RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT. (Hansard, 21 February 1924)

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I make no apology for raising one or two points on this particular Vote. We have been told by the Government and by the Independent Labour party from Scotland that one of their great desires is to get rid of unemployment by doing useful work. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that my colleagues from Scotland thoroughly agree with that point of view, and would do anything that they could to urge the Government to bring it into practical effect. We have been told recently almost every day in this House that so many schemes are under consideration. We have heard of a certain place which is said to be paved with good intentions, and I hope that, so far as Scotland is concerned, Whitehall is not going to be paved with good intentions only. I am going to refer to one or two schemes which have been before successive Governments. I refer particularly to light railway schemes in the Highlands of Scotland. The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech when he accepted office, said that he and his colleagues were very anxious to develop the country. I believe that they are anxious, and I am going to put that anxiety to the test. My right hon. Friend also went on to say that one of the chief matters which he had under consideration was the development of the agricultural or rural side of the community by the institution of light railways. Personally, I believe that there is no better thing for the 2050 development of the rural side of our communities than the development of light railways.
It so happens that in my constituency I have two light railways which have been acknowleged by successive Governments to be of great value to the community as a whole and particularly to the agricultural industry. I refer particularly to the Dingwall and Cromarty light railway. I should have liked any hon. Friend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Gosling) to have been here this afternoon. He was in his place a few moments ago, and I wish he were here now. I told my hon. friend that I would raise this matter on the first available opportunity, and this is the first Vote upon which I can raise this important question. I see my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Adamson) here. I welcome him on that bench. I believe that he has every anxiety to do whatever is possible in the best interests of Scotland, and I will put a test case to him.
His predecessors have each and all acknowledged that this light railway from Dingwall to Cromarty was one which was in the best interests of the whole of the community. Not only is that the case, but the Government in 1912 and 1914 actually gave money to the promoters of this railway to construct it. In 1914 no less than 4½ miles of this railway were actually laid. The rails were produced, the cuttings were made, and the whole scheme was in active operation when suddenly the War broke out, and, because of the breaking out of the War, the railway had to be discontinued. The men employed upon that railway were mostly young fellows who belonged to the Territorials, and I am proud to think that 99 per cent. of this particular Territorial battalion, the 4th Battalion of the Sea-forth Highlanders, when they were asked if they would go on foreign service volunteered to do so. These young fellows left that particular work and went to France. What was the result?

