HC Deb 09 April 1930 vol 237 cc2173-226

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Captain CROOKSHANK

If the Minister of Labour is not going to make any observations at all on this Bill I should like to draw her attention to one or two facts. This morning there appeared the latest returns for unemployment, and before we pass the Third Reading of this Bill it would be well to draw the attention of the House to these deplorable figures and remind the Minister of Labour that the money for which she is asking is, on her own showing, going to be insufficient to carry her for more than a few weeks. She declined to make any speech in introducing the Bill on the Second Reading until she was invited to do so by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and in my opinion it is a deplorable sign of an apparent lack of interest in the work of her own Department that when important Measures are introduced she does not take the trouble of making an opening speech or getting the Parliamentary Secretary to do so on her behalf. It is a point on which she has been criticised before.

The object of this Bill is to increase the borrowing powers, a principle which the right hon. Lady in the winter called dishonest and last July called vicious. She has now found it necessary to adopt this principle in view of the appalling increase in unemployment figures which has taken place since the Government came into office. It is just as well, even if the House does not intend to debate the Third Reading of the Bill at length, to focus the attention of the Minister on the fact that the returns published this morning give a figure of 1,677,500 unemployed on 31st March. Those figures are well above what she calls the balancing point of the Fund. It seems most deplorable that at the very moment when we are about to give a Third Reading to an Unemployment Insurance Bill, based on certain actuarial principles, those principles should already have gone astray. The figures in the Press this morning are 38,701 more than the figures of a week ago, and they are 471,900 more than those of a year ago, when the country had the benefit of a Conservative Administration.

The Minister has asked us not to discuss this matter in any party spirit, and that is a very laudable hope to express, but it is one that comes very ill from anyone who belongs to the Socialist party. Those of us who have been in this House more than five minutes have some small memory, and when we remember the way in which the right hon. Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) and his colleagues were attacked week in and week out and month in and month out, and how every one of us who were candidates at the last election were attacked on unemployment, it is really asking us to show more Christian forbearance than one may expect even during the season of Lent. But the Minister's colleague the Lord Privy Seal, went even further, and on the Second Reading suggested that it would be a good thing if the unemployment figures were no longer published at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that he expected that the figures would improve; that they were not going to get very much worse and that there would be a distinct improvement. I suppose that that is one of the reasons why he thought it might be as well to suppress them.

That was only last week. The right hon. Gentleman's expectations have, as usual, been falsified. When we have the fact that these figures are 38,701 worse than those of a week ago, and that we have reached the monstrous total of 1,677,500, of course it is not saying very much to express the hope that the figures will shortly come down a bit. We all hope that they will, and, considering the season of the year and previous analogies, they should come down, but if they do so it will not be because of anything that the Lord Privy Seal or the Minister of Labour has done to help them down. I notice that in the publication of these figures during recent weeks there is every time a footnote which says that the increase is due to the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1930. The Minister of Labour cannot have it both ways; she cannot explain to the public that the increase is due to the Act for which she was responsible, and at the same time have us believe that everything is going well in the employment world.

Of course, if the Minister is beginning to see that the Act of 1930 is a bad Act, and if she will come along now and introduce a repealing Measure, I am certain that she will have the support of every Member of the party to which I belong; but until she does that I am sure that the Lord Privy Seal's expectations will be disappointed and that the figures will go on rising—and, what is more, they will go on rising the whole time that the present Government is in office, because there is a certain psychological effect with regard to unemployment, one of the chief points of which is that the mere fact of having a Socialist Administration is bound to cause considerable disturbance in the world of trade and industry and employment, and the very fact that every Measure that the Government brings in means increased expenditure out of public funds has its immediate effect on unemployment.

I would like to give this final word to the Minister. Last night her colleague, the Minister of Health, in speaking on the Money Resolution of his Bill, expressed the view that it did not matter to him how much expenditure went up, that we had a certain standard of social services in this country, that the higher it went the better, and that whether it cost much or little did not matter. He did not care whether estimates were reduced to 001 of a penny or not. I put it to the Minister of Labour that surely the Cabinet, when they are considering the question of unemployment, must take some account of the rising expenditure of the social services? Even if they admitted that there was a certain amount available to be spent on these services, they should surely look into the question of how best to divide the money? If the Minister by her Unemployment Insurance Acts and by the administration of those Acts expends a certain amount, is it not very likely that there is less to go round for other services, however deserving they may be? If the Minister would bend her mind and the minds of her colleagues to that problem, she would be doing the State a much greater service than she is doing at the present time. Of course, no one is going to divide against the Third Reading of this Bill, for the very simple reason that if it is not passed within a very few weeks there will be no money available out of which payments can be made to unemployed persons—not to unemployed persons who have not contributed, but, as the Minister said on the Second Reading, to those who have contributed for years and years and who deserve full benefits if anyone does, because they have made these payments and have drawn nothing. It has to be remembered all the time that those to be considered are not only those who come in and out of insurance, but those who pay in for years and years and then suddenly fall out of work, as in the case of the cotton operatives, to whom the Minister referred. If we did not give a Third Reading to the Bill those people who have for years paid contributions would be debarred from benefits. We take this opportunity of once again calling the Minister's attention to the very deplorable situation with regard to unemployment, and of reminding her that it is entirely due to our having a Socialist Government in this country.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield)

I hope that the House will exonerate me from any intentional discourtesy. As a, matter of fact I had half risen from my seat when the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) plunged in.

Captain CROOKSHANK

I did not want to butt in at all, but I know how quickly a question is put, and that if someone does not get up Debate goes by default.

4.0 p.m.

