MINISTRY OF LABOUR. (Hansard, 27 February 1936)

§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown)
Unless there are hon. Members who desire particular informa- 774 tion concerning the minor items under the various sub-heads, I do not think I need detain the Committee very long. I should not be here were it not for the fact that, owing to an unexpectedly low record of unemployment and a high register of employment, there has been a greater demand for stamps for the insurance cards than was foreseen when the Estimate was submitted last year. As the Committee know, the Exchequer contribution to the Unemployment Fund is an equal third with that of the employers and employed. Since there has been an excess of contributions over to the amount for which we estimated, we have the Parliamentary paradox that, although the Unemployment Fund benefits by a lower drain on its resources, the Ministry of Labour Estimates have to bear an increased cost, and I have to ask for the money to pay for the extra stamps.
775 That is the reason for this Supplementary Estimate, although, of course, small items, either increases or decreases, have to appear. But had it not been for this one item I should not have been asking for this money, a total of £450,000 for stamps. There are savings on the other side—items which I should be glad to explain if I am asked to do so by hon. Members—which enable me to ask not for £450,000, but for £300,000 net. It is as a result of more employment that more stamps were required, and I am quite sure the Committee will be very glad to give me the sum for which I ask.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I am sure the Committee does not grudge the right hon. Gentleman asking for this money on the grounds which he has just stated. We do not mind the Exchequer paying £450,000 more for the reasons stated by the right hon. Gentleman, but I intend to refer to the fact that this afternoon he made a statement which saved the Exchequer much more than it has been charged on this account. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must think the right hon. Gentleman a very useful Minister of Labour, since he is saving two or three pounds for every one that he is charging to the Exchequer. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about one item. This Vote deals with anticipated savings in certain subjects. One of them is £450,000 for courses of instruction for unemployed juveniles. That comes on Item L 2.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the reason for that saving. It seems to me extraordinary on the face of it that when we have just gone through a year in which it was stated, underlined and emphasised that the Government were going to do more things for juvenile training, in the first year the Minister comes here showing a saving of £450,000 upon the original Estimate. I do not understand that, particularly in view of the fact that there is an increasing number of juveniles from 14 to 18 years coming on to the register. On 25th November, the last figures that I could get, there were 110,000 between the ages of 14 and 18, but on 20th January there had been an increase of 141,000. Of this 141,000 some 73,000 were boys under 18 776 years of age and of those 73,000 there were 58,000 in the special areas.
If any hon. Member went to the Library and looked up the Ministry of Labour Gazette he would be struck by the way in which practically the whole of the juvenile unemployed are concentrated in four of the eight industrial areas. That raises a very serious problem and one that ought to call for extraordinary consideration on the part of the Minister. I do not want to anticipate the Debate on Monday, and I am sure that hon. Members will have seen in the report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas sad, lamentable, almost fatal for the people of this country, references to the condition of the great masses of young people in those areas. I know that I shall not be allowed to extend the Debate to deal with that matter, but I know that one of the functions under this Vote is to deal with instruction and occupation. That is dealt with in Item L 2. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have never crabbed the work of juveniles moving from one area to another. As I have watched the trek of boys and girls from their homes—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That does not arise under Sub-head L.2.

§ Mr. LAWSON
It says "cost of instruction and occupation for unemployed juveniles."

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Subhead L.2 relates to grants to local authorities and other bodies.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I am dealing with the item on page 12—courses of instruction and occupation for unemployed juveniles.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member will look at Sub-head L.2 he will notice that that Sub-head on the Main Estimates is "Grants to local authorities and other bodies."

§ Mr. WHITELEY
Surely the hon. Member is in order. Under Sub-head J there is reference to employment and training. My hon. Friend is dealing with juvenile training, which comes under Sub-head J.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That deals with grants to facilitate the movement of unemployed juveniles.

§ Mr. LAWSON
Sub-head L.2 deals with the making of grants to local authorities for the purpose of instruction, and one of the functions of the local authority is to deal with the question of occupation and transference. They have special officers for that purpose. I do not want to expand the subject, except to say that I have seen boys and girls in great masses leaving their homes, with the know-ledge—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is now raising a matter that can be raised on the Vote of Account dealing with the policy underlying these grants. The reason why this heading is before the Committee is that there has been an under-spending of £450,000. The general policy does not arise now.

§ Mr. BEVAN
The transference of juveniles from one part of the country to another is entirely a matter of administration. It does not arise on policy. I know of no Statute under which that matter has been determined. It is a question of the administrative activities of the Ministry of Labour, and I submit that this is the only opportunity we have of reviewing the activities of the Ministry in the matter of transference.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is wrong. It may or may not be administration of the statutory liability of the Minister, but the question before the Committee as to whether this is desirable or otherwise is a matter to be raised on Tuesday on the Vote on Account, when I understand the Ministry of Labour's Estimates will be before the Committee. At the moment the only matter which arises before the Committee is why the Minister has spent less. The question of general policy is a matter to be raised on the main Estimates, which will very shortly be before us.

