§ 6. Mr. Shinwellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has, apart from unemployment benefit, for compensating workers who are removed from their employment as a result of the operation of his proposals for regulating labour supply, in cases where they fail to obtain suitable employment.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydI have no plans for special compensation of the sort suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The employment situation would, of course, be borne in mind before using this instrument, if the power to use it is 206 granted by the House. Its effect in the way suggested would be one of the primary considerations in deciding whether or not to use it.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs it not surprising that the Chancellor has a scheme, but no plan to go with it? What is to be the position of a man who is deliberately pushed out of employment by the application of the Chancellor's payroll policy, in contrast to someone who loses his employment because of a trade recession? Surely, if a man becomes unemployed as a result of Government policy, he is entitled to some additional consideration.
§ Mr. LloydNo, Sir. I think that the House has to face the fact that with any kind of economic regulator there is bound to be hardship in certain cases. It is quite pointless to think otherwise, or to try to persuade people that there will not be hardship. I certainly admit that there would be hardship in certain circumstances in this instance, and that hardship would be one of the primary considerations to be borne in mind in deciding whether to use the regulator.
§ Mr. JayBut does not the Chancellor realise that this is not a question of hardship, but of economic waste as a result of making people unemployed? Can he not give an assurance that this payroll surcharge will not be applied in areas that are development districts under the Local Employment Act?
§ Mr. LloydI am not prepared to give such an assurance at present. This must be a weapon to be kept in reserve.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes that mean that when the Government, as a result of the application of their policy, deliberately cause hardship, no compensation is to be provided to the person who is the victim of that policy?