HC Deb 26 April 1923 vol 163 cc724-51

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £10,187,005, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Minister of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and to Special Schemes and Payments to Associations for administration under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid."—[NOTE: £6,000,000 has been voted on account.]

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow)

There are two methods open to a Minister in presenting his Estimates. The older, or more conservative method if you will, was a close statistical analysis of the Estimate item by item and Subhead by Subhead: then there is the rather more modern method of treating the figures as matters of slightly less importance and endeavouring to give a general, and possibly a generous, descriptive account of the activities of the Department. There may be critics of both methods. The statistical method may be described as dreary and dull, and the descriptive method as perhaps on occasions too rosy. With the leave of the Committee, I propose to make the best of both worlds and to divide what I have to say into two portions. I will endeavour, in the first portion, to give a pretty close account of the statistics appearing in the Vote; and then, in the second part, to describe some of the chief activities of the Department.

The first duty of every Minister, under the present conditions of stringency, I take it is to demonstrate that every effort has been made to secure the maximum economy compatible with the efficient maintenance of the public service. The Estimate which I am asking the Committee to sanction is £16,187,005 net and £20,363,639 gross. It is worth mentioning, as showing the steady reduction in the cost of the Department, that these figures, net and gross, compare favourably with the figures of expenditure in 1920–21, when the net expenditure was £27⅓, millions, and the gross figure £28½ millions. In other words, the net estimated expenditure for 1923–24 is not much over half what it was three years ago. This reduction in expenditure is naturally reflected in a similar reduction in staff.

The Committee will appreciate that the staff required by my Department must depend very largely upon the state of unemployment and the amount of work entailed in the payment of unemployment benefit. Obviously, when unemployment figures are high and there are large numbers in receipt of benefit, the staff required to deal with them is large. On the other hand, as unemployment diminishes and the numbers on benefit sink, the staff is reduced accordingly. Consequently, a very large proportion of the staff of the Ministry are on temporary engagement. Of the total staff of the Ministry on 1st April, 1923, approximately so large a proportion as 60 per cent. were temporary and only 40 per cent. permanent, and of this temporary staff a very large number were on weekly engagement. This enables us with great nicety to adjust the staff to the exact requirements of the unemployment situation. The figures of unemployment, I regret to say, remain, as we all know, terriby swollen, but., in spite of that fact, I have the satisfaction of assuring the Committee that there has been a steady and continuous reduction in staff. While the total average staff for the year 1921–22 was 25,500, for 1922–23 the figure had dropped to 20,500, and the Estimate which I am now presenting to the Committee is based on a staff figure throughout the year of only 15,300. Therefore, I take it, that is an indication of the efforts we are making to secure economy, but without detriment to the public service.

I will now, if I may, take some items in the Vote in somewhat closer detail and also refer to the Report of the Geddes Committee, because the standard laid down in that Report has, I think, to be taken as a not unreasonable touchstone of national finance at the present time. The Geddes Committee reported in 1921 on the Estimates of the Ministry of Labour as follows: That owing to the uncertainty which prevails at the present time, and the direct bearing on the estimate of the rate of unemployment, the sum available for 1922–23 cannot be reduced below the amount shown in the preliminary Estimate. The Estimate to which the Geddes Report referred was an Estimate of £15,000,000 or thereabouts, or, excluding the transferred Irish Services, £14,500,000. The Committee will bear in mind that in 1922 we passed two insurance measures involving increased contributions, and the net increase for the past year charged on the Exchequer worked out at just over £3,500,000. There are also one or two small items now on my Vote which were not on the Vote at the time of the Geddes Inquiry. There is an item for telegraphs and telephones which was originally borne by the Post Office—because the policy now as is set out in the note at the foot of page 3 of the Estimates—is that each Department, with a view to economy should bear its own telegraphic and telephonic expenses. Secondly, there is now borne on my Vote expenditure for work in connection with International Labour Office. This formerly appeared under another heading, the Vote for the League of Nations. These two items represent about £97,300, and allowing for these additions, Insurance Act, telephones, telegrams, International Labour Office, I think what I may call the true, or corrected, Geddes figure for last year is £18,160,227. I am asking, as I have already informed the Committee, for the sum of £16,187,000, i.e., a reduction of almost exactly £2,000,000, or about 11 per cent.

Let me now take the items appearing on page 39 and subsequent pages. These items fall roughly under two heads. First of all, there are the ordinary services as appear under Subheads A to F. This is largely unemployment insurance work, and includes the general expenses of administration. Secondly, there are the post-War services and expenses incurred in respect of services arising out of the War, the main Subhead here being cost of training ex-service officers and men. With regard to the presentation of both these two main items, that is the ordinary services, and the extraordinary or post-War services, especially the training of ex-service men—regarding the presentation of both these items there is very considerable difficulty. Take the Unemployment Insurance Acts first of all. The Fund is contributory, as hon. Members know. The net average income is something in the neighbourhood of £49,000,000. Of this the employers contribute £19,000,000, the workers £17,000,000, and the State £13,000,000. The Fund is treated as a separate entity. The Minister of Labour is both a trustee for its preservation and the agent for its distribution. The fund cannot distribute itself. The Minister and the Department provide the agency through the Employment Exchanges and the Minister receives in return payment from the Fund for services rendered by his Department and, to some small extent, by other Departments. But there is no separate account. The Fund does not hand over a lump sum to the Ministry for this agency work, but so far as the administration of the Fund is concerned, the cost of staff, wages, and other expenses are included in the Votes as shown on pages 39 and 40 of the Estimates, and then the payment from the Fund in return for these services appears by way of an Appropriation-in-Aid, as shown on page 41. The Committee will realise this makes the presentation of the figures a little complicated.

