Lords Sitting of 17 December 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg to move, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended until the House do adjourn for the Recess.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2a: Committee negatived: Bill read 3a and passed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Unemployment Insurance Bill be now read a second time. I propose very briefly to explain the position in connection with this Bill and the need for it. The Bill is intended to raise to £70,000,000, the limit on the amount of advances by the Treasury to the Unemployment Fund which may he outstanding during the deficiency period. The debt on this Fund when the present Government came into power amounted to just over £36,800,000. It had increased by about £12,000,000 in the previous twelve months—that is between June, 1928, and June, 1929—and it was £36,800,000 when this Government took office. At that time unemployment was, in round figures, 1,132,000, and the
648
balancing point of the Fund—that is the point at which the contributions were equal to the outgoings—was just 1,000,000, and the debt therefore was increasing by the amount of payments to 132,000 additional unemployed.
In July, 1929, an Act was passed which increased the Exchequer contribution to the Fund, and that made the Fund balance at a higher point—namely, at 1,090,000. That was an extra £3,500,000 a year. In February of this year there was a further Unemployment Insurance Act, under which the transitional period was extended by twelve months and the Exchequer undertook the payment of the whole of the cost of that transitional benefit. That was equivalent to an increased payment by the Exchequer of £22,000,000 a year, and it had the effect of dividing unemployment insurance into two parts—the ordinary benefit, which is paid for by the contributions, and the transitional benefit, which is entirely paid for from the Exchequer grant. That had the effect of raising the balancing point to 1,275,000. Since then unemployment has reached 2,250,000. It has risen in practically every country in the world, and this country has not escaped. The present position is that the debt of the Fund is just over £56,000,000 and is increasing at the rate of about £40,000,000 a year. Therefore this extra £10,000,000 loan to the Fund, to which we are asking the approval of your Lordships' House, will keep the Fund going until the end of March or April, according to the amount of unemployment, but I ought to tell your Lordships that the present contributions to the Fund amount to £14,000,000 a year on behalf of the workers, £16,000,000 a year on behalf of the employers, and £15,000,000 from the Exchequer.
The Government feel that this method of additional borrowing is, in the circumstances, the least objectionable method of dealing with the additional payments. Perhaps I ought to remind your Lordships that the whole of the cost of the interest on these loans and the whole of the cost of the administration is borne by the Fund, and that, therefore, when the time comes that the number of unemployed is less than the balancing point, the Fund will be increasing and the amount owing to the Treasury will decrease year by year. At present it is

649
increasing, but there is no reason to suppose that that is a permanent position. Of course, it is impossible to say how long that state of affairs will last. In the meanwhile, I would mention in passing that in order to deal with this peculiar and difficult position, His Majesty's Government have appointed a Royal Commission to examine the whole Fund, and the terms of reference to that. Royal Commission are:—
"To inquire into the provisions and working of the unemployment insurance scheme, and to make recommendations with regard to:
"(1) Its future scope, the provisions which it should contain and the means by which it may be made solvent and self-supporting; and
"(2) the arrangements which should be made outside the scheme for the unemployed who are capable of and available for work."
That Committee is presided over by Judge Holman Gregory, and includes a number of very distinguished persons: Professor Clay, Mr. Trouncer, Dr. H. J. W. Hetherington, Mr. Lascelles, Mrs. Rackham, of Cambridge, and Councillor Astbury, of Sheffield. A preliminary meeting has already taken place, and other meetings are being held almost immediately, in any case before Christmas.
There is one other point in connection with this. It is a fact that the debt of the Fund is increasing. At the same time, the present arrangements for unemployment insurance benefit have during the past year resulted in a very considerable saving to local authorities. In fact there has been a 40 per cent. reduction in the expenditure on out-door relief during the past year. In the six months to September 30, 1929, the expenditure was just under £3,000,000, and in the six months to September 30 this year, the expenditure was £1,650,000. I do not know that there is any further information that I can give to your Lordships in connection with this Bill, and I therefore move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Marley.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, it has fallen to the lot of the noble Lord opposite to discharge what is, I am sure, a very distasteful task. This is not the first occasion on which we have dealt with a Bill of this description,
650
although a different member of the Government Bench is selected to move the Second Reading of this Bill before your Lordships. I had the honour of introducing a measure of this kind some two years ago. The unemployment figure at that time stood, as the noble Lord has told us, at something like 1,100,000 and the balancing point was 1,000,000. I had also the opportunity of saying, what I firmly believed at the time, and what I think might have eventuated, that there were signs of an upward turn in trade, and that, therefore, the Government were justified in embarking on the policy of adding to the loan which was required for the discharge of the obligations under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Your Lordships are aware that a change in events occurred very shortly afterwards, and that whilst the colleagues and friends of noble Lords who sit opposite told the country that they had a cure for unemployment, and that the unemployment which existed under the jurisdiction of the Conservative Party would rapidly disappear, those prognostications were entirely falsified, so that to-day we see the noble Lord standing at that Box and hear him telling us that unemployment is in the neighbourhood of something like 2,250,000.
