NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to make grants out of unemployment fund towards cost of approved courses of instruction.)

HC Deb 05 December 1927 vol 211 cc999-1038

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, authorise the payment out of the unemployment fund of grants towards expenses incurred in respect of the attendances at approved courses of instructions of the persons to whom this Section applies.

(2) This Section applies to persons who have attained the age of sixteen years and are under the age of eighteen and either—

1. (a) are insured persons required by the insurance officer to attend such courses; or
2. (b) not being persons so required are, in the opinion of the Minister, persons normally employed, or likely to be employed, in an insurable occupation.

(3) Grants under this Section shall not exceed fifty per cent. of any amount which may be paid in respect of the attendances in question out of the moneys provided by Parliament.

(4) All sums paid out of the unemployment fund under this Section shall be applied as an appropriation in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the expenses of the Minister, and the provisions of this Sub-section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of Section 12 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. 1920, as amended by Section eight of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922.

(5) In this Section the expression "approved" mea s approved for the purposes of paragraph (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act.—[Sir A. 8teel-Maitland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)

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

This Clause embodies the undertaking which I gave on a previous occasion. It enables grants to be made from the Unemployment Fund for the purpose of juvenile unemployment centres. These grants are to be limited to the equivalent of the amount that is ultimately provided by the Treasury under the Estimates for the year. They are to be given to the juvenile unemployment centres in respect of boys and girls of 16 and 17 who are in insured trades, or are likely to go into insured trades, or are otherwise qualified for unemployment benefit. The second provision is necessary, because obviously there are some boys and girls of 16 who are either in an insured trade or likely to enter into it who might not be qualified for benefit, but who, it would be desirable, should attend unemployment centres. We cannot insist that boys and girls of 16 and, IV who are not otherwise qualified for benefit should attend, but at any rate we wish to be able to make provision for them should it be possible to persuade them to attend. On the other hand, where they are entitled to benefit, then it would be a condition of the receipt of benefit that they should attend a juvenile unemployment centre where it is provided. The payment out of the fund is a matter of principle of some importance, and a good many persons have doubts whether it is wise to use the Unemployment Fund for any other purpose whatsoever except the payment of benefit. There is a great deal of reason for that hesitation and reluctance. I rather think the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) shares it, but I am not at all sure. At any rate, there is reluctance to use it and not to make provision directly out of the Exchequer alone.

Miss BONDFIELD

I want to get it from both sources.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

At any rate, this Clause provides that it can be got from both sources. But there is a good deal of reason for such reluctance. In any case, this particular form of payment from the Unemployment Fund toward juvenile unemployment centres stands by itself. On the last occasion when the question came before the Committee, I said that I regarded it as entirely different in principle from using the Unemployment Fund either to subsidise wages or to -make payment towards unemployment schemes or any of the kindred objects with regard to which suggestions have sometimes been made that it should be used, and when I said that, I think there was universal assent from all sides of the Committee that the use of the Unemployment Fund for other purposes than the cash payment of benefit is very undesirable as a general principle but that this case stood quite by itself and would not afford a precedent for any other extension. That I say because I think it is desirable that that point should be made clear.

May I say a word or two on the nature of the courses which it is proposed to set up at these unemployment centres. The whole object of them is, in brief, to keep the boys and girls who attend them fit and interested. It is just to preserve their industrial character. It is not intended to teach any of them trades. It would not be correct for a moment to think that these centres can be used for vocational training; that is impossible. For training of that kind, you want in the first place to have attendance for some consecutive period. It is impossible to train a boy to be a mechanic or to train a girl in skilled work without there being some continued attendance for a certain length of time, and one essential feature of centres of this kind is that boys and girls are in and out from day to day, or with only a few days of attendance. In the second place, if it were a question of education in the ordinary sense of the word, technical training or an ordinary course at evening schools, that would be a matter particularly for the educational authorities. From both those points of view, the juvenile unemployment centre is not a place where boys and girls can get vocational or technical training. It is a place where they can go, and ought to go, in order to keep their industrial character, to preserve their nimbleness of brain and hand and keep them fit and interested.

Mr. HARRIS

Is there any maximum or minimum time required? Can they go in for a week and come out, or must they stay for a minimum period?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

That is just the point. Where they are qualified for benefit, they come in as a condition of getting benefit. They can leave again as soon as they get a job, and the whole essence of the system is that they may be in and out. Where juvenile employment is brisk, as it is in most places, they will turn over very rapidly—only a few days probably. I ought to say again that, if it were a question of trying to put the fund to uses for which it was not properly designed, I should feel bound to oppose any such Clause. But a grant for this very proper but quite peculiar kind of work is not a precedent for any other use of the fund.

I ought, perhaps, to say a few words as to the scope and utility of juvenile unemployment centres. It is only one part of a very much wider activity. The problem, when boys or girls leave school, is how to make the best of them after leaving school in order to help them face their industrial life. The first point of importance is to see that they can get the most suitable occupations, to give them advice as far as possible, so that the jobs they can try for, and the jobs that can be found for them, will be those that are most suited to them. The next thing in importance is, as far as possible, to look after them a bit afterwards where their family is not able to do so and to give them a certain amount of advice where necessary. It is only in the third place, when they have been in a job and got out of it, that you want to pick them up and keep them busy and occupied until they get into another job again. Therefore, these juvenile unemployment centres are really only one part of a great sphere of activity. The first part of what I said is the most important without any question; namely, giving boys and girls as far as possible the best advice on leaving school. This is already being done on a large scale. In London, for example, practically every boy and girl who leaves school is given advice as to future occupation. Throughout the whole country they are given advice by committees acting either under the Ministry of Labour or under the local education authority according to the nature of the case. There are juvenile advisory committees under the Ministry of Labour or sub-committees of local education authorities.

The two systems have grown side by side. They are nominally different, but, if anyone got into one of these Committees, he would not be able to tell which it really was from the actual composition of it. Local teachers and other individuals interested in the work are the people who largely give advice to boys and girls on leaving school. London is completely covered, and I should think that about 30 per cent. of all the boys and girls in the country get advice of this kind in some way or another. In a few of the provincial towns the standard is as high or nearly as high as in London; in Birmingham, for example, I think, it is 100 per cent. I am not certain whether it is quite as high in any other town, but, at any rate, it ranges from a very high standard to a good deal lower one, and we are doing our best to raise it throughout the country. Secondly, in addition to this there are Care Committees, in some cases looking after these boys and girls at school, but in other cases formed in order to keep in touch with them after they leave school, and that again is valuable. I only mention this so that the Committee may realise the proportions of our present proposal.

Juvenile Unemployment Centres get hold of the boys or girls who are unemployed and try and preserve their characters. But they are only part of a wider activity which has been growing into a very useful one. The whole of the problem is shortly to be investigated by a National Advisory Council that is being formed. I think that the mention of the National Council by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary during the Second Beading Debate was greeted with a certain amount of incredulity. It does not deserve incredulity at all. It means that for the first time teachers, employers, workers' representatives, and other people who have taken an interest in this problem of boys and girls in all the different aspects of their lives, are coming together in order to try and consider the problem as a whole.

Mr. COVE

Has it actually been constituted?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The constitution of the Council has actually been settled. Invitations to serve are going out, and the object of the Committee, when it has been set up, is to try and bring together all these different forms of activity so as to try and make what was rather a disordered state of affairs before, without close connection one with another, into an ordered whole, as part of which I propose this Clause this afternoon.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

When the right hon. Gentleman talks of giving these young people instruction, is it intended to provide food for them at these centres in view of the very low state of physical fitness of many of these children?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

No, it is not. Food is not necessarily to he pro vided at these centres. What we provide is drill, a certain amount of carpentering, a certain amount of gymnastics of an elementary kind for boys and girls—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Needlework for girls.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

A certain amount of needlework for girls, a little clerical work. But the particular form of activity is not so important as is the main object which is to keep nimbleness of brain and hands together.