There is this further difficulty, namely, that the Appropriation-in-Aid from the Fund is calculated so as to cover the whole cost of administration of services in respect of unemployment benefit. Consequently economy in its administration is immediately represented by a reduction of the Appropriation-in-Aid, and does not show itself in a reduction of the net amount of the Vote, as in the case of other economies. In other words, as shown on page 42, the gross figures before the Appropriations-in-Aid are deducted, namely, £23,300,000 odd, for the year 1922–23, and £20,300,000 odd for the year 1923–24—or a saving of £3,000,000—do show the economies effected in the working of the Department, including the economies which enure mainly to the benefit of the Fund, more satisfactorily than do the net figures which show a decrease of a couple of millions.

Then I come to the other main item to which I referred—post-war services to ex-service men. Here, again, there is a difficulty. We shall be shortly entering on the sixth year since the Armistice. It is obvious that the post-war services of training and resettling disabled ex-service men in civil life are tending to draw to a close. The result of that is that the items under the second main head, that is, these services arising out of the war, are automatically shrinking, and there is not the usual steady basis of comparison as between one year and another that there is in normal departmental expenses.

Bearing these broad facts in mind, may I direct the attention of the Committee for a few moments in some little detail to the Subheads of the Vote. First, take administration. Administration covers Subheads A to H2 on pages 39 and 40, and comprises a figure of £3,800,000 odd as against £4,900,000 odd last year. All these items, I am glad to say, show a real decrease, though on page 39 there is an item of expenditure which shows an apparent increase, namely, telegrams and telephones £46,000. I have stated already the reasons for the apparent increase this year. There was in fact an actual saving for the total charge in respect of telegrams and telephones. The charge last year including the proprortion for telephones appearing in the Post Office Vote was 66,400, whereas it is now only £51,000, a reduction of £15,400. Another item H2, under the head of Administration, shown on page 40, travelling and incidental expenses, shows a nominal increase of £27,350. This is due to the fact that £35,000 has been included in order to cover the expenses necessary in the working of the King's Roil Committees, to which I shall refer a little later. Allowing for this £35,000, there is, in fact, a decrease in ordinary travelling and incidental expenses of £7,650, being the difference between the £35,000 mentioned and the £27,350 shown as the increase. The total net reduction, compared with last year, under the Subheads which I have already mentioned, A to H2, is thus £1,076,898, equivalent to 22 per cent.

That brings me to the second great branch of the ordinary services, unemployment insurance. With regard to this we have to keep in mind the distinction between the two points I am going to indicate. First of all there are the actual contributions of money from the State to the Fund on the basis, broadly, as the Committee is aware, of one third of the joint contributions of employers and workmen. This is represented by Subhead I—£13,042,000. As the Committee will know, the first Act of 1922 amalgamated the temporary provision for unemployed workers' dependants with the general machinery of the Acts, and and there is no special provision this year as previously for unemployed workers' dependants, but provision is made under the general figure just given. What I have called agency charges, for staff premises, etc., are, as I have already explained, included in the various Subheads for staff, etc., on pages 39 and 40, and the appropriate repayment from the Fund is indicated under the head of Appropriations-in-Aid (Subhead M—£4,097,792). If the Committee will look on page 65 of the document most hon. Members hold in their hands they will see that of the £4,097,792 Appropriation-in-Aid, £33,000 is referable to items other than unemployment insurance, so that the true figure of repayment from the Fund for services rendered by this and other Departments during the year is £4,064,792. Furthermore, included under the head of "Services rendered by other Departments," come such items as provision of premises, rent, etc., paid by the Office of Works, which work out altogether at about £800,000, making the true estimated figure of repayment for services rendered by my Department about £3,250,000. In other words, the Committee will notice that the whole of the charge for administration, which amounts to £3,800,000, and with Subhead J to £3,900,000 odd, will be covered all but about the sum of £700,000 by an Appropriation-in-Aid from the Insurance Fund.

A final word as to the Subheads in connection with services arising out of the War. I have already explained that these were automatically dwindling as the services tend to draw to an end. With the permission of the Committee I will come in a moment or two to a survey of the general work of training and resettling ex-service men, but while dealing with the figures, I should like to draw attention to Item P—industrial training of ex-service officers and men. This shows an apparent reduction during the current year of a figure a little short of £1,700,000. I quite expect that attention may be drawn to this figure, and that many hon. Friends of ex-service men will naturally say, "How is it possible, particularly when you, the Minister of Labour, still have a waiting list of 6,000 applicants in Great Britain, to reduce your Estimate?" I partly explained this in reply to a question the other day, and I can give the reason at once. The state of affairs is entirely due to the present industrial stringency. We cannot, until trade improves, pass more than a very limited number of persons into training, and even with the reduced Estimate we shall have, in the coming 12 months, a good many hundred places in the Government training factories vacant and ready for trainees if the technical advisory committees—which have given us such admirable assistance in this work—are able to advise me to accept men for training. The Committee may rest assured that there is no intention whatever on the part of either the Government or myself to fail in carrying out the sacred obligation to train ex-service men, as laid down now for several years. I am determined, as trade improves, to press on and complete our training scheme with all possible speed. The expenditure if not incurred this year is merely deferred till next year, and I hope by then we shall be in a position to have cleared the waiting list altogether. I have now completed all I propose to say by way of an analysis of the figures in the Estimate.

