Sitting of 20 May 1924

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Hastings Corporation Bill [Lords],
To be read a Second time upon Thursday, at a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock.
Central London and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Thursday, at a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock.
Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    STEEL PLATES AND CASTINGS (IMPORTS FROM GERMANY).
    Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount and value of steel ship-plates imported into this country from Germany during the first four months of 1924, and the comparative prices of British- and German-made steel plates, respectively?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): Importers are not required to declare ship plates separately from other steel plates, and consequently I am not in a position to give a precise answer to the first part of the question. The quantity of imported "steel plates and sheets (other than armour plates) not under ⅛-inch thick," registered during the
    1976
    first four months of this year, as consigned from Germany, amounted to 15,283 tons, valued at £110,696. I regret that the information in my possession does not enable me to give the comparative prices asked for in the second part of the question.
    Sir P. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount and value of steel ship-castings imported into this country from Germany during the first four months of 1924; and what are the wages of steel workers in the centres where these castings are produced in Germany and England, respectively?
    Mr. WEBB: I regret that I am unable to give separate figures regarding ship-castings. During the first four months of this year 145 tons of imported "steel castings in the rough" of all kinds were registered as consigned from Germany. The declared value of these imports was £2,585. With regard to the second part of the question, I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, but the information at his disposal is not sufficient to enable the desired particulars to be given.
    Mr. LUMLEY: Is it not a fact that the German rate is less than half the English rate?
    Mr. WEBB: That I am not able to say. The problem is not an easy one if we do not know the proper rate at which to calculate the German currency.

    MACHINERY EXPORT LICENCES (GERMANY).
    Mr. SANDEMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that licences are required from the German Government to import certain classes of British machinery into Germany; that boards appointed to grant or refuse such licences are composed of German manufacturers of the same class of machinery, and require full specifications and blue-print drawings of the machinery proposed to be imported, and that German subjects requiring British machinery are referred to German manufacturers; that there is great delay, in some cases a year or more, in issuing these licences which may be granted, after every effort has been made to secure I the order for German manufacturers, and

    1977
    that British trade and employment are seriously injured; and what steps he proposes to take to secure fair treatment for the British machinery business with Germany?
    Mr. WEBB: I am aware of the restrictions referred to in the first part of the question, and that, as a rule, in considering applications for import licences for prohibited goods, the capacity of German manufacturers to supply the particular requirements are taken into account. The issue of licences for machinery has, I understand, been transferred to the Reichs Commissioner for Import and Export Licences, but I have no reason to suppose that this entails any essential modification of the import application formalities, or of the general principles on which licences are granted or refused. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 14th May to a question by the hon. Member for North-East Leeds, a copy of which I am sending him.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    S.S. "NUNNINGTON."
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the s.s. "Nunnington" sailed from Swansea on or about the 11th April, 1024, and from that date nothing has been heard of her; whether he can say what was the condition of the life-saving apparatus on board the ship at the time of her sailing; and whether an inquiry will be held?
    Mr. STRANGERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London s.s. "Nunnington," which left Swansea on the 11th April last for Sables d'Olonne, France, has not arrived at her destination or at any other port; whether he can state the number of the crew she carried; and whether any steps have been taken to hold an official inquiry into the cause of her disappearance?
    Mr. WEBB: It was reported to the Board of Trade that nothing had been heard of the s.s. "Nunnington" since 11th April, and it has been decided to order a formal inquiry at which all the relevant circumstances will be investigated. The vessel had a crew of 14.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman send me the result of the inquiries?
    Mr. WEBB: Yes. I will make a note of that.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: In making inquiries will the right hon. Gentleman go specially into the question as to whether the ship was fitted with wireless, with competent operators?
    Mr. WEBB: I will endeavour to have that ascertained.

    CLEARANCE CERTIFICATES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the recent case of the overloading of the coasting vessel "Jenny," he will take steps to ensure that, when a vessel obtains her clearance certificate, such certificate shall be the recognised authority of the Board of Trade that the ship is in a seaworthy condition?
    Mr. WEBB: The suggestion in the question would involve the inspection by a Board of Trade surveyor of every ship, on every voyage, before she is allowed to sail. This could not be done without a very large increase of staff; it would delay all our sea-going traffic and it would require legislation. As at present advised, I am not of opinion that such action could be usefully taken.
    Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that a comparatively moderate increase in the surveyors' staff would enable a great deal to be done in cases of this sort?
    Mr. WEBB: Possibly it would enable an increased amount of work to be done. The question refers to every case.

    CLYDE STEAMERS (ENGINEERS).
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state the result of his investigations into the excessive hours of labour worked by engineers upon the Clyde passenger steamers; if he is aware that prospectuses, issued by the London and North Eastern Railway Company, shows a steamer engaged from 7.25 a.m. to 6.50 p.m. for six days a week; that, in addition, there is work to be performed on Sundays; and that, during the summer months, the engineers and all the other officers are engaged for about 90 hours a week; and

    1979
    what steps he proposes to take that steamers carrying His Majesty's mails shall operate under reasonable working conditions?
    Mr. WEBB: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him on 7th May, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked no question on this subject on the 7th May, and that this is the first question which I put on the matter?
    Mr. WEBB: I think that either the record is wrong or the hon. Member's memory is not accurate. I have a question here on the matter, and I shall be glad to go into the matter and give any explanation.
    Mr. LINFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the answer to the question?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman read out the answer to which he refers as a question on this subject has never been put by me in this House?
    Mr. WEBB: Perhaps I may be allowed to give a further reply. I have no power to call for any return showing the working hours of engineers on any class of steamers, but I shall be very glad to consider any cases or any evidence submitted to me.
    Mr. HARDIE: As the right hon. Gentleman has been provided in this question

    ENGAGEMENT of British and Foreign Sailors and Firemen (Deck and Engine Departments excluding Officers) at Mercantile Marine Offices in the United Kingdom during the six months ended 31st December, 1921, and the years 1922 and 1923.

    Note.—The following figures relate to engagements and not to individual seamen, i.e., if a particular seaman were engaged twice during any period he would be counted twice in the totals below.

    Year.

    Total Number of Seamen Engaged.

    Sailors and Firemen. (Deck and Engine Departments, excluding Officers.)

    British other than Asiatics and Africans.

    Foreigners other than Asiatics and Africans.

    *Asiatics and Africans (British and Foreign).

    1921†

    …

    235,977†

    99,734†

    5,414†

    5,857†

    1922

    …

    503,019

    203,444

    9,509

    12,419

    1923

    …

    517,445

    204,282

    9,411

    12,847

    * The percentage of British among the Asiatics and Africans cannot be stated with certainty, but is probably considerable.

    † Statistics enumerating separately the men employed in the different departments on board ship are not available before 1st July, 1921. These figures relate accordingly to the last six months of 1921 only.

    with the information, what action is he going to take in view of the employment of engineers on Glasgow steamers for 90 hours in a week?
    Mr. WEBB: I have already taken steps to cause inquiries to be made into the whole question of hours, not in reference to any particular case, but, generally speaking in reference to that class of case.

    ALIEN SEAMEN AND FIREMEN.
    Mr. STRANGERasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of alien seamen and firemen employed in British vessels in each of the years 1921, 1922 and 1923?
    Mr. WEBB: I would refer the hon. Member to the full statistical table circulated on 11th March in reply to the hon. Member for Thanet; but I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a further table giving more briefly the information for which the hon. Member asks, so far as this is shown by the engagements which take place in the United Kingdom, and confined to the classes as to which he asks.
    Mr. STRANGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures, not only for the United Kingdom but also for ports outside the United Kingdom, as these are the important figures?
    Mr. WEBB: I will inquire whether that can be done, but I have not got them in my head.
    Following is the table:

    TONNAGE MEASUREMENT.
    Mr. STRANGERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that a Committee appointed by the International Shipping Conference has unanimously agreed that it is desirable that there should be universal rules for the measurement of shipping tonnage; and whether His Majesty's Government are wishful to adopt the suggestion and are taking any steps to carry out the suggestion by ascertaining the views of other Powers?
    Mr. WEBB: I have seen in the Press the Resolution referred to in the question. There is already a remarkable degree of uniformity in the matter of tonnage measurement among the maritime nations, but if good cause were shown for thinking that the present agreement could and should be made more complete, I would be prepared to consider taking action in this direction.
    Mr. STRANGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that there is agreement on this Committee that there should be a universal tonnage rule?
    Mr. WEBB: I was aware of that fact, and I am also inclined to believe that there are more considerations that have to be taken into account in the interests of shipowners themselves. It is not clear exactly at present at what they are aiming.
    Mr. STRANGER: But this is a resolution of the shipowners themselves. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of that fact?
    Mr. WEBB: I have the Resolution in my hand, and obviously I am aware of it, but I can only say that it is impossible, within the limits of an answer to a question, to go into all the considerations that make the question of tonnage a little difficult.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Major BIRCHALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the latest figures showing the amount paid by employers for insurance under the various Workmen's Compensation Acts, and the amount paid in claims?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): My right hon. Friend has asked
    1982
    me to reply. The latest figures available are for 1922. The returns made by the insurance companies for that year show that the total amount of the premiums paid to the companies was £5,688,895, and the total amount paid out under policies was £2,873,145. Payments under policies, however, include legal and medical expenses incurred in connection with claims, so that the amount received by the workmen as compensation was somewhat less than this.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    FOREIGN OFFICE (COMMERCIAL STAFF OVERSEAS).
    Captain BRASSasked the President of the Board of Trade how many commercial counsellors, secretaries, and other commercial representatives are employed, either by his Department alone or in conjunction with the Department for Foreign Affairs, in countries overseas; what is the total cost to this country of their services; whether information as supplied by them to the Department of Overseas Trade for the express benefit of British traders; and whether it is one of the duties of this Department, as stated in the catalogue of the British Industries Fair, to help the individual trader?
    Mr. WEBB: The total number of commercial diplomatic officers and trade commissioners is 47. The total sum provided in the Estimates for the current financial year in respect of the two services is £165,150. The answer to the remaining portions of the question is in the affirmative. In asking this question the hon. and gallant Member, perhaps, has had in mind a recent reply of mine to the effect that it was not part of the duty of the Government to secure a market for particular manufacturers. No business man, I am sure, regards himself as divested of the responsibility for finding markets for his wares, and for making his own arrangements to sell them. But it is part of the work of the Board of Trade, and notably of the Department of Overseas Trade, to supply the business world with all the knowledge that can be obtained, and especially to furnish individual traders with all possible information and facilities to assist them to do their business. I have always thought this is a highly successful development of

    1983
    Government action; and I shall certainly promote it to the utmost degree. There is an obvious difference between helping a man to do something, and doing it for him.
    Captain BRASS: Are we to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the policy of the Board of Trade is to try to help people to sell their wares?
    Mr. WEBB: Certainly. I have always said so. We endeavour to provide them with information which will enable them to do their own business better.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not one of the doctrines of Socialism that the State should do everything?

    CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS.
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of Civil Service pensioners who retired between the 4th August, 1914, and thy 11th November, 1920; and the additional cost that would be involved in assimilating their financial position to that of those pensioned since the latter date?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): The number of retirements is estimated at 20,000. As these pensioners retired at different dates, and with different rates of pay and pensionable emoluments, it would be impossible, without an examination of each case separately, to calculate the cost of assimilating their financial position to that of men pensioned at a later date, even if one fixed date were taken for the retirement of the latter. I fear I can give no estimate of cost, but it is clear that, owing to the drop in bonus after 1920, many of the pensioners referred to would lose if their pensions were, under the hon. Member's proposal, assimilated to the amounts now payable after similar service, and that, if such cases were excluded, the cost of the proposal would be very large. The proposal would, moreover, involve similar concessions to other classes of pensioners at a cost of some millions of pounds.

    WAR OFFICE (STAFF).
    Captain TUDOR REESasked the Secretary of State for War how many persons were on the staff of the War
    1984
    Office in May, 1914, and the number of the staff to-day; whether any reduction has taken place during the past year; and whether he proposes to make any reduction in the ensuing year?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Stephen Walsh): The numbers—military and civilian—are as follow:

    1914

    1,590

    1st May, 1924

    2,463

    Reductions during last year

    286

    Further reductions will be effected during the ensuing year as the state of business permits.

    WORKING HOURS.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Treasury to reduce the working hours of temporary civil servants now employed; if so, what is the object of this reduction in working hours; will it involve reductions in the salaries of the officers; and upon what ratio for grades 1, 2 and 3?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on the 9th April and the 19th May to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe and the hon. Member for Islington, South, respectively. The object of the reduction is to obviate, so far as possible, the discharge of staff in present circumstances.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    POISON GAS APPLIANCES.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Secretary of State for War if his Department is fully acquainted with the development of poison gas for war purposes by foreign countries; in view of the great dangers to which our civil population would be put, will he consider means of instructing the public whereby they can protect themselves against enemy gas attacks; and will he consider the advisability of supplying gas masks to every civilian?
    Mr. WALSH: The Department is fully aware that the development of gas appliances is engaging attention in various foreign countries With regard to the last part of the question, the protection of our civil population is receiving consideration.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Could not this necessity be obviated if steps were taken to instruct the British in the elementary principles of patriotism?
    Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply also to the Russian Army?

    ARMOURED CARS (YEOMANRY).
    Lord APSLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to replace the Peerless armoured car at present issued to Yeomanry armoured car units by a type of a more modern and efficacious design?
    Mr. WALSH: It is hoped to effect this replacement in the course of the next few years.
    Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Peerless car is a British made car?
    Mr. WALSH: I did not say whether it was or not. What was asked in the main question was whether it was likely to be replaced.
    Lord APSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these cars are entirely obsolete, some of them being 10 years old, and that they weigh eight tons?

    OFFICERS' PAY AND PENSIONS (REDUCTION).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, instead of the proposed reduction of 5½ per cent. in the whole pay and pensions of officers, he will have the reduction calculated solely on the 20 per cent. increase, as the basic rate of 80 per cent. is a fixed rate and cannot be reduced; and if he will give an assurance that officers whose pre-war pensions were more than the basic rate will not suffer any reduction below such pre-war rates?
    Mr. WALSH: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I would explain that the reduction has in fact been calculated in the same manner which he indicates. The 80 per cent. basic element in the pay and retired pay of officers has not been reduced; it is only the variable 20 per cent. of pay that is reduced proportionately to the fall in the cost of living. This reduction of the variable 20 per cent., when expressed as a percentage of the whole pay, amounts to 5½ per cent. The
    1986
    answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Sir C. YATE: If it has already been calculated—the question of 20 per cent.—why cannot the right hon. Gentleman publish that calculation instead of the 5½ per cent.?
    Mr. WALSH: We could publish it, but I have only been asked as to what the facts are and what is the result when calculated, in accordance with the fall in the cost of living, upon the 20 per cent., which was variable since 1919. If one took 5½ per cent. on £100, it comes to 27½ per cent. on £20. That is really the fact of the matter.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?
    Sir JAMES REMNANT: Would it not save a lot of misunderstanding if, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, there is no reduction on the pre-War figure, especially as regards Indian pensions, and the only reduction to be made is on the bonus to meet the extra cost of living, and there is to be a reduction of 27½ per cent., that 27½ per cent. should be taken oft the extra bonus instead of off the whole?
    Mr. GREENEasked the Secretary of State for War if, in the consideration of the proposed reduction of 5½ per cent. in the pay of officers, attention was given to the loss sustained by the latter owing to promotion having been retarded by the amalgamation and abolishment of units?
    Mr. WALSH: The answer is in the negative. The 5½ per cent. reduction is a reduction due, in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Warrant, for the fall in the cost of living. The fixing of the figure depends solely on the variation in the cost of living, and no other consideration enters into it.
    Mr. GREENE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many officers who should have been captains for years and are now so low on the list of subalterns that their chances of promotion are almost nil?

    TEMPORARY OFFICERS (RHINE ARMY).
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state how many temporary officers are still employed in the Royal Corps of

    1987
    Signals and also in the Array of the Rhine; and how many regular officers are serving in positions junior to them in the same Departments?
    Mr. WALSH: The number of temporary officers still employed in the Royal Corps of Signals and on the Rhine respectively is 11 and 40. There are no regular officers serving junior to any of the temporary officers in the Royal Corps of Signals. Three temporary officers on the Rhine have regular officers junior to them, but I am unable, without local inquiry, to state the number of the latter.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make local inquiry? Six weeks ago he offered to give me this information.
    Mr. WALSH: If I offered to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman this specific information, I regret very much that I have not had time to do so. But I am not at all sure that I made that promise. If I did so, I shall carry it out.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this temporary rating rather ancient now, having regard to the time that has passed since the War? Ought these temporary officers not to be replaced by permanent officers, or be themselves made permanent?
    Mr. WALSH: As a matter of fact that is the policy of the Department, and has been for a considerable time. But, still, the conditions existing are such that the change cannot be made with the speed desired.
    Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Is any work being done by the corps of temporary officers which cannot equally well be done by the regular officers?
    Mr. WALSH: It could be done by regular officers, but we have had to take other considerations into account.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If it can be done by regular officers, why is it not done by regular officers?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How many of these temporary officers are related to high officers in the War Office?
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has appealed to me on the question
    1988
    of innuendoes contained in questions. Now he is guilty of that himself, and he must withdraw.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I certainly withdraw. I was led away, and I ought not to have made such a statement.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total estimated cost for the current financial year of the employment of temporary officers in the Army; and what is the cost of those employed with the Royal Corps of Signals, and also in the Army of the Rhine?
    Mr. WALSH: I have been asked to reply. The approximate cost is:

    £

    Of all temporary officers

    165,000

    Of temporary officers in the Royal Corps of Signals

    4,500

    Of temporary officers on the Rhine

    18,000

    The first of the above figures includes the last two, and these, two overlap each other inasmuch as two officers in the Royal Corps of Signals are serving on the Rhine.

    COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the Secretary of State for War in how many courts-martial were Judge Advocates employed during 1923; and in how many of these cases were the findings or sentences not confirmed or quashed?
    Mr. WALSH: I regret that this information is not available. It could only be ascertained by an examination of the actual proceedings of every trial, which would be a very laborious and lengthy matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these figures can be obtained at once from the Judge Advocate-General's Department?
    Mr. WALSH: No. I would not have answered as I have done had I been aware of it. It is not a fact. I know from personal and everyday knowledge that the actual proceedings of each case have to be gone into to find out in how many cases Judge Advocates were present.

    PENSION (SERGEANT JOHN ROY).
    Mr. SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that

    1989
    Sergeant John Hoy, No. 318021, served in the Army for 24 years; and why his pension is assessed on 19 years' service?
    Mr. WALSH: This soldier's pension is governed by Army Order 325 of 1919, under which pre-War pensioners who served again during the War are entitled to re-assessment at the new rates, the re-assessed pension being computed on the service rendered up to original discharge to pension, and calculated according to the Rules of Table 5 of the Army Older. Under these rules pension is based on the number of complete years qualifying service, which for this purpose is unforfeited colour service given after attaining the age of 18 years. Although this soldier served for 24 years in all, the amount of service up to his original discharge to pension was 21 years only, of which 19 years reckon as qualifying service under Army Order 325 of 1919. During the War he drew pension in addition to pay, and he is therefore not entitled to count his War service towards increase of pension.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: As this officer joined up at the request of the officials and has served, would not it be reasonable to count his total length of service in computing his pension?
    Mr. WALSH: It is utterly impossible for me to act differently from the regulations under the Order. It is not within my competence to do so, and I cannot, of my own free will, say it is reasonable to give this man something different from what the regulations have laid down.

    DISABLED OFFICERS (ARTIFICIAL LIMBS).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds the decision was made that serving disabled officers should be required to pay for repairs to and replacements of their artificial limbs; and whether he is aware that under the present regulations a serving disabled officer is at a disadvantage as compared with an officer similarly disabled who is drawing an equivalent salary in a Civil Service appointment and obtains repairs to and replacements of his artificial limbs at the expense of the State?
    Mr. WALSH: As my hon. Friend is aware, in the case of every officer placed upon retired pay who has lost a limb, an artificial limb is provided, and both the
    1990
    initial cost and the cost of repairs are met by the Department. A similar condition applies where officers are upon half pay. The initial cost of the limb is met and also the charge for replacement. The reason for this action is that in all these cases the officers are in receipt of substantially reduced emoluments from Army funds. Further, officers in receipt of full pay, but to whom a wound pension is not payable, both have the initial cost of the limb and cost of replacement provided. Officers in receipt of full pay and wound pension in addition cannot be said to have sustained any momentary loss. Indeed they occupy a position of material financial benefit as compared with other officers who have lost a limb. Yet, even in their case, the initial cost of the limb is met by the Department. With regard to the last part of the question, I do not think that any effective comparison can be made between the advantages or disadvantages of serving officers and those officers who have left the service for civil employment, whether under Government or elsewhere. The conditions are entirely dissimilar.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Could not the right hon. Gentleman shortly explain to the House why an officer who remains in the Army does not get his artificial limb repaired, whereas if he goes into civil life or into the Civil Service he is entitled to have it repaired?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The answer given to the question has been rather long, and the hon. Member must consider the fact that there are many other questions on the Paper.

    LIEUTENANT C. H. CLENDINING.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the statutory right of an officer in any inquiry affecting his character or military reputation to have full opportunity to be present throughout that inquiry and to make any statement, give any evidence he may wish to produce and cross-examine witnesses, he will arrange that Lieutenant Clendining shall be given this opportunity in any inquiry into the circumstances of his detention as an alleged lunatic?
    Mr. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if his attention has been called to the application

    1991
    made by Lieutenant C. H. Clendining, 3rd Battalion Royal Irish Rifles, on the 5th August, 1917, for copies of the statements made by Lieutenant McElwee, of that regiment, against him, which he alleges are false; and if he can explain why the military authorities in India refused to supply Lieutenant Clendining with copies of these statements;
    (2) if his attention has been called to the fact that Lieutenant McElwee, of the Royal Irish Rifles, pleaded guilty to a charge of housebreaking and jewel theft before the Recorder at the Dublin City Sessions in May, 1921; and if he will make inquiries if this officer is identical with the Lieutenant McElwee, of the Royal Irish Rifles, accused by Lieutenant Clendining, of that regiment, with supplying false information with a view to getting him certified as insane?
    Mr. WALSH: As I indicated in reply to the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on 6th May, I have just received a report from India on the case of Lieutenant Clendining, and I am now engaged in examining, under Section 42 of the Army Act, the complaint which this officer has made. As soon as my examination is complete I will inform the hon. Members of my conclusions, but in the meantime I am not in a position to deal piecemeal with details of a matter which is still sub judice. I will bear in mind the question of the identity of Lieutenant McElwee, should it prove relevant. With regard to question No. 32, I would point out that the statutory right in question relates to Courts of Inquiry, not to an examination into a complaint by the Army Council, under Section 42 of the Army Act.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does my right hon. Friend contemplate that in his examination of this case Lieutenant Clendining is not to appear in his own defence and is not to be allowed to call witnesses in his own defence; and is such a one-sided examination to be considered satisfactory?
    Mr. WALSH: I stated a few days ago in this House emphatically that I was going into the whole details of this case by myself to begin with. I made a definite promise to the Noble Lord and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and
    1992
    Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to that effect, and I was cheered by both in doing so. I promised that examination would be undertaken by me under Section 42 of the Army Act. That course I intend to carry out, but I cannot at present say what later developments may take place.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Could the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when his inquiry will be concluded?
    Mr. WALSH: I could not.
    Mr. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow witnesses for Lieutenant Clendining to be examined?
    Mr. WALSH: I have repeatedly stated that under Section 42, witnesses of the kind indicated are not permissible. It is, first of all, an investigation by the Army Council; a report is then made by the Secretary of State to His Majesty, and His Majesty takes such action as he considers right thereon. That is the whole purport of Section 42 and that is the promise I have made.

    CONTRACTORS (KING'S ROLL).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for War if there are any private firms doing contract work for his Department who have not fulfilled the conditions of membership of the King's Roll?
    Mr. WALSH: The practice of the War Office is in accordance with the decision announced in this House on 6th April, 1921, that, "save in very exceptional circumstances, all firms contracting for Government contracts to whom the conditions of membership of the King's Roll are applicable must be on the King's Roll." In a few cases it is necessary to place contracts with firms who have not fulfilled the conditions of membership of the King's Roll, e.g., for proprietary articles or articles which cannot be obtained from enrolled firms.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Could it not be made a condition on all firms, even those supplying proprietary articles?
    Mr. STURROCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the conditions governing membership of the King's Roll are exceedingly difficult to meet on the part of firms in small towns whose employés are limited, but who are as much entitled as the big firms to join in competition for War Office contracts?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must not now argue that question.

    CADETS (ENTRY).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the importance to parents and candidates of the earliest possible intimation of the conditions which are to govern the entry to Woolwich, Sandhurst, and the Royal Air Force in 1925, steps can be taken to accelerate the publication of the new Regulations?
    Mr. WALSH: So far as Woolwich and Sandhurst are concerned, full particulars will be obtainable from the Civil Service Commission on and after 1st June next. An announcement to this effect has already appeared in the Press. The question of the Royal Air Force is for my hon. Friend, but I understand that similar information will be available for that force on the same date.
    Mr. SAMUEL: As this is a very important point and as June is so near and I cannot put down another question in the meantime, would it be possible for the Under-Secretary of State for Air to answer this question so far as it affects his Department?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): The draft of our new Regulations has already gone to the Civil Service Commissioners, who are the responsible body of examiners, and it is confidently hoped they will be public property on 1st June.
    Mr. A. A. SOMERVILLE: Has the Army Council adopted all the recommendations of the Haldane Committee?

  SCOTLAND.

    FISHERMEN (REPLACEMENT OF GEAR).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the provision of nets and fishing gear for the Scottish drift-net fishermen; and, if so, whether he can also state when his proposals will come into operation?
    Major Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make
    1994
    an announcement with regard to his scheme for assistance to fishermen in the replacement of lost and damaged gear?
    Mr. JAMES STEWART (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to announce any decision.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend and colleague the Secretary for Scotland promised this House before the Recess that he would give this question his immediate consideration, and that the House was led to believe that we should have had an answer to this question a week ago?
    Mr. STEWART: All that I can say is that the Secretary for Scotland is in communication with other authorities, trying to get this matter dealt with.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme urgency of this question, as summer fishing has now commenced, and that unless provision is made to meet the case of these men now, it will be too late, and will the hon. Gentleman indicate the exact date when he will be able to make a statement?
    Mr. LUMLEY: How is it that relief for the Albanians is so urgent, and no action is taken by the Government for the relief of these poor fishermen in Scotland?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not more urgent for the Secretary for Scotland to be at the General Assembly than to have this settled?
    Mr. STEWART: No, the Secretary for Scotland is attending to Scottish business, far from the General Assembly.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I ask whether what was understood to be a promise from the Secretary for Scotland that this question should be answered this week will be adhered to?
    Mr. STEWART: Yes, but I dare say it sometimes happens in this House that promises are made in excellent good faith, but circumstances prevent these promises being fulfilled.

    AILSA CRAIG (PROTECTION OF BIRDS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that large numbers of sea-birds,

    1995
    including several rare species, nest on Ailsa Craig; whether he has seen statements to the effect that numbers of rats have invaded the Craig and are causing great damage to the eggs and young of these sea-birds, and that certain species have been almost driven away from the Craig by the intruders; and whether any steps can be taken to deal with this matter?
    Mr. STEWART: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend has not seen the statements referred to, but he has reason to doubt whether, in any event, the rarer birds are in serious danger of extermination from any such cause, seeing that they nest in inaccessible places. He will, however, bring the matter to the notice of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses as the owners of the Craig.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of offering an appointment as Governor of this island to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), with an official residence and full powers to deal with this question?

    ROLLS OF ELECTORS, STIRLINGSHIRE.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary for Scotland why the rolls of electors for the county of Stirling differ from the rolls of other Scotch counties, inasmuch as there has been no insertion of the words Mrs. or Miss before the names of women electors on the rolls; if he is aware that every political organisation in the county has petitioned for the insertion of the missing designation; and if, in order to avoid the confusion and annoyance which at present obtains, he will give instructions to have the Stirlingshire rolls brought into conformity with the rolls of other counties?
    Mr. STEWART: The reason for the difference to which my hon. Friend refers probably is that previous practice has been followed. There is no rule on the subject. As regards the second part of the question, a representation by the party agents in East Stirlingshire urging that the designations referred to should be inserted in the register was brought to the notice of the Secretary for Scotland last year; but, in view of the additional expense which would be involved, and the
    1996
    fact that the insertion of these designations did not appear to be necessary for registration and election purposes, he was not prepared to move in the matter. If my hon. Friend will give some information as to the confusion and annoyance alleged to be caused by the present practice, my right hon. Friend will consider further whether he can properly take the matter up in connection with the expiry of the present printing contracts.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Why was it considered necessary in every other county in Scotland to insert the designation?
    Mr. STEWART: This is a matter that is not a practice, but if the hon. Member will supply further information, I have no doubt the Secretary for Scotland will consider the matter further.

    HOUSING, MILLERSTON.
    Mr. SULLIVANasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will make inquiry into the condition of houses and overcrowding in uninhabitable houses in Millerston Village, in North Lanark?
    Mr. STEWART: Inquiry is being made by the Scottish Board of Health into the housing conditions in the village of Millerston.

    SALMON FISHING RIGHTS (RIVER TWEED).
    Mr. SPENCEasked the Secretary for Scotland the number and names of leaseholders of salmon-fishing rights on the mouth of the River Tweed, Berwickshire, and the amount of revenue received for the same on behalf of the State?
    Mr. STEWART: My right hon. Friend is informed by the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues that they have no Crown rights of salmon fishing at the mouth of the Tweed. He has no information with regard to any private leases that may exist.
    Mr. SPENCE: Is the hon. Gentleman not of opinion that that is contrary to the answer to the question given a week ago on this subject?
    Mr. STEWART: No, I am not aware that that is so.
    Mr. SPENCEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that fishermen are prohibited by leaseholders of salmon-fishing rights on the mouth of the River Tweed, Berwickshire, from shooting nets

    1997
    for the taking of flat or other fish; and will he inquire into this matter and make provision for fishermen to take fish other than salmon?
    Mr. STEWART: No complaints have reached my right hon. Friend, but if my hon. Friend will furnish exact particulars of any cases which have arisen within Scottish jurisdiction, he will be glad to have inquiry made.

    WHITE FISHING, NAIRN.
    Mr. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Nairn Town Council, addressed to the Fishery Board for Scotland, relating to the present deplorable state of the white fishing industry at Nairn caused by the Moray Firth being open to foreign trawlers and seine-net drifters; and whether he contemplates taking any steps to improve the situation?
    Mr. STEWART: My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the resolution referred to. The present shortage of white fish is not confined to the area mentioned, but is being experienced in extraterritorial waters off other parts of the Scottish Coast, where the causes suggested in the Resolution are not operative. Foreign trawlers have been observed in the Moray Firth on only eight occasions this year. As regards seine-net fishing, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by the Secretary for Scotland on the 4th March to the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). The difficult questions involved are receiving my right hon. Friend's careful attention.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Are the Scottish Office now going to put into force the recommendations of Lord Mackenzie's Report on this subject?
    Mr. STEWART: That matter is being considered at the moment, but there are difficulties in the way. There are not only the difficulties that will require legislation to have this given effect to, but there are difficulties that require diplomatic arrangements with other countries.

    GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Prime Minister if any terms for favourable
    1998
    treatment for the British goods imported into Germany were negotiated by the British Government when the Reparations Import Tax on German goods imported into this country was reduced by the present Government from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent. ad valorem?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) on the 4th March, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Colonel GRETTON: Does that mean that nothing was done, that no negotiations were undertaken, when the Reparations Import Tax was reduced by this Government?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The purport of the answer given was that Germany is prohibited by Article 264 of the Treaty of Versailles from reducing customs duties on British imports, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is in regard to favourable treatment.
    Mr. HOPE: Are we to understand that the Government threw away a bargaining asset and secured nothing in return?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not agree that there was a bargaining asset at all, and the circumstances were the same as when the previous Government reduced the duty from 50 per cent. to 26 per cent.
    Colonel GRETTON: Could not anything have been done at that time to get rid of the system of licensing, which was so great a hindrance to trade?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming an argument.

    RUMANIA (DEBT TO GREAT BRITAIN).
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the general return to internal prosperity of Rumania, any steps are being taken by the Rumanian authorities towards the repayment of either interest or principal of the loan of £30,000,000 advanced to Rumania during the War?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No proposals have been received from the Rumanian Government with regard to payment of principal

    1999
    or interest on the advances made to them by His Majesty's Government for war purposes, the amount of which outstanding on 31st March last was £24,778,000. Interest is being paid on the post-War Relief Debt.
    Sir V. WARRENDER: If the Rumanian Government propose to ask the British public to support a further loan, will His Majesty's Government undertake to let the British public know that until quite recently the Rumanian Government defaulted in its obligations to the British public in respect of the previous loan?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member must realise that this question of debts due by foreign countries cannot be considered in relation to one particular debt, but must be considered in regard to the whole question of inter-Allied indebtedness.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman consider calling an Inter-Allied Debt Conference, which will include America, to consider the whole question of these debts?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It is not for me to reply to a question like that. That is a matter for the Foreign Secretary.
    Captain BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the debts cannot be considered separately?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that the Rumanian Government had large credits on their side—a considerable sum—in regard to the destruction of oil and corn?

    FREEHOLD LANDS, CANBERRA (ADVERTISEMENT).
    Mr. JOHN HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings in the Australian Parliament, during which the Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, is stated to have said that he has instructed the High Commissioner in London to publicly dissociate the Government of Australia from the firm issuing the advertisement for the sale of freehold lands near Canberra; and whether he will give immediate instructions that no
    2000
    further copies of the form containing this advertisement shall be issued from any Government office or with any Government stationery in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. GRAHAM: According to the reports in the Press, the Australian Government wish to make it clear that the firm in question, though housed in Australia House, has no connection with that Government. I do not think that this fact of itself would justify the British Government in refusing to let advertising space to the firm, and I would refer the hon. Member to my answer of the 13th May.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister of Australia has sent these instructions to the High Commissioner here because the local people in Australia knew the value of this particular advertisement?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, I can assure my hon. Friend that, having gone into all the facts, there is another side to this story. The real difficulty is that we could not break a contract without paying compensation. Further, that the Government have undertaken to review all these advertisements, so that there may be no possibility of consequences of the kind.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does the other side of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred include that he still holds that this is an investment of exceptional security and merit which should be advertised by the Government?
    Mr. STURROCK: Is not this an additional proof of the inadvisability of the Government allowing official advertisements to appear in any shape or form?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have indicated that we are not in any way associated with the recommendations or the reverse of this advertisement. As regards the second question, Governments in the past have pursued a policy of getting some revenue from advertisements; but the whole matter is under review.

  FINANCE BILL.

    DOMINION INCOME TAX.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to introduce into the

    2001
    Finance Bill a new Clause designed to modify for the future the effect of Subsection (5) of Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1920, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Sheldrick v. the South African Breweries, in October, 1922?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I have carefully considered the effect of Sub-section (5) of Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1920, as interpreted by the decision to which the hon. Member refers, and I am satisfied that the Sub-section as so interpreted is a necessary corollary of the scheme of relief embodied in that Section, and that there is no ground for a modification in the sense suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman also satisfied that the decision of the Court of Appeal does really give effect to the intention of Parliament when the Section was passed?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I could not give an answer to that question on the spur of the moment. I know that this is a matter which has been considered by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, and that they have all come to the conclusion that it is the fairest solution of what everybody agrees is a rather difficult question.

    MCKENNA IMPORT DUTIES.
    Captain BOWYERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a considerable number of workers in the motor industry have already been dismissed, and that others are now working a short week of seven hours a day, as a consequence of the threatened repeal of the McKenna Duties; and what steps the Government propose to take to find fresh employment for the men thus dismissed and thrown into unemployment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have been asked to reply. I have seen statements of prospective dismissals of workers in the motor industry. Some suspensions or cases of organised short-time working attributed to the repeal of these duties have been reported to the Employment Exchanges, but the evidence so far available does not satisfy me that the effect will be so great as has been alleged.
    Captain BOWYER: Might I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps
    2002
    he is taking, in collaboration with other Ministers, to help those men who have been deliberately thrown into unemployment?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in view of the repeal of the McKenna Duties, large numbers of foreign watches, clocks, and motor cars are being re-exported out of the country with a view to their re-importation free of duty after 1st August; and whether he can state the amount of money that the Exchequer will be called upon to refund in consequence of this?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Under Section 13 (1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, on proof to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that an article on which a new import duty has been paid has been exported as merchandise, a drawback equal to the amount of duty paid is allowable, provided the article has not been used in Great Britain or Ireland. I am unable to forecast the extent to which advantage may be taken of this provision in connection with the abolition of the duties as from 1st August, but I would point out that it is obviously limited to the excess of the duty paid stocks in the hands of merchants over the expected consumption up to 1st August after which fresh importations will be available free of duty.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this liability will be in addition to the 2½ millions he has thrown away?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No; because, as a matter of fact, we have already, since the end of the financial year, collected upon those duties practically the Estimate.
    Brigadier-General MAKINSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the great importance of correct information to the motor industry in this country, he will reconsider whether it is possible to supply the desired guidance as to the number of light cars placed by the Disposal Board on the market since the Armistice?
    Mr. GRAHAM: As stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the 8th May, I regret that, with the

    2003
    depleted staffs at present available, it is not possible to undertake this work, which would involve an examination, not only of accounts at home for a period of 5½ years, but also accounts in respect of Iraq, India, Salonika and other theatres of war.
    Brigadier-General MAKINS: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake not again to use the argument in regard to these 60,000 commercial cars in connection with the McKenna Duties since he refuses to give the information asked for?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I could not promise to do that; I am very anxious to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the difficulty here is that the information simply cannot be obtained.
    Brigadier-General MAKINS: Will the hon. Gentleman use the other argument?

    KING ALFRED SILVER, PENNY (FAC-SIMILES).
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that there are being sold at the British Empire Exhibition official fac-similes of the London silver penny of King Alfred the Great, only differentiated from the original by the insertion under the King's bust of 1924 in microscopical figures; and whether he will cause these coins to be differentiated from the original by some marked modern addition or sign, as otherwise the small date will certainly be scratched out by unscrupulous persons and the coins foisted on collectors as originals, which they closely resemble in size, metal, and type?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am looking into the matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Sir C. OMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to hear that the French Mint, which makes many "restrikes" of ancient pieces, always sees that they are either of a different metal or of a different size from the originals?