Mr. HARRIS

We have had an interesting announcement, but it is an example of the Government, as usual, doing the right thing in a very wrong way. The whole Committee, and, I think, the whole country, are agreed as to the desirability of young men and young women out of work being properly trained, and keeping up their industrial skill. The first objection I have to the scheme—an objection I made when it was foreshadowed on a previous occasion—is that some form of education is to be paid for out of the Insurance Fund. Education is the business of the Board of Education, and it is Board of Education, who take a large view and understand the problem, that should he responsible both for the scheme and for its administration. Here we have a makeshift, patchwork scheme which is really going to add very little to the industrial skill of young people. It is not going specially to help them, is thoroughly amateur in spirit, is not by any means to be universal throughout the country, and, what is very much worse, the cost is to come out of a fund that, at any rate, at the present time cannot really afford to meet it, and that does not possess a financial equilibrium. Not only from the educational point of view should we view this scheme with suspicion, hut as custodians, as trustees of a fund subscribed to by insured persons, we should look at it very critically.

We thank the Government for small mercies. We ought to be grateful that the Government have at last admitted their responsibility for these young people. They recognise the principle, as they were forced to do under the terms of the Blanesbrough Report, but, although they are accepting the letter of the Report, they are by no means carrying out the spirit of it. On the contrary, this scheme carries us very little further. The Minister talked about the "ins" and "outs." He talked about them very glibly, as though it was not really a very serious problem. The tragedy of these young people is that they are "in" and "out." They get out of work, they go to one of these centres, they achieve no further industrial skill, they then go out to work again for a few weeks, only to come back again into these centres to learn nothing. The State will have to change its attitude, for this is, after all, the most burning and serious of all the unemployed problems. It is the manufacture of unemployables. That is what is going on under our very eyes in all parts of the country. The tragedy of it is that there is a market for young people of 14 to 16 years of age. In London there is no difficulty at all. Boys and girls get employment at fair wages from 14, but at 16 they have no industrial skill, and they come into the labour market and become —the Minister seems to think it is not a serious question—ins and outs. It is very poor compensation to us to know that they will now be getting gymnastics—

Sir A.STEEL-MAITLAND

I should like to correct the hon. Member. I cannot have made myself clear. I did not say the boy or girl was continually in and out; on the contrary, there is a very small percentage of unemployment among boys of 16. But when they do get out of work, it may be after months of employment, they are probably only out of work a day or two.

Mr. HARRIS

There is not so much unemployment between 14 and 16, as there is between 16 and 21. That is the serious question, and as you get nearer the age of 21, the percentage of unemployment increases. From 14 to 16 everybody knows that they are usually employed. Some go out at 16, but only too often when they reach the age of 17 they are out of work with no industrial skill and are of no real value to the industrial organisation of the country. They have been doing entirely unskilled work. Many of them in London are page boys, van boys, sometimes earning quite good incomes, but when they get to the age of adolescence or early manhood they have acquired very little knowledge as a result of what should be industrial training but which really is only cheap labour as a substitute for adult labour.

4.0 p.m.

My view is that we should not accept this half-way scheme, but we should recognise and insist that this problem of the need of technical skill in industry has to be faced, and the only way to face it is by the machinery of education, under the control of the Board of Education and the local authorities. Less and less is there a demand for unskilled labour. That is really the root of our unemployment problem. Less and less every year is physical strength required; more and more every year are technical knowledge and technical requirements becoming necesary. I can give dozens of instances in London. Take one instance which has been brought to my special attention. The London County Council, a year or two ago, in its desire to help the unemployment problem, agreed to make very substantial grants for the making of roads outside the area of London. It did so, not so much in the interests of those roads, which were outside their area, but in order to help the unemployed, particularly the unskilled, who form a very large percentage of the unemployed. When we got to work, the number of individuals actually employed was comparatively small, the reason being, of course, that a great deal of the work was done by the mechanical digger.

There is another instance of the local authorities who have been spending a large sum of money in repairing roads partly because the road repairs were required, and partly to help the unemployed. Anyone who sees a road being constructed in these days will notice a large part of the work being done by the mechanical drill, a very up-to-date machine, to work which requires a highly skilled craftsman. That is the problem of the unemployed; that is the problem of training which this scheme does not in any way attempt to touch, and it is a very serious thing for the Minister to come forward at this stage and ask the Committee to dip into the depleted funds of unemployment insurance, and ask them to find cash in order to help oh what is really a rotten scheme, which is not going seriously to solve the unemployment problem one tiny little bit.

I referred the other day, and I do not mind referring again, to the contrast with what they are doing in Germany. The German people either do a thing properly or not at all. They are facing this thing scientifically; they are realising that industry is changing. They find out, when one trade is depressed, whether there is likely to be a demand in another industry for trained labour. If an industry is depressed, as the cotton trade is all over the world, they set about training some of the young persons from 17 to 21 for another industry, and they are doing that very successfully. I saw machinery for doing that actually at work in Leipzig, and I saw thousands of young lads and girl being trained in other industries, while they were actually employed, with the likelihood of their being thrown on the industrial scrap-heap, so that when they reached an age at which they were no longer required in that trade they could go into another craft as partly trained men and women.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

Will the hon. Gentleman say how many hours of training they did per week while they were at work?

Mr. HARRIS

I can tell the hon. Member exactly. Every young person throughout Germany has to do a minimum, if unskilled, of four hours per week training, or, if skilled, of apprentice standard of training, of six hours out of the employers' time, and while receiving full wages. Right throughout Germany they have compulsory continuation schools up to 18 years of age out of the employers' time and at the employers' expense. It is no makeshift system. These centres are thoroughly equipped by the State with the latest appliances, and, of course, are very closely linked up with the industrial system. Some hon. Member above the Gangway do not like the idea of vocational training. Whether it be good or bad, Germany is actively going on with it. When these young people are out of work they are drafted into continuation schools for extra training for extra hours, and are paid wages or kept—I an? not quite sure which—but they are actually kept at the expense of the State in some form or other. Meanwhile they are acquiring industrial skill, and after a few months they are very quickly absorbed in the industrial organisation. My view is, that if the Ministry of Labour is satisfied that young people out of work are not likely to be absorbed permanently into any craft, it would be perfectly justifiable to insist, as a condition of benefit, that they should attend continuation schools, not for two or three weeks, but for three or four months—a period long enough to enable them to get industrial skill, so that when they grow up they should become part of the national system of wealth producers. That is my view, for what it is worth. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. Does the hon. Member opposite think it is a good thing to manufacture thousands of unskilled workers who are not required by the community? Is it not a long-sighted view to recognise that unskilled labour is not required to the same extent that it was 20 or 30 years ago? At any rate, if we are going to do this, let us do it properly, scientifiically and educationally. Do not let us have a sort of patchwork quilt, which is going to do nothing for anybody and is going to rob the Insurance Fund. As far as I am concerned, I am going to vote against this new Clause.

Miss BONDFIELD

I feel that here again we are plunged into the methods of the watertight compartment, and that it is futile to try to deal with this question in this piecemeal fashion. Surely the Committee had a right to expect from the Minister a statement of Government policy which, though probably outside the four corners of the Bill, would have enabled us to understand what part in the general scheme this was going to play. Here is the position. The Minister has told us that they are setting up juvenile employment centres, attendance at which will be made a condition of receiving benefit on the part of young persons from 16 to 18 years of age. Why that particular age only? Why cannot we have enough imagination to see that what is needed for our young people to-day is that the work which is developing in con- nection with the elementary schools should be carried straight on without a break during the whole period of adolescence and young manhood and young womanhood until they can be safely launched on an independent career? It would not cost any more money in the long run, but infinitely less to the nation, if we could get some kind of co-ordinated scheme in which it would require three Ministries at least, and probably more, to act in unison in a properly thought-out scheme. The Ministries of Education, Labour and Agriculture are now making some contribution, but we find in some districts two or three things happening, and in another nothing happening. There is no real co-ordination in those three Departments, and no suggestion of harmony and co-ordination in the Clause which this Committee is asked to consider.