I now turn to what I called a descriptive account of some of the chief activities of the Ministry to-day. I am afraid that I must omit Departments which I should have liked to have dealt with, for want of time, such as the juvenile employment centres. I do not think the record of the Government on this subject is one of which we need be in the least ashamed. Another subject is the provision for women's training borne on other Votes, but it would not be in order for me to deal with that subject now. It will, I think, be convenient if I take the subjects in the same order as they appear on pages 39 and 42 of the Estimates. The first item is administration and staff. No Minister—and I am sure my hon. Friend and colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour would wish to be associated with me in what I am about to say—can be responsible for a great Department of State without realising the immense debt which not only he but the community owes to one of the most capable instruments of administration that the world has ever known—I mean the British Civil Service. To all the 15,000 or so of civil servants who represent this great Department of State on its official side I desire to tender my most profound recognition and thanks for their skill, for their hard work, and for their readiness to be of service at all times and under all circumstances. When all are rendering such good service it is difficult and almost invidious to make any particular selection, but I should not be discharging my duty if I did not make special mention, first of all, of the managers and staffs of the Employment Exchanges.

I only wish hon. Members would visit those Exchanges more often, and those who do, I feel sure, will agree with me, not only as to the admirable work which the managers and their often much restricted staff carry on, frequently not in the most suitable premises, but also for the success they achieve in their work. In this connection I should like to tender my special thanks to the chairmen and members of the Employment Committees throughout the country. These Committees, consisting of employers' and workers' representatives as well as others, have been in active operation for some years, but during the last two and a-half years of great stress and storm, they have co-operated to help the Ministry to carry the burden of unemployment, and particularly the burden of allocating uncovenanted benefit, in a way which is beyond all praise. I have seen many Rota Committees at work. A large number of them sit daily and many of their sittings occupy the best part of the day. I have seen them considering with the utmost care case after case of applicants for benefit, and applying with skill and also with a human touch which has my unstinted admiration the administrative directions, not always easy to construe, which in the careful supervision of Unemployment Insurance Acts, the Minister has found himself obliged from time to time to lay down. I should also like to add a word of special thanks to the higher officials throughout the country and especially the Divisional Controllers for their personal help and service; and also to the skilled and expert secretarial and executive staff at the headquarters of the Ministry, and particularly its admirable head, the permanent secretary, Mr. H. J. Wilson.

The next item on the Paper is the Industrial Court. And here I should like to mention the whole subject of conciliation and the relations of the Ministry of Labour to industrial disputes. I should like to have discussed three subjects, namely, conciliation, the Industrial Court and the Whitley Councils, but time presses and the hands of the clock go round, and I know that our Debates to-day will be restricted somewhat abnormally at or about 8.15. Therefore, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak I will be as brief as I can on this subject; and the rest of my speech. So far as conciliation is concerned the Committee should realise the steady, continuous and unobtrusive work of this Department year in and year out. The staff involved is not large; in fact, compared with the results achieved it is almost ludicrously small, more especially after the inevitable cuts which have been made on the ground of economy. The number of the headquarters staff dealing with industrial relations for the year 1923–24 is 34 as against 58 for the previous year, and 89 for the year before that. The total number of the provincial staff is 36 on my Estimates as compared with 41 last year and 65 during the previous year.

With regard to conciliation, I think the settlement of the jute dispute is a good example of the effective assistance which can be rendered by my Department. The lock-out notices have been withdrawn, and some 30,000 operatives have returned to work, and the difficult technical question of the four-enders will, I hope, be satisfactorily adjusted. It has now been referred to a Committee consisting of three employers and three operatives. The skilled and trusted Chief Labour Adviser to the Government, Sir David Shackleton, at my request has paid several visits to Dundee, and he has been unanimously chosen by both sides to be chairman of this technical Committee. In this connection I wish to say that I appreciate very much the courteous letter which I have received from the Lord Provost of Dundee, in which he says he desires to convey to me the grateful thanks of the community for the very valuable services which I and my Department have rendered to the city on this occasion. I should also like to say a word in regard to the Whitley Councils, but I am afraid I have no time to deal with the Industrial Court. The working of the Industrial Councils is probably familiar to members of the Committee. They are voluntary bodies, but my Department is concerned with their establishment and development, and it is worth mentioning that there are at the present time 63 such councils covering between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 of work-people. Undoubtedly these councils have been of value, not only in facilitating the settlement of industrial disputes, but in creating better personal relationship and affording opportunity for regular discussion. We all know that it is suspicion which is the acid that corrodes human relationships, and all experience shows the difficulty, at any rate for Britishers, of remaining in a permanent attitude of suspicion towards other Britishers whom they meet constantly for the discussion of matters of common interest.

The next item I wish to draw attention to is a big one which involves the greatest burden which falls on the shoulders of my Department, and that is unemployment and unemployment insurance. I will first deal with the figures relating to unemployment. When speaking on the Amendment to the Address on 15th February, I said in anticipation that the unemployment figures which had been steadily improving since the 1st January would probably continue to fall during the spring. I know at the time I was accused of undue optimism, but I am glad to say that, as does occasionally happen, the critics of the Government have proved to be wrong and the Government Estimate on the whole proved to be reasonably right. On the 1st January the figure of unemployment was 1,485,875. There was a steady fall of about 20,000 per week every week until the 26th March. There was then a sudden increase of just over 40,000, due largely to holiday arrangements in Lancashire, but since Easter that steady improvement has been resumed again, and on the 9th of April the fall was 24,000. The Committee will see that for the week ending the 16th of April there is a further decrease of 21,170, and I wish to draw special attention to this reduction in the current week. This is all the more satisfactory if the Committee will bear in mind that the new period of benefit under the Insurance Act passed March last came into operation on the 11th of April, and therefore a certain number of persons will undoubtedly now have come back on benefit. For this reason the big reduction of 21,000 for the current week is all the more satisfactory.