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
They were left in the lurch.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
They were left in the lurch. The railway was left in the lurch. Everything that went for the betterment of the agricultural community in that part of the world was left in the 2051 lurch. I have been pleading for a reconsideration of this scheme ever since the end of the War. I say, quite frankly, that the Government of which I was a member is equally responsible. My hon. Friends do not need to tell me these things. When I was in office I begged and implored my colleagues to consider this, as they did consider it, a most vital scheme for the industry of the country and for the development of the Highlands. The Highlands to-day are suffering very great distress, and we hear of sympathy from every quarter of the House. When millions of pounds are to be spent in names which are harly household words all over the world, no protest is made—and I do not disagree, because we ought to develop the Empire—but what I have always said to my colleagues, and what I say now, is that the first consideration of this House is to develop the heart of the Empire within our own shores. I am putting forward to-day, without a blush of shame, the claim of the Highlands of Scotland to be considered in this matter. My hon. Friends say that they agree with me. I am glad that they do, and I honestly believe that my colleagues from Scotland do agree with me. I am asking my right hon. Friend to consult with his colleagues about this scheme.
What are the facts? I have already stated that 4½ miles of this railway were actually constructed. I have already told the Committee that a previous Government, on mature consideration of this scheme, actually gave a grant towards it, and volunteered to give a loan of money in order to support it. Now, because we are told the finances of the country cannot bear the burden of advancing another small sum or another loan, this railway cannot be proceeded with. Not only have past Governments accepted the view that this is a good scheme, but a Commission appointed by the Coalition Government went through the rural districts of Scotland, and, after mature consideration, also came to the conclusion that it was a scheme which ought to be supported by the Government. Am I to be told, when unemployment is rife all over the country, when a great many gallant men are unemployed in this particular part, when a great many schemes are mooted all over the place, when I hear, as I did yesterday, of advances of money to great 2052 public companies which could themselves procure money in the public market if their companies are good, that I am to be refused a grant for this particular railway which is admitted on all hands to be of great benefit to the people of the community? May I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland to attend to this matter for a moment? I believe that my right hon. Friend is sincere in his desire to benefit the people of the country. I believe that this Government is anxious to benefit the people of the country, and, holding these views as I do, I want them not to tell me that this is going to be considered; I want them to tell me now that it is going to be done.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
That is the way to talk to them.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gent leman is in order. We are dealing with a Vote for relief arising out of unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman will find on Page 8 the Vote for the Office of the Secretary for Scotland in relation to relief schemes.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I am dealing with the Vote for the relief of unemployment, Sundry Services, which appears on Page 24 among the Unclassified Services and, if I may say so, I am clearly within my rights in raising this matter on this Vote, because it says: For the employment of labour on land improvement and drainage, railways, etc., for the training of women in domestic work, and for the maintenance of juvenile unemployment centres—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Secretary for Scotland will be the appropriate Minister to reply on the other Vote.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I quite agree, but I was looking for the biggest pundit on that bench, and I mentioned him because I had no doubt that he will be appealed to when this case comes to be considered by the Government. Therefore, as a Scottish Member, I thought I should appeal to my right hon. Friend who is sitting now on the bench. I am sure I am pushing an open door. I am going to rely on my right hon. Friend to consult with his colleagues to see that this scheme is put forward. It is a tragedy to see a derelict scheme of great national importance existing in Scotland when we are asked to vote millions of money for other 2053 schemes all over the world. We are most anxious that the people of the North of Scotland should be employed. They are people who are anxious not to be on the unemployed roll. They are anxious to get decent, legitimate work, and when decent, legitimate work is available for them in their own country, no Government, particularly a Labour Government with the aspirations it has, can sit still and see work of this kind not being proceeded with under a Vote of this kind. Not only has the Scottish Office considered this Vote, not only has it had the support of the Scottish Office in the past, but it has also had a certificate from the Labour Ministry to say there was unemployment in that part, and that this was a necessitous area. These are the two qualifications which I submit ought to be considered under this Vote, first of all the value of this improvement to the community, and the value has been admitted by all Scottish members and by every Government in power. The second point is this. Does unemployment exist in this locality? The only proof of that can be the certificate of the Ministry of Labour, which has been forthcoming. In view of these two facts I submit that no scheme could be better fitted to come under this Vote than a scheme of that kind, particularly in view of the fact that four and a half miles of the railway have already been constructed, and every Government since its initiation has agreed to the value of that work, and now that we are pressing the claims of unemployed ex-service men, and those men are available to construct that work, I submit that this Vote ought to be considered by the whole Government and particularly by the Secretary for Scotland, and my appeal should be regarded with every confidence by those concerned in the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD
The case for the light railways has been admirably made out by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I should like to say a few words on behalf of another means of communication, namely, roads. I think I shall be in order in referring to this, as I see the Vote deals with loans to local authorities for the purpose of enabling them to carry out approved works for the, relief of unem- 2054 ployment. The particular case I wish to bring before the Committee has been approved, but up to the present it has been held up, and a commencement on the work has been delayed, entirely through lack of funds. This is a road which ought to be constructed to improve the transport facilities between Hull and the West of England. The importance of Hull lies more directly in its sea service and its water transport, and up to the present the other means of transit, namely, those by road, and to a certain extent by rail, have been very largely neglected. To travel to Hull from the West of England by road at present is almost a case of going back to the middle ages. As long as one keeps on the main road from London to the North we have a fine, wide road running direct from North to South, but when at Selby one turns off to go to Hull from that moment one might almost imagine one was back in Elizabethan times. The road is narrow. Between Selby and Hull there are no fewer than 47 right-angle turns. There are two toll bridges of antiquated design, both of which are entirely unsuitable for modern heavy traffic, and up to the present practically nothing has been done to accommodate this road to the necessities of modern transport. A large trade has recently sprung up between Hull and the West Biding of Yorkshire, particularly in regard to wool, and it is of the utmost importance, not only from the point of view of the city of Hull, but also from the point of view of the city of Bradford that direct means of rapid communication should be established between those two cities.
One of the most important links in this road would be the construction of a bridge at a place called Booth Ferry. A bridge across there would not only improve the communication with the city of Hull almost out of all recognition, but it would facilitate transport from Doncaster and Goole to the North and the East Riding of Yorkshire in an extraordinary way. The plans for that bridge have already been approved and the funds have almost entirely been subscribed. Thanks to the generosity of the authorities of the West Riding, of the city of Hull, and of the East Riding generally, practically half the money has already been subscribed and the other half has been promised on behalf of the Ministry of Transport. But the fact remains that the scheme has up 2055 till quite recently been held up for the paltry sum of £5,000 which it was unable to find. This is only a beginning of the improved transport facilities between Hull and the West of England. The bridge is at present not commenced merely owing to the fact that we have been unable to raise that £5,000. Is it too much to ask that out of this service that sum should be advanced to enable work to be commenced? There are thousands of unemployed in that neighbourhood, and if work were to commence on the road it would find work for thousands of men who are unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred to the many men in the Highland, ex-service men who had given good service to their country, who were at present walking the streets in search of work. The Highlands of Scotland are not the only place where there are ex-service men out of work seeking employment. Hull sent 85,000 men to the War. Many of then are on the unemployed list, and by getting a grant from this fund towards the commencement of this bridge and this road you would go far towards finding work for these ex-service men who are walking the streets in search of work.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I go back to the first item of the Vote. I asked yesterday if we could have the details of the revised Estimate under the several headings which have been provided for, namely, land improvement and drainage, light railways, women's training and juvenile unemployment centres, and then the two series of grants which the Minister himself controlled, grants to Poor Law and local authorities. I asked whether there was any money in this Vote for the purposes with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who just sat down is dealing. I thought there was, because the summary at the bottom of the Vote says that part of the money is to meet loans to local authorities for the purpose of enabling them to carry out approved works for the relief of unemployment. I was told subsequently that enough money had been provided, and there is no money additional here for the Unemployment Grants Committee. Therefore there is no need to press the point except that the footnote is misleading. There is no money in the Supplementary Estimate, lumped together as it is—£730,100. The footnote suggests that part of that money is to 2056 help local authorities in their schemes It is not. In this case there is no money under that item. I asked, in order to be quite clear, as to how much was being spent on each of these items, if the Minister would consider setting out the footnote in detail, and I press that upon him now. The mistake to which I have referred would not have occurred if it had been set out in detail. I have to express my indebtedness to the right hon. Gentleman, because he has set out how this item of £680,000 is made up in detail. First of all, there is £265,100 for land improvement and drainage. Obviously a good deal of that has been spent in advance of the Estimate. We are not going to spend over a quarter of a million between now and 31st March. I make no point of that. I am very glad the money was there, and the Government has to come now, as the previous Government would have had to do, to get sanction for it. But I wish to ask the Minister in charge of the Agriculture Vote to give us some particulars about how this work is proceeding, because the agricultural districts are rather badly hit and, as has been pointed out by him on at least one occasion this Session of Parliament, the agricultural labourer is not under the Insurance Act. Therefore, all we can do for him in this direction will be very desirable.
There is down for light railways a sum of £20,500. I should be glad if the Minister of Transport would tell us how this part of it is being spent. That, by the way, is England and Wales only, and would not cover the case mentioned by my right hon. Friend, which, I imagine, will come up on some other Vote. I should have been glad of some particulars as to women's training. The revised Vote for women's training is 214,000, in addition to £35,000 in the original Estimate. That is not a new Vote at all. Nothing was voted this year for women's training. I must press that point. It is a re-vote of the year before, 1922–23 when I got £50,000 from the Treasury, of which £15,000 was spent and £35,000 is re-voted. That is the original Estimate for this year, and to that now is to he added, and gladly added, as far as I am concerned, £14,000. I should be glad to have some particulars as to how that £14,000 is to be spent between now and. 31st March. The Sup- 2057 plemntary Estimate for Juvenile Unemployment Centres is £45,000, the original Estimate being £25,000. Again, I do not press the point. The Minister of Labour has been very busy, and successfully busy, recently. An opportunity will arise when we can hear what he proposes to do in regard to juvenile unemployment centres. Loans to Poor Law authorities as set down in the footnote, that is to say distressed local authorities with exceptional eases for their financial purposes and to Poor Law authorities in necessitous areas in Great Britain, lumped together amount to £335,400. That is half the total. I wish to express my indebtedness to the Minister of Health for having furnished me with details of this £680,000, and again to ask him whether it would not be worth while to alter the common form and let the footnote be in detail so that hon. Members can know precisely how much money has been spent for each purpose and can be satisfied whether, in their opinion, it is enough. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me whether that can be done. This is not his common form. It is the common form of Treasury submission, I dare say from time immemorial, but these figures having got so large as the result of the long-continued slump, it becomes desirable to have them in detail, and I hope we may have an assurance that that shall he done.

§ Sir LEONARD LYLE
I should like to ask whether the Government are prepared to give us a clear definition of their policy with regard to unemployment relief schemes, and particularly with regard to ex-service men. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) has spoken of the necessity for giving relief to ex-service men in the Highlands, and from other quarters of the House we have heard of the necessity for finding relief in other centres of this country. Can the Minister of Health say definitely what is the policy of the Government generally in regard to ex-service men? What conditions are they going to lay down with regard to local authorities to whom loans are granted for the purpose of enabling them to carry on approved work? Are they going to lay down definite terms to these local authorities? What percentage of such employment is to be compulsory under these schemes and what proportion of 2058 the labour employed is to consist of ex-service men, provided that such labour is available? Do the Government recognise any preferential treatment for ex-service men? In my opinion, a preference should be given to ex-service men in all these relief works and schemes, and I think the Committee and the public generally would like to know the policy of the Government in that respect. It is not always possible to find ex-service men available.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Yes, it is.

§ Sir L. LYLE
It is in many cases, but not always in a definite percentage. I respectfully suggest that at least 75 per cent. of ex-service men should be employed on every job. I suggest that seriously for consideration by the Government, and I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would give me a reply. Are the Government co-operating with the British Legion in order to obtain full information of the whereabouts of ex-service men who need work?

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith)
I will reply to the questions put by the right hon. Member for North West Camberwell (Dr. Macnarnara,). I do not quarrel with him in the emphasis he lays upon the question of land improvement and drainage, because there is no section of the community to whom work is of more importance than the rural workers, and that very largely because they are onside the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act. In so far as the figure of £1,700,000 is concerned, £250,000 has been provided for schemes of land drainage and water supply. That applies to 352 land drainage schemes and 85 schemes of water supply. In examining this question I discovered that there were 140 schemes for which no provision had been made and, therefore, unless that position could be met, those schemes could not be carried out in the current period. Representations were at once made for a grant of a further sum of £60,000 in order that the schemes might at once be put in hand. I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that every scheme that has been submitted to the Ministry will now be taken up, and we hope completed by the middle of the year. In order to give the fullest scope in this 2059 direction we have been able to extend the period of time during which these schemes are to operate. They will be extended to June. The right hon. Gentleman will see that so far as this particular Vote is concerned, and especially in regard to land drainage, the Ministry have gone forward. If more has not been provided so tar as rural employment is concerned, it is because the Ministry have not had submitted to them at, the moment any more schemes than are covered by the Vote. I hope this explanation will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will feel assured that everything possible has been done.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
Are we to understand that you expect to spend £265,000 by 31st March, or had it already been spent before the Estimates were presented?

