§ 5. Mr. BENJAMIN SMITHasked the Minister of Labour whether he will ensure strict compliance with the provisions of Section 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, to the effect that any variations he may propose to make to draft regulations submitted by the Unemployment Assistance Board shall be reported to Parliament?
§ Mr. E. BROWNYes, Sir.
§ 14. Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Assistance Board has yet laid before him a draft of the Regulations; if so, whether such draft has been amended by him; and whether a report setting forth his reasons and a copy of the report of the board on variations and amendments made by him will be laid before the House?
§ Mr. BROWNAs regards the first part of the question, while there have been consultations between the board and myself with regard to the contents of the new Regulations, the board have not yet finally settled the terms of the draft which they intend to propose and consequently have not yet submitted their draft Regulations to me. The second and third parts of the question do not therefore arise.
§ Mr. LAWSONWill the House have a report about these consultations, and is 584 he aware that this question is under the terms of the Act, that those terms were laid down by the Government themselves, that it will therefore be necessary, if the Regulations are not amended, to give the House all the information, and that it is very important that we should have the report about the consultations?
§ Mr. BROWNCertainly. The hon. Member will understand that there is nothing in the Act which prevents the consultations, and indeed it is only common sense, in view of the Temporary Provisions Act, that they should take place.
§ Sir PERCY HARRISIs the board independent of the Government?
§ Mr. LAWSONIs it not a fact that the Act laid down that the original report and the draft has to come from the board itself—
§ Mr. LAWSON—and that any comments upon it have to be reported to the House, and is the right hon. Gentleman not getting past that by his consultations?
§ Mr. SHINWELLIs it not extremely important to understand whether the draft Regulations which have come from the Unemployment Assistance Board were amended or are to be amended as a result of the decision taken by the Government?
§ Mr. LAWSONThis is very important to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman put the House in possession of the facts as to points of difference that there have been between him and the board on this matter?
§ 46. Mr. SHINWELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in order that hon. Members may have an opportunity of moving Amendments to the proposed Unemployment Assistance Board Regulations, he will amend existing legislation 585 and present the said Regulations to the House in the form of a Bill?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)No, Sir. I do not consider it necessary to propose any change in the procedure which was approved by Parliament in 1934.
§ Mr. SHINWELLDoes not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a feeling, even among hon. Members of his own side, that a mere acceptance or rejection Motion would not permit of a free expression of opinion and a decision as to possible modifications of the contemplated Regulations? Would it not be desirable to promote amending legislation to enable us to have that free expression of opinion?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is, I quite agree, a point, and it was a point discussed in 1934, but it would be impossible to do what the hon. Member suggests without altering the law. The alteration of the law and putting it into another form could not possibly be done now, and would at any time lead to a very great consumption of Parliamentary time.
§ Mr. SHINWELLIf that presents the only difficult in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, would it not meet the general desire of the House to delay the presentation of the Regulations, in spite of the keen demand that there has been for them, in order to meet what even the right hon. Gentleman appears to regard as a good point?
§ The PRIME MINISTEROne cannot always give way to good points. I agree that it is a point, but, on the whole, the procedure that is being taken did commend itself to the House in 1934. With regard to dates, although I am not prepared to go into it, having answered the question on the Paper, I can assure the House that we are doing all we can to expedite the date which I understand, has already been given, but beyond that I can say nothing this afternoon.
§ Mr. ATTLEEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman realise that since 1934 we have had Regulations produced and that the stiffness of those Regulations and the fact that they could not be altered led to an enormous waste of Parliamentary time, to the withdrawal of the Regulations, to the introduction of the Stand- 586 still Order, and months of work for the Ministry of Labour?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI hope that the time will not prove to have been wasted.
§ Mr. LAWSONIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are really many Members, irrespective of party, who are conscious of the fact that we shall be in the same difficulty on this occasion when the Regulations are discussed as we were last time, because one of the causes of the breakdown was the fact that they could not be amended?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI hope not, but in those circumstances it is surely better to await the Regulations.
§ Mr. GALLACHERIs the Prime Minister prepared to consider postponing the holiday in order to provide adequate opportunities for discussing the Regulations?