Mr. SHINWELL

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted the emigration statistics in this connection?

Sir M. BARLOW

The emigration statistics are undoubtedly of interest, but I do not think they seriously affect these figures. At any rate, allowing for all these factors, it is with great pleasure that I am able to announce to the Committee that the figure of unemployment has now fallen to 1,239,500, which is the lowest figure yet reached in any one week since the high peak of unemployment in June, 1921, when the figure of registered unemployed persons, I believe, stood at about 2,000,000. There was, it is true, a very considerable drop, as the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) will remember, in the unemployment figures last autumn; but the lowest figure then recorded was 1,318,471, and the point which we have now reached is some 80,000 below that.

It would not be in order on these Estimates to review the whole Government programme with regard to unemployment. I have explained on more than one occasion how that programme stands on three main planks. First of all, relief works, road repairing, afforestation, and so on; secondly, stimulation and development of foreign trade, mainly by the Export Credits Scheme and the Trade Facilities Act; and, thirdly, the Unemployment Insurance provision. On the first two I can say nothing to-day, but I will say a word or two now as to Unemployment Insurance.

First of all, I should like to express what I am sure the Committee as a whole realise, namely, the appreciation which is felt on all hands, both inside and outside this House, of the statesmanship and foresight displayed by the Member for North-West Camberwell—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—who was responsible for carrying through the House the principal Measure of August, 1920, and also all the subsequent amending Insurance Acts, except that of last March. The right hon. Gentleman laid well and truly the foundations of what is proving more and more each day to be a, solid and noble structure, which has given shelter and help to millions in the stormy period of depression, and of paralysing unemployment, through which we have been passing.

I indicated in the course of the Debates on the Insurance Act in March that I felt the time had come to survey the whole ground, and to make preparation for the proper readjustment of Unemployment Insurance on a permanent basis which lies before us directly times become more normal. With that end in view I directed, early in January, a close statistical inquiry, of a very thorough character, to be undertaken in every exchange in the country. Hundreds of thousands of cases have been examined, and the results are now being subjected to a critical analysis in the Department. I would also like to say one word as to the rules for uncovenanted benefit, to which I also referred in the discussion last March. The Committee will bear in mind that benefit payable under the Insurance Act flows in what I have called two great streams. One is that of covenanted, or contract benefit, where the applicant receives benefit on a strictly contractual basis in the ratio of one week's benefit for every six weeks' contribution. On the other hand, in the case of uncovenanted benefit, I have a discretion, under the Acts, as Minister of Labour and Trustee for the fund, to pay benefit, subject to regulations and directions, ahead of contributions, where it is desirable to do so in the public interest. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell laid down rules restricting the payment of uncovenanted benefit in certain cases, such as single persons living at home, married women, and so on. I promised during the discussion on the Bill, to reconsider those directions, and also, if possible to have them codified and issued as one document. As to the latter point, that is now in hand. As to the former, have given careful consideration, with the expert staff of the Department, to those directions. I have received deputations about them, and I have made inquiries in various directions. The result, shortly, is to convince me of the care and wisdom with which the Member for North-West Camberwell devised the various existing rules. I am satisfied that, on the whole, they are sound in principle and effective in operation, and I do not propose, generally speaking, to disturb them.

There are, however, two points in which I think a case can be made out for some modification in these different rules. First, with regard to single men and women, mainly young persons, living at home. At present, apart from cases of hardship, these are excluded from uncovenanted benefit if the relatives with whom they live can reasonably be called upon to support them. Possibly, in some cases, not quite enough allowance has been made for considerations of age in determining whether it was reasonable for the applicants to look to their relatives for support, or whether cases of hardship had arisen. I propose to draw the attention of the Committees to this point, and to the importance of giving proper weight to considerations of age, especially at 25 and later. In practice, many Committees have, in fact, been already exercising a wider discretion in such cases.

Secondly, with regard to aliens, these, when engaged in industry, are compelled to pay contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund (but they are at present, unless they have served in the War, ineligible for uncovenanted benefit). They are eligible for covenanted benefit, but they get it as a matter of contract. At present, however, apart from those who served in the War, they are ineligible for uncovenanted benefit. In view of the fact that they are compelled to pay contributions, I propose to relax the restrictions somewhat in the case of aliens in employment—other than former enemy aliens—provided they have been continuously resident in this country for a considerable number of years, and otherwise satisfy the conditions of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