§ Mr. SMITH
I ought to have explained that some of these schemes are already in hand and some of them possibly are nearing completion, and some may have been completed. It is the complete programme that is covered by this Vote.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Will the Minister of Transport give me a reply?

§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling)
I am informed that the last time there was a meeting with the local people and the Department they had not been able to make an arrangement with the main line company for making the railway, nor had they been able to raise any more local money, but if any further fresh facts come to the Department we will look into them.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Can I have a guarantee that the Minister will look into the matter personally, and will consider this scheme a valid scheme for consideration under this particular Vote.

§ Mr. GOSLING
I will look into it.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
The sum of £20,500 in this Supplementary Estimate has nothing to do with Dingwall. The £20,500 to which I have referred relates to England and Wales. Dingwall is in Scotland, and there is another Vote for that. For what purpose is this £20,500 to be voted?

§ Mr. GOSLING
I am sorry that I cannot answer, for two reasons; one is that 2060 I do not know, and the other that I am engaged in a Committee.

§ Mr. CLIMIE
I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising on this Vote money required by local authorities to carry on their work. The local authority at Kilmarnock put up a scheme to the Unemployment Grants Committee, and that scheme would have meant an expenditure of £120,000, and would have given a considerable amount of work to the unemployed.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Member to raise that matter on this Vote.

§ Mr. CLIMIE
I thought that I might have been able to raise the point, but as no money is being asked under this Vote for the particular scheme I have in mind I will not pursue my remarks.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON
Various claims have been put forward from different parts of the House on behalf of certain necessitous areas, and I should like to address a question to the Minister of Health in regard to the general question of necessitous areas and the assistance given under this Vote by way of loans to local authorities and Poor Law guardians in order to assist them where their burdens are unduly heavy owing to abnormal unemployment. Can the Minister see his way to improve on the policy of his predecessor, and not merely explain the amount of money that is lent, but also the conditions under which that money was put forward. It must be obvious to the Committee that where you have districts already heavily overburdened, where their rates are up to 20s. and more in the £, it is very little relief to them to say, "You may increase the amount of your indebtedness in order to get out of your immediate difficulties." You are only adding to the burden and you are only piling up the agony. It is no real assistance from the Government merely to allow these districts to increase their borrowing powers. I appeal to the Minister of Health to say whether he can give more generous assistance to the large number of necessitous areas scattered about the country, more particularly in the heavy iron and steel districts, where their rate of unemployment is double and treble that of the average amount of unemployment throughout the country, and 2061 whether the nation as a whole is not prepared to take on to its shoulders its proper share of that which is a national rather than a local burden. I know that the Minister is seized of the fact and that he has kindly offered to receive a deputation on Monday. I hope that when the deputation from the various authorities meet him he will be encouraged by what may happen here this afternoon to lend a sympathetic ear to their request.
I should like to ask a question as to the conditions under which grants are made to local authorities. One hon. Member made reference to the ex-service men. I would like to put a question with regard to the Circular which was issued by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on the 15th May of last year requiring that where relief work was undertaken the materials required for that particular purpose should be bought entirely within these islands. Is it his intention to continue the policy of his predecessor? Yesterday we were told that he had inherited many of the difficulties and many problems that confront us, but I submit that this particular point as to the conditions laid down in the Circular of 15th May last comes under an Order of the Minister which the present Minister, if he so wills it, can reverse and repeal. His hands are not tied, so far as future administration is concerned, by the action of his predecessor in this matter, but he can strike out a line of his own. That praticular condition has worked very adversely with regard to many local authorities, who are required to pay for the materials, which they are using in their relief work, much higher prices than they would have paid if they had bought the material abroad. The particular instance which I have in mind is that of cement, which was referred to the other day by the Minister in the case of the Middlesbrough Corporation.

§ Mr. CLIMIE
On a point of Order. I was not allowed to discuss the questions of loans to local authorities, but the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) is discussing a question arising out of loans to local authorities.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I understood that the hon. Member (Mr. Climie) was dealing with Scotland.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
Is Scotland ruled out?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The next Vote deals with grants to local authorities in Scotland.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
May I point out that this particular Vote, which is under "unclassified services," refers to the Unemployed Grants Committee, which has jurisdiction both in Scotland and in England.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Having regard to the misleading character of the discussion on this Vote, I must press this point. Some of the money is to go, by way of loans, to local authorities for the purposes of enabling them to carry out the good work of the relief of unemployment, and surely, in a matter of this kind, a little indulgence must be allowed, having regard to the fact that the Vote is described as it is.

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
The actual words are: necessitous Poor Law authorities in Great Britain.

§ Mr. HARDIE
The heading is: Schemes for the employment of labour on land improvement and drainage, railways, etc. Could not cement or anything else come in under etc?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Mr. Thomson.

§ Mr. HARDIE
I want to know if when we are discussing railways, it will be open to me to argue that these railways are to be made for industrial purposes so as to facilitate the manufacture of pig iron?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not travel outside the Vote.

Mr. THOMSON
The point which I want to make comes within the province of this Vote. It refers to the administration of the Minister of Health with regard to the expenditure of money by local authorities on unemployment work, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is his considered policy to carry out a protective system by imposing on local authorities the obligation to restrict their purchases to materials of British manufacture.

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Hear, hear!

Mr. THOMSON
That, no doubt, meets with the approval of the late President of the Board of Trade, whose policy met with such disaster at the recent General Election. But I am sure that those who were returned on a Free Trade vote will not continue for one day longer than is necessary the policy which is adding to the burden of local authorities by compelling them to narrow their market, and also bolstering up combines and trusts, by putting the price of materials for unemployment work up to a higher figure. The Middlesbrough Corporation, of which I have the honour to be a member, has been engaged on unemployed relief work, making and reconditioning roads under these grants, for the last 12 months. We found that the price which we had to pay for British cement was so high that it was reducing the amount of work which we could undertake, and therefore reducing the number of men who would be employed under the grants which are made to us under this particular Vote. Therefore we found it necessary to break the ring by going outside and trying to get these materials at a more reasonable price.
When we started this work we were charged by the combine 68s. 6d. per ton for cement, whereas we could buy in the foreign markets at something like 53s. 6d. Even the late Government, with all its Protectionist leanings, sanctioned the purchase of Belgian and French cement to provide work for the unemployed, and they did this in every case, except one case in which they said, "You must buy the British-made article." Even as late as November last year the last Act of the late Government was to sanction the purchase by the Middlesborough Corporation of Belgian cement at 43s. 6d. per ton, as compared by the 54s. charged by the British combine, in order that we might employ more men on relief works within our borough. The first act of the right hon. Gentleman, who was returned as a champion of Free Trade at the last Election, is to reverse the decision of a Protectionist Government, and to refuse to allow the Middlesborough Corporation to buy foreign cement for their road-making, though there is a difference of 11s. per ton in the price asked. The quality of the cement was exactly the same in each case. They were subject to the same tests and the same specification.

§ Mr. B. SMITH
Mr. Chairman, what is the economic factor that enables Belgium to sell cement at 11s. a ton cheaper?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I cannot go into these economic matters.

