very few of our human miseries and troubles which cannot be removed by human agency. I believe that by taking thought, by a combination of good will and organisation, we can mitigate, if we cannot prevent, those overwhelming disasters which affect the working classes. We live in abnormal times. Those abnormal times have rather caused a feeling of hopelessness in some quarters, a feeling of scepticism in others, and a feeling of reaction in others. But we shall not always be living in abnormal times. We shall not always be living under a system which enriches one-half of the country and pauperises and degrades the other half. We shall not always be living under a system of government which wastes our money like the prodigal in the Gospel, by pouring it out on the sands of the desert. We shall not always be living under a system which pursues a vicious foreign policy which has brought ruin on the whole economic structure of Europe. Neither, I hope, shall we be living under a system which bandies about the workers between the boards of guardians and the Employment Exchanges. Therefore, I welcome the discussion of this Bill because I feel it is time we discussed things in anticipation of a return to normal conditions.

One of the most important problems we can consider is the question whether we are doing all that can be done by human foresight to prevent these crises of unemployment. Are we not, on the other hand, doing a great deal to make them worse? I remember reading not long ago an article by a distinguished professor, Professor Keynes, in which he said that our banking system was to a large extent responsible for the acute crises which occur. He pointed out that the banks, by promoting over-speculation in times of activity and by buttoning up their pockets in time of slackness, certainly tended to accentuate the crises. I ask the Government to consider whether by taking thought we could not make the fat years provide for the lean years. Is it not possible for us to so regulate employment, from year to year, that we may, as it were, cut off the peaks and level up the valleys? This question had before the War received a large amount of attention, and a Committee, of which I was a member, was appointed to discuss this very question of whether or not the Government, by giving orders in times of bad trade, could not promote continuity of employment. The War intervened, however, and little more has been heard of that question since. I would like to remind the House of what Professor Bowley has to say on this matter: In round numbers it may be estimated that 200,000 or fewer able-bodied adult males are out of work from non-seasonable causes one year with another, and have no sufficient resources, and this number fluctuates between 100,000 in the best year, to 300,000 in the worst ֵ The economic and industrial problem is to rearrange the demand for labour to the extent indicated by these numbers. ֵ There is consequently a need in the worst year for wages to the extent of £10,000,000 to bring it to a level with the best, so far as these men are concerned; for the whole of the last 10 years, £40,000,000 would have sufficed. The annual wages bill of the country is estimated at £700,000,000. ֵ Is it possible for the Government and other public bodies who employ labour in large quantities to counteract the industrial ebb and flow of demand by inducing a complementary flow and ebb; by withdrawing part of their demand when industry needs all the labour it can get, and increasing the demand when industry is slack? To have a useful effect this alteration would have to be commensurable with the sum named above (£40,000,000 in 10 years). Before the War, this was a hopeful proposal. It was only a question of £10,000,000 a year, one way or another. I submit, however, that it is a question which we should still have in mind. The one thing we are quite certain about is, that if we are to deal with it at all successfully, we must do exactly the opposite to what this Government is doing. Instead of trying to promote trade and employment they cut off all proposals for public work, and thereby throw many more people upon the labour market. If we are to show anything like wisdom in dealing with the matter, we ought to push on our housing schemes instead of shutting them down. There is one Clause in the Bill to which I should like to draw attention, and that is Clause 5, which provides that if a trade is of a casual nature—if it is concerned with casual labour and blind-alley employment—that it should be declared an undesirable trade, and no employer in it should engage any labour except through the Employment Exchanges. I am not in favour of compulsory application through the Employment Exchanges. I do not believe the system will work, and the only result will be that the Employment Exchanges will be more unpopular in the future than they are at present. I do not think it is realised what a large number of trades have a high percentage of blind alley employment. For instance, there is the cotton spinning industry. That employs 28 per cent, of juveniles and absorbs only 12 per cent, of those juveniles, leaving a margin of 16 per cent. Those figures refer to male juveniles. Of female juveniles, it throws out at the age of 18 something like 8 per cent. The manufacture of glass bottles absorbs only 12 per cent, and employs 25 per cent, of juvenile labour, leaving 13 per cent, unemployed at the age of 18, and there are many other industries with high percentages of unemployable labour. I submit the proper way to tackle this problem is by agreement within the trade itself. I believe the building industry is discussing plans for the entry of juveniles into the trade, and intends so to arrange matters that it will not take into the industry more juveniles than it can ultimately absorb. That is the proper way of dealing with the matter rather than by compulsion; but if there must be compulsion I would compel the employers to look into the amount of juvenile labour of the age of 16 under their control. It is much easier for a juvenile at the age of 16 to get employment than it is for a juvenile at the age of 18. There should be a compulsory examination and revision of this question by the employer at the ago of 16 to ensure of the juveniles being absorbed. If we had things properly regulated we could do much better by the juveniles than we are doing now. At the present moment there is an enormous amount of juvenile labour unemployed in this country. In Bristol there are no less than 1,000 juveniles out of employment. That is deplorable, because we are doing nothing to educate those young people, nothing to maintain and sustain them mentally or morally. Just after the War, there was an excellent system of centres where they could go to school and keep up their intellectual interest, but owing to the very reactionary administration of our present Education Ministry these centres have been closed down. I think it should be possible to do better than we are doing in the treatment of our juveniles. I thank the House for having listened to an expression of my views on this matter.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara)