I must treat of one subject more before I sit down, and that is the big subject of the training provision made by the State for ex-service officers and men. I think due recognition is very often not accorded to the great, and even stupendous, efforts which the State has made to grapple with this question of training and settlement of disabled men. This effort of training is, of course, altogether apart from the enormous sum of about £90,000,000 spent annually in pensions and from a great many other sums expended in other directions. Take only one—the assisted passages for something like 80,000 ex-service men who have sought settlement in the Dominions. Taking the question of provision for training and settlement alone, I will give figures in a moment showing that the large number of 320,000 men have received, or are now receiving State help in aid of re-settlement by way of grants for training, industrial and professional grants for the completion of education, grants for training in agriculture and forestry, and grants under the Civil Liabilities Fund. If it will not weary the Committee, and I think it is right it should be done, I should like to give the precise figures. They are as follows. At the end of March, 1923, first of all with regard to the great industrial training scheme under the Ministry of Labour, there have terminated training 69,500. I will give the figures in round hundreds. There are now in training 16,400—total 86,000. That is taking no account of a further 11,000 who were trained by the Ministry of Pensions before the Ministry of Labour took up the burden. Under the Maintenance and Training Grants Scheme for ex-officers and men of similar standing, under the Ministry of Labour the total figure is 18,000; under the Board of Education it is 33,000, and under the Ministry of Agriculture it is 3,000. That is including those who have terminated training and those already in training. Under the Officers' University Technical Training Scheme, 4,000; the Business Training Scheme, 891; Royal Warrant Training, under the Ministry of Labour, 812; under the Board of Education, 96, and under the Ministry of Agriculture, 615; Civil Liability Grants, 116,914; and under the very interesting and effective Interrupted Apprenticeship Scheme, 44,698; making a total of, as I have said, in round numbers, 320,000 persons. I think, and I believe the members of the Committee will agree with me, that that is a very remarkable figure. The arrangements made have not been perfected. There is much yet to be done. No one is more conscious of that than myself, but while we press on towards the completion, while we do all in our power to remedy the defects, do not let us forget the good work that has already been accomplished.

I wish I could give details of several of the above items. I wish I could give details of the training schemes for ex-officers and men of similar education. I will only say, with regard to that, that there are a large number still seeking professions. I am endeavouring, with the assistance of the newly constituted Central Committee, operating jointly with, and having upon it representatives from my Department and also from the Officers' Association, and under the Chairmanship of Sir William Purchase, to initiate, now that trade is beginning to improve, a real effort to get these 8,000 ex-officers absorbed.

I should like to say something of the Civil Liabilities Grants; and I should like to speak of the Interrupted Apprenticeships Scheme, but the time is not at my disposal. With regard, however, to the first item, namely, the 70,000 trained under the great industrial training scheme, the completion of which is now well in sight, I should like to invite the Committee to take a short survey of what has been accomplished. The Committee may be interested in the latest figures with regard to the Industrial Training Scheme. So far as Great Britain is concerned they are as follow:

Trained … 64,600
In training … 14,400
On waiting list … 6,300
Awaiting improverships … 3,500
I should like, if I may, to say one word as to this whole problem of training the ex-service man, and the way the problem has been handled. It was one of great difficulty. The men were unable, many of them, on account of their war disabilities to return to their pre-War oecupation, and new and suitable trades had to be found. Then they had to give the necessary training. The men were adults. The normal system of apprenticeship designed for boys was clearly unsuitable. For instance, in all skilled trades the apprenticeship extended over a longer period than grown men could afford it acquiring a new craft. There was, therefore, a technical and educational problem which was both novel and difficult, namely, how to graft on to the normal industrial system of the country a scheme for providing these grown men, and disabled at that, with a knowledge of their new craft.

5.0 P.M.

The key to the problem of the industrial training of the disabled men was found in the Government Instructional Factory. This is an institution equipped and laid out on the lines of an ordinary productive workshop in the trade to be taught. It contains thoroughly up-to-date machinery of the standard type in use in the locality. The conditions we reproduce are, so far as possible, those of the ordinary workshop; the men clock in and clock out; and they are required to accustom themselves to ordinary factory discipline. The trainees are taught by carefully selected craftsmen, practically all of them trade unionists. They begin, as a rule, with the simple exercises, to enable them to learn the rudiments of the trade, but at as early a stage as possible they are put on to actual productive work. Orders are obtained from Government Departments, from the trade and, if necessary, from private individuals, in order to make sure that so far as possible the men are trained in making objects of real value and use, which are ultimately sold. I venture to say that the output of these factories is a surprise and a revelation to those who visit them. In this connection, I should like to give one quotation only—I have received scores, if not hundreds of similar testimonials. I will quote one letter, from an engineering firm of prominence. It is to this effect: My foreman duly visited the Government Training Factory yesterday, and I am pleased to be able to inform you that he was not only delighted, but positively enthusiastic over the methods of training he saw there, as well as the results produced by these methods. I could quote many more similar opinions. It may be said that the training in the factory is excllent, but what are the chances of the trainees getting into employment, and especially of finding improverships, so as to complete their training? I very much regret, in regard to improverships, that there is still so large a number as 3,600 men who cannot find vacancies for their proper further training, with maintenance, after the period in the factory is finished. I have done all in my power to scour the country for further vacancies. The canvassers, initiated by the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell, have been in full operation, and their efforts have not been unsuccessful. In the last 12 months, in spite of continued and acute unemployment, no less than 5,373 improverships in the skilled trades have been found, and filled by men from the instructional factories, making a total of vacancies filled by this means, since the canvassers commenced their work, of about 10,000. Another interesting point is that, as trade improves, I have every hope that the numbers for whom vacancies can be found weekly will steadily improve, and I have reasons for saying this. The average number of improverships found in January was about 80; the average in February was about 140; while in March, I am glad to say, we got up to a weekly average of 180.

