HC Deb 31 March 1936 vol 310 cc1957-68

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

10.53 p.m.

Mr. MANDER

I desire to call attention to the question of the delay in the publication of the new means test regulations. The delay is of great length and of a very extraordinary nature, and some better explanation than has so far been obtained ought to be produced by the Government. This is a matter which affects the whole industrial population of this land, both employed and unemployed, and it played a foremost part in the General Election. Members of all parties were forced to give specific pledges that they would not stand for a continuance of the household means test at any rate in its present form, and as one who gave very specific pledges myself I feel it my duty to take any opportunity which presents itself on behalf of my constituents to urge immediate action on the part of the Government. When I say that many Members committed themselves during the General Election that includes Ministers, too, because when they were up against it and felt the pressure and indignation of those who come under the means test and were anxious to obtain their votes they felt that they must go as far as they dare. I will read only one extract. The Lord President of the Council, speaking at Seaham on 30th October, declared that if its administration were not reformed so that it would not damage the family unity of this country, he would resign from the Government.

The whole course of events during the last 14 months has been most discreditable; it is one of the most shocking things that has happened for many years past. In January of last year the regulations were brought forward. They were met with a storm of indignation all over the country, and the force of public opinion drove the Government to withdraw them in the utmost haste after a few days. We all expected that within a couple of months, at the most, fresh regulations would be brought forward, and I imagine that that was the intention of the Government at the time, but they were then facing a General Election within a measurable period, they realised the intense unpopularity of the regulations, and they were devoting the whole of their intellectual efforts during those months to finding some means of avoiding that being an issue at the General Election. I must say I never thought they could avoid it; I thought that things would go very badly with them on account of it; but suddenly there came to the help of the Government, most unexpectedly and most undeservedly, the issue of collective security and the League of Nations. As soon as they saw that they grasped it with both hands, they ran it for all it was worth, and they got in on the belief of this country that they could be relied upon to go "all out" for collective security. I must say that I believed they meant it at the time, but I do not think so now, because we very soon found, from the shocking episode of the Hoare-Laval proposals, that they could never really have meant to implement what they said at that time.

I think we are entitled to ask what has become of the Unemployment Assistance Board. What has it been doing, or what have the Government been doing to it? I cannot believe that a number of highly competent people have been sitting for the last 14 months without bringing their minds to this question, without presenting a report, or trying to present a report, to the Ministry of Labour. I think that for the sake of their dignity we ought to know why they have been placed in the humiliating position of being incapable of making up their minds or giving any advice to the Government. We were told, when the Measure was brought in, that they were entirely independent of the House of Commons, but we learned in January of last year that they were entirely subservient to the House of Commons, and that pressure could be brought to bear upon them here to abandon any course they had taken up, and to propose almost any other course. I should like to know what has been going on between the Minister of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board during the last few months. I think we should have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to what reports have been sent in, or what requests have been made that reports might be sent in, because I can only imagine that he must have suggested to them that it would not be very convenient for the Government at the present moment to have a report, or to have it in the particular form which they contemplated. That matter needs clearing up, if only for the sake of the Unemployment Assistance Board; I am not so much interested in the credit of the Government. I submit that the time is long overdue when the household means test should be abolished. After all, all the other cuts have been restored—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for Adjournment lapsed, without Question, put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]

Mr. MANDER

It is true that this was not a specific cut, like the 10 per cent., and no promise was actually made that it would be restored. The means test involved an infinitely greater cut to those who came under its hammer than 10 per cent. We have an ample revenue coming in and it is possible to spend hundreds of millions upon armaments, and it is only right that these people who have suffered so long and so cruelly should have matters righted for them. I feel that the only course that will deal with the problem effectively is to abolish the household means test. The personal means test is a very minor thing. It is the household test that is objected to so much all over the country. I hope the time is coming when some hope can be held out for these poor people. We have been told by the Minister that it is coming in the spring. The Prime Minister defined what comes within the ambit of the spring at Question Time to-day. I understand it does not elapse until 21st June. I hope the Minister will be able to say something to these people who have been through the "winter of their discontent" and will be able to tell them that the springtime of deliverance is not far behind.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. E. SMITH