We have that tragic group from 14 to 16 years of age, which is shut out from the automatic registration which the Unemployment Insurance Fund gives. We have there an unknown quantity. Nobody really knows what is happening to those children. A few come under the control of the Education Department or the Ministry of Labour juvenile unemployment centres. They drift in and out, but there is very little information about them. The group from 16 to 18 is not industrially a group that can be taken by itself. There are the young people of 15 and of 19 and 20. They are exactly in the same position as the boys and girls of 17, drifting about and not having any proper training. Yet here is a scheme proposed which cuts it off at both ends, and makes no attempt whatever to build up a system of centres of training which will meet the needs of those groups from school age until at least 21.

I want to urge upon the attention of the Committee the fact that this Clause does not in any way fulfil the proposals laid down in the Blanesburgh Report. The proposals in the Blanesburgh Report were, of necessity, not precise, because, as a matter of fact, it was outside our terms of reference, but I do beg the Committee to remember that we were so impressed with the condition of the country as it reflected itself in the lives of thi6 group under 21, that these suggestions were made. It will be noticed that the words used in the Report in regard to the Insurance Fund were, "if necessary out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund." Why did we put those words in? We felt so urgently the need of doing something for these young people, that it was felt that if there were no other way the Ministry should have power to give grants at once—not five or 10 years hence. We hoped something might be done at once to grapple with this terrible problem of the adolescent and the young man and young woman, and that if there were no quicker way of doing it thoroughly, a proportion of the contributions paid by these young people to the Insurance Fund should be spent in centres where they would have a proper supervision, and where they would have as much training as the time would allow in those centres.

There is one remark which the Minister made to-day in response to an interjection which has filled me with dismay. He stated that there is no intention of providing meals at these day centres. I ask the Committee to recognise that as a very foolish omission from the arrangement. The meal has a great educational value. No one who has been, for example, in the Walker Hostel in Newcastle, which provides a very interesting experiment, without being immensely impressed by the value of that experiment in training. There the meal is a part of the general curriculum. Boys have gone there after having knocked about from pillar to post, and they begin to develop almost immediately as the result of having meals at regular times every day under proper conditions. It is not merely a question of good manners and general development, but of their outlook on life, and this good meal I regard as an essential part of any training scheme during periods of such desperate unemployment as we have at the present time. There are other experiments going on about which the Minister appears to be absolutely ignorant for all the information given to this Committee in regard to coordination. I do not know whether he is aware of what some of his colleagues are doing, the Ministry of Agriculture, for instance, in connection with what are called young farmers' clubs. I know it is in a different category, but I say that there is a heap of room for extension of the idea of young farmers' clubs. They are educational in the very best sense of the word. They are helping in those areas which will provide a certain amount of difficulty for the right hon. Gentleman, those village areas and small town areas where, it may be, the ordinary juvenile centres will be a difficult thing to organise. It would not be at all difficult to organise the kind of valuable work which is represented by the young farmers' clubs.

I was immensely impressed with such work in Canada, where the young people at a very early age are encouraged to o take an interest in growing things, in live stock, in work which is going to be a help to them generally in their future lives, by exhibiting at fairs, flower shows, poultry shows, and so on, where they can take a real live interest in some form of work which will keep them in the country-side. In scattered areas in this country, where boys or girls are out of work, although they might be outside an insurance scheme, something might be done on these lines, because we must bear in mind that these young people are most valuable potentialities for this country. I was very much impressed with something that happened in Sussex, and I will use this as an illustration of the lack of imagination on the part of the Ministry of Labour in their outlook upon the problem to-day. In Sussex one found a club of boys and girls, of quite a young age, who were encouraged to form a club and to go in for poultry keeping and the growing of things, vegetables, flowers, and so on. This happened in a district where, owing to intermarriage and in-breeding, there was a very high percentage of mentally defective children; but owing to the tremendous interest aroused in the children by the new work they were encouraged to do, and the interesting way in which the work was presented to them, these young boys and girls were able to go to the show and beat their fathers and uncles in regard to the product of their labour.

What we have to do is to try to find some system which we can graft on to our present system, a system of a more universal kind, adapted to the needs of the various areas of urban life, city life, rural life, and small town life, and to use such a system for any number of useful purposes which it ought to be possible to introduce to meet the needs of the particular districts, all of them having this central purpose, that they should be schemes in which the young people can he gathered in, where there is no work at the moment for them to do, and where they can be assisted to widen their mental activities and strengthen their physical powers and generally be made more alert and alive by their experience than before they entered into training. In this connection, may I direct attention to the way in which we have been hampered in our work in the training centres? We have had since 1914 classes for young women, about which nothing has been said other than the statement made by the Minister the other night. These young women belong to a group upon which the Blanesburgh Committee placed as much importance as upon the juvenile group, except that they could not see how to make it compulsory in connection with girls over 18. The necessity for training these young women was borne in upon the Committee just as strongly if not more strongly than in the case of the younger people.

Nothing whatever touches these young women in the Clause which we are asked to consider this afternoon. On the contrary, the whole policy of the Ministry has been to damp clown and to repress and to make less effective the work that has been done, the salvage work in connection with the young people, the young women in particular. Let me present certain figures to the Committee in connection with the training centres for young women. We knew, as everybody knows, that the one branch of the community in which there is still some degree of demand for labour is that of domestic work. In spite of the fact that we have evidence that this demand still exists, here are the figures which I have to present to-the Committee. Under the machinery provided through the Ministry of Labour in the period 1924–25—the year runs from May to April—we were allowed to expand our work so as to be able to train 8,720 girls in the year. In the year 1925–26, the period of contraction began, and we were only allowed to train 6,377. In 1926–27 we were again cut down and were only able to train 3,466. In 1927–28, the current year, we have been cut down to the training of. 2,500, although the demand is just as great as ever it was for these training centres, and the Minis- ter has announced that for 1928–29 we are only to be allowed places for the same number of trainees, namely, 2,500. That is the very worst way of trying to meet the emergency with which we are faced to-day. Take the South Wales area alone. In 1926–27 we were able to provide 13 courses for 432 women in that distressed area. In 1927–28 we were cut down to seven courses for 210 women. South Wales is one of the great areas from which domestic servants have been drawn for generations. It is a place where there are tremendous supplies and where training centres are specially needed. I could give many other instances, but I do not want to take up too much of the time of the Committee.

I do urge, although it may be hopeless to do so, that in my opinion and in the opinion of hon. Members who sit on these benches, this Clause is utterly inadequate to deal with the situation with which we are faced. It is a miserable disappointment to me personally that no greater attempt has been made to co-ordinate the activities of the Departments to which I have referred, and that we have no real pronouncement of policy on this question for dealing with it in a technical, practical and scientific way. These training centres for young women could be made part of a comprehensive scheme and are just as necessary as is the provision for the boys and girls who will be going into the juvenile centres. It is merely a question of trying to co-ordinate the efforts of those bodies who are doing a bit here, a bit there, and a bit somewhere else, which is more expensive than a thoroughly coordinated scheme would be. The question has not been settled in a big enough way. I am not speaking as a member of any party, because I believe there are members in all parties who are deeply concerned about these young people. I would ask the Committee and the House to take this matter up not as a party question but as a subject of vital importance to the well-being of this country in the next generation. The price is going to be paid not to-day or to-morrow, but 20 years hence when the children and young people of to-day will be the men and women upon whom the country will have to depend. I cannot but express my deep regret and disappointment that the Minister has not dealt with this matter in a more thorough manner.