I have mentioned that, apart from the 11,000 which the Ministry of Pensions have trained, the Ministry of Labour have trained, at their training centres, about 70,000 persons. It may be asked, what has become of them, and how far have they benefited from their training? I referred just now to certain statistical information that I was getting together. At the time of that inquiry, I took the opportunity of making a special investigation as to the number of ex-trainees receiving benefit. Considering the immense difficulties of the times through which we are passing; considering the fact that the trainees were all men suffering, at any rate, under some degree of disability; I do not think it would have been surprising if one-third or one-half of our trainees had failed to find employment. I have not yet received the full analysis from all areas, but I can say this, that out of the areas already investigated, the result is extremely encouraging. The number of ex-trainees receiving benefit, taken in all the towns where we have made investigations, was less than 7 per cent. of the number of trainees trained. This compares most favourably with the average figure of unemployment of the insured population throughout the country at the time of the analysis, which was over 12 per cent.

I wish I could give further evidence along the same lines, but I think the Committee may be satisfied that the country and the ex-service men have got good value for the money which has been spent upon this training scheme. It would have been quite impossible to have achieved this success without the enormous amount of voluntary help which has been received from representatives of employers and trade unions working through the technical advisory committees, from technical schools, and officers of education authorities, and from many other helpers, to all of whom I tender my most sincere and hearty thanks. In conclusion, may I say that it will be, in my view, ten thousand pities if these 30 or 40 great instructional factories, with their splendid equipment and experience of craft training, are to be lost to the permanent industrial life of the country.

Lastly, let me say something as to the King's Roll. The Committee will bear in mind that a Select Committee of the House of Commons was set up last April, and did excellent work under the Chairmanship of the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Major-General Sir J. Davidson). Most of their recommendations were at once accepted by the Government, and one of the most useful was the suggestion that there should be set up, in the chief municipalities, a King's Boll Committee, with a view to persuading all employers to accept the responsibility of registration on the Roll. The figures of firms entered on the Roll have recently been revised. Of those originally registered, 21,200 have renewed their undertaking. Probably, some 3,000 more will eventually accept renewal. These figures, together with 5,000 more recently entered, who have not yet come up for renewal, make a total figure of about 28,000—somewhat over. In order to co-ordinate the work of the Committees, a King's Roll National Council has commenced work under the most favourable auspices. Field-Marshal Earl Haig, I am glad to say, has found time to add to his many other untiring and successful efforts on behalf of ex-service men by accepting the Chairmanship of the Committee, and the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham is devoting his energy and experience to the same good cause as Vice-Chairman. The National Council have already inaugurated a series of meetings in Liverpool, the City of London, Westminster, and other places, and the results of their efforts are already beginning to be apparent. It would only require a very small effort by every employer who employs from 20 to 25 workpeople, and over, to find employment for practically the whole of the disabled men out of work. In fact, if, on the average, every such employer took on two additional men, the work would be done.

The figures with regard to local authorities on the King's Roll are still not as satisfactory as I should wish. Those on the Roll number 1,230—it is only fair to say that in this number are comprised nearly all the large local authorities—while those not on the Roll number 1,592. This question of the attitude of the local authorities towards the King's Roll is a serious one; it is one in which I am fully aware a large number of members of the Committee are interested. The King's Roll National Council are giving it their close attention. I can assure the Committee, that it will be my constant endeavour, with the assistance of the King's Roll National Council, to use every effort humanly possible with a view to getting the largest number of employers in the shortest possible time satisfactorily registered on the Roll, and both by this, and by all other means, so soon as industry picks up to aim at securing the absorption of every disabled man into proper remunerative employment. I beg to commend the Estimates to the consideration of the members of the Committee, and to thank them for giving me their courteous attention.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I should like to make a few observations on the Vote for the Department with which I was very proud to be associated for two and a half years. I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the form and substance of his statement, and upon the spirit of cheerful optimism which pervaded it throughout. I associate myself with him most cordially in paying a tribute to the invaluable and indispensable voluntary services of the members of the Local Employment Committees, of the Technical Advisory Committee and the panels of business men—who have worked so hard to find billets for ex-officers and men—and to the Local Education Authorities, who placed so much expert skill and power at our disposal in connection with the training of ex-service men. Over and above the voluntary services of all those good people, I associate myself, of course, with the very warm tribute of praise with the Minister of Labour paid to the Headquarters Staff, the Divisional Staffs, and to the official staffs of the Local Employment Exchanges. During the whole of the long period of grave depression through which we have been passing, and from which we have been suffering, all these men and women, voluntary and paid officials, have rendered services the value of which it would be difficult indeed to overestimate. I look back upon my association with them, day by day, with the most profound admiration and gratitude.

The second thing I want to say is this. During my term of office I became conscious of the fact that some people—certainly not many in number, but nevertheless pretty persistent in the expression of their view—held the view that the Ministry of Labour was a quite useless, if nor indeed a perfectly harmful, institution. The number of people that held that view were not many, but they were there, and they expressed their views pretty freely. The Trade Boards, to them, were an intolerable nuisance; they ought to go. "Why should not an employer pay wages at a rate for which a person was willing to work?" That was the sort of proposition. This Industrial Relations Branch, to which such a handsome and well-merited tribute has been paid, was a mere fussy, interfering body, the very existence of which prevented an amicable settlement of disputes which, but for its existence, or owing to its intervention, would have been settled long before by employers and employed themselves.