I want to associate myself with the hon. Member's protest. We should be lacking in our duty to the people we represent if we did not take every occasion that arose to protest against the means test. One could give scores of heartbreaking instances, which would not produce the levity and hilarity which this question produced earlier, if one had time. It is time the House was prepared to demand that the Government should withdraw the means test. We can see by the way the question has been received to-night that we have a volume of support from other sections of the House in our protest. Here are two or three illustrations that come to my mind. Men who went through the South African War and the Great War find that their pensions are being taken into consideration. They would be only too willing to accept employment if it could be offered them. They and their wives have made sacrifices in order to bring up their children. They look forward to their children helping them later on in life but they find that their children are having to keep them owing to the way the means test is being operated.

We find men threatening to commit suicide through being in this position, and a number of them have already done so. Children have left home rather than be a party to this kind of thing. We claim to be a country that tries to preserve family life. Yet we find in our industrial districts, unnecessary domestic friction being created because of this means test and families being broken up, and it is time the Government dealt with the question.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS

It is seldom that I address the House, although I interject a remark occasionally but I have followed this question of the means test since 18th December, 1934. I was in the House when the late Minister of Labour told us that the new legislation would mean an additional £3,000,000 for the unemployed on transitional payments. But he came back on 28th January and some of his supporters who had backed him up to the hilt on 18th December also came back in January with tears on their cheeks as big as snowballs. They rose up on every side stating that they have not understood the Unemployment Assistance Board scales. They had supported those scales without knowing anything about them. There were just a few of us left here who stated, across the Floor of the House, that we had told the House what the result would be. Some hon. Members will recall that we told the House then that in South Wales alone there would be a reduction in income of £25,000 a week. Then on 12th February the Minister withdrew the scales and we had what was called the "standstill order." In some parts of the country where the new scales operated better than the old scales they were allowed to proceed, but where they were operating worse than the old scales they were withdrawn and we were promised that in the immediate future completely new scales would be introduced.

I know that some hon. Members are anxious to hear the Minister, but I want to cite one or two cases to show the House what has been happening. I have here the pay-note of a man who lives in the same street as myself. He was employed part time and was on unemployment assistance, because he had exhausted his statutory benefit. He had gone for more than 156 days in one financial year and he was thrown on to the Unemployment Assistance Board scales. When he paid the three days in six which are necessary before a man can draw and he went to get the Unemployment Assistance Board's scale, instead of getting 14s. he got only 4s. 10d. because he had a son at home who was in work. The family means test had been applied to him.

In another case a man who had miners' nystagmus for nine years had his compensation taken away because the doctors stated that he was able to do light work. He applied for the Unemployment Assistance Board's scale and got 10s. 6d., but recently, because two of his lads in the pit had received advances of 1s. a day as from 1st January, the entire amount was taken away from him and he is getting nothing at the present time. He told one of his lads, who is 27 years of age, "You had better leave the house and get a room and then possibly I will be able to get something." We want to know what the Minister is doing about this kind of thing. I made this statement on 18th December, 1934, that this legislation was the biggest home-breaker since Adam came out of the Garden of Eden.

11.10 p.m.

The Minister of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown)

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) was not quite so accurate as usual in his history. The history of this problem is not a new one, but a very old one. It is not a problem that began on the 18th December, 1934, when the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) began to take an interest in it, but long before that. The test of need is no new thing in this country. It has been and is applied by local local authorities up and down the country to all those applying for public assistance who are in need. With regard to the test of need on a national scale, let us see how it arose. There has been an attempt for a number of years on the part of those who have advocated a change—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will let me make my reply in my own way, I will try to leave him time. Those who demanded a change with regard to one section of public assistance, namely, public assistance for those who were able-bodied and in need, demanded three things. They demanded, first, that it should be done nationally; secondly, that it should be done uniformly; and thirdly, that it should be done without the interference of local busybodies. Those are the three demands that were put up by all advocates of change—and I use that term because it covers more than one party—over a number of years since the great depression struck able—bodied men in this country in terms of hundreds of thousands and, at its worst, of millions. It was an attempt to treat the assistance of the able-bodied unemployed on a national basis, on a uniform basis, and through a central organisation. That is the kernel of the problem, and it is the application of that to previous practice with regard to the treatment of able-bodied unemployed men that was the root of the trouble in the month of January, 1934. What happened? There were scales drawn up. The hon. Member for Hemsworth said in his first sentence that the scales were withdrawn. That is not so.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS

There was a standstill.

Mr. BROWN

I will try to state the thing clearly and fairly. The scales were never withdrawn. As a matter of fact, nearly half of those now under the care of the Unemployment Assistance Board are receiving the regulation scales. They have never been withdrawn, and the interesting thing about that is not the number of protests that have been received in the course of the last 12 months about them, but the comparative fewness of the protests that have been received.

Mr. MESSER

They are resigned.

Mr. BROWN

Whether they are resigned or not, that is the fact. Anyone who has had to analyse them locally or, as I have had to do, with regard to the whole of Britain, will know that the astonishing thing about that problem is not the number of protests that have, been received but their comparative fewness; and nearly half of those who are under the care of the Unemployment Assistance Board are not, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth suggested, on the standstill, except to this extent: Every man who is able bodied and applies to the board and gets relief, gets, when his determination is made and at the Labour Exchange before he draws his pay, a yellow form. That yellow form has on it two columns, and in those columns are two sets of figures: first, what the man is receiving under the original regulations and, second, what he would have received had he been receiving the transitional payment rate which was applied before the new order of things. If the transitional payment was deemed to be higher than he would have received under the regulations, he would receive the old rate. If not, he would get the regulation figure if that was higher than the transitional rate.

Mr. MARKLEW

No, he does not.

Mr. BROWN

The hon. Member may make a denial of that kind but that is the fact.

MAR Mr. MARKLEW

It is not true.

Mr. BROWN

The hon. Member must make his own statements in his own way and be responsible for them. I am responsible for telling the House what the facts are and those are the facts. Each one of those now under the Unemployment Assistance Board has this form, and it states in the clearest possible way, each time he receives it from the Employment Exchange, two figures—what would be the transitional rate and what would be the regulation rate. If the regulation rate is the higher, he receives the regulation rate, and if the transitional rate is higher than the regulation rate he receives the transitional rate. Nearly half those for whom the board now care are under the original regulations. They have not been withdrawn, and they operate under that Section. Where, then, does the trouble arise? It arises—and it is interesting to notice that hon. Members opposite are very keen to deal with this thing—over the application of a, universal scale nationally, over the centralised national attempt to deal with the able-bodied, the theory advocated over long months for the taking of the able-bodied unemployed out of the hands of the local authorities who had dealt with them before. The trouble was in certain directions.

It is easy to be wise after the event, but there were certain Members in the House who said certain things, and we will debate them when the time comes. No one realised how great had been the variation from town to town, from village to village and from public assistance authority to public assistance authority. It was found at once that when the Government came to the conclusion to have the standstill, in order to give the board and the Minister time to investigate the problem, the first thing that arose was that immense variation in previous practice in local authorities throughout the country. The application of uniform scales had caused unexpected cases to arise in the most unexpected areas. It was most remarkable that some of the biggest cases were not in the biggest and most populous areas, but in places like Fraserburgh in Aberdeen, which no one would have expected would be affected in that way.

The next thing was that it was found that the rent rule would not operate as had been expected. There was a whole level of rents much lower than anyone had anticipated and much lower than the level of rents throughout the country. The super-cut on large families applied to families also having low rents, and under the terms of the earnings rule, which is now part of the regulation scale, they were found to have suffered more drastic reductions than were expected.