A Bill which purports to make provision for the prevention of unemployment must at once engage all our care and all our interest. This deserves our interest especially because of the great sincerity and earnestness of the speeches of the Mover and Seconder. If this Bill could live up to its Title, then, indeed, it would be a great and a timely Measure, second to none in our many social agencies, because unemployment is the dark and menacing shadow that dogs the footsteps of every workman. For 20 months past we have been struggling along against trade depression and unemployment unparalleled in our history for its gravity and persistency. During all this long time we made provision for remedy and relief out of all relation to anything ever attempted in this or any other country. We have gained experience of the post-War nature of the problem which will stand us in good stead when we come to frame our permanent provision for the future. And it is in the hope of finding further help and guidance that I turn to these, as I would to any other proposals from any quarter, which purport to be a contribution to the solution of the most pressing social problem of our time. I am at once confronted with a most attractive title, but generally the more I examine these proposals and the principles underlying them the more I am convinced that they would leave our last state worse than our first, and would indeed create difficulties greater than those they seek to remove. These are the three main principles of the scheme. In the first place, it will become the duty of the State, working through the municipalities, to find work for the unemployed at the rate commonly obtaining in the area, and failing that, maintenance on such a scale as shall keep the unemployed person and his dependants in a state of physical efficiency. The second is that the cost is to be borne by the municipality up to the total proceeds of a 1d. rate, and beyond that by the Exchequer. In other words, the Exchequer would bear the very great bulk of the cost entailed, whatever it might be. The proceeds of a 1d. rate in England and Wales at present are about £1,000,000.

Mr. MILLS

Will the right hon. Gentleman state how much they are being compelled to raise at present?

3.0 P.M.

Dr. MACNAMARA

No, I am taking this Bill and describing its main principles. What the total cost of these proposals will be it is quite impossible to speculate, but it is quite manifest that a 1d. rate will go a very little way towards meeting it. Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Secretary to the London Labour party, has sent a memorandum on the Bill to all London Members of Parliament, and the concluding paragraph of his memorandum is interesting. It says: Ratepayers and tenants in employment are protected against excessive rate charges by a provision which limits the rate for these purposes to 1d. in any one year, the balance, if any, being found by the Treasury. "If any" shows that Mr. Morrison is not without a certain sense of humour. No hon. Member opposite will challenge that there will be very considerable charges. In the third place, the Minister of Labour would be invested with very great and far-reaching powers and duties, and precisely a half of this Bill is devoted to the purposes of that investiture. In the locality the municipality will be the agency through which he would work. I do not stay to discuss the expediency of planning ahead as far as you can in the matter of placing Government contracts and work so as to give, if possible, such work as there is to be dispensed in slack times of industry. I cordially agree with the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) upon that, and as far as we could in the recent times of distress, though there have not been many contracts to give out with stocks full and requirements rapidly falling, we have done that.

Let us look at these three main principles in the scheme of this Bill. Take the great central principle, the work or maintenance. Let us agree that work is infinitely to be preferred to money grants. I have the most complete sympathy with people who come to me, as they do, and say, "What a pity it is that you have no accomplished productive work to show for the many millions which have been dispensed in relief of unemployment during this long period of pressure." The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) put the point very eloquently. I am sure the very great bulk of the unemployed persons themselves agree with us. They are quite sincere when they say that what they want is work and not money. Where is the work? During the present depression £40,000,000 have been put up by the municipalities and by the State in order to make relief work for the unemployed—mainly road work. Something like an average of 100,000 men who would otherwise have been unemployed have been kept going throughout as the result of that effort. But that only touches the fringe of the problem. It does nothing for the women, it does nothing for the clerks, it does nothing for the craftsmen ordinarily engaged in the more delicate operations of modern industry. I will assume if you like that relief works might be put in hand by the localities if the Bill were passed with the charge, "if any," upon the Treasury. I will assume that relief works might be put in hand on a much larger scale, but even then what about those unemployed who could not participate in any relief works of any kind? Make, the widest assumption you like, taking full cognisance of the fact that this Bill proposes to put the great bulk of the cost upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer; you still have well over 1,000,000 people unemployed for whom work of an entirely different character, suited to their qualifications, would have to be provided.

