§ "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,150,000, be granted to His Majesty, 778 to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Exchequer Contribution to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Education Authorities, and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court: Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Transference of Workpeople and their Families within Great Britain and Oversea; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."
§ Resolution read a Second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Captain CROOKSHANK
I want to enter my protest once again against the 779 attitude of the Minister of Labour. This is not the first occasion on which I have had to trouble the House on this subject, for on another occasion, when the right hon. Lady was moving an almost equally large Supplementary Estimate, she spoke for about 3½ minutes only, and on this occasion she has not seen fit to address the House at all. I think it shows the utmost disrespect on the part of the right hon. Lady in dealing with this House. It is idle for her or anyone on the Government Bench to come down and expect to get the Report stage of a Supplementary Estimate of this magnitude without a word of explanation. Even in the Committee stage, with which, after all, as a House we are not concerned, the right hon. Lady only spoke rather late in the evening. I want, not only to enter my protest, but to offer a few observations to the right hon. Lady, and to give her at any rate the opportunity of saying a few words before we adjourn.
This is an Estimate for over £4,000,000, and there are one or two points in it with regard to which I should like some explanation. I should like also to make some allusion to the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in Committee. In the first part of this Estimate, under Sub-head A, the right hon. Lady is taking the sum of £300,000 for the purpose, among other things, of dealing with increased activity in placing men in employment, especially from the distressed areas. My constituency, since the Labour Government have come into office, happens to be a depressed area, and I should like some information with regard to Gainsborough itself, and as to what amount of expenditure is going to be provided to help to relieve the great industrial depression that we have in our town. It has come to a head since the right hon. Lady has been responsible for the Ministry of Labour.
I also want to ask the right hon. Lady what exactly she meant when she said in Committee that she has assumed, in the case of many of these Estimates, that during the next three or four months there will be no great decrease in unemployment. It is a very grim look-out for the country as a whole that the right hon. Lady should come down and say calmly that for the next three or four 780 months, when most of us had hoped for some improvement in the situation, there was not likely to be any great decrease in the existing figures. I should like to know whether the right hon. Lady's information with regard to the probable course of unemployment is entirely at variance with the hopes which have been expressed by the Lord Privy Seal. We have been led all along to expect, ever since the Government first took office that the primary subject to which they would give their attention was unemployment and that is why I am asking on what sort of grounds she is basing this deplorable estimate that things are not going to improve. In three or four months she has taken about £300,000 in increased activity, whatever that may mean, in placing in work people who are out of work. The whole burden of the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy the other day was, What can you expect from us after a brief period of seven months? That was the bitter complaint. He was very humble. He was no longer the proud person we used to know. They were not prepared to be judged by their adherents so far. Great things were about to happen, yet speaking an hour and a half later, the right hon. Lady said she did not expect any improvement in the next three or four months.
I had the curiosity to turn up a Debate that took place—I thought I should find something interesting—when the late Government had been in office seven months, and I wondered whether that had been the attitude of hon. Gentlemen who sit on that bench. I found a very different case then. We were being bitterly attacked because unemployment was getting worse. I do not think this is at all a matter for taunts across the Floor. It is a matter that far transcends any issue of party politics because it is the greatest industrial calamity that can befall any country, and that is why I deplore the right hon. Lady's statement. I invite her to tell us what this increased activity in finding jobs is going to be. The Secretary of State for War, on 28th May, 1925, said:On the 18th instant there were 164,000 more men unemployed than at this time last year. Surely any Government after that time of office ought to be able to make some definite statement instead of perfectly 781 indefinite generalities which lead us nowhere and give us no hope at all.If the right hon. Lady's predecessor could talk like that after seven months with regard to my right hon. Friend as to an increase of 164,000, what are we to say to her increase of 285,000? That is the figure she gave on the 23rd of this month. The difference that the right hon. Lady has to face compared with a year ago is 285,000, and the figure which was thrown across the Floor of the House at the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) was 164,000. I will repeat with more emphasis what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said, that surely any Government after seven months' office ought to be able to make some definite statement instead of indefinite generalities which lead us nowhere and give us no hope at all. I am not surprised that the right hon. Lady sits silent and does not take the trouble to introduce her own Supplementary Estimate on the Report stage. It is because she has nothing to say to face up to a situation as serious as this. I object to passing a Supplementary Estimate of this kind at all. I object to any expenditure of this kind because I am convinced that one of the contributory causes of the increase of unemployment is the way this Government are piling up bills which the taxpayers and the industries as a whole have to bear. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheer up!"] If the hon. Gentleman's constituency were in such a bad way as my constituency he would probably feel the same as I do about the matter.