Mr. THOMSON
You are able to employ fewer men on road making, and consequently there is less work, if you have to pay these high prices for the materials that are required. You are bolstering up trusts and combines by refusing to allow the local authorities to use foreign material for their roads. I am glad to say that the Middlesbrough Corporation, at their meeting this week, refused to comply with the request of the Minister of Health, and they have re-affirmed their decision to buy the cement from abroad at 43s. per ton, instead of paying 54s. to the combine.

§ Sir FRANCIS WATSON
Is not Belgian cement admitted by experts to be inferior to British.

Mr. THOMSON
In the opinion of our surveyor, who has used this material for over a year, it serves as well as British cement. The tests and specification were exactly the same, whether it was for British or foreign cement, and the actual working experience of the Middlesbrough Corporation was that it was as satisfactory for road making as the cement made by the combine, while the price was very much less.
I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not be harder upon the local authorities than were his predecessors in office. They allowed us, even on a margin of 5s. a ton difference, to import French and Belgian cement. Now that there is a difference of 10s. or 11s., it is in the interest of the relief of unemployment, and those who are engaged in road making, to allow the local authority to do what it wishes in this matter, and there is no loss to the country in importing the foreign cement, for we send out other goods in exchange for it, and the manufacture of those other goods, as the electorate showed they believed at the last election, gives more work for the unemployed. I need not press that point on the right hon. Gentleman, who knows as much about it as anybody else, but I do stress the fact that a local authority, whose rates are 20s. in the £, cannot afford to pay £200 or £300 a 2065 month to bolster up the fads of Protectionists here. It is essential that we should be able to buy our materials as cheaply as possible, and be able to employ as many men as we can.

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
We have listened to a most amazing and deplorable speech. I am not going to argue the question of Free Trade and Protection with the hon. Gentleman on this Vote, but he has put forward an astounding proposition. Whenever any Minister, in the administration of unemployment relief, has come to the House of 'Commons with these different schemes, which have had the support of successive Governments, whether the Trade Facilities Act, the Export Credits scheme, or Lord St. David's Committee, in all of which cases the credit of the. State is used, and actual grants are given out of the public Exchequer for the relief of unemployment, it has been laid down consistently in every one of these schemes that if you were using the credit of the British taxpayer for the relief of unemployment, that money was to be spent on British labour. I should have thought that the most hard-shelled Free Trader would have admitted that that was a necessary corollary to obtaining money for the relief of unemployment out of the pockets of the taxpayer, but the hon. Gentleman says. "Let us not do that, let us buy the cheapest market with this money which is voted by the House of Commons to relieve unemployment, and if we can get the cement at 6d. or 1s. cheaper—"

Mr. THOMSON
It was 10s. cheaper.

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
I do not mind what it is. If the hon. Gentleman's case is a sound case, in the way in which he puts it, he should buy the foreign goods, even if they were only 6d. cheaper. Therefore we are asked to forego the whole principle on which succesive Governments, Liberal or Conservative, or even Labour have based the relief of unemployment.

Mr. THOMSON
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his own Government allowed local authorities to buy foreign cement when the price came within 5s. of the British price?

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
I am perfectly aware of everything done by my 2066 own Government in this matter, but I am dealing with the principle which was enunciated by the hon. Gentleman that it was contrary to the principles of Free Trade to lay down the condition that the money voted by the British taxpayer for the relief of unemployment should find its way into the pockets of British working people. I would make a very firm appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who has to administer this, to carry on the policy which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) and successive Governments followed in this matter, and to stick to the principle incorporated in the Trade Facilities Act and the Export Credits Act, laid down by the last Government and the Government before that and the Government before that again, that money for the relief of unemployment should find its way to the pockets of the British workmen. Otherwise the schemes would be a farce, and it would be better that we should vote money to support the Free Trade Union. I do hope sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman who administers this will not give way at all. I can assure him that, if he stands firm on this matter, he will not be transgressing any Free Trade or any other principle, but he will only be doing what any common-sense man placed in his position would do.
5.0 P.M.
You will very often find that you are able to buy material abroad cheaper. Where you have wages which are half the cost of British wages, of course, you get cheaper production. I am not going to argue the merits of Free Trade and Protection on this point, but I would say that, when you are dealing with unemployment, you are dealing with a specific problem and you are not called upon to buy the very cheapest stuff for this purpose. Otherwise we ought not to be engaged in this form of relief at all. We ought to encourage everyone to import into the country, as if that would be a sufficient remedy for the evils from which we are suffering and a sufficient consolation to the unemployed. It is interesting to observe—though I feel sure that this could not have any connection with the motive which has prompted the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough in making his speech—it is interesting that Middlesbrough, which 2067 is interested in the free importation of cement from Belgium, is, I believe, the port to which cement comes in very large quantities from the Continent. I do not want to support the hon. Gentleman's constituency at the expense of the taxpayers and against the interests of the cement makers of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman gives way on this, he must give way all along the line. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough would like to see the Trade Facilities Act used to guarantee public bodies in buying foreign goods. The Minister will have the support of the House and for once the support of the Members behind him in resisting this. A point was made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough in regard to the price of cement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Neville Chamberlain) and myself set up a Committee, which I imagine is still sitting, to watch the prices of building material and make regular reports in regard to them. As far as I have been able to see from the reports of that Committee, there has been no rise at all in the price of cement. That Committee is far more qualified to speak on this subject than the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, and I have not seen any sign in their report that they have found any profiteering of the kind alleged.
In regard to what the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell has said, I agree with him entirely as to the desirability of setting out this Vote in a form that he who runs may read. I would point out the remarkable contrast between the paucity of the information given on page 24, in Item (a), which deals with the money we are asked to vote and the objects for which we are asked to vote it, and the extraordinarily specific information given on page 26, where in the utmost detail are set out the items of the last Government's programme on which we are not asked to vote money. It would have been more useful if page 26 had been an omnibus Clause and paragraph (a) on page 24 had set out in detail what the items are. I observe that £100,000 have been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund for the local authorities, and I would like the Minister to describe to the House what is the financial process and the financial authority under which that 2068 is taken from that fund. I see that this is to be given to distressed local authorities under exceptional circumstances, and the Minister will not think I am making a personal point on this when I say I would like a firm assurance from the hon. Gentleman that no part of these grants issued by Lord St. Davids Committee or by his Ministry to specially necessitous local authorities will be issued to the Poplar Board of Guardians. This is a very important question of principle. I want this instance of maladministration to remain singular and not to be encouraged to become plural. The ether point I wish to make is this. In regard to Item (c), I would like to ask the Minister how the negotiations with the Menai Bridge authorities stand, and when he anticipates this work can be put in hand. I would like to ask him whether any other negotiations have been entered into with other local authorities who submitted bridge schemes, either of construction or re-construction, which would lead to the placing of large engineering orders. I come back to the vital point, which I would not have raised but for the astounding appeal made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. I do hope that when we have a so-called Labour Government in power they will see that the moneys voted for the relief of unemployment goes to British labour.

§ Mr. B. SMITH
What is the economic factor that permits the Belgians to sell cement to this country at, 11s. a ton less than the price at which we are able to buy it in this country? Is it the fact that agreements are made on the basis of 35 francs to the £ in Belgium, which is a low labour cost, or is it the disparity in exchange? Would we not be right in this country in purchasing the home produce instead of sending our money abroad?