The Labour party realise that, and, as is the case with so many of these problems, they have a glorious and simple remedy. For those for whom relief work could not be found or made or would be unsuitable, they would open State factories for the production of manufactured goods employing craftsmen and women at present unemployed in fabricating the goods. You would find work for A by displacing B. You would socialise one man into a job by socialising another out of a job. Will it be denied that the cost of production would be high? The goods so produced could not find a market at selling prices which would attract buyers. They would simply have to be stocked until they were sold at a loss. That may be first-class Socialism, but it is thundering bad business. The cost would be enormous and the money would have to be borrowed, but the more you borrowed the higher would go the cost of living and the wider would become the gap between the real and nominal value of wages. If this Bill be designed, as no doubt it is, in the interests of the working classes, then they may well ask to be saved from their friends. What we want are a trade revival and a better opportunity for employment under normal conditions. You will not get that by adding to the burdens already pressing heavily on industry. That is clear. On this fantastic proposal I cannot do better than ask the House to listen to what my hon. Friend who presented this Bill this afternoon said on the Unemployment Amendment to the Address on 9th February: I am going to make a suggestion. It is for Cabinet Ministers to work it out. In the district which I represent there are scores of mills idle, and in some parts where there are five collieries, only three are working. In the steel trade hundreds of furnaces are idle, in the tinplate trade scores of mills are standing still, in the cotton industry hundreds of looms are idle, and in the agricultural industry thousands of men are out of employment. I am going to suggest that if it was open to the Government to go into competition with private enterprise during the War—and I am not proposing anything in the shape of confiscation at all—it is equally open to them to take control of the mines, factories and land which are idle, and to allow the 2,000,000 people who are out of employment to produce and exchange the goods among themselves.

Mr. J. JONES

Hear, hear!

Dr. MACNAMARA

Then I have not incorrectly stated the proposition. He concludes: I guarantee that they would work the scheme successfully.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1922; col. 437, Vol. 150.] If only the problems of life could be solved in this simple fashion—

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

Why do you not try?

Dr. MACNAMARA

They are always simple on that side of the House.

Mr. MACLEAN

And always fantastic on that side of the House.

Dr. MACNAMARA

But in fact they are much more difficult of solution. The fact is that the only way to find work for the vast number of our people unemployed is to get the wheels of trade going round again, and once more to throw open the gates of the factory, the mill, and the workshop. We must peg away at that. We must peg away at Genoa.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Three years too late.

Dr. MACNAMARA

We must peg away at our trade facilities scheme, and our export credits scheme, and meantime we must put in hand such relief work with the cordial and patriotic assistance which we have from the municipalities as is possible and ease the hardships of those for whom relief work cannot be found or is unsuitable by unemployment benefit upon the three-fold principle of contributions from the employer, the employed person, and the State. This brings me naturally to the maintenance side of this work or maintenance Bill. I compare the present Bill with last year's edition, and there is a very significant change on this point. Last year's edition fixed specific scales of maintenance—for a single man or woman, 25s. per week, for a man with one dependant, 40s. per week, with an extra 5s. for each dependent child. A man, with wife and two children, was to receive 50s. per week if work could not be found or made for him. In this year's edition there is no specific scale of maintenance, but it will be the duty of the medical officer of health in each locality to fix the scale at such an amount as was necessary to maintain the unemployed person and his dependants in a state of physical efficiency. That is the proposition.

Apart from the other considerations, the obvious thing in the present proposal is its administrative impracticability. You not only have scales varying in localities according to the standard of the medical officer of health himself, but the same medical officer of health, who had this duty imposed upon him, would have to vary the scale to suit the different needs of the different individuals. Without going into the matter in further detail, I cannot imagine a more difficult task to impose upon a public officer. It would lead to all sorts of controversy and allegations of partiality and inequitable administration. I will not say anything further on that point. I was coming to the question as to why this specific scale has now been dropped out of the Bill. But my hon. Friend has relieved my anxiety, if I understood him aright, by not having such a scale in the Bill because of the variation in the cost of living. Last May the index figure of the cost of living was 128 per cent, above pre-War. It is now 82 per cent. Do I understand him that if the specific scale had been put in it would have been reduced pro tanto? Let me take it, however, that my hon. Friend says that the scale has been dropped out because of the variation in the cost of living.