It is because the present Government are piling up these bills—here we have an extra £4,000,000 on this account that I object to the attitude which the right hon. Lady adopts. If she wants to do something to stimulate employment she ought to use what influence she has with her colleagues to try to persuade them not to ask for further expenditure. She ought to try and get at the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is to be got at by anybody, and persuade him to be adamant in regard to fresh Supplementary Estimates or any kind of fresh expenditure by this House. I believe she would have considerable support if she did this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, all the time he was in opposition, was always saying that sort of thing, but to-day he 782 is acting in an entirely different manner. He used to come and tell us that if only the Government of the day would spend their time in bringing in Bills for afforestation and land drainage they would be doing some good for unemployment. He said that if such plans as that were adopted it would cost money, but the Government preferred to give it in the form of a miserable dole to keep men from work. This was the kind of thing he used to say about the right hon. Member for Tamworth. It was the sort of thing that, with every justification, we can say about the right hon. Lady and her Friends on the Front bench. If she would not bring in Supplementary Estimates like the present one there might be a chance of getting these unfortunate men and women back at the jobs they so greatly desire. There does not seem to be any prospect of that taking place. I invite her to spend this money for which she is asking, if it must be spent, in increasing activities so as to place men in employment, and above all to devote her attentions in this connection to the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
§ Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I want to ask one or two questions, the first in regard to the item of £600,000 for the training of unemployed men. In my constituency there are a very large number of young men who are out of work. I think I am right in saying that this week the unemployment figures in the City of Hull are higher than they have ever been before, with the exception of the week immediately succeeding the general strike. They are higher than anybody would have believed to be possible, because they did not realise the potentialities of a Socialist Government in the way of producing unemployment. What does the Minister of Labour propose to do in the training of these unemployed men? What is being done at the present time is a mere drop in the ocean in regard to the needs of the situation. That great city has been very heavily hit during the past four or five years. Several of the great industries there are suffering from trade depression to an abnormal extent. We have the shipbuilding trade as one of the chief trades in the city. The shipbuilding trade is in a worse position than 783 it has ever been before. The young men who were apprenticed to that industry and have been brought up to the trade, and whose fathers and grandfathers have been employed in the trade, now find themselves trained to an industry in which there is no work. What is being done for these young men?
The same argument applies to the fishing industry. The trawling industry has been badly hit, no doubt due to the dumping of foreign fish in the city, which in many cases has been caught in waters where our fishermen are prohibited from going, and is sold in our markets at prices with which our men cannot compete, which has had the effect of reducing employment in the fishing trade to an alarming extent. Young men who have been brought up to this industry find themselves without occupation. What is being done to train them for some fresh trade? The coal exporting trade, which employed before the War a very large number of people, has been in a most distressed and pitiable condition for many years. Things are not so bad in that trade because the young men are not specially trained to the work which that industry provides, but the young men in the trade are waiting for work and training which have not yet been found for them. What does the right hon. Lady intend to do in that direction? How does she intend to spend the £100,000 which we are voting in this Supplementary Estimate? I hope that she will give me some facts and figures of what has been done or will be done in Hull.
§ Major ELLIOT
I want to put a few points to the Minister chiefly arising out of our Debate on this Supplementary Estimate when it was in Committee. We made some criticisms against the administration of the Government, more particularly pointing out the great rise in the unemployment figures which had taken place in the winter season, and the fact that this rise in the unemployment figures was not preceded, as were the other rises in previous winters, by any drop in the figures immediately before Christmas. We pointed out that this seemed to show that the positive side of the Government's policy was proving a complete failure. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke in defence 784 of the positive side of the Government's programme, and made a soothing speech saying that he could not give any details of what was being done, and that one could not expect any very great reduction in the unemployment figures from the Government at present; in office. That is not what we complain of; what we complain of is the increase in the unemployment figures.
During the Committee stage we pointed out that the figures available showed that they were 20,000 above the figure when a reactionary Tory Government was in power a year ago. The Minister of Labour is in a difficult position. She has to answer for the sins of the Government and they do very little to assist her in these Debates. Their assistance is confined to an occasional intervention by the Secretary of State for War who can always be trusted for half an hour's interruption in a Debate in which he intervenes. We pointed out that owing to the action of the Government the unemployment figures would probably increase. What are the figures for the week ending 13th January, which were not published during the Committee stage. In the few days which have elapsed since they have gone 40,000 above what they were when a reactionary Tory Government was in power, and we are entitled to call the attention of the House to them. Far from the Government bringing down the number of the unemployed, what we have to blame them for is the extraordinary rapidity with which they are bringing them up, not only because of an absence of policy but by their positive constructive acts. The vagueness and indefiniteness of the various departments in making their administrative decisions is increasing the number of the unemployed in many departments which the Government can influence. I quoted figures in the building trade and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was the only Member who dared to comment upon them. He admitted that it was one of the gravest accusations which could be laid against the Government and urged that steps should be taken to deal with the situation. The figures for housing have fallen considerably, and the number of persons unemployed has increased during the last year.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I should have thought the hon. and gallant Member, being an intelligent reader of the West of Scotland journals, would have seen the reply in this week's paper.
§ Major ELLIOT
The hon. Member is no doubt referring to the "Forward." It is true that a reply is attempted, but it is fallacious. They have misread the report. I gave the figures for houses under construction, and they have misread it as the figure for houses constructed, which is quite a different matter. Their comment, therefore, is entirely beside the point and did not deal with the question, which I am sure the hon. Member for Gorbals will agree still remains, the great fall in the number of houses under construction. If a Labour Government could have been expected to accelerate anything, surely it was house construction. The Minister of Labour, in attempting to deal with the point, said:The hon. and gallant Member omitted entirely to take into account factors which, have influenced the situation. There was first of all the fact of the expiration of the subsidy under the 1923 Act, which caused a cessation of the compilation of statistics; we no longer get reports as to the extent of private building."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1930; col. 124, Vol. 234.]Yet I had been careful to point out in the figures I gave that I was dealing only with municipal building. Therefore, the fact that the Minister no longer gets reports of private building does not matter. The figures with regard to municipal building showed a falling off in the 1923 houses; they showed a falling off in the Wheatley houses. The Minister said it was because of the uncertainty in connection with the Wheatley policy. But, she added, the turn of the tide had taken place, the number of authorisations was greatly increasing, and consequently there would be a very great increase in the number of houses, under construction and built. The Minister pins her faith on the fact that we shall see a large extension of municipal house building over the figures which were available for the period when the previous Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary held control. That is a prophecy, and we shall be very interested to see the result of it. All that one can say is that while it is 786 quite true that the number of authorisations in December, 1929, is large—it is 9,261—the number of authorisations in December, 1928, if you take the 1923 and 1924 Acts together, was 9,904. Consequently, the increase which the Minister claims in December last is an increase only if you leave out of account altogether the houses being built under the 1923 Act. In fact the Minister's only excuse is, "It is quite true that we are doing poorly in municipal house-building, but poor old private enterprise is going to carry it through."