§ Mr. WHITELEY
Are we to understand that we cannot discuss the question whether the £450,000 has been spent wisely or unwisely? Simply to put a question and not be able to criticise the spending of the money is to put us in a hopeless position. We might as well come here and close our mouths if we cannot criticise and say whether or not the money has been well spent.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The money has not been spent. Therefore the ques- 778 tion whether this money which has been spent has been well spent or not, does not arise on this occasion.

§ Mr. WHITELEY
Is the Committee to understand that these increases set forth under Sub-head J cannot be discussed, and that we cannot discuss whether it is wise spending or otherwise?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It is in order to discuss whether the £25,000 additional under Sub-head J is justified, but the matter which at the moment hon. Members can argue is the failure to spend £450,000. As that money has not been spent, it cannot be argued whether it has been wisely spent or otherwise.

§ Mr. KELLY
Are we not entitled to discuss whether or not the saving that has been effected is the result of the Ministry of Labour not doing what it ought to have done in the transference of those juveniles from the North East coast and Durham?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Yes, I think that is so, but the hon. Member was arguing whether or not it was desirable to transfer them at all, which is quite a different question.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the reasons for this saving. Are some of the local authorities not carrying out their duties? Is he quite satisfied that they are doing all they ought to do to see that these boys and girls are instructed and trained and properly attended to? The reason I want to know why there has been this saving is that it is the question of all questions, as far as the unemployed are concerned, upon which the Government have concentrated and in regard to which they have implied that they were going to do great things for the children between 14 and 18 years of age. It is an evil thing to have, I should say, more than three-quarters of the whole of the unemployed juveniles concentrated in a comparatively small area in the country, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to see to it that the policy of the Government is so framed, not merely that there is educational training for these children, but that by some means employment shall be found for them, so that—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman is again getting beyond the rules of order.

§ Mr. LAWSON
Then I will content myself by moving the reduction of the Vote.

§ Mr. TINKER
One can understand the right hon. Gentleman having joy in coming here and telling us about more employment, but there are several other items about which we want to ask questions. He will see that we are in a highly critical mood to-night, and that we are not prepared to allow these Supplementary Estimates to go through without questioning them. If the Minister tries to meet our queries, he will get away much better than if he does not try, and I hope that is understood on the benches opposite. There is nothing worse, they will find, than to treat us lightly, but if they treat us seriously, they will get away with it. Under the heading of "Telegrams and Telephones," there is an increase of £14,000, but I understood there had been a reduction in telephone calls and telegrams. Another point is in reference to the courts of referees, where there is an increased cost. I asked a question the other day, and the reply was that about 66 per cent. of the cases that had gone before the courts of referees had been turned down. Is this increased expenditure due to the fact that the courts of referees are not dealing with the cases as they ought to do and are turning too many down?
I also want to ask a question in reference to the saving under the heading "Courses of Instruction and Occupation for Unemployed Juveniles." The Deputy-Chairman ruled that we can ask questions as to how that saving has taken place, and I contend that this saving ought not to have taken place in the way it has. I could have told the right hon. Gentleman how to spend the money if he had asked me. He could have spent it in giving meals to these juveniles when they are doing their work at the centres. I have recounted to him several occasions upon which I have visited these centres, and it has been evident that there has been malnutrition among these young people, and instead of coming before us with a saving, the right hon. Gentleman
780 should have spent money in that direction. If the right hon. Gentleman answers to my satisfaction, he will get my consent.

§ Mr. E. SMITH
I want to ask some questions under the sub-heading J It is not well known that these facilities are granted, and if it had been better known, more than £25,000 extra would have been required. There are a few people who are aware that it is possible to obtain vouchers to enable insured contributors to travel to where there are prospects of a job, and I want to know if this £23,000 includes that facility which is granted by the Minister of Labour, and whether he will take steps to see that the next time he comes before this Committee for money it will be for far more than £25,000, in order that workpeople can be encouraged to take advantage of these facilities.

§ Mr. BEVAN
The right hon. Gentleman is asking for an additional £25,000 for the transfer of workers from one area to another. There was a fund which was created after the general strike in 1926, called the Mining Distress Fund. It was collected by the various Lord Mayors of Great Britain in order to relieve distress in the mining districts. For some reason which I have never been able to understand the Ministry of Labour seized a portion of this money, which was left for the distressed miners in the mining areas and appropriated it as a contribution towards the expenses of transferring workers. A very large sum was contributed in that way. How much has been expended of this money which properly belongs to the Miners' Distress Fund? Does any of that money still remain and is any of it contained in the current expenditure? It seems extraordinary that when the public of Great Britain generously contributed large sums for the relief of distress in the mining districts, the Exchequer should use the money to relieve the taxpayer of the expense of transferring workers from the distressed areas. Some of these juveniles have been transferred under conditions which—I do not want to use hyperbole—can only be described as disgraceful.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member now seems to be going beyond 781 the Ruling which I gave earlier. That is a matter which ought to be raised on Tuesday.