I come now to the third point, that is as to the augmented powers and duties imposed by this Bill, and conferred upon the Ministry of Labour. I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that this is not an arranged matter. Perhaps he is somewhat concerned that it might be. But to return to the point, the powers and duties which this Bill proposes to confer on the Minister of Labour are indeed remarkable and far reaching. Half the Bill has, I think, been devoted to setting them forth. I had proposed to go through them, because they are very interesting, but they have been referred to by various hon. Members and therefore, there is no need to weary the House by rehearsing them; but they do represent a striking variation upon recent expressions of opinion in the matter of the Minister and Ministry of Labour. For many months now the task before the Ministry has been heavy and anxious—very heavy and very anxious. Let there be no doubt about that. Those of us associated with the Ministry have tried to give of our best in this time of national adversity, facing the situation with what philosophy we have been able to command, the fact that a number of our fellow citizens apparently view the Ministry of Labour as an entirely gratuitous and needless piece of State machinery that ought to be abolished altogether. I trust I carry myself with becoming modesty in face of the proposition before us in this Bill which is of a vastly different character. I do not forget the kindly personal relations existing between hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and myself. I greatly esteem the fact. It greatly lightens the day's task. They do not agree with me, I suppose I still sit in darkness, and, as they look at it, have to seek the light that they now have. I am, however, conscious of the fact that notwithstanding all this we are very good friends, and that they look upon me rather in sorrow than in anger. Still I think it is a little curious that the party responsible for this Bill, revealing as it does so high an opinion of the value and usefulness of the Ministry of Labour, should have allowed the view to which I have referred to be expressed without, so far as I know, until this morning, saying a word or expressing any view whatever in support of an agency which so far from abolishing they wish materially to strengthen. [HON. MEMBEES: "We have always said that."] My hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) did say that a Ministry of Labour was essential, but as far as I know here is a Bill which very much enhances and widens the powers of the obligations of the Minister of Labour. There are certain people inside and outside this House who hold that the Labour Ministry is perfectly useless and ought to be abolished. I know that such criticisms do not come from the Labour party, but what I do say is that I should have been very glad of a little support from them at such a time, and yet this is the only public utterance which I can recall on this subject. I know that the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) in a Debate on the 1st March, when we were discussing the proposals of the Geddes Committee, speaking from the Labour benches and, so far as I know, on behalf of the Labour party, said that it was no part of his business to defend the Ministry of Labour as such. He had no interest in defending the thousands employed in it, and it was no concern of his to maintain it as an expensive Department of the State. As a mere unregenerate person myself I cannot help contrasting the lofty and super- cilious air of those opinions with the terms of the Bill now in front of me. Those preparing a Bill of this kind would, I should have thought, at any rate, have, had a kindly word to say upon this point. In this Bill the Unemployment Insurance Acts are not repealed, but as a matter of fact the Ministry is newly invested with the powers which I now posses under these Acts. The Minister of Labour is to be newly invested with the powers he already possesses under this Bill. The contributions of benefit would be continued, but there is nothing in Clause 15, which is the work or maintenance Clause, which makes a contribution of any kind a condition precedent to receiving the maintenance which the Bill provides. I should really like to ask the authors of the Bill what that means, but I must myself assume that the effect of Clause 15 of this Bill will be completely to undermine the Unemployment Insurance Acts, although nothing is repealed, and contributions are still to remain obligatory. I cannot congratulate the drafters of the Bill upon having handled its relationship to the Unemployment Insurance Act with anything like good workmanship.

This Bill will not do. Our efforts may not be the last word in the treatment of this grave and distressing problem, but do not let anybody suppose that this is a better way. As I have said, between us, the municipalities and ourselves have put up over £40,000,000 for relief work. Beyond that we have endeavoured to stimulate employment by the extended Export Credits Scheme, and by the scheme under which we guarantee £25,000,000 to be made available for capital undertakings which will increase employment. So far, under the Export Credits Scheme, the amount of £12,000,000 has been sanctioned—as a matter of fact, £8,500,000 of it since the beginning of last November. So far, also, guarantees to the amount of about £l6,750,000 have been sanctioned under the Guarantee of Loan Scheme. Then for those for whom work cannot be found or made, we have provided the Unemployment Insurance Act, which, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying has been a perfect God-send during this long and distressing period. In all, since the slump began in September, 1920, £80,000,000 has been dispensed in benefit, £64,000,000 being provided by the contributions of employers and employed persons, and £16,000,000 by the State, and during the same period the guardians for the relief of distress have dispensed not less than £50,000,000. The advocates of State Socialism may sniff at all that, but it represents a common effort that I, if I may say so, look back upon with gratitude and thankfulness.