    CONVERSION LOAN.
    Major KINDERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the full
    2004
    amount of 5 per cent. War Loan converted into 4½ per cent. Conversion Loan; and of this amount how much was converted by Government Departments?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Final figures are not yet available, but the approximate amount converted is £148,519,586 of which £26,441,859 is the amount converted by Government Departments.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (COST).
    Captain T. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost of the League of Nations for the past year; how much of that cost was borne by this country; and what proportion was contributed by the Colonies?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: With the hon. Members' permission, I will circulate the answer, which contains a number of figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The final accounts for the League of Nations for the year 1923 are not yet available. The estimated total cost for that year of the League (including the International Labour Office and Permanent Court of International Justice) was 25,673,507.30 gold francs (say £1,018,000 at par of exchange) of which the contribution of Great Britain and Ireland was 2,583,668.64 gold francs (say £102,400 at par, or 10.1 per cent.). The contributions of the Dominions and India amounted to 4,106,673.31 gold francs (say £162,800 at par, or 16.0 per cent.).

    NORTHERN IRELAND (IMPERIAL CONTRIBUTION).
    Mr. HEALYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has submitted to the Irish Joint Exchequer Board any report on the nett Imperial contribution of Northern Ireland for the year 1922–23 of £2,717,035 and for 1923–24 of £1,654,131; and if the Joint Exchequer Board is satisfied that the amount is a reasonable one?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The grants voted by Parliament in 1922–23 and 1923–24 in aid of certain services in Northern Ireland do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Joint

    2005
    Exchequer Board under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 6th May, the Board have not yet finally fixed the amount of the contribution to Imperial expenditure to be made by Northern Ireland under that Act for the years mentioned.
    Mr. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Joint Exchequer Board and the Chairman of the Northern Irish Arbitration Committee are one and the same individual, and does he think that that arrangement is a desirable one?
    Mr. FERGUSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Northern Parliament has contributed £6,000,000 to the Imperial Exchequer, and will only get a part of that money back?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    HOUSEHOLD COAL.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has decided what legislative and/or administrative action he can take to mitigate the grievances of the domestic consumer of coal with regard to the price, quality, etc., of coal supplied by the trade for household use?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I have met representatives of the Co-operative Societies, and propose to publish a report of the discussion. As regards the action that I may eventually propose, I am not at present in a position to add anything to the very full statement that I made in reply to the hon. and gallant Member a week ago.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in that statement he said that he was considering legislative and administrative action, and when will his consideration come to an end and his action commence?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I hope very shortly.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the statement include the cost of retail coal sold by Co-operative Societies exactly in the same way as other coal merchants?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I think the statement will contain the whole truth.

    MINERS' WAGES (SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE).
    Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the low wages paid to the miners in the South Staffordshire district; what are the causes of these low wages; and what steps he is taking to improve these?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am aware generally of the rates of wages of colliery workers in South Staffordshire. General fluctuations in wages in each district have been determined since the autumn of 1921 by the financial results of the working of the collieries, in accordance with the terms of the National Agreement of July, 1921, which is now to be renewed with modifications. The matter is not one over which I have any powers.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (COMPULSORY INSURANCE).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that in many cases the owners of motor cars do not insure their cars nor themselves against third-party risks, with the result that, should an accident occur, the injured persons are unable to obtain compensation; and whether he will consider the desirability of insisting upon the compulsory insurance of all motor vehicles?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): The question of compelling motorists to insure against accidents has been, and is still, under consideration. There are, however, practical and administrative difficulties in framing any satisfactory scheme. Legislation would be required before any such scheme could be put into operation.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that legislation is already in being, and that this matter is now in force as far as owner-drivers of taxicabs are concerned?
    Mr. GOSLING: No, I am not aware of it?

    CARRIER TRICYCLES.
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the Lambeth

    2007
    coroner at a recent inquest, when he expressed the view that carrier tricycles should be forbidden in the streets of London; and whether, having regard to the dangerous condition of our streets, and to the extreme unsuitability of carrier tricycles for use in London traffic, he will consider the possibility of regulating their use?
    Mr. GOSLING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no power to make Regulations in the matter.

    GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD.
    Sir EDWARD ILIFFEasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the urgent need of improving the existing roads in Scotland, particularly those from Edinburgh to Inverness and from Glasgow to Inverness, he will defer indefinitely, with the exception of the section between Cumbernauld Road, Glasgow, and a point one mile east of Holytown, all work on the Glasgow-Edinburgh road?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am aware of the need of improving existing roads in Scotland, and am making considerable grants for that purpose. A special investigation is now being conducted by my instructions into the condition of roads in Inverness-shire. I cannot agree that the Glasgow-Edinburgh road, which is a valuable improvement, and will provide a large amount of employment, should be postponed.
    Mr. STURROCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are several routes from Edinburgh to Inverness and Glasgow to Inverness, and may I ask whether the Edinburgh-Inverness East Coast route is being advanced according to the representations which have been made?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that question down on the Paper.
    Sir E. ILIFFEasked the Minister of Transport whether any contracts have been let for the work on the Glasgow-Edinburgh road scheme; and, if not, whether he will defer the letting of such contracts until the winter months, when unemployment may be worse than it is to-day?
    Mr. GOSLING: No contracts have yet been let, but I hope that they will be placed in the near future. Unless this is done immediately, it will be impossible
    2008
    to provide any substantial amount of employment on this scheme during the coming winter.

    RURAL DISTRICTS (MOTOR-OMNIBUS SERVICE).
    Sir E. ILIFFEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that there are many districts and villages in Great Britain not served by a railway line or by a road capable of supporting a regular motor-omnibus service; and whether he will consider the needs of such districts and the desirability of providing them with roads capable of supporting a motor-omnibus service connecting them with the nearest market towns at the cost largely of the Road Fund, in preference to expending £1,500,000 of that fund on the proposed new road between Glasgow and Edinburgh, between which towns there already exist three serviceable roads, three railways, and a canal?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am aware of the facts set forth by the hon. Member, and have made large grants on a generous scale towards the improvement and strengthening of rural roads, for the purposes indicated in the second part of the question As regards the new Glasgow-Edinburgh road, I would refer to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member.

    RURAL ROADS.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of Transport why, in view of the growth of the Road Fund, it has only been found possible to allocate £1,250,000 in 1924–25 towards the cost of improvement of important roads in rural areas, whereas £1,500,000 was devoted to the same purpose in 1923–24?
    Mr. GOSLING: The original special allocation of £1,500,000 from the Road Fund was not intended as an annual grant, but was made in order to give assistance towards capital expenditure which rural authorities were prepared to incur for the permanent improvement of their more important roads. When the further allocation of £1,250,000 for 1924–25 was made, it was thought that this would be sufficient to cover all the works which these authorities were prepared to put in hand, but as fresh applications are still being received, I have under consideration the question whether a further allocation should be made during the current financial year.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year a considerable number of local authorities had to go without any grants at all, and consequently it is urgently necessary that a substantial sum should be given this year?
    Mr. GOSLING: I know that the most important and the most pressing cases are being dealt with.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: In view of the fact that representatives of the present Government last year regarded this expenditure as hopelessly inadequate, is there any sinister reason which has decided His Majesty's Ministers to cut it down?

    ELECTRICITY CHARGES (LONDON).
    Mr. PERCY HARRISasked the Minister of Transport in respect of each of the electrical undertakings purchasable in 1931 by the London County Council, if and when since 1918 any increase was made in their power to charge; what the amount of such charges was before and after the increases; and if any application has been made for revision of such charges?
    Mr. GOSLING: The only electricity undertaking of the nature referred to in which an increase in the maximum price chargeable by the undertakers has been authorised is that under the City of London Electric Lighting Order, 1899. The maximum prices originally authorised by that Order were as follows: (a) For general supply 5d. per unit up to a prescribed quantity, and 4d. per unit for all further units; (b) For motive power 3d. per unit up to a prescribed quantity, and 2d. per unit for all further units.
    Increased maximum prices were authorised in October, 1918, in September, 1919, and in September, 1920, the latter, which are still in force, being a maximum of 8d. per unit for all purposes, with minimum quarterly charges of 10s. in respect of the March and December quarters and 6s. 8d. for the June and September quarters. Applications have recently been made to the Minister by the Corporation of the City of London and by consumers through the London Chamber of Commerce for a revision downwards of the present maximum prices. These applications are under consideration.

  EX-RANKER OFFICERS.

    GOVERNMENT DECISION.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government have considered the Report of the Committee on the Claims of Professional Ex-ranker Officers, and, if so, what action do they propose to take?
    Mr. WALSH: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me private notice of this question. His Majesty's Government have considered the Report of this Committee, and have decided to accept its findings in their entirety.
    Mr. LUMLEY: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister has definitely decided to dishonour the pledge which he gave on this subject?

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN).
  Sir THOMAS INSKIP(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will give an early opportunity of discussing the Motion on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) referring to the conduct in the Chair of the Chairman of Standing Committee A?
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The House is naturally very jealous for the maintenance of the position of the Chairman of its Committees; but the state of Government business is such that it would be almost impossible to find time for the discussion of this Motion. In any case I am glad that I have the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd for saying that the Motion on this subject standing in his name is to be taken off the Paper. I think the House will agree that this closes the matter in a satisfactory manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Sir T. INSKIP: Has the Lord Privy Seal the authority of the hon. Member for Pontypridd for saying that he regrets the attack made on the Chairman of Standing Committee A?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have his authority only for the statement I make that immediately the Motion will be taken off the Paper.
  Sir K. WOOD: May I address a question to the hon. Member for Pontypridd and ask him whether he withdraws his allegation against the Chairman of the Committee?
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is it not within the right of an hon. Member to put a question to another hon. Member in relation to any Order he has put down on the Paper?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not within the competence of any hon. Member, when a question is addressed to him, to refuse to answer it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the Motion is still on the Paper, the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) is correct.
  Sir K. WOOD: Then may I press for a reply to my question?
  Mr. MARDY JONES: I should be the last Member of this House wantonly to challenge the authority of the Chair, either in the House or in Committee upstairs. The chief purpose of my Motion was to vindicate the rights of private Members in the promotion of Bills in the Committee stage. It is a fact within the knowledge of most Members of this House that the Chairman of Standing Committees, wisely or unwisely, do not regard a private Member's Bill as being of the same importance as a Government Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I have nothing further to add.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Surely we cannot leave the matter there. If an allegation is made against an hon. Member of this House who, as Chairman of a Committee, has a very important public function to perform, surely the hon. Member who makes it should either substantiate it or withdraw it.
  Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: If the hon. Member in whose name this Motion stands does not propose to give any further answer, may I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House whether he considers that the statement made by the hon. Member is an adequate withdrawal of the charge which he has made?
  Mr. CLYNES: That is not a matter on which I need express an opinion. I conclude that my hon. Friend was quite entitled to place his Motion on the Paper, and is equally entitled to withdraw it.
  Sir T. INSKIP: may I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether, if I put down a Motion in the terms of my Amendment to the hon. Member's Motion, in view of the necessity of protecting hon. Members against unjustified attacks, he will give an opportunity for discussing my Motion?
  Mr. STURROCK: On a point of Order. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether these are not points which should be addressed to yourself as Speaker of the House?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members opposite actually placed upon the Order Paper a Motion against yourself, and never apologised to you?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There have been before now, from time to time, Motions such as this placed upon the Order Paper. In some cases they have been left on the Paper for some weeks, and in other cases they have been withdrawn almost immediately. The hon. Member is within his right both in placing the Motion on the Paper and in withdrawing it, and I do not see that the House can proceed further in the matter.
  Sir T. INSKIP: May I call your attention to the fact that it was only last night, when I communicated with the Lord Privy Seal telling him of my intention to raise this question, in order that the attack which had been made upon my hon. and gallant Friend might be either withdrawn or pressed home, that, apparently, an intimation was given to the Lord Privy Seal that the Motion would be taken off the Paper, although it is on the Paper to-day? Is it in accordance with the traditions of this House that an accusation of that sort should be made and not withdrawn without some regret being expressed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: When I occupied the lower Chair, I recollect two hon. Members putting down a Motion criticising my action in the Chair, and they neither took it off the Paper nor apologised. I think that the position is now quite clear. The hon. Member for Pontypridd having taken his Motion off the Paper, it no longer remains as a charge against the Chairman of the Committee, and Members of the House can form their own opinion.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: On a point of Order. May I ask if you heard the un-gentlemanly expression used by an hon. Member opposite, and if he is going to be gentlemanly enough to withdraw the expression which he used—or repeat it outside, when, big as he is, I think I shall be able to hold my own against him?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I heard an expression, which I immediately rebuked. I do not think that any further notice need be taken of it.
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I withdraw the expression, which I used in the heat of the moment. I wanted to hear someone else speak instead of the hon. Member.

  LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

  COUNTY COURTS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Barnes, Sir Henry Cowan, Mr. Franklin, Mr. James Gardner, Mr. Percy Harris, Lieut.-Colonel Horlick, Mr. Laverack, Mr. March, Mr. Nesbitt, Sir Herbert Nield, and Mr. Murrough Wilson.
    Mr. WILLIAMfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee B: Mr. Dennis Herbert.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer of the Brockhall Institution, at Langho, of the Lancashire Inebriates Acts Board to the Lancashire Asylums Board; to dissolve the said Inebriates Acts Board; and for other purposes." [Lancashire Asylums Board Bill [Lords].
    LANCASHIRE ASYLUMS BOARD BILL [Lords].
    Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Thomas Shaw): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is one which alters materially the present law dealing with unemployment insurance. It contains Clauses which, I think, will be highly controversial, although I hope not contentious. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that on the 30th July, unless something be done, a considerable number of workmen will cease to be entitled to unemployment benefit, and I have tried my best to let hon. Members know the provisions of the Bill in sufficient time for them to consider it and also to give them sufficient time in Committee to deal with any points with which they disagree. When I began to consider what to submit to the House, I found that I had to settle, first of all, certain matters of principle. There has been a considerable amount of controversy during the last two years as to the relative advantages of insurance by industry and a general scheme of insurance. I found in actual fact that the Federation of Employers were very much in favour of a general scheme, whilst on the side of the organised workmen there was a difference of opinion. In view of all the circumstances, and with the desire to get as much consent as possible, I decided to continue the system on the old lines.
  4.0 P.M.
  Then I had to face a question to which I have given such thought as I was capable of giving, namely, what to do with the agricultural workers of this country. There, again, I found myself face to face with a difficulty which up to now I have not been able to solve. I think every Member of the House will agree that at the earliest possible moment the agricultural workers should have some protection against unemployment. But, frankly, with contributions as they are at present, and with the state of opinion both of the farmers and of the agricultural workers, it was impossible, in the time at my disposal, either to
  2042
  consult properly the two sides or to give due consideration to any scheme that might be adopted, though I hope that the time is not far distant when, in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture, we may be able to arrive at a decision and to submit definite proposals to the House. There is one minor detail in this connection to which I desire to draw attention. There is at the present moment a fairly considerable debt owing to the Treasury from the Insurance Fund, and it is impossible to expect the agricultural workers or the farmers, neither of whom have received any benefit from previous insurance schemes, to become responsible for the repayment of that part of the deficit which yet exists. It may be possible, as I have said, in the near future so to arrange as to present to the House a proposal which, whilst doing justice to the agricultural community, will be fair and equitable to everybody concerned.
  Then I had to face the question as to whether, given adequate protection to the State, it was not possible to increase the benefits so that no genuine workman or work woman willing and able to work should be submitted either to a policy of gaps or to recourse to the guardians, and I decided to submit to the House a proposal which will give in those genuine cases of which I have spoken full benefits so long as unemployment lasts. It is evident that, unless that provision be hedged round with restrictions and guarantees to the State, there is a danger; and I have taken the precaution to arrange that, after a certain number of weeks' benefit has been drawn, strictly in accordance with the scheme laid down in the Bill, there shall be other conditions to be complied with by the person seeking benefit which will, I think, give an adequate guarantee to the State that only the genuine people are paid.
  Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What Clauses are they?
  Mr. SHAW: You will find them, I think, in Clause 1 (3). Let me say definitely, and lay stress on it if I can, that in the interests of the workmen themselves it is essential that the Unemployment Insurance Fund should not be drawn upon except by genuinely unemployed and genuinely employable men and women.

  2043
  There is nothing that could do more harm to my suggestion than the suspicion that the Unemployment Insurance Act was being taken advantage of by anyone, because that suspicion would inevitably grow and finally might wreck the scheme itself. Working men as a rule are just as honest as, say, Members of Parliament, and certainly have less knowledge of the wiles of this wicked world than Members of Parliament; but, as in all classes of society, there are people who look upon the State as fair game, so there may be in the ranks of the workers persons of that description. I had to consider whether it were possible to abolish altogether the waiting period, but I found that the cost would be so enormous—a rough estimate places it at something like £10,000,000 a year—that I had to choose between the continuance of the benefits or the abolition of the waiting period, and, as obviously a workman can better afford to face the first week with nothing than he can at the end of a long period of unemployment, I chose what I think is the better alternative. There have been arguments in connection with insurance in which a contrast has been drawn between a national scheme and the common practice of the trade unions before a national scheme was in existence. May I point out that the circumstances are altogether different? A trade union based its rules not on the necessity of the case but on the actuarial calculation of the fund, and based its number of weeks on the amount of money which it could pay on the contributions it received. Nobody in a trade union ever dreamed of a contribution for unemployment purposes alone of 2s. 1¾d. a week, and the actual contribution of the workman is much higher than ever he paid in the shape of a trade union contribution for unemployment insurance benefits. Therefore, I hope that during the course of the discussion, if reference has to be made to the practice of trade unions, that the point that I have made with regard to the contributions will be borne in mind.
  I had to consider if it were possible to do anything to remedy what I think is generally admitted is a legitimate grievance. Under the present law, if a workman happens to be employed in the same premises as workers who go on strike or who are locked out, automatically
  2044
  he is ruled out of benefit. Take a typical example. There was a long strike of moulders. The moulders' labourers had nothing at all to do with the dispute. They were not concerned in it and could not reap any advantage from it if the men won. Neither if the men lost would their conditions have been affected. But, because they happened to work in the same moulding shops, benefit was refused them, although they were genuinely unemployed through a cause over which they had no control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) gave, I think, a pledge to the House carefully to examine the subject, and during the last Government's term of office a Committee, which I think was originally set up by the right hon. Gentleman, examined the subject but failed to come to a conclusion. I have had to take the responsibility of submitting to the House a Clause, which I hope will be adequate to deal with the subject.
  I turn now to another part of the Bill, which I think has given rise to more misunderstanding than any other part. I refer to the Clause dealing with the inclusion of young persons from fourteen to sixteen years of age within the scope of unemployment insurance. Many genuine educationists, fully in accord with the general provisions of the Bill, have expressed themselves as uneasy and dissatisfied with regard to this provision, so I venture to give to the House an explanation of the grounds on which I base my case. At the present time, young persons leave school at fourteen and enter into employment. Between fourteen and sixteen, they are almost totally lost to any influence whatever. Broadly speaking, the State does not know where they are, nor does it know what they are doing, nor has it any responsibility for them. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the parents?"] I will deal with the parents when I need to deal with them. I am speaking for the moment, not of parental duty but what I consider to be State duty. If we had to place the whole responsibility upon the parents, I am afraid we should have to scrap our educational system and many institutions which we now possess.
  May I say that not only can the State through unemployment insurance get to know where these children are and what they are doing, but it can secure a record which will enable it or any social institution

  2045
  to help those children not to get into blind alley occupations. At the present time, there is no guarantee of that kind at all. What makes it worse is that in some large cities these children go immediately to work and displace children of a greater age who require slightly higher wages, with the result that you can have a youth of 16 out of work, without any opportunity at all of getting work, thrown on his own resources or on the resources of his parents. I submit that the case before the House is not as to whether insurance or education is the better way. That is not the alternative before the House. If the House were voting on two projects, one for insurance and one to send the child to school until it is 16, I could understand a great deal of the opposition of the educationists, but the bald fact is that these children at 14 leave the education authority and there is nobody at all to look after them.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will my right hon. Friend's proposal not make it much more difficult for the child to be educated after the age of 14?
  Mr. SHAW: If the Noble Lord will let me develop my case, I think he will find that I shall deal with that matter. If these children be insured, one thing is certain. If they become unemployed, there is a provision in the Bill that will see that, at any rate, they receive the best instruction it is possible to give them during their term of unemployment and that will prevent them being thrown on the streets. I claim that this proposal will not interfere in any shape or form with educational development; rather will it tend to help. I do not pretend to a great knowledge of an academical character so far as the education question is concerned. But I have a knowledge of one side of the subject that men with academical knowledge perhaps have not to so great an extent. I have the knowledge of a boy who actually left school at 10 years of age to work half-time, and I have knowledge intimately from the point of view of the child itself. I have been through the elementary school, and I know it in so intimate a way from the child's point of view that I challenge comparison on my knowledge with any Member of the House. It has been assumed that in some way this proviso will prevent parents sending their
  2046
  children another year or couple of years to school. I claim that it will not have that effect, but rather will help parents to give their children another year or two years. What takes place in the average working-class home? The parent has to decide whether his means will allow him to give the child a further opportunity or whether he must depend on the child's wages. The parent weighing up the circumstances—again I speak from very intimate knowledge—is more likely to say, "If I have to pay an insurance contribution out of the small wages of this child, I will give him another year at school in preference to sending him to work." There is one argument advanced from the educational side with which I have been profoundly impressed, and that is that if you definitely place the age of 14 in the Insurance Act there is a danger that the psychological effect will be to stereotype that age. I am frankly prepared to meet that, and to say to hon. Members who take that point of view, "If you can submit any Clause which will give me the power to insure a child that has definitely left school, I will take out the figure and accept your Clause."
  There is another point about which there has been considerable misunderstanding, which has been shared by some Members of the House. It is that under this Bill, if it becomes law, the tendency will be for parents to send their children to work and that they will automatically and almost immediately come into benefit under the Insurance Act. I am prepared to accept in Committee any Amendment which will make this Clause actually operative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which Clause?"] The Clause dealing with 30 weeks' contributions for benefit. The intention of the Bill, which I am going to make as watertight as possible, is that under no circumstances shall a child come into benefit until it has 30 contributions to its credit, which means in effect that it will be impossible for any child to come into benefit until it has been actually working for wages for a period of something like eight months. So it is absolutely impossible under the terms of the Bill for children to come almost immediately into benefit, as has been stated in many newspapers.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Clause 3 (2) gives the right hon. Gentleman the right to dispense in all cases with the contribution.

  2047
  I understand he will make that all right but it is not in the Bill.
  Mr. SHAW: I am willing to accept any Amendment which will take the power from the Minister or anyone else to allow children to come into benefit unless they have genuinely worked for the term of weeks of which I have spoken. I want to acknowledge the help I have had in this matter from certain well-known and highly-respected Members of the House. They have with the most perfect courtesy given me their point of view, and I am grateful for their assistance, and I hope the guarantee I have now given will allow them to help me to remove these children altogther from the category of the unknown quantity and really to give them a chance of being helped in life from the beginning of their industrial career.
  Then I come to the question of benefits. I had decided, before deciding what amount to submit to the House, on the policy of continuous benefit and obviously that circumstance had to be taken into account when I determined on the figures I wished to recommend. I am quite satisfied that in these exceptional times, the payment of 15s. to a man and 12s. to a woman under ordinary circumstances simply means running into debt week after week, and every man who has lived a working man's life knows, and some of us know from very bitter experience, what it means when one has, not by bad conduct but by bad fortune, incurred debt. There are some of us who know—I am not exaggerating; I am speaking from personal knowledge—of years and years of effort to pay off debts incurred through no fault at all of the working man. Consequently I have decided to raise these figures to as high a level as I thought the House would give me, all the circumstances taken into consideration. So I propose to give to the men 18s., and to the women 15s., an increase of 3s. in each case, the same allowance for a wife, and to double the allowances now paid to children. The effect will be that a man and wife and three children—that is the typical family—will get 6s. increase on the benefit they have previously received. The single man and the single women will get 3s. increase each.
  With regard to the finance of the Bill a White Paper has been issued which
  2048
  shows conclusively that, so far as it is possible to compute, the present contribution will not only bear the expense of the scheme, but will actually pay off the deficit that now exists. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the repayments are going on at an accelerated rate, and that there is no question at all of the actuarial estimates not being realised.
  There is another difficult matter with which I had to deal. Under the old Acts there were powers to sot up special schemes for industries. It seemed to me that a scheme that lifted out the good life, so to speak, from the insurance scheme was unsound, and that the best thing to do was to make the scheme all embracing, so far as it could be so made, and to take the good with the bad. There are certain classes of workers—municipal servants, insurance workers, and certain categories of railway workers—who have been excluded from the previous Acts. I have not tried to bring those in, but I have taken steps in the Bill to prevent the setting up of further special schemes.
  There was another matter which I thought was inconsistent with a sound scheme. Previously a man who has had a phenomenal run of good luck, if one may speak colloquially, had the right at 60 years to demand the difference between what he had paid and the benefits he had received. I think that is altogether wrong. In insurance surely the fundamental basis is that the good should pay for the bad, and a worker who has had the phenomenal good fortune to be regularly employed ought not to be able, at the expense of the fund, for that is what it amounts to, to take back any balance that remains to him, and throw a heavier burden on those whose fortune has not been so good.
  I have not touched on most of the special details of the Bill. I take it for granted that hon. Members know as well as I do what the condition has been up to now. I will not inflict on them a mass of detail of the history of insurance, because I think that would be a waste of their time, and would certainly not be treating them with the respect they deserve. But there is one reservation I have to make on special schemes. At present there is a Committee sitting dealing with the very difficult and involved

  2049
  subject of the decasualisation of labour at the docks. I want it to be definitely understood that what I have said on the question of special schemes must not be taken to prejudge issues which may be raised by the Report of the Maclean Committee on decasualisation at the docks, and I hold myself free, and I hope the House will hold itself free, to come to a decision on that special problem after the Report has been presented.
  I have had to consider, too, the discussion and the controversy which have taken place with regard to general schemes of insurance. It is a very fascinating theory that all involuntary unemployment, whether caused by sickness, accident, invalidity, bad trade, or old age should be dealt with in one complete whole under one administration, and I have no hesitation in saying I believe such a scheme would be infinitely more economical and beneficial than half a dozen separate schemes under different Ministers. But it is a subject which is very involved and very difficult, and which involves a tremendous amount of detail and consideration of the circumstances of different organisations and different Ministers. This problem presses. I hope some Government in the near future will be able to give the time, the thought, and the energy to the subject that it deserves. But I had to deal with a problem that is immediately pressing, and my desire was to do something now in order to help the people who are suffering very badly.
  I claim that my Bill, if passed, will bring a great deal of assistance to a very deserving part of the community. It will, I think, be welcomed particularly by those large towns where unemployment has been worst and where, owing to the fact that the calls on the guardians have been so heavy, the municipalities have found themselves unable to carry out schemes which in ordinary circumstances they would have carried out. A considerable proportion of this extra money which is being paid will be felt immediately in the towns where unemployment has been worst, and I hope the House generally, and educationalists in particular, will give a Second Reading to the Bill. I know some of its Clauses are controversial. I hope in Committee to be able to prove that they are not contentious. I
  2050
  am certain that the worst thing that could happen in this House would be to prevent this Bill going through, with the idea that some day, and in some way, better things may be done. The problem which confronts the House to-day is, how we can deal immediately with very pressing circumstances. I confidently appeal to the House to give me the Second Reading of the Bill, believing that it will bring benefit to millions of our people and help many a struggling local authority.
  Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: It is extremely difficult, and I think impossible, to express a comprehensive and final judgment upon this Bill at the present stage, for two reasons. In the first place, the whole structure and financial solvency of the Bill depends upon the financial conditions and calculations which have been set out in the actuary's report, which, as far as they are a mathematical calculation, are no doubt perfectly sound and justifiable, but which rest, as far as I have been able to judge—the Minister has said nothing about it in his speech—entirely upon the statements given to the actuary by the Minister. I am rather surprised, as I think probably other hon. Members are surprised, that the Minister has given to the House no explanation whatever of what is the basis upon which he has made the calculation in regard to the amount of unemployment.
  The second reason which makes it difficult to express a final opinion on the Bill, is that it deals with a very complicated subject and it deals with it in that worst of all ways in a Bill, by reference to a large number of Acts. We are referred in this Bill to the Act of 1920, which is called the principal Act. Then we are referred to the Act of 1911, for which the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) was responsible, which I suppose is the vice-principal Act. Between 1911 and 1924 there has been a whole collection of Acts, year after year and sometimes two in one year, dealing with this subject. If this Bill is the final and comprehensive contribution to the problem of unemployment insurance, I do think that the Minister would have been well advised to produce a Measure which in one single Bill sets out, once and for all, what the insurance proposition is. Hon. Members have only to

  2051
  read Clause 1 to realise the difficulty. That is a Clause with which the Minister himself is not wholly familiar, because when I asked him if a certain thing was in the Bill he said it was in the appropriate Clause. I am very grateful to him for that answer. It is an answer which I shall not forget if I ever find myself on that side of the House again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never!'] Wait and see! This Bill is extraordinarily difficult to follow, complicated in its provisions, and twenty times more complicated because the drafting is by reference. These two reasons make it impossible to express a final judgment on the Bill to-day, and they make it the more important that this Bill should be fully considered by the House in all its aspects.
  All I can do is to lay down certain principles which, in our opinion, are essential to any final and permanent scheme of unemployment insurance, to see how far this Bill conforms to those principles and how far it does not, and by that test to see in what way the Bill will require amendment. While I say that, I want to make it perfectly plain that we shall require, on this side of the House, a drastic amendment of the Bill in Committee if the provisions mean what I understand them to mean, and our action upon Third Reading will, naturally, depend upon the form in which the Bill emerges from Committee. Before I come to the specific points of the Bill, there are certain general observations which I should like to make. The first observation is that the Minister is trying in this Bill to do an almost impossible thing. He is trying to legislate for normal conditions in an absolutely abnormal time. He has, therefore, to assume what will be the conditions which are going to operate when things become normal, and what will be the time when things are going to become normal. That, surely, is a very hypothetical proposal to put before us.
  I should have thought it was rather unwise, because we are not dealing with this thing for the first time. We have our principal Act, and we have the conditions laid down for normal insurance. We have our special Acts, one of which we passed the other day, which lay down the conditions which are to apply during
  2052
  the abnormal period. I should have thought—though I am perfectly ready, as we all are, to consider this Bill upon its merits—that much the wiser course for the Government to have pursued would have been to continue to deal with the abnormal conditions by abnormal Measures, which this House would have been quite willing to consider, and to postpone dealing with what should be the terms in normal times until you are a little more sure what will be the conditions in which you are going to operate. It becomes, therefore, all the more important to consider what are the financial conditions and the financial structure upon which this Bill is based. If you are wrong in your finance in an insurance scheme the whole of your scheme falls to the ground. If you have guessed wrong, the scheme may be insolvent. I am going to say a few words later about the financial memorandum, upon which the Minister was strangely silent.
  In the past, all the Estimates have been extraordinarily wide of the mark. In 1921, even the right hon. Member for North West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) did not guess quite right, nor did my right hon. Friend Sir Montague Barlow, who was our colleague in the last administration, and I have no reason to suppose that, where those distinguished and experienced men made great mistakes in their calculations or guesses, that the present Minister of Labour is going to prove infallible. Let us see what happened in the past. In 1921, the Estimate was made that, by April, 1922, the fund would be £4,750,000 in credit, but the result was that at that date the fund was £14,750,000 in debt, In 1921 we had a second shot. The Estimate then made was that in July, 1923, the fund would be £15,000,000 in credit. As a matter of fact on that date it was £15,500,000 in debt. That guess was £30,000,000 out. In 1922, after having found the previous guesses were very much on the wrong side, it was estimated that the fund in July, 1923, would be £27,000,000 in debt, but, as a matter of fact, it was only £15,500,000 in debt when that period arrived. I quote these figures merely to show how extraordinarily difficult it is to make any reliable estimate. When we go into Committee on the Financial Resolution, we shall want clear and convincing evidence

  2053
  that the financial basis is sound and that the right hon. Gentleman's calculations are correct. It will be no good his coming to the House and saying, "I have here the Government actuary's report." That actuarial document is a sum in arithmetic based upon estimates made by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, he cannot come to the House and hide behind the actuary's report. He will have to come to the House to prove that the instructions which he gave to the actuary were correct. We shall have to look into that very closely.
  Unemployment in 1923 averaged 1,287,000. From January to April, 1924, it averaged 1,150,000, and I think the figure to-day is 1,118,000. Now I come to the estimate given to the Actuary by the right hon. Gentleman. His estimate is, in the instruction he gave to the Actuary, that up to October, 1924, there will be unemployment amounting to 1,100,000, and that up to the end of the deficiency period in June, 1926, there is to be unemployment averaging 1,000,000 people. At this stage we come to what is called normal, and thereafter we are to have the unemployment of 800,000 people. The House will have noted that with some interest. It is surely a remarkable confession. Here we have this forecast of 1,100,000 people unemployed up to October, 1,000,000 unemployed through the next year and 1,000,000 to June, 1926, and 800,000 for all the years that are to follow. That is a remarkable confession and calculation to come from the Labour Minister in a Government which professes to have a positive solution for the unemployment problem. The right hon. Gentleman preluded his speech with a speech made in the ampler atmosphere of Bolton. In the course of that speech he explained how great were the benefits that this Bill was going to confer. He said:
  "It might astonish thorn to know that the Labour Ministry, as a Ministry, could not begin employment schemes. Therefore, the only alternative for him was to find maintenance."
  No doubt it did interest or astonish them very much to know that, I think it would have astonished them very much more if at the last Election, instead of coming forward with promises that everybody was going to find work and that they had a sovereign remedy, he and his friends had gone on to a political platform with a prospectus which disclosed probable unemployment
  2054
  of anything varying from 1,100,000 to 1,000,000 during the three years which they proposed to remain in office.
  Mr. SHAW: By the grace of God!
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It will not be done by the right hon. Gentleman's own abilities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I say that advisedly.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Any gentleman would withdraw.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The right hon. Gentleman himself has explained to his Bolton audience that it is not within his capacity to begin employment schemes.
  Mr. SHAW: What I said to the Bolton audience was, that the Labour Ministry, as a Ministry, could not initiate schemes. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is true.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: On the contrary, I should have said that it was one of the first duties of the Labour Minister, in conjunction with his colleagues, to initiate schemes. The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell, when he was Minister of Labour, was working day and night devising schemes.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Were those schemes produced?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Certainly they were, in the Trade Facilities Act, and you are bringing in one yourself now.
  Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. Can the right hon. Gentleman mention the Trade Facilities Act as being something connected with the organisation—
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not propose to discuss that now, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to know what the Trade Facilities Act has done, it has put in force between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 worth of work.
  Mr. HARDIE: Not anything new.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Of course it is new.
  Mr. HARDIE: Not one thing.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that when you put hundreds of thousands of people into work, and each piece of work is new work

  2055
  on the railways or in some other enterprise—
  Mr. HARDIE: That is not new work.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better wait until it is his turn to speak.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think everybody will be perfectly satisfied if the Ministry which the hon. Gentleman supports are able to produce new undertakings in the oldest industries in the world. So far we have not seen anything of that kind at all. That being so, the whole of this scheme stands or falls according to the correctness of the estimate which has been made. May I draw attention, also, to the fact that, in the course of the Actuary's Report, he states, among other things, that he has made no allowance whatever for the extra charge which will arise for unemployment by reason of Clause 4, which is the Clause that gives benefit in the case of any trade dispute, and the Actuary says—which is rather remarkable—that "in the nature of the case the cost of this factor is insusceptible of calculation." It may be insusceptible of calculation, but that does not mean it is negligible or insignificant. If it were assumed to be negligible, I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would have inserted it in his Bill. It may be a very serious matter, and certainly this Government have not been remarkable for their success in avoiding strikes up to the present. If this Clause be passed into law, it becomes an actuarial fact of the first importance. I will say something about the Clause when I come to the details of the Bill. I shall not unduly detain the House, but I propose to criticise this Bill in somewhat more detail than the right hon. Gentleman gave in his explanation in introducing it.
  If these calculations are wrong, and are not realised, the deficiency period may go on indefinitely. That, apparently, some Members on the other side of the House would regard with complete equanimity, but if the deficiency period goes on longer than is absolutely necessary, or than can be prevented by sound legislation, that means that, during the whole of that time, the contributions are to be maintained at the present rate of 2s. 1¾d., and the contributions which come upon the employer and employed at the rate of 1s. 7d. That 1s. 7d. is a direct overhead charge, and,
  2056
  therefore, a direct charge on the fund out of which wages have got to be paid. Therefore, it is tremendously in the interest of every worker in employment, or hopes to be in employment, to get down that overhead charge of 1s. 7d. at the first possible moment, and we should be particularly careful on a financial matter of this kind, at a time when industry is faced with the keenest competition in all the markets of the world. I believe if the right hon. Gentleman had waited, he might have produced a more effective and a more comprehensive scheme. He suggested that that might fall to the lot of others. I think it very likely will. We shall have to see, in considering this Bill, that it does not prejudice any such comprehensive scheme in any of its provisions.
  I am sure I have said enough to convince the House that the finance of this Bill will require the most careful consideration, because it is fundamental, and not merely one or two Clauses, but the whole of the Bill depends entirely on the soundness of the right hon. Gentleman's instructions to the actuary. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, or the Leader of the House, to give an undertaking, that before we go into Committee upstairs on this Bill, that we can take the Financial Resolution on the Floor of the House. I think it is right if, as I say, the whole structure of the Bill depends upon the actuary's report, that this undertaking should be given, so that before we enter upon the consideration of the Bill in Committee, we may really know what is the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has made his calculations. I think in all quarters of the House that would be regarded as a convenient arrangement, and I believe it would save time in the long run. Assuming—it is a very broad assumption—that the calculations he has given are justified, I should like to come to some of the specific provisions of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman himself dealt very lightly with the first Clause, and particularly with Sub-section (3). This is one of the most serious Clauses in the Bill. In effect it makes uncovenanted benefit for an almost indefinite period part of the normal insurance system of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Subject to certain conditions."] I am