§ Mr. BEVAN
I submit, with every respect, that I am not now discussing the wisdom or otherwise of transference but the conditions under which transference is being made. This is the first time I have ever heard that on an Estimate, Supplementary or otherwise, it is not possible to raise the administrative conduct of the Ministry involved. I submit that I am entitled to raise the question of the conditions of transference.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He is entitled to raise the question of the spending of this £25,000 and the purpose for which it is being done, but the general question of administration must arise on the main Estimate.

§ Mr. BEVAN
I was not at the moment questioning anything other than the purposes upon which the additional £25,000 is to be spent and whether that sum is being spent in a manner which ought to meet with the approval of the Committee. I am raising, not the general question of whether or not the Minister ought to make the transference, but the question of whether he is misconducting himself in the way in which he is making the transference.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
There again, the hon. Gentleman seems to be getting far away from my Ruling. The general question of administration obviously cannot arise on this occasion.

§ Mr. BEVAN
Perhaps I ought not to have used the word "misconduct." That is obviously out of order. But I would like an answer to the questions which I put regarding the Miners' Distress Fund. Is this £25,000 necessary because the Ministry has exhausted that fund.

§ Mr. WHITELEY
The Minister of Labour has asked us to put certain questions to him in order that he may give us information regarding the items in this Estimate and I propose to raise one or two points which may, however, be ruled out of order. I do not object to your Ruling, Captain Bourne, though it seemed to me that you laid down a very narrow line for us. The Estimate contains very 782 important matters and this is one of the opportunities we have of getting some real information from the Minister as to what is happening and what he intends to do if given this increased sum. On page 5 we find reference to the grant-in-aid for the National Council of Social Service. For 1935 it was £75,000 and in 1936 it is expected to be £150,000.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member seems to have got hold of the-Estimate of the Ministry of Labour which was issued this morning. That, I understand, is to be discussed on Tuesday.

§ Mr. WHITELEY
I will, then, take the point with regard to the money that has been spent on the transference of juveniles and families from one part of the country to the other. If money is to, be spent in this direction and is to be of real benefit to the special areas which the Minister is anxious to assist as much as possible, the time has come when it ought to be spent within the special areas rather than on transferring people to some other part of the country when they could render more useful service if the same kind of establishment could be placed in their own particular areas. That point is causing a good deal of. Anxiety—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am afraid that the hon. Member's argument is more suitable for next week's Debate.

§ Mr. WHITELEY
I will leave that question to the Minister of Labour and perhaps he can give us some reply. Perhaps I shall get an opportunity later to deal with the bigger question.

§ Miss WILKINSON
I have been asked by several mothers in my constituency to raise the point with regard to transference whether the Minister's officials have power to pay return fares in certain circumstances. This occurs largely in cases sent for domestic service. The fares are paid of young people from their homes to distant places: I have cases of transference from Jarrow to as far as Cornwall and London. Where a transfer is successful it works all right, but in some cases the girls either do not like their jobs, or they become unemployed or ill. In other cases they have been sent for seasonal work in which a definite job is done, there has been satis- 783 faction on both sides, and the work becomes exhausted. They are then left drifting about far away from home, and it has been reported to me that when they have applied at the Employment Exchanges to be sent back, they have been told that there are no funds available for that purpose. If that be the case, I want to ask the Minister whether any part of that sum of £25,000 can be used to return these young people to their homes. I can understand the Minister saying that if the Ministry pays the fares of young persons to go several hundred miles and they are merely homesick after the first two or three weeks, the Ministry cannot 'be expected to pay their fares back. The cases to which I am referring, however, are reasonable cases of illness or loss of work and inability to find other work. To leave young people stranded far from home raises certain difficult questions.

§ Mr. R. J. TAYLOR
In the district with which I am familiar a large number of juveniles are from time to time taken to the south of England for training purposes. After they have been there a few months according to the regulations, they return home, but before returning it seeme to be the practice to give them a little work on some works contract. I want to raise the point that the method the Minister is adopting is altogether depressing.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I shall be grateful if the hon. Member will indicate to which sub-heading he thinks his point is applicable.

§ Mr. TAYLOR
I am speaking about sub-head M.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think the hon. Member has realised that the Item M is a saving, and therefore all that he is entitled to do is to ask why the Minister has not spent the money.