I ask the House to reject this Bill. Those who vote agaist it will be told that they voted against a Bill to prevent unemployment. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will be told that."] It will not be true. They will have voted against a Bill so entitled, it is true, but a Bill that gave no assurance that the promise of the title would be fulfilled. Quite the contrary. Therefore, as a man who has spent his days for many months past with this problem, who has been happy indeed to be able to make any practicable contribution towards the mitigation and towards the abatement of the problem, I shall go into the Lobby against this Bill, profoundly convinced that that is where my duty lies, and I confidently ask the House to do the same.

Mr. CLYNES

The right hon. Member concluded by reminding us that he will do his duty. He thinks it is his duty to oppose this Bill. He speaks for a Government apparently united on one thing, if on no other. That thing is to let this difficulty of unemployment settle itself if it will, but, at any rate, not to interfere with the difficulty by attempting any sort of remedy themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"] We can recall, since this period of severe trade depression began, numberless assurances to the House and to the country, made sometimes by the Prime Minister, that schemes would be devised, that the problem would be taken in hand, that attempts would be made to complete its solution, and, in short, that the pledge solemnly given to the working classes of this country at the last Election would be kept. I remember the speech of the Prime Minister, at Inverness, when he was travelling back from Scotland, in which he assured the country—on his way back, as it were, to this House—that the Cabinet was going to meet, that schemes would be considered, and that some plans would be drafted.

Dr. MACNAMARA

So they were.

Mr. CLYNES

So they were.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Last November.

Mr. CLYNES

We debated those plans and our forecast of what they would amount to has been fulfilled, for there are still about 1,750,000 people unemployed. I agree with the Minister of Labour that we want trade revival, but if policy has anything to do with trade revival, if the application of Ministerial capacity to conditions of trade can have anything to do with trade revival, then we cannot congratulate Ministers upon the result. The only answer that has been given to the Labour party's proposal with regard to unemployment is an alternative which will find people work. If it fails in doing that, the right hon. Gentleman cannot defend himself by a parade of wastefulness of which any Government should be ashamed. How is it that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) did not rise in revolt when he heard only a few minutes ago that £50,000,000 has been given here, £60,000,000 there, millions to the right and millions to the left? For what? For nothing, and the Labour party is upbraided this afternoon because it wants the people to work for what they get. I marvel at the business men in this House, at the financiers, the men of great skill, the men who alone are fit to govern, sitting quietly by and listening to this recital of deliberate wastage of public money. [Interruption.] I think it would be more profitable if the remaining part of this discussion were conducted without interruption. The taxpayer is in one sense to be the sufferer as a result of Ministerial policy, but he is, after all, in a favoured minority. Even with the Income Tax at the level at which it stands to-day, three-quarters of the people of this country are too below it and are too poor to pay Income Tax in any direct way. The million and three-quarters who are unemployed, and the enormous number of people who are working under conditions of short time, are all the answer that we need offer to such attempts as the Government has yet made to deal with this, the greatest of our social and economic problems. In face of this problem, there has not been revealed this afternoon any suggestion whatever of taking in hand this enormous mass of potential service and turning it to some use. We have long claimed, and we repeat, the worker's right to work. A Government with any sense would not only recognise that right, but would make every man live up to it—would insist upon his working, and not merely asserting a theoretical right.

The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, in the course of a speech which, if I may say so, I do not think did him credit this afternoon, argued that a man who was not able to get work in the ordinary market must not have work provided for him by anyone else—by a municipality or by any State effort. On the contrary, the view of many of us on this side of the House is that, if a workman cannot find employment, try how he will, in the ordinary market, those who claim to afford such work and to fulfil their function as employers of labour have so fallen short of their function that the State and the municipal bodies have a right to step in and repair the shortage. It will pay the State to do that, for there is nothing in any country more wasteful than enforced idleness. The man who cannot get work should not be doomed either to the fate of pauperism or of starvation, and yet he has only the choice of either of these two if he is deprived of the opportunity of employment. We cannot stand where we are, or where we were, on this problem. It is, I know, quite a new and almost revolutionary thing to many hon. Gentlemen in this House to have these proposals put forward as items of State responsibility. It is an easy matter for anyone to riddle this or any other Bill on an occasion of this kind. In a problem so big as this, none can claim perfection in offering a solution. But those who are exposed to the most severe censure in such a Debate as this are those who propose nothing. Those who cannot go beyond letting things alone, and paying large sums to other people for doing nothing, have the last and the least right to criticise those who make any definite proposals.