  2057
  coming to the conditions, but the conditions, if the hon. Gentleman will read the Bill, are conditions of an extraordinarily, loose character.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said that it was so hedged round as to afford the greatest possible safeguard for the State. We shall see that when we get into Committee, but taking the four provisions set out in Subsection (3), so far from hedging it round with restrictions, it is extremely probable that for year after year any man will be able to go on drawing the benefits. I am not saying a word against uncovenanted benefit in abnormal times, but what I do say is that you ought not to make it part of your permanent insurance system in normal times, and for this reason. It violates what is one of the essential conditions which have always been laid down as necessary in these Unemployment Insurance Bills, and that is, that the covenanted benefit which is drawn by the recipient should bear a relation, not merely, and not only, to the aggregate solvency of the Fund, but a direct relation to the number of contributions the man himself has made to the Fund. That is laid down in Bill after Bill, and I thought hitherto had been universally accepted. The old ratio which was laid down was to draw one week's benefit for six contributions. It will be possible to draw 150 weeks' benefit for 30 contributions.
  Let the House observe what that means. It means that, for the first time, you are getting right away from the whole of this cardinal principle of unemployment insurance. I believe you are attacking it—I do not know whether intentionally—at its very root, and, instead of a real system of individual unemployment insurance, you are taxing industry for Poor Law relief. That is really what that provision comes to. It is a part of your normal system. When we are dealing with an abnormal situation, let us deal with it in special and abnormal measures, but the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to deal with the normal situation in this way. I believe that to be absolutely unsound. It is absolutely contrary to the whole practice of the trades unions themselves.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: It was stated in this House that there must always be 10 per cent. of the workers unemployed. That was said from those benches.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I never heard that said, but, anyway, I am not responsible for something which somebody said in this House. There seems to be some doubt as to where it came from.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: There is no doubt whatever.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I may observe that it is not very far away from the calculation of the right hon. Gentleman, who put 800,000 into his estimate of the normal, which works out, I think, at something like 8 or 9 per cent. However, I do not want to get drawn off into that. I will only say this in reply, that even if it be necessary for a certain number to be unemployed—and the fewer the better—I am sure we can and should get it down much lower than the figure the right hon. Gentleman suggested. But that is no reason for vitiating your unemployment system in this way. I will go further and say, that if you put this uncovenanted benefit as a right in normal times into this Bill, you will give far greater inducement to the man who does not want to find work to stay out. [Interruption.] I maintain that proposition, and every working man knows it. The great majority of working men are only too anxious to get into work and stay in it, and they are not different from anyone else in that respect. [An HON. MEMBER: "Different from hon. Members on the Opposition side!"] That is a very unnecessary and an irrelevant observation. Most of us have to earn our living, and we all work to do it. Quite obviously, in every walk of life there are people who will not work if they can help it. There are such people over there, and there are here.
  Mr. LANSBURY: In Rotten Bow.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, and you will find them in Bow and Bromley, too. The best way of increasing their number is to make uncovenanted benefit the simplest thing to obtain in normal times. And, be it observed, it is not fair on the man who is in regular work, or who is trying to get into regular work, because you are increasing the liability upon the Fund, you are putting off the day when the contributions can be reduced, and are keeping up the charge which has to be imposed to meet that Fund, and paid out of

  2059
  industry, and which is paid by the man in regular work and the man who is always wanting to get regular work. May I add, also, that it is contrary to the practice of the trade unions? Their practice in the administration of their own benefits is that they do not keep people or continuously, but do make a gap before a man can come on to benefit again. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman talked about tightening up, though he was not able to point to the Clause in the Bill which did it. I might point to his Regulations, which, so far from tightening up the administration of uncovenanted benefit, have notoriously slackened the conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen behind him cheer, and certainly I appreciate that, but that is not the claim that the right hon. Gentleman makes. He said that he was tightening it up, when all the time, by his Regulations, he is making it more loose.
  The point was raised that this is going to relieve the rates; but it is not. I could understand an argument based on an insurance scheme coupled with a complete reform of the Poor Law, but by putting an increased burden on industry you are giving no guarantee at the same time that you will relieve the burden on the rates. On the contrary, the administrative action already taken by the Ministry of Health, which was debated in this House not many months ago, shows that, so far from ensuring that the administration of outdoor relief will be more uniform, it is likely to be much less uniform under the system of administration which is now being inaugurated. Therefore, I submit that when we get into Committee this Clause should be amended, in order to provide that the abnormal period shall be met by an abnormal Measure, but that, when we get down to the normal, the benefit which is received shall bear a direct relation to the contributions which are made. Of course, it is easy for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the rate, of benefit which is now being received is not enough for a man and his family to live upon. It is perfectly true that it is not, but neither is the rate which is put into the Bill. I remember that, when our Bill was brought in, we were asked whether
  2060
  1s. a week was enough for a child. Of course it was not; but is 2s. enough?
  Mr. MACLEAN: You voted for 1s.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Certainly, I did, but I think the hon. Member had better let me develop my argument. I think the House wants this Bill carefully considered, but the whole argument, which the right hon. Gentleman himself advanced, was that 1s. was not enough, and at that rate 2s. is not going to be enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] But what you have really got to see is, how much money you have at your disposal, and what is the best way of applying that amount of money. And, let it be observed, that, by increasing the benefits paid, you are continuing the deficiency period longer, and are, therefore, continuing longer the burden at the full rate of 1s. 7d., which has to be borne by the industry and by every workman in the industry who is employed. The higher you put the benefit the more risk you run of making the fund insolvent, and this is another very important consideration. If you have this money at your disposal, had you not much better apply it to other benefits which will be of greater advantage to the general mass of the contributors, rather than simply increasing the amount of unemployment benefit? I can well conceive that if that money is at the disposal of the State, it would be far better, in the interests of the total employed and contributing population, to try and use that money for the purpose of earlier contributory old age pensions, than simply to extend the rate at which this benefit is paid. [Interruption.] Really, hon. Gentlemen must try to learn that on all sides of this House these subjects are being approached with a view to trying to make the best provision that is possible, and if they hope to have their arguments treated in that serious manner, they should at least extend the same courtesy to others.
  The same argument applies to the question of raising the State contribution. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do in this Bill is to increase the contribution of the State in normal times by £5,800,000 a year, that is to say, to double it. Is he sure that when he comes to the point he will have that money available? I think this habit of drawing post-dated cheques upon a problematical balance is

  2061
  an extraordinarily dangerous one. Surely, it would be much wiser to determine, when you come to the period at which you can reduce the contributions, what is the financial condition of the country and what is the amount of money that is available. You will then not only be on sounder financial grounds, but will be able to judge much more accurately what is the best way in which to apply the amount of money that you have at your disposal.
  Let me say one word about the question of strikes, over which the right hon. Gentleman, as I think, skipped rather lightly. Hitherto, in every successive Bill, it has been laid down, and I think generally accepted, that the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to put into this Bill is utterly unworkable. I should like to read to the House, because it sums up the matter much more succinctly than I have ever seen it done anywhere else, an extract from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) when the Bill of 1911 was before the House on Report. He said this:
  "In the first place, we must secure that this fund shall be used to relieve people who are out of employment owing to the inevitable fluctuations of trade, as distinguished from relieving people who are out of employment in connection with some industrial dispute. We must have a test which can be quickly and certainly applied."
  He goes on to point out how utterly impossible it would be for any trade union or any official to apply a test which would involve one of the most difficult questions that the Law Courts have ever had to decide; and he proceeds as follows:
  "May I point out to the House two reasons why the test in the Bill is likely to be the right test?"
  [Interruption.] Surely, hon. Gentlemen are not suggesting that no consideration is to be paid to the considered judgment of the Attorney-General when the Bill of 1911 was introduced? He goes on:
  "First of all you do not want a test which is capable of being manipulated either by the trade union leaders on the one hand or by the secretary of the employers' federation on the other. If you say that everybody who is not directly concerned in a strike is to have unemployment benefit, then it is obviously to the interests of the secretary of the trade union to pick and choose a few among the people in the works to strike, so that it would have the result of bringing the works to a standstill.
  2062
  He could select a particular kind of labour which would bring to a stop the motive power of the factory, and he might thereby, if he manages the affair adroitly, throw upon the unemployment fund a body of men who loudly assort that they are not directly concerned in the strike, but who would certainly have joined the strike if it had not been made to their advantage not to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1911; cols. 804 and 805, Vol. 32.]
  He pointed out that exactly in the same way the employer could extend the area of his lock-out. That convinced the House in 1911, and I venture to think that that reasoning applies with just as great force to-day. There is no doubt that such legislation will make it possible, in effect, to call a general strike by calling out only a few key men, and to charge the general strike on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That, be it observed, is not likely to make strikes less frequent, but, on the contrary, is likely to make them more frequent. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with a question like that of the moulders' strike, let him deal with it in a way which will prevent these strikes from occurring. Let him give us facilities for dealing with the Bill which has come from another place to ensure that, where there is a dispute in some vital public service, or in some vital key industry, upon which many other industries depend, there shall be neither a strike nor a lock-out in that industry until there has been a full and impartial inquiry and public opinion is informed. If the right hon. Gentleman will proceed upon those lines, and I hope I shall have his support, he will keep his Fund more solvent, he will do a great deal to avoid exactly the kind of strike to which he refers, and he will be doing more to promote the general trade of the country than he could in any other way. In view of what he has said about children, I do not propose to deal at any length with that matter, but I gather that he is prepared to reconsider the whole position in Committee.
  Mr. SHAW: No. Let me say, in order that there, may be no misunderstanding, that what I said—I am going to repeat the words if I can—was that if the House will give me a child that has definitely left school and has gone into employment as an insurable person, I am willing to meet the House in every way I can, to take out the actual figure, and to give an

  2063
  absolute guarantee that no child shall draw benefit unless it has at least 30 contributions to its credit.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That means taking out Sub-section (2).
  Mr. SHAW: No. It means amending it, but not taking it out.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Taking it out as far as children are concerned?
  Mr. SHAW: Yes, but obviously only as far as children are concerned.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think that that had better be left to be discussed in Committee. I only want to say one word upon Clause 8, which is the Clause dealing with special schemes. I think that that will need very careful consideration when we get into Committee. I agree, and I am sure it will be generally agreed, that any scheme of national insurance must be national, and that all industries which are included must support the common fund; but I think we shall need to see, when we get into Committee, whether, while ensuring that essential condition, it is yet possible to allow some provision for special schemes consistently with that. I should like to safeguard the position by saying that, while we maintain the fundamental condition that all must contribute to the Central Fund, we should see if some provision can be made for special schemes. I think that I have said enough to show that the finance of this Bill is still very obscure and that there is a number of Clauses which will require very drastic amendment if the Bill is to be satisfactory. It is right that it should receive careful consideration by a Committee of this House, and there will devolve upon the House and upon the Committee the dual and difficult task of assessing the financial soundness of the proposals and of making the Bill conform to what, in the light of long experience, have been found to be the essential principles of a sound scheme of unemployment insurance.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: This Bill, taken with the two smaller Bills passed last Easter, does make two considerable changes in unemployment insurance policy. First it makes benefit continuous week after week without intermission. The original Act of 1911 provided 15 weeks' benefit in the year. The Act of 1920 made it 26. Last year we had reached, under
  2064
  the auspices of my right hon. Friend opposite, 44 weeks in the year. Now there are 52 weeks' continuous benefit in the year. That is the first outstanding feature of this Bill. The second outstanding feature is that uncovenanted benefit, that is, benefit payable in advance of contributions, will, in the first place, continue up to the 1st October 1925, under Clause 3, Sub-section (2), and thereafter something very nearly approaching uncovenanted benefit becomes a permanent feature of the scheme under Clause 1, Sub-section (3). These things impose a very heavy strain upon the Fund. The Fund, according to the actuary's report, can bear it, but they badly postponed the date of solvency. These, with other features of the scheme, postpone it, according to actuary, until June, 1926, and they involve perpetuating the abnormally heavy contributions of to-day.
  In fairness to the workmen and the employers, who find three-fourths of the money from which this fund is composed, it is essential that the checks upon administration under a scheme on these lines should be more rather than less continuous and effective. My right hon. Friend said that he is going to secure that. Of course that is not in the Bill, but he can secure it by administration. So, therefore, I turn to his Estimates for 1924–25, which we shall examine on Thursday, and I see that he contemplates still further reductions of the unemployment insurance staff. I have no doubt that these cuts were arranged for before this Bill was put on the stocks, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will point out to the Treasury the extent to which this Bill will add to the labour and the responsibility of an already overworked staff. Any relaxation of check now, with continuous benefit and uncovenanted benefit as a permanent feature of the scheme, may have serious results on the fund. The least you can do, having regard to the heavy contribution paid in so many cases from slender resources, especially when people are on short time, the abnormally heavy contributions, which have now to be continued for two years, contributions which in a great many cases bear no relation whatever to the unemployment risk of the contributor, is to see that the fund is not dissipated by being drawn upon by any claimant to benefit whose claim is not thoroughly well established.

  2065
  I have nothing to say to the increase in the men's benefit from 15s. to 18s. or the women's benefit from 12s. to 15s. Efficiently administered the fund can stand it. In 1921 for four months from March onwards I made it 20s. for men and 16s. for women. The cost of living index figure then ranged between 141 and 119 per cent. It is now of course 71 per cent. I came down later in July, after four months, back to 15s. for men and 12s. for women, but before the winter I felt the necessity, and was glad to have an opportunity, of working into the scheme something for the women and the children, and I did it because of the experience of the first winter of the present depression. In the case of the children's allowance we made it 1s. because it was all we could do at the time. Unemployment was almost twice as bad as it is now and was going up by leaps and bounds, and references have been made this afternoon to the hopelessness of the problem confronting us then, and more than one cheerful prophet forecasted absolute bankruptcy for my scheme. Therefore I had to make it 1s. I have been pretty vigorously attacked from almost every Labour platform in the country as a child starver. Even 30 years of the buffetings of public life do not prevent that getting right under the skin, and a fairer way would be this that whereas I found 15s. for the married man with two children I made it 22s. As regards being a child starver, all I can say is that I take this comfort to myself that for years and years with the late Sir John Gorst I did my share in getting the Provision of Meals Act placed upon the Statute Book.
  I view with very great misgiving indeed the policy of insuring boys and girls of 14. I listened to the Minister's statement on that, and appreciate his desire to relieve our anxiety, but it often happens in this House, and I have seen it more than once in my time, that proposals put forward with the most unexceptionable purpose, as this is obviously, work out in practice entirely differently from the way anticipated by us all. Even since the passing of the Act of 1870, there has been a steadily growing opinion among the working classes in favour of keeping their children at school a little longer. There is any number of us here—and not all on
  2066
  the Labour Benches—who are here because of the sacrifices of our parents. I do not want this Bill to standardise the industrial age at 14. That is what it does. I wonder that labour does not realise the amount of adult unemployment which is caused by juveniles. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do!"] Then what about this Bill? I remember that when the trade depression came upon us we invited certain Labour leaders to join us in excogitating a scheme of relief. They refused, but they formed a joint committee of their own, and in 1921 they issued a report which I have in my hand. I may read the names of those who formed that Committee: Appointed by the Labour party: Mr. Sidney Webb, Chairman; Mr. A. S. Lawrence, Mr. Robert Williams, and the Rt. Hon. Arthur Henderson. And then, appointed by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress: Miss Margaret Bondfield, Mr. E. Polton, Mr. A. A. Purcell, the Rt. Hon. C. W. Bowerman, and Mr. Arthur Greenwood. Four of those are people on that bench, and two of their names are on the back of this Bill. In the course of their findings they said:
  "Withdrawal of juvenile labour.
  We have already suggested that steps should be taken to prevent the flow of new-labour into the labour market during the continuance of the present depression and that juvenile workers already in industries should as far as possible be withdrawn and provision made for educational training. These measures would do something to relieve the congestion and increase the opportunities of employment of adult workers."
  That is not this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "It should be."] Preach that to the Minister of Labour. Do not preach it to me. The Minister of Labour is a practical man, like all Lancashire folk. He was not on this Committee, and is not responsible for this recommendation to withdraw children from labour in times of depression and send them back to school. He is a much more practical man than that. He comes and says, "Make the boy insurable at 14." I do appreciate his motive. What he says is, "You have got to face it whether you like it or not, and I do not like it, that they go to work at 14."
  Mr. SEXTON: They are bound to go.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In a great many cases the parents make such sacrifices that the children have not to go. The

  2067
  right hon. Gentleman says, "They go to work and they get in and cut of jobs and blind alloy occupations. They come under very evil influences in the streets. Let me put them under the Insurance Act. Then I have got the register, I have got my hands on them, and I can use an influence for their industrial future. In any case if they get out of a job and get unemployment benefit I will make them go to some place of instruction." That is his aim and purpose.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I doubt it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I made provision similar to that in the Act of 1920, as far as it affected young persons between the ages of 16 and 18, and it has not been a success. I agree that the Minister is going to have £100,000 a year out of the Fund to try to make it a success, so far as children between 14 and 16 are concerned, but, frankly, I do not think that it will be a success. I would far rather see the State grant maintenance bursaries to the poor parent who tries to keep his child at school a little longer, than make that child eligible for unemployment benefit at 14. As a matter of fact, the Board of Education with the local authorities do provide maintenance allowances to-day. In 1923–24, £760,307 was so administered in respect of 92,830 pupils. Surely that is the line of advance, for a Labour Government of all Governments, and not this proposal to ensure them at 14 years of age. I listened to the Minister with satisfaction with reference to what he is prepared to do. It is better than his Bill. What he says, in effect, is this: "If any child is legally entitled to go to work and does go to work, I want to bring him under the Insurance Act, and I will not do it and he would not get benefit until he has paid 30 contributions." The right hon. Gentleman may take it from me that my criticism is not at all captious. Therefore, we will give every consideration to that which does remove the defect by taking out this age of 14—a most obscurantist proposal to put 14 as the industrial age of children.
  A few words as to the trade dispute disqualification. From the beginning in 1911, as the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) knows—he played a great part in that scheme—the
  2068
  question of benefit in relation to strike or lock-out has been most troublesome. The original Bill of 1911 proposed this—the workman who has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop or other premises in which he was employed, shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit so long as the stoppage of work continues, except in a case where he has through the stoppage of work become bona fide employed elsewhere in an insured trade. During the Report stage another Clause was added to that by consent, or after consultation, and it ran as follows:
  "Where separate branches of work, which are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises, are in any case carried on in separate departments on the same premises, each of those departments shall, for the purpose of this provision, be deemed to be a separate factory or workshop or separate premises as the case may be."
  As a whole, that has stood since. This does inflict hardship, particularly upon labourers. Time and again I have endeavoured to find a line of equity in this very difficult matter, but without success. At one stage I suggested that the Lord Privy Seal, whom I am glad to see in his place, and Sir Allan Smith, that is to say, a leading Labour man on the one side and a representative employer on the other, should meet. I said to them, "Come to an agreement between you, and if it is at all workable, I will put it into the scheme." Nothing came of that. As the Minister of Labour has said to-day, I appointed a Departmental Committee before I left office, to see if we could ourselves frame something. Nothing came of that. The present Minister of Labour sweeps all the difficulties of the past away and proposes to us Clause 4, Sub-section (1), which says:
  "Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act (which imposes a disqualification for the receipt of benefit during a stoppage of work) shall not apply in any case in which the insured contributor proves that he is not participating in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers members of which are participating in the dispute."
  That cuts the Gordian knot with a vengeance. I observe that in all his calculations the Government Actuary, Sir Alfred Watson, takes no account of the effect of this proposal, and says that the case is insusceptible of calculation. The

  2069
  basic structure of the whole scheme, with contributions from employed persons and from employers, makes this a problem of extraordinary difficulty. I know too much about it and about the anxiety of my right hon. Friend in his present office, to meet the question with any mere dog-in-the-mangerism. I will say no more about it to-day, except to assure my right hon. Friend that it will have to be very carefully examined upstairs.
  Let me say something about the proposal to abolish the refund of contributions at 60 years of age. "When the original Bill of 1911 was framed, there was a refund provided both for employers and employed persons, and I do not mind saying that that was put in to make the scheme more palatable. The Bill of 1920 abolished the refund to employers. It proposed to abolish the refund to the insured persons, but during the passage of the Bill the refund to insured persons was reinserted, and now my right hon. Friend comes forward once more and says, "We are going to abolish the refund at 60." I will say two things about the refund. It involves a stupendous amount of clerical work. You have to keep the weekly records of about 12,000,000 people for 40 years, and in regard to the great bulk of them it will be no good, because the great bulk will not qualify for the refund. Look at the contingent financial liability. So far as the refunds are actually made, they come out at about £350,000. That is only a beginning of things. It is only the fringe, only the 2½ million insured people paying 2½d. per week. In the end you have to cover 12,000,000 people, paying at one time 4d., at another time 5d., and at another time 7d., and now 9d. per week. Even the saving Clause in the Bill says that if you are 50 years of age when this Bill passes, when you come to 60 and are qualified you shall get your refund, but not at the contribution exactly paid, but at the contribution of 1920, namely, 4d. a week. Even that, dealing only with people over 50, will cost £3,300,000. What the contingent financial liability would be if you went right up over the whole field, it is impossible to say. Certainly it would run into many tens of millions.
  It will be argued that the proposal to abolish the refund involves a breach of faith which is only partly met by the saving Clause relating to people over 50.
  2070
  It is not completely met because they get a refund on 4d., and not on the actual contributions paid. I have had put before me a better form of compensation for the abolition of the refund than that which is in the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. Comyns-Carr) suggested it to me, and I think that it is pretty attractive, and not open to the charge of breach of faith. My hon. and learned Friend said, in effect, "Why do you not give a week's holiday benefit for, say, every two or three years during which full contribution has been made? That will be more attractive. You could meet your refund clerical work as you go along, and you would not be confronted with a grave financial contingent liability at the end of the journey." I have had some correspondence with my right hon. Friend about that, and he makes it clear that the cost would be pretty heavy. I agree. But there is the attractiveness of a week's holiday benefit. I ask him to consider it again.
  May I take, finally, the basis upon which Sir Alfred Watson makes his financial calculation? What is the basis? The Minister says to the actuary, in effect, "Between now and 15th October an average of 1,100,000 people wholly unemployed, from that point to the end of the deficiency period an average of 1,000,000, and thereafter, after June, 1926, an average of 800,000." That is a pretty gloomy outlook, far too gloomy, far more gloomy than the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us the other night in making his Budget statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not expect to get revenue from that sort of outlook. His idea was that there would be a very much more rapid improvement in trade. In any case, whether it is too gloomy or not, it is a most amazing estimate to come from a Labour Government. Has the Minister of Labour never read the Labour party's electoral appeal to the nation? I can well believe that he has not read it. That appeal denounced as wholly inadequate and belated the work-finding schemes of the late Government, which offered a prospect of employment for only a fraction of the unemployed in a few industries. The appeal told us in terms that the Labour party was all for the immediate adoption of national schemes of productive work. Here is something which manifestly disregards all that,

  2071
  takes it as if it had never been written. It is an Estimate which manifestly does not contemplate a single new scheme for finding work. And there is no money in the Budget for new schemes.
  When I was Minister of Labour, every time I stood at the Box and asked for a longer period of benefit or for an extension of benefit, as the Minister of Labour does to-day—although, at the same time, I was doing my best, with others, to find work schemes, as the Minister of Labour is not doing to-day—we were subject to scathing criticism from the Labour benches. Let me refer to what was said by the present Lord Privy Seal. He said that money relief was criminal waste, inasmuch as it gave no service in return. We were told that Labour would alter all that, and that work-finding and work-making would be its main objective. Money relief was a bad "second best." Schemes for immediate application the Labour party had cut and dried. Anybody who likes can read it in the Report of the Labour party on unemployment. I remember the present President of the Board of Trade, on 1st August last year, recalling the fact that on page 47 there is quite a nice series of schemes that ought to be put in operation at once. Let us look at what has happened. I would like to see some of it in practice, and what I want to know is when it is going to begin. Let us see what has happened so far. This is what the Labour Government have done to date. They have, first of all, extended the benefit to single young people living at home. In the second place, they have made all aliens eligible for benefit. In the third place, they have abolished the three weeks' gap during which benefit was previously not payable. In the fourth place, they have made provision for further benefit. In the fifth place they now propose in this Bill to provide continuous benefit week by week without intermission throughout the year. In the sixth place they now propose to increase the amount of benefit and, in the seventh place, they propose to make children of from 14 to 16 years eligible for benefit. They have done all these things without adding a single new scheme of work. If I were doing that and if my hon. Friends were sitting opposite to me led by the Lord Privy Seal, that is the sort of speech which he would
  2072
  make, punctuated by the cheers of his outraged followers. "What are you doing? You are making money relief your main objective. Work ought to be your main objective. Your schemes only provide work for one out of 12 people unemployed. How are you going to find work for the other 11? Money relief is a criminal waste, inasmuch as there is no service in return for it. Give Labour a chance and we will alter all that." I put it to hon. Gentlemen sitting in the Labour Benches is that an unfair presentation? [HON MEMBERS: "No."] Thank you very much. I am very sorry the Prime Minister is not here because 2½ years ago he wrote:
  "The greatest risk that a Labour Cabinet will have to run in the development of its industrial policy will be the temptation to offer doles instead of prosperity. Fortunately, however, it can choose no Chancellor of the Exchequer who can afford to support doles wholesale and its general financial and trade policy will soon eliminate the conditions which make doles a tempting expedient for short-sighted and irresponsible politicians."
  To call the Prime Minister "a short-sighted and irresponsible politician" would mean the offender being consumed in a blaze of righteous indignation, but the right hon. Gentleman at any rate, has time to get up and state frankly "When we denounced doles and promised work we had no idea how difficult the task of making work would be. We have, therefore, sinned in error and when next we deal with the unemployment problem from the public platform we will add a word of praise instead of abuse for our predecessors because we must admit that, with the best intentions in the world, the most we can do is to follow in their footsteps, leaning far more heavily than they did on doles which we denounce but which in practice we have widely extended and developed."
  Mr. COVE: I welcome the large humanity and the sympathetic treatment of the unemployed which is meted out in this Bill. I am in favour of the increase of the rate of benefit and the continuity of benefit and other provisions made in this Bill for the unemployed, but I wish to have the privilege of uttering one note of criticism in regard to Clause 5, which extends the provision of unemployment benefit to children between 14 and 16 years of age. We have to face the question: Is a young child

  2073
  of 14 to be regarded from the wage-earning point of view or from the point of view of being a subject for education? Is the problem an educational one or is it a problem of casual labour? Clause 5 deals with the adolescent as a wage earner. As far as I understand the Labour party's policy, we have always denied the right of anybody to treat an adolescent as a wage earner. The Labour party have clearly laid it down that children of this age are fit subjects not for the factory but for the school, and ought to receive continuous education and, in fact, full, free, secondary education, with maintenance grants provided by the Education Department. This Clause will prevent that policy or, rather, will make it more difficult for that policy to come into operation. The Education Act allowed of the school age being raised to 15, but if unemployment benefit is to be given to children of 14, should they enter a factory and subsequently become unemployed, I ask the Minister of Labour what education authority in this country will dare to raise the school age in face of that payment of unemployment benefit? That provision in itself will deter the local education authorities from raising the school age. The Minister of Labour said he was greatly concerned with regard to blind alley occupations, and I know his sympathy with these children—a sympathy which I greatly appreciate; but blind alley occupations will not be abolished by this Clause. They are inherent in the present system of machine production, and if the Labour Government is to bring in Measures which are in line with economic development, they must provide for continuous education in the schools of our country.
  The Minister of Labour says he has made provision for these children to attend juvenile unemployment centres, but I suggest that these centres are quite unsatisfactory as far as real education is concerned. You cannot educate children while they are thinking of work. You cannot educate children by making them spend one or two, or even four, weeks in a cosy room in a juvenile unemployment centre. Before you can have real education for these children you must have teachers in a position to plan out a long scheme of work with definite objectives in view. That cannot possibly be done in the juvenile unemployment centres. Further, is it not true that you cannot
  2074
  get trained and qualified teachers to act in juvenile unemployment centres? Hardly any trained and qualified teachers, if any at all, will enter a juvenile unemployment centre. That work does not come under the provision for pensions; that service will not be recorded for purposes of superannuation, and therefore there will be considerable difficulty in getting fully qualified teachers to take part in this work. I understand the Minister is prepared, in Committee, to eliminate the age of 14, for which I am grateful, but that in itself is not sufficient. It is necessary to take the care of these children out of the hands of the Labour Department and put them into the hands of the Board of Education. That is the proper Department to deal with the adolescent. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Education if he thinks that real education can be imparted in a juvenile unemployment centre, and also whether he is prepared to accept the policy of extensive secondary education with full maintenance grants for the parents in the case of these children?
  The proposal in the Bill has caused considerable perturbation in the ranks of the educationists and my own union—the past presidency of which I share with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara)—composed as it is of representatives of all shades of political opinion, unanimously condemned this Clause on educational grounds. I fear the good effect already created by the administrative action of the President of the Board of Education have been, to some extent, nullified by the action of the Labour Ministry in incorporating in the Bill this provision for unemployment benefit payments to these children instead of saying quite boldly, "We stand for the provision in the 1918 Act that the school age should be raised." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell twitted the Labour Government on its policy. I suggest to him that had it not been for the torpedoing of the 1918 Act by a Liberal President of the Board of Education, we would have had that provisions as to the school age already in existence. If I may use the expression, there is no more tragically pathetic figure in educational history than the Liberal President of the Board of Education whose ideals were high, but whose definite

  2075
  actions were very weak. The Labour Government have come in for the heritage which has been left them, the heritage of the Geddes Committee, which hon. Gentlemen opposite so strongly supported, while hon. Members below the Gangway were also then in the Government.
  6.0 P.M.
  I appeal to the Minister of Labour, and to the Government, to take away Clause 5 completely. Let the President of the Board of Education deal with this problem in such a way as to encourage educationists and local authorities throughout the country. I understand that a deputation from education authorities is to appear before the Minister this week. Give them the chance to put into operation the Clause in the 1918 Act which allows of the raising of the school age. It is far better for the youths of our country to be educated for skilled jobs. Only last week I was privileged to see a Memorandum written by a Sub-Committee of the Advisory Council erected under the Minister of Labour himself, and it dealt with the problem of juvenile unemployment in London. It suggested that, since London had become the national warehouse, the national distributing centre, labour, and especially juvenile labour, in London is bound to be unskilled for the large majority of children, and is bound to be casual. It is inherent in the kind of employment up and down the country, and not only in London. Therefore, I ask the Government, in view of the economic development and of the development of machine production, making it increasingly more certain that labour must be unskilled, to take these children—600,000 every year leaving the schools of the country—out of industry, to give their fathers and mothers a chance to take their places to prevent the cutting of wages, and to bring those children completely under the jurisdiction of the Education Act.
  Mr. REMER: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove), who has just resumed his seat, said the Liberal Minister of Education was a pathetic figure. There is only one figure who is more pathetic, and that is the Labour Minister of Education at the present time, faced, as he is, with this Bill, which is going
  2076
  to kill practically every scheme which the Labour and Liberal parties and our own side, on that particular line of thought, have put forward on several occasions as being our idea of what should be done in the form of education. I regard this Bill as a very unsatisfactory Bill from every point of view. I would like to take those hon. Members of the Labour party who were in the last House of Commons back to the time when we were passing Bills to extend uncovenanted benefit and so on, and to remind them that they moved Amendments to increase the allowances to children very much to what they are in the present Bill. The child was to be given an increased benefit, according to their Amendment, from 1s. to 2s., and I think it is obvious to everyone who sat through those Debates that, whatever we had proposed, they would have proposed something more. If we had proposed 2s. they would have proposed 3s., and if we had proposed 4s. they would have proposed 6s., and there is, I think, the unsatisfactory thing which is going through the whole of this unemployment insurance question, that it has become a kind of auction between political parties, to try and bribe the electors with these increased benefits in order to secure votes.
  There is another very grave reason which can be set against this Bill, and that is the fact that this Unemployment Insurance Fund is still to a very large extent overdrawn. At present it is overdrawn to the extent of something like £9,000,000, and I feel very strongly indeed that there should not be any increase whatever in the benefits given under this Bill until that Fund is back again in credit with the Treasury. Until that Fund becomes solvent, until it is in a position when it has repaid the overdraft, I feel that the increased benefits should be left over, because unemployment is undoubtedly a vicious circle. Unemployment causes the unemployment pay, the unemployment pay causes higher taxation, and the higher taxation causes more unemployment; and more unemployment again causes more unemployment pay, and so it goes round and round. I would like specially to bring to the notice of the Government the serious position with which this country is now faced. During last year, and in the early months of the present year, there was a

  2077
  distinct improvement in trade, mainly due to the very good Conservative Government which we had last year. The unemployment figures were brought down to nearly half what they were at one time, and the present Government inherited a very rich harvest when they took office. Trade was gradually improving and getting into a position where it was hoped that unemployment would be brought down to the normal, but the only thing the present Government have done is to squander this position away, until, in my opinion, there has been a noticeable set-back in the state of trade.
  Every year, if we look at the unemployment figures, we find that they are lower in the spring than in the winter months, and during the last fortnight we have seen the first sinister sign, so early in the year, of an advance in the unemployment figures, and there can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who is engaged in business that world trade has received a set back. In the United States of America, where trade has been so good for the last two years, it is very much worse than it was six weeks ago. Hon. Members opposite may say that that is no fault of the present Government, but undoubtedly the uncertainty which they have created by their administration and by their government since they have been in office has had a most serious effect upon people engaged in world trade, and particularly the tomfoolery in which they have been indulging in regard to negotiations behind the scenes with the Russian delegates. There is undoubtedly at the present time a surplus of goods in America, due very largely to over-production, and these goods are at the point of being dumped into this country—
  Mr. WALLHEAD: What has that to do with unemployment insurance?
  Mr. REMER: It has a lot to do with it, because, if the Government go on with their present policy, the present figures for unemployment will be materially increased, and, therefore, this Fund is absolutely insolvent. Discharges are going on in nearly every motor-car factory in this country, and I am certain that the figures which we are going to see in the next six or nine months are going to show a material increase in unemployment. We have looked at this scheme as it is set forth in the Memorandum, and we find that the cost of the
  2078
  scheme, according to the actuarial estimate, is approximately £7,000,000. We are all aware that some of this cost is not to come until the scheme is solvent, and the point I want to make emphatically is that it is not wise and sound finance to incur any of this cost until the scheme has recovered its solvency. The most serious objection is that which was raised by the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), namely, the objection that the Government have not done one solitary thing to fulfil their promises on every platform and in this House, before the last Election, that they were going to bring forward a great and comprehensive scheme to deal with the unemployed problem. Though I may be regarded as pessimistic and as gloomy with regard to trade prospects, I believe that we are in for a very bad time next winter. I believe that trade has undoubtedly turned a corner backwards, when it ought to be improving and going forward.
  We must remember that there has been a great reduction in the unemployment figures through the very large railway orders which have been given forward, not because the railway companies required these goods, but because they had ordered them in anticipation of their requirements and in advance of necessity. These orders will, during the next few months, be finished, and I happen to know that several of those manufacturers who are at present employing their works at full time have the gravest anxiety as to how they are going to keep their works, building railway engines, wagons, and other material, in full employment. Unless the Government tackle strongly and quickly the question of finding work for our people, instead of finding them doles, as they have done, the country is going to be in a very bad state before very long. As far as I can see, the Government are making not one solitary move of any kind which is going to find work for the unemployed people who are now receiving unemployment pay. In fact, when you mention the question of unemployment in this House it is generally received with hilarious laughter from the Government Benches, as if they rather regarded Election pledges and Election speeches as a bit of a joke, and they only bring forward a cold, callous glare if you I mention the sufferings of the unemployed.