§ Mr. BECKETT
On a point of Order. Is it in order, on a Supplementary Estimate, to have a general survey of the unemployment problem, especially with regard to housing?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
No; it is not in order to have a general Debate on the unemployment problem, but it is in order to point to the reasons for the increase in the unemployment.
§ Mr. BECKETT
I hope that means that we shall be able to have a really good examination of the causes of unemployment?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
As far as they are the increase in the number of unemployed which necessitates this Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
I take it that we shall be able only to go into the faults of the Government? We shall not be able to go into the merits of capitalism?
§ Major ELLIOT
I was about to point out that there had been, in fact, a falling off in the activities which were in progress under the Conservative Government. The Minister did her best to justify that position. That was not her only defence. She said "We are doing a lot of work in other places. At Whipsnade we are building more 'Zoo's.' Houses for men are fewer, but 160 people are employed at Whipsnade building sheds for the llamas." A land fit for llamas to live in! That is a very constructive measure. The Minister told us what a remarkable idea this was and how it would be a real help in connection with the transfer schemes. I submit that it 787 shows a poverty of ideas and proposals, when the Minister in justifying a £4,000,000 Estimate has to devote quite a portion of her defence to the fact that the Government are enlarging "Zoo's" in the rural areas of England. This weakness is evident to a great many other observers. In one journal there was a very interesting article which went into the proposals of the Government and the ideas which were being submitted for dealing with the unemployment problem. He said:Mr. MacDonald cannot plead in justification of his failure that he was only partially conscious of the magnitude of the issue. He cannot plead that its ramifications were not properly understood, for the promises which he and his party dangled before the electorate were far-reaching and explicit. Labour pledged itself in set terms to face up to the realities of the situation which for four years Mr. Baldwin's Government had ignored. Now, after seven months of temporising and evasion, the promises are coming home to roost.Who wrote that? [An HON. MEMBER: "Wee Macgregor!"] That is a very interesting suggestion but it is not correct. The person who wrote that passage is the person who has just been appointed, at a large salary, by the Prime Minister as his economic adviser.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
What is the name? There is some doubt as to who it is, and we on this side are not quite so well informed as the hon. and gallant Member.
§ Major ELLIOT
That passage is from the "Nation" and the editor of the "Nation," I understand, has recently been added to the economic staff—
§ Mr. BECKETT
The Prime Minister, in reply to a question to-day explicitly denied that there was any authority whatever for that statement.
§ Major ELLIOT
The right hon. Gentleman said he could not say. But I am quite willing to leave it on the authority of the Editor of the "Nation"—[An HON. MEMBER: "The late editor"]—and to say that, as far as one can tell, the opinion of the late editor of the "Nation" has been very highly thought of by the Prime Minister and the party opposite. His opinion has been consulted on many occasions and all one can say is that the fact that that journal has denounced in scathing terms the Unemployment Insurance Bill and the policy of the 788 Government on unemployment insurance, is one of the surest signs that a conversion is shortly to take place and that the author of the lines will be found among the consultants of the Government either on the Front Bench or in the official gallery. The fact remains that the Government are asking for a large sum of money; that the money is for non-constructive purposes and that the Government, so far, have not succeeded even in the policy outlined during the Committee stage of this Vote—the policy of short-term works to fill up the gap while their long-range schemes are being got under way. So far from falling, the figures of unemployment are rising, and all the authorities who can be consulted point out the failure in confidence and in business which is taking place. The reports of the great banks come out, and the banks nowadays are the trusted advisers and indeed the prophets from whom the Government take their opinions. The banks say that in the second half of last year business everywhere took a definite turn for the worse. That is the opinion of the business world of the activities of His Majesty's present advisers, and that is reflected in the fact that the unemployment figures before Christmas did not fall, and after Christmas have continued to be above the figures which were current for last year. Even the activities which the Government themselves can directly influence do not show any sign of that grip, that drive, that determination which one would expect from a Government which, as everybody admits, must stand or fall by its record on this vital issue.
The question of the actual administration of these sums by the Government is in a way of secondary importance. We believe, and the Minister herself has now agreed, that the accusation of administrative persecution, of which certain ill-informed persons, like the present Home Secretary, complained when in Opposition, are entirely unfounded, that the officers of the Ministry do their utmost to deal with, in the most helpful fashion, the problem which has been set to them by an inexorable fate, that they are acting helpfully, sagaciously, and industriously. We have no desire to attack the personnel of the Ministry of Labour. Rather, we attack the policy of His Majesty's advisers, the policy of increasing taxation, 789 the policy of vagueness and uncertainty about their legislative proposals, the policy of arrogance, and, indeed, one might almost say the conceit, which makes them conceal their policy with regard to important pieces of future administration, such as their attitude towards the McKenna and the Safeguarding Duties, in a robe of self-righteousness.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico)
The hon. and gallant Member is getting outside the scope of the Resolution.