Let things alone for a few more years, and let all the lessons of this deep and bitter unemployment soak in, and it will be found, I am certain, that we shall be faced, not only with greater social, but even with greater political difficulties than confront the country to-day. The tendency to destructive thought and destructive action in public affairs, and in public life, can be averted only by legislation upon the lines of this Bill. Experience, greater knowledge, time, will reveal the defects that can only thus be revealed. Of what avail it is that the right hon. Gentleman should ask why, for instance, we have not retained in this Bill the figures that found a place in a similar Bill on a previous occasion? The Labour party is not ashamed to admit, if experience teaches it that its proposal was not the wisest, or was even an indefensible proposal, that it should alter the proposal. The rates of wages and the purchasing power of money are totally different now from what they were 12 months ago; they may be totally different 12 months hence from what they are now. Second thoughts, the Labour party is willing to admit, are often better thoughts. The figures which were given in a similar Bill on a previous occasion frankly now we do not think fit the circumstances, and therefore we propose to leave to other proper bodies and authorities the determination of the exact amount, to be fixed in accordance with whatever might be the general economic condition of the country, the rates of wages of the men in work, and the purchasing power of money.

In regard to a trade revival, I may say for myself that I approve what my right hon. Friend said in respect to international action, whether at Genoa or elsewhere. We welcome these attempts, and, personally, I regard them as being serious and well-intentioned attempts internationally to act so as to restore a crumbled Europe into something like a rehabilitated condition, but when that is done—and it cannot, of course, be done for a considerable time—there will, in the nature of things, in some degree always remain a margin of unemployed who have a claim upon the community. If the unemployed in the future fell down to 3 or 2½ or 2 per cent., the men and women who would make up that small percentage would still have their claim upon their country and upon society. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] My remarks at the moment are a little attempt to give an answer to such a question, and those who are secured, either because of their good fortune or their good qualities, should have regard to the utterly helpless position of the vast majority of our people, who are without property, and who are solely dependent upon their brethren for the means of existence. So that if the right hon. Gentleman is to afford an answer to us, it must come in the form, not of criticism of our proposals, but of constructive, alternative proposals from the Government in power. This considerable margin of unemployed, even when trade revives, has its rights, and should not be kept in a state of idleness merely because of a type of employer who cannot find work for them.

The Minister of Labour this afternoon spoke of there being kept at work something like an average of 100,000 persons in all manner of odd jobs, such as roads and other constructive labour, organised partly by the State and partly through the municipal authorities, and he said that such work finds no provision for the employment of women or for the employment of clerks, but even if that were true—which it is not—there is no reason why we should stop at 100,000 If this number is being employed with advantage both to the country and themselves, why cannot 100,000 be turned into 1,000,000? It is not the case that there is no work. There is any amount of demand for the service and labour of all you can employ. What you want is to enlarge the facilities for employment, and to call upon those who have done something to do even more. What is the effect of this employment upon women. Considerable numbers of women must have found employment indirectly from the direct employment of these 100,000 men. A considerable number of clerks and other employés must have been directly benefited in their social conditions and in their opportunities of service because 100,000 other men were put to work. The surest way to the employment of the clerk, the tailor, the watchmaker, the furniture maker, is to put manual labourers of all kinds to such services as they can perform. Pay them wages and they will spend them, and in the spending of those wages they will make a demand for the work of other people.

One right hon. Gentleman has escaped some of the elementary facts of social economy in alleging that clerks, women and so on are left out of account when employment is found directly for 100,000 manual workers. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) made some observations, to one of which I should like to refer. I think he read into the Bill an implication of compulsory arbitration which is not there. Whatever we may ask the Minister of Labour to do, we do not intend to go the length of empowering him to insist where the parties, employers and employed, are unwilling to refer the question to arbitration. I wish that both sides would more frequently resort to that peaceful method of deciding their quarrels. There is no implication and no word in any of the Clauses to justify the conclusion that the Minister of Labour can exercise such a function in relation to impending disputes. Many hon. Members who have spoken cannot have read carefully the terms of Clause 15, in both its parts. This must be particularly true of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury). He is very hard upon malingerers, and justly so, and very hard upon the waster. He might have kept his taunts which he levelled at trade union officials in respect to their salaries and remuneration, and have used them upon some of the least competent railway directors. From the general grievances, which are very often vocal, of the suffering travelling public in this country, it is clear that a considerable number of very well-paid railway directors deserve censure, and do not earn their salaries. The truth is that there is no class of servant at the head of any great business or organisation in this country who are paid at a lower rate than the trade union official, if you take into account the variety of his duties, the responsibilities of his office, the qualities that are called for of a very exacting nature. If we are to have these matters debated, let us acquaint ourselves with the facts of the case. Clause 15 expressly puts the malingerer and the waster in his place and says to him clearly that if he will not perform the work for which he is fitted and which he is called on to do, he will have no claim on the State either for maintenance or for money. The malingerer can get his money now without, any device being in existence to reveal the fact that he is a malingerer. He can shelter behind the existing conditions, but Labour would require him to come out and work, and if he refuses the work to which he is called Labour will refuse him either maintenance or the money. Again, many hon. Gentlemen must have misread the terms of the Bill in reference to what we propose with regard to registration at Employment Exchanges and the functions of those Exchanges. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) addressed the House under the impression that this Bill was to call upon employers to engage all their men only through the Labour Exchanges.