That is not very pleasing information for the noble Lord to give us, and I was surprised that he really attempted no justification or excuse for what has happened, except that it is due to worldwide causes and that there is unemployment in every other country. I venture to say that a great deal of the unemployment—by no means all, naturally—is due entirely to the futile policy of the present Government. Their apparent ineptitude in dealing with these matters has engendered a complete lack of confidence throughout the country, with the result that it is quite impossible for trade to resume anything like its normal activities, or for traders to embark upon any of those schemes which, I think your Lordships will agree, would to a very large extent mitigate the unemployment with which we are faced at the present moment.
Your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion when a Bill of this description was introduced in this House—I think it was Earl Russell who brought it forward, but I am not quite certain—

651
your Lordships were encouraged to feel that it was a temporary measure by the fact which was then vouchsafed to your Lordships and the country that at the time the Government were proposing to set up a three-Party conference. The noble Lord who introduced this measure has endeavoured to make it more palatable to your Lordships by saying that now there is a Royal Commission. These pieces of information are meant to allay the fears which exist in all our minds at the present moment that the ineptitude of the present Government and their reckless policy as regards finance are rapidly bringing this country into a position in which we feel it will be very difficult to retrace our steps. That is why one would have hoped that when the noble Lord introduced this Bill he would tell us something that is in the minds of the present Government with a view to mitigating the unemployment which exists at the present moment, or in some measure of rectifying what I may call abuses which exist now. Information about those abuses is in the possession of the Government at the present moment and it requires no Royal Commission to tell them what they are.
The noble Lord has given us the figures of the debt which is owed by the Unemployment Insurance Fund. It seemed to me that when talking of the debt the noble Lord went a little further and made a suggestion about it being in some measure repaid. That is somewhat wide of the facts. We know quite well that this debt can never be repaid out of the Fund. It seems to me that when we talk about an Unemployment Insurance Bill, this also is a misnomer, because the Government have no sort of intention, as far as we can judge, of placing insured workers on one side and realising that the remainder of the population must be dealt with in some totally different way. I think your Lordships will agree that the aspect at the present moment is a very serious one. Throughout the country the financial position is one which is giving cause for serious alarm. In respect of the subject which we are discussing no one can disguise from himself the very demoralising influence on the country of the system which is in practice at the present moment. I do not want to go too fully into that matter, but I think that your Lordships will
652
agree with me that this continued system of work or maintenance is sinking very deeply into the psychology of the population of this country.
I have spoken of abuses, and I am not prepared to say that those abuses, as yet, are very widespread, but I am quite sure that the facility with which benefit is received is causing the working classes of this country and the insured population to take some very particular notice of what is going on. It. was quite a short time ago when it was possible to give a figure which, while it was one which caused us a certain amount of apprehension, was, nevertheless, one which made us feel that the working population of this country was in a state which did not call for undue alarm. I think it was stated that 60 per cent. of the insured population had never drawn anything from the Fund, that 83 per cent. of the remainder were found employment by arrangements between the employers and the trade unions, and that the other 17 per cent. was composed of what is known as the weaker vessels, the unemployables, those who were not seeking work.
But when we consider the abuses as I call them which exist at the present moment, when we realise that there are men and women who are obtaining a good wage for three days a week and going on the "dole" for the remainder of the week, when we realise that there are arrangements between the employers and the employed for the working of short time, and in that time of working overtime, and yet receiving the "dole" for the other part of the week, we must realise that the effect of this, not only in the long run but in the short run, must be very dangerous on the psychology of those who have contributed to this Fund year in and year out and who have never taken anything out of the Fund. Yet we hear nothing from the Government. As I said, we were told on the last occasion that the three-Party conference was going to assemble and something would come of that. We are now told that a Royal Commission is going to sit, and the noble Lord went so far as to give us the terms of reference. I should be the last person to decry the value of a Royal Commission, but it seems to me that in a case of this description, when we know all the facts

653
and when there is nothing a Royal Commission can tell us which we do not know already, the Government are simply burking the question, simply avoiding the difficulties with which they are faced and offering no solution for a problem which I believe is doing an infinity of harm to this country.
