§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Captain CROOKSHANKI do not think we can let the Minister of Labour away once again without saying a few words on the Third Reading of a Bill which raises the borrowing powers of the Treasury by £10,000,000. There is a question that I wish to address to her in order to try to rouse the Front Bench from their smug and complacent attitude in dealing with the unemployment problem. In the debate the other day neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary ever referred to the fact that there are nearly 2,000,000 unemployed. They never mentioned the figures themselves, and all that the Parliamentary Secretary said in winding up the debate was to congratulate the House on the splendid atmosphere in which it had debated the subject; an attitude which I have no doubt he appreciated as compared with that which obtains at party meetings dealing with the subject.
There were during the course of the debate two different sets of questions put to the Minister, none of which was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. The first was the stream of criticisms and suggestions which was admirably exemplified in one of the best speeches this Parliament has yet heard by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Owen), who 226 sits on the Liberal Benches. It was full of constructive suggestions. I do not say that I agree with them all, but none of them was even alluded to by the Parliamentary Secretary. The second stream of criticism was directed from all quarters of the House to the dangers of this system of borrowing and the question of the proper relationship of benefits to contributions, and so on.
I should have thought that the Minister would have been at once on her feet to tell us exactly what has occurred since that occasion, because from a speech which the leader of the Opposition made in the country during the week-end I gather that a committee of some sort has been set up on which there are representatives of the Government, the Conservative Opposition, and the Liberal party, and no announcement 50 far as I know has been made in this House with regard to that committee. I suggest that before we part with this Bill the right hon. Lady should tell us who are the members of that committee, what are their terms of reference, and, more important, what are their status. Are they merely advisory to this House or to the Government? Surely that is one of the things which has emanated from the debate, and I submit that even at this hour the Minister should do the House the courtesy of telling us exactly what she has in mind, and I hope that I have created an opportunity for her to do so.
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield)I am sure the House will absolve me from any intention of discourtesy. The House is aware of the situation under which this Bill was introduced. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it is 227 perfectly true, and I am very happy to be able to announce it, that both Opposition parties in the House have agreed to appoint two Members to work with the Government on various suggestions, not only those that were thrown out in debate, but various other suggestions. This is an Advisory Committee to the Cabinet, and, as such, its proceedings will consequentially be secret. I express my deep satisfaction that these consultations are taking place on this most difficult subject which I think most people believe can be solved, not on party lines, but on lines of what is best for the unemployed. I think that the House will believe that we are following up those suggestions that were made in debate, not only with regard to the financial basis of the Bill but other points which were raised in that debate.
§ Sir B. PETOWhat are the names of the Members?
§ Captain CROOKSHANKMay I ask the Minister if she will answer that question?
§ Miss BONDFIELDHon. Members will get the names from their party.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKIf it is a committee of Members, surely the House is entitled to have it on record what the committee is to do.
§ Mr. McSHANEI had not intended to speak at this hour, but the remarks of the right hon. Lady have compelled me to rise to my feet. I am certainly surprised to know that, in dealing with unemployment insurance, we are told that it can only be solved on non-party lines.
§ Mr. McSHANEI am speaking, not of unemployment but of unemployment insurance. I am surprised to know that our party will accept, as by implication I suppose we shall be compelled to accept, the same scale of unemployment pay presumably as the party opposite will be prepared to give. The second point I want to make is that I regard with very grave suspicion any attempt to separate unemployment insurance and national relief. We know what that distinction will ultimately lead to, 228 and it is only for the purpose of expressing in advance my opposition to that that I have risen.