§ Major ELLIOT
I bow to your ruling, but I claim that in detailing the rise of unemployment and the factors which influence it, I am dealing with facts and tendencies which are absolutely germane to and mostly connected with this Vote. I am not going into details, but I say without hesitation that the failure of the Ministry to deal with unemployment is already a source of the gravest chagrin to their followers, that the realist section at any rate of their own followers realise that in the back streets and in the sections of this country where they draw their most consistent support already a rising tide of criticism is being heard against the action of His Majesty's present advisers. These people know very well that unemployment doles, unemployment administration—
§ Mr. R. A. TAYLOR
On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member's remarks have driven the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) to sleep?
§ Major ELLIOT
Of course, these interruptions detain us all from our sleep, and I have no doubt that they will increasingly detain us. The people in the back streets, who are bearing a grievous weight of economic depression, know very well that unemployment is a secondary thing compared with employment. It is employment that is their main desire, and it is not being found for them by the present Government. It is being removed farther and farther from them every day by the Government's policy. That policy is promoting unemployment rather than improving employment.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
If criticism is made of the Government for failing to stop the rise in unemployment, it should be 790 remembered that the Conservative party also were false prophets. When the De-rating Act was passed, we were promised a reduction in the figures. The Act is being operated, and, so far as de-rating is concerned, there has been a continuity of policy. De-rating is operating without any effect. Then, with regard to the boards of assessors, the last time I raised this matter, I asked if the expenditure was really worth while. No doubt the Minister of Labour will say that in the early months the boards of assessors did show some improvement. I am now convinced that the boards of assessors, in many ways, are now not acting in the benevolent fashion that they did at the start. Far from helping the unemployed, my own experience tends the other way. I attended courts of referees very regularly when I was in the City of Glasgow, and I was able to argue a case and get some sort of satisfaction in the awards. Now, when you go to a court of referees they invariably say: "You have been turned down by your own local people at the Exchange, and we are upholding your own local people." My own view is that now that the first novelty of the boards of assessors has worn off and the agitation has died down, the boards are as bad, and in some cases worse, than the position which existed before. Does the Minister think, with the experience from all parts of the country, that she is still entitled to spend this money on them and that the improvement is such as to make it worth while to continue them?
In this Estimate, the Minister is making provision for the new Act to come into force. Will she bear in mind that, when the Act was passing through this House, before it went to another place, we were told that six weeks before the operation of the new Act claims would be considered under the proposed new legislation, and that, while she could not operate that before the Bill became an Act, claims could be considered under the machinery of the new Act? Does the right hon. Lady propose to make any statement on that point before 1st February? As she is aware, that date is six weeks before the new Act operates, and large numbers of poor people are wondering whether to make new claims, whether they will be considered as under the new scheme, and whether those which have been cut out under the transitional 791 Clause will come under the new Act. Can they at once formulate it? In the interests of the tremendously poor people, it might be as well if we could have some statement to enlighten the large number of poor who are anxiously awaiting some guidance on what were called the transitional Clauses. I hope this point will receive the right hon. Lady's attention, and that if she cannot make a statement now, she will do so on Thursday, when we are considering the other Amendments, and that she will state the rights of the unemployed who are cut off from benefit and have no rights under the present Act.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
I would ask the House to observe the facts of the case about Government business. Here we are at five minutes to 12 discussing the Report stage of a Supplementary Estimate for £5,100,000, and at 12 minutes to 12 the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) put two questions which would require a full afternoon to debate. There is on this side of the House an unparalleled tenderness to the Ministers in a lack of discussion of the Estimates, yet on picking up Labour's only organ this morning, we find the most extraordinary assertions being made. I suppose that, with the recollection of the Prime Minister's speech in 1924 about mangey dogs, the editor of the "Daily Herald" in his sub-consciousness talks about dogs in the manger, suggesting that the Government is being hampered in their work by Members below the Gangway, saying nothing about Members above the Gangway; and that we are jettisoning every Measure which they would have brought forward but for the obstruction of Members on this side. I make no apology on this Supplementary Estimate for pointing out the facts. I have never in my life read a bigger set of misstatements in any daily newspaper than the statements contained in that article, and I hope that, since on every occasion Ministers of the Crown have taken advantage of being properly treated by sections of the Opposition to acknowledge it on the Floor of the House, and since we do not intend to detain the Minister to-night, as we might well do for hours, she, speaking for the Ministry—[An HON. MEMBER: "Get on with the job!"] The trouble is not that 792 we are not getting on with the job, but that the Labour party outside the House, because they are not getting on with the job, are trying to make other people the scapegoats. Let them get on with the job and not make false accusations about Members of this House who have treated the Government with unexampled kindness and humour in every difficult situation. I ask the right hon. Lady if she as a Minister of the Crown complains of the length of the discussions which she has had to hear on her Measures. Does she complain that we on these seats below the Gangway are like dogs in the manger, and that by the length of our speeches we have held up public business? If she does not, I suggest that she might call the attention of Labour's daily journal to the facts of the case, so that they might state to the country what the facts really are.
§ 12.0 m.
§ Captain AUSTIN HUDSON
I make no apology for saying a few words on this Estimate. When we have an Estimate for £4,150,000 brought up after 11 o'clock, and not even submitted by the Minister of the Department, I really do not see why Members should apologise. I cannot follow the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) because I do not read the paper in question, but I am perfectly certain that the heat which he put into his speech is well justified. One point on this Estimate which I wish to raise on the Minister relates to the "placing" side of the Ministry's work. The Ministry ought to devote more attention to this. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry said there had been 200,000 more placings than was the case a year ago, and if that be so, that is satisfactory. Among the unemployed there is undoubtedly a certain lack of confidence in the "placing" work of the Ministry. I do not say that is the fault of the Ministry, but the feeling exists. I have had letters from men who say they have given up all hope of ever being placed by the Ministry. It may be that in many cases the man is completely unsuitable for the jobs the Ministry has to offer; but at any rate I hope the Ministry will look into this question. At Question time lately we have had several questions put to the Minister of Agriculture as to the number of unemployed in agriculture.