This is naturally one of those financial questions with which your Lordships have no power to deal. It is only open to us to make a protest, a protest against the reckless expenditure on which the Government are engaged, and one would have hoped that we might hear yet from the Leader of the House something that is in the minds of the Government with a view to relieving the situation at the present moment. Our present experience of the Government, however, is that they embark upon any reckless expenditure which comes to their hand. It is only through the opposition which was put forward that we were not plunged into the full proposed expenditure on education. There are commitments which the Government have undertaken with regard to drainage, there is the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, which incurs a debt of £26,700,000, and, over and above that, the Treasury has unlimited power to spend money. One would have thought that the Government, realising to the full, as they must, our present position, would have done their very best. to curtail expenditure, to refrain from embarking on any of these schemes, which are not so important as the financial stability of this country, and would have done all that lies in their power to reduce—I do not say to a very large extent, but to an extent which would have been of great value—the present expenditure which is incurred on the unemployment scheme. It is only open to me to make a protest on this occasion, but I sincerely hope that. the time is not far distant when the Government may be able to give us some idea that retrenchment is in their minds or, if they are unable to do so, will give place to a Party that will make economy the chief plank of their platform.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I had not, intended to speak on this Bill, which comes up from the other place as a Certified Money Bill, but there are one or two matters mentioned by the noble Marquess opposite which I cannot leave unanswered. Of course, it would be
654
useless for me to use the same assertive form of argument that he has used. It is very easy to talk about the ineptitude of the Government. I might use the same word of the Opposition. But we get no further, either on the one side or the other, by using language of that kind. The position has been a very difficult one, but I should have hoped that the noble Marquess might feel that at this stage it would have been more useful for him to take a national standpoint and to suggest what is best to be done, rather than to adopt the purely negative attitude which he has taken up, desiring, as I understand, rather to criticise the Government than to consider any beneficial policy which might deal with the existing difficulties.
Just let me, on that account, say a word or two in reference to the various heads to which he has referred. First of all, take the ease of unemployment insurance with which we are concerned this afternoon. I want to ask the noble Marquess whether, in view of the distress that now exists in England, we are not obliged to see to it that there is some form of living standard which at any rate raises the working classes above the horrors of starvation. Of course he would agree with me on that point. He will agree with the Government and, if he were in the Government to-morrow, he would do what we are doing. He would say: "There is a terrible evil and we are bound to deal with it. We cannot avoid dealing with it, and we must find the money necessary for the situation." I do not believe for a moment that the noble Marquess, or his Party, could possibly deal with this matter on any other fundamental basis than the method by which the present Government are dealing with it.
I think there is a little inconsistency in the views of the noble Marquess. No one denies that there have arisen certain irregularities under the unemployment insurance scheme. I think that most of us feel, having regard to all the difficulties, that these irregularities have not been carried so far as might have been expected or as the noble Marquess suggests. It was stated in another place—we cannot have the whole argument over again here—that the suggested irregularities have been largely magnified. I will take that point as a

655
difference between the noble Marquess and ourselves. What have we done? I am not sure that he disputes the policy. We have appointed an independent Royal Commission, in order that the allegations that lie is making may be considered and determined by an independent body. I do not understand that the noble Marquess raises any objection to that. I should have thought by his speech that he would have commended us for appointing a body of this kind, to meet the suggested irregularities which, if they do exist to the extent that he suggests, every statesman of every Party would desire to have shown up and ended. Does he differ from that? The word "ineptitude' may be a term of abuse, but I think we agree upon that point. Of course a matter of this kind requires investigation, and we can have no better method of investigation than by an independent Royal Commission such as has been appointed.
The noble Marquess goes a little further and charges us not only with ineptitude, but with unnecessary expenditure. I want to say a word or two upon that point. There may be differences of opinion regarding education, but those who desire that education should be carried further, and consider it a very important point in relation to the ultimate position of the industrial working classes of this country, do not regard this as wasteful expenditure but as a form of expenditure that ought to be incurred, not only for the good of the working classes, but for the morale and the higher standard of our whole national life. The raising of the school-leaving age from fourteen to fifteen is a case in point. Does the noble Marquess really think that this is extravagance, or that extravagance is the motive that has underlain the policy of the Government? I know, from the fair way in which he looks at these matters, that in his heart of hearts he is well aware that we regard this as a great step of social advance and not as a matter of throwing money away, but, on the contrary, as an expense which, by stabilising and improving the position of the industrial classes, will in the end eventuate in the direction of a great national benefit.