Sir F. BANBURY

Only in a particular trade.

Mr. CLYNES

I accept the statement of the right hon. Baronet, though other Members of the House were clearly under that impression. This particular Clause proposes to apply that condition only in the case of those trades which are described as casual and intermittent forms of employment, and we certainly have no idea of requiring ordinary employers of labour to depart from what is their present common practice. I have said that we must find an alternative to that of the Government of the day. The public money wasted since the Government was returned to power in subsidising idleness constitutes one of our biggest items of national expenditure. It is nothing to boast of. It is true that we demand maintenance, but only as a secondary condition. We first demand work.

We have heard statements in previous Debates, which we must endorse, to the effect that the level of our wealth is the level of our national profit. The more people you have idle, the poorer you must be. The more people who produce, the richer you are in profits and the greater your ability to sell. If it be true, then, that the level of national wealth is the level of national production, how can it be a good thing to let people who can be employed remain idle? Their work is sure to produce something. They are all being paid now. Not less than £2,000,000 a week is being paid to those who are in a state of enforced idleness in one form or another. What a tremendous level of excitement can be reached if we can only knock a shilling off the Income Tax, and what a big House we have, and what national interest is excited——

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE

And what a lot more employment there is, too.

Mr. CLYNES

I want more knocked off the Income Tax. I am not referring to the matter in the sense of being opposed to reducing the Income Tax. What I am trying to impress on the House is that we are concentrating upon matters which are secondary, which are infinitesimal in amount as compared with these enormous weekly sums which we are paying out, in place of undertaking the tasks of organisation which really are the responsibility of the Government of the day. I go further, and say, that if the unemployed were just told to organise themselves and to go out and do some sort of job as a condition of getting their weekly pay, whatever it may be, that would be a far better thing for the country than leaving them absolutely without guidance and instruction. We can trace a good deal of this back to the folly of Ministers in their lack of any plan or foresight immediately after the Armistice, and particularly just before the last general election. It seemed easy then to give away a lot of other people's money for nothing. It has had to be continued. The Government does not stop it. It is a sort of premium for national safety. But you can make a beginning with existing resources. Among the unemployed there is a great deal of brain power, of clerical ability, of organising capacity. Among the unemployed there are many men who in various ways have been employers, those accustomed to the direction of men, those with the qualities of initiative and organisation. So, if you would only tell the unemployed in certain areas where they can do something to go and do it, they would do a little to enrich the land in exchange for the weekly amounts they receive.

No doubt there will be a large majority in the Lobbies against this Bill. I congratulate them upon their bargain. If they are satisfied to go on finding large sums of money for nothing, let them go on finding it. We stand for the principle of not giving something for nothing to any man, whether he be rich or poor. In this regard we are compelled to speak first of all for the poor. The rich are rather out of our reach. But we say that a Government which would accept the responsibility clearly adumbrated and accepted in so many words as the responsibility of this Government—that was to attempt something in the nature of a new social world—the Government with all its enormous opportunities would no longer leave this problem to settle itself. It is not the right of any man to live upon another. It is the right of each man to have an opportunity to live upon his own resources. Under the existing conditions of property ownership and workshop authority millions of men must find work if they can. If they cannot find work that is no reason why they should be either pauperised or starved. There comes in the responsibility of the Government. It claimed the right to take the men's lives when the country wanted them for its defence. It has a responsibility also to give them an opportunity to work in some sphere of public service if they cannot get work in the ordinary private market.