  2079
  Where are these great and comprehensive schemes about which they spoke so freely and which were going to deal with such a lot of unemployment? They seem on the Government Benches to think it is a joke to hoodwink the electorate. They went round at the last Election and told the electors to vote for their class, because the capitalists, they said, were deliberately putting people out of work.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS: On a point of Order. Are we to be allowed to deal with the whole problem of unemployment, or merely with the question of insurance which is raised in this Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) was possibly anticipating a speech which he hoped to make next Thursday.
  Mr. REMER: What I was trying to impress on the Government and the House was that, instead of finding these very large sums necessary for the schemes promised by the Government at the last Election, when they said they wanted work and not doles, we have this unsatisfactory Bill. Therefore my objections to this Bill were on those lines. I know the difficulties with which the Government are confronted. Having said at one time that they were trying to find work, and that it was so easy to do this, now they have to do something to-day, and to increase the dole in order to satisfy the annoyed working people, of this country. I feel very strongly, as I said at the start, that this insurance scheme—
  Mr. CLIMIE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Labour party said that it was easy to find work?
  Mr. REMER: Oh, on many occasions hon. Members opposite have practically stated that they were the only party in the State which could find work, and which had a real remedy and a definite scheme against unemployment. We know why they have introduced this Bill. They have got into office. They know they cannot do what they were going to do, and, therefore, they have to offer bribes in order to keep themselves in the snug position into which they have got. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh at what I say. I know that the Labour party laugh at their inability to find work. They do not realise that this is bad for the country, that it is bad that
  2080
  the country should be placed in the situation in which it is placed. I feel very strongly also that this question of unemployment insurance is too serious for our country to remain one of party politics—for one party to outbid the other in order to bribe the electorate of the country. I feel very strongly that this Bill will not have a good effect upon our country. I feel it ought certainly not to be put into operation until the scheme itself has recovered its solvency.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) will forgive me if I do not follow him into his gloomy prophesies regarding the future trade of this country, and the prospects of this Bill. His whole speech seemed to be very indirectly related to the subject which we are discussing. I should like, however, if I may, to compliment the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) on the very admirable maiden speech which he has just delivered. He spoke with lucidity and conviction as to the apprehension which had been aroused in the minds of educationists in the House and in the country with regard to the position of children under this Bill. Speaking for my own part, I must say that my personal apprehensions are not entirely allayed, or, indeed, substantially allayed, by the concessions which have been foreshadowed by the Minister in his opening speech. It seems to me there is need at this moment for much clearer thought in regard to the relationship of juvenile employment and education. We have got to make up our minds—the House is being asked in connection with this Bill to do it—whether juveniles between the ages of 14 and 16 are to be a problem of education or are to be a problem of casual employment. I would like to ask this question, to which an answer might be given when the Minister, or possibly the Parliamentary Secretary for the Department, replies, as to what is the actual nature of the educational instruction which is proposed.
  The Minister stated it would be such instruction as was possible. If that merely foreshadows an extension of existing juvenile employment centres it is of no value for the purpose for which it is intended. I am well aware that in some of these centres very excellent work is being done, but I believe it is a fact that

  2081
  the average attendance at these centres is something like three weeks. No one who has any knowledge of education would suggest that anything of permanent value in the nature of education can be derived under that system, aggravated, as it is, by the fact that the teaching staff of these institutions is limited by the fact that their service does not count for pension grant. I should be glad to have further information upon that point. I would also like to raise the question of Clause 11 as to who is to bear the second half of the cost of this educational process. Is it to be borne by the local authority or by the national Exchequer? If it is to be borne by the local authority it appears to me the Government are going back upon the provision which they have already made by the offer to allow 100 per cent of the cost of unemployment centres. I shall be glad to have this point cleared up.
  There is one point which I should like to mention in this connection which has not been raised by any previous speaker, and that is this: that it hardly seems to me to be fair to propose to make a profit of a cool million out of insuring these children, and only to use £100,000 for the grants to educational institutions. That is at the back of the proposal, that £1,500,000 should be raised, and £500,000—including the grant of £100,000—should be devoted to education and the cost of administration. It seems to me that, if we are going to raise that large sum, a substantial amount of it might be devoted for educational purposes. But my own feeling is, that we ought at this stage to take a bold measure and to raise the school age to at least 15. I believe that the Minister of Education has at his command, under existing legislation, powers which would enable him to deal with this matter, this terrible blot—because no one can under-estimate the importance of it, or think other than that it should be adequately dealt with. I fully appreciate the point of view of those making this proposition. I realise to the full the great mass of intellectual destitution that is being created at the present time in this country, and I hope that in Committee we may arrive at something which will be agreed upon between all parties in the House.
  The trade disputes disqualification Clause is the next matter to which I should like to refer. I should like to congratulate
  2082
  the Minister on having taken his courage in both hands and made a proposal in regard to this admittedly difficult and thorny matter. Anyone who has been connected with the industrial disputes which have occurred in the last 18 months must be fully aware of the great and undeserved hardship and suffering that has been inflicted upon men who have no connection with the disputes at all. The present proposal in the Bill does not, in fact, do away with one of the most frequent causes of hardship and suffering. So long as the employed person who is connected with the dispute is called upon to prove that he is not for these purposes connected with the dispute and goes through the usual machinery of the insurance officer, the Court of Referees, and the umpire, the same cause of suffering and hardship remains, because this process takes weeks, and even months; in the meantime the man's benefit is stopped and he is forced to apply to the guardians, or, like many workers, goes half starved, because their pride will not allow them to go to the guardians. We might endeavour when this Clause is in Committee to arrange to remedy this matter as far as possible.
  At the moment I do not wish to deal with the more controversial issue of the equitable treatment of the three contributors to the Fund. I still think that the Clause as it stands is an improvement on the previous Act. I approach this Bill from an aspect which has not been mentioned by previous speakers, and that is as to whether or not it contains anything which is incompatible with the consolidation and extension of the whole of our schemes of public assistance: indeed, a comprehensive plan of insurance—or security if you call it so—against the social risks to which we are liable. I do not see, with the exception of this educational proposal, anything which will, in fact, make our task in the future consolidation of the scheme of public assistance more difficult, because it is not, in fact, that we have not got the money to provide adequate security for the people of this country; the problem is to use the money which we are in fact already raising so that we get the best value for it. In the course of his remarks the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) developed an, argument that attempted to prove that

  2083
  these insurance proposals were likely by increasing taxation to cause unemployment. I challenge that statement altogether. So long as you have 6,000,000 persons or thereabouts who are in and out of employment, and who come within the scope of these Acts, so long you will have the phychological feeling which prevents men from doing their best, owing to the haunting fear of unemployment. This helps to reduce output and keep prices high, interferes with our export trade, and causes that chronic under-consumption by the people of this country which is a very important contributory cause of the unemployment from which we are suffering to-day. I shall support the Second Reading of this Bill, which I welcome as being an advance on any previous legislation which we have had for this purpose.
  Mr. HAYDAY: The two speeches to which we have listened from the Opposition Benches have been quite of a character in keeping with the previous policy of those concerned in dealing with this great and important subject of Unemployment Insurance. There has not been a contribution of any helpful character during the Debate from those benches. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) devoted the whole of his speech to a recital and confession of the Conservative party's inability—or lack of desire—to do anything, so acting as a drag upon those who are desirous of making some provision for the unemployed citizens of this nation. He opened his remarks with the statement that the Government of the day were providing a Bill to deal with the normal conditions of unemployment, and he practically said that it would be better had they come forward with another patchwork Measure to deal with the immediate condition of things. The hon. Member forgot to tell the House that from 1911 until the Labour Government came into power there had been no fewer than 14 Acts of Parliament, 10 of which became necessary because of the incompleteness of the work of previous Governments between 1918 and the present moment. There has been one long succession of patchwork attempts to deal with the state of affairs in relation to the suffering consequent upon unemployment in the nation.
  2084
  It would have been better, instead of complaining about the Government of the day faced with that terrible heritage, if hon. Members opposite had been more helpful in their previous productions, instead of waiting for an important Measure of this character to be introduced. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), without an atom of knowledge of the circumstances, said that we have waited until June, and then he says we have come forward with a Bill as a bribe to the electorate. He must have known that, under any circumstances with any Government in power, they would have been obliged between now and October to have introduced a Measure of this kind, otherwise they would have had a gap as from July to October without any provision for unemployment benefit at all. How would they have faced such consequences as that? Therefore, I say that whether it had been a Labour, Liberal or a Conservative Government, they would have been obliged by the force of circumstances to have introduced some measure to meet the deficiency and wipe away the gap between now and October of the present year.
  I welcome the Bill introduced to-day with all its shortcomings, and there are many deficiencies to be met before one can say that we have a complete Bill providing for unemployment benefits or these periodic disturbances in industry which are coming along. I felt a little disturbed, in the case of young persons, at the apparent willingness of the Minister to hedge that round still further by insisting that, as a safeguard, there should be 30 contributions from boys and girls at 14 years of age into the unemployment fund before they would be entitled to benefit. I do not think the critics on the educational side in many instances are sincere in their criticism of this provision now being made for boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16. Each party in turn has had the power to provide through the Education Acts of this country for compulsory education up to the age of 16, with provision for loss of earnings and maintenance between 14 and 16 years of age, but it has never been attempted, and they have never tried to make any provision at all. You have simply limited compulsory education to the age of 14, and you have left them afterwards outside any provision at all

  2085
  to run loose. The result is that many boys, after leaving school for one or two weeks' work, have been thrown out of employment and left to run the streets, and the educationists have not been so pronounced in their protestations on this point since 1920, when the great slump set in. They have been content to allow those between 14 and 16 years of age to wander about loosely, and this is unfair not only to those boys and girls but to the nation.
  This Bill is an attempt to link them up under unemployment insurance in such a way that, as a condition of drawing benefits, there must be certain attendances at some educational centre, some contact, and continuity of education. I say that those educationists who may try to hedge in this proposal on Committee ought to be prepared to come forward with some amending Bill to the Education Acts of the country, and provide that in future the compulsory attendance age at school must be 16, with some sustenance allowance between 14 and 16 in order to do away with the economic pressure on the poor families, so that there will be no loss, and in order that there may be provided adequate means for making provision for their physical well being as well as provision for their intellectual development. Do not leave this loose end in regard to boys and girls between 14 and 16 years of age.
  What was the principal reason that dominated those who put in the age of 16? It must have been that they felt that that was an impressionable age, and because they felt that that age was the proper time to have some kind of statistics that would flow into the Labour Ministry denoting the ebb and flow of employment and unemployment. You now suggest the payment of the 5s., but you take some of that in order to provide educational facilities. I think this will certainly determine the line of discussion in Committee, and at any rate it will determine the action which I shall take with reference to the hedging in. What do you gain by stipulating that you must have 30 contributions? You do not do away with the principle of fixing the age at 14. You do not make it easier for them to obtain benefits. They have to wait until 30 payments have been made, and this leaves the period of eight months for them to run at a loose end. Under these circumstances those boys and girls
  2086
  will not have any educational facilities, or any provision made for them at all, and so you will be as you were in that important respect. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) said that just as they protested against 1s. so they ought to protest against the 2s. If the right hon. Gentleman had been present I would have asked him if he would have been willing to support in Committee a proposal of 5s. a week, and no doubt he would have said "No," and why? Whilst finding fault with the inadequacy of the provision now proposed the right hon. Gentleman says that we shall never have the money to meet it, and at the same time he actually says that the provision we are proposing is totally inadequate. I think that is most illogical.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that our actuarial statements are all wrong, but on this question the calculations of the previous Government estimated an expenditure of £30,000,000. They forecasted on that basis, and yet the right hon. Gentleman throws out a very cheap sneer as to the lack of ability on the part of the Minister of Labour on this point, and he suggests that he has not the ability of his worthy predecessor in that particular office. If they were £30,000,000 out then my right hon. Friend must be something like £50,000,000 because of his lack of ability to deal with this matter. I think that was quite a cheap and unwarranted sneer. Up to the present moment we have not heard whether the Opposition intend to Vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I want the Labour Minister to be emphatic about this Measure and to wipe away the gap system altogether. Why should provision be made for only part of the period of a man's unemployment? If made at all, why should provision not be made for all the period, and for such time as he is unemployed and is seeking employment?
  The suggestion made from the Opposition side is that the Labour Minister for the first time is introducing something like permanent conditions to meet an abnormal set of circumstances. I think the abolition of the gap is more than justified. The very Ministers who have been urging its abolition themselves have, been compelled from time to time to extend their uncovenanted benefit, and I they have had to admit that they have

  2087
  been so shortsighted that they have had to pass time after time another emergency Bill. When they talk to us about the number of Bills which have been introduced let them look at their own record and they will find that thirteen or fourteen such Bills stand to their discredit in dealing in a patchwork way with this great question.
  There is one other good point in this Bill, and it is that after a period the State will take its proper place and meet one-third of the total cost instead of one-fourth. I could never understand the principle of partnership in this great undertaking of national insurance created by the Acts. The State administered and made all the rules and all the different things that govern the qualifying of the payments and all the benefits, and yet it get off with only meeting the bill to the extent of one-fourth. At the moment that is the position. [Laughter.] What the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) finds to joke about in what I have said, I for the life of me cannot understand. Is it wrong to suggest that the State should pay one-third of the liability?
  Mr. HOPKINSON: What was amusing me was the wonderful idea of the State paying all this money when the State is a mere abstraction.
  Mr. HAYDAY: The remarks made by members of the Opposition are to the effect that we are imposing a big burden on industry by these charges, but I would remind hon. Members that it is those who are engaged in the industry that have to bear the brunt, and if you admit that all this is provided by the human units, the busy bees of industry, then that is common cause.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: The worker provides everything.
  Mr. HAYDAY: If the worker provides it, why do you begrudge him his share of it, and an adequate share? Whilst the right hon. Gentleman spoke of uncovenanted benefit and said that should not be overlooked, is there anything more wrong in a person drawing uncovenanted benefit than in a sleeping partner who simply invests money in a business, never attends to it, and does not know what its
  2088
  processes are, but sits and draws the result of it regularly every year or half year? Surely there is no difference.
  I am going to ask the Minister to reconsider the trade disputes disqualification Clause with a view to strengthening it, because it will lead to considerable trouble. It is a great improvement. It will enable many to come within the area of unemployment benefit. But the very wording of it shows its difficulty. He must prove that he is not in a grade or class of worker. There may be men in the grade and in the class of employment that may be in dispute but who are in no way connected with it, and cannot benefit by any settlement. There are many difficulties in that respect. In 1922 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) gave a promise, which he carried out, that he would set up an ad hoc Committee consisting of four representing the industrial side from the employed persons' point of view, and four representing great industries from the employers' side to help them. He said if they would find agreed words he would promise to insert them in the Bill that he was going to bring before the House.
  That Committee, of which I was a member, and which has been the subject of many questions in the House, met in June, 1922. By its third meeting the workers' side had submitted a Memorandum covering 12 typewritten foolscap sheets. The employers' side promised to supply a Memorandum in answer to it setting forth their views. From July, 1922, until the Committee broke up no such Memorandum was ever presented. The arguments were that the Labour Ministry of the day had circularised the trade Union Congress Committee and the Employers' Federation on the question of co-ordination and the excuse from the employers' side was that they ought to meet no more and that this might be merged in the larger question, and so we went on from meeting to meeting. The employers' pamphlet, which has been issued to all Members I suppose, refers to the fact that the Committee sat all this time and failed to agree. The workers' side whittled down their original proposals. They were ready for an agreement but the other side feared collusion in disputes and would not agree to anything. Almost every Member in the House admitted that the grievance

  2089
  was genuine. The evil was there, and the hardship could not be denied, but no agreement could be arrived at. The workers' portion of that special Committee in their Memorandum suggested this, and I suggest that their words would be suitable for an Amendment to this Bill—
  "That, excepting in a case where an employed contributor, although employed in the same factory, workshop or other premises, does not himself participate in such trade dispute and the terms and conditions of his contract of service are not the subject of such trade dispute."
  It certainly seems to me that the Minister ought to get that clear-cut decision before the Committee if it is at all possible so that there shall be no further loose wording in a Clause of that character.
  May I say one or two words of friendly criticism also in relation to the waiting period? The original waiting period necessary was three days. Having once qualified by putting in the three days' waiting period, that held good for a period of six weeks. That means that if a person put in the qualifying period for benefit, then got employment, and was unemployed within six weeks again, there was no second waiting period. Now six waiting days are necessary as a first qualifying period. If a person puts in six waiting days, then finds employment on the seventh working day and is employed for three weeks, and falls unemployed again, a further six waiting days must be put in. That means that, having made the qualification first by going six days without benefit, but enabling him to qualify for it, that will only cover a period of 17 or 18 days at the outside, whereas previously the three waiting day period covered a period of six weeks before it was necessary to put in a further qualifying period. That is harsh. I know my right hon. Friend says it will cost £10,000,000, but I would face this position. I would not say, "We are promising you certain benefits which are an increase on the past, but we are going to retain the restrictions." The very fact that the Minister says it will cost £10,000,000 shows the proportions of the grievance. It shows there are a large number under this six days' qualifying period restricted to 18 days before qualifying again. The fact that it would cost
  2090
  £10,000,000 shows that you are denying benefit to people who ought not to be denied, and it would be very niggardly indeed if you continued to try to make the fund solvent at the expense of disregarding the rights of those who are unfortunate enough only to be unemployed for six days.
  We must not ignore the possibility of temptation. Surely a man who is unemployed for four or five or six days might say, "I might as well get my six waiting day period in, and refuse an odd job which will only last a week or fortnight." I have a case of a person who had to do that no fewer than four times in one year. That means that he was unemployed for more than four weeks without the possibility of getting his unemployment benefit. That is not right, and I would urge that under any circumstances we should come back to the three waiting days, and that the period permitted should be six weeks before having to qualify again. There is another point which has been almost entirely lost sight of. A person, once disqualified for six weeks' benefit by reason of some misconduct or other, actually under the present waiting period arrangement is disqualified not for six weeks but for seven. The first six qualifying days have been put in, and then he is disqualified for six weeks. Six weeks being greater than the time allowed in between, which is 18 days, would mean requalifying after he has gone through his disqualification for six weeks. That is a point I am sure my right hon. Friend will take note of. If one Clause says a man is to be penalised only for six weeks, that does not mean seven, but it works out at seven under the present Regulations.
  One thing I am glad of. It is a controversial point amongst all Members. I am glad the Minister is asking that there shall be no more special schemes. I hope there is going to be no contracting out for any privileged or specially favoured industry. The national employment scheme should be spread over the whole of the industries, in order that the industries with the least percentage of unemployment shall be able to make their just contribution to assist those less fortunate than themselves. The argument of the Minister himself should hold good. His point was, that the reason for doing away with the right to claim at 60 years

  2091
  of age any credit standing to a particular contributor through the difference between benefits paid and contribution was to cease, because it was not right that a man who had had more regular employment and had a credit to his account in the fund, could draw it and so extend the liability of the others. The argument is good. It comes with greater force when you deal with large questions of industry. If you allow an industry with 1½ per cent. of unemployed persons to withdraw from the scheme because it is cheaper for them, and they could run it more cheaply, you are leaving the residue with a greater percentage of unemployment. The actuarial estimate is, that if you withdrew by special schemes any industry with a percentage not greater than 5 per cent. you would have to review the whole of your contributions. You would have to pay more. Why should the casually employed man, why should a person not in regular employment, in an industry which is not thriving well, with his 10 per cent. of unemployment, be called upon to meet a greater charge from his industry because the more favoured have been allowed to contract out? A national scheme must be made a national responsibility, and no special privileged industry should be allowed to contract out at all. On the whole, I think the Bill is a real attempt to give us something reasonably substantial in the way of paving the road for the Government establishment of an adequate unemployment scheme. Whatever may take place in the general social services and the Acts of Parliament dealing with, and consolidating them, this ought not to be held up. One argument was that because there is a Committee dealing with Poor Law administration, this Bill ought not to be proceeded with, but another Committee set up to report in connection with unemployment generally, and its relation to Poor Law administration. The task is before us, and I am glad the Minister has introduced his Bill to-day. I hope that his greatest hopes will be realised, and that the Bill's passage will be speedy.
  7.0 P.M.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: With reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I should like to see some steps taken with regard
  2092
  to the consolidation of insurance schemes. At the same time, I realise that the Bill should be got through before the end of July, in order to prevent lapses in the original Act. I have one or two comments to make with regard to the Bill. I cannot help thinking that there will be a great deal of contentious matter when we come to the Committee stage. For instance, the Clause dealing with children will provide a great deal of discussion. Certain contributions are to be paid. I cannot help thinking that what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, is to build up a credit in the name of those boys and girls so that, later on, in three or four years, when they are 17 or 18 years of age, and have got regular employment, they will have a credit in the books of the Ministry which will be of assistance to the general scheme, and also to them in later life. I should have thought, myself, that greater help in the way of a pension scheme would have been of more benefit. I think the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to his position, should have great influence with trade unions, and might encourage them to allow a larger proportion of apprentices. Instead of that, an hon. Member says that in the building trade there is an excess of skilled labour already. That is perfectly true, and the Labour party has done nothing to meet the demands of labour. That is one of the troubles we have with the party. Instead of producing these schemes, which they said they had already available, for increasing labour, they have done nothing but produce schemes for increasing the dole. I shall have something to say on this later, but I do not want to go away from the point with which I am now dealing, the question of bringing in children between the ages of 14 and 16. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go into the question of apprenticeships and of technical education. I think he will realise the possibilities. It is all very well to say that you would like to have boys and girls up to 16 or 18 years of age at school, but it is not a practical question at this moment. I do not know what the Minister of Health would say if he were to be asked to build schools to keep boys and girls between the ages of 16 and 18 at this moment.
  I am glad that the question of refund is being dealt with. The refund of contributions would have led to endless

  2093
  trouble in the future. Not much stress has been laid on the enormous burden on production which these schemes produce. Every penny put on means an increase of cost on the part of the producer, and if you have to allow for a refund, it is better to bring that into your actuarial calculation and reduce the contributions which are, to my mind, too high and increase the costs of production. It is better that you should reduce the contributions rather than allow for a refund. I think there will also be difficulties when we come to Clause 4, which deals with trade disputes. It is almost impossible to draw the line when you are dealing with this question, and to try to differentiate between the men actually engaged in a strike or lock-out, and those who are not. Although the right hon. Gentleman may think that he has produced a satisfactory scheme, I think he will find it rather difficult when he gets to the Committee stage. I rather admire the courage of the right hon. Gentleman in putting forward the figure of 1,500,000 as the number which one might expect to find unemployed at the end of the present year, and also the figure for 1926 which, I think, was 800,000. It does not fit in at all with his party's election pledges. It does not fit in with what they said, that the Labour party was the only party which had a policy ready to meet unemployment; nor does it fit in with the speeches of some of the right hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite. Several have been quoted to-day, but one has not been touched on, and that is the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Thomas), at Derby, on the 2nd January. He said:
  "We will make a real attempt to substitute work for doles which have already demoralised our people and done incalculable harm to the definite stability of the country."
  I have several other quotations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read them!"] I know hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like being reminded. Yesterday—[An HON. MEMBER: "Set them to music and sing them!"] I think that is more suitable for a Glasgow audience than one here. In prose and in cold print, after the excitements of an Election, and after the votes have been secured by questionable practices, I dare say it is objectionable to be reminded of them, but it is true that in a Government document it was
  2094
  announced that you expect over 1,000,000 unemployed, and yet six months ago you said you had the only remedy which would deal with unemployment. In the interests of the country, let us into the secret.
  Mr. HERBERT FISHER: I do not rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but to express my sincere anxiety with regard to the effects which one particular Clause of it may have upon the development of the system of education in this country. I allude to Clause 5, which enacts that boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 should be treated as insured persons under certain conditions, and should be able to draw unemployment benefit. That is a very serious departure from the existing state of the law. It definitely implies that the State recognises boys and girls between 14 and 16 as members of the industrial world. It makes permanent provision for their insurance against unemployment, on the assumption that they are permanently to be regarded as industrial units, and it runs directly counter to the theory which is embodied—though I admit it is not fully acted up to—in our existing educational legislation. I listened with very great attention and interest to the perspicuous speech with which the Minister of Labour commended this Bill to the House, and I noticed that he said that children over 14, under existing circumstances, go out into industry and that after they have passed away from school the State does not know where they are or what they are doing.
  He drew a picture, which was no doubt partially true, of the deplorable effects which often come over the mind and character of juveniles when they are once released from the wholesome discipline of educational institutions, but he did not accurately state the legal position at the present moment, nor did he accurately state the educational facts at the moment. The legal position at the moment is that every boy and girl and every young person is under statutory obligation to receive whole-time or part-time education up to the age of 16. That is the theory of the law, and it is because the provision in Clause 5 of this Bill runs counter to that theory that I feel bound to take exception to it. With the objects of the Minister of Labour everybody in his House must have the fullest sympathy. My right hon.

  2095
  Friend is impressed, as every thinking man must be impressed, with the deplorable wastage of mind and character which go on when our boys and girls leave the elementary schools and pass on to what is euphemistically called "the university of life." I was greatly impressed by those evils when, in 1918, I pressed an education Measure upon the attention of this House, and the arguments which my right hon. Friend has used this afternoon are very much the same arguments as those which I employed in 1918 to commend the Education Bill of that year to the House. I am fully in agreement with my right hon. Friend, both as to the magnitude of the evil and as to the necessity of finding some remedy for it. All that I question is the method which he has adopted in this Bill. I was, indeed, very glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman was not altogether adamant on this Clause, but was quite willing to make concessions in Committee, and I very much welcomed and appreciated his compliant mood in that regard.
  I will now explain very frankly to the House another of my doubts with respect to the operation of this Clause. I first of all ask myself how it will affect the minds of the parents of children, and then I ask myself how it will affect the local education authorities. I do not for a moment suppose that I have the knowledge of the Minister of Labour as to the normal working of the mind of the normal working-class parent with respect to this matter, but I am not speaking from my own experience. It has been represented to me by a large number of members of the teaching profession, who have a very close knowledge of the way in which the minds of parents work in connection with the destinies of their children, that this provision will work ill, and I think my right hon Friend will find that the general impression of the teachers all over the country is that, if children from the age of 14 onwards are insured, and are capable of receiving insurance benefit, that consideration will certainly weigh in the balance on the industrial side and against the educational side. The effect will differ in different parts of the country. It may very well be that in London the parent of the better class, who sends his boy or girl, very often at great personal sacrifice, to a secondary
  2096
  school or to a junior technical school, will be quite impervious to the influence of the Bill. Such parents will get the best education they can for their children in spite of this extra weight which is put upon the industrial side of the balance. But that will not be so all over the country.
  The Board of Education is very anxious to develop the system of secondary schools in this country. I dare say many hon. Members will recollect that in 1860 or 1861 Matthew Arnold, who was not only a great poet and critic but a great educationist, told the country that it should organise secondary education. He pointed out that at that time, whereas in France and Germany the working-class parent, or the small shopkeeper, or the foreman, could obtain a first-class secondary education for his child at very low cost, there was no similar provision in this country. I think we have very largely wiped out that reproach. We have at the present moment over 1,100 secondary schools receiving grants from the Board of Education, educating nearly half a million children—67 per cent. of whom have come up from the elementary schools, most of them in free places—and giving them a really good general secondary education up to the age of 16, and beyond if they choose to go beyond. It has been one of our great objects at the Board of Education to organise and develop that system, and I greatly welcome the announcement recently made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education that he was anxious to develop the secondary schools. I hope he will succeed in doing so. Their number was doubled during my period of office, and the number of scholars in the schools was doubled. I very much hope that in the next six or seven years we shall find a comparable addition to the number of secondary school places and to the number of those who receive free places in the secondary schools.
  What has been our principal difficulty in developing this secondary school system? Our principal difficulty has been that of keeping the children for the full secondary school course of four years, up to the first secondary school examination. I am glad to say that at the present moment we have triumphed over that difficulty. I think that most of the parents now in all parts of the country are willing to sign agreements, when they

  2097
  send their children to these schools, that they will keep them there for the full secondary school course. Unless they stay for the full course they really do not receive very much benefit from the school, and the money spent upon the school is wasted. Assuming that the Government come forward and say that every child between the ages of 14 and 16 is to be an insured person under the Act, after paying 30 contributions and then, there is the 5s. a week for him, I ask myself how will that operate on the minds of the parents who are now, at considerable personal sacrifice, keeping their children in these schools? Of course, it will act differently in different cases, but I do submit—and I make this proposition from my knowledge of the great difficulties that I myself experienced when President of the Board—I do submit to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that it will in many cases act as a deterrent, and that the parent will say, "Well, hitherto employment has been very uncertain; there, have been good periods of employment, but there has always been a risk in sending a boy or girl into an industry, because of unemployment; but now the State is taking away that risk, and on the whole we think it better to send the child into industry than to take advantage of this provision of secondary schools." I think that that would be a misfortune.
  I am not, however, really so much impressed by the possible effect of this provision upon the mind of the parent as I am by its possible and probable effect upon the minds of members of local education authorities; and here I can speak with some personal knowledge. I yield to the Minister of Labour at once in his knowledge of the working of the working-class mind. He has advantages which I do not possess. But I have some advantage, as having been a member, not only of an urban local education authority, but also of a county local education authority, when I consider the possible effect of this provision upon those bodies. We have in this country a very great system of public education. I believe that if my right hon. Friend and his successors, whoever they may be, at the Board of Education, really develop that system as it is intended that it should be developed, it will be by far the greatest system in the world. There will be no country offering to the children of its working-class population benefits comparable to those which our system will offer
  2098
  when it is being worked to the full extent. Already the provisions that we have on our Statute Book, though, unhappily, they do not all operate, are the admiration of the whole civilised world, and, consequently, I am very anxious that no step, however well meant, should be taken now which is likely to prejudice the development of our educational system.
  Let me just point out that at the present moment the law contemplates that a large number of children will stay at school after the age of 14. It is perfectly true that 14 is the term of compulsory full-time education in elementary schools, but we do not regard that as an ideal educational period. If you look at the Education Act of 1921 you will find abundant traces of the pre-occupation of the Legislature with the question of post-elementary education. You find, for instance, that children are allowed to remain in elementary schools up to the age of 16. You find that local education authorities are compelled, under the Act, to provide courses of training for the older pupils in elementary schools, including those over 14. You will find also that we have central schools, we have junior technical schools, we have a provision for compulsory continuation schools, we have our evening institutes—we have a great machinery of education quite apart from the secondary schools, more than 1,100 in number, for carrying education above and beyond the elementary stage. I say to the House, that we must be very careful not to prejudice the development of that system.
  I have been informed that an hon. Member in this House has, during my temporary absence from my place, stated that I ran away from my own Act. What happened? I introduced an Act of Parliament for the development of education, but, unfortunately, after I introduced it, several circumstances occurred which were very prejudicial to its full and immediate development. There was, in the first place, what I do not in the least regret—a great rise in teachers' salaries. The whole of the estimated cost of the continuation schools in my Bill was £10,000,000, but two years later the bill for the salaries of elementary school teachers alone went up by £21,000,000, or twice the cost of the complete system of post-elementary education provided for in the Act. That was one adverse fact. Another

  2099
  adverse fact was, as everyone knows, the great slump in trade. A third was the industrial disturbances, which involved a loss of 147 million working days in three years. All those circumstances made it very difficult for local education authorities to go forward and their co-operation is essential. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education will find that he is not master of all he surveys. He has made a number of, if I may say so, admirable speeches on education. I entirely agree with his educational ideas. But he will find that it is one thing to preach those ideas, and another thing to induce 317 local education authorities to put them into practice. I have thus very serious anxiety as to the effect which this provision will have, first, upon the minds of the parents and, secondly, upon the minds of local education authorities. The local education authorities will say, "Why should we develop secondary schools? Why should we develop continuation schools? You are asking us to put our hands into our pockets to develop these centres for unemployed juveniles between the ages of 14 and 16, and that will suffice." It will be the line of lease resistance for them, and I think that future Presidents of the Board of Education will find it increasingly difficult to get the 317 local authorities, some of them zealous, some of them languid, some of them positively obscurantist, to work with them to develop the system.
  I should like to express some doubt as to the value of these training centres. I quite appreciate the importance of getting boys and girls off the streets. I concur in every word which the Minister of Labour said on that subject, but we have had some experience of the working of these unemployment centres. We have had them in operation for juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18. Admittedly, the education furnished in these centres is given under most difficult and almost heartbreaking conditions. The boys and girls go in and out. They are there for a week and then they are away again. The teacher gets no continuous hold upon them. I agree with my right hon. Friend when he says that an occasional word may do good; that five minutes' direction from a wise man or a wise woman may help a boy or girl in their career, but, on the whole,
  2100
  it is, admittedly, a very inferior form of education.
  Again, these centres only reach a very small proportion of the boys and girls whom you desire to influence. First of all, you have to realise that a great many local authorities do not establish these centres, and will not establish them. You will get them established in some big towns but not in the small towns, and not in the rural districts. When they are established, you will find that only a small proportion of those who ought to go to the centres do, in fact, attend. I have had the figures supplied to me in connection with one of the best local education authorities in the country. The figures respecting this authority, where centres have been organised for five years for juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18 show that, in spite of the energy and zeal of the authority, and in spite of the fact that the classes have been going on for five years, only 30 per cent. of the unemployed or partially employed juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18 have been caught by the net. At the present time in London there are only 1,300 boys and girls, between the ages of 16 and 18, at the training centres, a very small number compared with the total number of unemployed juveniles in the area.
  I think the House will have appreciated the drift of my argument. I say that we are likely to imperil the development of a really fine post-elementary system of education if we bring boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 under insurance and into these unemployment centres. That is what I fear. The Minister of Labour may very well say to me, "I appreciate your difficulty, but we are up against the actual problem. We are up against the problem that the schools are not ready and that the boys and girls are already in the streets, and that something must be done for them. What do you propose?" I will tell him. First of all, I would suggest that a fresh effort should be made to get hold of the voluntary organisations in the country which deal with adolescents, and stimulate them to fresh effort. They are very numerous and varied. I agree that they would only cover a small part of the field, but we might get more work out of them and we might correlate their efforts more successfully.

  2101
  I agree with the teachers in thinking that you might get more valuable results by spending all the money you have to spend upon making allowances to enable poor boys and poor girls to remain on at good schools, or to go to secondary schools. That, I think, is a valuable suggestion. I, further, suggest to the President of the Board of Education, not only that he should press on, as I know he is anxious to do, with his central schools and his junior technical schools, but also that he should ask local education authorities to provide schemes for the development of continuation education two or three years hence. He is now spending on education £3,000,000 less than I spent in my last year. I believe that in three years' time we should be ready to have continuation education for boys between 14 and 16, under the provisions of the Act of 1921, at any rate in our great industrial towns.
  By all means, start centres for the training of boys between 14 and 16, but do not link up these centres with a change in your law which is likely to affect the mentality of the parents, which is likely to render it more difficult to develop post-elementary education, and which is likely to relax the efforts of local education authorities, upon whose co-operation the Board of Education must, in the last resort, depend for the development of educational institutions in this country.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): If no one else than my right hon. Friend had expressed the anxieties of those who are enthusiastic for education, I should have felt it my duty to reply to him. I am not, like sonic of my hon. Friends, mainly critical of my right hon. Friend's period of office because he did not carry out to the full the great Act which he passed, but I am chiefly grateful to him that I am able to do what I am able to do to-day because of the great legislative work which he did when he was in office. Any appeal which he makes must have its effect upon me. I should like to say, also, that when my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove), in what I believe was a maiden speech, put very forcibly the view which has been expressed by the National Union of Teachers, I naturally feel inclined to listen.
  Appeals are made to me in this House, and also outside, and I am told that the
  2102
  whole advance in education which I want to see is liable to be stopped, and that the whole fabric of my reforms is tottering. I should be the first person to fear what is now being done, and to deprecate what is being done, if for a moment I thought that it was going seriously to retard the raising of the school age; if I thought that it was seriously going to discourage parents from continuing their children at schools, as they are doing in larger numbers every year, although the school age has not been compulsorily raised, and if I thought that it was going to prevent local authorities going on in many directions of educational achievement. But, somehow or other, I am not rattled; I do not know whether it is that I am too innocent, but I hope it is because I am a better judge of what is really going on in the minds of the people of the country and in the minds of the local education authorities.
  Let me say what this proposal really means. No one pretends, least of all my right hon. Friend who brought in the Bill, that the best thing that can happen to children of 14 or 15 is that they should be employed in industry. What we say is that if they are in industry, and if their education has necessarily come to an end, it is better that they should be insured, and it is also better if that insurance can be used, directly and indirectly, to provide them with even a small modicum of education. I do not want to exaggerate the education which is to be provided, and I would ask my hon. Friends above and below the Gangway not to exaggerate the uselessness of it. We cannot yet judge of the possibilities of these centres for unemployed children. They have never had a chance. They have never been properly developed. They were among the first things cut by the Geddes axe. If developed under local authorities, and if we can devise some means of getting better teachers than have hitherto been available, there is no reason why they should not become more or less useful. I am not going to put it higher than that.
  It is far better that the children who are unemployed should be in these centres than on the streets. There is no hon. Member in any quarter of the House who will dispute that proposition. We are not satisfied with the form of education, but we say it is better that the children should be there than in the streets where they

  2103
  are now. The real question is, are you going to refuse a boon when you cannot get something which is very much better? It has been suggested that this proposal to bring children into insurance is a gesture which by the action of the State in doing so sanctions the idea that children ought to be in industry at the age of 14. It is said to be an obscurantist proposal. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend Mr. Shaw this afternoon dissipated that idea, because he said, that if he took the children they must have done with school. He is going to make it perfectly clear that the children must be beyond the school age, and must have given up their education. He also wants to make it perfectly clear that the proposal is not being made particularly palatable to greedy parents, by ensuring that they shall have eight months or so paying insurance before they can get benefit. It is said that the proposal is going to have a terrible effect in making parents keep their children from school, and a further terrible effect on local authorities. I beg leave to doubt it.
  Let us take parents first. As I see it, parents generally are in two great categories, either the parents who are thinking absolutely, first and foremost, of getting their children into work, or the parents who, first and foremost, have got into their heads the idea that they want their children to have an effective education. I agree there are parents who are on the balance between these two ideas, but the great mass of parents are either on one side or the other. This proposal is only a very small additional inducement, at most, to the greedy or the needy parent. At most, it is a very, very small additional inducement, if that. Supposing the wage offered to children of 14 goes up a little in a district, that is an additional inducement, but you cannot say that leads masses and masses of parents to rush to send their children into industry, when they were not going into it before. The most you can extract from this, whatever way you look at it, is that it is a slight additional inducement to go into industry, and my right hon. Friend, I think, could make out a case that it is not an inducement to go into industry, because the immediate wage is going to be reduced by the amount of the premium that has to be paid. So that, really, as far as the individual parents
  2104
  are concerned, I do not believe this is going to have the very least effect in inducing them to get their children into industry. I honestly do not believe any large number of people will be induced to do it by these proposals.
  What is really happening in the country? There is not the slightest doubt that there is a great forward movement in education, and it is gathering momentum. Surely it is a remarkable fact that the little I have been able to do has been accepted almost with enthusiasm by every Section of the country. Why is that? That would not have been the case prior to the War. There would have been all sorts of criticism. It is for this very simple reason, that the great mass of people are beginning to realise the advantages of education, and want it for their children, and it is really an exaggeration to say that a small thing like this is going to stop the momentum of that movement. You can see the change in the large numbers of parents who are now-keeping their children after 14 in the schools. You can see the change in the rising demand for raising the school age, and you can see it in the crowded condition of the secondary schools. In almost every part of the country more secondary schools are wanted. Some of my hon. Friends say, "Yes, but what we want you to do is to remove the children out of the labour market—to raise the school age at once to 15." Nobody would be more delighted to do it than I should myself, but this is not going to do that. The truth is that, however much we as educationists and politicians may be anxious to raise the school age to 15, public opinion has not yet sufficiently made up its mind to do it.
  There is a very easy test. I have made it clear that any local authority that comes to me and asks to raise the age to 15 will not find obstacles in the Board of Education any longer. They may come and make what proposals they please with regard to maintenance, or anything else, and, again, they are not going to find obstacles, if they can show that they can effectually educate the children; if they can show that they have room for them, and if they can show that they intend to keep them till they are 15. If it should appear throughout the country, as I know personally it is quite likely to appear within a year or so, that

  2105
  a large number of local authorities are ready to raise the age to 15, and do so, then I think you will get a move on which will enable you to go on with the larger proposal of raising the whole compulsory age to 15. But my hon. Friends must realise that I am compelled not to deal with this thing even in the spirit of theory, as the right hon. Member for the English Universities spoke just now. I am up against facts, and the facts I find are that public opinion is not yet ready for 15, although it is moving in that direction, and I am bound to say I think it is an enormous exaggeration of the effect of this proposal to say that any large number of local authorities are going to be averse to raising the age to 15, just because of this power on the part of my right hon. Friend of bringing the children into the Insurance Act.
  Then, I could not follow or agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities when he was speaking on secondary education, and was saying that this might be a very serious obstacle to the development of secondary education. It is quite true, as he said, that during his period of office the opportunities for the use of secondary education about doubled. We wiped out a reproach, but we have not nearly reached the point that is required by the existing demand. I think he will know as well as I do how in the years succeeding the War there were thousands and thousands of children who wanted to get into secondary schools, but there were no places to be found for them, and I have not the slightest doubt, from everything I see and hear, that if only the parents of this kind of children to-day knew there was the least chance of getting secondary education, they would be only too delighted to send their children to those schools. The demand is all there. I think my right hon. Friend exaggerated when he said that the prospect of insurance to the children in secondary schools would lead them to leave early. I do not think it would have that effect at all. I am bound to say I do not think that families who are seeking after education so keenly as to take the inadequate opportunities there now are for secondary education, are going to withdraw their children because of the very small additional industrial benefit which at its best can be argued to exist owing to this development.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to free secondary education?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I am referring to all. Free secondary education is beginning to be the most important, but I think it applies to all—to free and fee-paying education alike. I think those parents and those people who want children thoroughly well educated, are not going to be affected by a small thing like this. I agree that this question is not one which can be finally decided, because it is, I admit, to a great extent a judgment of what our people are thinking. But the thing by which I am more deeply impressed every day is the keenness of our people in education. When my right hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities says that he knows the local education authorities, I have no doubt there are many of them that are going very slow in advancing, and will easily find poor enough excuses for checking any educational advance. But they will find those excuses in any case, and I am convinced there is such a movement in this country that the encouragement which this Government intend to give to educational advance of all sorts is going easily, by this momentum, to carry us on to a new period of advanced education, and that this proposal is going to act as no moral or effective check on that progress.
  The CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.
  Whereupon Mr. ROBERT YOUNG (Chairman of Ways and Means). took the Chair, as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: I regret that I was unable to be in attendance when the Minister of Labour introduced this question. I was serving in another part of the House, and therefore could not be here, but I want to say something on the Clause which has closely affected me, and closely affected many of my constituents, during the past 18 months or two years, and I wish particularly to draw the attention of the Minister who is in charge of this Bill to the disabilities that are set up through Section 8 of the Act of 1920. The problem which there presents itself is how to preserve the benefits to the insured person while at