Then the noble Marquess refers to the Bill for the utilisation of agricultural
656
land. I know that there is a difference of opinion as to the best method of dealing with agricultural depression. There is no question about that, and it has been stated again and again in this House. There have been those who think that the best procedure is by protective tariffs, and there are those who agree with what is said by, for instance, Mr. Dampier-Whetham, a great authority on agricultural finance at Cambridge, or by Professor Orwin, who holds an equally authoritative position at Oxford, and who both agree that the direction in which true improvement and true progress is to be made in the farming question in this country is that which we propose to follow in the Bill that we have brought forward. Everyone knows that a matter of that kind cannot be done without a measure of expense. In fact, one of the reasons for it—I regret it because I am in the same position as many other people—is that the landowner under existing conditions is not able to give the capital assistance which in old days the tenants looked to him to give. I dare say the noble Marquess is right. He does not want a large number of smallholders placed upon the land. I think that that is the only direction in which a true remedy can be found.
After all, that is a question of a difference of policy, and it is absurd to charge us with ineptitude and extravagance and want of consideration of the national needs at the present time, because we have instituted a step of that kind which from my large experience—after all, I have had fifty years' experience of farming—I believe to be the only direction in which the prevailing evils can he adequately dealt with. It is no good trying to preserve a system shown to be impossible for the moment. We want to give the greatest encouragement for the trial of new systems in regard to the use of our land, and that is the purpose of our Bill. I should not have touched upon these questions but for what the noble Marquess has said, and I throw no language of a similar kind against him and his colleagues. I have always, since I have been in this House, looked upon these matters as matters in which we have a common object—namely, the national benefit and advantage, and although we approach it

657
from different standpoints, I hope that our discussions may lead to advantage, and not merely to the raising in this House of political differences as between political Parties:
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1. DEATH OF SIR HENRY GRAHAM, K.C.B.
The Committee recorded their sense of deep regret at the death of Sir Henry Graham, K.C.B., late Clerk of the Parliaments, and desired the Chairman of Committees to communicate the same to Lady Margaret Graham.
2. CLOAKROOM ACCOMMODATION IN THE PEERS' LOBBY.
Certain proposed rearrangements for the accommodation of Peers' hats and greatcoats were agreed to.
3. HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS.
The Clerk of the Parliaments brought in the notice of the Committee an application from Professor W. Motestein that certain documents in the Victoria Tower might be transferred temporarily to the Record Office to ho photographed there. The Committee authorised the Clerk of the Parliaments to make the necessary arrangements with the Record Office.
4. LIBRARY SUB-COMMITTEE.
The Lord Ponsonby of Shulebrede was added to the Sub-Committee.
5. RESTORATION OF THE STONEWORK OF THE PALACE.
The Chairman of Committees called the attention of the Committee to certain proposals of the Office of Works for repairs to the stonework outside the Library and Committee Rooms.
6. CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND CLERK ASSISTANT.
In accordance with a report from the Sub-Committee, the Committee recommend that as from the 1st of April next the salary of the Clerk of the Parliaments shall be £2,500 a year, plus an allowance of £500 for a house, and that of the Clerk Assistant £1,800, inclusive.
7. ESTIMATE, 1931.
The Estimate for 1931 was resubmitted to the Committee and agreed to, as amended.
The Committee declined to insert provision for the expenses of witnesses in connection
658
with the Joint Committee on East Africa on the ground that no funds were available out of which to meet these expenses and that in time opinion of the Committee the cost should be borne elsewhere.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUOTIMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted. In doing so I ought to make an explanation to your Lordships with regard to item 7, which you will have noted. It is a record of our proceedings yesterday, and, in accordance with my duty, I move that it be approved by this House. I ought to mention that since the Committee met and this Report was printed, the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been good enough to communicate with me. He is anxious that this matter which was decided yesterday should be reconsidered, and when this House meets again I will issue the usual notices summoning the Committee, in order that the matter may be again taken into consideration. I hope that we shall then have the benefit of the assistance of the Secretary of State himself at the meeting of the Committee, as well as that of some of your Lordships who are members of the Joint Committee in question.