§ Mr. TAYLOR
I was going on to showing why the Minister has not spent the money. A number of the young men get about a week's work with the constructor, and at the end of that time they are dispensed with and have to pay their own fares home, or, as happens in most cases, their parents have to pay their 784 fares for them. There is the case of a girl 15 years of age—

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
That arises under sub-head N

§ Mr. TAYLOR
I want to show that if the Minister had not adopted this method there would not have been this saving. That is my point. I can show the Minister how he could save more moneymdash;by making them walk to the south of England and then back. What is discouraging our young men is that there seems no permanent employment for them after they have had their training. Could not some arrangement be come to with employers in the south of England to engage a number of these young men for a certain time. But my main point is that I would like the Minister to spend some of this money. As I understand it, at the end of their training young men get work for a week or two and then are dispensed with and have to pay their fares home. They have 4s. pocket money when they leave. They have to be careful about the 4s. if their fathers are subject to the means test. I submit that if these young men are not to be permanently employed it is reasonable to ask the Minister to see that they might at least be employed for a sufficient length of time to enable them to save their train fare home; or, failing that, would it not be humane of the Minister to pay the difference between what they have been able to save in the weeks they have been employed and the cost of their train fare.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
Nobody knows better than the Minister the large number of appeals which come to Members, and which we turn on to him, regarding young men who have been trained in camps and desire to get home occasionally. Could he not make provision for them to go home, say, twice a year? It would not be bad to be going on with. I remember the occasion when a young man was sent out of this country in order that he might investigate and propagate the idea "Buy British." He went to South Africa and to Argentina. He was not a poor man, because at that time he was the Prince of Wales.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not discuss the Royal Family in this House.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
I am only using that as an illustration, and I think I am quite in order in doing so. At that time I opposed that proposal, but the House was generous enough to give that wealthy young man power to go and visit those countries. Our kith and kin are destitute, so destitute that they are away in training camps in this free, brave land of ours. There is no room and no work for our kith and kin. Neither the employers of labour nor the Government of the day can find any work for them to do, with the result that the Government have herded them away in training camps.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman now seems to be making a point which would be more suitable on the main Estimates.

§ Mr. LAWSON
On a point of Order. We have very great respect for your decisions as a rule, but I must call into question your interpretation as to what ground speakers may cover. We know that the Debate upon a Supplementary Estimate is narrower than upon the ordinary Estimates, but I have never known a time—I have been here for 16 years—when we could not discuss administration pure and simple, in dealing with Supplementary Estimates. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Committee is quite within the regular practice in dealing with the Supplementary Estimate upon the line which he was following.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is mistaken. It has been laid down time after time that the only question which can arise upon Supplementary Estimates is the actual additional sum asked for in those Estimates, unless they contain a new Service in which a question of policy arises, or if, in the opinion of the Chair, the additional amount, compared with the original Estimate, is so great that the Supplementary Estimate is, in point of fact, a new Estimate. In the case of the Estimate now in front of the Committee, neither of those two conditions arises. If the hon. Gentleman wishes further to challenge my Ruling he must take the proper step of putting a Motion upon the Order Paper.

§ Mr. SHINWELL
understand that you said that the Minister can be called 786 upon to explain why he proposes in this Supplementary Estimate certain savings. Would you not agree that if the Minister is entitled so to express himself, we are entitled, on the other hand, to express our opinion as to why he ought not to have anticipatory savings? I submit that to you for your Ruling. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that if the Minister is to be permitted, on the one hand, to say why he proposes to do a particular thing, we, on the other hand, are entitled to express our opinions as to why he should not do that particular thing.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right provided that the argument of hon. Members is within the terms of the main Estimate, and it would be perfectly open to anyone to raise any questions which are covered by this Supplementary Estimate and are covered by the items of the main Estimate. The hon. Gentleman will notice that certain grants under that Sub-head are made for certain purposes. Parliament has approved of that policy, and it is perfectly open to any hon. Member to ask the Minister why the money has not been spent which he thinks should have been spent on the various items in the Estimate. The reason why I stopped the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was that that was not the point he was raising.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
You can rest assured, Captain Bourne, that we on this side respect the Rulings you have given, although it is true, because you have shown it yourself in what you have said, that you have been ruling in a number of different ways. Moreover, you have said from the Chair what I think you should not have said—that, if we disagree with your Ruling, we know what to do. That rather looks like an ordinary working man; it does not look like someone that comes from a University.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have already said that, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise my Ruling, he has his remedy; but, so long as he does not take that remedy, he is not entitled to criticise me in this House.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
That does not keep me from having my say, nevertheless. The point with which I was dealing, and on which quite a number of points of 787 Order have been raised, is a very simple one, and I would again make an appeal to the Minister, because he knows perfectly well that the point I am raising with him is a very vexed point with us. The men in these training camps are taken away from home, they have no means, and the amount they are allowed is very small. How would you like, Captain Bourne, or how would any Member of the House like, to have only four shillings a week? That is the position in which these trainees are. It is not a laughing matter for them; it is a very serious business. That is all that they have; if they had any more, or if anyone belonging to them had any more, they would not be there. The means test operates to such an extent that they are stripped bare.
I want the Minister to think about the point on which I am now appealing to him. The men who are in this position may only be there for three months, but surely in that period they might have a right to get home to see their friends, to see their mothers, to see those that are near and dear to them. They are taken away and put in these training camps with no hope of getting back at all. It is no wonder that they run away at times. I want the Minister to use this money which he has at his disposal, and I am perfectly satisfied that, if he liked to appeal to the House to act on a generous scale towards these trainees to enable them to get away from the training camps, the House would agree. My hon. Friends suggest Christmas or the New Year. They might not be there long enough. They might be there only two or three months. I want them to have an opportunity while they are there to get home to see their friends. That is my appeal to the Minister.