  2107
  the same time preventing the perpetuation of a trade dispute. I am not sure, on looking over Sub-section (1) of Clause 4, that we are entirely overcoming the difficulty that presents itself in Section 8 of the Act of 1920. I judge that it may set up some new difficulty, that it may be difficult to overcome. At a first glance at this Sub-section, I thought it set up a new set of difficulties, but I am informed that it is supposed simply to deal with the disqualifications under Section 8. I should like to ask one of two questions, and the first one is in regard to the effect of this new Clause in removing the disabilities which the workers have been subjected to for a long time. I welcome the removal of those disabilities heartily. I have been brought again and again up against anomalies which it was very difficult to overcome, and which, I believe, this new Clause 4 will to a certain extent remove. At the same time, I do not think the Clause goes quite far enough. I have had expressions of opinion from the workers themselves on the point, where men in a trade dispute are members of a trade union, although they may not be in the same workshop as that in which the dispute takes place, but where they have the possibility of voting to perpetuate a trade dispute, that they should not receive unployed benefit whether they were in that dispute in that particular workshop or not. I want to draw attention to the latter part of the Clause which, I think will affect people who are members of a trade union, but who may not have been in the dispute. They may have been out of work before the dispute began. I should like to know how Clause 4 operates in regard to members of trade unions in that position. During quite a number of disputes during the last year or 18 months, we have the peculiar position that there have been many men out of work who have not been participating in the dispute, but from the fact that they were out of work before the dispute began they were qualified for unemployment benefit. Thus, it is found that while men, members of a trade union, who were participating in the dispute, were receiving unemployed benefit, at the same time members, who were not participating in the dispute, but happened to be working in the same yard or workshop where the
  2108
  dispute existed, were excluded from unemployed benefit. How will Clause 4 apply to people of that description? The latter part of the Clause reads:
  "and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers members of which are participating in the dispute."
  The implication is, that if he is a member of a grade or class of workers, he will be excluded from unemployment benefit. It is a very important, point, and one about which there would be divergence of opinion.
  This Clause 4 possibly does not go quite far enough in that it maintains the possibility of a long dispute I realise the difficulty, and I know that considerable time—a couple of years in Committee—has been spent in trying to find adequate words to express that. I hope suitable words may be found when it reaches Committee. Another question arising out of this Clause, is that while it seeks to remove the disqualification in the first part of Section 8 of the 1920 Act, it has no reference to the latter part of that Section, and I will draw the attention of the Minister in charge to the latter part of Section 8 (1) where it says:
  "Except in a case where he has during the stoppage of work become bona fide employed elsewhere in the occupation which he usually follows, or has become regularly engaged in the other occupation."
  Do the Government intend to make any further interpretation of these words "regularly engaged"? I am acquainted with varied experiences of men who have been working in a prolonged dispute, and there have been cases of skilled men who have endeavoured to find work elsewhere where difficulty has arisen in the interpretation of the words "regularly engaged." I have endeavoured to get an interpretation in many quarters, and I believe the last time I spoke on this question here, I gave instances of men who had left the skilled employment, and had been employed elsewhere on unskilled work for a considerable period. One case I have in mind was where the period extended over some 16 weeks. The man did not find work on a like employment, and had taken unskilled work. Although he had been on that for a considerable time, when he fell out of employment he was disqualified for unemployment benefit. That anomaly, with all due regard to the effort the Government has made in this respect,

  2109
  should be looked into carefully, and some definition should be given as to the time that should expire to warrant the words "regularly engaged." I suppose every part of the House will be interested in this. It is a great tragedy both to the man and to the country in general that skilled men should have to take the position of unskilled labourers. The effect of the latter part of this Clause is that where a man in a dispute seeks work elsewhere, possibly not in his own trade, but takes on as an unskilled labourer, the definition of the latter part of this Clause is that "regularly engaged" means that he must be continuously employed at that trade. Take the case of a glass worker, a skilled man. He leaves that work and gets employment in an unskilled trade. Before he can qualify for unemployment benefit, he has to be regarded as an unskilled labourer. Out of regard for these men, some attention should be paid to those words "regularly engaged." Doubtless the Bill will undergo some transformation in Committee.
  In regard to Clause 3 (1) (a, iv), some, attention will have to be given to the term "genuinely" in relation to the words "seeking work but unable to obtain suitable employment." Those who have had any experience of that word "genuinely" will appreciate what its interpretation means. I view with some trepidation and concern the insertion of that word, and think some other term should be substituted for it. It is right I should tell the House what I have been up against in connection, more particularly, with younger people and with those who are engaged in service. I know there is considerable difference of opinion as to the desirability of certain people being insured; but the Act is there, and this is the difficulty I find. In many cases where these people, young women particularly, fall out of employment, they are generally offered employment out of their own town, sometimes at considerable distances, say 50, 60 or 100 miles. It is impossible, in many cases, through family circumstances to accept employment at such distances, but, because of their refusal to accept, they are denied unemployment benefit. I do not know what qualification can be made, and I do not want to suggest the committees should not have the discretion to act in this way, but where there is unemployment, say,
  2110
  in an industrial area such as my own, if you like, in the cotton districts of Bradford and elsewhere, where there must be a considerable chance of numbers of girls being out of work, it is not quite the thing, from the family or any other standpoint, that girls should be sent out of their own district to distant districts to find work. These things have cropped up in the actual working of unemployment insurance, and now we are trying to improve matters, I think we should do our best in Committee to settle these difficulties, and protect, not only the worker, but also protect the nation, from the possibility of any prolonged labour dispute. I should like to say, however, that I welcome the general principles of the Measure.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Minister in charge of the Bill must be congratulated on the general measure of support and approval with which the Measure has been received by the House. Criticism has been made that it would have been well to have waited until it was possible to bring in a more complete Measure, which would co-ordinate the various sources which provide public assistance. This Measure, in itself, goes a long way to assist in that very co-ordination, in so far as it raises to a more reasonable level the grants made for unemployment benefit. We have had in very recent years duplication of services, men drawing unemployed benefit, and that benefit, because of its meagreness, having to be supplemented by the guardians. It is to be hoped that owing to the large sums which are permitted under the unemployment insurance schemes, the necessity for that duplication of effort will be considerably reduced.
  The Minister referred to what he is doing in this Measure in reply to those claims that have been put up to him from certain industrial areas for assistance towards meeting the abnormal unemployment which they have had to bear. It will be of considerable assistance to such areas; and the fact that he has used this extra assistance as an answer to the claims of these areas, carries with it, I submit, an implication that the Government, and he himself, admit these claims for special assistance, and I put it to his representative on the Treasury Bench that, having admitted the justice of this claim so far as the future is concerned,

  2111
  there is still something due with regard to the past. If the claim is just it is not sufficient to meet it so far as the future is concerned, but the huge amount of debt which has been piled up in many of the large industrial areas of the country, owing to the abnormal amount of unemployment, also calls for some assistance from the Government. I hope that they will realise this and will not close their eyes to doing something to solve the problem which has arisen owing to the existence of this debt.
  I may repeat one or two illustrations of the inequality of this burden of unemployment which has to be relieved by the guardians in cases in which the assistance under the Unemployment Insurance Acts has not been adequate. Blackpool had a poor rate for last year of 5d., and West Ham has a poor rate of 9s. 5d. Other towns have a poor rate of from 8d. to 1s., while at the other end of the scale you have as high as 10s. Where you have these abnormal differences in a public charge on account of the same public service there is a very strong case for some recasting of the inequality of the burden, and I do appeal to the Government to do something to relieve this burden which is crippling these industrial areas and preventing their recovery.
  Reference has been made to the question of the qualification and the waiting period. Under previous Acts the waiting period was reduced to three days, and that worked effectively as far as administration is concerned. It was only owing to the stress of finance that the waiting period was increased to six days. I submit that the time has come now when the waiting period should be reduced to three days once more. I put that claim forward on the ground that the six days' period throws an unnecessary hardship on the local authorities as well as on the individuals concerned. We are told that the cost will be several millions. Whatever the cost it has to be met by someone, either by the individual worker or by the ratepayer in the industrial area where unemployment is bad. As this is a national charge, as is admitted in the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the matter should be dealt with on broad lines, and the waiting period should not be more than is necessary in order to carry out effective administration.
  2112
  Therefore, I hope that when we get to the Committee stage it may be possible to reduce the waiting period from six to three days.
  I also welcome on the broad grounds of justice the abolition of the gap. I never could understand the gap which has been such an obsession on the part of previous Ministers of Labour. The suggestion that it was necessary as a test was a farce, and I am glad that the present Minister of Labour has seen his way to abolish it and realises that when a man is willing to work, and work is not forthcoming, adequate maintenance should be provided for out of this Fund. My hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) and myself have heard with special pleasure the concession made with regard to the trades disputes disqualification. A year or two ago the then Minister of Labour the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) promised to appoint a special Committee with representatives of employers and employed to go into this question, to see whether a formula could be found in order to remove those injustices which were hitting so hardly the innocent victims of trade disputes. In discussion on the original Act and every successive Act my hon. Friend has pleaded for this, and as an employer of labour he is better qualified to speak on it than I am. Therefore, it is with particular satisfaction that we have heard to-day that a Minister has been found to take his courage in his hands and abolish this provision, which has inflicted such hardships on innocent victims throughout the country. Satisfaction has been expressed from the opposite benches also that this tardy act of justice has at last been done.
  One hesitates to intervene with reference to the doughty duel which took place between the present and the late Minister of Education. But the Minister of Education, whose zeal for education is gladly admitted by all, whose work one rejoices to see carried on so effectively, suggested that they were only dealing with the children who were actually in industry, and that that removed the objection which some educationists had to giving unemployment benefit to them. The whole point is that the very fact of the existence of this benefit will tend to drive into industry those who otherwise would not

  2113
  go in at such an early age, and I submit, notwithstanding what the Minister of Education has said, that the wise course would be to give maintenance grants to all children who need them, who stay at school from the age of 14 to 16. No doubt the cost would be more, but the educational service would be infinitely greater. If that is not possible, I would suggest that in the payment of benefits to dependants there might be a graded scale, giving an increased sum in the case of the children of those who are unemployed who were over 14 provided that they were kept at school. I would suggest that there might be a grant of 5s. a week to the man out of work for every child over 14 who is kept continuously at school. In that way you would relieve the home from the hardship which comes from unemployment and relieve the extra burden which is thrown upon it, because in the interests of education the man refuses to sacrifice the well being of the child. I submit that to increase the benefit to those who are over 14 as dependants of those who are out of work is a sounder proposition from an educational as well as from an unemployment point of view.
  I would suggest, in conclusion, that, while in this Bill it is impossible to deal with all the questions that arise on unemployment and the co-ordination of the various public services, provision might be made for carrying out some of the recommendations of that Committee which was appointed by the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell in 1920 for dealing with Employment Exchanges. It was my privilege, with others, to serve on that Committee, and one of the recommendations that we made was that the local employment committee should be given greater status and should be charged with the general oversight of employment conditions in a district. At present it is no one's business to have regard to these matters. You have your distress committee the boards of guardians, and the unemployment committee of the local authority, all dealing piecemeal fashion with unemployment when the difficulty arises. The suggestion of the Departmental Committee was that you should have in each district a local employment committee charged with the general oversight of the conditions of labour and trade—not that it can control to any large extent, but
  2114
  seized with the responsibility of watching the ebb and flow of trade, and, so far as possible, regulating the placing of local contracts by the municipality and the placing of national contracts for public work, so that this work was distributed over the periods when employment in the ordinary sense was likely to be less. It would touch only the fringe of the question, but it would do something to mitigate the hardships of unemployment. I hope that the Government may exercise a larger vision and make provision for a local body of that character.
  Along with my colleagues I welcome this Bill as a step forward, and the more so because there is nothing in it which will prevent the co-ordination of a more complete scheme of insurance; there is nothing which runs contrary to that larger scheme which we all hope to see, and which can be provided for out of the funds which now exist when unemployment becomes more normal, providing more adequate grants for dependants, particularly widows and orphans, and also providing at 65 years of age for deferred pay or disability pension, so that the worker need not hang on till he reaches the age of 70 in order to draw an old age pension. All these schemes can be dovetailed in. The time is not long distant when a comprehensive all-in insurance policy will be formulated in this House—a scheme which will provide adequate security for the worker not only against unemployment, but against ill-health and old age and all the evils which fall to the worker in the industrial world of to-day.
  Mr. BARKER: I want to say with much deference that I differ most profoundly from the views which have been expressed by the right hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher). The fact that the Government propose to give 5s. a week to every unemployed boy between the ages of 14 and 16 will not keep a single boy from school. What is the wage value of a boy at that age? It is somewhere between 15s. and £1 a week. If a parent will not keep a boy from school when he could earn 15s. or £1 a week, it is evident that that boy will not be kept from school for the paltry sum of 5s. per week. There is another point with reference to these lads. Up to the age of 14 years they can get 2s. per week maintenance under the

  2115
  Bill. What is to become of the boys after they are 14 years of age when the 2s. a week has been stopped? Surely it is a great anomaly to stop the payment to the boys when they have become increasingly expensive to keep. If the right hon. Member for the English Universities had been really desirous of keeping these boys at school and improving their education, he would have suggested that they should have had 5s. per week while they remained at school.
  I want to congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill. It mitigates to some slight degree the miseries of the unemployed, but it does not go far enough in that direction. Our policy as a Labour party is either work or maintenance, and we cannot say that 18s. a week is a maintenance rate at the present time. Even this small concession to the unemployed is meeting with considerable opposition, especially from the other side of the House. I notice that the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) wants to fence the proposal about with barbed wire and other safeguards, so as to make sure that there will be no imposition to get the 18s. a week. Of course, I know that any effort made to relieve the worker from the bondage of capitalism always meets with the strenuous opposition of Members on the other side. This Bill will be in the danger zone when it reaches the Committee stage. The Committee room is becoming the lethal chamber for Bills. Every speaker who has addressed the House has given a very qualified blessing to the Bill and has promised that it will have very careful attention in Committee. It would be more straightforward to object to the principles of the Bill in the House, when hon. Members would speak with the full light of publicity on what they said. I am certain that if there is any interference with the Clause which gives 5s. per week to the unemployed boy, the Clause will receive the unqualified support of the great masses of the industrial people of the country. I hope that the Government will make no concession on that Clause.
  My object in rising was to call attention particularly to the position of those who are only partially employed. Unless a partially employed man is idle three days in one week he is not qualified for benefit; he may work four days a week and he may
  2116
  be idle 33 per cent. of his time, and yet he would not get one penny benefit from this Bill. That, in my opinion, is a very serious blot upon the Bill. Although these workers are only partially employed, and are receiving a very low rate of wages, they have to pay the very high contribution of 10d. per week out of their scanty earnings, and a man who is partially employed may lose 100 days work in the year, and yet he would not be qualified for benefit under this Bill. I urge the Minister of Labour to make some concessions in this matter. We demand that these men, when they have been idle for six days, should qualify for full benefit under the Bill. To say that because a man is partially employed he is to get no benefit whatever is indefensible. I sincerely hope this point will have the serious attention of the Government, because it is a very sore point. There are as many men partially employed as there are unemployed, if not more, and some of these partially employed men, owing to reduced employment, are actually getting no more income than men who are totally unemployed. This is a serious injustice which I hope will receive the sympathetic attention of the Government. I welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction, but it is only a step and it will give great dissatisfaction to a large number who have been expecting cither maintenance or employment. I am sorry there is nothing in the Bill which deals with finding employment, and if I have any sympathy at all with criticism which has come from the other side, it is in the fact that nothing tangible is being done up to the present to provide employment. With all its defects, the Measure is worthy of the support of the House, and I hope the Government will stand fast by its provisions in Committee.
  Mr. A. A. SOMERVILLE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) seemed to disagree with the President of the Board of Education in his belief that this Measure will not be an obstacle in the cause of education. I am not disposed to agree with his view. It is hard to believe that, if the State provides a system of unemployment benefit for boys and girls from the age of 14 onwards, it

  2117
  will not come to be regarded in the country as a sign that the State accepts 14 as the natural ago at which boys and girls should leave school. Personally, if the finances of the country permitted, I should greatly wish that boys and girls should remain at school until the ago of 15 and, if it could be effected, that would be a large contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem so far as it concerns boys and girls of 15 years. As the President of the Board of Education has said, however, you cannot carry a Measure of that kind until the sense of the country is with you, and until the parents themselves really wish for it. We know perfectly well that at the present time such is not the case. The speech of the President of the Board of Education was particularly interesting, because he seemed to be vehemently trying to persuade himself that the results which he was afraid might follow would not follow from this Bill. I am afraid they will. If one could have a clean sheet, one would try to keep these children at school at least to the age of 15 by extending very largely the principle of the central schools. The opinion is largely held throughout the country that the instruction given at our schools to children between the ages of 11 and 14 is not of real value, and the reason why central schools in London have been so successful is that they have been largely vocational in character, and people have come to believe in them. If that system could be extended throughout the country, we should have a real improvement in our system of education, and I cannot help thinking that there is a great deal of point in the remark of the hon. Member who has just spoken, that it would be very much better to employ the 5s. per week unemployment benefit as a maintenance grant to keep these children at school.
  Like other unemployment Measures, this Bill does nothing towards solving the unemployment problem. It does not provide a single piece of work for any boy or girl, man or woman. What we want is something constructive, and not merely a Bill which spends money. What are we to do with the thousands of boys and girls who are leaving school every year without any prospect of employment? The Bill does nothing for them. There is one thing
  2118
  which can be done. We had yesterday a most interesting Report from the Overseas Delegation on Empire Migration, of which the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) was a distinguished member. Some of the members of that delegation went out in a very sceptical spirit, but the Report is most favourable to the principle of Empire migration. At the beginning of last year, I remember listening to hon. Members who now sit opposite pouring scorn on that principle, and asking what was to become of the young people who were severed from home and left without the restraints and the religious instruction which would apply to them at home. Now we are glad to see the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean returning from Australia, after inspecting the results of migration to that great Dominion and to New Zealand, with a favourable Report.
  Mr. MARCH: He only saw the bright side.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: He was there, and I think he saw every side.
  Mr. WIGNALL: The hon. Member has not read the whole of the Report.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: I am only referring to the part of it which deals with this question. As a matter of fact, the Salvation Army, the Church Army and Dr. Barnardo's Homes are doing most excellent work in sending children to the Dominions where they are looked after. One would like to see a large settlement on the group system, or a settlement of communities in the Dominions. The result would be not an immediate solution, or even a part solution of the unemployment problem, but a large contribution to its future solution. Every citizen of the Empire who goes from this country to settle in the Dominions is a centre of trade and a means of encouraging employment in this country. I had not intended to speak, but I was moved to do so by the remarks of the hon. Members who have dealt with the question of education, and I feel that a State scheme, the result of which will be to take boys and girls from school at the age of 14 is a retrograde step. I am sorry that it has been proposed, and very much surprised that it has been proposed by a Labour Government, because I feel that, much as we disagree in many respects, the Labour party has the cause of real

  2119
  education at heart, and we can join hands on that, at any rate.
  Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I would not have sought an opportunity of entering into this Debate to-night except for the fact that during the whole course of these Unemployment Insurance Bills, ever since 1911, I have taken part in each and every effort that has been made to get rid of the trades disputes disqualification. I look round the House, and I see very few Members who in 1911 joined with me in that attempt that we made to get rid of this disqualification in the original Bill. We got a very bad beating on that occasion, but we have persisted, and now I believe that at last we are going to get rid of what is undoubtedly an injustice, and one which has created more friction than any other disqualifying Section in that great Act. The worker who is refused benefit, having paid his contribution, because he is in a factory where a dispute has arisen feels aggrieved; and I speak from the other point of view. I happen to be an employer of labour, but I have always taken up the attitude that when I am compelled to pay for the insurance of my workpeople, there is an obligation on me to see that they get the benefit of that insurance, whether it be workmen's compensation or insurance against unemployment.
  I think the difficulties of removing this disqualification must have been overrated. I remember that in 1914, just before the War, we extracted from the Board of Trade the extent of this problem, and it is really a very small matter. Some 96 per cent. of unemployment was due to trade causes, and only 4 per cent. of the total unemployment under the original Act was due to trades disputes, and the amount that would be affected by this present proposal is only a fraction of 4 per cent. of the total unemployment. I should like to know from the Minister of Labour—and I am very glad to see him here—what machinery he is going to set up to deal with this matter, because I think the success of this Clause depends upon the machinery which he sets up. To begin with, it must be swift acting. There must be no delay, when a man is thrown out of employment, in having his case settled by the authority which is dealing with it, and you must have a central authority to decide these questions as to
  2120
  whether or not a man is entitled to benefit. Otherwise, if you have a local authority, you will have conflicting decisions given all over the country, which will create more friction than we hope to get rid of by the removal of this disqualifying Section.
  I welcome this Bill whole-heartedly, and I believe it is a great improvement on any other Unemployment Bill which we have had. It is an extension of the Measures which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) brought in during the long term when he was responsible for the Ministry of Labour, and, whatever may be said of those Measures, however inadequate they may have been, the fact remains that after he had succeeded in getting each one through the House, it was the best provision that had ever been made for the unemployed of this country up till that time, and I think he is entitled to very great credit for the efforts, which he made. He certainly resisted many of our Amendments, but we did not expect him to be able to accept some of them. Now the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has gone one step further, and brought in a better Measure, and I hope it is not the last improvement that we shall see. I welcome very much the provision which has made the benefit period continuous over the whole year. I believe it is the duty of the State to see that a man who is thrown out of employment, and who cannot get employment, is properly provided for until he can.
  I must take exception to one statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He seemed to indicate—I may be wrong—that a trade that was being asked to come within the scope of the Bill had a right to look at the position of the funds of the scheme, and say: "No, in our opinion, the scheme is not sound. The funds are not in a satisfactory condition, and, therefore, we have a right to keep outside the scheme." He said he could not ask agriculture to come within the scheme while there was a large deficit, but I submit to him that no industry in this country has a right to divorce itself from the national life of the country, that it is a part of the national life, and that if it be required to come within the scheme, and to help in the maintenance of the great industrial insurance scheme

  2121
  that we have before us now, the Government has a right to require it to come in and shoulder its fair proportion of the national burden.
  I have only one other remark to make, and I do not want to be in any way offensive, but this Bill is not a complete satisfaction of the promise which was given by the Labour party at the last Election. I was met with it in my constituency over and over again, that the Labour party had the real remedy for unemployment. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have!"] Then why do you not produce it? Is this it?
  Mr. J. JONES: Why do you vote for the Tories? Give us a majority.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: You will have a majority on this Bill, because it is a good Bill. If you will produce your scheme, and it is a scheme which will get rid of our unemployment problem, we will support you.
  Mr. SHAW: On Thursday the Vote for the salary of the Minister of Labour will be taken, when the whole question of unemployment will be discussed.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: During the Election I saw a big notice in my constituency, which said: "The Government"—that is, the late Government—"have muddled the problem of unemployment. Don't let them try again. Give Labour a chance." Is this it? Surely this is not the answer. There must be a further proposal of the Government, and I am waiting for that proposal, because I believe that this unemployment question is the one question which is vitally interfering with the prosperity of our working people and of the people of this country, and any scheme which will tend to supply work and get rid of that horrible fear of unemployment will certainly have my earnest support.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The concluding remarks of the previous speaker have been in the main the criticism directed both by hon. Members below the Gangway and hon. Members on the opposite benches to this Bill, and to all the schemes brought forward by the Minister of Labour. I should like to make that perfectly clear to the House, to hon. Members who are in the House, and to hon. Members who have left the House but have sufficient interest in the Debate to read other than their own speeches. The hon. Member on the opposite
  2122
  side twitted us, like the hon. Member below the Gangway, with having a sovereign cure for unemployment and of being unable to produce it, or with not having produced it. The hon. Member claimed, as I understood him, that his particular party has a remedy for unemployment.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: No!
  Mr. MACLEAN: That is to say, that his party has a sovereign remedy, but immediately he made that statement he spoke about emigration. If hon. Members can provide work, if they have a sovereign scheme to get work and to put it into operation into this country, why do they come forward and advocate emigration and the getting of the workless people out of the country? That is not providing them with work.
  Mr. HANNON: Nobody said that.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member is a member of a party whose members went around the country advocating, various schemes as a cure for unemployment.
  Mr. HANNON: I never said any particular scheme would solve it.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member urged that Protection was one way of curing unemployment.
  Mr. HANNON: I agree!
  Mr. MACLEAN: Yes, but there are unemployed in America. Hon. Members opposite do not understand their own particular remedy. The hon. Gentleman made the suggestion that emigration was going to cure it. If you push people out of this country, and having got rid of them, endeavour to find employment for all who are left, you have not solved the unemployment problem, for you have sent them overseas to America, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and made it necessary for the Governments there to find work for them. The hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway also charges us with not bringing forward a scheme, when we say we have a sovereign remedy, and he asks why we do not bring it forward! Can 192 Members of this House carry a proposal that is obnoxious to the remaining Members?
  Colonel WILLIAMS: But have you got a policy?
  Mr. MACLEAN: If, as the hon. Member says, we do not bring our policy

  2123
  forward then he does not know what we have Hon. Members say, after what we have said, why do we not produce our policy? I am submitting that 192 Members of the House out of 615 cannot carry a Measure which is obnoxious. That was proved on Friday, when Members below the Gangway joined with Members on the opposite side of the House to vote down and defeat the Labour party in bringing forward a Measure that would help to solve unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! oh!"] Undoubtedly; but a cure for unemployment is not to be found in Free Trade, nor Protection, nor in an Unemployment Insurance Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Socialism?"] It may be, but I can remember when the right hon. Gentlemen the joint Leaders of the Party below the Gangway were sparring at each other across the Floor of the House until they had their honeymoon at Paisley.
  9.0 P.M.
  May I now state what my objection is to the present Bill brought in by the Minister of Labour? I join in the criticism that has been given to that part of the Bill relating to the bringing into industry of children between the ages of 14 and 16. I object to the idea that is brought out in this Bill that children of that age should be enrolled amongst the industrial classes of our country. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are."] That is no reason why they should continue to be. That is the objection I have. While at the present time it is permissible, not compulsory, but purely voluntary, for parents to keep their children—if they can afford to do it and sacrifice it—at school until they are 16 this Bill gives an incentive to certain parents to take their children away at 14. Hon. Members may disagree: then we will have to try and hammer it out and arrive at some agreement in Committee. That then is an objection I have to the Bill.
  I see right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, again, below the Gangway, and they wax indignant at this, but it has been their failure in the past to bring in satisfactory measures of education which would have made it compulsory to continue education up to 16, and that has left the child between 14 and 16 in a position that he can be brought into this Bill. If in days now past, when
  2124
  they had the chance with great majorities, they had taken their courage in their hands, and if they had loved education and had desired to see the children of this country secure the best education that could be given them—which they did not see to—and they ought to have done it—they ought to have made education compulsory up to 16 with a provision that those families placed in a difficult position had some consideration given to them in the shape of a maintenance charge for the children kept at school—then I am convinced there would not have been any particular occasion for this Clause to be introduced. I hope in Committee that the Minister of Labour will see to it that he withdraws it, and allows the Minister of Education to bring forward some satisfactory proposal that will deal in an educational manner under the Board of Education with these young people between the ages of 14 and 16.
  There is another point in the Bill that others of us have been taking exception to in this House, and that is in regard to the strike Clause; this particular Clause which is now brought in to try to obviate hardships upon those who are involved in a dispute and consequently unemployed by reason of the dispute in a particular industry. The Clause that has been brought into this new Bill by the draftsman does not meet the circumstances that we have been criticising for many years in this House. Let the Minister consider what it says:—
  "Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act (which imposes a disqualification for the receipt of benefit during a stoppage of work) shall not apply in any case in which the insured contributor proves that he is not participating in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers members of which are participating in the dispute."
  May I submit to the Minister of Labour, what I am certain he ought to know perfectly well, and does know, that this is not going to give to individuals, who are likely to be refused benefit because of the trade dispute, what is required? Take, for example, the recent dispute of the engineers at Southampton. The workers remained out on strike after instructions from the executive to return to work. The employers all over the country threatened a lock-out, and the lock-out notices were printed and ready to post up in the shipyards over the whole of the

  2125
  country. Even if this Bill had been an Act with the words I have just read contained therein, it would not have prevented those men from being refused unemployment benefit. They would have been ruled out because they were participating in a trade dispute and because they were members of a trade or class which was affected or participating in that particular dispute.
  Where a federation or a trade locked out even one man because in some part of the country a trade dispute is going on, those who are locked out in this way ought to be entitled to their unemployment benefit, and I shall submit an Amendment in Committee to try and secure unemployment benefit for that class of individual. The Bill says that the worker must prove that he is not participating in a trade dispute, but the Ministry of Labour knows perfectly well that what happens during the dispute is that men are discharged who are not connected with the dispute. In these cases a notice is sent to the Employment Exchange by the foreman or the manager stating that, "This man is dismissed because of a trade dispute." But the man concerned has no knowledge of what is on that paper. All he knows is that the Committee in the Employment Exchange has refused him benefit because of that note. I think the proof should be placed upon those who make the statement on the note, and any note sent to an Employment Exchange should be produced before the man and, if it is wrong or libellous, the man should be able to proceed against the foreman or manager.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Does the hon. Member suggest that an employer, whose men are called out by a union because of a dispute in some other part of the country, should be compensated by the State?
  Mr. MACLEAN: My hon. Friend is really mixing up the position. If a man comes out on strike, or he is one of a body of men who go on strike, then by their own voluntary action they are yielding up their title to unemployment benefit; but if they are locked out by an employer because of the action of some other individuals in another part of the country they are also deprived of their benefit. These men pay into the unemployment insurance fund, and they ought not to be deprived
  2126
  of their benefit. The hon. and gallant Member opposite wishes to know if in the case he mentioned the employer should be compensated. This is not a matter of compensating employers or workmen but it is a matter of ensuring unemployment benefit when the men cannot get the necessaries of life through unemployment and not through a strike. The hon. and gallant Member is suggesting that while a workman is not to have this benefit the employers are to be compensated—
  Lieut-Commander BURNEY: I was only suggesting that the employer should be put upon the same basis as the workmen, because he contributes an amount equal to the workmen themselves.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I am ready to back any Amendment to allow an employer to have his 18s. a week unemployment benefit. I am prepared to support equal treatment.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Proportionate to the amount he pays.
  Mr. MACLEAN: They do not get it in proportion to what they pay, but as a reward for what they have paid. There is no question of proportions here, and I fail to see why the hon. and gallant Member should ask that the employers should be put in a privileged position. A man ought to have the opportunity of replying to any statement submitted in writing to any Employment Exchange. There is another point which occurs on page 4 of the Bill, where the Minister of Labour is still keeping in a proviso that a man is to gel benefit if he is genuinely seeking work, but unable to obtain suitable employment. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are a large number of cases that come under this particular provision, and there has been a great amount of dissatisfaction because of the decisions given by committees. Upon every occasion since these words were inserted in the Bill, and when the new Bill has come before the House, I have taken exception to those words, and have tried to get them altered or deleted.
  The Minister of Labour has received cases from me and from practically every hon. Member of this House where men are genuinely seeking employment, and they show by their records before there was such a slump that they were not

  2127
  shirkers, and yet because of Regulations issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department—I know they were issued before he came into office, but he ought to see that they are repealed—Regulations and instructions which hon. Members were not allowed to see by the late Minister of Labour, these men come under committees acting under those instructions to save the money of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and to go into every case thoroughly and work the scheme as economically as they possibly can. Worded as those instructions are, they bear the interpretation that where there is the slightest shadow of a doubt the benefit has to be refused. I suggest to the Minister of Labour that he will be conferring on thousands of hard working men, who are genuinely unemployed and seeking work but cannot find it, something they do not now possess if he agrees to strike out those words and insert words which will catch the shirkers. This provision should not apply to honest men who are thrown out of employment.
  When these words were first inserted and unemployment was growing so rapidly and men were going on uncovenanted benefit and making applications to the employment exchanges, the Committees and Insurances officers asked them to show that they were genuinely seeking employment and they had to get forms signed by various firms or the managers of workshops to which they applied for jobs to show that they were really and genuinely seeking employment. They were producing, as I know in my own constituency, and as other Members know in theirs, thousands of certificates to the Committees to show that week after week, day after day, meal-hour after meal-hour, they were presenting themselves at workshops in the vain endeavour to get employment; and the foremen and many of the managers were doing everything they could to assist these men in getting benefit, and were spending time in signing those certificates. But when they present them at the Exchanges, when they appear before the Unemployment Committees, what are they told? They are told that these certificates are not worth the paper on which the signatures are, and they are ruled out of benefit as not being genuinely seeking employment. It is a tragedy. It is worse—it is a crime
  2128
  upon these men, and it is disgusting that the Labour Government is going to continue this Clause and carry on that bad method.
  It is not merely that these men have heaped upon them the indignity of being called shirkers who are not genuinely seeking employment, but, when they cannot obtain their unemployment benefit, and go to the parish council or board of guardians, what does that body do? It immediately sends to the Employment Exchange at which the man is registered, to ask why he is not in receipt of unemployment benefit, and back comes the word, "This man is not receiving benefit because he is not genuinely seeking employment." Then the parish council or board of guardians says that the man is a shirker to whom they will not pay parish relief. That is being done in scores of cases in Scotland, and I am certain that it applies in England. It is not merely that a man is refused unemployment benefit for which he has been paying while he has been working, but he is refused even the parish relief for which he has been paying rates since he became a householder. I hope the Minister is going into this matter very thoroughly in Committee, in order that this state of matters may be remedied in this Bill.
  I want to state emphatically to the Minister that, while the Bill, as a whole, is a great improvement upon any of the Bills which have preceded it, and while I, for one, welcome very heartily many of the proposals that are contained in it, yet it is not satisfactory to me in all its details, and I am going, as far as I possibly can, by submitting Amendments to the Bill, to try to alter it and make it what I consider an Unemployment Insurance Bill can be made if it is given the good will of Members of this House; and I hope that Members below the Gangway and on the other side who come to this House and tell us that they have all this sympathy for the unemployed, will, if those Amendments of mine meet with their approval, give them their wholehearted support. I say quite candidly that they will be drafted with the object of trying to mitigate some of the evils from which we in this country are suffering because of the misgovernment of Members on the other side and some, at any rate, below the Gangway.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Not all.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I said "some." Having sinned in their youth, they are now getting the opportunity of coming to repentance, and I trust that when the Bill comes back from Committee altered in the manner in which I hope it will be altered, all sections of the House will translate the expressions of sympathy that have been given on the Floor of this House into practical operation by securing the passage of the Bill in that form.
  Mr. HANNON: I am sure the House has listened, as it always does, with great interest to the delightful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), and, when he appeals to us to give practical sympathy to the Amendments which he proposes to put down in Committee, I am quite sure we receive that suggestion with the consideration which it deserves. The hon. Member has always been so considerate to us, and has always entertained such generous opinions, alike of our intellect and our statesmanship, that we must really pay him a little back. I believe that this Bill is premature. I shall vote for the Second Reading, but I venture to suggest to the Minister of Labour that he might have taken the trouble to make a fuller examination of the whole problem of Unemployment Insurance and Poor Law relief before he sprung this Bill upon the House of Commons at so early a stage in his responsibilities as a Minister.
  Mr. SHAW: I thought I had explained in my speech—I cannot have explained it correctly—that I have tried to cut this scheme clean away from Poor Law relief.
  Mr. HANNON: I venture to submit that the Minister in his speech did not make that position sufficiently clear, and one of the reasons why I have intervened in the Debate, at all is to ask him what kind of check he proposes to establish upon the relationship in the future between Poor Law relief and Unemployment Insurance. We have had in the city of Birmingham a prolonged grievance on the question of Poor Law relief. Until the gap was abolished, the board of guardians was burdened with a very considerable responsibility for dealing with men who were out of employment. Under this Bill, unless it is more clearly defined in the text of the Bill by Amendments upstairs, I do not see by what machinery the right hon. Gentleman is to apply
  2130
  those tests which will safeguard the interests of ratepayers and other parties concerned with Unemployment Insurance.
  There is another reason why I say that this Bill is premature. The whole of our unemployment insurance legislation was based upon the maintenance of a fixed relationship between contributions and benefit. In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is departing entirely from that principle. In future, under this Measure, no relationship at all is to subsist between the contributions and the benefit to be received. Indeed, it is quite possible, under this Bill, that uncovenanted benefit may continue during the whole of the 52 weeks in the year. The right hon. Gentleman knows that each succeeding Unemployment Act that we have had has enlarged the period of benefit, and by this Bill the benefit is practically made continuous. That was certainly never contemplated in the original scheme of Unemployment Insurance, nor was it even advocated by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he sat on this side of the House and criticised the Unemployment Insurance Bills which were brought in by preceding Ministers. He himself, I think, never advocated that there should be continuity of benefit for a practically unlimited period of time. It was always felt in this House, in discussing Unemployment Insurance Measures, that the tendency should be to return to normal conditions. But under this Bill the tendency is not to return to normal conditions, but to continue payments under present conditions for a prolonged period of time.
  I am quite certain that under this Bill, which the Minister might have postponed a little longer, he is imposing a very considerable further burden upon the private enterprise of this country, and in framing this Bill he is having no regard to the relationship between the cost-of-living index figure and the benefit which he proposes to pay to unemployed persons under the Bill. Under the preceding Acts, when the cost-of-living index figure stood very high indeed, we were paying a comparatively small unemployment insurance benefit. Now, when the cost-of-living index has fallen to 71, he proposes to pay an increased benefit which, in the case of a family of a man, his wife and three children, will amount to 29s. a week. [An HON. MEMBER:

  2131
  "Shocking!"] I do not say it is shocking, but I say that in the present circumstances, when there is every temptation on the part of a considerable number of people not to work if they can avoid it, a man will not put himself to a tremendous amount of inconvenience in getting work if he continues to receive that benefit. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman is making a mistake in placing the unemployment benefit at that high figure, in view of the cost-of-living figure. The important point to be remembered is that we are dealing with this Bill in this House without that fullness of knowledge of the whole circumstances affecting unemployment insurance in this country that we ought to have before us. The right hon. Gentleman, who has given so much thought to Labour problems, knows that, according to a report, no less than 10 per cent. of those drawing unemployment benefit were also drawing Poor Law relief, and also there was a considerable proportion of people who were receiving Poor Law relief, receiving unemployment benefits. In these circumstances, I feel strongly that before the Minister introduces this fundamental change, he should have made a full investigation of the circumstances under which unemployment insurance is dispensed by the State, and devised a Measure which would take care that an efficient stop should be applied to beneficiaries under both forms of relief.
  Unless this Bill is substantially amended in Committee, it will be a bad Bill. Already the industries of this country are loaded down with every kind of charge, adding to the cost of production. The world of industry is now confronted with an additional burden, which the country has not asked for, and there has been no definite appeal, as far as I know, in any industrial constituency in this country for this Measure. The Minister, quite naturally, in order to keep that momentum of promise, wanted to introduce his Measure at the earliest possible moment, and wanted to introduce it by leaving the problem of unemployment entirely unsolved at the same time. On the other side of the House right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who invaded this country with all the vigour of propaganda previous to the last General Election and told us what they were going to perform,
  2132
  should tell us what they have done. They have produced a Bill to-day, and according to the speech of the Minister he can only look forward in seven or eight years hence to an unemployed population of 800,000 people. We are to have 1,100,000 this year, 1,000,000 next year, 1,000,000 in the next year, 800,000 afterwards, and so forth. If this Bill is any indication of the capacity of the Labour party to deal with the unemployment problem, it is the poorest product of constructive legislation in modern times. We hope that in Committee, Amendments will be accepted, and that the Bill may be substantially altered. Instead of helping industry, you sweep away whatever shred of protection industry has, and place upon it an additional burden without rhyme or reason. That is the policy pursued by the Labour party, the party which has an instinctive genius for dealing with Labour questions, and is the only inspired body in modern Parliaments that can solve the problem of unemployment!
  I had an opportunity yesterday of discussing the unemployment problem in the United States with the American Commissioner of Labour, and he told me that there is substantially no unemployment in the United States. [An HON. MEMBER: "When did he tell you that, after you had had a few cocktails?"] He told me that in the United States the entire trend of public thought is to allow industry and the relationship between employers and employed to pursue their own course. Intervention on the part of the State was deprecated by every thoughtful public man in the United States, and he looked in astonishment to the continuity of grandmotherly legislation in this country. Though I shall support the Second Reading of this Bill, I believe it is a bad Bill. It is a Bill that must be amended in the fullest detail in Committee, and I vote on the full understanding that the fullest examination will take place in Committee.
  Lieut.-Colonel WOODWARK: I rise to say a word on behalf of the agricultural workers, as a representative of an agricultural division. I must say that the Minister has got out of dealing with the agricultural worker in a very easy way up to the present, and I feel that the House should have something more definite as to what he intends to do to bring about a scheme to include agricultural workers.