§ Mr. L. JONES
I do not propose to follow the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) in his disquisition on Free Trade and Protection. But if the Minister of Health wants information as to the real implications of Free Trade and its hearing on this Middlesbrough question, he should consult Free Traders rather than right hon. or hon. Gentlemen opposite. After all, we are better judges of what is Free Trade than are hon. Gentlemen opposite. If you want information about a thing it is bettor to 2069 go to those who believe in it rather than to those who reject it. During my life I have very seldom found opponents who are able to put with absolute fairness the case of their opponents. That is a tu quoque argument, I know. I rose to reinforce the opinion of the right hon. Member for Hendon about the form in which this Vote is presented. Ministers would get their Supplementary Estimates through the Committee with far greater ease if, in the first instance, they would give to the Committee the information which they have in their possession. We have an instance here.
We were asked for a jump sum of £680,000 for various purposes, some purposes being included for which there is no money in the Vote. And all the while full information is in the possession of the different Departments. That information has been given to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) on account of a speech which he made last night, and I have now in my hand a full statement, lent by him, of the original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate, and of the provision under the different headings in connection with which money is to be spent. There is not the smallest reason why a Supplementary Estimate should not give the information fully. I would press upon Ministers that in future they should give to us all the information that is in their possession. No Minister likes coming to the House with Supplementary Estimates; it is always unpleasant to be catechised for spending more money than has been voted. I am glad to see upon the Treasury Bench the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. I wish to put questions to her on the Supplementary Estimates relating to women's training and juvenile unemployment centres. I see that there is an increase of £14,000 for women's training, and of £45,000 for juvenile unemployment centres—almost double the original provision. Has this money already been spent, or it is to be spent before the end of March?

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield)
I would like to deal with four points which have been raised, and with the last first. With regard to juvenile a standard percentage, and those unemployment centres, £50,000 is the amount which it is estimated will be spent 2070 up to the end of the financial year, but it covers the period from June last to the end of the financial year. With regard to the women's branch, that again is a case in which hon. Members will remember that a further third £50,000 was promised at the end of last year. This £14,000 is part of that £50,000 which it was estimated would be spent. These Estimates are inheritances.

§ Mr. L. JONES
Has this money already been largely spent before the House has voted it?

§ Miss BONDFIELD
No. The £14,000 is part of the £50,000 promised by the previous Government, and it will be spent by 31st March. It is not, in fact, spent, because the classes are concurrently running for 13 weeks, and much of the expenditure is at the end of the Session, of the classes. A certain amount is spent week by week.

§ Mr. L. JONES
What would happen to these centres in the case of women's training if the House declined to vote the money to-day? Is it not clear that the money has been already promised without the authority of the House, and that we are now asked to confirm what is done?

§ Miss BONDFIELD
That is the exact position. But I submit that if we had come to you and had said that, in view of the fact that the Government had promised this £50,000, and that because of an Election which no one could foresee we had been unable to get the Vote passed and we had held these women up in mid-air, the censure would have been very much greater. Another point raised related to ex-service men. The Cabinet decision is that no change should be made in the arrangement by which 75 per cent of those employed on relief works should be ex-service men.

§ Mr. MILLS
What would be the attitude of the Ministry to areas such as Portsmouth, Devonport or Woolwich, where vast numbers of skilled mechanics who volunteered for the War were sent back into the workshops? What is to happen in such cases, where the percentage of ex-service men is very small? It is a great problem.

§ Miss BONDFIELD
The percentage is a standard percentage, and those points are and will be specifically taken into account. A fourth point 2071 related to co-operation with the British Legion. The Departments are cooperating with the King's Roll Council in the matter of taking another census, and there is no doubt that the matter will be proceeded with. The Ministry received only last week a deputation from the executive of the Legion, and I think I may say that we completely satisfied them with regard to co-operation.

§ Mr. PERCY HARRIS
I wish to refer to the questions of juvenile employment and assistance of training for women. In the last Parliament we had a guarantee that there would be considerable extension of the opportunities for the training of young people. One of the tragedies that is most marked during this tremendous trade depression and unemployment is the enormous number of young people who have been turned into the streets at 16 years of age. When they leave school at 14 the percentage of unemployment amongst them is very small; they are taken on in various capacities and do unskilled work. When they reach 16 years of age, unfortunately, they are dismissed from their employment and hang about the street corners, learning bad ways and not acquiring skill in any industry. I agree that the masters are very much to blame, but far the moment I wish to deal with the Vote before the Committee. We began with a very sketchy scheme. If these training centres are to be a success there must be some security, some permanence. If you are to get the right man and the right woman to take up this work, if it is to be organised on the right lines, and if those concerned are to get the right training, and if the young people are to be attracted to them, these centres must be organised on a permanent basis and on sound lines. I am not criticising the amount of the expenditure; I should like to see it very much larger. I wish the training centres were very much more general, and that the matter had been left entirely to the education authorities, for I think they would have been more efficient. But looking right ahead, I plead with the Government give all the moral support possible to a development of the training of young people between 16 and 18.

§ Miss BONDFIELD
I can assure the hon. Member that that matter is definitely under consideration, and we 2072 hope to get a co-ordinated scheme with the Board of Education, which will bridge the terrible gap that now exists between unemployment schemes and education.

§ Mr. HARRIS
That is very encouraging, and with the sympathetic guidance of the first lady Minister we ought to have very good results. On the question of the training of women one of the tragedies of the time is the enormous number of women who have to earn their own living—widows and young women who have to rely on their own strong right hands to keep themselves. Nearly all the schemes brought before this Committee and before Parliament are to help able-bodied men by means of road work, drainage schemes, and such things. Unfortunately women, being the weaker sex, cannot do such work. When a great trade depression comes along, there are very few opportunities for women to get work. A good deal has been done in training for domestic service, and now that we have a lady Minister, she might use her ingenuity to see that there is much wider scope for the training of women. Domestic service is very useful, and I am not depreciating it. Nothing is more useful or necessary. But some people have not the aptitude or taste for it, and they should have opportunities of learning other trades, arts or industries.
Before resuming my seat, I would like to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Hendon, who was President of the Board of Trade in the last Government. Many of us never understood why we were all plunged into a General Election. We had a great opinion of the cool judgment of the late Prime Minister. Now we understand. It was the wiles and theories of the ex-President of the Board of Trade. He is unrepentant, and still sticks to his fallacious doctrines. The right hon. Gentleman had much to say in reference to the statement of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough on cement. Does he realise that these imports of cement have to be paid for somehow? We have no gold mines in this country. The Belgian people are not benefactors, who merely wish to present us with cement in order to help our unemployed. Somehow or other the imports have to he paid for, and the cement will be paid for sooner or later by manufactured goods 2073 made by British labour in British workshops. The right hon. Gentleman knows well enough that when imports are large, exports are large, and that when imports are large, the percentage of unemployment is small.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is now travelling rather wide of the question before the Committee.

§ Mr. HARRIS
I put to the Minister on this question of cement one important point. There is undoubtedly a combine of cement manufacturers in this country. Practically the whole of the cement manufacturing industry is in the hands of a ring and no cement manufacturer would have a chance who did not belong to the ring. Even if I were a Protectionist, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, this is a case where I should consider there is not a free market and where it is most necessary to permit and even to encourage the importation of foreign goods. The London County Council, which at present has Protectionist leanings, was forced to buy foreign light castings because of the high price of English material. This is a question of securing cheap materials. The problem we have to face is the high cost of building material, and if we bring the high costs down, it, will be of advantage in the construction of factories and the building of houses and will indirectly benefit all trades. One of the great troubles in connection with relief works is the heavy cost. When deputations appear before Ministers to propose new roads, the stereotyped reply is, that the cost is too heavy. Surely, if we are to employ as many men as possible of the unskilled trades on road construction, the local authorities should be able to draw their raw material from as many markets as possible. To add to the cost of raw material is to discourage the construction of roads and, therefore, to discourage the employment of unskilled labour. I say to the Minister that he should not allow himself to be bound too much by the actions of his predecessors. Many of us on this side of the House voted to turn out the late. Government because it was a bad Government, and we hope this Government is going to prove that our action was right.