Miss BONDFIELD

I think the House agrees that there has been ample discussion of the Bill so far. There is one point and one point only in the Bill, and that is that we are asking the House to extend the borrowing powers by £10,000,000. There is the further fact that the House accepts the position that there is no alternative to this course. I have informed the House that if the live register remains at an average of 1,500,000, the £10,000,000 will see us through this year. This Bill is not brought forward as a settlement or a solution, but as a Measure which is necessitated by the situation which has arisen. I personally have never deceived the House by making any forecast as to the immediate relief of the present situation, because as far as I can see no one can forecast how soon the present trade depression will lift. I hope, as everybody must, that the trade depression will disappear, but my business is to assume the worst and to make provision on the assumption that the register will show no immediate reduction on the present figures. Events are being watched by my Department with the greatest possible care, and all suggestions that are made from time to time in this House are being carefully considered, particularly those suggestions that were made on Friday last, which are being gone into with a very great deal of interest. I have noticed that all parties in this House have expressed themselves very strongly on the question of the manner in which the live register figures are presented. I do not wish to deprive any Members of the parties opposite of their satisfaction in getting figures which are comparable figures, but that is not the point which has been raised. I appreciate that the suggestion that was made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was made, not from the standpoint of party advantage, but from the standpoint of the best method of presenting the figures. It is, of course, quite right and proper that I should take every opportunity of keeping the House fully informed of the movement of the figures and as to the finance of the Fund, and this I propose to do. This Bill is recognised as being necessary and since, as has been already stated, it is not intended to oppose the Third Reading. I would ask the House to let me have the Bill now. If, however, there are points to be discussed further, my hon. colleague the Parliamentary Secretary will be pleased to answer them.

Sir HENRY BETTERTON

I am sure the House will be glad that the right hon. Lady took the opportunity of saying something, at any rate, on the Third Reading of this Measure, because although it is perfectly true, as she said, that it is in form limited in scope, everybody knows that this Bill, as has been shown during the long discussions we have had, raises questions of fundamental importance. We cannot, therefore, get rid of the question merely by saying that it is a matter whether we shall or shall riot raise the borrowing powers to £50,000,000. During the discussions we have had—and I am not going to keep the House very long, because the discussion already has been ample—there was disclosed to the House, in a manner, perhaps, that could be emphasised in no other way, the really serious position in which we are. I have taken part in many unemployment insurance Debates during the last five years. In some respects the discussions we had last week and the week before were amongst the most interesting I have ever heard. They were certainly characterised by a temper in Debate which was not present, at any rate, during the last Parliament. On the other hand, they disclosed a position which, beyond question, is more depressing than that of which anybody in this House has any recollection.

The figures themselves, as my hon. and gallant Friend has already said, actually stand at this moment at a higher point than at any time since 1922. That in itself, is a sufficiently sinister fact, but, perhaps, the most sinister fact of all is that the Minister of Labour, with gloomy pessimism, says, "Ah, if they do not go beyond 1,500,000 on an average, then, I think, we can carry on to the end of the year," but, as is much more likely, if they average the appalling figure of 1,600,000, then she says, "I shall have to come back in a very few weeks or very few months and ask for more money." That, I think, has brought home to the House the fundamental fact that this is a condition which cannot be allowed to continue as it is, because it is perfectly clear that this policy, if policy it be, is leading us nowhere except to bankruptcy. Therefore, I welcome the right hon. Lady's statement that she is going to give the most serious attention—and I hope we shall have the result of her inquiries as soon as possible—to the most valuable suggestions which were made last week and the week before by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), but I do not propose to go over the ground which was gone over so fully before. It is perfectly true that some of the causes of the present position are due to world causes, over which the right hon. Lady has little or no control. It is also true that some of the causes are due, in my opinion, to causes for which the Government are directly responsible.

It is customary to ask leaders of industry, those engaged in trade in whatever capacity, whether they can give some estimate, whether they can assist this House in forming any conclusion as to what the future is likely to be in their particular industries. The right hon. Lady told us a moment ago with perfect candour that she can make no forecast. Of course she cannot; nor can they, because the truth of the matter is that there is no industry in this country which can foretell with the slightest degree of certainty what is to be the result of the legislation which has been passed by this House, or what will be the ultimate result of the uncertainty produced by the action of the Government. What is the good of asking a shipbuilder or a man engaged in the iron and steel industry, what effect on unemployment the Coal Bill will have; and what is the good of asking anyone engaged in the motor car industry or the silk industry what is the future before him when he has not the slightest idea what course the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take?

One thing clearly emerges out of all this—that for one reason or another a most terrific strain has been put upon the whole system of unemployment insurance, and I confess that it is a matter of regret to me that the right hon. Lady, whom I had always regarded as a convinced and, indeed, in the past, a courageous supporter of a national system of mutual self-help which we call unemployment insurance, should have given way when the first assault was made upon it last November. I thought she would have been the first to resent the implication that this was to be reduced to a mere dole, and I thought she would have striven to maintain the dignity of the system. I am not now going into the question of the genuinely seeking work Section in the old Act, which was repealed, or the provisions of the new Act, but I want to point out that what happened last November really inflicted an irreparable blow upon the whole system of contributory unemployment insurance. The effect was clearly pointed out by the most authoritative of all authorities, namely, the Government Actuary, and I want to refer to it in order to show that this really is a question of principle which must be maintained, or the whole system will founder. This is what the Government Actuary said, as shown in Command Paper 3453: The possibility should, however, not be overlooked that the new provision may have the effect of bringing certain other persons into benefit, for example, married women who have done little or no work since marriage and seasonal workers during the 'off-season.' These two classes of cases will serve as illustrations of what in the aggregate may amount to a considerable group of new claimants, consisting of persons who, so to speak, are not really in the market as competitors for employment, but may hold themselves out as such if they are thereby enabled to qualify for benefit. There are, however, no data enabling any estimate to be made of the additional cost arising under this head. That means that you have quartered on this fund a limited and favoured class of people who, as Sir Alfred Watson says, are not really in the market competitively at all. But, quite apart from the question whether these particular persons are or are not deserving of what you have given, quite clearly you are giving them something under the Insurance Act which is not insurance. You are giving them, not an insurance benefit, nor, indeed, a dole in the sense that it is necessarily given to those who are destitute, and therefore worthy of relief. You are, in fact, giving a gratuity, something paid out to a limited class who are no more entitled to it than many other people who are left out. That sort of thing drives a hole right through the system of insurance. When the right hon. Lady—who is, after all, the trustee of this fund; the trustee for the State, the employers and the employed—permits an act of this kind, with all respect she is doing something which is utterly and entirely a breach of the trust of which she is a trustee. That, I think, is the real significance, or part of the significance. of what happened last November.