§ Captain HUDSON
When the Estimate was before us on a previous occasion the Minister said she wanted more money for the Ministry of Labour, and I want to find out if this Estimate covers a sum of money to be spent on placing. I want to know whether the work of the Employment Exchanges covers people who are not in receipt of benefit. I want to ask whether it is not a fact that there are a large number of people not drawing benefit but who do want to get jobs which are on the books of the Exchanges. Therefore, people, such as agricultural labourers, who are not eligible for benefit, can sign on at the Employment Exchange in order to get a job, although they cannot receive benefit. If that is so, why cannot the figures we are asking for be furnished? This question has often been raised on the Vote for the salary of the Minister of Labour, and we have frequently asked whether people sign on who cannot get the benefit and do so in order to get work. I hope the Minister will be able to answer that question, because it raises a matter of importance which has not been cleared up.
With regard to transfers, a particular sum has been allocated for that purpose. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that he did not wish to draw a comparison in this matter. May I point out that the previous Government were attacked on account of their transfer policy, and this was very hard on some members of the Conservative party who represented districts into which these men were transferred, because objection was taken to this policy by the local men in those districts who were unemployed. The Conservative party agreed to the transfer policy, and now the Labour Government have taken up that policy, although hon. Members opposite oppose it when we put it forward. It is rather remarkable that now not a soul on the benches opposite has objected to the policy of transfer being carried out. Therefore it is not fair to compare our position with that of the Government on this question because we were attacked for the same policy on personal grounds.
I am convinced that one of the causes of the complete lack of success of the 794 Government in attempting to solve the unemployment problem is the bringing forward of enormous Estimates. Besides being a Member of this House I happen to be in business, and I know that business has never been worse than it is at present simply because there is an absolute lack of confidence, and tradesmen state that they cannot give orders until they know what the Budget is going to do. The Government cannot possibly solve the unemployment problem while they are piling up enormous Estimates and spending enormous sums of money upon various kinds of relief works. You cannot expect the people who run businesses, under these circumstances, to risk the expenditure of money with a view to pushing their businesses. Lack of confidence is causing unemployment, which is being made worse by such expenditure as I have foreshadowed. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) spoke of the de-rating scheme which is in operation at the present moment as being of no use, but not a single hon. Member opposite has said that it is doing any harm.
§ Sir KINGSLEY WOOD
The hon. Member for Gorbals was allowed to deal with that subject, and I intended to say a few words upon it. Under the circumstances, I think we might be allowed a little latitude.
§ Captain HUDSON
I am sorry that I have transgressed, but it was not my fault. I will only say this. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that it could not be expected that any effect could be produced on unemployment in seven months, but I think that some effect was expected. This enormous expenditure of money is doing far more harm than good, and if the present policy is continued the unemployment figures are bound to rise. The result of seven months of Socialist government can be seen in the country to-day. As has been pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), the number of unemployed is 40,000 more than it was at this time last year, and in addition the cost of living is up and 795 wages are down. That is the result of Socialism, and I think the country is gradually becoming aware of it.
§ Mr. SIMMONS
I am interested in that portion of this Estimate which deals with the training of young unemployed men, a subject which loomed rather large in may Division at the time of the General Election. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) claims credit for the initial development of the training scheme, and one is prepared to give him credit for its initiation, but I do not want our Government to make the same mistakes in the training of young unemployed men that were made by the right hon. Gentleman. In addition to money voted by this House, he used money subscribed for a charitable purpose for the training of young unemployed men. I strongly oppose that idea; I think it is our duty as a nation to deal with this problem without sponging on charitable organisations.
§ Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE
On a point of Order. May I ask what this has to do with the Estimate that we are discussing?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member who is speaking was just looking at the Estimate, and was coming to the point.
§ Mr. SIMMONS
I am dealing with the item of £100,000 which includes the training of young unemployed men, and I am asking, before I give my vote for the expenditure of this £100,000, to be assured that the money will be spent rightly, and not improperly, as it was under the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman asked, where were the Socialist Members for Birmingham? I suppose he thought we had forgotten this question of the training of young unemployed men. The libel he referred to was a technical error which I merely repeated. The paper with a million circulation that made the initial mistake was not proceeded against and of course the fact that the editor bears the same surname as that borne by one of the new-found business associates of the right hon. Gentlemen may have nothing to do with that fact. Here we have youths who are the sole support of a family, and, before 796 those youths are compelled to undergo training, adequate maintenance should be given to their families while they are undergoing that training.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is now going far beyond the object of the Supplementary Estimate. His remarks must be confined to the reasons for the expenditure of the £100,000; he cannot go into the whole policy of training unemployed boys.
§ Mr. SIMMONS
I am trying to find out whether the £100,000 is merely for the purpose of training, or whether it includes maintenance for the dependants of the trainees while they are away. I hope I am in order in asking that question, and in saying that I do not want to see repeated such cases as we had under the previous Government, when a lad who was the eldest of a family of six was sent away from home to work and was offered 19s. a week, plus 6s. from an outside fund, and had to pay 18s. for his lodgings, leaving 7s. on which to keep his widowed mother and five children. I want to ask the Minister of Labour to see that that kind of thing does not happen in the case of this £100,000. I think that that assurance is necessary, because, although we have a different Minister, the permanent officials are still the same. Their mentality is the same. They cannot help it; it is the result of their training. I want to see a change in that direction. I would like to see men who understand the position of these boys, and the position of these working-class homes, in control of these Departments, and I hope that that point will be dealt with by the Minister.