These Employment Exchanges were absolutely useless except to draw from very heavily taxed people and an overburdened Exchequer large sums of money for officials who could find jobs for nobody but themselves—and so on and so on: and the argument always concluded with, "And the sooner this thing is abolished altogether, the better." I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that this very short-sighted and obscurantist view, held by a few people but held very vehemently—the sort of view which takes the attitude that any endeavour to make any provision for any social service of any kind is a kind of coquetting with Socialism—I congratulate my right hon. Friend that that view is not, apparently, so industriously and so vehemently expressed as it used to be six months ago. His charm of manner, which I do not possess, is most enagaging, but I doubt whether, re-assuring and soothing as it undoubtedly is, it is altogether responsible for the change which has come o'er the spirit of the dream. Anyhow, I heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the apparent calm which, from that quarter at any rate, has fallen upon his labours.

His task is heavy enough in all seriousness. It has its perplexities at every point, over a long extended line which touches workaday human affairs all the time. There are those confronting him, or a section of them, who will inevitably declare that his work is insufficient and paltry. They will say he is not doing half enough, but that is what we have got to expect. There are probably those also who will say with equal vehemence that he is doing far too much. So far as I can see, and I watch the matter, naturally, with the closest interest, that section—which I agree is a small one—which has in the past taken the view that far too much was being done, are going very pianissimo just now, and I felicitate them upon their judgment. I think they will do well to continue to play awhile on a muted string.

I have a third general observation to make. I should like to remove a pretty common misapprehension about this issue. The Minister himself was at great pains to analyse and dissect it, but still I think there is a very great deal of misapprehension about it. People say, "Here we are, taxed to the teeth, and you are providing over 20 millions of money to support this officialdom of a Ministry that did not even exist pre-War, and that fact is proof positive of the megalomania of profligacy of the times." That is the sort of way in which it is put, but it should be clearly understood—and I will try, though it will be difficult, to make it more clear—that most of the money in this Estimate is provided for two purposes, and two purposes only. The first is to find the State's contribution of £13,000,000, in respect of 12,000,000 insured people as against 2,750,000 insured people pre-War. Obviously, the contribution must be much larger, as we have extended, since the War, the number of persons insured from 2,750,000 to 12,000,000. In the second place, the other large sum in this Estimate is furnished for the purpose of resettling in civil life ex-officers and men; and that, of course, is entirely a post-War obligation.

With that fact in mind, let us analyse this provision. Here is a gross proposed expenditure, by Parliamentary Vote and Appropriation - in - Aid, of nearly £21,000,000. As we have been told, over £13,000,000 of it is the State's contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, while £3,500,000 more is the provision which is made for services arising out of the War and for the administration of those services. That leaves £5,000,000, roughly, for the whole of the administration of the Ministry of Labour, including the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund; and, in talking about the Insurance Fund, my right hon. Friend, if I may say so with respect, did well to recall to us the fact that the total amount to be administered is not £13,000,000, but £13,000,000 plus the contributions of the employers and the employed; and a footnote on page 39 of the Estimate shows that the amount to be expended this year will be, roughly, about £50,000,000. The cost of administering the Insurance Act is, as we have been told, roughly, £4,000,000, and that comes out of the Fund; it is not a charge against the State, except in so far as it is debited against the State's own contribution. Therefore, of the £5,000,000 outstanding, £4,000,000 has gone, and as to what remains for the whole of the administration of the Ministry and all its work—its Trade Boards, its Industrial Court, its Conciliation Boards, its Industrial Relations Branch, its International Labour Organisation, its collection and compilation of labour statistics, and the work of its Employment Exchanges, in so far as they are not engaged upon insured persons—what does it come down to? Three-quarters of a million of money. I say that that figure alone is a witness to the justness of the tribute which the Minister himself paid to the devoted services of the loyal staff of the Ministry.

As regards the permanent side of the work of the Ministry, I do not propose to say anything to-day about Trade Boards. We shall await the promised Bill, which, I presume, will, in the main, carry out the recommendations of the Cave Committee. In the unemployment problem, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, improvement is painfully slow. He told us that we began the year with 1,485,500 persons registered as wholly unemployed, and that we have, so far, got down to 1,239,500, which, as he says, is the lowest figure, not only as far back as June, 1921, but the lowest figure as far back as March, 1921. It is the lowest figure for over two years. So far so good. My right hon. Friend has extended the unemployment benefit to the middle of October next. He had no other alternative. Further than that, he has taken powers to continue the scheme of the Insurance Act—and let it be remembered that it is an emergency scheme—from October, 1923, to October, 1924, and later if necessary. That is all right as a standby, but it is not enough, and I must press upon my right hon. Friend once more, if I may do so, the necessity that he and his Department should sit down and, with the experience of the last 2½ years, lay plans for the permanent handling of the unemployment problem when the present depression shall have passed away, always remembering that the first and main objective in the laying of such plans must be continuity of employment, with money relief as a rather bad second best.

There are schemes of great public utility in the air which my right. hon. Friend's Department ought to be at work examining. There are schemes suggested for still further great arterial roads, electrical power development, canals, waterways, afforestation, land reclamation. They ought to be hammered out now by the Department for ready use, now that my right hon. Friend's hands are lightened by the fall in the number of unemployed people, and in registration, and so on. They ought to be hammered out now for ready use at any time of future trade depression, when we have passed the depression from which I hope we are passing now, at any rate, if slowly. My right hon. Friend must not forget that the permanent unemployment problem which we are going to face in the future is going to be much larger in volume, and very different in character, from the unemployment problem of the past. To the same end, the Department ought to be considering and suggesting the placing of local and central contracts, having regard to fluctuations of trade at the moment, and, further, I suggest to the Department that they should invite the Joint Industrial Councils under the Whitley scheme to consider whether it is not possible, in private industrial concerns, so to adjust operations as to secure greater continuity of employment notwithstanding trade fluctuations. I am not sure that that is not a possible proposition. At any rate, I wish the Department would no into all these schemes and have them ready when they will be needed in the time to come. As regards the unemployment insurance scheme itself, the Department should, if I may say so, go on considering the question of insurance by industries, about which the last word has not yet been said by a long way—[An HON. MEMBER: "And never will be."] That may very well he—and, further, the scheme provided in the Act of 1920 for supplementation of the State scheme, industry by industry, as the leaders of industry deem expedient. My own view, for what it is worth, is that, when that is fully examined, what will happen will be that public opinion will come down in favour of supplementation of the existing scheme as a better expedient than contracting out, and—

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that those matters will involve legislation.