The right hon. Lady told us that she would go into this question of figures. It is clear to me that as we are going now, the House and the country are entitled to know how the finance is proceeding from week to week, or, at the latest, from month to month, and the right hon. Lady, I am sure, will give us all the information in her power. It seems to me that if we are to know how this is pro- ceeding, and where we are going, we ought, week by week, not only to have figures of those who are on the register of uneployment, but we ought also to have, week by week, figures showing the number of those who are actually receiving benefit, because it tells us very little to be told merely that there are so many on the register of unemployment. We want to know how many there are week by week actually receiving benefit and, as a corollary to this, I think we ought to know week by week the number of claims of those who have been refused for one reason or another by the Court of Referees. That, at any rate, would enable us to have a knowledge of the position we are in, and where we are going.

There is one other point on a very similar matter to which I want to draw attention. I put a question recently to the Minister of Labour asking if she would state: what is the estimated increased cost falling on the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the financial year ending March, 1931, of the payment of benefit to unemployed persons and their dependants who, but for the provisions of the last Unemployment Insurance Acts, would have been dependent on Poor Law relief? The answer of the Parliamentary Secretary, I confess, surprised me. It was as follows: I regret that information is not available showing to what extent persons who become entitled to benefit under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, would, but for the receipt of such benefit, have been dependent on Poor Law relief."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1930; col. 1978, Vol. 237.] Surely there is some estimate in the Department as to these figures. If not, it simply means that the Government have gone into this matter blindfold and without any data on which they can make a statement or give information to the House. I think it is clear that there must be in the Department some means of procuring this very material information. The Lord Privy Seal, and I think also the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, have both told us that the effect of the Act would be to take many persons off Poor Law relief and put them on the Unemployment Fund. If so, there must be an estimate of the numbers, and if there is an estimate of the numbers we are entitled to have it. I also asked the Secretary of State for Scotland: what is the estimated total sum for each of the last three financial years expended by the Poor Law authorities for Scotland in the relief of able-bodied unemployed persons, including their dependants; and what is the estimated sum by which these figures will be reduced for the coming financial year by reason of the operation of the last Unemployment Insurance Act? The right hon. Gentleman's reply stated: As regards the second part of the question, it is not yet possible to estimate what reduction will be effected in the expenditure of parish councils on the relief of the able-bodied unemployed in Scotland as a result of the new Unemployment Insurance Act. I propose, however, to call for returns from the large industrial parishes on the matter."—I-OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1930; col. 1981, Vol. 237.] I ask the right hon. Lady now, to do for England and Wales exactly what the Secretary of State for Scotland has promised to do in regard to Scotland. If we could get that information, it also would help us to see the position in which we are to-day. I do not wish to take up the time of the House any longer, but I would again point out that this Bill is, quite obviously the merest stopgap Measure. We are entitled to press upon the right hon. Lady that she should give us as soon as possible—I do not ask for it to-day, but she will have ample opportunity later, of giving it—her considered view upon the very important suggestions which were made the other day by my two right hon. Friends. Speaking, myself, with some knowledge of this subject, I feel certain that unless something is done to re-establish this fund and this principle upon a sound foundation, we are in danger of losing altogether a system which has been, in my view, of infinite value to hundreds of thousands of people in this country during the 10 very difficult years through which we have just passed.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN

The Memorandum on the Financial Resolution in connection with this Bill, states that on a live register of 1,563,800—the figure on 10th March—the outgoings of the Fund are likely to exceed the revenue by more than £275,000 a week, and in addition to that, interest payments approximating to £1,000,000 are to be made at the end of each of the months of March and September. Can the Minister tell the House what is the estimated excess of outgoings over revenue on the present total of 1,677,000? That will give us some indication of the amount which is being drawn, as compared with the actual number brought on, partly by the decrease in employment, and partly by the administration of the new Act. We have asked several times from these benches if it was not possible to get co-operation on non-party lines in regard to schemes of work. That proposal has not come to anything, but might we not co-operate in order to get a real review of the facts of the situation? The House always listens with profound respect to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) both for his knowledge of the subject and for the temper of his speeches, but I cannot forbear reminding him that when he was helping his right hon. colleague the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) to pass the 1927 Act, some of us begged him not to remove the distinction which had previously existed between real benefit and what is now called extended benefit.

Some of us felt quite certain that if it were removed a point would be reached where, if you attempted to fix permanent benefit on the basis of 30 contributions in two years, you would have one of two results. You would either force hundreds of thousands on to the parish and wreck the rates of the distressed areas, or you would force the removal from the insurance register of all those who could not reasonably be supposed to get employment in their own occupations because their employment record was so bad. We have to look at this problem, not merely from the point of view of the Fund, though I agree with every word which the last speaker said about the danger of uprooting the foundations of actual insurance. We have to go further than that, however, and we have to consider the effect on the men themselves of this growing total of unemployed, and of the merging of those who are not insured, with those who are insured.