  2133
  As far as I can see, it is a polite way of shirking the question. It is no satisfaction to the worker to know that the right hon. Gentleman is going to discuss the question with the Minister for Agriculture. What the worker desires is to be included, like all other workers, in this great national unemployment scheme.
  Mr. SHAW: If you can give me proof of that, I will put them in to-morrow.
  Lieut.-Colonel WOODWARK: I should like to ask the Minister what steps he has taken to find out whether they desire to be included or not?
  Mr. SHAW: You made the assertion.
  Mr. STORRY-DEANS: Is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to answer a question seated in this House?
  Lieut. - Colonel WOODWARK: That only proves to me that the Minister, knowing that the agricultural worker was a difficult proposition and requires special treatment, thought the easiest way out of the difficulty was to politely shelve the whole matter and he has not offered to explain to us what steps he has taken to find out whether they wish to be included or not. The latest returns for male workers employed in the industry are 566,000 males, 59,000 women and girls, 104,000 casual male workers and 43,000 women and girls casual workers, a total of 772,000. I think those figures show that there is some need to take up the question of unemployment in the agricultural industry. At present farmers, as soon as they have finished with the labour in the spring, pay the surplus labour off and there is nothing whatever for those men except to go to the parish. That is wrong. If a young lad goes into a town and obtains a job and works for nine or 10 months and becomes qualified to draw unemployment benefit, if he goes back to his native village and resides there for a short time he is considered an agricultural worker and ail the stamps on his card are forfeit. The casual workers are mainly engaged on threshing, potato setting and picking, and they earn good money when they are employed. I think if the Minister will ask the representatives of the Union or will ask the hon. Member for Southern Norfolk (Mr. George Edwards) he will find that in reply to requests whether they should be included a majority from the branches was in favour of inclusion. As I have given him
  2134
  that information, I hope he will find out from the hon. Member whether I am right in saying the majority of branches of the Agricultural Workers' Union replied in favour of inclusion.
  As regards the number of men who are out of work, as far as returns show from the replies to a circular which was sent round to practically all the counties, on an average, if you take it as an average—and I think that will be fair—the percentage out of work was 5·7, so there is some cause for the Minister to take into consideration the inclusion of these workers in the scheme. I am not satisfied with Clause 8, which abolishes the power to make special schemes, and I intend in Committee to move its deletion and to try to get some consideration shown to the agricultural worker. The workers, wherever I have been addressing meetings, have always appealed to me to know why the agricultural worker is always to be pushed into the background. You may say he cannot afford to pay because of his low wages. I think the farmer is favourable to an insurance scheme if it were not for the poverty of the industry. When a man has to live on 25s. a week, of course, every penny is a consideration. I have statistics, recently obtained, showing how the labourer lays out his 25s. In each instance he makes no provision for clothes or boots. He has to depend upon having them given him or buying them out of his harvest money. I hope when the Wages Board Bill becomes law his wages will be increased, and then he will be able to make a contribution. It will have to be a modified contribution, and there will have to be modified benefits. I do not see why the worker should not be called upon to pay 3d., the farmer 3d., and the State 6d. As to what the benefits should be, it is for the Minister to work out. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a little more definite statement as to what he intends to do as to including the agricultural worker in the scheme.
  Mr. BETTERTON: I think everyone who has listened to the Debate during the whole afternoon and evening, as many of us have done, will have come to the conclusion, if he did not hold that view before, that this is a Bill of quite first-class importance. Whatever view we may take either of its principles or of its details, if carried into law in anything like its present form it is going to

  2135
  exercise a most profound influence over our whole social system. As all Bills dealing with the subject must be, it is exceedingly technical. I do not propose to deal at all with technicalities, but I am going to state one or two great fundamental principles which seem to me to be involved in the Bill. I was disappointed that the Minister did not deal more precisely with those underlying principles which the Bill contains, and did not attempt to justify them and to show how the Bill would carry them out. The first point on which I will say a word or two is the proposal, which is not only novel but of far-reaching importance to hundreds of thousands of householders, to reduce the age from 16 to 14. There is no one in the House who has any other object in view than to do the best for the child, but the diversity of what I might call expert opinion is great. The Minister of Education takes one view, the previous Minister of Education takes another, the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) takes one view and other hon. Members on the same side take precisely the opposite view. So in this matter, as in every other matter which we shall discuss in Committee, we shall hold ourselves absolutely free to decide when the Bill emerges from Committee what action we shall take on Report and on Third Reading. It is often said, and said with truth, that accepting a Bill without a Division on Second Reading means that you accept the principle; but in regard to this Bill I want to say, on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, that we make no such admission, and that we hold ourselves perfectly free when the Bill emerges from Committee to take such course as we shall then be advised to do.
  What is the first great principle which this Bill contains? It is, of course, that which is contained in Clause 1. Quite shortly, that Clause proposes to make what we know as uncovenanted benefit permanent for all time. I am not going at this hour to go into the history of what covenanted benefit is, or how it arose. That is well known to every hon. Member. What this Bill does, is to make permanent what has hitherto been temporary, and to make absolute what hitherto has been discretionary. The effect of that, in my opinion, is to remove
  2136
  from this portion of the Bill the principle of insurance and to substitute for it the principle of maintenance, because when you have uncovenanted benefit made permanent—the benefit paid without any relation at all to the contributions which the man may or may not have made—the principle of insurance goes and you put in its place the principle of maintenance. The Minister of Labour, with his usual candour, stated this, not only in a speech which he made at Bolton, but in his speech to-day. The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. G. Barker) and other hon. Members opposite, with equal candour, said the same thing. I acknowledge at once the candour with which they have supported this Bill on that ground, namely, that it is the first great statutory recognition of the principle of work or maintenance.
  It is in the interests of no one in this House to disguise or attempt to disguise what is the issue between us. That is one issue between us, and it depends on what form this Bill emerges from Committee whether or not we support it on Third Reading. Reference has been made to a speech made by the Minister of Labour the other day in the country. The Secretary for Mines, after the Debate the other day, also made a speech in the country. It seems to me that these extra-Parliamentary utterances have a very definite value, because, while speeches in this House indicate the immediate purpose of the Bills before the House, speeches outside indicate with equal clearness what is the ultimate object of the Bills. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear that his justification for this part of the Bill was that it will give statutory recognition to the principle of work or maintenance. I do not propose to discuss that principle, but I am sure of this, that it is a principle which is utterly inconsistent with the principle of insurance. This is, in name at any rate, an Unemployment Insurance Bill. The more this discussion proceeds the more I become convinced, as I am convinced now, that we are in danger of losing sight of what, ought to be the fundamental principle of the Bill, namely, insurance, and that we shall put something else in its place which is not insurance at all.
  There is one further point which, perhaps, is not strictly a question of principle,

  2137
  but it is a very important part of the Bill. I refer to the proposal to increase the amount of benefit to all the parties who come within its scope. There is no doubt that whatever may be said for or against this proposal it will, and it cannot help doing it, tend to bring the income of the man who is out of work more nearly approximate to that of the man who is lowly paid and who is in work.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Raise his wages.
  Mr. BETTERTON: That is a danger, and it is a danger which has been recognised by no one more clearly than the Lord Privy Seal, because I see that in the debate on the Bill last year he made this profoundly true utterance—
  "The fact of the matter is that, under our present law, a worker on short-time can receive less wages by his service in short periods of work than can the man, who is wholly unemployed for a week or a fortnight, receive in the form of benefit. Clearly that is not right, and it would seem to encourage idleness, and to incline men to call themselves out of work altogether."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1923; col. 101, Vol. 161.]
  That is a question which in all its aspects must be considered most carefully in Committee. In this connection I would like to put a point which so far has not been put. This Bill proposes to defer further the expiration of the deficiency period, with the result that the annual cost, according to the Actuary's report, will be a sum of £10,000,000, and the permanent, contribution by the State under this Bill will be very largely increased, I think by something like £5,800,000 a year. All these charges, whether they be paid by the employer, by the employed, or by the State, are, as one hon. Member pointed out, a charge upon industry itself. There is not a country in Europe that has a system of compulsory insurance which is even remotely approximate to our own. The only three countries in Europe which have any system of compulsory unemployment insurance are Italy, Austria, and, I think, the State of Luxemburg. It Italy the contribution of the employer and the employed together as a maximum may not be more than 2½d., and in actual fact I think it is something more nearly 1d. Therefore, the heavier the burden you place upon the man who is in work, the more you are penalising him when he is competing in
  2138
  the markets of the world for the trade of the world. And so it is no answer, really, to say that the fund will stand it, because the obvious answer to that is that if the charges become less, the contributions and the charges upon the industry will be less also.
  There is one other point on which I want to say something, and that is the Strike Clause. This is a very old controversy. The right hon. Gentleman and his party, I freely admit, have been perfectly consistent in this matter from 1911 onwards, and I am not in the least surprised that this Clause appears in the Bill in the form in which it is; but it seems to me that it is idle to disguise, or to attempt to disguise, from ourselves the very obvious fact that if this Clause be passed into law in the form in which it is now, the result will be that it will be possible to call out a few key men in a district, and run a strike on the cheapest possible terms. There is no one who has protested more strongly against strikes, and pointed out the evils of trade disputes, whether lock-outs or strikes, than the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy-Leader of the House, and I would ask him to consider whether this Clause, if passed in the present form, would not aggravate the evil to which he has so often called attention, and encourage, rather than discourage, trade disputes of all kinds.
  There is only one other word that I want to say in conclusion, and that is to repeat what has so often been said before, that it is a most ironical comment upon the statements that have been made so often by hon. and right hon. Members on the other side, that the Actuary's Report, made on the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour himself, appears to contemplate for all time unemployment reaching to no less than the appalling figure of 800,000 a year. I cannot help recalling the reception which we got when we proposed a not very dissimilar Bill, and the criticisms and observations which were made upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the Deputy-Leader of the House, speaking on the Debate on the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend Sir Montague Barlow, said:
  "I am entitled, therefore, to contrast this Bill with the hopes constantly raised, and the public professions used in the

  2139
  country by the representatives of the Government in relation to unemployment. Each one of these evasive proposals is certain to evoke the condemnation of those who were misled by the promises which spokesmen of the Government repeatedly made as to dealing with the problem of unemployment"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1923; col. 96, Vol. 161.]
  Those were the criticisms which were made against our proposals last year, and I am justified again in calling the attention of the House to the obvious fact, to which many hon. Members have called attention in the course of this Debate, that there is not a proposal in this Bill to put a single man or woman in work, and if this Bill be passed in its present form, so far from providing any remedy for the evils from which we are now suffering, it will much more likely aggravate the disease which we all deplore.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: May I say, in the few remarks that I shall address to the House—because I am anxious to give ample time to my hon. Friend who is going to reply for the Government—how greatly interesting I have found the Debate, in which I have heard, I think, nearly every speech both in the actual application of speakers to the Bill and in the variegated subjects which they have chosen outside it. I heard my hon. Friend opposite indulge in a sort of prologue, or dress rehearsal, of the campaign which, I understand, will take place next Thursday in connection with the salary of my right hon. Friend. As for myself, I intend to leave it there to-day, and to listen to what explanation he is able to give for the crimes he has committed or the omissions he has made during his period of office. There is one point I would like to make in direct reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite, and the hon. Gentleman who spoke before him, in their plaint that our general national unemployment and health insurance schemes impose a handicap on our industries which other nations do not possess. I do not believe that is the fact, for two reasons. Ever since we passed our first National Insurance Act, in 1911, and, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) will agree, ever since he passed the amplified National Insurance Act of
  2140
  1920, there has not been a single year in which prominent statesmen, publicists and economists have not come over to this country, largely as representatives of their Governments, to ask us to put them in touch with the full working and understanding of the National Insurance Acts, because they realise how much they desire that they should be working in their own countries, and not only working there for the benefit of the poor, but for the efficiency of their industrial life. There is no worse handicap to the efficiency of industrial life than to leave men in sickness or in a half-starved condition, because you have not courage in a country to put a full Insurance Act on the Statute Book.
  There is also one point I should like to make in reply to the most interesting speech of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). He pleaded that we should regard every Amendment on its merits in the future, and to the best of our ability, apart from any, as he was pleased to say, sins which had been committed in the past. I hope very earnestly that when this Bill gets in Committee, everything will be regarded on its merits, including the Government proposition itself, because this Debate has amply demonstrated there is no party question at all so far as this House is concerned, and I think we can afford to neglect in this House nonsense which is talked outside. If we can in this, which is the first Government Bill of anything like first-class importance which will be referred to a Committee, apply to the various Amendments there, from whatever quarter they proceed, considerations quite apart from party questions, I am sure we can make this, if I may say so with respect, a better Bill even than it is at the present time. While every Member has given a general support to this Bill, and no Member has suggested voting against it, there is not one speaker I have heard who has not taken exception to some particular provision, and who has not said that he is able to provide some suggestion for its improvement. Of course, this is not a Bill at all. It is an Amendment to an Amendment to an amending Bill to the National Insurance Act. It is a series of disconnected Bills. The only connection between the various Clauses is that they all demand money from the National Insurance Fund. I

  2141
  am not in the least making that a criticism of the Government, but it makes it all the more important, as we cannot have a general discussion on the whole principle, as for instance we could on the Finance Bill of this House, that each of these separate Bills should be very carefully considered with free Amendments permitted in the Committee upstairs. If all the Amendments suggested by various Gentlemen in this House are proposed upstairs, we ought to have quite a cheery time for the greater part of the Summer.
  There is just one point worthy of consideration in regard to which I take an exactly opposite view to that of my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame). He criticised the finance of the Bill and, speaking for my friends, as he I think spoke for his friends, we would very earnestly press that we have the Financial Resolution of the Bill, if possible, before the Bill is considered upstairs. In so far as I have examined the finance, I take a quite different view from the somewhat pessimistic conclusion to which he came. My own belief is that the Government have enormously under-financed the Bill. I have, of course, tremendous respect for what I believe is one of the greatest civil servants we possess, Sir Alfred Watson, with whom I had the pleasure of working. He is dealing, however, with figures given him by the Government, of registered unemployed receiving benefit 1,100,000. The number of registered unemployed has already gone below those figures, and there are no signs of it rising above them. He gives figures of 1,000,000 up to the end of the deficiency period, and the figure of 800,000 after that time. I venture to warn the House that it is quite impossible for this Government, or this House, to sit down and contemplate a continued existence of a subsidised company of unemployed, year after year, of 800,000. No Government could stand, and no Government would deserve to stand in this country, if it accepted the position that these men are to go on year after year, out of work through no fault of their own, receiving the dole which can never make up the amount they would receive in work, losing gradually heart and incentive, and that this was the last word of a civilised nation in that matter. If that is to be the result, it means the
  2142
  decline and fall of the British Empire. Therefore I venture to join issue with my hon. Friend who interrupted early in the afternoon. He said some hon. Members had stated that industry in this country required a margin of 10 per cent. of unemployed. Only a madman, or somebody utterly unfamiliar with the statistics of unemployment, in past years, could have said that.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I say that more than one hon. Member on the opposite benches has stated it was necessary to the industry of this country that there should be a 10 per cent. margin of unemployment.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If the hon. Gentleman is really quoting speeches of my hon. Friends, would he give me the references in the OFFICIAL REPORT where these speeches may be found?
  Mr. RICHARDSON: I will try to oblige my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It has been stated in speeches outside this House.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: No, here.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Some queer things seem to have happened while I was out of the House. During the ten years which occurred before the War, on the statistics of which our unemployment insurance was based, the average unemployment in this country was something less than 4 per cent. or a little over; with the variations in trade, sometimes rising to 5 or 6 per cent.—which we thought then was a calamity—and in good periods of trade coming down to 1½ per cent., when practically every man who wanted to work could work. That cycle of trade has got to be revived again, and I believe it will be revived while freedom of trade is granted to this country. In any case, a nation which has a permanent 10 per cent. of unemployment has either to set its house in order or go out of business altogether. If, as I believe, the improvement in employment in going to continue, I can see no reason why, before the end of the deficiency period is reached, we should not get at least to 6 per cent. of unemployment registered in this country. With a 6 per cent. of unemployment, the fund, which at present is making a profit even in these bad times, will be making a profit of something between £33,000,000 and £35,000,000 a year. I would much

  2143
  rather see that additional money paid in benefit than that the contributions by employers and employed should be reduced.
  Another question is in regard to the relief in the increased amounts to be given to the unemployed. That relief has been put on two legs, and it cannot stand on both. It is suggested that the relief at present given through the fund is not enough, and that therefore the unemployed should receive more. It has also been suggested that it will give great relief to the local authorities and the rates. Now, my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but he told me the other day that, taking sample statistics of those who wore receiving unemployed relief, and also relief from the Poor Law, he came to the conclusion that nearly half the total number registered were receiving relief from both of those sources. If the consequence of increasing the relief by 3s. is to relieve the rates by that amount, you do not benefit the unemployed. You are merely transferring the obligation from the ratepayer. That is a point which I would ask my right hon. Friend to allow us to examine with more detail in Committee.
  Mr. EGAN: Where do guardians relieve people who are receiving the dole?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In nearly all the great cities in England, certainly.
  Mr. J. JONES: We do.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I can mention some, because I had an investigation into the matter. At Sheffield, Barrow, and large sections of London. In Norwich and places where unemployment is severe, guardians supplement relief given by the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Otherwise some of these people who have been out of work for two years could not live at all. People manage to get over a few months' unemployment, though that is difficult enough, but the people we particularly have to consider are those who have had no opportunity of getting work for a year or 18 months, or even two years.
  Mr. STORRY-DEANS: There are some cases of four years in Sheffield.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sheffield is a great tragedy. I found that when I
  2144
  investigated. A point which has been considerably discussed during the Debate, and to me the most difficult part of the Bill, is the question of the children. I was not satisfied with what was said on this matter. In insuring the children between 14 and 16 you are taking from those children £1,000,000 which you are not giving back to them. You are stealing the money from the children and giving it to the adult fund. It is proposed only to pay £500,000 or £600,000 to these children, while their insurance is to contribute £1,600,000. I would ask the Minister to see that all the money taken from those children shall go back for their benefit, and not be given to supplement the Insurance Fund of the adults. I do not think my right hon. Friend has made a beneficial change—though I may be in disagreement with some of my hon. Friends on these benches—in suggesting that he will move that for the first 30 weeks that a boy or girl over 14 is employed, he or she shall not receive the unemployment benefit.
  I would rather, if I had the choice, give uncovenanted benefit to the children than to the adults, and I would rather give the benefit on condition that the boys and girls should attend school on their birthday at the age of 14 than later on after going to blind alley occupations; which you cannot control, such as selling newspapers, running errands, acting as messenger boys and so on, and being kept to those occupations, and then after 30 weeks, which is the greater part of a year, being told to go back to school again. In those conditions I submit that those children would have formed habits of resenting discipline which would make those schools 10 times more difficult than if you allowed the boys and girls to go to school the very first week after they were unemployed, with uncovenanted benefit which subsequently they could repay through the operation of the general insurance fund when they came into work.
  My right hon. Friend said they want to get hold of the children early. How are they going to do that under this Bill? What work does insurance offer to them when unemployed? What education will he give thorn if they cannot take the work? The ordinary challenge of the Labour Exchange is generally work in the trade in which the man or woman is skilled. In what trade are you going to estimate that these boys and girls are

  2145
  skilled? Are you going, when the boys and girls are out of work, to offer them all those blind alley trades which will inevitably end in their being thrown out of work a few years afterwards? If not, what are you going to put in the Bill? I very much re-echo from my own experience the statement of the late President of the Board of Education that to deal with boys and girls after they have left school, and gone out into what I think he called the education of life, by trying then to drag them back to school again is a waste of Government money and the worst way of dealing with the whole problem.
  I say that not because of any a priori views of my own but from an investigation of the attempt, which completely broke down in London, to work continuation schools from which you will get no benefit. These children at any moment will be liable to be called back to work again. They may go for a week or a fortnight to school but they can get none of the general pride in or collective enthusiasm for the school which some of us had for the school to which we went at 14 years of age and which we would like to see every citizen of the country enjoy. But you will get those sentiments of indiscipline which broke the hearts of the teachers in those schools in which this was tried. You must get your children straight from the elementary schools, if you like into training schools, secondary schools, trade schools, or in whatever form of education you think best, but there is no use in trying to get them eight months afterwards, when they have had the experience of running errands and so on. I can assure my hon. Friend that if she and her hon. Friend can devise some such scheme, instead of this scheme as an alternative they will have the support of the majority of my hon. Friends, but apart from that I cannot see any hope in this particular scheme.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education challenged any of us to say whether we agreed with him as to whether it was not better that these children should be brought to some sort of school when unemployed than be allowed to, what he called, walk the streets. He said that all of us would be afraid to say that that should not be done. I am not afraid to deny his statement. I believe that the schools, as we have seen them, for children who go into
  2146
  them one week and are out another week, children who have already had experience of the perhaps too lavish freedom which children at work enjoy, not only do no good, but do active harm to the children who go into them. These schools fill them with distaste for the education which they receive, instead of the pride which they should have in them, and the children's sole wish, as has been proved in London, is to get out of these schools altogether and to lie low until they can get some other work. The last thing that we want to do is to encourage among them a distaste for any system of education that may be devised.
  I thank the House for listening to me so kindly. One hon. Member, in a very interesting speech, having heard that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour was prepared to give way on a certain Clause, said he was glad that my right hon. Friend did not intend to be adamantine on that Clause. If I may be excused a personal impression, I would submit to the House this: In the old days when a Bill went up to Committee—I had charge of many that were passed—party Divisions were to a large extent abolished. A Minister either had to make out his case or to be defeated, and it was a feat in intellectual ability as well as a feat of interest to the Committee. We never minded being defeated in Committee, and in the great majority of cases we never asked the House, on the Report stage, to reverse the defeat which we have received in Committee, because we knew that every one engaged upon the Bill in Committee had been trying to make the Bill the best possible. In the last few weeks we have seen Committees conducted on different and more disastrous lines. I am not referring to the friendly discussions which took place in Committee A. But in the Committees on which I have served personally, the party lines have been drawn with rigidity, and Members have voted entirely in accordance with what the Leaders of their party desired. I think that that is a mistake and a misfortune. In connection with a Bill like this no party should come in at all. I, therefore, appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that on such a Bill, as to which there are strong differences of opinion, though not differences of party opinion, he should be able, unless he considers that some attack

  2147
  is made on the essential and main principles of the Bill, to deal with an Amendment on its merits. Let us have some desirable cross-party Divisions, and when the Bill comes back to this House let it be not only the Bill of the Government but the Bill of all parties.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): At the outset, let me acknowledge the cordial way in which the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill has been discussed. The differences that have manifested themselves have been, to a very large extent, differences on points of detail, and points which can be quite properly dealt with in Committee. The right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame), in opening the Debate, referred at length to the financial basis of the Bill. As the Financial Resolution is, we hope, to be taken early next week, it would be more appropriate to spend time in discussing the financial provisions then.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Do I understand that the Government will undertake to move the Financial Resolution before the Bill goes to a Committee?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, the Government has undertaken that, and we hope it will be as early as possible. There are one or two figures, however, to which I would direct the attention of the House now. The right hon. Member for Hendon mentioned the figure of 1,118,000. I think he forgot that that figure includes Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The unemployed live register now is 1,026,000. That includes the part-time worker, and if we took a comparative figure on last year's basis of reckoning it would bring the total to less than a million. Roughly speaking, the figures of unemployment have sunk by about 220,000 since 21st January. There was one other slight error in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He referred to Acts going back to 1911. I think he overlooked the fact that the Act of 1920 repealed all the preceding Acts, and any reference in the present Bill to other Acts of Parliament can of course only refer to Acts since 1920. With regard to the calculation of the percentage of unemployment, I think there has been a real misunderstanding. It is not the intention to make a permanent calculation on that basis at all. The
  2148
  calculation is in relation to the deficiency period. While we do not think it right or wise to be too optimistic and while it is extremely possible that we have erred on the side of pessimism in taking even the 7½ per cent. which the figure of 800,000 represents, we hope very much we shall be mistaken and that it will be very much less. We felt it unwise to be unduly optimistic, and therefore we have taken this figure as a rough working basis for financial calculation.
  With regard to the extension of the deficiency period and the lengthening of the period of high contributions the right hon. Gentleman asks what safeguard we propose to adopt. I venture to assert that there is a sufficient safeguard in the high contributions. There are three parties to these contributions, all of whom have a growing understanding and comprehension of the working of insurance, and we are not likely to be allowed much peace as a Government nor is the House of Commons itself likely to be allowed much peace, if the contributors to the scheme imagine we are keeping up the high contribution a moment longer than is necessary in order to deal with an abnormal situation. The most important point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was that of the principle which, as he quite properly pointed out, is embodied in the Bill and which departs from the idea that benefit is to be in relation to individual contributions. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton) follow up that argument by saying that we had adopted the principle of maintenance to the exclusion of the principle of insurance. I would say that we have adopted the principle of maintenance by the method of insurance and that the method of insurance has relation to the amount of damage suffered. If you take out a fire insurance policy, you pay certain premiums and the insurance company takes the risk, but the amount to be paid by the insurance company is in relation to the damage done by fire. It is in exactly the same way that we propose to extend the principle of maintenance in this Bill. We take the collective contribution to the fund and pay out benefits, and the benefits paid have to bear relation to the collective contribution and not to the individual payments.
  It is most important to remember that principle in relation to unemployment

  2149
  insurance, because of the interdependence of trade. Take a highly-organised, stable, compact industry like engineering or the steel trade. Their prosperity is bound up with the question of the docks. These men may be 90 per cent. employed all the year round, provided there are normal conditions of trade, but there are men employed in the docks on an essential part of the process of bringing in the raw material and delivering the finished goods, and there are also men in the transport trade who may suffer from periods of casual employment. It is right and fair that this interdependence of industry should be recognised in this principle of the insurance scheme. Therefore, it is too late to talk about paying benefits in relation to individual contributions, when the individual has no control over the number of days that he may be permitted to work by the system under which he lives. So we frankly recognise that it is a broadening out—and, of course, this country proceeds by broadening out, from precedent to precedent, and so on—and this is one of the broadening-out processes, so that I hope the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, while recognising that we do embody the principle of maintenance, will also recognise that we embody it by the method of insurance.
  With regard to the short-time worker, the argument that was used by the Lord Privy Seal, I suggest, has been perverted from its original meaning. The point obviously is that the short-time worker requires to be considered from the standpoint of having secured to him a living minimum wage. The point about other countries, which the same hon. Gentleman raised, is a very slippery slope of argument, and it logically leads to sweated conditions of employment. We have turned our backs on that type of thing, and I venture to suggest that our captains of industry are far better satisfied with the form of labour produced by our method of protected conditions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear!"]—I was not at that moment using the word "protected" in its fiscal sense.
  The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) seemed to predict very stormy weather for our Bill in the Committee stage. I think he is a pessimist. I am very hopeful that we are going to have a fair passage in the Committee stage, for
  2150
  this reason, that the criticisms that have been put forward to-day for the most part, with certain negligible exceptions, have been criticisms with a real desire to strengthen the Bill in the best way, and I feel certain that in many points of detail it may be possible to find, by the collective wisdom of Members of the Committee, some better form of words than that at present in the Bill. The point that the hon. Member raised about the possibility of 100 days' unemployment is an extraordinarily exceptional case. For the most part the employers and workers do try to get together, and get some sort of system that will not so terribly penalise the short-term workers as was suggested.
  With regard to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) and the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon), I submit to them that in raising the point that the Bill does not provide work, they are raising a point which really represents an absence of clear thinking on their part. Obviously, the Bill does not provide work. It is not the nature or intention of the Bill to provide work, but to provide maintenance during unemployment. I am quite sure that we are going to get the deluge on Thursday, but I suggest that that is the occasion for that kind of remark, and not in connection with a discussion on insurance. The recognition by the Ministry of the need for special treatment for agricultural labourers is very real and honest. The hon. Member for the King's Lynn Division of Norfolk (Lieut.-Colonel Woodwark) admits that the industry does require special treatment, and that the conditions of the industry are such that you could not possibly bring the agricultural labourers immediately under the high contributions required under this Bill. It would not be fair. Therefore, it requires special treatment, and, as the Minister pointed out, it requires the co-operation of the Agricultural Department side by side with the Ministry of Labour. That is a matter which must engage the earnest attention of the Minister.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) fears the effect of continuous payment. Surely there is again a little misunderstanding here. There is the

  2151
  26 weeks' period of standard benefit, and then—if I may use the phrase—the person in receipt of the benefit after 26 weeks has to come under the microscope. I think that is a most effective way of putting it. Let me tell the House exactly what he has to do. In the first instance, the conditions for standard benefit lay down five points. First, there must be the payment of 30 contributions—I am not now speaking of an abnormal period, but of the normal period—during from two to three years previously. Secondly, the claim must be duly made, and proof of continuous unemployment given. Thirdly, there must be capacity for work, and the person must be available for work. Fourthly, he must be genuinely seeking work and unable to obtain suitable employment. Fifthly, there must be, in the case of juveniles, attendance at some course of instruction, if required. Then, in addition to that side of the qualification, there is the disqualification side. There are here four points: (1) loss of last employment owing to stoppage due to trade dispute; (2) loss of employment owing to misconduct or voluntary leaving without just cause; (3) being an inmate of a prison or a workhouse, or being a resident outside the United Kingdom; and (4) receipt of sickness or disablement benefit, or old age pension or blind persons pension. There are all these provisions. I may say here, perhaps, to hon. and right hon. Members who, of course, know it as well as I do, that in connection with that category of conditions the procedure which has been followed is, first, that the insurance officer has to be satisfied. If a member appeals against the decision of the insurance officer he goes to the Court of Referees, and from the Court of Referees he goes to the Umpire. So that, as far as the standard benefit is concerned, there is this course, as it were, which has to standardise the conditions. Beyond that then, for the extended benefit, the unemployed applicant has to satisfy the local employment committee, composed of employers and workmen's representatives, that he normally works in insurable employment and will seek his livelihood by that means; also that in normal times suitable insurable employment will be likely to be available for him; thirdly that he has, during the last two years, done a reasonable amount of insurable
  2152
  work; fourthly, that the man is making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment and is willing to accept it.
  These conditions must be satisfactory to the local employment committee, and they are in addition to the other conditions which I have mentioned. The local insurance committee may give a judgment on the unemployed person; the latter may appeal against the Committee, and the Ministry may order a reconsideration of the case. I venture to suggest that there is enough administrative guarantee in all this to satisfy every reasonable demand. Then there is the further check against maladministration by questions in this House itself. There is always that method of question and answer here. I suggest that the Bill, if anything, errs on the side of administrative checks, and I am satisfied that there is no real ground of the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman.
  The Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) raised some very interesting Committee points, and it is not necessary for me to deal with them in detail now. I quite agree that the definitions of the Bill do require to be carefully examined in Committee, and if it is possible to make them more definite it will be the desire of the Minister of Labour to do so. With regard to the emphasis which has been laid upon the Clause dealing with trade disputes, I am quite satisfied that we shall be very grateful if any hon. Members can give us a better form of words that will meet the difficulty than the form of words which are contained in this Bill. I think the injustice of the existing regulations with regard to disputes is recognised by every hon. Member, and it is in order to remove that grave injustice that we have endeavoured to find words. We have inserted what we thought was a formula which might be regarded as water-tight, but we shall be ready to consider any other form of words.
  The Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) raised the important point of apprenticeship, and be asked what was the Ministry of Labour doing towards ascertaining the number of apprenticeship openings, and he asked if it was not a fact that it was owing to trade union restrictions that there was not a larger number of apprentices. That is an entirely erroneous idea, because

  2153
  there is no trade union in existence to-day where the number of apprentices entering the trade is as many as is allowed by the rules of that trade. The rules of the trade unions that exist allow for a larger number of apprentices than can be persuaded to go into those particular trades to-day. That is a fact which is very ominous, and it is having a terrible effect from the standpoint of the number being trained.
  I may say that the Juvenile Advisory Committee has been reconstituted, and they are turning their attention to this question. This Council has upon it six representatives of the London County Council and representatives of some of the largest employers in London, as well as other agencies, and it is taking a great interest in juvenile employment. That Committee is undertaking a very definite investigation at the request of the Minister of Labour. They are considering carefully London trades and trying to ascertain the conditions under which new entrants come in, whether clearly defined trades get their entrants from the provinces or from London, and to what extent are London boys and girls given a chance of obtaining a technical training. That is a very fruitful field, and it is an entirely unexplored field as far as the juveniles of London are concerned. It is a matter upon which we have no specific information, and that is one of the reasons which has led the Minister of Labour to include this clause in the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) has made an appealing speech on behalf of education, but I ask him to recognise facts. He says that the Bill recognises children in industry between the ages of 14 and 16, but they are there already. The children are in industries now, and we are facing this problem from the other side. We meet with them at the age of 16 years after they have been from two or three years separated from any educational influences whatsoever. It is because they are there that we are facing the facts. I quite recognise that there is a place for theories, and I profoundly believe in the importance of theories, but not as a stumbling block to the practical steps that are necessary. Let the House bear in mind that this is the only step which it is within the competence of the Minister of Labour to take, and it is a step to try to bridge a gulf, or, to use
  2154
  another metaphor, to explore an unexplored area, which, while itmay not be very large if we are merely counting heads, is very terrible in its effect upon the individual that is caught in that unknown and uncharted area of juvenile unemployment. It is largely because of its devastating effect that we wish to extend downwards to the point of meeting the education authority.
  We do not want to touch the child as long as the education authorities can hold the child. It is a dovetailing process; it is an attempt to bridge a gulf. We see no opportunity immediately, within what may be called a child generation of school life, for the education authorities. We are quite prepared—the Minister is anxious—to accept a form of words which will eliminate the objectionable figure of 14, and will make it perfectly clear that as education advances insurance will recede just in the same proportion. We are anxious to find a form of words that will make that absolutely clear. With regard, however, to the criticism of the juvenile centres, I entirely dissent from that, because I think that a very important factor has been entirely ignored, and that is the fact that the juvenile centres have never had a decent chance, because, again, of this unexplored area. Many of the children who have gone to the juvenile centres have been for two or three years separated from educational influences, and while I recognise the plea of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) that there should be no gap at all, we are faced with the other difficulty, that it is a part of the duty of the Ministry of Labour to look at this matter from the standpoint of employment.
  It is a part of our duty to regard those children who have entered industry from the point of view of employment, and therefore there must be some sort of standard by which you can judge whether a child is, in fact, in an insurable trade or not. We must have some sort of measurement that in fact the child is going into industry. Fortunately there may be—we do not know yet; we have not the figures to show it—a considerable proportion of children passing through the elementary schools whose parents are able to give them what the Americans call the Sabbatical year, who are able to give them a complete year's holiday

  2155
  before they take to a trade. There may be some who leave the elementary school because their parents think they are not learning enough, or they may leave for a hundred different reasons. They may go to visit relations. Therefore, we cannot say that as soon as a child leaves school it shall be insured. We have no test as to whether the child is ever going to be an employed person. What we must have is some measure which will show that the child is in fact going to enter into industry, and we think the 30 contributions are the test which it is reasonable to apply in that connection. In addition to that, we hope that it may reassure educationists that there would at least be 30 contributions in the way of any sort of temptation. I do not admit the reality of the temptation at all for a moment, but we hope that that will disarm some of the opposition of the real educationists.
  I repeat that we desire in every possible way to co-ordinate the activities of the Education Department with the Ministry of Labour in connection with the juvenile problem. I venture to suggest to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) that it is not a problem of education or a problem of insurance; it is a problem of education and a problem of insurance. There are two problems, but it is not one as against the other. We have to tackle them both with the same amount of zest and the same amount of enthusiasm. These two methods of dealing with the matter are not antagonistic. They should be entirely complementary. The hon. Member for Birkenhead East (Mr. Graham White), whose criticisms will, I hope, be not only welcomed but useful in Committee, raised the definite question as to what is the nature of the teaching in the juvenile unemployment centres; and some other hon. Members also raised the very vexed question of the pension valuation rights of the teachers in those centres, and also the question as to whether there was not to be a more extended contribution from the surplus to the children themselves. That question was also raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme. The idea briefly, in regard to the nature of teaching in these centres, is this. We desire to be in the closest consultation
  2156
  with the Minister of Education on this point, and to dovetail in, as far as possible, with all the proposals for practical and vocational training. In regard to the eligibility for superannuation of the teachers taking this kind of work, we hope that in the Teachers Superannuation Act (Amendment) Bill, teaching of every kind will be regarded as teaching for the purposes of superannuation. With regard to the contributions of children, I venture to say that the child is paying into a fund to which he or she will become an adult contributor as well as a juvenile contributor. It is not as though it were something separated from the ordinary working life of the child. There are no difficulties about the House coming to some decision with regard to taking a larger proportion of surplus, but we do want to point out that the surplus is, in fact, going to swell the fund. It is not going to be taken away from the fund, that fund from which the child will be able to draw during the whole of his or her employable life. It is a matter of less importance that there should be a surplus. An hon. Member complains that we give the benefits to members on the supposition that they will subsequently pay the contributions back to the fund. This is merely a broadening out of the precedent in the other direction, that is, that the members are forestalling the benefits they may subsequently have to draw from the fund, instead of paying back after they have become indebted to the fund.
  I think I have just time for one more point. The hon. Member for Birkenhead, East also raised the important question of the trade dispute Clause and suggested that he would be able to give us some simplification of the Clause. I am glad he also pointed out that there was nothing in the Bill, as at present before the House, that will block the way to the consolidating Bill, and to the more widely extended powers which may possibly be co-ordinated in the insurance scheme. It is very important that we should all realise that the whole programme of insurance is still in its experimental stages. We have come to an extraordinary difficult period. This insurance scheme has defects, defects which we are gradually curing in the light of experience, and a year or two of experience is worth a ton of theory in regard to a question of this sort. It is in the light of experience that we are steadily improving

  2157
  the insurance schemes, the principle of which, I think, we have all adopted as a nation. But with regard to the consolidation of them, it is surely important that we should have a still further trial of this method of insurance. The principle of the common purse, the principle of the common fund, is still, at it were, on its trial, and has never had the place that it should occupy in a general scheme of social well-being. We are reaching a stage when we can by our experience tread much more firmly in the direction of further extension, and while this Bill is not the last word by any means in insurance—it is not intended to be the last word—it is intended to deal with the situation which must arise. It is intended to be a Bill which will obtain support from all sides of the House to be able to get it through all its stages in time to be operative by July and in that way to place, as it were, another great foundation stone for the edifice which will finally be built. The Minister will be prepared to consider any reasonable Amendments in detail, but he cannot promise to accept any radical alterations in the principle of the Bill.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Of all the checks, a list of which the hon. Lady gave us, is there any check to prevent a man who voluntarily gives up his work getting benefit at the end of six weeks?
  Miss BONDFIELD: A man who voluntarily leaves his work is not entitled to unemployment benefit for a maximum of six weeks. At the end of six weeks he is able to qualify. He has then to satisfy the authorities that he is capable and available for work, and is genuinely seeking work, but is unable to obtain suitable employment, that he has his claim duly made and proof of continuous unemployment is given. He has to report regularly to the Employment Exchange and to satisfy the other condition.
  Sir C. YATE: That does not apply to a man who voluntarily leaves his work.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: I want to refer to one or two aspects of the principle, or, shall I say, the lack of principle, underlying this Bill. To describe such a Measure as an Insurance Bill is merely a travesty, because, so far from insurance in the ordinary sense, those who will draw benefit under it will,
  2158
  in the main, not pay contributions for the benefit they receive. Therefore, in the main, the Measure is simply an extension of parish relief on a grandiose scale. A few days ago, the Minister of Labour went to Bolton, the one town in the cotton county which at present is enjoying prosperity.
  Mr. SHAW Mr. SHAW rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND—SUPERANNUATION)— [PAYMENTS].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session, to amend the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1922, to authorise the payment, into the Education (Scotland) Fund, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such sums as may become payable thereinto in respect of the amount collected and recovered in the years commencing the 1st day of April, 1924, and the 1st day of April, 1925, by the Scottish Education Department under Section one of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1922, as amended by the said Act of the present Session."
  Resolution agreed to.