Mr. EDMUND WOOD

I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has been a little hard on the Minister. In conjunction with other hon. Members on this side, I have put down a Clause which goes a great deal further than the Clause we are now discussing, but I do think the Minister has taken a step in the right direction and I should like to thank him for recognising the principle of providing money out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund for vocational training purposes. Having said that, I would like to emphasise some of the points made by other hon. Members in regard to the question of vocational training. It is a question of paramount importance. Everybody knows that at this moment, particularly in the heavy industries, there are pools of what may be called surplus labour which have been formed of persons, whether young, middle-aged or old, who are finding it increasingly difficult to get permanent employment. It is equally true to say that other industries even in the vicinity of these depressed industries are showing signs of great prosperity and expansion. Obviously, it is very difficult for married men with family responsibilities, and in view of the housing difficulties and domestic troubles of a similar character, to seek employment in new areas, but in the case of young people the position is quite different, and I do ask the Minister to bear that in mind and to give these young people whether of the ages from 16 to 18 or from 18 to 21 a chance by means of training of leaving the stricken areas and going to other areas where their prospects will not only be brighter at the moment but will be very much brighter in the future.

Captain CROOKSHANK

The speeches from the Opposition remind me very much of the old saying: "Beware of the Greeks when they bring gifts." Such criticism certainly seems very much like "Looking a gift horse in the mouth." I am a little diffident in offering a few words of comment against the proposal in the New Clause. It seems to me that we are getting into some difficulty over this matter. Hon. Members have pointed out the value of training, with which we all agree, but the proposal made in the New Clause, as I understand the scheme outlined by the Minister, has nothing to do with training. It is, in fact, swallowing holus bolus the scheme outlined by the Labour party before the Blanesburgh Committee. Their recommendations in regard to persons under 18 years of age registered as unemployed included the following: We should like to see provision made for indoor and outdoor games and gym nastics, both for boys and girls. In addition, there might be facilities for handiwork of various kinds and for cookery. The centre should be made for the time being a branch library. The Minister did not mention that. A very interesting suggestion is that: Books might be read aloud as well as by the individual members of the centre. There might also be a volunteer service which would provide music, lantern lectures and cinema exhibitions. Where facilities exist it would be advisable for refreshments to be provided. Those were the suggestions put forward, and from what the Minister has put forward it would seem that he is prepared to bring some of these suggestions into effect. Of course, the Minister did not mention refreshments; but all things come to those who wait. He did mention a question which is of vital importance in such matters, and that is the cost upon the Fund. He said that it would be equivalent to the Treasury grant for the year. I do not know that that is a static amount, and I think the Committee is entitled to have some further explanation by the right hon. Gentleman. He observed that one of the most important functions now being performed by various Committees was the giving of the best advice possible to boys and girls when they leave school. We are all liable to be given much advice, but I wonder how much of that good advice is carried into effect by the boys and girls who are leaving school.

It seems to me that we are going along a rather slippery path which has nothing to do with the Unemployment Fund or with the Minister of Labour, and I am sorry that the Minister should have found it necessary to move this New Clause at all. He might take the advice of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who tells us of the dangers of a pauper nation. There is one important recommendation, which I have not read, in the proposals of the Labour party before the Blanesburgh Committee. It is to be found in the last sentence of paragraph 80: The success of the centre "— This is something like what the Minister has outlined— would depend primarily on the personality of the superintendent, for the centre would be attended by all and sundry of the unemployed under 18, and its administration would need to combine sympathy with firmness. That is, of course, the truest thing that could possibly be said. We must remember that even to-day there are forces at work in the community which do fulfil some of these functions. I would ask the Committee to remember, and no one knows it better than the Minister, the extraordinary good work that is being done by all sorts of public-spirited people in various parts of the country in connection with boys' clubs and girls' clubs; and the public service that we have seen during the last 10 years which received its rededication on Saturday last—I refer to Toe H. There is the great work done by the Boy Scouts organisation, the Girl Guides organisation and the cadet battalions, and when the Minister of Labour speaks of drill and gymnastics as one of the functions of these courses of instruction it seems to me that the instrument is there to his hand. Since this matter was last mentioned in the House I have spoken to many people who are interested in this social work, and they see a certain risk to that work if the Minister adopts a rather half-baked scheme of this sort, which to a certain extent would have to be under official supervision. We are not sure as to the combination of sympathy and firmness which one receives from Government officials. I hope, therefore, the Minister will consider this matter, let us know what the cost is going to be, and whether he has thought out the possibility of making use of the existing organisations I have mentioned in order to develop the plan in his own mind to deal with this very difficult problem.

We all admit that it is a difficult problem, and I am trying to make the point that it requires serious consideration unless we are to find ourselves administratively, and from the point of view of the boys and girls, in a far worse position than we are to-day. I should like him to make a little clearer the provision in Sub-section (2) (a): are insured persons required by the insurance officer to attend such courses; Does that mean that it is going to be compulsory, or is there to be a certain discretion on the part of the insurance officer. I am sorry to have to offer a criticism of a scheme which I have no doubt is well intended and which is being so well received by hon. Members opposite. That alone makes some of us suspicious.

Viscountess ASTOR

Not at all.

Captain CROOKSHANK

Of course, when we make statements of that kind we always have to exclude the Noble Lady. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be quite certain that it is always wise to accept proposals which are so nearly akin to those put forward by his opponents.

Mr. COVE

I can assure the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken that he is very much mistaken as to the attitude of the party on these benches to the present proposals. Many of us consider that they can only be described as mere tinkering with a grave national problem. There is no conception shown as to the quantity or quality of the problem with which we have to deal, and, as a matter of fact, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour to show us wherein this scheme differs from that already in existence, except that it takes money out of the Insurance Fund. Juvenile unemployment centres can be set up now under the present provisions, and these proposals give no further powers to enlarge their scope or make them more stable and continuous than they are at the present time. The Minister, with a certain amount of pride, mentioned the establishment of the National Advisory Committee. I have been rather interested in that Committee; I am glad it has been set up. But what I cannot see is this, what can this National Advisory Committee do when juveniles between the ages of 14 and 16 years are not cared for by any Ministry at all? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this National Advisory Committee would survey the whole of the problem. How can it do that when there is no record at all of the number of children, no record as to how they are employed, and no record as to the numbers who are unemployed 1 I consider that these juvenile unemployment centres can perform very little in the way of construc- tive education work. They may take boys and girls off the streets at certain times, but they cannot perform the work that is necessary so far as education and industry are concerned. One of the great problems in education, as in industry, is to see how industry and education can combine and serve each other; what contribution education can make towards the technical efficiency of the children, and what use can industry make of the schools provided for technical efficiency. These proposals do nothing at all to meet that problem. As a matter of fact, in Sub-section (2, b) it says: Not being persons so required are, in the opinion of the Minister, persons normally employed, or likely to be employed, in an insurable occupation. That means that when they are not receiving unemployment insurance benefit the unemployment centres will be open to them. How many youths does the right hon. Gentleman expect to attend the. juvenile unemployment centres under those conditions?

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND

Quite a considerable number.