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think that a question of that kind can be gone into on this occasion. A general discussion on unemployment would not be permissible on the Third Reading of this Bill. I agree that the reason for this Bill is the necessity of providing more money, because of the large number of unem- ployed, and I cannot prevent a certain amount of discussion as to the reasons for the large number of Unemployed, but I do not think that hon. Members will be justified in going any further than that.

Mr. BROWN

I realise that on the Third Reading the discussion cannot be as wide as on other occasions, and perhaps I was too long in leading up to a point which I think is germane to the Bill. The provisions of the Bill are necessary because the unemployment figures are so high that the present borrowing powers will not cover for a reasonable time the number who are now on the Fund or who will be on the Fund. We have to consider the effects of extending these borrowing powers—first of all on the Fund itself, secondly, on the persons concerned, and, thirdly, on the country as a whole. These three points of view must be taken into consideration, and seeing that we are going to extend these borrowing powers to £50,000,000 I ask, can we not get a review of the facts of the situation? I do not think it possible to get what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe suggested. I do not think it is possible to find, week by week, the number of persons who are actually getting benefit, because there are too many coming in and going out.

I remember asking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth a question on that point when he was Minister of Labour, and I received from him a very able, very intricate, and very detailed answer, covering three typewritten sheets, and explaining that at was not possible to give the information. There are so many changes from day to day, and sometimes from hour to hour, that it would be impossible to get a return of that kind, but what we could get and what we ought to get before it is sought again to increase these borrowing powers—if it is ever necessary to do so again—is a review of the numbers of those who fall into three groups, those who are really insured, those who have a bad insurance record, and those who have an impossible insurance record. I think it ought to be possible to obtain that information.

Mr. BUCHANAN

What is the purpose of it?

Mr. BROWN

If the hon. Member allows me to continue he will find that I am not making this proposal without suggesting a reason for it. It would enable us to do what the House in the end will have to do, unless there is a miraculous revival of trade, and that is to separate the one from the other in order that the nation as a whole may be responsible for those who ought not to be on the Insurance Fund, and in order that we may bring our minds to bear on giving to those who are suffering so badly owing to limited incomes and the lack of opportunities to work, the chance of being put on to constructive work. I hope that we shall be able to get such a review, and if the discussions on this Bill and the Financial Resolution help us to get it, then the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on Friday last may well prove to be the most remarkable speech delivered in this Parliament.

Mr. SPEAKER

I must point out to hon. Members that suggestions of that kind cannot be followed up in the discussion on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. SKELTON

The right hon. Lady speaking a moment or two ago said that it was her duty in this matter to assume the worst, and the worst assumption she had to make in asking the House to grant this extension of borrowing powers, was an average of 1,500,000 unemployed. But in that case "the worst" has already been left far behind, because the present unemployment figure exceeds that figure by nearly 200,000. Recollecting as I do a number of Debates in this House on Unemployment Insurance Bills I must reiterate the observation of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that at no stage of these discussions has the Minister made the slightest effort to give any estimate of the future course of unemployment and that the House is being treated scandalously in that respect. I am well aware of how uncertain any such estimate must be, but at all events it would assure us that the right hon. Lady is taking a real interest in the general subject of unemployment, and giving it the meticulous care and constant attention which her predecessor gave to it. This is not the first time that I have had to remark on the very great change between the constant and real interest taken in this question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) and what appears to me to be the Minister's rather slipshod way of doing her duty in this House. In my humble opinion, nothing could be more slipshod, at a time when the unemployment figures have reached nearly 2,000,000 than to leave the House without any idea at all of what she considers the probable future of unemployment will be.

I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) into the causes of the increased number of unemployed in this country. I suspect that any extended discussion on that topic would be out of order, but just as my hon. Friend mentioned one of the sins of commission of the present Government as being to some extent responsible for our difficulties, I should like to draw attention to one sin of omission which, in my judgment, has a connection with the present figure of unemployment. Although trade and industrial occupations may improve, and although the figure of unemployment may be reduced in that way, so long as successive Ministers of Labour refuse to consider the possibilities of our country life, properly organised, as a means of permanently getting rid of unemployment so long will our nation be burdened with a heavy figure of unemployment. So long as no proper steps are taken to make use of the great asset of the countryside, so long will the figure of unemployment be unnecessarily high. It would be improper to speak at greater length upon that topic, but I would urge on the right hon. Lady, if she were still here, that the Ministry of Labour should even now take it into close consideration and look at it largely, fully, and in a detailed and statesmanlike way, to see whether the countryside cannot even now be called in to the assistance of the urban world.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough said something of the very changed language of the Members on the Front Bench opposite now, as compared with the days when they were on this side of the House. I entirely agree but something strikes me with even greater surprise, and that is the complete change of tone, not only of the Front Bench opposite, but of their Back Bench supporters. The Labour party in opposition in the previous Parliaments were never weary of asking questions as to the number of unemployed. There was no day passed on which such questions could be answered when more than one was not asked, but now that their own leaders are responsible, they sit absolutely mum and are apparently careless of the subject, which before filled them with such unholy glee. I must say to my hon. Friends opposite that I wonder that a desire to maintain some reputation for consistency does not make them show at all events some supposed interest in the state of unemployment in this country. It appears to me that so complete an alteration of mood, the supersession of such excited interest by such calm contempt, must indicate to their followers in the country how superficial, how shallow, and how unimportant is their interest in this vast problem. I do not say this in order to stir up any party feeling, but I say it because it is the main impression which I have gathered from the various unemployment Debates in this Parliament as compared with the attitude of mind exhibited by hon. Members opposite only a short time ago.

