HC Deb 13 December 1934 vol 296 cc582-4

4.14 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out "subsistence and occupation," and to insert "livelihood."

I frankly confess to the House that there is no real substance in the Amendment, and I have altered the wording entirely out of deference to opinions expressed in Committee by hon. Members opposite. They felt—wrongly as I tried to explain—that the use of the words "subsistence and occupation" in this proviso had some bearing upon the question of whether the work would or would not always be done for full wages, or whether sometimes use would be made of voluntary labour. I tried to explain to them that as a matter of fact this proviso did not really bear upon that point at all, but I quite see that the inclusion of the word "subsistence" might be wrongly assumed to have some bearing upon it. Therefore, in order to meet their objections, I propose to substitute the word "livelihood."

4.15 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON

We appreciate the alteration which the right hon. Gentleman has made, because the words in the Bill have been frequently used in connection with the labour of men in these areas for what is known as the bare unemployment benefit or allowances. That idea had become very prevalent, and indeed the Civil Lord of the Admiralty who reported on Durham—I am not sure whether he definitely recommended that method or not—at any rate looked upon it rather favourably. I am sorry to draw attention to that particular part of his report, but there were that and other minor points with which I disagreed in the midst of a very fine report. On this particular question, I felt that there was very great apprehension felt in these areas. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a word which abolishes the regular term used in this regard, and I hope the word "livelihood" means that it is recognised that the work which will be given and the wages which will be paid will be work and wages of an approved nature, and that where you are doing a class of work that touches upon trade union standards, that fact will be definitely recognised. I hope the Amendment means that, so that it really gets rid of this kind of charity, as I term it, for practically the whole of the work that the commissioners are going to do. If that is the case, we welcome the alteration.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY

The question of work for wages has nothing to do with this proviso at all, as I tried to make clear on the Committee stage. It is only in order, if I could, to remove that misapprehension that I have changed the wording. With regard to the very important point of principle which the hon. Member has raised, I think perhaps it would be more convenient if we discussed that on the Third Reading, when I am prepared to give a full answer to the point raised.

Amendment agreed to.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY

I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out from "to" to "of", in line 2, and to insert: their establishment in a position of independence or partial independence. This is to meet a point of greater substance, which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major G. Lloyd George), who raised the point of a drainage scheme which was done for the eventual benefit of individual farmers, and who wondered whether, as the proviso stood, it would be within the power of the Commissioner to do it. By the insertion of these words we have tried to make it plain that the exceptions to which the proviso is intended to apply are not merely cases of trying to give a man a week's or two weeks' work, but cases where the object is permanent establishment in a position of independence or semi-independence. As I explained to hon. Members on a previous occasion, the real kind of case which the proviso is intended to cover is the case, say, of large-scale farming, an experiment in which was recommended by the investigator for Cumberland, or the case of the Upholland experiment, where, if any of the produce comes upon the market, the scheme might be considered to be an undertaking carried on for financial gain and, therefore, one which the Commissioner could not support. I think the Amendment makes it clear that the power of the Commissioner to assist such an undertaking is limited to the cases where there is in view something more than mere temporary employment, and I think that goes the whole way to meet the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Major G. LLOYD GEORGE

Thank you.

Amendment agreed to.