Mr. COVE

I think we ought to have something more than a vague optimism. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that large numbers of these youths will not attend the juvenile unemployment centres when no benefits are attached, and it is merely taking money out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund for something which is said to be ameliorative as far as these youths are concerned. It is a scathing indictment of the Government and the Department that we have to go to an outside source to find out how these boys are employed and how many are employed. Let me recommend to the Minister and his Department a book on juvenile unemployment in Bermondsey by Mr. Eager. It is the finest investigation yet made of the problem. He takes about 201 youths and analyses the kinds of employment they are in. He says: The fact that 131 out of the 200 jobs enumerated above are definitely without prospects or educational value is a sad comment on the meaning of the ' work ' which some boys get and other boys fail to get. These are some of the jobs in which these boys are engaged—bottle washing for three weeks, oven boy at a biscuit factory for six months, labelling milk tins for four months, labelling milk tins for eight weeks, odd jobs at an engineering firm, four months, packing chemicals, six weeks, van boy, three months; porter at a mop manufactory, one month; porter at a bakery, seven months; pushing a baker's cart, two weeks. And this scheme does not meet the problem of these boys. They are in and out of this unskilled work, and one would have thought, after all this time, that the Minister of Labour would have had a definite comprehensive and constructive scheme which would not only be good for the youths themselves but also economically sound, inasmuch as it would provide skilled men for the industries of this country. This scheme does not meet the problem at all, and the Minister will have to go a great deal further. He is bound to start from the age at which children leave school, from the time when they attend continuation classes, and he will have to hang his unemployment insurance centres on to a more coordinated educational scheme. This is mere tinkering with the problem, and the Minister cannot really expect anybody who knows anything at all about the question to accept it as having any value whatever. I hope we shall divide against this proposal. It is mean and petty, and shows such a lack of the tremendous importance of the problem that I shall be glad to go into the Lobby against it. It means nothing. The curse of the juvenile unemployment centres is that they have no continuity of existence. They are set up and then closed down. And they are set up in exceedingly bad buildings. There is no educational equipment. I have been in some which are quite unhealthy and insanitary, as far as the buildings are concerned. I ask the Minister of Labour to set about this problem not only from the humanitarian point of view —for the good of the children but also from the point of view of the good of the country. It is sound economics for the country to get hold of these children and train them in a proper manner. You cannot do that in these juvenile unemployment centres. I see nothing but waste, hypocrisy and meanness in such a proposal as this.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I have listened with great care to the speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite, and I really wonder if they have a clear idea as to what we are trying to do. The first hon. Member who spoke from the benches opposite was the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), and he referred to the great problem in London. He is intimately acquainted with London. Let us see the magnitude of the problem in London. At the end of October there were about 4,000 young persons of both sexes between the ages of 16 and 18 in London out of work. Quite obviously, we cannot get them all into one centre, and from the point of view of convenience and travel you would have to have many centres— 30 or 40—if we are going to do what the hon. Member for Southwest Bethnal Green wants us to do, that is, set up first-class educational institutions. Of these 4,000 the great mass are only temporarily out of work for three or four days. I doubt whether there are 500, if you offered continuous training without saying that they must go into these centres, who would voluntarily accept. Is that the proposal? There is a great deal of loose talk and a great deal of unadulterated nonsense talked on this subject. We have had from the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) a most eloquent speech, one of the most eloquent to which I have listened. The hon. Member said that she wanted some kind of co-ordinated scheme. That is one of the phrases we always use when we do not quite know what we are after. Then the hon. Member said that we should try to find some scheme of a more universal kind. That is another fine phrase, but it does not mean anything. What are we trying to do? The last speaker said that he wanted buildings where they can all get technical training. Training in what? Does he want them all to be engineers?

Mr. COVE

Certainly not. If the hon. Member knew anything about the problem he would know that what we want is variety of training for a variety of occupations.

Mr. WILLIAMS

We are to get these young people, who are temporarily out of work for only a few days at a time, and we are to give them a variety of training. What kind of technical institution has the hon. Member in mind when you are going to take in 300 or 400 young people, the bulk of whom will be there for three or four days intermittently 1 What sort of place will it be, if you are going to train them for every kind of occupation under the sun? That is what we mean if we mean anything. I notice that the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) does not agree with me, but she has not thought out the problem. I have not the slightest doubt that the Noble Lady has talked a great deal about it, but I am not discussing that; I am discussing what she has thought about. In her constituency there are 539 of them. Let us imagine what kind of institution she would set up to deal with those 539 young people.

Viscountess ASTOR

Raise the school age.

Mr. WILLIAMS

If we were doing that as a general proposition, the financial and economic consequences we would have to discuss, but we are not considering that suggestion. We are considering dealing with people of whom the bulk are temporarily not at work, and we are to try to equip them so that they can face life's battle a little better. Like everyone else, I am in full sympathy with doing things of that kind, but do not let us run amok; do not let us try to "spring" some gigantic scheme to deal with a problem which, in many cases, does not exist at all, and in respect of which there has been a very wide measure of exaggeration. If we were to do anything on the lines suggested by the last speaker we should construct a great many new educational buildings. If we do that we are going to involve ourselves in colossal cost, quite out of proportion to the results to be achieved. If we are not to do that, are we going to inject a lot of temporary students into all the classes in existing educational institutions? If so, on what lines are we to do it? If we put them into the existing institutions we shall disorganise the work of those institutions, and if we build new institutions we are involved in colossal expenditure. My grievance against the critics of the Minister is that they are advocating all kinds of ideas and schemes when they have not the faintest idea of what they really mean.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

At this stage, it might be advisable to point oat that I have allowed a great deal of latitude in the discussion of this particular Clause as this is the Second Beading, but that that does not mean that we are to discuss all the alternatives to the Minister's scheme. On the next page of the Amendment Paper there is a New Clause—("Vocational training for young persons and juveniles")—in the name of the hon. Member for Stalybridge (Mr. E. Wood) which is out of order. If I were to allow too wide a discussion on this New Clause, I would have to allow discussion of the Clause which is out of order.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD

We have just had a characteristic speech from the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), whose air of intellectual superiority is only equalled by his ignorance of the subject. It is often that the hon. Member is out of his depth, for his range of subjects is wide. This afternoon he has been more than usually out of his depth. So far as I can tell, he does not know the first thing about the problem of juvenile unemployment.

Viscountess ASTOR

Hear, hear!

Mr. GREENWOOD

I want to confine myself to the Clause that is before the Committee. I confess to very great dissatisfaction with the Clause. I do not believe that it is really giving us anything. In the first place, it entirely ignores the problem of the juvenile between 14 and 16 years of age whose plight is in some senses more serious than that of the insured persons between 16 and 18 years of age. If it be right to bring within the provisions of this Clause young persons between 16 and 18 who are not now insured, what is the argument for excluding those between 14 and 16, who are just as likely to come into insured employments as the older boys and girls between 16 and 18? This Clause does nothing more than empower the Minister to spend money. I think I am right in saying that even at the present time the insurance officer has power to require young people to attend centres. The title of the Clause gives one a proper idea of its importance. It is merely a provision to enable the right hon. Gentleman to spend money on this object. I confess that I was a little alarmed at his definition of a centre.

There are two problems of juvenile unemployment. There is the problem to which the Minister referred, the problem of the boy who is out of work for a very short period of time, perhaps a week and perhaps even less, but who ought to be under someone's care and super- vision during that period. There is also the problem of the long spells of continuous unemployment that are to be found in the shipbuilding and mining areas. There the problem is not that of boys dropping out of jobs for a day or two and quickly getting back into employment. It is a case of scores, hundreds, perhaps thousands of young people in those depressed areas, who for a period of one, two or more years have not known what it was to have any employment. Whatever may be said about the treatment of boys and girls who are in a centre only for days, here there is a case for something systematic, something really scientific in its organisation, something definitely designed to increase the economic efficiency of these young people, and something more than a social and recreational centre. I am sorry to think that the Minister does not mean to deal seriously with the problem of the unemployed juvenile on the coalfields and in the depressed areas. We were told that he is proposing to set up one or two more centres in South Wales, but his speech to-day did not convince me that those centres are to be of much value, because he seemed to be treating that problem in South Wales as though it were the problem that obtains in certain other towns.