It is not by the right hon. Lady or by the Government that any real assistance will be given to this problem. Their efforts, as was so well said by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, are clearly aimed at getting "the greatest doles for the greatest number," and it is clear that the present demand for an extended loan will many times have to be renewed while the present Government are in office. That must be so, for it is not by the principle of constantly extending the ease with which the dole is to be got—[An HON. MEMBER: "Benefit, not dole!"] I will select my own words, and the hon. Member opposite may select his. I say that it is not by the ease with which the dole is given, and the absence of any real system of preventing its misuse, that you will encourage the people of this country to make the effort which is necessary to get rid of unemployment. A Socialist Government, Socialist legislation, and the easy demand for more millions must simply in the end of the day so imbue the people of this country with a sense of the ease with which unemployment benefit can be got that the energy of this country and of its citizens must, to a very large extent, be shattered. The continuance of the present Government and of a succession of Bills such as this must inevitably bring it about that the energy of our people will be so shattered that every year that the Socialist Government is maintained in office, the problem of getting rid of unemployment will be proportionately increased.

Mr. TINKER

I would not have risen but for the taunt of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). It is very unfair to Members on these benches to tell them that they take no interest in the question of unemployment. What does this Bill do save deal with the question of giving further relief to a fund which is already badly crippled? It does not require anybody on this side to speak on that subject. When the hon. Member's, party came forward with a Bill some time ago to increase the borrowing power from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000, I got up in the House and said that if they made it £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 to relieve the pressure on the fund, we would all be in agreement with them. We were then in Opposition, but we did not offer anything against that Measure. The present Bill is not a Bill whose purpose it is to get rid of unemployment; it is a Bill for the purpose of meeting the deficiency on the Fund. If any hon. Member opposite can put forward anything to improve the position, we shall gladly listen to it, but if it is merely criticism of the borrowing powers, I would ask them to leave the matter alone.

This is not the time at all to bring forward measures to put the whole Problem in order. There will be opportunities later on for that, and if hon. Members opposite will take their opportunity then, we will welcome them, but for the moment I think the House should realise the position in which we are placed. The Minister has come forward, in most extraordinary circumstances, with a very open mind, admitting the great difficulty in which she is placed, and asking the House to give her the power to carry on. She has said that she might have to come later for further borrowing powers. Nobody wants her to do that, if it can be helped, but it may be so, and surely, if we realise the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves, we shall all say "God speed your Bill." We here are just as anxious as anybody opposite to help relieve the great difficulty in which the country is placed on this question of unemployment.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS

The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the Minister have both pointed out that in their minds there is no alternative to borrowing. I do not propose now to go into that point, but I wish to draw attention to the speech of the Lord Privy Seal the other day, when he asked that the House should deal with this question of unemployment in a different atmosphere. We have often been told that people like myself, who represent divisions where there is comparatively little unemployment, have not the right, because we have not the knowledge, to intervene in these Debates. If that is the case, it is clear that the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen and Ladies opposite to which we have been listening for years cannot have been very instructive, if they have been unable to enlighten us in all that time. I accept the position as laid down by the Lord Privy Seal, that this Bill is one which comes very close to the heart and mind of every individual, not only in this House, but in the country as a whole, and I do not want to look at this Bill at present in a controversial way.

I think there is one fundamental point in connection with the Bill on which it might be easy for the leaders of the parties in this House to come to an agreement. I think that, as a nation, we have found the very best method of advertising the number of our people who are out of work. We put it in week after week—it has been done by this Government and by its predecessors—and if these discussions lead to nothing else, I would like to see it laid down that in some way we could not only reorganise these figures and get them done with altogether, but that, while they are there, we could get some form of figures which would show a truer estimate of the real position of this country, because the present method very often leads to a pessimism which is not justified by the actual state of affairs.

Mr. SPEAKER

I must point out to the hon. Member that what he is saying has no relation to the Bill itself. The question with which he is dealing is one quite outside the Bill altogether.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I will keep strictly to the Bill. The Minister told us, in introducing the Bill, that she had to come for the purpose of borrowing £10,000,000, and she said that she was not really borrowing to as large an extent as her predecessor had done, and that she was not such a bad rake as her predecessor; but she must realise that, although on the figures she gave it would seem that she was only raising the amount by between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000, as against her predecessor's £10,000,000 or so, yet you had to add to her figures the £14,000,000 which she had taken from other sources and which had gone into the revenue of the fund. In reality, therefore, although she may be, in her own opinion, not such a rake as her predecessor, if you come to actual figures she has advanced very much more rapidly. There is a point in connection with these figures which I wish to raise. She told us last week that this money was needed because the figures had been raised for different reasons, and last Friday she told us, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the previous week she had said that between 40,000 and 50,000 had gone on to the figures, but that that week it had risen to 67,000.

Miss BONDFIELD

The first was an estimate; the second was an analysed return.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I agree, but the thing has gone up, and the estimate was too low for the analysed return. These figures are rising every week, I am given to understand, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will give us the figure beyond the 67,000 to which they have risen now. I think that is a figure which we have every right to obtain. In her original statement on this Bill, the Minister said that for 1,500,000 people out of work the sum for which she was asking would last till the beginning of next year, or I think she said 1,600,000 until next November. I would like to know how long it will take to arrive at 1,700,000, and for how long the fund will carry us? I am hoping that we shall not reach that figure, but I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, taking the index figure as to the amount which the fund will stand, how much, say 100,000 people added to the fund would cost week by week. It is only by having clearly before us what the addition of 10,000 or 100,000 per week costs in a week and in a year that we can form a real estimate of what we are doing. Can the Parliamentary Secretary, in justification of the request for further borrowing powers, give any particular instance of what is being done to prevent the Government from having to come for an additional sum quite quickly? The hon. Gentleman would strengthen his position enormously if he could tell us that his Ministry are doing something to try and relieve the position, for instance, in the matter of transfers. I only use that as an illustration, but it is a matter in which I think—

Mr. SPEAKER

The Parliamentary Secretary would be out of order if he answered that question. It is quite out of order.