§ Mr. GEORGE HALL
I want to raise a point under Subhead L 2, and to suggest that the Minister and his Department should take no credit to themselves for the saving of this £450,000. The matter deals with the attendance of boys and girls at junior instruction centres, which are almost entirely in the depressed areas. I have here a statement from the school medical officer, who is also the medical officer for these centres. He conducted an examination recently and this is what he said: 788 The pupils coming to the centres probably represent more unemployment at home than an equal number in the elementary schools, where those from more fortunate homes are associated with them. In respect of the boys, it must be remembered that many of them at a period of rapid growth are often thin, ill-developed, becoming apparently much more robust when the growth period is ceasing. In the same report he indicated that he examined no fewer than 532 of these children and 303 of them were suffering from mal-nutrition. The centres were Bargoed, Aberdare, Caerphilly and Pontypridd. Pressure has been brought to bear upon the Minister and the Department to deal with this very important question. Some of them are getting a pint of milk a day whilst they are in attendance. Here is the Minister taking credit to himself and his Department for the saving of £450,000 while 57 per cent. of these boys and girls are suffering from malnutrition and, while the matter has been put before him during the last seven or eight months, he is still considering whether a meal should be given to those in attendance. I hope he will see to the matter at once and I hope that, in addition to the pint of milk given to some of the children, a meal will be given at the same time. At some centres a good wholesome meal can be supplied for 3½d. or 4d. Some of these young people have to travel five or six miles and are away from home from nine in the morning until half-past one or two in the afternoon, and the Department is too mean even to provide them with a meal while taking this course at the centre which the Minister has arranged for them to attend. Let him now take credit for saving £450,000.

§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown)
rose—

HON. MEMBERS
No, no.

§ Mr. BROWN
I do not know why hon. Members should object to my reply at this point.

Viscountess ASTOR
rose—

§ Mr. BROWN
I do not want to discourage the Noble Lady and I am in the hands of the Committee, but I consider it my duty and pleasure to reply on the Debate. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) asked why, since he understood that there was a decrease in the 789 cost of telephones, we have spent more. That is another side of the better employment. The hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) smiles, but the fact is that there has been a record placing this year through the exchanges, and the answer to the question of the hon. Member is that the additional expenditure due to increased activities is £14,000. That is the sole reason for the increase. The hon. Lady asked about the young people who were away from home, and if any arrangement was made for them to be sent back home if work was not available for them. The answer is a double one. She mentioned those who were sick. Fares are paid by the Ministry of Labour through the exchanges in order to send sick children home. In the case of those who do not find work available, the Ministry of Labour, through the exchanges, makes an arrangement so that the children may return home. If there is any case where this is not done, I hope the hon. Lady will call my attention to it, and I assure her that I shall have the matter looked into at once.
I was asked about the courts of referees by the bon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who wanted to know why we had spent more upon the courts of referees. The answer is simple. Hon. Members who recollect the passing of the 1934 Act will remember that, owing to the transference to the Board of a very large number of unemployed persons who had previously been under the administration of the Ministry of Labour, it was estimated that the legal work of the Courts of Referees would diminish and that there would be a relief to the Estimates, but the relief has been less than was expected to the extent of some £20,000, which explains the item under "A" in the Estimate. I was asked two questions by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He inquired about the Lord Mayor's Fund, but that does not arise here because the money has long since been spent and the whole of the fund was disposed of in the last financial year, but if the hon. Member desires information which he has not had and will communicate with me, I will do my best to get him the fullest information possible. I was also asked about the question of the workers in the camps. The hon. Member for Dumbarton 790 Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) knows that, in regard to the longest course of 26 weeks and the other course of 12 weeks, arrangements are made for leave on certain holidays. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) referred to a question which he has raised several times before, and I have told him that whereas the local authorities have power to provide meals in schools I have no such power. I have been in consultation with other Departments about the matter, but I can say no more about it on this Estimate.

§ Mr. G. HALL
This matter was brought to the notice of the Minister in July last year, and he promised to make inquiries. It was brought to his notice again in December, and again he promised to make inquiries. In reply to a question put to him to-day he promised again to make inquiries. That is a period of eight months. Surely on a matter of this kind he and his Department, whatever other Departments have to be brought into consultation, ought to have dealt with the matter.