Of the sum included in this Estimate, £4,000,000 is a contribution to the wider purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and I support that unreservedly. I only wish that the sum were larger—large enough to provide more adequate maintenance for unemployed people in this country—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
That, again, is a matter of policy, which has been settled already by the House. This is only a Supplementary Estimate because there are more people unemployed.
§ Mr. SIMMONS
May I respectfully say that on this Vote I have listened to dis- 797 cussions which appeared to be very wide of the question? I am trying to relate this £4,000,000, which we are asked to vote for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, in order to carry on the unemployment insurance scheme, owing to the increased figures that have been mentioned on the other side of the House, to the adequacy of the provisions for maintenance. As you have ruled that out of order, I will go on to say that I believe that the plea which we have heard from the other side of the House, that this money is a burden on industry, is not a sincere plea. This money is not a burden on industry—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is not in order on this Vote. This is merely a Supplementary Estimate, asking the House to agree to the larger sum that is necessary.
§ Mr. BECKETT
May I point out, Sir, that the hon. Member for Lindsey, who started this Debate, spent a long time in trying to convince the House that this is a burden on industry? Surely, my hon. Friend is entitled to reply to that?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I listened very carefully to the hon. and gallant Member, and was ready to call him to order should he be out of order, but I could not find that he was. He confined his remarks to the question of there being a greater number of unemployed, and that certainly is in order on this Vote.
§ Mr. SIMMONS
I was merely replying to the statement made from the other side that this £4,000,000 was an unfair burden upon industry. I am supporting this Vote because I do not believe that it is an unfair burden on industry. I' think it is simply asking industry to bear what it ought to bear, namely, the results of its own operations—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I have told the hon. Member that he is not in order in dealing with that point, and I hope he will not repeat it again.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I think that most of us will have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. Simmons) in regard to the first part 798 of his speech, in which he referred to the transference scheme. After all, he is comparatively young. He is not like the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Office of Works; he has not had a lot of practice in swallowing; and I suppose it has been very difficult for him during the week-ends to go back and explain to his constituents this excellent transference scheme for which we are asked to vote this money.
§ Mr. SIMMONS
On a point of Order. Are the patronising remarks of the hon. Member opposite in order on this Vote?
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I was trying as nicely as I could to explain to the hon. Gentleman opposite that I had some sorrow for his youthful innocence. I have no desire to take up the time of the House, except to say that I bitterly regret that the Government, owing to their gross incompetence and entire lack of skill in the management of business, should bring in an Estimate of this kind at this time of the night. It is a gross abuse of the proceedings of the House of Commons that an Estimate dealing with such vitally important subjects as the transference of workers and preparations for emigration should be disposed of at this juncture. Although it is supposed that these provisions will help the unemployed, it is doubtful whether ultimately they will have this effect.
I want to ask a few questions about the transference scheme. Towards the end of the last Parliament, when this scheme was brought up a meeting was held upstairs and attended by representatives of a large number of bodies. Abuse was poured upon the head of the Government at that time, and no member present at that meeting was allowed to say anything else. That was done with the present Foreign Secretary in the Chair. To-night we have a change of Government, and the same people who abused this scheme of transference are, now—
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I did not intend to deal with the system. I was only giving an illustration. I was going to ask why such a very bad system could now be so good as to warrant the expenditure of additional money? What has arisen in the situation to cause the Minister to 799 come here and ask for more money? Is it really because the scheme has been greatly enlarged, that it is developing and is being found more useful as time goes on? Is the Minister now able to come here and say that she is actually doing something for the unemployed in this matter? I hope that she is. I hope that the transference system is working well and that the need for more money has arisen because it is doing well.
I come to the other point in connection with this item of £100,000, part of which is for transference and the remainder for the training of workpeople and their families within Great Britain for overseas. Does that mean that there is a certain amount of migration to the Dominions, for which people are trained here? If so, what part of the £100,000 goes for the training for Dominion emigration and what part goes for transferences from one part of the country to another? I will not deal now with other matters, because I realise that the task of the right hon. Lady is being made difficult by her back-benchers. I should like to know something about the division of the £4,000,000, which relates partly to Unemployment Insurance 1920–29, and partly to the Bill of 1929. I hope to receive the information because, unfortunately, I have asked the right hon. Lady questions on matters about which she knows nothing. If she cannot answer, perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give the figures.
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield)
Very little has been said in the Debate that was not answered when the Estimate was last before us, and I am sure that it will not be the wish of the House that I should repeat what can be read in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not complain that hon. Members have taken the time of the House in continuing the discussion. There are one or two matters on which it would be advisable to repeat what I said on the previous occasion, particularly in relation to the purpose for which this sum of money is asked. I have said many times that the Estimate of the late Government for Unemployment Insurance was inadequate. They estimated for £12,000,000. I told the House in July that not only was the sum inadequate to meet the 800 current bills, but that, owing to the limitation of borrowing powers, the fund would be absolutely exhausted. We had to put into the fund £3,500,000 to bring us to the end of last year. When I introduced the Estimate in July I told the House that the £12,000,000, plus the £3,500,000, would be inadequate to finish the financial year and that other sums would have to be found in order to meet the situation. These further sums were found by a Treasury grant, which has been sanctioned by the House in the Bill now in another place, for the purpose of dealing with those persons who are not making a direct contribution to the fund. It was for the purpose of being able to make use of this further sum of money that the Bill was passed, and its urgency was emphasised by the necessity of getting it through before the end of the financial year. Unless we get the Bill and this Supplementary Estimate and the Consolidated Fund Bill through before the 31st January, the fund will again be in sore straits. That is a perfectly familiar position, which has been explained four times. Then, with regard to training, the extra £100,000 is asked for, because we are developing the opportunities for training, and the necessity for that rests in the degree to which the situation in the employment market is slightly shifting, so that there is a larger proportion of totally unemployed persons as compared with the number of short-time workers. That, again, is due largely to the energy which the Government are displaying in calling the attention of the industrialists of this country to the urgent necessity for reform in processes of manufacture and the development of better methods if they are to hold the markets throughout the world.