Mr. WILLIAMS

If he is not allowed to answer, I would not dream of pressing him. We have arrived at the extraordinarily difficult position that year after year we have the Government coming to us and asking us for increased borrowing powers; and never once during the whole of this Debate have they given us any sort of reason why they cannot take alternative methods. There are plenty of alternative methods, and the Government have never attempted during the Debate to throw any light on this problem. It is an unfortunate position in which the House finds itself after having given the Minister such an easy passage for the Bill. We have hoped again and again that they would be able to tell us that, sooner or later, the present position would come to an end. The Minister was quite frank in saying that she had no alternative whatever. The Lord Privy Seal said something in connection with this question the other day, and it is one of the reasons why I thoroughly dislike this Bill. This borrowing, from a financial point of view, is absolutely unsound in the worst possible way. It will not make it more easy by anything which is done under this Bill, to deal with the unemployment question. The only way in which to deal with it is to cut out this kind of Bill, and to look at the question in a much broader way, and in an Imperial way.

Mr. EDMUNDS

In addressing the House for the first time, I feel sure, from my experience of the House, that the usual indulgence will be very generously accorded. I would like first, in response to a remark made by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that this proposal to increase the borrowing powers to £50,000,000 is unsound, to remind him of a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who said that he could see nothing wrong in extending the borrowing powers of this fund to the extent of the whole year's income of the fund, which is £58,000,000. I leave the hon. Gentleman to settle his differences with the right hon. Member for Epping.

I would not have intervened this afternoon had it not been for some of the observations that have been made on the other side of the House, particularly some of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). Quite ungenerously, and in a rather small party spirit, he apparently placed upon the present Government the whole responsibility for the large increase in the size of the unemployment figures. I am willing to admit that, had a Conservative Government been in power to-day, the figures would not have been so large, not for the reason that there would have been less unemployment, but that there would have been fewer people registered and in receipt of the unemployment benefit.

I speak as one who for the last eight years has had a great deal to do with actual unemployment —as a trade union official, it was part of my daily duty —and one of the most dismal features of the last few years has been the numbers of people who have been cut out of benefit through the harsh and ruthless application of the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause in the late Act. Speaking on behalf of a large number of unemployed who are in my organisation, I wish to thank the right hon. Lady and the Government for easing that position by the Clause in the Bill which was recently passed. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) said that this was a Government that provided "the greatest doles for the greatest number." I regard that not only as an insult to the present Government, but as a libel on our unemployed. One of the difficulties in my own personal experience has not been the question of not genuinely seeking work; I have had more complaints from the unemployed that preference has been shown at the Exchanges in the provision of work. That has been one of the greatest difficulties of a trade union official, and I resent the insinuation which was made by the hon. Member for Perth, that the unemployed are just looking to this Government to provide doles. I hate the term "dole"; it is an unfair term, but the term has been used, and on behalf of the unemployed whom I represent, I repudiate such an unjust insinuation against the character of the men and women who are out of work.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, when the Financial Resolution on which this Bill is founded was before the House, said that the large numbers who were now in receipt of benefit and who had no real insurable claim to benefit, ought to be considered in the light of being transferred to a reformed Poor Law. The House has to face the position that the unemployed have either to be sustained by grants made from this House or from the Insurance Fund borrowings as authorised by this House, or they have to be sustained by the local authorities. One of the cardinal principles upon which this party stands is that unemployment is a national charge. Were we not to extend the borrowing powers as laid down in this Bill, large numbers of the unemployed would have to be catered for by the new public assistance authorities; and, if those who are not entitled by insurance to benefit, but have come in through the widened provision in the Clause in the recent Act, were struck out, they would have to be sustained by the public assistance authorities. These cases would be most numerous in those areas which are most distressed, and which have been bearing a burden for the last six or seven years. Consequently, they would be totally unable to meet the new burden that such a procedure would cast upon them. It is a great pleasure therefore, to support this Bill, though one has a melancholy feeling that such a Bill should be necessary.

The hon. Member for Perth cast a reflection on the back benches when he said that we were viewing with calm contempt the increasing numbers of the unemployed. I fling that charge back into his teeth as an unfair charge, and as a calumny upon the attitude of the Members of the party on the back benches here. We are just as much concerned to-day as we were long before the last Election about these rising figures. We would far prefer to see everyone of these unemployed engaged in employment. It is not our fault. These huge figures of unemployed are the product of private enterprise. They are not a product of the system in which we believe. We are supporting a Government which has to deal with this product of private enterprise, and the only thing that can be done at the present moment is to deal with these human beings for whom private enterprise does not cater. Apart from the provision of public works, we have to see that by some means through the Unemployment Insurance Acts, provision for sustenance is made for the men and women who are out of work.