§ Mr. BROWN
It does not arise on this occasion. I shall be prepared to give a full answer on another occasion, and when I have finished my inquiries and negotiations I shall lose no time in announcing it to the House. The hon. Member asked me why more money had not been spent on juvenile centres. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) knows that it is not relevant to quote the total figure of juvenile unemployment at any given date, for the reason that at any time there may be juveniles who cannot be required to attend at the centres. I have taken no such credit as the hon. Member for Aberdare referred to for not spending this money.
The answer to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street is that one of the considerations that influenced the preparation of the original Estimate was that it was anticipated that during 1935 there would be a large increase in the number of boys and girls leaving school. It was expected that this would result in a corresponding increase in the accommodation required for juvenile unemployment centres. In fact the rate of absorption was so well maintained that this apprehension proved false. The result has been that in a number of places the 791 number of pupils available for attendance at the centres has not materialised. The hon. Member knows that there is nothing more chancy than this service. There are times when you have a great influx of young people that you cannot predict. You can strike averages, but an average, although statistically correct, may be misleading in reference to any particular time.
When the hon. Member for Aberdare talks about the lack of centres in some areas I beg him to use his great influence with his friends on the local authorities of Glamorganshire, which I am sorry to say is one of the most backward areas in the whole of the Kingdom. I hope that we may be able to concert measures to increase the number of centres in that area.

§ Mr. G. HALL
You should feed those who attend.

§ Mr. BROWN
That is another issue and one for which I have no authority.

§ Mr. SHINWELL
I should like to know whether the considerations in reference to the courses of instruction apply to the training of unemployed men?

§ Mr. BROWN
I am trying to deal with the many points which have been raised and I will try and answer that point in a moment or two. In other places the number of juveniles has not been sufficient to justify the establishment of a junior instruction centre, and in others, owing to the lack of juveniles coming forward, we have had to close down. These are the main explanations, in brief, why we have not spent the sum of money anticipated in these services, but the Committee may be assured that we regard this as one of the most valuable activities of the Ministry of Labour and we shall do our best, in conjunction with local authorities, most of whom have been co-operating splendidly in the matter, to deal with this question of juvenile instruction centres. On the other point the difficulty is not quite the same. The programme of 15 new centres which was originally regarded as the maximum expansion has not been possible. In carrying out our programme we have had great difficulty in finding suitable sites with an adequate water supply and suitable playing fields, 792 while in some cases there has been local opposition or long negotiations with existing tenants. I assure the Committee that during the period ahead it is hoped to equip 10 centres which have not been equipped this year, and have them in full and active working order.

§ Mr. ELLIS SMITH
Will the right hon. Member deal with the point I raised?

§ Mr. PALING
The provision of meals in training centres has been handed about between the Board of Education and the Ministry of Labour for months and there has been a disposition for one Department to blame the other. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that they have now come together in order to find a solution of this problem; that there a probability of finding a solution?

§ Mr. BROWN
I did not go as far as that. In regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) the £25,000 is not a sum in itself, but the difference between the original Estimate of £135,000 and the revised Estimate of £160,000. The facts are that we grant free fares to juveniles transferred, and there is an increase in this item of £16,000; there is a grant towards removal expenses of working-class families from depressed areas, which amounts to £37,000. That represents about 5,000 additional cases; and there is a small miscellaneous item of £5,000. Then there are certain savings in maintenance grants owing to the smaller transference of juveniles-112,000 and in the case of hostels and equipment, £13,500; and not quite as many advances of fares owing to the increased number of free fares for adults, amounting to £7,500. That means the re is a net increase of 125,000.

§ Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS
Does the right hon. Gentleman refer in this connection only to the depressed areas? I think the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) referred to the general position so far as vouchers are concerned.

§ Mr. BROWN
My remarks referred to the depressed areas.

§ Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS
I am sure hon. Members representing Glamorganshire 793 constituencies very much resent what the Minister has said. I think the right hon. Gentleman was trying to chide my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) for raising this matter. Hon. Members representing Glamorganshire constituencies are not prepared to advocate these training centres as long as we know there are large numbers of children in them suffering from malnutrition. There are two other matters I want to raise. The first concerns the amount of savings contained in the Supplementary Estimate. Some hon. Members representing Glamorganshire constituencies, including myself, had occasion a short time ago to visit some of the training camps in West Wales. I hope that the Minister will have a conversation with some other Ministers in the Cabinet upon this matter, for if such a conversation takes place I think they may realise that there ought to be some synchronisation of their policies. We found that the people in these training camps were complaining about the food they were given.
I would remind hon. Members that these are not juvenile training centres, but camps for adults. I know I should be out of order if I were to discuss the method adopted by the Government in setting up these camps; but it seems to hon. Members on this side of the House that it is preposterous and almost a waste of money to make persons fit for employ-merit, and then, after they have been in the training camps for 26 weeks, to find no employment for them. But we found in these camps that, instead of the unemployed persons being hardened and made fit to take employment whenever it might turn up, they were being given margarine and not butter; and it was about this, and other inferior foods which they were given, that they were complaining.
During the last few years the National Government have been saying, "Buy British," "Support the farmers" and so on, but, just as in the Navy, it would seem that the unemployed persons in these training camps must live on margarine and on anything the Government may cause to be handed to them from time to time. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to meet the Minister of Agriculture, as well as the President of, the Board of Education, and to discuss with him whether it might not be possible 794 in these training camps to assist in solving the agricultural problem.
The other matter I would like to raise concerns the Regulations that we were discussing last night. I then had occasion to put a question to the Minister, and because we were not in Committee it was impossible for me to have a proper reply. Hon. Members will remember that I asked the Minister whether, in taking care that the new Regulations which were being issued would not fall too heavily upon certain casual workers, he proposed to short-circuit the proceedings that now take place, as between the applicant for benefit and the Minister. In the Supplementary Estimate there is an extra demand for £28,000 for the court of referees. Is there something to meet the additional expenditure that must be incurred in operating the preposterous Regulation which came before us in the Order last week? It seems to me pretty obvious that miners, for instance, if they work less than four hours on the Monday morning, through a breakage in machinery or any other cause, and they fail to work for the rest of the week, will be deprived of the stamp for the whole week. In that type of case what will occur will be a conflict of evidence between the employer and the workman, whether he be a dock labourer, a casual labourer or a miner. The employer may say that the man was down the pit two and a-half hours and the man may say that he was down five hours, and that he is entitled to a stamp for the five hours for that week. The dispute may be submitted to the court of referees.
We have in this Estimate an additional £28,000 to be incurred to meet that type of case. We are already spending an enormous amount of money for the advice given by people who are paid high salaries practically to deprive these poor people of benefits to which they are entitled. I hope the Minister will try to save some of the £28,000 in seeing that it is not wasted on courts of referees, in seeing that the Order is not applied, and in seeing that these casual labourers, miners, dock labourers, and others who are working three or four hours a week will have their stamps and that in respect of any unemployment which may occur they will receive unemployment benefit. Otherwise, it means in the distressed areas the placing of an 795 additional burden on the shoulders of the local authorities. Substantially the policy of the Government has been to save the Treasury at the expense of the local authorities, and particularly the local authorities in the distressed areas. I hope the Minister will appreciate that there was substance in our discussion last night and that he will give to the trainees in the training camps—it is not the policy of the Government to find work for them when they are trained—proper nourishment, and that instead of giving them margarine they will be given butter.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is going rather wide.

§ Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS
I submit that I am entitled to place before the Committee reasons why the Minister is spending this enormous sum of money. An enormous sum of money has been saved by the Department in not providing proper nourishment for persons who are sent to juvenile training centres and other places, and it is time that the Minister should be told that this cannot go on. We are not prepared to see the Department saving money while persons attending juvenile centres and training camps are being ill nourished. We are not prepared either to see that money is spent upon courts of referees dealing with casual labourers and others. We shall expect him to approach not only the Minister of Education on the treatment meted out to juvenile trainees, but also the Minister of Agriculture in order that the Minister of Labour may help to solve his problem too, particularly the milk problem.

§ Mr. BATEY
I listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister, and I thought he would have answered the questions put to him and that it would not be necessary for anyone else to speak, but he spoke such a short time that he did not even attempt to answer the questions put to him. He said they had made advances for girls to return home when they had been sent to work and had found it unsuitable. I want to call attention to this question of the Minister in making advances to these girls, and —

§ Mr. LAWSON
On a point of Order. May we draw attention to the fact that we cannot hear what the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) is saying to the Minister?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Mr. Batey.

§ Mr. BATEY
I want to raise this question about the Minister making advances to girls. In this Estimate there is an increase of £25,000 for provision for juveniles transferred. The original Estimate of £135,000 ought to have made it unnecessary for the Ministry to force young people who were transferred and who had to return home, to repay their train fares. I have in mind the case of a young man who went from Durham to Northumberland but had to return home. He was given an advance and it was deducted from his unemployment allowance at one shilling a week. Such a large Estimate as this ought to provide enough to pay these train fares. I protest against the policy of the Minister in making the young people pay them.
In the Estimate there is also a sum in respect of an increase in the number of juveniles and adults transferred. How many have been transferred from the distressed areas? The Commissioner for the 'Special Areas has been transferring people from those areas and has been paying for it out of the fund which was allotted to him for the distressed areas. Before we vote this additional £25,000 we are entitled to know how many people have been transferred to employment from the distressed areas.
I disagree with the Minister's answer in regard to courts of referees. He said that things had not turned out as expected. Whose blame is that? The Unemployment Insurance Act was passed in the middle of 1934. The original Estimate was not submitted until the beginning of last year. Surely, between the passing of the Act and the submission of the original Estimate the officials of the Ministry ought to have been able to submit figures that would not have been so far out, as these have proved to be. The Estimate was out by £28,000 for the courts of referees. What is the total amount that is being spent on the courts of referees? When we passed the Act in 1934, half the unem- 797 ployed were taken away from the courts and transferred to the Unemployment Assistance Board, making the need for the courts much less than it had been prior to the passing of the Act. Now an increased sum of £28,000 is wanted. In my opinion, this is no credit to the Ministry of Labour. They ought to be in a position to estimate much more accurately.
On page 13 under the head of "Appropriations-in-Aid" I find "Reductions in contributions by trainers towards cost of board and lodging." What has been the reduction per person which has reached the huge sum of £65,000? I would also call attention to the item of £18,000 for the extension of training and transference schemes. The Minister should not join training and transference together.
Training is one thing and transference is another. Some of us do not raise such strong objections to training as to transference, and I would have liked the Minister to tell us how much of this £18,000 was for training and how much for transference. The Minister did not explain many of the questions put to him. I am still in doubt about a point put to him by a colleague about vouchers. My hon. Friend was under the impression that a, man going to seek employment was entitled to a voucher if he claimed it, and to a voucher for his return home if the employment is not satisfactory. Is that conclusion correct?