Moved, That this Report be now considered and adopted.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I have to express my thanks to the Lord Chairman for what he has said. The matter is one which T think could with advantage be reconsidered, and I shall be very glad to wait upon the Offices Committee next year, as early as possible, in order that we may have further discussion.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, as a member of the Offices Committee, I should like to make one or two observations upon the decision that we came to yesterday afternoon. I confess that some of us were surprised when a demand was put to the Committee for an expenditure to be permitted by them of no less than £4,000, that being half of the full expenditure of £8,000 incurred in connection with witnesses coining from East Africa. I understand it is said that this is in accordance with custom, but I also understand that it is not in accordance with constitutional

659
law. The point is this, that this question of Last Africa has been fully considered. I was myself, quite a number of years ago, Chairman of a similar Committee on Indian affairs, which considered this question of Last Africa, and it so happened that the witnesses were available in this country, so that the amount required for their expenses was trivial. Again, I was a member of a Joint Committee which considered the Montagu Report. The same thing happened there. It happened that most of the witnesses whose evidence it was considered necessary to take were to be found in this country, and, therefore, the amount of expenditure incurred was trivial. The case in point here is a very different one. The witnesses all have to come from East Africa. I am told that amongst some thirty witnesses no fewer than nine natives will be called to give evidence, and they will require something like half a dozen interpreters to make themselves intelligible to the members of the Joint Committee. Their expenses will all have to be paid.
I would like your Lordships to bear this in mind, that in the consideration of this Committee, difficult and complicated though the subject is, there is no subject which has undergone the lash of investigation to such a great extent as this subject of East Africa. To my certain knowledge there was first a gathering together out there of the Governors of the countries concerned, together with their secretaries. Then there was a conference of the Governors, with their secretariat, in this country, and their expenses have had to be paid. They fully considered the question and no one could have been more competent to give an opinion. In addition, there has been a Royal Commission which gave a most valuable Report. That, however, was not sufficient, and the permanent Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office, Sir Samuel Wilson, was sent out to East Africa to investigate again. There again those concerned obtained their share of their expenses. So I suppose this question has been investigated more than any other.
I should have thought the Government might have been in a position to-day to come to some well-thought out and well advised decision on the subject. But not at all. A Joint Committee is appointed, and now we are asked to pay
660
for it. It is already £8,000 and it will be more before it is finished. I never knew any Committee to entertain a more unanimous feeling against this expenditure than that which met yesterday. It is to be reconsidered at an adjourned meeting. I am only telling your Lordships for what this expenditure has been incurred, and therefore I trust that when the matter comes before your Lordships' House again it may give you the opportunity of going still further into the subject and making your decision, after well considered thought as to what that decision shall be.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CUNARD (INSURANCE) AGREEMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

PHARMACY AND POISONS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Earl Russell, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to pharmacy and poisons, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, first of all, whether he has considered a suggestion I made to him yesterday, that, it might perhaps be possible for your Lordships to meet after the Recess a little later than January 20. I understand that there is not very much business coming from another place before the adjournment, and it would seem a pity that your Lordships should be brought back before it is absolutely necessary, especially as we are likely to have a good deal of strenuous work before the Session ends. Another ques-

661
tion that I should like to address to the noble and learned Lord is as to whether he can give us any information with regard to what is happening, or has happened, in another place in reference to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and whether he anticipates that it will be necessary to consider that Bill again in your Lordships' House; and, if that be the case, when he proposes to take that into consideration.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, perhaps I might answer the second question first. Of course, it is impossible for me to prophesy what attitude will be taken in another place on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill as regards the Dyestuffs Act. If the other House do not agree with the Amendments introduced in this House the matter will have to be discussed here to-morrow, and I do not think it would be of any advantage to alter our ordinary time of meeting at 4.15. That will be the only business, except a purely formal matter. I thought at one time it might be convenient to your Lordships to meet a little earlier, but, after making inquiries, I found that your Lordships very much preferred the ordinary time.
662
As regards the other matter, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for mentioning it to me yesterday. It is very likely, I think, that we shall have no business on January 20. I think the best way to leave it is this, that we adjourn until January 20 and if a formal meeting is necessary then Lord Marley will arrange that. But if there is any probability of business full notice will be given; so that your Lordships will know whether it is necessary to take any notice, if I may use that expression, of the meeting of the House on that date. I do not want to give the impression that we are seeking to prolong our holiday in order to avoid any work, should any work become necessary. But I will take every step to make sure that the noble and learned Viscount and other noble Lords have information if any business is coming on. Subject to that, we may take it that the meeting on January 20 will be a formal one only, and we shall probably adjourn for another week.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I quite agree that I see no reason why we should meet earlier than the usual hour to-morrow.
House adjourned at a quarter before five o'clock.