5.0 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND

The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cardiff (Mr. Edmunds), who has just spoken, has delivered a maiden speech. He has delivered it with fluency and with emphasis, and because it was a maiden speech, I imagine, Mr. Speaker, that you did not enforce the rules of order as strictly as you have done previously during the Debate. I must answer, if I am allowed, what he has said, though I do not wish to trespass one inch beyond the rules of order. It cannot be allowed to be said without contradiction in this House that the increase in the figures of unemployment is not a real increase, but is due to the fact that people are now allowed benefit who, under the harsh administration of the previous Government, did not get it. That statement must never be allowed to pass current without being contradicted. There is not a shadow of justification for it. As we have been quite definitely attacked about this, I would like the House to consider for a moment who the people are who did not get benefit before but who may be getting benefit now. They were people on the two months file, people on the "dead" file, and people on the files at Kew. In the first place, they were people who were not so sufficiently in want as to have to go to the Poor Law, or they would have been required to register by the Poor Law authorities. They were not, on the other hand, so anxious for employment as to take the trouble to register. What is said in this House is doubtless said in many places throughout the country, that some of this increase is due to people getting benefit under a milder administration than the previous one, and therefore I repeat that there is not a shadow of justification for that statement.

If I were to endeavour to go into some of the other points—not raised by the hon. Member for Morpeth, but by other Members—I should be travelling outside the bounds of order during a Third Reading speech, and, indeed, I do not want to delay the final stage of this Bill. I know quite well that the Minister will be glad when it has left this House to go to another place and finally comes up for the Royal Assent. It was a most unwelcome baby to produce at the legislative font for baptism, and I am sure she will be glad when it is sent on its way, even with godfathers on this side of the House who wish to keep it as much in order as we can and see to its good behaviour.

I have one question to put to the Parliamentary Secretary, reinforcing a question which was put by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) with, as I always say, his usual acuteness in these matters. What, under the present conditions, is the balancing point? New people are coming on to the Fund under the operation of the latest Act, which received its assent at the end of January. Is the balancing paint still 1,200,000, or is it more than 1,200,000? The second question is this: Supposing, as is true at the present moment, that the figures are in excess of that point, what is the additional debt upon the Fund for every additional 100,000 persons? May I ask for the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, because this is a point of statistics and we ought to know? What we have to consider, first of all, is the cost per week of every additional 100,000 persons upon the Fund over the balancing point; and, secondly, on the average per week, how much does the Fund continue to run into greater debt on account of the interest that is already chargeable on it? My own feeling is that it is somewhere about £100,000 a week under present conditions for every 100,000 persons on the Fund—perhaps not quite so much.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson)

£100,000.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

That is practically £1 per person on the Fund, and in addition, the payment of interest on the Fund as it at present exists accounts for, perhaps, another £40,000 a week or £2,000,000 a year. Those are the figures that we would like to have, and I ask for the information for this reason, that only when we know those figures will the ordinary person outside the Ministry of Labour be able to form cone impression of how long this £10,000,000 will last. If £1 per person is correct, and the interest has to be paid in addition, then it means that at the present moment the extra borrowing power of the Fund is being used up at the rate of very nearly £500,000 a week, so that if unemployment were to continue at its present level even this extra £10,000,000 would be absorbed at the end of another 20 weeks or so. As I said the other day on Second Reading, we all hope that this extra high level this week is not likely to continue indefinitely; we hope, at any rate, there will be an improvement soon; but we would like to have some information which will enable the ordinary person to estimate how long the additional credit will last.

I will deal quite briefly with a point made by the Minister. She was referring to an offer made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) with regard to the weekly figures. I make it again. We would be very ready to join in considering the issue of figures each week which would put the extent and the nature of the unemployment in this country in its true light. We would be quite willing to assist in examining jointly any form of statement which could have that for its object. It would be quite clearly understood, of course, in the light of our past experience, that we should want to have the present figures of unemployment continued at the same time, for purposes of comparison with what has gone before. That is the one point which I would like to make clear once again.

Miss BONDFIELD

The right hon. Gentleman says "the present figures continued." He is referring, I suppose, to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the figures that are published broadcast to the world?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Yes; we wish to have the present weekly figure, the figure at present published every Wednesday, continued at the same time, so that we may be able to have it for our use for purposes of comparison with the past. This directly affects—or more or less directly—the actual amount of unemployment. I now turn to the second suggestion which was made the other day. Part of the present Insurance system is acutely controversial—the conditions, that is, under what is called the assistance side of unemployment benefit, but part of the system is practically non-controversial. Part however would probably be found to be non-controversial, namely that which concerns a true insurance system for those who would be receiving insurance benefit under a strict definition of the term. Perhaps the non-controversial field would extend even further than that. If we divide, as I know the Ministry and the Treasury are already dividing, the finance of the insurance part of the scheme from the finance of the public assistance part of the scheme, then I think we should find that the nature of the authority required to deal with the public assistance side of any scheme, if it were separated from the true insurance, need not be a matter of controversy. Probably only the conditions under which assistance is given would prove controversial. As we are asked to treat this question in a nonparty spirit, I suggest there could be nothing better from the point of view of administration than to try to see that those parts of this great insurance system, which are probably non-controversial are settled by agreement.

I do not wish to pursue the rest of this subject of insurance further, because if I were to do so I should at once get on to very severely controversial topics. I should think of the whole three parts of the unemployment problem as we have seen it during the last six months—the amount of unemployment as compared with the statements with regard to it; the nature of the benefit as compared with previous statements made by Ministers with regard to it; and the actual state of the Fund and borrowing as compared with statements made by Ministers with regard to it. I remember reading, as many hon. Members no doubt may have done, a funeral inscription which runs: "Nihil tetigit quod non ornavit" which, being translated, means, he touched nothing which he did not adorn. When the epitaph of the present Government comes to be written with regard to unemployment and unemployment insurance the words will run: "Nihil tetigit quod non desecravit." There is nothing it touched which it did not make in a mess.