The Government introduced the original regulations in the full belief that they meant a scale and arrangement which would bring more humane treatment for the able-bodied unemployed. When I became Minister of Labour last June, I was confronted with all kinds of suggestions. It was my duty to associate myself with the board in order to investigate matters and see what the facts were, and what was the best way of getting a settled uniform system which would carry out the original intentions of the Government and the House. The Government have been very frank with the House and the country, for nothing could have been plainer than the terms of the election manifesto issued before the General Election, on which the Election was fought and decided. What were the terms of that manifesto? The preliminary conclusions which the Board, the Minister and the Government had arrived at were: (1) that the structure of the Act should be maintained; (2) that the authority of the Board would be upheld; (3) that steps would be taken in connection with the means test to do the utmost to avoid the break up of family life. The exact phrase was "to maintain the unity of family life." (4) The Government had come to the conclusion that something needed to be done about that matter; (5) that it should be done in a way to avoid hardship; (6) that the arrangements should be improved arrangements and, last, but most important, these things should be carried out in full association with local opinion. That meant, and the Election manifesto stated it quite plainly, that the Government had come to the conclusion, after preliminary investigation, that whatever was done to bring in a permanent system over the whole field would be done gradually and in full association with local opinion.

Nothing could have been plainer, more definite, or clearer. In order to allay suspicion, the Government said that these arrangements would take place in the spring. It is now the spring, and I am happy to answer the hon. Member's question, as I have answered other hon. Members, and to say that the Government have been continuing their investigations absolutely on the lines of the pledges in the Election manifesto. [An HON. MEMBER: "While the people have been starving."] There has not been any row. The hon. Member opposite knows that some of his friends have been doing their best during the past nine months to stir up a big agitation on this matter, but they have utterly failed. The Government have taken the opportunity of making a very thorough investigation not merely in London but up and down the country, and they intend to keep the Election pledge, and to do it in the spring. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who raised the subject to-night, will not now, nor will the House, have long to wait before the Government will be able to tell the House fully when they intend to produce the precise regulations in the precise form.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I do not think anyone would wish to quarrel with the speech of the Minister of Labour. He has shown competence and assiduity in his office and we are sure that he has at heart the well-being of the great masses of people whose affairs are brought under his control. I am glad that the hon. Member has raised this matter at this early stage because there is great anxiety in the House as to when the regulations are to be produced. It is not satisfactory that they should be hung up day after day and week after week. I must say I was astonished at the statement of the Prime Minister to-day that the spring does not end until 21st June. No doubt that is true, according to the canons of the calendar, but nevertheless I am sure that everyone interested in this question will want to know the proposals of the Government long before 21st June. Spring is no doubt an exhilarating season, but the exhilaration is apt to wear off towards the latter end of the period. From the entrancing topic of spring I must pass to the other note which has been struck, that of home. That is a matter which has influenced a great many people and I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is great anxiety in regard to it in all sides of the House. It is quite a delusion to suppose that a monopoly of interest on this point is to be found among hon. Members opposite. The Conservative party also represent millions of working men and large numbers of unemployed.

I would give the right hon. Gentleman a word of warning. "When we were introducing the legislation in regard to Old Age Pensions the whole trend of it—I had a lot to do with it—was to consolidate the home, and give the old man and old woman who sit by the ingle nook something to pay their way in the cottage home, something to give them the right to sit there and make it possible for their dependants and children to support them. It was a matter of weaving together the ties of the family. Now this household means test, which is so much considered at the present time and which has much to be said for it plausibly at first sight, is found to work a splitting function in regard to this home life, and to invite people in the same family, under the same roof, to ask, "What are you doing, what are you bringing in?" and to assess in an invidious and meticulous fashion each other's relative contribution to the maintenance of the family circle.

In that it is introducing an evil element entirely contrary to the trend of all social legislation, and I am bound to say that we look to the Government for, and expect from the Government, a solution of this problem which will free our national life from a feature which never has presented itself before as far as I can see. Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend to present his regulations, for which the House are earnestly waiting, at the earliest possible moment. Until he does so, undoubtedly lie will be subjected, and ought to be subjected, to every form of legitimate and lawful parliamentary pressure.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.