§ Mr. HARDIE
On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member dealing with the Vote before the Committee.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Gentleman is travelling wide of the subject.

§ Mr. HARRIS
I conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman the Minister to show himself independent of the actions of his predecessors. If they have done unwise things, let him show his independence of character and give a new lead and a new spirit to the work of the Ministry of Health.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON
I rise to draw attention to one item in the Vote, namely, that relating to the Menai Bridge. The late President of the I3oard of Trade referred to this type of work as being particularly useful in that it gave, work to people on the spot as well as to workers in the steel and other industries. I wish to direct attention to, the fact that in respect of the Menai Bridge an exceptional state of affairs exists, inasmuch as an Exchequer grant—money not from the Road Fund but the Exchequer—enters into this particular case. The Committee will remember that in the cases of bridge schemes, the negotiations are usually between the local authorities and the Ministry of Transport and deal with money collected in respect of the Road Fund. This is the only case in which the position is different. I know from my own experience there are many cases of negotiations which might he brought to a successful conclusion by a very small contribution from the Exchequer rather than by leaving it entirely on the Road Fund. I know myself, from the point of view of the Ministry of Transport, that one is often urged to grant a bigger percentage than 50 per cent, on the basis that much more work could be undertaken, but that one has to bear in mind that there is only a certain amount of money available and if one can distribute that money on a 50 per cent. basis it is the best way of getting the most work. In such cases one has only a definite amount of money out of the Road Fund to deal with, but this particular case is an exception. It is the only bridge being built to-day in connection with which a grant, outside the Road Fund, is given. It is 2075 that grant which is included in this particular Vote. I notice only £100 is asked this year, but it will go up, in future years, to £50,000. It has always been the policy of the Ministry of Transport to see that, if money is taken out of the Road Fund to help to rebuild a bridge, that bridge must from that moment be free from tolls. It has always been held that if you take money from the taxpayer to rebuild a bridge you cannot take the money from him by the process of taxation and at the same time compel him to pay to go over the bridge which his money has built. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us know if, in the many negotiations which go on from day to day between the Ministry of Transport and the local authorities, in which arrangements just fail to be arrived at because of the last £10,000 or £5,000, he could not persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant, not from the Road Fund but from the Exchequer Fund, just that small amount of money which would change so many of these schemes from visions into realities affording actual employment.

§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley)
Many points have been raised since I addressed the Committee yesterday afternoon. On rising to reply to these points, I appeal to the Committee, in view of the many Votes we have to take, some of them very contentious, and providing opportunities for any number of speeches, to allow me to get this particular Vote through so that we may take up the other important Votes awaiting consideration. The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) asked that this statement. should be submitted to the Committee in a more detailed form in the future, and both he and the late President of the Board of Trade expressed the view that this Government might be expected to do things much better than they were done in the past. I have much pleasure in assuring them that that will be done. In regard to the question of the necessitous areas into which the question of cement has been imported, I am glad the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) does not expect me to deal with it to any considerable extent, in view of the fact that I have promised to receive a deputation on the question early next week, and I wish to keep an open 2076 mind, so that I will not prejudice my decision on the representations which I presume that deputation will make to me. I simply wish to correct the hon. Member on one point. He stated that I was returned as a Free Trader and, therefore, should enter with great sympathy into the case he made for the importation of foreign cement into Middlesbrough. I am in a more fortunate position. I was not returned as a Free Trader; neither was I returned as a Protectionist; so that I am eminently suited to act as judge between the two parties who have addressed the Committee on this subject. The Unemployment Grants Committee laid down a Regulation, as pointed out by the late President of the Board of Trade, that only British material is to be subsidised. That is the policy and the view of the late Government. On that also I have an open mind, and I promise to have it brought before the Committee and to have the matter reconsidered, so that the policy of the future may be the policy of the present Government, whatever that policy may be.

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
If the right hon. Gentleman intends to alter the policy which has hitherto been followed by the Unemployment Grants Committee and the instructions to that Committee, that British material only is to be used unless in very exceptional circumstances, will he give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion before he changes that policy?

§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON
Will there be any representative of the British cement industry on the deputation which the right hon. Gentleman is to receive?

§ Mr. WHEATLEY
This deputation is going to put its case before me, and I have no doubt if time permits and other interested parties want to be heard by the Minister, an opportunity may be found for them to follow.

Mr. THOMSON
Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman is keeping an open mind? Will he continue the practice of the late Government in sanctioning the importation of foreign cement where the price is more than 5s. less than the British price?

§ Mr. WHEATLEY
Obviously, until this Government has an opportunity of framing its policy on this question and every other question, it must pursue the policy it has inherited.

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but this is a matter of great importance. He says he is going to reconsider the principle that it should be a rule to subsidise British materials only. Will he give an undertaking that, before that policy is altered, the House will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I thought the right hon. Gentleman had risen in his place the second time, to ask me a fresh question, and I am surprised that, having put the question to me, he should not give me an opportunity for replying. The position of the Government in the House is such that any decision it comes to can be, I am sorry to say, controlled by this House, and I do not think that I, on behalf of the Government, need give a pledge that I will not give away the privileges of the House in any decision at which I or my Department arrive. I am very sorry to learn from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that the council of which he is a distinguished member is, in this case, in revolt against the Ministry of Health. I hope Poplar has not spread to Middlesbrough; and I hope on a future occasion, when bodies of that kind have their conduct under review in this House, the hon. Member's spirit of revolt will express itself in sympathy for other people who are in the same category. Much as I should like to do so, I shall not enter into the discussion between the Free Trade principle and the Protectionist principle as laid down here this evening, further than, as a judge, to say this. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) says that if we import cement from Belgium to Middlesbrough we must pay for it with goods from Great Britain. Obviously, the Belgians do not give the cement for nothing, but I should like the hon. Member to turn over in his mind whether, when we get cement from an English firm, we get it for nothing, or whether it also has not to be paid for, and whether there is, ultimately, any other method of paying for it except with other goods.
On the general question of the necessitous areas. I should like to say without 2078 prejudice to my decision that the Government have made a very good beginning by abolishing the gap. Anyone who knows the burden that has been placed on local authorities by the policy of the late Government will recognise the relief that has been granted to those authorities by the present Government during its four weeks in office. The right hon. Member for Hendon, the late President of the Board of Trade (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame), asked me to give a guarantee to this House—and he repeated it—that none of this money would be advanced to Poplar, or other guardians, I suppose, controlled by the same views. What I admire most in this House is the inconsistency of its prominent Members. This is not a proposal to advance money to local authorities that is put before the House for the first time. Already, under previous Governments, £2,775,138 has been advanced by the Government of the right hon. Member and by a Government of which he was a supporter, and of that money no less than £506,500 has been advanced to the Poplar Board of Guardians. Yet the right hon. Member comes to this House, and he says to me, after I have been four weeks in office: "Before we vote this money we want you to give us a solemn pledge that you will not do what we did when we occupied your position."

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps acknowledge that our action with regard to the Poplar Guardians was very different from his own. I do not want to debate it now, as we shall have an opportunity on Tuesday.

§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I do not want to anticipate that Debate either, but I think it is necessary, when I am asked for a pledge to the House, that I should state the policy adopted by the right hon. Member who asks the pledge during the time when he was not merely in office, but also in power.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
Was not the policy of the late Government a policy of in-action?