  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  EVICTION, WOOLWICH.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]
  Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I wish to raise a question to which I have already referred in the House, namely, the action of the Secretary of State for War in proposing to proceed to evict Mr. Arthur

  2159
  Oakey, an ex-soldier, with 10 children, from 15, C Block, Artillery Place, Woolwich. The House will remember that on the last occasion, the Secretary of State raised the question as to the number of children in this particular case, and he put forward the plea that instead of 10 children this man only had eight. Since then I have seen Mr. Oakey, and he has given me the names and ages of the 10 children, the eldest of whom is a girl of 18, and the youngest is a child nine months old. He has five girls, who are the eldest in the family, and I might mention this point, because of the difficulty of finding housing accommodation, that the three youngest children are aged three years, two years and nine months. Mr. Oakey has served this country, and with some distinction, for 21 years. He is in possession of the medal of the Order of the British Empire, the 1914–15 Star, the General Service Medal, the Victory Medal and the Good Conduct Medal, and I may say that at the present time he is unemployed. The Secretary of State for War, in answering the question which I put to him, when I asked him for an assurance that he would not proceed with the eviction of this man, stated that he had given him, I think, six months' warning, and he took, apparently, the view that that was sufficient, and that he must leave his particular quarters at Woolwich.
  The case, I think, is particularly hard, because, in response to his orders some two years ago, he gave up his house at Woolwich, and lost possession of it, in order to go to Colchester, and the Secretary of State for War issued a summons before the County Court Judge at Woolwich demanding possession of the premises. As I dare say the House knows, in these cases where the Crown is concerned, the County Court Judge is not permitted to consider the question of alternative accommodation. There was a case, well illustrating the position which the Secretary of State for War has taken up, a few days ago, when I raised the question of another eviction which the right hon. Gentleman contemplated, at the Brentford County Court. I then asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the question of alternative accommodation had been put before the Court? The counsel, who appeared for the Secretary of State for War, had said that, so far as the War
  2160
  Office was concerned, and, in fact, other Government Departments, they were not concerned with the question of alternative accommodation. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether that was so, and he said, "I have no information on these details."
  The question of alternative accommodation, even when the Government are taking proceedings, is not a matter of detail, at any rate to the person who is going to be dispossessed. In the result, in this particular case, the County Court Judge, had no other course in the absence of not being able to give consideration to the question of alternative accommodation, but to make the order. He remarked that the case was a very hard one indeed, and I think it is fair to say that he was very reluctant to grant the Order in question. So this man, unless some expression is given to this case to-night, is about to be turned into the street by the Secretary of State for War. He certainly merits better consideration at the hands of my right hon. Friend. I say this all the more definitely because of the statements which have been made by some of his colleagues who seem to think he is following some precedent. But I venture to put it to him, that when I raised this question upstairs in Committee, the Attorney-General apparently took a very different view of what the Government would do when proceedings of this kind were contemplated than what has actually been done by the Secretary of State to-day. I ask him where this kind of thing is to end?
  At Woolwich, as in other parts of the country, there are hundreds of people on the waiting list for municipal houses and for the houses on the Office of Works Estate. Is he going to proceed with this eviction, and with the other evictions? Since this case came to my knowledge, I understand the Secretary of State for War has been plaintiff in a number of cases of this kind in which men with families are concerned. He may endeavour to say that he needs these particular houses; but so do other people up and down the country; but they have got to be considerate, and to have regard to the circumstances of the time, to the absence of houses, and the delay in the housing scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. I want him, therefore, to give an assurance that so far as this particular case is concerned,

  2161
  this man will not be turned out until other accommodation is available, and that in any other case in which my right hon. Friend may care to proceed in the County Court, he will not raise the plea that the Government are not concerned with the question of alternative accommodation, and that he will not seek to obtain any order until alternative accommodation is available, as in the case of any other landlord. If I cared, I could quote the speeches of some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues to show how they characterised the action of landlords who have taken certainly far less harsh action than that taken by the Secretary of State for War.
  Mr. J. JONES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on his newly-found zeal for evicted tenants.
  Sir K. WOOD: It is not newly-found at all. I am always at it.
  Mr. JONES: But you never get at it. Those of us who live in the East End of London know that evictions have been going on in the Woolwich area for nearly two years. Hundreds of these people have been evicted.
  Sir K. WOOD: No; only by the Ministers.
  Mr. JONES: By Ministers of the Government of which you were a supporter, and hundreds of houses are empty in the Eltham district now by the action of the Government.
  Sir K. WOOD: That does not help these men.
  Mr. JONES: It does not help you now when you have got one case. I am against evictions by any Government. We in West Ham have got troubles in this connection. West Ham counts for something. Woolwich, which is represented by a gentleman like the hon. Member, naturally counts for more than a place which is represented by a man like myself. I am a Member of Parliament by accident, and a bricklayers' labourer by profession. So far as we are concerned, that kind of sob stuff will not go down. Evictions are bad whenever they happen. I do not know what the Government have done, but if they have been guilty of cruelty to any
  2162
  individual then they should be brought to book for it, and if any man is being thrown out of his home without just cause then I hope they will be called to judgment hereafter. I am sure that the Secretary of State for War has got an answer. If he has not got an answer, then I will answer him back. No working man should be thrown out of his home. I happen to be, in addition to my other crimes, the Mayor of West Ham, and I was able this morning to find a house for a man with seven children. I was glad to have the opportunity of doing so, but I wanted to say that we should not be cruel to any of our public servants, and if the man is under the War Office, or under any other Department of the State, he should be guaranteed a home to live in, provided that he is willing to meet his full responsibilities.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. S. Walsh): The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken hoped that the Government would not be guilty of cruelty. I am sure that that is the last quality of which the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) or the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) would accuse me. There is not the slightest cruelty being exercised. In the particular case under discussion, the man, for whom everybody has a high regard, has been a most excellent soldier. He has a splendid record, but his period of 21 years expired at the end of last year, and he was told by the people then in office that the quarters which he occupied would be required for other married people. Now it is impossible to institute any comparison between the War Office as a State Department and the owner of private property. A private house-owner has no obligation to house other people. There is no legal obligation and no social obligation upon him. All that he requires is that his tenant shall pay the rent of the house he occupies, and if he does not pay the rent the landlord is entitled, under the law, to get the house into his possession again. This House imposes upon the War Office the definite obligation to house people in its service. There are thousands of them, married, and with children. The people who are on the married strength of the Army have a right in the matter. They have been invited into the State

  2163
  service, and they have accepted that invitation. The State, through the War Office and through other Departments, has contracted definite obligations to these people. One great social obligation is that when a man is on the married strength of a regiment, he with his wife and children must have a house provided. That is one of the tacit obligations—that decent quarters shall be provided for those whom the State has taken into its service. Cruelty has been alleged in this case. No one knows more of the conditions in this neighbourhood than the hon. Member who has raised this question. I am sure that he will admit that there have been very few evictions. That is so—certainly so far as my knowledge goes. I am speaking now entirely for the period during which I have been responsible. No eviction at all has taken place.
  Sir K. WOOD: That is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman. He has issued a number of summonses to try to get them out.
  Mr. WALSH: In so far as the summonses are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is only a formal process. The hon. Gentleman need not confuse the two processes, as there are hon. Members of the House who are, perhaps, not so well informed as to legal procedure as is the hon. Member. The mere process of taking out a summons in order to obtain formal possession is vastly different from the process of the ejectment order. No ejectment has taken place. No cruelty has taken place. I never stated last week that the eviction would take place. What I said was that I had no right—neither have I any right. The people who are in the service of the State, to whom the State has contracted definite obligations, have a right equally with everyone else that these obligations shall be carried out. As the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, there is an appalling absence of married quarters. There are in the service of the Army enormous numbers of married men who are living under conditions which really do not err on the side of decency. Those people have an equal right to, in fact a greater right than those who have completed their service with the State. This man knew in November that his quarters would be required. The process
  2164
  of obtaining formal possession by Court order took place on the 7th of this month. That order itself only becomes formally operative at the end of four weeks, and so far as I know, there is no desire on the part of the War Office to put this man or his family to any distress or trouble whatever. He is a man for whom everybody has a high regard and he has rendered the State very great service. I have said already that no parallel can be instituted with this case.
  Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking—
  Mr. WALSH: I cannot give any undertaking.
  Sir K. WOOD: Will he give an undertaking that he will not put this man into the street until alternative accommodation is found for him?
  Mr. WALSH: Hon. Members know that the Estimates of the War Office, as of other State Departments, are quite properly put down, and they have to meet the requirements of this House. How can the War Office provide alternative accommodation. It has no alternative accommodation. Every ordinary landlord is in receipt of rent. There is no rent paid in these cases, and the men are not tenants in the ordinary sense of the word at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is part of the consideration."] The only thing I can say is that the same process will take place as that which has taken place in the past. Every forbearance has been shown in the past. Whenever a person in occupation of quarters has shown anything like good will, no ejectment has taken place. That is all I can say at the moment.
  Sir K. WOOD: Where is the man to go to?
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to evict this poor fellow, with his 10 children, until some decent alternative accommodation is provided?
  Mr. WALSH: I cannot enter into such an undertaking. I can only say this: I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich should wave his hands in such an imploring manner. I have said that forbearance has been

  2165
  exercised in the past. No evictions have taken place during my term of office. This is a most deserving case, the case of a man of whom everybody speaks highly, and I have said that in this case there will be no departure from the usual forbearance that has been exhibited by the Crown.
  Mr. BECKER: Does that mean he will not be evicted?
  Mr. WALSH: I cannot carry it any further. I can enter into no definite obligation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If I entered into a definite obligation of that character, would not every other person have an equal right?
  Sir K. WOOD: So they ought to.
  Mr. WALSH: And, as my hon. Friend knows, you might easily have the whole of the military quarters occupied by civilians. All that I can say is this: I have no knowledge of the proceedings that took place in Committee. I have no official knowledge of what the Attorney-General
  2166
  said, but I can promise this—and this is the only promise I will make, and, I think, it is the only promise that hon. Members ought to ask me to make—that the same forbearance, the same proper regard to all the circumstances, will be given in this case as has been given in the past.
  Sir THOMAS INSKIP: The right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that all that he has been saying is really what has been said many times in answer to the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister, and others of the Labour party, when they have made most unfounded accusations against people who have only been doing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman himself is doing, and is defending with so much warmth to-night. I hope he will tell the Minister of Health some of the excellent things he has just been telling us.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  COOKERY BRANCH.
  COOKERY BRANCH.
  CADETS.
  CADETS.
  SHIPS IN PERSIAN GULF.
  SHIPS IN PERSIAN GULF.
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "COVENTRY."
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "COVENTRY."
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
BRITISH ARMY.
  DEATH PENALTY.
  DEATH PENALTY.
  COURTS-MARTIAL.
  COURTS-MARTIAL.
  EXPLOSIVES.
  EXPLOSIVES.
  ARMY CIRCULAR.
  ARMY CIRCULAR.
HOUSING.
  UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS.
  UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS.
  REPAIRS.
  REPAIRS.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  POOR LAW REFORM.
  POOR LAW REFORM.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EXPORTS TO THE ARGENTINE.
  EXPORTS TO THE ARGENTINE.
  REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT.
  REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT.
  BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION, LIMITED.
  BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION, LIMITED.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURES).
  COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURES).
EDUCATION.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS (JUVENILE UNEMPLOYMENT CENTRES).
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS (JUVENILE UNEMPLOYMENT CENTRES).
  UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.
  UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
AGRICULTURE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  WAGES BOARD (COMMITTEES).
  WAGES BOARD (COMMITTEES).
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT, AUSTRALIA.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT, AUSTRALIA.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  CONSULAR SERVICE (WOMEN).
  CONSULAR SERVICE (WOMEN).
  PENSIONS OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  PENSIONS OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  COAL PRICES.
  COAL PRICES.
INDIA.
  IMPORT DUTIES (STEEL).
  IMPORT DUTIES (STEEL).
  RAILWAY WAGONS (BOUNTY).
  RAILWAY WAGONS (BOUNTY).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  BRISTOL.
  BRISTOL.
POST OFFICE.
  STONEHAVEN WIRELESS STATION.
  STONEHAVEN WIRELESS STATION.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (LETTERS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (LETTERS).
  NEW POST OFFICE, HOYLAKE, CHESHIRE.
  NEW POST OFFICE, HOYLAKE, CHESHIRE.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (SPECIAL STAMP).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (SPECIAL STAMP).
  REGISTERED LETTERS AND PACKETS.
  REGISTERED LETTERS AND PACKETS.
  POSTAL FACILITIES, SHIPSTON-ON-STOUR.
  POSTAL FACILITIES, SHIPSTON-ON-STOUR.
TRANSPORT.
  THAMES BRIDGES.
  THAMES BRIDGES.
  HEAVY MOTOR TRAFFIC (VIBRATION).
  HEAVY MOTOR TRAFFIC (VIBRATION).
  BRENTFORD AND HOUNSLOW BY-PASS ROAD.
  BRENTFORD AND HOUNSLOW BY-PASS ROAD.
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (OVERCROWDING).
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (OVERCROWDING).
  LONDON TRAFFIC (CONGESTION).
  LONDON TRAFFIC (CONGESTION).
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (JAMAICA AND BRITISH GUIANA).
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (JAMAICA AND BRITISH GUIANA).
  PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN had given Notice to move, in the event of the Bill being committed, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill to strike out from the Bill all powers relating to Tramway No. 4. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be noticed that I have placed a Motion on the Paper to omit Tramway No. 4 from the scope of this Bill, and I will state very briefly why I have done so. Provision is made in this Bill for tram lines to be laid along the Waterloo-road. In that road stands the Royal Waterloo Hospital, a hospital of considerable size for the treatment of women and children. It does admittedly good work in that district of South London where it is situate. A well known member of your Lordships' House, the Earl of Athlone, was for some years Chairman of our board at the hospital until he took up his appointment in South Africa the other day. As I happen to be the only other member of your Lordships' House who is a member of the board of the hospital, I have undertaken to put their case this afternoon.
The hospital authorities fear the noise that will be caused by the tramway and its injurious effect on the patients of the hospital. I think your Lordships will agree that of all noises caused by road traffic that made by tramcars is the most penetrating. It is bad enough in the clay time, but it is infinitely worse at night. Some idea of what would happen to the

495
Waterloo Hospital can be formed from the experience of St. Thomas's Hospital, not far from this House on the opposite side of the river. The authorities there know how injurious are the effects of this noise on their patients, and the medical staff and the clerical staff and all connected with that hospital would say the same thing. If this Bill passes into law unaltered the position of the Waterloo Hosptal will he worse than that of St. Thomas's for two reasons.
The first is that St. Thomas's is situated on a wide roadway and there is a broad space of several yards between the kerb and the tram lines. The Waterloo Hospital has a much narrower road in front. There will be only two or three feet, as I understand, between the tram lines and the pavement, and the trams will run right under the windows of the hospital. Secondly, as your Lordships probably know, St. Thomas's has a wide river frontage where, no doubt, the worst cases can be put; but the Waterloo Hospital, unfortunately, is a very narrow building and every ward faces the Waterloo Bridge-road. The worst of the noises occur at night when the roads are clear and trams accelerate their pace. They then cause vibration and lead to humming or rumbling noises which, as your Lordships must realise, have a very injurious effect upon the patients. The secretary of St. Thomas's Hospital, who was kind enough to see me yesterday, told me that on several occasions he had approached the tramway authority of the London County Council, and they assured him that they would see that these trams should run more slowly past the hospital. For a day or two after he made his protest that was the case, but afterwards the drivers reverted to their former practice, and came swinging past the hospital at a great pace, with consequent disturbance to the patients. These tramways cause a noise which I think would disturb the sleep of any healthy person, and to any one whose chances of recovery, as is sometimes the case, depend upon getting, a good night's rest, the consequence of disturbance of this kind may easily prove fatal. Furthermore, the hospital authorities fear that this noise would seriously retard the recovery of convalescent patients.
One other point that I would venture to bring before your Lordships is this.
496
This is not a very important length of tramway. I think it is 631 yards, or about a third of a mile, in length. I understand that the London County Council have entrusted their case to the able advocacy of my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am right in stating that this particular scheme, or a similar scheme, has come before Parliament on five occasions, and on each of those five occasions Parliament has rejected it. I hope this will be the sixth occasion on which that will happen.
There is also this peculiar circumstance which I would ask your Lordships to consider. The proposed tramway line is to terminate at the south end of Waterloo Bridge. As your Lordships are aware, that bridge has recently subsided, is now closed to traffic, and is to undergo reconstruction. Building, and particularly any public building in this country, is rather a lengthy business and judging, for example, by the time that it takes to build houses—a process which I am bound to say shows no signs of acceleration under a Labour Government—it will take a long time to rebuild this bridge. Obviously it will be a matter at least of months, and probably of years. I suggest therefore that it would be no hardship in this case for the London County Council to wait until the work of rebuilding the bridge has been, completed, or is near completion. They could then come to Parliament with the scheme which they now propose.
And there is the further point of traffic congestion. I am not an authority on traffic questions, but I believe it to be the case that many people who know a great deal more about these things than I do consider that before long a limit will be placed to tramway construction in this country on account of the fact that motor transport supplies an equally cheap, at least an equally convenient, and a swifter means of conveyance for the public. Trams are inconvenient on account of the space which they occupy and on account of their rigidity, and, as your Lordships know, they add to the congestion of traffic, particularly in narrow thoroughfares. A few years hence it may well be that more convenient methods of transport will be in existence. I believe there

497
are a good number of means of transport already in existence for the purpose of linking up North and South London. That, I submit, is an additional reason why your Lordships should not include this scheme in the Bill.
Perhaps my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton will tell me, and the Lord Chairman may say, that this is really a matter for Committee, that it is a matter which should be thrashed out before a Committee upstairs. With that I would agree, but we are placed in this unfortunate position. Like many hospitals, we are seriously in debt at the moment, and the board of the hospital do not consider that they would be justified in expending the money which is now needed for their day to day expenditure, in briefing counsel and opposing this matter in Committee upstairs. It is on that account that I have ventured to raise this question on the floor of the House. I feel that I owe an apology to your Lordships for so doing, but I trust you will agree that this is a matter which does merit your consideration; and I would earnestly plead for your sympathy and support. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill to strike out from the Bill all powers relating to Tramway No. 4.—(Lord Denman.)
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, in the first place I will try to answer the questions which have been addressed to me by the noble Lord. It is true that this particular part of the Bill has been before Parliament before, I believe on three, not on five, occasions. A great many tramway undertakings, and many other bodies who promote Private Bills, have to try a number of times before they get them on the Statute Book, and after they have got them upon the Statute Book the schemes to which the Bills relate are not found to be so dangerous as was anticipated. I have been a member of your Lordships' House long enough to remember a celebrated Division that took place on the question of whether the tramways should be brought along the Embankment. On the Motion of the noble Viscount, the late Lord Ridley, the Tramway Bill was thrown out, but within a very short period it reappeared, and the
498
tramways were sanctioned, and are now a part of the ordinary life of London.
I want to say one word about tramways in general. Neither in the City of London nor in the West End of London do I want to see tramways, but it is quite different in the suburbs. I have a London County Council constituency in the suburbs, and I know what the trams mean to the people who dwell there. I know what a great convenience is a large vehicle running at a good speed on the wide roads of the suburbs, and how helpful it is in bringing workers to their business. You may dislike trams, but £16,000,000 has been invested in these trams, and £6,000,000 has been repaid, leaving £10,000,000 of public money still invested in the trams. In the opinion of the Tramways Committee of the London County Council it is important that everything should be done to make the trams as paying a proposition as possible. The noble Lord asks you to turn down a particular part of this Bill because of the disadvantage to one hospital. This is a Bill which has passed through the House of Commons. All of us must have a great deal of sympathy with hospitals in this matter; we want to keep the patients as quiet as they can be kept. I wish the noble Lord would bring what he has said about St. Thomas's Hospital to the notice of the tramways manager, and of the London County Council. If he does so, I am sure the matter will be attended to.
The public need for transportation is paramount. In London there are ten large hospitals. In addition to a great number of smaller homes and institutions of the same character, which have tramways running alongside them. It is therefore unreasonable for the noble Lord to come here this evening and ask that a Bill which has passed through the House of Commons, a Bill which is promoted by all parties on the London County Council, and notably by the Progressive Party with which the noble Lord ought to have sympathy, and one which is proposed in order to enable workers in South London to get to their place of occupation, should be rejected. It is true that Waterloo Bridge is temporarily shut, but the powers in this Bill extend for seven years and we hope something will be done before then to get over the river at that spot. This Bill was

499
considered by a Committee in another place under the Chairmanship of Mr. Ormsby-Gore, a very competent Chairman. They had the evidence of the police, who did not disapprove of the tramway, but only asked that one detail should be altered and it was altered. It is said that the Ministry of Transport is in favour of the measure and I can be corrected in that statement if I am wrong. There was a representative of the trades unions representing 150,000 workers south of the Thames, who asked that the tramway should be constructed. The Members of Parliament for Lambeth and South-wark also attended the Committee. In the result they unanimously approved of the Bill.
Can you consider the details of this matter on the floor of the House? Can yon understand these questions unless you have counsel and maps and so forth, as you have in the case of a Private Bill? Is not your Committee upstairs strong enough to hold its own opinion and reverse the judgment of the Committee of the other House if it thinks it is wrong? It has been clone again and again, and I ask your Lordships to rely on the Committee of your own House and be assured that the best and most expedient tiling will be done.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to the two noble Lords for the clearness with which they have stated their case this afternoon. I do not feel inclind to go into the merits of the question, although both noble Lords have not lost sight of that side of the subject. I merely desire to advise your Lordships on what is the most convenient course to follow in dealing with a question which obviously requires some consideration. Lord Den-man was quite frank in saying—I am using my own phrase—that this is a very ordinary case. It is the case of the promotion of a tramway by a big public authority opposed by a frontager. It is the kind of ease that is heard upstairs every day, and I suggest that this is the convenient course in all these cases. My noble friend made an appeal with which I am sure everyone who has anything to do with the finances of a hospital will sympathise. He said that his board felt the disadvantage of having to brief counsel and appear before a Committee of your Lordships' House. But if that matter came up before the small and not
500
very rich hospital of which I am treasurer, I should feel no alternative but to accept it as one of the disadvantages of my situation. I should not feel justified in asking your Lordships not to follow the usual course by rejecting a scheme like this on Second Reading merely because I felt the difficulty of providing sufficient funds to state my case upstairs.
If I had had to address your Lordships on this subject last year I should have argued that instructions to a Committee were very unusual things, but the precedent of last year in the case of the Whitgift Hospital at Croydon laid down a rather different practice. It is, however, fair to say that the Whitgift Hospital and the present case cannot be compared. In the one instance it was the case of an ancient monument, a beautiful old building, to which your Lordships lightly attached great sentimental value, and the attack on it excited a great deal of public interest which your Lordships rightly interpreted in the decision to which you came. But this is not the case of an ancient monument or a building of great historic value. To be perfectly frank, if the worst really came to the worst I take it that the work of this hospital could be just as well carried on somewhere else by moving the hospital. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not suggest that I have been into the merits of the case, and that it is a case in which the Waterloo Hospital ought to move. But if there is that side of the question, them it is the kind of question which comes up when you are considering the matter of compensation, and that can be best considered by the Committee upstairs and not in the course of a Second Beading debate in your Lordships' House. I hope my noble friend will be satisfied by having drawn special attention to this matter. I say unhesitatingly that he is justified in doing so, but I hope he will allow (he normal course to be followed, and that a Committee of this House will consider the matter in the usual way when he and those with whom he is associated can put forward proposals for rejecting the scheme.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, when the noble Earl asks your Lordships not to interfere with this Bill because it is contrary to the usual practice of the House, I have great sympathy with his

501
argument, but he did not base his case on very sound ground when he said that the only case made by Lord Denman was in the nature of a complaint by a frontager who objected to the passage of the trams. It is nothing of the kind. It is the objection of a small hospital for women and children which is notoriously insufficiently provided with funds to enable it to appear before the Committee. It certainly does not correspond to the ordinary position of a frontager. Another thing was said more than once with which I find it difficult to agree, and that is that this instruction is a rejection of the Bill. Surely it is nothing whatever of the kind. It is simply an instruction to the Committee to exclude a certain part of the tramway system from the operation of the measure. That is a different thing altogether. Finally, I was rather impressed by the fact that Lord Monk Bretton did not deal with what seemed to me to be a very important fact, and that is that this particular tramway is only 651 yards in extent. If that is right, then we are not interfering in any way either with swift or cheap transit. We are merely making a person walk about two-thirds of a mile, and this inconvenience cannot be measured against the misery and suffering which must undoubtedly be endured by the inhabitants of this small hospital.
The noble Earl suggested that they should move the hospital. Yes, but how? Moving a hospital is not a very cheap process. It will cost money, and the funds of this hospital are already depleted. I cannot help thinking that this is a matter which deserves a little further argument here before we decide our attitude to this Bill. The facts, as we have heard them, are that this tramway is only 651 yards long, that it runs through a comparatively narrow street I and that it runs close to a hospital, which will undoubtedly suffer grave inconvenience, and its patients great suffering, if this scheme is permitted to continue. Upon those facts it seems to me that good reason is made out for saying that this particular portion of the Bill ought not to be pursued.
Finally, I should like to say a word upon a point which I think needs consideration. The provision of cheap and swift transport is undoubtedly one of the greatest and most urgent needs of
502
this city. It is essential for the benefit of the poor and for the maintenance of our commercial life. It is always assumed that this is best effected by the construction of innumerable tramways. I am not satisfied that this is so. I am not by any means sure that we are not clinging, as progressive people frequently cling, to an archaic system, under the impression that it represents the last word in progress. I say nothing about that now, because it is obviously rather a matter for discussion elsewhere. I only desire to add that, unless the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Denman, receives some more conclusive contradiction than that which we have hitherto heard, I shall feel compelled to vote with him if he takes this matter to a Division.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise for one moment to support the views of the last speaker and of my noble friend below me, whose position I know very well. I cannot help thinking that, in these days, to build more tramways in already congested streets is to increase their congestion. The present position is that the people who now use the tramways have to change so many hundred yards south of Waterloo Bridge into another class of conveyance namely, a motor omnibus—or else walk. If this were a scheme to take the tramway right across to the Strand, there might be something to be said for it, but, as it is intended to stop short of the bridge, the passengers in each tramcar will have to change in any case. I think Parliament has hitherto been wise on previous occasions in rejecting the extension of this tramway.
I agree with that which fell from the noble and learned Lord about the need of better transport in London, but to encumber our streets with small railways, which is what tramways really are, is not to assist the locomotion of London. I may remind your Lordships also that there is every prospect of a London transport authority being constituted. This is the very kind of subject with which they ought to deal and, I hope, will be capable of dealing. In view of that prospect, considering the merits of the case and in view of the fact that tramways are not really so efficient in conveying passengers through narrow

503
streets to distant places as are other forms of locomotion, I shall unhesitatingly give my vote to the noble Lord who brought forward this Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to say a word upon this matter. I think that those of your Lordships who heard Lord Penman's speech must have heard it with great sympathy. We all feel very acutely the necessity of treating with every indulgence the exigencies of hospitals and the welfare of the patients in them. When I heard the noble Lord's speech I was very strongly inclined to vote with him. But I think your Lordships must proceed in this matter with great care, for we are liable to be setting a very awkward precedent, as I shall venture to point out in a moment, if we strike out this provision at the present stage and do not allow it to go to a Committee. I think it is quite evident that the points made by my noble friend who has just sat down are either an argument against tramways altogether, in which case he ought to reject the Bill, or else they are Committee points as to particular sections of the tramway, and ought to be argued in Committee. That was admitted by my noble and learned friend Lord Buck-master, just now, when he said, quite candidly, at the end of his speech, that the argument in respect of tramways generally was a Committee matter.
Why should we take this matter out of the hands of a Committee of your Lordships' House? I think it is clear from the arguments which have been submitted to the House that it would go to the Committee without difficulty but for one consideration. It is clear that details as to where people ought to change or ought not to change, and all that sort of thing, can be properly considered when we are in Committee. They are pure Committee points. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that to say that a hospital is a mere frontager is an exaggeration. It is much more than an ordinary frontager. Nevertheless, the point is a pure Committee point. Why should it not go to Committee? The obvious reason is that the hospital shrinks from the expense of appearing before the Committee. That appears to be the only solid reason why the matter should not go before a Committee.
504
The question that arises, then, is whether we are to say that, whenever an institution approaches us on the ground that it is not very well off, we ought to take decisions out of the hands of the Committee of your Lordships' House and settle them in the House itself. That is a tremendous doctrine that would carry us very far indeed. I agree, and have always thought, that one of the great abuses of our system is that you cannot get justice in this country unless you are fairly well off. That is true not only in relation to Committees of your Lordships' House but as regards the Courts themselves. It is very difficult to go before the Courts unless you employ good counsel, and so forth, at great expense. But that is part of our system, and if we are going to lay it down that wherever the expense is very great, the matter should be taken out of the hands of the Committee and decided on the Moor of the. House, it will be a very dangerous doctrine which I think your Lordships ought to hesitate before accepting.
I believe that every member of this House would agree with mo that this matter should be considered by the Committee if we were quite certain that it would be thoroughly thrashed out before the Committee. I believe that would satisfy Lord Denman himself. I cannot help believing that, after this debate in your Lordships' House, the Committee will take every care in considering it. Probably several members of the Committee are themselves present here and have heard the debate. I should shrink from voting with my noble friend Lord Denman, because I think we should be setting a precedent which would give rise to great difficulties in the future.
LORD HEMPHILL: My Lords, as a past Chairman of the Highways Committee, I have been asked to support the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, who is opposed to this instruction. Your Lordships will feel, with the noble Lord who moved the instruction, great sympathy for this hospital. We all feel great sympathy with hospitals, but I would remind your Lordships that this is not a very large hospital. It has only about 106 beds in it, and there are a great number of larger hospitals in London alongside which tramways have run without causing great inconvenience. After all, if we are going to sympathise

505
with this hospital, as we all will, why should we not sympathise with the numerous people who use the tramways? There are 106 beds in the hospital, and tens of thousands of people using the tramways.
I do not know whether your Lordships exactly understand the position of this tramway at the present time. It now stops just short of Waterloo Station, and the proposal is to bring it up to the foot of Waterloo Bridge. One may perhaps hope that when Waterloo Bridge is reconstructed, it will be brought across the bridge into Wellington-street, so that it will bring people right up to the Strand. The terminus of this tramline going to the foot of Waterloo Bridge will be about 300 yards beyond the hospital. The total length of the extension is about three-eighths of a mile. I would like to point out to your Lordships that Waterloo-road is not a particularly narrow thoroughfare, but, on the contrary, as roads go in London, is rather a wide thoroughfare and one of the noisiest. A large amount of traffic passes over it, including lorries, wagons and so forth, and the addition of a tramline will make very little difference to the noise.
It has been proved on many occasions before Committees of both Houses that tramlines do not make more noise than other means of traction. Time after time, when the statement has been made that tramways made more noise, the Committees have been convinced that the statement was not true. And of course the point which is made, that there may be better means of locomotion, and cheaper and more rapid means, is certainly a matter for argument before a Committee. It cannot be argued in this House, It has been argued time after time against tramways, but yet on each occasion the tramways have been approved by Committees. I need not deal with what has been said with regard to the desirability of this going before a Committee, because that is obvious, but I venture to hope that your Lordships will give the promoters a fair chance of having this question considered by a Committee upstairs.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I think the only matter involved here is not a matter of merit but of whether a
506
question of this kind can be more properly debated on the floor of this House than in a Committee room upstairs, and I was struck with the speech of Lord Buckmaster, who put the case in the strongest possible way for dealing with the matter now and not in Committee upstairs. In the old days, as many of your Lordships know, I had considerable experience of Committee work, both in this House and in the other House, and it appears to me that the question now before your Lordships is eminently one which ought to be dealt with in Committee upstairs. No general principle is involved in it, and I should regret that anybody in the position of a hospital should be put to expense. That is what affects me most nearly, but I do not think there is any reason for departing, as the Lord Chairman said, from the ordinary practice of sending these matters to a Committee upstairs, where all the various considerations which we have heard addressed to your Lordships can be fully considered in detail.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, may I say that I do not think the hospital committee has lodged any Petition against this Bill, and therefore it would not be competent for it to go before the Committee?
LORD PARMOOR: Oh yes, it would have locus standi.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I do not want to trouble you any longer, but I only wish to say that, in my view, this is the last chance which the hospital has. It is all very well for the noble Marquess and Lord Parmoor to say that this might be argued in Committee, but we have carefully considered the matter, and it is a very expensive business to fight these things in Committee upstairs. Lord Monk Bretton said that your Lordships were not fully seized of the points, and were therefore unable to give your decision upon them, after listening to his speech and mine. I should not have said that after listening to his speech. I think your Lordships are very fully seized of the arguments for the proposal in the Bill. The Lord Chairman spoke of compensation, but he was the only person who mentioned that matter at all. Lord Monk Bretton never said a

507
word about it, and that being so I must trouble your Lordships to go to a Division.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

SPENCER SETTLED CHATTELS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
LONDON STREET ACCIDENTS.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY LORD NEWTON.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I hope I may be permitted to take this opportunity
  On Question, Whether the Motion be agreed to?
  There Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents,35.

  CONTENTS.

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Banbury of Southam, L.[Teller.]

  Phillimore, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Ponsonby, L.(E. Bess-borough.)

  Buckmaster, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Carson, L.

  Powerscourt, L. (V. Powers-court.)

  Buxton, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)

  Chesterfield, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Rathereedan, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Danesfort, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Darling, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Midleton, E.

  de Mauley, L.

  Sempill, L.

  Denman, L.[Teller.]

  Shandon, L.

  Burnham, V.

  Ernle, L.

  Southwark, L.

  Cave, V.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Chilston, V.

  Faringdon, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloxmy.)

  Inchcape, V.

  Gainford, L.

  Long, V.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Strachie, L.

  Younger of Leckie, V.

  Kilmarnock, L.(E. Erroll.)

  Stuart of Wortley, L.

  Kylsant, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Lambourne, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

  Sumner, L.

  Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Swaythling, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Wemyss, L.(E. Wemyss.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Haldane, V.(L. Chancellor.)

  Strafford, E.