Mr. LAWSON

I welcome the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, as well as the spirit of the speech of my predecessor in this office. That spirit was to be expected in view of the experience which every Minister gets in a Department such as this, and I shall do my best to exhibit the same spirit in my remarks. May I say that the suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman has made will certainly have the serious consideration of my right hon. Friend But the right hon. Gentleman's speech was not the only one which has been made during this Debate, and I am only sorry that some of the hon. Members behind him are not now in their places. If they had been new Members, one could have understood some of the speeches that were made, because one would naturally infer from those speeches that this is the first Government which has ever come to the House to ask for an extension of the borrowing powers of this Fund. It would be interesting for the House to hear the whole story of the extension of the borrowing powers of the Fund, but I will not inflict that upon hon. Members to-day, though I would certainly say that we are within our rights in reminding the House once more of the legacy into which we came when we took office. The right hon. Gentleman, in that very friendly way he has sometimes of saying very rude things, told the House that we were putting a strain on the finances of this Fund. How anyone with a knowledge of what was done in this connection by previous Governments, can say that utterly passes my comprehension. When we came into office we found that the Fund could only maintain 1,000,000 on the register, and yet there was an average of 1,290,000 on the register during the previous year. Actually the previous Government exceeded the income of this Fund by something like £12,000,000 during the previous 12 months.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

We did not incur that £12,000,000 in one year.

Mr. LAWSON

My statement is based on the facts and figures given by the recognised authorities in the Department. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) is not present, because he used certain words in discussing this question. The first thing which the Minister of Labour found it necessary to do when she came into office was immediately to increase this Fund by £3,500,000, and that has long been accepted as a proper measure of justice to the Fund. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) dealt very fairly with the question of the people who have been accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for transition purposes. I sometimes wondered what was going to happen to those people, because the policy pursued before we came into office was very unfortunate as far as they were concerned. I have been asked several questions as to what would be the balancing point. It is 1,240,000, and the average cost per week for each 100,000 increase above that figure would be about £100,000. The cost of the interest would be £40,000 per week. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked me several questions, to some of which Mr. Speaker took exception, but I think Mr. Speaker allowed him to ask his question in regard to the number of people that had been added to the register up to the 31st March last. The figure is 70,000 The same hon. Member also asked how long the extra £10,000,000 would last with an average live register of 1,700,000. The answer is that it will probably last till about the end of September. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) asked for a comparable figure with the deficiency of £275,000 a week mentioned in the White Paper, but assuming the basis of a live register of 1,677,000. The answer to that question is £375,000 a week on the assumption that the same proportion of claimants will be entitled to benefit, but I cannot yet say whether this, in fact, will be the case.

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe asked if we could give the figures showing the amount of the charge transferred from the Poor Law to the Unemployment Fund by the Act of 1930, and he made a certain suggestion. That matter is now receiving very close attention. We cannot give those figures at the present time, but experience may enable the Minister of Labour, in due time, to make some estimate of what the position is in that respect. At present, we can only say that a certain number who were on the register before but not drawing benefit are now getting it, while others who were unemployed, but not on the register, are now registering and some of them are receiving benefit. I think that meets the whole of the points which have been raised in this Debate.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The Parliamentary Secretary has just given some figures to the end of September. I suppose that is on the supposition that the rate of unemployment remains as high as it is at the present time.

Mr. LAWSON

The figures I gave were on the basis of a live register of 1,700,000. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that there is sometimes a tendency, when people are discussing unemployment insurance, to assume that those who receive benefit are getting money out of an unlimited fund to which they do not contribute. Most hon. Members of this House understand that that is not so. Some of those who have delivered speeches upon the Money Resolution seem to assume that there are people who simply lay themselves out to impose upon the State by receiving this benefit. The truth of the matter is, as the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) and other speakers have said, that the income of this Fund is £58,500,000.

It is just as well to remind the House of the proportion contributed to the Insurance Fund by its various contributors. The employers pay £17,000,000, the workers pay £15,000,000, and the State pays £16,000,000 plus £10,500,000 for the people who are in the transition stage. Those who have come in contact with the great mass of our workers know that many of them prefer to work for a smaller wage than the amount which they could receive as unemployment benefit. I know a man who worked for five days for 30s. although he would have been entitled to receive 32s. as unemployment pay. That is characteristic of thousands of our workers to-day. That is an indication of the spirit which exists among the workers to-day, and I think it is necessary to make that statement on account of the speeches which we have heard from the back benches on that side and which seem to convey a wrong impression.

Right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite have charged the Government with negligence, with inability and inefficiency, but they cannot get any satisfaction out of the figures which have been given. What is the actual position at the present time? On the very day when the Money Resolution was introduced for increasing the borrowing powers for the Unemployment Fund, we were told that in the nation which was parallel with our own, Germany, unemployment had increased to 3,000,000 persons and the Government had fallen on account of the unemployment question. While we have been sitting here discussing this question for the past few weeks, in America, the nation which has been held up to us as a model, they have experienced an increase of unemployment and the President of the American Federation of Labour has said that the unemployment in America was one out of four of the population. Although I do not say that it is good, I think we ought to have a proper estimate of our own position comparable with that of other nations.

In view of the fact that we have this Unemployment Fund established, that our people have confidence that out of the Fund at least their elementary needs of life will be satisfied, and that the people of this country are steady and understanding in spite of the grave problems that they have to face, I say that, critical as we may be, we may well be proud of our people and of this system which has been built up, and we can say with some optimism that the courage and industry and ability which the great mass of the workers of this country have shown in the face of these problems will enable us to weather these storms and face successfully the difficulties of the times that are ahead. I do not think that I need further appeal to the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.