In his speech the right hon. Gentleman missed the point of the Amendment which I moved last week. The purpose of that Amendment was that it would be compulsory on all unemployed juveniles, as a conditions of receiving benefit, to attend some kind of centre, unless they happened to be in such sparsely populated areas that such provision was very difficult, and then they might be excused by the insurance officer. We have not got that provision in this Clause. Indeed, we have not anything in this Clause for certain. We have no idea whether the insurance officer is going to require these people to attend centres. On the Second Reading of the Bill, when the Parliamentary Secretary wound up the Debate, we were told that it would be a considerable time before centres could be established and equipped. How long is it going to be before the insurance officer will begin to put a little pressure upon people to enter centres? We do not know. I believe that if the Parliamentary Secretary was right in his view of the speed with which the Government can act within an area, the situation of the unemployed juvenile will be much what it is to-day. If that be so, this Clause is a mere fraud upon the Committee.

I would not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove). There is a power in the Clause and I hope it will be used. If it is used and if the money is made available partly out of the Treasury and partly out of the Fund, that is all to the good. I do not anticipate that we are going to get out of the Clause one tithe of the results that we could have got out of the Amendment which I moved last week, but at the same time I do not feel inclined to vote against the Clause. I am prepared to let it go—I put it no higher than that— because I would not vote against the right hon. Gentleman when he is prepared to do even a little bit. The right hon. Gentleman acts according to his lights. They may be small and dim lights, but if they are lights at all we have to be grateful. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will not go to the length of rejecting this Clause, but will accept it, knowing that it is full of defects and weaknesses and that it will go hardly any way to deal with the problem of juvenile unemployment.

Mr. RADFORD

I was very surprised to find the opposition to this new Clause from the other side of the House. I would have thought that hon. Members opposite would have been well content to take this step, which is a step in the right direction, and would try to get it amplified and improved, possibly on the Report stage or at a later date. For my own part I feel that this is a distinct improvement of the Bill, incomplete though the proposals are. The only justification for reductions in the unemployment benefit of juveniles would be either that the actuaries' figures showed that under the contributions which they paid they were receiving too high benefits, or alternatively, that some other form of benefit was to be given to them. The Report of the actuaries, which is attached to the Blanesburgh Report, states plainly that on the basis on which the Blanesburgh Committee acted there would be a surplus on these young people's contributions of £750,000 a year. Therefore, it is clear that the reduction of their benefits is not justified on the ground of actuarial necessity. The only other justification for it would be that they were to get some alternative benefits in the form of instruction instead of in actual cash. I think that to give them some instruction, and a little discipline with it, is infinitely better than giving them the money.

5.0 p.m.

When I was 16 years of age I was getting a salary of a little less than 4s. a week, and I am quite sure that if I could have seen as an alternative a welcome few months of idleness occasionally, and only 6s. a week instead of 3s. 10d. and some fraction of a penny which I was getting, I would have welcomed it. I do not know that the boys and girls of to-day are different from what I was at that age. I welcome sincerely the proposal of the Minister. In reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), I would say that it is very easy for private backbench Members on this side or hon. Members in the Opposition, to come forward with counsels of perfection, calling upon the Government to provide all sorts of technical training in every centre. As the hon. Member very rightly said, to give a training in all different classes of trades is an absolute impossibility. But if it is impossible to give these young people the necessary variety of technical training, at least they can have some exercise, some Swedish drill and some simple instructions. Hon. Members opposite smile at that suggestion, but I ask the Minister to take note of what is being done in the town which I have the honour to represent, namely, Salford. The guardians in Salford have in actual operation a scheme of instructional classes, not for boys and girls but for single men up to 30 and married men up to 25 who do not come under the benefits of unemployment insurance. Before the guardians grant these men outdoor relief, they make them attend these instructional classes for two hours on Monday, two hours on Tuesday, two hours on Wednesday, four hours on Thursday, and two hours on Friday. There are classes for English, Swedish drill, gymnastics, drawing, hobbies and simple arithmetic.

If the Minister wishes me to do so, I shall be pleased to furnish him with a detailed syllabus of the simple instruction which is being given to these unemployed men in Salford—not, as I have said, merely boys and girls of 16 and 17, but men up to 30 years of age. In the meantime, I welcome a proposal which makes a great improvement in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite have objected to the inclusion in the Bill of certain things which were recommended in the Blanesburgh Report. They have also objected to the exclusion from the Bill of proposals for training classes because, they said, the Report recommended such classes. If hon. Members opposite had confined themselves to finding fault with the Bill because it did not include these instructional classes, I should have agreed with them, but as they have objected to the inclusion in the Bill of things recommended by the Blanesburgh Committee Report, I think they have lost the right to criticise the Bill on the ground that other recommendations have been omitted.

Mr. HARDIE

I rise to try to make clear from my personal experience and training the meaning of this subject. Many things have been said in this discussion, but no real light has been thrown upon this subject. When we talk about training, we mean education. If there is to be no love for education, for education's sake; if we are only to regard education as a means of training so many people to meet industrial needs, then we may say "good-bye" to real education, because instead of developing reasoning beings, we are developing robots. That is the real danger in all suggestions of this kind. The question has been asked to-day, "How are you going to divide up this training into all the different sections required? My answer is that you do not require to do anything of the kind. A general education is what fits young people for their various callings. Any one of the sciences with which we are acquainted to-day covers a multitude of trades. Let me illustrate what I mean. In the case of the electrical engineering industry you have men who are known as wire-men. They need not have any knowledge of electricity, of how it is generated, or how it is affected under different conditions. All that is required of the wire-man is that he should be skilled in leading wires from one place to another. In the motor section of the trade, you find men who are skilled only in motors. Other men are skilled only in relation to dynamos. Our idea of training is to give the person concerned a basic understanding of the science that underlies industry, and this general training of boys or girls need not be split up into hundreds or thousands of sections. You could have it in not more than seven compartments, and in those seven compartments you could cover the science of nearly every industry which we conduct in this country to-day. I see no difficulty at all so far as training is concerned. To take an illustration outside those I have mentioned, let me deal with the question of a training in physics. Let that be ever so slight—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must realise that we are not now discussing a general question of vocational training, but merely a question of grants out of the Unemployment Fund towards courses of instruction for young people between 16 and 18.

Mr. HARDIE

It is because this proposal applies to young people between 16 and 18 that I am pointing out the lines on which it would be best to act. I am suggesting that we should aim at providing these boys and girls with a ground-work, and give them a real interest in the scientific basis of our various industries. Unless you can interest the individuals of between 16 and 18 in the science of an industry, you will not produce the developed and complete artisan or skilled engineer. When you can interest the pupil in a subject, you can make a skilled craftsman of him, but when you go in for partial training and introduce the kind of sectionalism which has been suggested, the complete idea is not before the pupil and you destroy his vision of the subject. I want to see this money spent on giving the kind of ground-work training I have indicated. I do not want it to be spent in such a way that it will, in the end, turn these boys and girls into blind-alley occupations. The whole argument from the other side is that we should have a system under which only the sons and daughters of the rich are to be highly trained, while those of the poorer classes are to become robots, mere attendants on machinery. The real basis of a nation is the general education of its young people on all subjects pertaining to whatever vocations they intend to follow, and I hope the Minister will view the problem in that light.