§ Mr. G. GRIFFITHS
I want to elicit from the Minister some information as to the £25,000 for transference. A question was asked this afternoon with regard to medical examinations. Have any of the adults who come under this vote been medically examined after they had been instructed by the employment exchange that there was a job 200 or 300 miles away? I contend that any man who is drawing unemployment benefit from the exchange is able-bodied and does not need a medical examination to see whether he can do his job.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
There is a misunderstanding there. It is not the Ministry that desires to have the medical examination, but the hon. Member's colleague, who, in the interests of his constituents desires to have it.

§ Mr. T. SMITH
The reply given this afternoon was that it was not the exchanges or the authorities that desired it. The point was whether a man should be sent a distance of 150 miles with the possibility of an examination and of then being sent home again.

§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
I thought the Minister was inclined that way—

§ Mr. BROWN
Oh, no!

§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
—and that if this thing is adopted employers of labour, when they employ an able-bodied man from the exchange will want to put him through a medical test. The Minister should not allow that to happen. When an able-bodied man went to a job from the exchange he should have a chance of doing it without further obstacles.

§ Mr. SEXTON
We have heard a lot about young people at the juvenile instruction centres, and I now wish to put in a word on, behalf of older people. There has been a saving of £170,000 on out stations, and at the same time, in many dales and valleys, men have to walk five miles to a signing-on station. Even in my own constituency men are walking 10 miles to sign on. I agree that it is only once a week, but in this season of snowstorms—and to-night, probably, there is snow three or four feet deep in places—some consideration ought to be extended to people in those circumstances, particularly when it is remembered that they have bad boots, threadbare clothes, hungry bellies and, worse than all, broken hearts. The Minister is shaking his head, but I can supply him with plenty of evidence that in Teesdale and Weardale men are walking five miles each way twice a week. If they fall out of work unexpectedly, and it is not a signing-on day at the sub-station, the men have to walk 10 miles to another station or lose the day. Therefore, some of this £170,000 which has been saved ought to have been spent on more out-stations.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
I can tell the hon. Member at once that the saving on outstations does not arise through a reduction in the number of those stations. An increase in employment and a smaller number on the live register of the unemployed naturally means that there is 799 less work for the staffs of the Employment Exchanges to do, and the saving arises in that way. It is the other side of the picture of the growing volume of employment in the country. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), the only advances which I am entitled to make are legal advances.

§ Mr. BATEY
That is not my point. If the Minister cannot pay the return fares, what is the use of having that large sum of money there?

§ Mr. BROWN
I have explained two or three times already why the money is there, but, no matter how much money there was, I cannot act without the necessary legal power. If I expended the money illegally the hon. Member would soon be on my track with a Vote of Censure, and there might not be the friendly discussion we have had on this Supplementary Estimate. With regard to the question of medical examinations, I cannot discuss it on this Supplementary Estimate, and I would suggest to the hon. Members who are interested that an appropriate opportunity will arrive in a few days. After these attempts on my part to answer the many questions put to me in the last three hours, I hope the Committee will see fit to give me this extra £300,000.

§ Mr. E. SMITH
There must be some misunderstanding about the vouchers, because I know that vouchers are granted by employment exchanges. Letters have been sent to well-known organisations whose members are constantly signing on at employment exchanges informing them that they are entitled to vouchers, and they are being granted. The question I wish the Minister to reply to is this: When men are sent to jobs and are given vouchers which are not suitable because they do not enable the men to return home—

§ Mr. BROWN
On a point of Order. I have already answered that point.

§ Mr. LAWSON
We have had a long Debate on this matter and there is a long programme yet before us. We are not satisfied on this question of the reduction in the saving, and we' are not satisfied 800 with the Minister's answers, but in view of the long Debate we have had, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.