Mr. JOHNSTONE

I am sure there is no more serious problem to be discussed than the problem of unemployment. While I do not agree with this Bill, because it is open to many objections, yet I agree that we cannot afford to leave the problem in its present state. Something must be done to solve a problem full of so much menace to the social order in this country. I do not approve of the Bill for many reasons. I think it seeks to put into the hands of the Minister of Labour far too great powers, to concentrate in his Ministry powers which would make him an autocrat, a very Napoleon among Ministers. I observe in reference to Scotland that the Bill proposes to hand over to the Ministry the powers and duties, property, rights, and liabilities … vested in or imposed upon parish councils, landward committees, magistrates of burghs, justices, kirk sessions, heritors, and the Local Government Board for Scotland, with regard to the relief or treatment of the able-bodied poor. If that were done, I fear our people in Scotland would have something to say about it, and I am surprised that Scottish members of the Labour party should propose to transfer these powers. The main principle of the Bill is the right to work and maintenance. I think the claim put forward in the Bill, for the right to work, has been riddled by the arguments used against it. We cannot compel people to employ other persons. We cannot give work to men, if there is no work. To resort to the device of having State employment, to my mind, would produce greater evils than we suffer from at present; to establish the right to maintenance, if no work can be found and to provide for men, women, and children from State funds and partly from the rates, would, I think, carry our country well on to the verge of bankruptcy. No, there are other means whereby we may seek to solve this problem. We have already laid the foundations of a system, and, as I have before advocated in this House, through the extension of our present unemployment insurance scheme, to which the worker, the employer and the State con-

tribute, there is some hope of a solution. There is none, I fear, in this crude, ill-shaped, and ill-constructed Bill, which would fail, and fail utterly.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 172.

Division No. 105.]	AYES	[4.0 p.m.
Banton, George	Grundy, T. W.	Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)	Hallas, Eldred	Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Halls, Walter	Robertson, John
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Hayday, Arthur	Rose, Frank H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hayward, Evan	Royce, William Stapleton
Broad, Thomas Tucker	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)	Sexton, James
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Hirst, G. H.	Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Hodge, Rt. Hon. John	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Cairns, John	Hogge, James Myles	Sitch, Charles H.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)	Irving, Dan	Spencer, George A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Spoor, B. G.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Swan, J. E.
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawson, John James	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)	Lunn, William	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Devlin, Joseph	Lyle-Samuel, Alexander	Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)	White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Finney, Samuel	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Wignall, James
Foot, Isaac	Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)	Wilson, James (Dudley)
Galbraith, Samuel	Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)	Wintringham, Margaret
Gillis, William	Mills, John Edmund	Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Mosley, Oswald	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)	Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Graham, W, (Edinburgh, Central)	Myers, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Naylor, Thomas Ellis	Mr. W. Smith and Mr. Kennedy.
NOES.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Amery, Leopold C. M. S.	Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page	Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hinds, John
Armstrong, Henry Bruce	Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)	Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Baird, Sir John Lawrence	Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)	Hood, Sir Joseph
Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Hopkins, John W. W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Dawson, Sir Philip	Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Barlow, Sir Montague	Dockrell, Sir Maurice	Hurd, Percy A.
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Doyle, N. Grattan	Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Barnston, Major Harry	Ednam, Viscount	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Barrand, A. R.	Evans, Ernest	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.	Jesson, C.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Falcon, Captain Michael	Jodrell, Neville Paul
Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell	Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray	Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Farquharson, Major A. C.	Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)	Fell, Sir Arthur	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Ford, Patrick Johnston	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Blair, Sir Reginald	Forrest, Walter	Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas	Fraser, Major Sir Keith	Lindsay, William Arthur
Bowles, Colonel H. F.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.	Ganzonl, Sir John	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Lorden, John William
Brassey, H, L. C.	Gilbert, James Daniel	Lort-Williams, J.
Breese, Major Charles E.	Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Glyn, Major Ralph	Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Bruton, Sir James	Gould, James C.	Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. K.	Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)	Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)	McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Burdon, Colonel Rowland	Greig, Colonel Sir James William	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)	Gretton, Colonel John	Manville, Edward
Butcher, Sir John George	Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Marks, Sir George Croydon
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.	Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W. D'by)	Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Carr, W. Theodore	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Coats, Sir Stuart	Hamilton, Major C. G. C.	Molson, Major John Elsdale
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)	Morden, Col. W. Grant
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)	Morrison, Hugh
Cope, Major William	Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)	Hennessy, Major J. R. G	Murchison, C. K.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)	Remer, J. R.	Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)	Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)	Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Murray, John (Leeds, West)	Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)	Tickler, Thomas George
Neal, Arthur	Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)	Townley, Maximilian G.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Tryon, Major George Clement
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Nicholson, William G. (Fetersfield)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Nield, Sir Herbert	Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur	Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket	Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark	Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)	Windsor, Viscount
Parker, James	Seddon, J. A.	Winterton, Earl
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry	Smithers, Sir Alfred W.	Wise, Frederick
Pearce, Sir William	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander	Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike	Steel, Major S. Strang	Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Cluster, City)	Stewart, Gershom	Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Pilditch, Sir Philip	Strauss, Edward Anthony
Purchase, H. G.	Sturrock, J. Leng	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Raeburn, Sir William H.	Sugden, W. H.	Sir F. Banbury and Captain Moreing.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart	Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Seven Minutes after Four o'Clock till Monday (15th May).