Viscountess ASTOR

I very much regret that I was not here when the Minister was speaking. It is a little difficult to refer to a speech which one has not heard, but I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has been rather vague about these centres, and I only rise to ask him some questions about them. I should like in the first place to know who he proposes to put into them. It is a very important question, because their success depends entirely upon the type of people who are going to run them. I would also ask the Minister if he cannot see his way to make a larger grant for the women's training centres. It is all right for the Minister to say that these centres are to be kept up, but as the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) pointed out, at one time they were turning out 8,700 trained women in a year and now the figure has fallen to 2,500. This is a work which ought to recommend itself to every Member of this House, even the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). The hon. Member for Reading, like the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) and other hon. Members on this side, often say that more unemployed women should take up domestic service. Here we have a scheme which trains suitable women and makes them into good domestic servants, but, as I have said, the numbers turned out are going down gradually every year, and this year the figure is lower than it has ever been before. That is why I beg of the Minister to see that a larger grant is made towards these centres. That is literally and truly the only thing which the Government is doing, in this respect, for women. I would remind the Government that we are going to have a great many more women interested in politics than ever before. I can only rejoice at the fact, because I think when women begin to make themselves heard in the way men are heard now, we may have a chance of getting larger grants for the necessitous areas.

I was attacked by the hon. Member for Reading, who said I knew nothing about this subject. Unlike the hon. Member for Reading, I do not think that I know all about every subject. If anything in the world bores me, it is the professional politician who is ready to talk on any subject, no matter whether he knows it or not. I know it is pleasant for the Government to have Members of that kind. They are the kind who get on in a Government, but they are not the kind of people who get things done in the country. I have given a great deal of thought to this question of juvenile unemployment, and the Minister himself knows that this Government has more right to know about it than almost any other Government, because we have had three committees dealing with it—the Malcolm Committee, the Haddow Committee, and now the Blanesburgh Committee. The Government have thought very deeply over this very difficult subject. It is all very well to sit and talk about young people being in and out of employment, but the Minister knows that there are thousands of young people in the country who have never been at any kind of work at all. That is the kind of thing which alarms many Members on this side of the House, as well as Members on the other side of the House. It is a matter which must deeply concern the Minister, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be put off by professional speakers on any side of the House, particularly below the Gangway.

May I ask the Minister's attention to one more point? Many of us regret the suggestion that another committee should be set up. I think the Minister said he was going to set up a committee to coordinate all these proposals. I hope, if he does so, he will set up a committee which really means business. We have a chance now that no other Government, probably, will get for a long time, because this Government has a large majority and, as we like to think, a patriotic majority. It is only patriotism that is going to settle this question of juvenile unemployment within the next five years, no matter how well industry develops. Industry is changing, and the apprenticeship system is changing, and we have a serious problem ahead of us in this respect. The Government ought to think out a co-ordinated scheme, applying to young people up to 18, and if they did so they would have behind them not only Members on this side of the House, but the whole of the country. The country is waiting for a lead, and is tired of committees. I am disappointed that this matter has not been more thoroughly dealt with and that something real has not been done, instead of having piecemeal legislation. I do not want to say anything about hon. Members on the other side in this connection, though I feel that it is only fair when I criticise my own Government that I should criticise the Opposition also. I think that is only justice. Hon. Members opposite have a scheme, which probably they will not be able to bring in in our lifetime. I am not asking for the impossible, but I ask—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

Will you tell us what you are asking for?

Viscountess ASTOR

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman, because I know he is not interested in the matter and he is only talking for the sake of hearing himself talk.

Mr. HARMSWORTH

I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions, because although the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) has stated that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) is out of his depth in these matters, it seemed to me, from the speeches of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and of several other hon. Members, on both sides, that more or less the whole Committee is out of its depth. I feel sure that when the Minister replies we shall find out where we are, but to judge by the new Clause on the Paper and the information which is given to us, we are debating hypothetical questions as to what is to be done with the money when we really have very little knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do with it. The new Clause states that half the money will be provided from the Unemployment Fund. The figure at present voted for the relief of unemployment, under Subhead 3, for sundry services, including juvenile unemployment centres, accounts for £65,000, and the same amount was voted last year. If half is to be provided from the Unemployment Fund, is £65,000 to be provided, or is the Unemployment Fund to provide quite a large sum of money, in which case we shall have an extra amount from this grant as well as from the Treasury. I am certain that this question can be cleared up easily, but I think the Committee has a right to know exactly what are the financial commitments of the House on this Clause. At present we have no knowledge. It is generally the custom to provide the Committee with a White Paper, so that we may know exactly what is meant to be done.

It is not enough at this stage of the Debate to say that the Blanesburgh Committee tell us that these juvenile centres are necessary, because we have disregarded so many recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee. We are not going to pay any attention to the equalisation of contributions, for instance, and I should say, therefore, that that is not a sufficient reason for us providing these centres for the juvenile unemployed. We ought to know in what way the money is going to be spent. Is it going to be spent on centres to provide training for occupations so that the boys should be able to take part in some of the various trades that come under this Bill? Several hon. Members opposite have already said that that would be no use, because there are not the jobs to give them when they are trained. Further, we might remember that various trade unions train their own men in some industries and will not allow those to come in who have been trained outside. If that is the case, are these centres to be welfare centres, such as has been suggested by 'hon. Members behind me? That is surely a completely new departure, and I was surprised at the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford) suggesting that young people from 16 to 18 years of age would need to be taught simple arithmetic, because I always understood that our present system of education was at least good enough to teach them that amount of knowledge.

Mr. RADFORD

Might I ask my hon. Friend if he, personally, has retained the scholastic knowledge which he acquired at school?

Mr. HARMSWORTH

I cannot tell the hon. Member whether I have done so up to my age, but I certainly had between the ages of 16 and 18, which is what we are now discussing. I presume that I retained what I learned up to that age, and we are not discussing those who are unemployed at my age.

Mr. RADFORD

Up to 30 years of age.

Mr. HARMSWORTH

Is the course of instruction, then, to be a continuous course on general subjects? If so, why not have the proposal that has been put forward from time to time to raise the school age and discuss that? There are probably different views upon that point, but I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to give us the facts, which I think the Committee should have before going to a division, if hon. Members opposite force us to a division, so that we can come to a proper understanding as to what we are voting about.

Mr. WILFRID PALING

I should like to ask a question affecting a particular class of these people. I understand that, so far as these training centres are concerned, because of the fact that many of these unemployed young people are in and out propositions, from 16 to 18 years of age, you cannot give them any continued training, and certainly not training of a technical character. That may be so in such cases as those about which the Minister spoke—the cases of boys and girls in places like London—but in the valleys of South Wales and to some extent in the Durham coalfield, where whole districts are idle, even now you may have boys just over 16 who had just started paying contributions to the Insurance Fund and, because of the fact that the pits are continually shutting down, and some of them for good, setting whole districts out of work, these boys may be out of work for very long periods indeed. While it may be good that training centres like these should be set up to deal with children who are out of work only intermittently and for short periods, I want to know whether it is the intention of the Government, in districts such as those in South Wales, in places where these lads are out of work for three, four, or even five years, to set up centres of a character which will allow these lads to have a technical training and a training that will fit them for some other job, in virtue of the fact that they are never likely to get another job in the pits in these coalfields. The Minister said, in a previous statement in this House, that he hoped to set up some of these training centres before Christmas in South Wales, but I would like him to tell us whether these training centres will apply to these lads from 16 to 18 years of age of whom I speak.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The difficulty of this Debate lies in the fact that it has been something in the nature of a Second Heading Debate on training for the young. When I got up to move this Clause, which was quite accurately described by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) as taking power in an Unemployment Bill to make grants towards juvenile unemployment centres from the Unemployment Fund, I had to consider over how much of the subject I should range. What we are discussing, I submit to the Committee, is an Unemployment Bill, and juvenile unemployment centres are connected with that Bill and form, from the point of view of the unemployment system, a quite small part of the subject; and this afternoon, with a number of Clauses yet to come, I thought I was naturally precluded, if only from the point of view of the convenience of hon. Members opposite who would wish to discuss those Clauses, from ranging over the whole question of education and training in all its ramifications and implications. I had some hesitation in alluding to questions such as the National Advisory Council and the Local Education Authorities Sub-Committees, just because it was straying from the Clause immediately under discussion, and I did not want to drag out the Debate too widely or to occupy too much time. As a matter of fact, it is absurd to range over the whole question of education, training, and unemployment on what is a quite small issue in connection with the subject of unemployment. I should be the last to say that the question of training was unimportant, but we have had all kinds of educational points raised that have been completely outside the scope of this Clause, and when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne gets up to complain that I have not dealt with the question of boys and girls from 14 to 16 years of age, I would remind him that this House itself has decided, when the party opposite were in office, that boys and girls of those ages were not to come within the insurance system. Therefore, quite obviously, they could not come within the direct ambit of this Clause.