Dr. MACNAMARA

No, Sir. I beg pardon. I would point out, with great respect, that in the Act of 1920 one of the matters about which I had been speaking is provided for in Section 18, and the other is provided for in Section 20. As regards the administration of the Insurance Act, I suggest that, even as an experiment, my right hon. Friend should see whether, in the smaller industrial areas, at any rate, he could not get the benefit administered by voluntary committees of trade unions, employers, and municipalities. If he could do that, he would certainly save a very considerable sum which is now debited against the Fund itself for purposes of administration. As regards the Employment Exchanges themselves, I should just like to say this: Clearly, as the present depression passes away, and their hands are relieved of the heavy work of registration and payment of benefit, every endeavour will have to be made to bring those Exchanges back to the original purpose for which they were designed, namely, the placing of the man in want of a job, without delay, in touch with the job that wants the man. If that be not done, I have no doubt whatever that the Employment Exchanges will be in very grave danger of being destroyed altogether, which I think would be most unfortunate.

There is only one other feature of the permanent work of the Ministry to which I desire to call attention, and that has reference to the development of what is called Whitleyism, which is in the charge of the Ministry. In March, 1917, we had-submitted to us the initial Report of a Sub-committee on the relations between employers and employed—a Sub-committee, in fact, of the Reconstruction Committee. I have always held the view that in that Report there is embedded the germ of a great idea. May I read a quotation from it? In the interest of the community it is vital that after the War the co-operation of all classes established during the War should continue, and more especially with regard to the relations between employers and employed. For securing improvement in the latter it is essential that any proposals put forward should offer to work-people the means of attaining improved conditions of employment and a higher standard of comfort generally, and involve the enlistment of their active and continuous co-operation in the promotion of industry. To this end the establishment for each industry of an organisation representative of employers and workpeople to Bare as its object the regular consideration of matters affecting; the progress and wellbeing of the trade from the point of view of those engaged in it, so far as this is consistent with the general interests of the community, appears to us necessary. In pursuance of that recommendation from the Committee presided over by the present Speaker of the House, the late Government encouraged, through the Ministry of Labour, in every way, the establishment, industry by industry, of joint industrial councils with associated district, and works committees, and we have been told to-day there are 63 of these industrial councils and they cover between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 work-people. They have come into existence at a time of the greatest difficulty. Falling prices and markets in collapse have thrust upon them a readjustment of the economic conditions of labour of a particularly disagreeable and difficult character, and it is due to the spirit which underlies their purpose that they have survived at all in a great many eases. But survived they have, though they had some very stiff hurdles to take at the outset.

What is going to be the future of this great conception? It will either go forward or it will fall back. It is challenged by a powerful group which protests that the interests of the employer and employed can never be identical. That is the challenge, that it must always be pull devil, pull baker between the two. That is a challenge to the spirit and conception of the Whitley proposition. One or other of these conceptions has to prevail. [Interruption.] I am not prophesying just now: I am not so ready as the hon. Member to prophesy. One or other, the Whitley conception or the proposition that there can never be community of interest between employer and employed, will prevail, and on the answer to it depends the future prosperity of British industry. I am all for the Whitley conception, the policy of bringing employers and employed together, so that, each may begin to realise the other's point of view, and they may pool their experiences and may discover a solid identity of interest in matters on which certain people say there never can be any community of view at all, and may even learn in the course of time that each is not necessarily the born enemy of the other. There is Whitleyism—63 industrial councils covering 4,000,000 of people—having passed through its most difficult experience in the initial stages of its work. It is either going forward or it is going back because of this challenge.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

If the Whitley Councils were established to determine the differences between employers and workmen in regard to wages and conditions, does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there is no difference between the two points of view?

Dr. MACNAMARA

The Whitley Councils have acted in frequent cases as conciliating bodies. Here is the proposition, that there is a community of interest between these two parties. Underlying the Whitley conception is this proposition, that you can secure and can make clear to both sides that there can be identity of interest between their operations.

Mr. MACLEAN

You can come to an agreement upon one particular question which is the issue at the moment. That is all.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I have been President of one and I know. You will come to see each other's point of view and understand each other, and find identity of interest where hon. Members to-day say none can exist. That is what will be the result. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your are prophesying."] I am tempted into prophesying by the bad example I have had set me. Here is this scheme and it has had a very difficult existence. The recommendation of March, 1917, has had two or three years of actual working. I ask my right hon. Friend very seriously to consider whether the time has not come authoritatively to review the experience of the working of the Whitley scheme and to see whether, if at all, its improvement and development require any modification. That is a very serious proposition to make to him, because it is clear that fundamental issues are involved. Therefore I do not press him for an answer now, but I will ask him to put that to his colleagues in the Cabinet and turn the matter over in his mind.

Whereupon the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD having come with a message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Forward to