I repeat, again, what I have said on previous occasions—not for debating purposes, but in order that we may face the facts of the situation—that it is more than probable that for some weeks to come—in the last Debate, I used the term "four months," because I did not want to be too optimistic—the figures will be in excess of the figures last year for the reason that under the late Government things were allowed to drift. [Interruption.] I am speaking of the weekly returns. That process of reorganisation will mean a displacement of labour, at least temporarily, while the processes are 801 being completed. When a works is being reorganised, it will probably close down-When firms are amalgamating, it results, in a great many cases, in works closing down, and before reorganisation can take full effect, there will be that much displacement in the number of persons employed.
§ Sir K. WOOD
The Lord Privy Seal told us only a short time ago that the figures would be much better in February. That is almost here now.
§ Miss BONDFIELD
I am not speaking for the purposes of making debating points. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will turn out to be correct, but I have to find the money now for the benefit of those who are unemployed. I have made my Estimate—[Interruption]—I think the House is fully aware of this—on the basis that the period of reorganisation which has been so neglected and is now being so hastened on, will cause, as a consequence, this temporary increase in the number of persons displaced in their employment. I am making provision for this possibility, but I hope that it may ultimately prove unnecessary. Do let me remind the House of this, that, whatever margin I can get in the amount of income over expenditure, will go to the reduction of that appalling debt that is my inheritance in connection with this fund. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) was pleased to be very amusing in connection with my reference to Whipsnade. I suppose it is permissible debating to take a sentence out of one part of a speech and tack it on to another part with which it has nothing to do and to score a debating point in that way; but the hon. Member knows perfectly well that it had no reference to the housing statistics but to work that is earmarked for the possibility of transferees from the depressed areas.
§ Miss BONDFIELD
With regard to the questions that were asked by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I would like to say that in the last Debate I referred him to what were then Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill. That date is now quite obviously impossible owing to the delays that have taken place in the passage of the Bill. I cannot say when the actual operative date will be until I know the date of 802 the Royal Assent to the Bill, but I hope to be able to say when it will be on Thursday. With regard to the placing side of the Ministry of Labour, I am glad that that was emphasised by the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson). I feel very strongly indeed that we can make some progress, but in regard to this Estimate, the staffing of the placing side is being developed not in relation to new work, but for increasing the efficiency of the present work. In some Exchanges, it has not been possible to do even what it was open to them to do, on account of pressure on the staff. In other cases it was necessary to increase the staff, although the register was less than a little while ago. We are giving far more attention to interviewing and to the individual needs of the applicants, and that means taking up more time of the staff than under the old measurement of time. I think there has been really no new point raised in this discussion at all, and I ask the House to let me have the Vote.
§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND
The speech which we have just heard is proof, if proof were needed, of the unfitness of this Government to deal with this question. No answer has been given and no justification made for the whole or part of the Estimate, either before or now. We have had the Report stage of this Estimate for more than £4,000,000 late in the evening. The Minister says, "of course, we have to have the money quickly and rush these things through to get the money in time," as if the right hon. Lady did not know that she could have had it discussed at proper length if only the Government had taken the opportunity of postponing the Debate on the Optional Clause. Therefore, that excuse is unsound. We have wanted to hear something reasonable and accurate as to what are the causes of the increased unemployment that has led to this Estimate. I ask the House to think of what has been told us to-night, and judge by that whether anyone can have any confidence in this Government. The right hon. Lady has had the audacity to say that the increase in unemployment is due to an increase in rationalisation and reorganisation that has been brought about by this Government. Does she 803 mean to say that there is a single factory throughout the country in which there is labour saving machinery already installed through the action of this Government? Everyone knows that to instal fresh machinery takes some time, however active one may be. We have had the Lord Privy Seal on his journeys through this country waking up to the value of foreign trade and reorganisation. But I ask any Member whether he believes that there are 1,000 men more out of work due to the reorganisation of industry, owing to the Lord Privy Seal. There never was a greater pretence, but a pretence more easily exposed by the very statement of it than that which has been put forward by the Minister of Labour.
Then we are told that the time is too short to judge the Government. They have all the various schemes which they are to put into force, training, transference, and all the rest, and yet we are told: "Do not judge the Government." Eight months it is said is too short, but eight months is not too short for the most difficult and most delicate subject of the reorganisation of industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) very rightly interrupted the Minister and asked her what she made of the statement of the Lord Privy Seal, and practically all that she had to reply was that she did not agree with the Lord Privy Seal. We want to know what the Government think. There was a great frost last February, and therefore the Lord Privy Seal suggested a comparison when next February comes, when there is likely to be more open weather. The Minister now deprecates February and suggests June as a time for a comparison. I say that this short Debate has been enough to show anyone, if they wanted conviction, the complete absence of any policy or of any knowledge of the subject by the Government. Their true liability can be realised. It is not only that the figure to-day is 40,000 more than it was a year ago. When they came into power, it was 60,000 less than it was a year before. They have wiped that out and turned it into a deficit of 40,000. They are responsible, if a Government is responsible at all, for a difference of 100,000 in the number of unemployed. If ever there was a Government that claimed responsibility it was the present 804 Government. Eight months, we are told, is too short in which to judge the record of the Government, but not for the purpose of the reorganisation of a great industry, of introducing fresh machinery and labour-saving machinery. The Government are, in fact, responsible
§ Mr. FOOT rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Mr. BECKETT rose—
§ Mr. E. BROWN
On a point of Order. My hon. Friend moved, "That the Question be now put," and I would like to ask whether his Motion was accepted.