If I had dealt with all these matters in the first instance, hon. Members oppo- site would have been the first to complain, and perhaps with reason, that I had strayed too far. As the discussion has covered such a wide area, however, let me briefly reply. The point was first raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), but the fact that we are dealing with a perfectly necessary small part, not so much of training, as of maintaining an industrial habit for boys and girls, is nothing in disparagement of technical education. I would be the first to say that the more technical education we get in this country, the more we fit boys and girls to become highly-skilled members of the community, the better; but that, I submit, has nothing to do with this proposal. The fact that when a boy is out of a job for a week you are going to give him just those days in a juvenile unemployment centre does not derogate one little bit from the value of technical training as a whole. The only thing I would ask the hon. Member who spoke on that subject to remember is that we really have to be practical, and people who, like him and like the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) talk so much about training everybody for skilled occupations, are completely blind to the practical circumstances of the case. I have had just about as much to do with boys as have most Members of the Committee here, and I am speaking from practical experience when I say that to assert that it is possible or that it is a practical proposition to train everybody for skilled occupations in this country is nothing but nonsense.

There always will be unskilled labour, and I am not at all sure that the proportion of unskilled labour with the advent of machinery is greatly decreasing. It is a great advantage obviously to have as many skilled men and women as possible, and the more you can replace unskilled work by machinery for the heaviest kind of labour the better, but the more you do so the more you get automatic machinery, which again tends to make semi-skilled engineers into comparatively unskilled workmen. Therefore, to talk, as the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green talked, about turning everybody into skilled people is sheer nonsense. The term "unskilled labour" is in itself a vague term. There is labour which is more or less skilled, and there is a great deal of what is generally called unskilled labour, which, at any rate, has got a good deal of what I would call adjustment in it, which the complete outsider would take some time to pick up, but, taking the trades broadly, there will always be a lot of unskilled labour in this country; and what is not generally recognised, but ought to be recognised, is that what is needed is not only technical education to make people into skilled workmen and women, but also the getting hold of boys and girls who will be, as everyone practically knows, unskilled workpeople, and who it is vitally important, even though they are more or less unskilled, shall not have what I would call their industrial habit demoralised. That is the need, and I do not say it is as important as skilled training, but it exists side by side with it as one of the two important things we have got to consider.

The object of this Clause is to set up centres where you maintain what I call the industrial habit. There will be boys and girls in and out again. I think those who have not much practical experience of the problem do not realise perhaps what in and out means. [An HON. MEMBER: "And parents, too!"] And perhaps parents, too. It does not mean they have a week in industry and a week out. In most places there is comparatively little juvenile unemployment at this moment. Taking a broad view there is comparatively little juvenile unemployment. It is very little over 3 per cent. and if anybody knows what 3 per cent. means they will know that it is reduced to a very small amount. Once you get down to a figure of something like 2 per cent. that indicates that you will catch the people on a Monday who are passing over from one kind of occupation to another. You register them, just at the moment, as unemployed, but it does not mean that they are out of a job for a long time. It means whether their job lasts for a couple of months or six months or a year that when they get out of a job they get into it again quickly. That is the state of affairs on a broad view of nearly all districts in the country in regard to boys and girls. If boys or girls are out for a couple of weeks or three weeks, it is a good thing that they should go to what are not unhealthy buildings. I do not know whether the hon. Member's experience has ranged far or whether he has inspected many of these centres, but if he will go further he will correct his view. The boys go to these centres and get a certain amount of gymnastic exercise and drill, and carpentry, and the girls get gymnastics and drill and sewing together with elementary bookkeeping, writing, and occasionally shorthand. The centres are not intended to, and they cannot, train people in a skilled occupation. Their object is really to maintain the industrial habit of the juveniles while they are out of work. So far as the extent of money is concerned £60,000 was provided last year and the Estimates are being settled Departmentally just about this season with the Treasury. The sum is not yet fixed, but according as the sum is fixed it will be possible under this Clause to make a grant out of the Unemployment Fund equivalent to the amount to be borne by the Treasury in respect of the juveniles to whom this Clause applies. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) says that it is a rotten scheme. I ask him what he would do with the boys who are just out for a week or so. Would he do nothing? A boy may be out for a fortnight and then get into a job. Does the hon. Member want him to go to a centre like this or not

That is the answer anyone has got to give and if any hon. Member wants to do so let him vote against the Clause and we shall know exactly where he stands. I say in regard) to these boys and girls that what we suggest is a way really to help them. In a vast number of towns the centres are not needed because there are not enough unemployed juveniles, but so far as unemployed juveniles exist, this is the way to help them. I do not know whether the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green has been to a Juvenile Unemployment Centre.

Mr. HARRIS

I have. I say the period ought to be longer than three weeks for you cannot do anything effective in so short a time.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Therefore the hon. Member would either leave the boys from two to three weeks on the streets or refuse to let them take a job when they could get one. With regard to the mining areas, the boys and girls there are likely to be out for longer periods and we are considering whether we cannot adapt the curriculum, better for people who are going to be out for longer time. I am not slothful in business, but further than that I cannot go at the present moment except to say that as far as they are in the mining areas what I should like to do is to be able to arrange that they should be able to be transferred properly to those districts where there will be greater opportunities of work in future so as not to detain them in mining areas which are depressed for a longer period than necessary. The last thing I am asked is whether this is an advance. I make no pretensions whatever that this Clause is more than I put it down to be.

Mr. T. SHAW

Hear, hear!

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

It is far better not to do it than to make pretensions. I make no pretensions that this Clause is more than I put it down to be. Hon. Members opposite are scornful and do not mention such experiments as I started and which they never thought of, but this is designed to continue juvenile unemployment centres on a permanent basis. They have never been properly reviewed by anyone before. What we are doing is to deal with them in a systematic way. I do not pretend for one moment to indulge in all the soaring schemes that hon. Members opposite have and of which they often do not count the cost. I always do count the cost, and I say frankly that for people to go ahead and spend money gaily with always the vague phrase that it is bound to be a saving in the long run will land any country into disaster. This is a definite step forward. It has been thought out carefully and deeply.

Mr. SHAW

Why was it not in the Bill?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

If hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Debates they will find out. This scheme has been thought out. We are not going forward in a grandiose way without looking where we are going. It is a careful advance and I would ask hon. Members who want to see advance, to see where they are going and to see reason for it and not merely to indulge in blind visions without seeing the ultimate results—

Mr. SHAW

You cannot have blind visions.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Yes, you can; shut your eyes and dream, as so many hon. Members opposite do. I ask those Members who wish to see advance without indulging in blind visions to vote for this Clause. On the other hand, if there are any who say it is to be despised and rejected, I shall be happy and glad to see them go into the Lobby against me.

Question, "that the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.