§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I want to make it quite clear—and I hope I am not anticipating the Debate—that the credit of the Board of Guardians at Poplar stood very high with the late Government. There is one other thing that I want to refer to. It should be answered by the Min- 2079 ister of Transport, who, I am sorry, is not present, but I am sure he would have been here had he known the point was to be raised. I cannot give a great deal of information regarding the Menai Bridge proposal, further than what the hon. Member himself expressed. The sum of £100 asked for in the Vote is part of a sum of £50,000, and the balance will appear in future Votes. The difference in the cost between what is contributed by the Exchequer and the total will be found by the local authorities concerned and by the Road Fund. I am asked if I could not persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow those for whom I am asking the money in certain emergencies to finance a further £5,000 or £10,000 in order to expedite certain schemes that would deal with unemployment. I would be very, very sorry, much as I sympathise with the spirit that prompts the suggestion, to begin my period in office by saying that I would spend any money until I had the authority of this House to do so. I think it is a good sound policy that in anything of that kind we should have the authority of the House of Commons before we do it. Might I appeal now to the Committee to allow us to get this Vote through and to proceed with the next business?

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD
The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the point that I raised with regard to the Booth Ferry Bridge and connecting road, and whether money from this Vote will be forthcoming to make up the small amount which has not been raised by the combined local authorities to make up the other half, the first half having been promised by the Minister of Transport.

§ Sir FREDRIC WISE
On page 25 of the White Paper there is an item: Forestry Fund (2). The expenditure out of the grant made under Sub-head B will be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended on 31st March, 1924, will not be liable to surrender by the payee.'' What is the meaning of that? If that money is carried over, does the right hon. Gentleman think it is a right policy to do so, and what happens to it if it is carried over? The First Commissioner of Works will remember that the Public Accounts Committee, on which I had the 2080 honour of serving, objected to this very thing, and I should like to know the policy of the Minister with regard to this money.

§ Mr. ACLAND
With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), as to the Forestry Fund, I think I can give the answer, as I happen to represent the Forestry Commission in the House, and am at present acting as Chairman of that Commission. It is not like an Estimate of an ordinary Department, which is voted every year, and of which unexpended balances go back to the Treasury and are used, as we know to reduce the National Debt. When the Forestry Act was passed, the Forestry Commissioners were given a special Forestry Fund of £3,500,000, and unexpended balances for a particular year go back into that Fund. It is earmarked for forestry work alone, and is, therefore, in rather a different position from that of the ordinary Estimates.

§ Sir F. WISE
What is happening to the Fund now?

§ Mr. ACLAND
It is being administered by the Forestry Commission. If there is money left over at the end of the year, it makes it necessary for us to ask for less money out of the Fund in the next year.

Mr. E. HARVEY
There is one point that has been raised in the Debate, on which I should be glad for further information, and that is the question of the juvenile unemployment centres mentioned in this Vote.

§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I am sure the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Maenamara) must be satisfied that the Minister in charge of that Department will carry out the policy that he advocates, and in a very expeditious and sympathetic manner. I would like to say to the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward) that this is really a point for the Ministry of Transport, but if he will favour me by giving me particulars of the case to which he refers, I will consult the Minister of Labour and see what I can do to meet him.

§ Mr. MILLS
The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) raised the question of Belgian cement as against British cement. I am a Member 2081 of this Parliament elected on a Free Trade vote, but I want to put this position to him and to the Minister concerned. Is it not a fact that the Profiteering Tribunal reported to this House gross profiteering in materials for the building industry, and, if that be so, what is there to prevent two things being achieved, namely, first, the utilisation of wasting human energy in Britain, and at the same time a searching inquiry into and limitation of profits in any work utilised for the relief of unemployment? The immediate purpose of my rising is this fact, that over and over again this House, and particularly the mad motorist section of the House, who are only concerned about the manufacture of roads, have failed to see or to take any cognisance of the fact that we have in this country the deterioration, mentally, morally, and physically, of some of the finest craftsmen in Great Britain. Let me give an illustration in regard to this road business. Last week I had the opportunity of putting a skilled mechanic in the way of getting employment. During the War this man was selected always for the most skilled experiments in breach gun mechanism, but since the demobilisation of industry in the engineering trade, since 1920, he has done only three months' work.
The solution for unemployment provided by hon. Members opposite has given skilled workmen the opportunity of going on to the roadways of our country, there to give of their skill. These men are only craftsmen because of a sense of touch. That sense of touch, developed after years of handling really delicate mechanism, has been ruined, bruised, and destroyed by work upon the roads. When this particular man had an opportunity of getting a job, the process was reversed. In a period of War, when there are more jobs than men, the employers are very solicitous as to what they should do for their men, and welfare committees and every other kind of committee are set up, but in 1924 there are more men than jobs, and so they say: "You must do a test job." Here is a man who on the records of His Majesty's mechanics stands highest in any one of the shops in Woolwich Arsenal, yet he fails to pass a test job, for no other reason than the fact that the crude idea of the solution of unemployment held by hon. Members opposite is to rob a man of his skill by making him do the kind 2082 of work that they want. In this Vote there is no mention whatever, except in that beautifully vague word, "etcetera," of the utilisation of the wasting skilled energy now floating about in Great Britain, and the Chairman of Committees of this House, who was formerly the general secretary of this particular union, is as well aware as I am of a problem which in itself constitutes the degradation of the engineering industry to the position of a sweated industry.
Hon. Members can go from this House, and, mounting a, London General omnibus, can have their fares taken by men who are now holding the ticket of membership of the Engineering Union, and drawing as omnibus conductors 7s. a week more than if they had a job at their own trade. Recently in Newcastle, a tram conductor who took my ticket was a skilled workman, giving up all hope of ever getting a job at his own trade, and glad to take any kind of job that came along. They are in your police forces and in other forces, but in the economy of a nation what kind of madness is it that has possessed those who presume to possess a monopoly of genius? I am hoping that this team of common sense that has occupied the Front Bench for the last four weeks will approach this problem with a new idea and that if the Supplementary Estimate makes no provision immediately for dealing with this problem of wasting human skill, they will nevertheless do so in relation to the skilled trades of Great Britain. There is a possibility of utilising skilled energy, but meanwhile tragedies are taking place. One took place only this week, where skilled men are walking the streets, and unskilled labour is brought in, without supervision or training, to do skilled work, leading to tragedy because of the lack of the elementary knowledge required to carry on the job.
I feel that this protest ought to be made. The engineering industry was used during the War. It never struck once for an increase of wages during the whole of the War, and when once it did withhold its labour, on the ground of principle, the hon. Members below the Gangway and opposite can testify that the principle upon which they withheld their labour was to prevent the dilution of skilled labour on commercial work, for no other reason than that at that time, when there was not enough war material available for 2083 those engaged in munition making, the employers would have had raw material badly needed for munitions to be used on ordinary commercial work. Dr. Addison, when Minister of Munitions, was confronted with that problem. As soon as he saw that point of view, he agreed to meet the engineering executive, and, directly that was done, the dispute was settled, and since that time the men who served this country as well as any other section of the community, some of whom enlisted and were brought back to the workshops because they were deemed more useful there, have, since 1919, gone through a period of travail that, in my judgment, ought to come to an end. I do hope the sympathy of this House will be enlisted on behalf of a body of men who, in themselves, constitute an asset to the country, but constitute a menace to this country if they are allowed to emigrate to other countries, because of the rate of wages, when we shall probably need them in the immediate future.

§ Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD
I should like to know how much of this £50,000, which is a small sum, is to be spent in Scotland and, in partcular, in the Highlands. In the year which has just passed the crops in the Western Highlands have entirely failed, and a very large number of people are out of employment, much beyond those on the ordinary lists of unemployed. It would, therefore, be a most beneficial thing if a much larger sum could be devoted for the purposes of forestry. Although the amount of distress this year is extreme, it is not unusual in a milder form. Agriculture in the West part of Scotland is not of such a nature that crops can be guaranteed every year, as in other parts of the country, and, as a consequence, a subsidiary crop is necessary if the people are really to be kept in the country. Such a subsidiary crop could be provided by timber, which is badly required in this country, and in future years will be required in very much greater quantity, because the supply of foreign timber is undoubtedly not equal to the demand even to-day. Moreover, forestry in itself would be for the Government a paying concern, because it would not only relieve unemployment at the present moment, but would store up 2084 abundance for years to come, while providing useful employment for people who otherwise would have to emigrate.

§ Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON
I cannot allow the speech of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) to pass without some comment. It is simply canting humbug to say that to employ a skilled engineer on road work appreciably deteriorates his skill. It is nonsense. It is the sort of cant to which we have got accustomed in this country. There is not the least doubt that in a fortnight an engineer, fitter or turner, who is really skilled will recover totally from the effect on his skill of years of road work. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the hon. Member for Dartford had to earn his living honestly again, he would find—

§ Dr. HADEN GUEST
On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that another hon. Member is not earning his living honestly?

§ Mr. HOPKINSON
Is it out of order to suggest that an hon. Member when he was earning his living as an engineer was earning it honestly?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I hope points of Order of that kind will not be put.

§ Mr. HOPKINSON
Let us say "earning his living." Supposing the hon. Member for Dartford had to earn his living again as an engineer, would his skill have deteriorated? In a week or a fortnight his hands would be hard again, and he would be just as skilful as before. We ought to protest against the assumption that relief work on roads deteriorates the skill of an engineer. Probably if some great pianist or fiddler were put on road work, he would take some weeks to get back his touch, but, so far as the engineering trade is concerned, it is humbug to say so. Let me turn to one other point in the Debate, namely, the question of foreign cement, about which the heart of Middlesbrough is beating so high at the present time. I think the hon. Member will find that that difficulty will solve itself. As soon as I heard the other night from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) that it was possible to get this foreign cement at a price so many shillings below the English, I at once communicated to him the name and address of person, and took steps to purchase what I could for 2085 him. I have not the least doubt that the publicity given by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to the supply of foreign cement will be such that, by the effect of the law of demand and supply, the price will quickly be brought up to the level of English prices.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I should like to reinforce the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald). I understand my right hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) speaks for forestry in this House, and I should like to hear from him more explicitly for what this amount of £50,000 is to be voted. I agree with my hon. Friend that forestry is one of the most important industries this country can undertake. I am speaking particularly from the point of view of Scotland. It is all very well to establish people on the land, but, after very serious consideration, we have come to the conclusion, almost unanimously, that you cannot have a happy and contented people settled on the land, particularly in the North of Scotland, without some subsidiary occupation, and no subsidiary occupation is as good as that of forestry. I understand, from the few remarks my right hon. Friend has submitted to the Committee, that part of this grant is for payment to land-owners. I have had several letters from Scotland, and I believe some of these payments have not been made. I think when the State encourages a land-owner to undertake occupation of this kind which is so beneficial to the State, the State's first duty is to see that that land-owner is recompensed, and I hope such sums as are outstanding will be paid to any owner who has provided forestry work for the unemployed in the district. I hope my right hon. Friend will explain to the House what this grant is for, and how much more money is to be expended on this very important occupation. We are all interested in afforestation, because we remember that, during the War, we were entirely dependent upon outside supplies of timber for this country. Not only from the national point of view, but from the point of view of particular localities, we ought to encourage this industry, and I am sure the Committee would like to hear from the representative of the Forestry Commission what this amount is for, and what further amounts are to be expended.

§ Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE
I hope all the money is not going to Scotland, but that there will be a liberal grant for England. I appreciate the point as to the scarcity of pit-props during the War. There are enormous tracts of land in this country in the form of pit in mounds lying derelict at the present moment which are perfectly suitable for afforestation. I know of one case in which the pits were supplied with props during the War from their own mounds, which had been planted beforehand, and of some mounds that have been planted since the War as an economic proposition. I hope, therefore, this question will be taken up by the Government, and an endeavour will be made to plant timber on the large areas of pit mounds available throughout the country.

§ Mr. ACLAND
I am very glad to be asked questions, and do my best to answer them. I rather sympathise with the Minister in charge in desiring that the Committee may pass on soon to another subject. Therefore, I will confine myself, as well as I can, to the particular questions that have been asked. But I am sure there is enough interest in forestry in the House to justify our having, later in the Session, say, a half-day given to the Estimates of the Forestry Commission, so as to enable a discussion in regard to what forestry can do, both in respect of unemployment and settling people on the land in the districts of Scotland, where, as has been truly said, a man cannot make a holding really economic unless he has other work to do during the winter, such as forestry, or fishing, or something of that kind, of which the best is forestry, because it fits in so well with other agricultural work. The Forestry Commission were asked by the late Government to consider schemes to help employment, and a sum of about £120,000 was asked. We were only granted £50,000, which appears in the Supplementary Estimates to-day. It was much less than we hoped for, and we allotted it as to £35,000 to schemes put up by corporations and landowners for emergency planting by people who would otherwise have no employment at all, and as to the remaining £15,000 to works of land drainage, road-making and so on, on the Forestry Commission's own estates. I think it fell to me to allot the 2087 proportions between England and Scotland, and, as a matter of fact, each part of the United Kingdom has had half of the money available. Officials in the two countries are quite content with that allocation.
With reference to what my right hon. Friend said, that some landowners and, I think, too, corporations in the burghs and cities of Scotland, who were expecting to be helped in this work, and were disappointed in the grants, I should like to say that since the new Government have come in they have sanctioned a further £30,000 to be spent on this particular unemployed work. Therefore, the schemes provisionally sanctioned in Scotland will go through, instead of having to be broken off, and employment will take the place of unemployment. I should like, on behalf of the Forestry Commissioners, to say how grateful we are to the new Government for having raised that amount, so that these schemes could be undertaken.
In regard to matters in general, I am hoping there will be, on an application we have sent to the Treasury, a gradual expansion of forestry work throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. It is not a thing which can be expanded suddenly. It depends upon trained officers, the supply of plants, the purchase or the leasing of land. We have had, I am glad to say, no difficulty about the purchasing or the leasing of land, which very often costs more to clear and fence than it costs to buy the freehold of; and which shows that the freehold price cannot be so very high. If the House or the parties responsible in the house will be kind enough, later on in a Session, to ask for a few hours' discussion of forestry work in general, I hope to be able to give, at any rate, an interesting account of our stewardship and of the work that has been done.

§ Mr. DARBISHIRE
I should like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he has received, and if so, what he has done with an application of the County Councils Association asking for legislation to enable additional powers to be afforded to county authorities to carry out drainage schemes? In the county with which I am associated there are a number of voluntary drainage schemes in which the landowner, the farmer and other interests are co-operating 2088 and these—or some—have been held up owing to a minority of landowners, or riparian owners, refusing to come into the scheme. There is, at any rate in Wiltshire—I do not know about other counties—a great demand for more statutory powers, and further legislation which will compel a minority of less than 20 per cent. to come into a scheme, and so enable the work to be carried on. A great deal of very excellent, productive and profitable work has been done in this direction in Wiltshire in the drainage of land. I wish to ask the Minister whether there is any prospect of the Government assisting in the direction desired by the County Councils?