§ Mr. BECKETT
This has been one of the very few occasions that I remember in the short time that I have been in this House that a Debate, taken after eleven o'clock, has proved of real interest, and, I consider, of considerable value. I should not have risen had it not been for the extraordinary statement by the Minister of Labour, who appeared to be fighting very boldly for the privilege of bringing in rationalisation and reorganisation which is going to increase the number of the unemployed. I feel strongly that, even at this hour of the morning, a protest has to be made against this theory which has been repeated again and again from the Government Bench, that, taking the bull by the horns and increasing rationalisation and reorganisation is going eventually to improve employment by the extraordinary means that we have heard to-night of first of all sending the number of unemployed up for a period of at least four months, and I suggest that if that is true, this Supplementary Estimate ought to have been for at least treble the amount. It is a new doctrine that the way to find work and increase the ultimate prosperity of the country is, first of all, by a policy of reorganisation to throw men out of work and give them a miserable pittance when unemployed.
§ Mr. BECKETT
I quite agree. I thought I was in order in discussing whether reorganisation would increase the number of unemployed during the next four months, as suggested by the Minister, and whether it was not the cause of the increased unemployment which has given rise to the production of this Estimate. I will not detain the House any longer, except to say that, if that is the policy of the Labour Government, then I am afraid that they will learn the same lesson that the Conservatives have done, that no Government which increases the number of the unemployed and then has to bring in Supplementary Estimates to give them a miserable and inadequate amount is likely to keep the confidence of the country and the tremendous enthusiasm which swept this Government into power. I suggest that there ought to be very much more consideration by the Government of that problem, and also that there ought to be much more consideration by the Government of the policy of transference for which they have come for more money. The policy of transference on the surface is a most attractive and simple way of dealing with a small part of the problem of unemployment. But, if you examine it a little more deeply, and if you take the trouble to go to the Employment Exchanges and interview
§ those who place the transferred men, you will find two things. You will find, first, that every one of these transferred men is being put into a job that an unemployed man in the locality would have had if the transferred man had not come. In the second place, you will find very often that he is going to be put into a place at a lower rate of wages than would have been paid to a man in the locality. That is especially so where men come from the country, not knowing how high the cost of living is in London. The point is that we have had an admission to-night from the Government Front Bench that they are deliberately increasing unemployment, created by a method of capitalist reorganisation, by a building up of vested interests for the purpose of producing cheaply.
§ Mr. BECKETT
They not only did that, but they are still allowing the policy of transference introduced by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, with the result that men in our own district cannot find work, and the rates of wages in those districts are beaten down.
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 63.807
|Division No. 120.]||AYES.||[12.53 a.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Dallas, George||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Dalton, Hugh||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Dickson, T.||Harbord, A.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Dukes, C.||Hardie, George D.|
|Arnott, John||Duncan, Charles||Harris, Percy A.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Ede, James Chuter||Hastings, Dr. Somervill|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Edmunds, J. E.||Haycock, A. W.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hayday, Arthur|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Bennett, William (Battersea. South)||Egan, W. H.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Benson, G.||Elmley, Viscount||Herriotts, J.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Foot, Isaac||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Freeman, Peter||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Hollins, A.|
|Brothers, M.||Gibbins, Joseph||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Gill, T. H.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Glassey, A. E.||Isaacs, George|
|Brawn, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Gossling, A. G.||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)|
|Buchanan, G.||Gould, F.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Gray, Milner||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Church, Major A. G.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Kelly, W. T.|
|Compton, Joseph||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Daggar, George||Groves, Thomas E.||Kinley, J.|
|Lang, Gordon||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Muff, G.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Lathan, G.||Murnin, Hugh||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Nathan, Major H. L.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Noel Baker, P. J.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Lawson, John James||Oldfield, J. R.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Sorensen, R.|
|Leach, W.||Owen, H. F. (Hereford)||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Palin, John Henry.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northe[...]||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Lees, J.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Lindley, Fred W.||Potts, John S.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Pybus, Percy John||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Tout, W. J.|
|Longden, F.||Raynes, W. R.||Townend, A. E.|
|Lunn, William||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Turner, B.|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Ritson, J.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Wallace, H. W.|
|McElwee, A.||Romeril, H. G.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|McEntee, V. L.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|McShane, John James||Rowson, Guy||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Mansfield, W.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Markham, S. F.||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Marley, J.||Sanders, W. S.||Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)|
|Mathers, George||Sandham, E.||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Matters, L. W.||Sawyer, G. F.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Maxton, James||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Messer, Fred||Sherwood, G. H.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Mills, J. E.||Shield, George William|
|Milner, J.||Shillaker, J. F||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Simmons, C. J.||Mr. Hayes and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.|
|Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Boyce, H. L.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Bracken, B.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Butler, R. A.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Iveagh, Countess of||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Ward, Lieut.-Col Sir A. Lambert|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Long, Major Eric||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Lymington, Viscount||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Mond, Hon. Henry|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Major the Marquess of Titchfield|
|and Sir Victor Warrender.|
Resolution agreed to.