  Hemphill, L. [Teller.]

  Hylton, L.

  Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

  Bertie of Thame, V.

  Jessel, L.

  Chelmsford, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Curzon of Kedleston, M.

  Esher, V.

  MacDonnell, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hutchinson, V.(E. Donoughmore.)

  Monk Bretton, L. [Teller.]

  Monkswell, L.

  Grey, E.

  Lee of Fareham, V.

  Muir Mackenzie, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Newton, L.

  Malmesburv, E.

  Arnold, L.

  Southborough, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Thomson, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Cawley, L.

  Wharton, L.

  Russell, E.

  Dynevor, L.

  Wyfold, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  to make a short personal explanation. One day last week there was a debate in this House on the dangers of motor traffic in London, and I and other noble Lords made some observations with regard to a member of the House of Commons, who will easily be identified by the name of Lord Curzon. Since then I have ascertained that the case in question is still sub judice, and I desire to express my regret that I made any allusion to the noble Lord, because the last thing I wish to do is to interfere with the course of justice. Perhaps I may be permitted to add that, whilst in no way modifying my opinions with regard to furious motor driving, I bear no animus whatsoever against this gentleman; on the contrary, I have considerable respect for him as a courageous and energetic member of the Party to which I belong.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS(No.1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STRATFORD - UPON - AVON EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WATFORD EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, in regard to this Bill I should like to ask permission to postpone the Committee stage until Thursday. There are a few Government Amendments to be put down, and, for some reason or other, they have not been put into circulation among your Lordships. If Thursday is a convenient day, therefore, we should like to postpone the Committee stage until that day.
Order discharged: House to be in Committee on Thursday next.

PREVENTION OF EVICTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a short Bill, but I am afraid that, on the face of it, it will not be very intelligible. That is not the fault of those who have drafted it, but it is the inevitable outcome of the state of legislation on this subject. There is a Code, which consists of a long series of provisions, and this
510
is an amendment of a particular provision in that Code. I hope, however, to make the Bill intelligible to your Lordships. It has been my duty, as your Lordships' adviser on legal and constitutional matters, to wade through all the Acts of Parliament relating to the subject, and, what is rather worse, the numerous debates which have taken place on the subject, particularly in the other House.
Before I tell your Lordships what the substance of the Bill is I should like to say something of its genesis. Much of what is implied in the Bill is due to the legislation which was introduced into this House by my noble friend Lord Onslow, who was also Chairman of the Committee which devoted so much minute investigation to the whole subject. The bulk of what he accomplished we leave intact in this Bill. There is only one Act which we propose to amend. That amendment comes from another source. It is due to the exertions of a very able member of the other House, Mr. E. D. Simon, the Member for Withington. Mr. Simon has been Lord Mayor of the City of Manchester, and has given much attention to the question which this Bill raises, and to the housing question generally, with very fruitful results, because there was a series of Bills before the House of Commons, all of which involved the point with which the present Bill deals, but none of which found favour.
The floor of the House of Commons in this matter is like a battlefield. It is covered with the corpses of slain Bills. The Bill of my right hon. friend Mr. Wheatley perished, as your Lordships will remember. But it dealt with a wholly different matter; it dealt with the eviction of persons who had not paid their rent because they were unemployed. The view taken was that that was a burden which should fall upon the community rather than upon the landlord and, acting on that principle, the Bill was thrown out in another place. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with that. There was another Bill which perished, that of Mr. Gardner. It perished in Grand Committee. There are two other Bills dealing with the question which is before your Lordships, which may or may not come up. There is Mr. Wedgwood Benn's Bill and another in the name of Mr. Trevelyan Thomson.

511
That brings me at once to Mr. Simon's Bill. It was impossible to make progress with a matter which was urgent and which had hitherto been unfortunate because it was mixed up with questions of non-payment of rent and unemployment. Mr. Simon was fortunate enough to put before the other House a proposition so simple that it commended itself to that House. His Bill was unanimously agreed to on Second Heading by all Parties. It went upstairs to Committee, fathered now by the Government. It went through Grand Committee where it was thoroughly sifted but not materially altered. It came clown to the House of Commons where it was again sifted on Report but not materially altered. Then it was unanimously accepted by the House of Commons.
The last great Act upon this subject was the Act passed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, which carried out the policy of restricting evictions by landlords. That was done only within carefully defined limits and I will tell your Lordships why. At the beginning of the war there was a moratorium, and under that moratorium people could not be called upon to pay their debts and could not be called upon to submit to being turned out by the owners of property of which they were tenants. In the very early days of the war a discretion was given to the Courts under one of the emergency provisions which were necessary at the time but have since come to an end. Then an Act was passed in 1915 which began to make greater inroads into the rights of landlords. That Act placed restrictions on landlords in cases where they would not cause hardship. The Act of 1920, which remained in force for three years, interfered very much with landlords. It was followed by efforts to get more houses built and it was hoped that those efforts would make the necessity of restrictions much less than had been the case. Those efforts culminated in the Act of 1923.
This is a Bill which does not amend the whole Act of 1923 but seeks to amend one part of it and that a minor part. I will tell your Lordships what the position of a landlord of a house, will be if this Bill passes. First of all, I would say that it would apply only to cases where the rent is not more than £105 per annum. Secondly, the Act will only modify the general law for the period of another year. It may be necessary to
512
extend it still further. That depends on whether the evil this Bill is introduced to remedy continues unabated. What would be the position of the landlord if this Bill were passed? He will have, in the first place, a number of the rights which he already possesses under Lord Onslow's Act. He may evict for non-payment of rent, or for breach of covenant, or for nuisance, or because the house is required for those who have served in the war or who are needed for agricultural services. All these things are provided for in the Act of 1923 and are not interfered with by this Bill.
The Act of 1923 did something more. By Section 4 it enabled the landlord of a house, who became the owner before. 1922, to turn out a tenant if he wanted the house for himself or for his son or daughter over 18 years of age. By a subsequent provision of Section 4 it was provided that the landlord who did not become the owner before 1922 and who wanted the property for himself, for his own residence, or for the residence of a son or daughter, could claim possession in certain circumstances if there was no hardship. In other words, the landlord was let quite loose in these cases if he bought the house before 1922.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Before June 30, 1922.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Earl; I am speaking from memory. Then a remarkable thing took place. It was thought that the best way of getting houses then was through private, enterprise. When builders construct houses they do not build them as philanthropists. They build them in the vast majority of cases to make a profit, and if they build them for profit their purpose is to get the highest price they can by selling to the highest bidder. That proved to be so to an extraordinary degree. Immediately after the passing of the Act of 1923 the number of eviction orders went up to an almost inconceivable extent. In the course of the ensuing eight months they were 50 per cent, above the total for the previous year. They rose to the astonishing figure of nearly 20,000. Part of those evictions were due to nonpayment of rent, and no one will complain of evictions on that score, but 15,000 were due to other causes. They were due

513
to landlords being determined to get possession either for themselves or for members of their own families.
I do not think you can combine freedom in private building with complete control. The safest course is to let the new houses be built by a public authority, and that is what the new Bill will propose to do. When you have built a sufficiency of houses you will not then need control. The effort to build houses without control, free from restriction, which the Act of 1023 gave, was followed by this number of 15,000 evictions in the ensuing eight months. I have taken eight months because that is the figure for the period during which investigations were made. As the head of the judiciary in this country it is within my power to get the statistics, and I called for them from County Court Judges. They are now given in the form of a Return which shows beyond question (hat the effect of decontrol under paragraphs (iv) and (v), subsection (1) of the substituted Section 5 of the 1923 Act was as I have stated. It gave rise to a great many orders for possession. Owing to the provisions of those paragraphs (iv) and (v), and to the absence of houses built by public authorities, the figure of evictions went up to 15,000. In addition to that, many people, through fear of eviction, went out without any orders actually being obtained against them, and if the number of these people were known the figure of 15,000 would be considerably augmented.
The result is that the effect of decontrol, brought about by the Act of 1923, was very greatly to increase the number of evictions. This was not in substance controverted in the other House. Questions were raised about the number of orders actually enforced by the officers of the Courts, but there was no doubt in the minds of the members of the House of Commons that we were in the presence of a great social evil, an evil which must be mitigated if tranquillity is to be restored to the country. Never has it been demonstrated more clearly than to-day that if industrial unrest is to be minimised and tranquillity brought about, adequate provision must be made for housing the workers and their families. Human nature is human nature, and if a man feels that he can get a larger profit by letting a house to another tenant, or by occupying it himself and letting a
514
portion of it, he is very apt to evict the person who is there as tenant already, and to evict him without considering the hardship that will be experienced by that tenant. That is the reason for this Bill, and that is the reason why the other House passed it unanimously.
Now I come to what this Bill does. It proceeds to deal with paragraphs (iv) and (v) of subsection (1) of the substituted Section 5 which was placed in that Act instead of the Section 5 in the principal Act, so far as they enable the landlord, either for his own purposes or for the purpose of putting in a son or daughter, to turn out the existing tenant without any regard to the questions of alternative accommodation or hardship. So far as that is concerned, this is a single-clause Bill. I do not think your Lordships will be troubled with the second clause, because it is mere machinery to give effect to the Bill. The Bill provides that
" Where the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord (not being a landlord who has become owner by purchase of the dwelling-house after the fifth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-four for occupation as a residence for himself and the court is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including any alternative accommodation available for the landlord or the tenant "—
both are taken into account— "that greater hardship would be caused by refusing to grant an order or judgment for possession than by granting it,"
then the landlord may be given possession. If the landlord does not bring himself within that provision—if he cannot show that he reasonably requires the residence, and the circumstances are such that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant, than would be caused to the landlord, having regard to all the circumstances of the ease, including any alternative accommodation available—then the landlord will not be given an order for possession. That is the restriction in this Bill, and that is the, restriction which the House of Commons accepted as one which would reasonably meet the urgent necessities of the present situation.
I hope I have made the substance of the Bill clear. It is a one-clause Bill. It could not have been drafted so as to set out the whole situation without re-enacting or reproducing all the other clauses of the noble Earl's Bill. It con fines itself to dealing with the change

515
which that Bill made, leaves the landlord tree in all ordinary cases, but says that when he requires the premises for himself he must satisfy the Court that he is not inflicting greater hardship than should be inflicted upon the tenant whom he is seeking to turn out, and that there is alternative accommodation available. There have been eases of people turned out into the street and having to shelter where they could; cases of great hardship. The volume of testimony from all quarters which came into the other House in the speeches made by members of that House was overwhelming. This is a Bill which is strongly supported by some Conservative members of the other House. It is supported by Liberals and by the Labour Government. The Bill does not cover the whole field, but it is a measure upon which all Parties in a co-operative spirit are agreed in order to meet an urgent and pressing social evil. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to go through the somewhat complicated history given by the Lord Chancellor as to the attempts at legislation by the Government which have not hitherto borne fruit. This is the, first Bill which has come to this House, and it is a Bill not produced by the Government but by a private member of the other House. The Government have taken it up and we have to deal with it as it is. I want to advert at once to a point which appears to me to be of interest. I understood the Lord Chancellor to say that after the Act of 1923 there had been an enormous increase of evictions. As I understood him he said there had been 15,000 evictions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Orders.
VISCOUNT CAVE: That is quite a different thing. All of us know that when the rent of a house is unpaid, as unfortunately it often is, the landlord has to go to the county court and obtain an order for eviction as the only method of getting his rent. But in far the greater number of eases the Judge, while he may make the order if he thinks it reasonable, suspends its operation with a view of allowing the tenant to remedy his default before actual eviction occurs,
516
and in far the greater number of the 15,000 cases in which orders for eviction were made no eviction at all ensued, obviously because the tenant, although late in the day, paid his rent and retained possession of the house. I am not saying this on my own authority. A Return has been made as a White Paper and it shows that the orders made were something like 15,000, but the total number of warrants executed—that is, evictions—amounted in all to 2,431 throughout the whole, of England. Most of us know, I know perfectly well, that in many cases the orders have to be made. There are many cases in which a man has saved enough to buy a house in which he hopes to spend the latter part of his days, but when the time comes and ho wants occupation he cannot get it because some other tenant is there. In those cases the Judge has a right to consider whether possession is reasonably required. It is only if he thinks it is reasonably required that he makes an order at all, and no noble Lord will be ready to say that there are not in the whole of England at least 2,000 cases where eviction is reasonably asked for and reasonably granted. It is only those cases with which your Lordships have to deal.
Let us look at this Bill for a moment. I think it needs a little careful consideration. I understand the meaning of the Bill. I have gone through the process which the Lord Chancellor has gone through, and I know something about the existing law and the effect of this Bill upon it. Take first the man who wants to get possession of his own house for his own occupation. That is the simplest case. As the law stands to-day that person, if he bought before June, 1922, cannot get possession without showing that there is alternative accommodation available for the tenant. If he bought after June, 1922, he has to show something more. He has to satisfy the County Court Judge that there would be greater hardship in keeping him out than to the tenant in turning the tenant out. As to that case, the effect of the Bill is that in every case where the owner bought before May, 1924, he has to prove that element of greater hardship. That is to say, it extends to people who bought before June, 1922, the law which now applies to people who bought after June, 1922. He must satisfy the Judge that he wants the

517
house for himself, that he bought before May, 1924, and that there would be greater hardship in refusing an order than in granting it.
There may be good reasons for altering the law in that respect, although I doubt whether any strong case has been made for it. I doubt, also, whether one ought to object to all these cases being within the discretion of the County Court Judge. Most of us in a matter of that kind, where the question is whether the landlord or his tenant has the stronger case for possession, would be willing to leave it to the decision of the County Court Judge, or any impartial tribunal, and therefore I am not disposed to quarrel with the proposal that in all these cases where a man bought before May, 1924, the discretion of the County Court Judge should come in.
But the Bill does not stop there. It says that if you buy after May 5, 1924, there shall not be that discretion, and that in all those cases, unless you can find for your tenant some other accommodation, you cannot have possession of your property even for your own use. I think I am right in thus stating the effect of the Bill. Why is that to be so? Mark that the point arises only if you have satisfied the Judge that you reasonably require possession of your own property. But even if you satisfy him of that, you are not allowed to show him, under the provision with which I am now dealing, that it would be a great hardship to keep you out of possession of your property. I do not see why the discretion of the Court should not operate, as much in cases where a man buys after May. 1924, as in cases where he buys before that date. If the exception is made which is involved in certain words in brackets in the first clause of the Bill, it will in a short time apply to many thousands of cases, and it will hereafter be impossible for any man either to buy a house for his own occupation or, having bought a house as an investment, to change, his mind and ask leave to occupy it himself. I am very much disposed to think that in all cases it would be fairer to leave to the Judge the right of saying whether the greater hardship is involved in refusing or in granting an order, and I hope that the matter will receive further consideration in this House.
518
There is a second particular in which the Bill proposes to alter the law. As things stand to-day, if you have a house and want to put your son or your daughter into it, you can do so, subject to the rule concerning "greater hardship" in the case of those who bought after a certain date. The Bill cuts out the son and daughter, and, if it passes, you will no longer be able to get possession of your own house, even if you prove that you reasonably require it for your own son or daughter, and even if you prove that greater hardship is involved in refusing the order than in granting it. I should like to know why that change in the law is proposed, and why a son or daughter is no longer to be the object of any kind of consideration. So much for Clause 1. I think I have said enough to show that the clause wants carefully looking into, and I hope that we shall have, some time in which to consider its details.
I will say only a word or two on the second clause of the Bill, which the noble and learned Viscount describes as mere machinery. I want to point out that the clause says that where an order has already been made before the passing of the Act, and, in the opinion of the Judge, would not have been made had the Act been law, then the Court shall rescind or vary the order. I have great doubts about that word "shall." I am disposed to think that the Judge ought to have a discretion. Take the case, of which we know many instances, where orders have been made and execution has been postponed for some purpose or other, perhaps in order to allow the tenant to find room elsewhere. These are suspended orders, but they are orders made, and therefore they are subject to this obligatory rescission. I do not think that is right. I think that in cases where the Judge has made an order and suspended it for some express purpose, he ought not to be told that, if this Bill passes, he must rescind that order, whether he thinks it just to do so or not, and I should like the Government to consider whether it would not be right, in Clause 2, to leave out the word "shall" on the second page and to substitute the word "may."
There is only one other point which I want to raise, and it concerns orders which have been carried out. As the Bill stands, if an order has been carried out

519
and the owner has possession, he must in certain cases be turned out and possession must be given over again to the tenant. I am not at all sure that this is right. I feel great doubt about it. I think it may be very hard upon a man who has got possession, perhaps after a struggle, under an order of the Court, and who then, because Parliament has altered the Jaw and put in new conditions, may be turned out of the house again. I think that this subsection also wants consideration, and I hope it will receive some attention in this House. Your Lordships will infer from what I have said that I do not propose to object to this Bill being read a second time, but I hope that we shall have a little time in which, to consider what Amendments ought to be made in its different clauses.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have followed the course of this Bill since it was first introduced into Parliament will probably not be surprised if I venture to rise in order to supplement the somewhat inadequate account of its tendencies which has been given by the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack. I do not quite know what he considers to be his relationship to this Bill. If he will allow me to say so, it seems to me that he has taken advantage of his high position as Lord Chancellor to seize the position of legal guardian to the Bill, without the consent of any of the relations of the infant concerned. We must, of course, consider this a great compliment to the Bill, as it shows that at last His Majesty's Government have found some method by which they can put themselves before the people of this country as having introduced some measure of social reform.
Amongst the various matters concerned in the history of the Bill the noble and learned Viscount omitted to give the fuller account which I think would have been desirable of the Bill for which His Majesty's Government was responsible in the first place. That Bill would have allowed the unemployed to live rent free at the expense of the landlord, and it included, in addition, the exact provisions of this Bill which is now before your Lordships' House. But so determined were His Majesty's Government to do their best to keep in that first clause that, rather than withdraw it, they preferred
520
to lose the whole of the Bill, and did not see their way to prosecute the original measure, although it would have included the particular clauses which are now before your Lordships' House.
But that is not all. When this Bill was being considered by the Prime Minister, he announced after due consideration that in his opinion it was altogether unsatisfactory. The Bill was then sent to the Standing Committee of another place, where it was very largely altered against the wishes of those who were originally responsible for it. When it returned for the Report stage in another place it was restored to the original condition in which it, first left the floor of the House. We have here, therefore, the original condition of the Bill, as it was introduced by the member responsible, in spite of the fact that His Majesty's Government have done their best to alter it. It is very flattering for the original friends of the' Bill to think that His Majesty's Government have now seen their way to adopt it, but it seems to me that it does enable us to say that His Majesty's Government seem to have been somewhat bankrupt of ideas, as they have no other means of dealing with the matter.
This Bill does not, in fact, by itself and standing as it does, in any sense represent the real policy of His Majesty's Government. I have already ventured to quote the opinion of the Prime Minister concerning it. We have further evidence from the Labour Magazine. That magazine, for May, said of this Bill—
"This measure was drastically amended by Standing Committee C on April 15, from which it emerged bearing little of the original Liberal draft but the title. An article will appear in a future issue of the magazine describing the Bill in its final form."
The final form is the form in which it was originally introduced. The Amendments are of an exceedingly small kind, which I have no doubt the noble and learned Viscount will be able to describe to your Lordships when he replies on the debate.
Those of you who have followed the question know, as the noble and learned Viscount, I think, has half intimated to the House, that this is part of a general scheme which has been presented in various Bills to Parliament, for dealing with the general difficulty in regard to housing. Four Bills have been introduced dealing with evictions, one with

521
the reduction of, rates, one with the unemployed, and another one with control. I hope that other measures introduced by friends of mine will be as fortunate in finding guardians in this House as this Bill dealing with evictions. I hope that this Bill may do something with regard to the education of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India. He told us, on the last occasion when this House discussed social reform, that he did not find that my noble friends were so much interested in social reform as the noble Lords who sit on my left, and he based this assertion upon an experience of his own youth, forty years ago, when he had an interview with Lord Randolph Churchill, who took some interest in a measure dealing with the Borough of Paddington. I hope that the noble Lord will now realise that there are other people beside himself who are interested in social reform, and that he will learn, from what has already happened, that other people are able to do more in this direction than the Government of which he is a member.
The noble and learned Viscount referred to evictions, and he quoted from a Return which has been made, but I do not think it is unfair to say that in this matter you cannot only go by the number of actual evictions. A number of people are frightened that there will be orders made against them. They shrink from the cost. In the case of small tenancies the cost may run from £20 to £25, and perhaps even £30, and that is a cost which no man living in one of these houses will willingly run the risk of incurring. Therefore, in addition to the number of evictions quoted, there are a great many cases in which people have been too much frightened lest an order should be made against them, to resist an application that they should leave their houses. Therefore the number of people disturbed is very much larger than the number of cases represented in the White Paper. I confess that I rejoice in the happy prospect which this Bill has of passing this House, and I hope that it will pass without any amendment. Although I cannot, considering the way in which the Bill has been introduced to the House, expect that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will accept with pleasure any offer of support from these Benches, I can assure him that it will be
522
at his beck and call if he desires to have it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has given a very interesting account of what took place on the passage of the Bill in another place, and the noble Viscount said that the Second Heading was passed unanimously. My information is that on a particular evening, the Government having introduced a Bill to say that the landlords could not recover rent, and having refused to withdraw the clause which enacted that, the House of Commons was in such a state of confusion at eleven o'clock—not knowing whether the Government were going to withdraw the clause or not—that when by pure accident, a certain Liberal Member happened to have a Bill down and the Order of the Hay for that Bill was read by the Clerks, the Bill slipped through without anybody knowing what had happened. That is the information—and I think it is correct—given to me by members of the other House.
Whether that is so or not, I would like to point out to your Lordships that this Bill is retrospective. During the years I have had the honour of sitting in another place I have always opposed retrospective legislation of all sorts. In the other place it was said that this Bill is only retrospective to April 15. It is nothing of the sort. It is retrospective possibly to last December and certainly to last January, and for this reason. I do not know what the County Court Judges do, but I know what the magistrates do, when cases come before them on applications for eviction. The notice lies upon the table for three or four, and, in some cases, six months. The result would be that it an order for eviction had been granted in January, and was not to be executed for four months, it would not have been executed on April 15. Consequently the person against whom the order had been granted would be able to go to the magistrates, or County Court Judge, and say: "This order granted last January has not been executed, and therefore I ask you to cancel the order. "Why should that he done? Surely if there is to be an alteration in the law it should only take effect from the time the Bill making the alteration becomes law. That, so far as I can remember, has always been the practice. I do not say it is so, but I

523
cannot remember any case where retrospective legislation has been allowed.
There is another point, and that is that a landlord who has become owner by purchase of a dwelling house after May 5, 1924, may not obtain possession. Now my information is that there was by no means unanimity upon those words. In the Committee stage they were left out, or if it was proposed to put them in the Conservatives and supporters of the Government combined against the Liberals and rejected those words. On the Report stage, however, the Government ate their own words, and, having voted against these particular words in Committee, voted for them on Report. Consequently they were put in. Now, if your Lordships desire, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount does, that there should be an increase of houses, why put in words of this sort? Who will ever build or buy a house if he knows that he is liable to have legislation passed which says that if you buy a house after a certain date you are not to be able to obtain possession for yourself? If there is anything which will stop private enterprise and discourage people from building houses, it is these particular words in Clause 1.
I understand that the two noble Marquesses whom I have the honour of following in this House do not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I hope that in Committee we shall say that we will not have retrospective legislation. However good a Bill may be, it should not be made retrospective. Once you begin that, you do not know where you are going to end, and there is no earthly reason why a man who buys a house in April, 1924, should be treated differently from a man who buys a house in May, 1924. Personally, I have had some experience in granting orders under the Act of 1923, and I do not believe that any hardships have occurred. But whether that is so or not, I will not go into the question of whether it is advisable to pass the Bill subject to these alterations.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as I was Chairman of the Committee which went into this matter, I should like to say one word upon the subject of alternative accommodation. We went into it, and took evidence for several days evidence of a very conflicting kind—and we made
524
certain recommendations which were in the main embodied in the Act of last year. I do not think that we really were very successful. Although it is true that we modified the law in respect of alternative accommodation I do not know that we really did very much good. The definition of alternative accommodation in the Act of 1920 was accommodation "reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects." That was found to be so vague that it was practically impossible to put it into force, and the Act of last year altered it to accommodation "reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent, character, and proximity to place of work."
But really I think that in practice it has been admitted that this question of alternative accommodation makes it impossible for a landlord to get possession at all in a very large number of cases. If a tenant wants to obstruct he simply makes objections—he cannot do this, and he will not accept that and something else occurs. The result is that the alternative house or lodging is snapped up, and the landlord who wants to get possession is unable to provide any alternative accommodation at all. It does not matter, I am afraid, how you define "alternative accommodation," because it is in the power of the tenant to obstruct and raise difficulties, and so to make it practically impossible for the owner to get hold of his house. I think it has been said that the building of houses will be encouraged by this provision, which makes it necessary for a landlord who wishes to enter into a house bought after May 5 last to provide alternative accommodation for the tenant. But if there are two people who are anxious to occupy a, house, and one of those, persons, either landlord or tenant, is adjudged by the County Court to suffer greater hardship than the other in not being allowed to occupy that house, why should he, if ho is a landlord—and because he is a landlord—be debarred from occupying the house when it is a greater hardship for him than for the tenant not to do so, merely because ho bought the after May 5? And why should he be compelled to provide alternative accommodation, which it is practically impossible for him to do?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has very truly pointed out the complication and difficulty of this kind of legislation and the uncertainty as to whether you have hit the mark in the Bills which you project. He and I have become experienced in those things. But I cannot conceal from myself that in the discussion which has taken place there has been a good deal of ignoring of what the real case for this Bill is. If it was a question of how to get people to build houses, and of that only, I should be prepared to concede to my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam that there was a great deal to be said for his plan, which is to leave landlords alone and let them do what they like with their property, and get as much as they can out of it; then they will build, if it is a good business proposition.
But, unfortunately, that is not the question before us. We cannot rely upon that method of getting houses, because what we require is to provide accommodation for people who are in urgent need of it, and who are in very large numbers. And if you are to get that you must have control. There are too few houses to go round, and unless you control the way in which the owners of those houses make use of them, and prevent them turning people out when there are circumstances of hardship, and when no other accommodation can be got, then you will not solve the social problem. If you institute control you spoil the business of house building, and the only result is that the building of these houses must be provided for by public authorities. That is why the Government have adopted the policy which they have in the Bill which Mr. Wheatley is shortly going to put before Parliament. The real reason for this Bill is a very great and terrible social evil which is upon us at the present time. Houses have not been built, houses have fallen into disrepair, there is a tremendous demand for them, not as luxuries but as necessities of life, and, unless the State steps in and controls, as it has been doing in different forms since the war, then you have a population full of misery and discontent, and, I am afraid, not friendly to either of the two Parties in the State other than the one to which I belong.
Various criticisms have been made upon this Bill. One was made by Lord Banbury of Southam, who said that it was
526
very extraordinary that provisions of this kind should be made retrospective. But it was done by a Conservative Government. I know that my noble friend is a great purist, and is not satisfied even with a Conservative Government. But I find in Lord Onslow's Bill a provision in Section 4 (3) which is almost precisely the same as the so-called retrospective provision which we have here, excepting that the word was "may" and not "shall." I concede that there is that difference. Still, the county court was enabled, in cases where there had been a purchase before the Act came into operation, to set aside a judgment.
VISCOUNT CAVE: Not where there have been executions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, I am not quite sure about that. The subsection says:
"Where any order or judgment has been made or given before the passage of this Act but not executed, and, in the opinion of the court, the order or judgment would not have been made or given if this Act had been in force at the time when such order or judgment was made or given, the court may, on application by the tenant, rescind or vary such order or judgment in such manner as the Court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act,"
Is there much difference, for the purposes of the particular question which is engaging us, between a judgment given and the execution following on it? If the order has been made the legal rights have been given. Parliament, as long ago as 1923, enacted that what has been loosely called retrospective legislation should apply, and the rights given by the order might be modified if the Judge thought fit.
Then the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, quite truly pointed out that the figure of 15,000 orders was one which related only to orders, not to the executions. In the majority of cases people do not wait for executions, they go out on the orders; and I pointed out that they go very often before any order has been made at all, in terror of being haled before the Courts and mulcted in costs. So that it is impossible to say that the extent of the evil with which we are trying to deal is limited by those 15,000 cases. The number has obviously been very large indeed, from the volume of testimony which came before us. It amounted to a social evil of great magnitude, and what

527
your Lordships are dealing with just now is not the ordinary law, but a question so difficult, and in which the existing law is so harsh, that it is essential that something should be done if there is to be tranquillity in the State.
On the question of "shall" or "may," your Lordships will hear more of that on subsequent stages of the Bill. But by the insertion of the word "shall" it was intended that, in cases where what had been done would not have been done had this Bill been in force, the County Court Judge should be able to vary or rescind it. The state of the law when such order was made was that if the landlord wanted the premises for himself or for his son or daughter he could get them, provided the tenant was not treated harshly and there was alternative accommodation. That is the effect of the provision of the section we are seeking to amend. On the question of discretion, County Court Judges have said: "If these matters were left to our discretion we could administer justice very well; but they are not so left." It is necessary, therefore, to give them a clear indication of the principle on which they should proceed.
Then I was a little surprised that, my noble friend Lord Beauchamp should have thought that there was any non-recognition of the part which the Liberal Party played in this matter in the House of Commons. But he will admit, I think, that I tried to be as nice as I could.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount when he proposes that the Bill should be considered in Committee?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to consult the convenience of the House and of the noble Marquess. Would Thursday week be a convenient date?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then let us say Thursday week.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Olivier.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMOKE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of ss. 86 and 87 of the Government of India Act.
1.—(1) For Sections eighty-six and eighty-seven of the Government of India Act there shall be substituted the following sections:
Power to grant leave of absence to Governor-General, etc.
86.—(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed by rules made under Section ninety-four of this Act, the Secretary of State in Council may grant to the Governor-General, and on the application of the Governor-General in Council may grant to the Commander-in-Chief and a Governor, leave of absence for such period, not exceeding the period allowed by such rules, as be may think fit.
(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Governor-General in Council may grant to any members of his executive council, other than the Commander-in-Chief, and a Governor in Council and a Lieutenant-Governor in Council may grant to any member of his executive council, leave of absence for such period, not exceeding the period allowed by such rules, as he may think fit.
(3) Where the Governor-General, or the Commander-in-Chief, or a governor or a member of an executive council obtains leave of absence in pursuance of this section, he shall retain his office during his absence, but if his absence exceeds the period for which leave is granted his office shall become vacant.
Acting appointments during the absence of the Governor-General, etc., on leave.
87.—(l) Where leave is granted in pursuance of the foregoing section to the Governor-General, or to the Commander-in-Chief, or to a Governor, a person shall be appointed in his place during his absence, and the appointment shall be made by His Majesty by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual. The person so appointed during the absence of the Commander-in-Chief may, if the Commander-in-Chief was a member of the Executive Council of the Governor-General, be also appointed by the Governor-General in Council to be a temporary member of that Council.
(2) The person so appointed shall, until the return to duty of the permanent holder of the office, or, if he does not return, until a successor arrives, hold and execute the office to which he has been appointed and shall have and may exercise all the rights and powers thereof and shall be entitled to receive the emoluments and advantages appertaining to the office, forgoing the

529
emoluments and advantages (if any) to which he was entitled at the time of his being appointed to that office.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD OLIVIER)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD OLIVIER) had on the Paper an Amendment, to omit from subsection (1) the substituted Section 86 and to insert:
Power to grant leave of absence to Governor-General, etc.
"86.—(1) The Secretary of State in Council may grant to the Governor-General and, on the recommendation of the Governor-General in Council, to the Commander-in-Chief, leave of absence for urgent reasons of public interest, or of health or of private affairs.
(2) The Secretary of State in Council may, on the recommendation of the Governor-General in Council, grant to a Governor, and the Governor-General in Council, or a Governor in Council or a Lieutenant-Governor in Council, as the case may be, may grant to any member of his Executive Council (other than the Commander-in-Chief) leave of absence for urgent reasons of health or of private affairs.
(3) Leave of absence shall not be granted to any person in pursuance of this section for any period exceeding four months nor more than once during his tenure of office:
Provided that the Secretary of State in Council may if he thinks fit extend any period of leave so granted beyond four months, but shall in every case publish his reasons for so doing.
(4) Where leave of absence is granted to any person in pursuance of this section ho shall retain his office during the period of leave as originally granted, or, if that period is extended by the Secretary of State in Council, during the period as so extended, but if his absence exceeds that period his office shall be deemed to have become vacant as from the commencement of his absence.
(5) Where a person obtains leave of absence in pursuance of this section he shall be entitled to receive during his absence such leave-allowances as may be prescribed by rules made by the Secretary of State in Council, but, if he does not resume his duties upon the termination of the period of the leave, he shall repay, in such manner as may be so prescribed as aforesaid, any leave-allowance received tinder this subsection.
(6) If the Governor-General or the Commander-in-Chief is granted leave for urgent reasons of public interest, the Secretary of State in Council may, in addition to the leave-allowances to which he is entitled under this section, grant to him such further allowances in respect of travelling expenses as the Secretary of State in Council may think fit.
(7) Rules made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when this Bill was under discussion on the Second Reading a difference of opinion arose between my noble friends on the other side and myself as to the precise form in which the provisions, the purpose and substance of which were generally approved, should be put into the Bill. We proposed to legislate giving power for Rules to be made for leave of absence and for pay. It was contended by noble Lords opposite that it was preferable that all the provisions regulating leave of absence and emolument should be embodied in the Bill. Having been an officer in His Majesty's Service, I rather took exception to the principle of the objection. I think there is a distinction that should be borne in mind.
The noble Marquess and other noble Lords supporting him justly observed that we had got into a very bad habit of enabling Orders in Council to be made for all sorts of matters for which legislation might properly be passed. Orders in Council and Executive Orders dealing with the liberties of the subject are one thing; but Orders and Rules dealing with His Majesty's servants who are servants of the King by title are somewhat different, and, as I pointed out, it has been the habit for the Rides of the public service, whether in the Colonies or in this country, to be made by means of Orders in Council or by Rules of the Secretary of State or the Lords Commissioners of the. Treasury, and if Parliament disapproves of them it shows that disapproval in certain well known ways. But it has not been usual to insert in Acts of Parliament minute provisions and Rules for the leave of absence and pay of those engaged in the public service.
I admit that the position of the Government of India may, perhaps, be regarded as somewhat different. As a matter of fact, the powers of the Governor-General to take leave are at present absolutely directed by law and leave cannot be granted except by law. Similarly, there are other provisions affecting the substance of this Bill which are at present governed by the Government of India Act. In consultation with the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, and with my noble predecessor, Lord Peel, I have gone through the provisions of the Act and have redrafted them in the fresh form for Clause 1 which

531
I understand meets the views of the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount. We propose now to substitute an entirely new clause for Clause 1 of the Bill.
The first subsection of the proposed clause provides that the Secretary of State in Council may grant to the Governor-General and, on the recommendation of the Governor-General in Council, to the Commander-in-Chief, leave of absence for urgent reasons of public interest, or of health or of private affairs. Those are the three categories suggested by the noble Marquess and which, I entirely agree with him, are the three categories under which leave of absence would probably be granted. We want to put this provision into the Bill and not into Rules.
The second subsection provides that—
"The Secretary of State in Council may, on the recommendation of the Governor-General in Council, grant to a Governor, and the Governor-General in Council, or a Governor in Council or a Lieutenant-Governor in Council, as the case may be "—
there are, at present, no Lieutenant-Governors, but the Act provides for their appointment in certain circumstances and we have to take the necessary powers—
"may grant to any member of his Executive Council (other than the Commander-in-Chief) leave of absence for urgent reasons of health or of private affairs,"
That is to say, we do not allow these subordinate Governors and Executive Councillors to be granted leave for the purpose of consultation with the Secretary of State. That privilege is only to be granted to the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief.
Then, in subsection (3), we limit the period during which leave of absence shall be granted to that suggested by the noble Marquess. The subsection provides that leave of absence shall not be granted to any person in pursuance of the section for any period exceeding four months nor more than once during his tenure of office. Upon that I want to make one observation. At the present time Governors may grant to Executive Councillors leave of absence on medical certificate for a period not exceeding six months. Therefore, by limiting the grant of leave of absence that may be given to all these officers to four months, one might appear to be encroaching upon the privilege which is now
532
granted to Executive Councillors. That I do not think is an objection of substance, because the privilege they enjoy is one subject to the control of the Governor and Secretary of State, and I think it may be clearly understood that the Secretary of State would, if any Executive Councillor came on leave of absence on the ground of ill-health for four months, reasonably take into consideration all the circumstances, and, if his health required it, would giant him that further extension of two months which might originally have been granted under the discretion of the Governor before he left India. Therefore we are not really encroaching upon any privilege which Executive Councillors at present enjoy with regard to their health.
I wish slightly to vary the next sentence that is printed on the Amendment Paper so that it will read as follows:
"Provided that the Secretary of State in Council may, if he thinks fit, extend any period of leave so granted, but in any such case the reasons for the extension shall be set forth in a Minute signed by the Secretary of State and laid before both. Houses of Parliament."
Publication was also asked for, and as a form is already provided in another section of the Government of India Act, we thought it would he reasonable to follow the particular form of publication already embodied in that Act. Therefore we have adopted that form rather than the more general word "published."
On the other subsections of the clause I do not think I need make any observations. They have been sot out in the Amendments, and, subject to the alteration which I have handed to the Lord Chairman, I beg leave to move the new clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from the end of line 8 to the end of line 7 on page 2 and insert:—
Power to grant leave of absence to Governor-General, etc.
(" 86.—(1) The Secretary of State in Council may grant to the Governor-General and, on the recommendation of the Governor-General in Council, to the Commander-in-Chief, leave of absence for urgent reasons of public interest, or of health or of private affairs.
(2) The Secretary of State in Council may, on the recommendation of the Governor-General in Council, grant to a Governor, and the Governor-General in Council, or a Governor in Council or a Lieutenant-Governor

533
in Councl, as the case may be, may grant to any member of his Executive Council (other than the Commander-in-Chief) leave of absence for urgent reasons of health or of private affairs.
(3) Leave of absence shall not be granted to any person in pursuance of this section for any period exceeding four months nor more than once during his tenure of office:
Provided that the Secretary of State in Council may if he thinks fit extend any period of leave so granted, but in any such case the reasons for the extension shall be set forth in a. Minute signed by the Secretary of State and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) Where leave of absence is granted to any person in pursuance of this section he shall retain his office during the period of leave as originally granted, or, if that period is extended by the Secretary of State in Council, during the period as so extended, but if his absence exceeds that period his office shall be deemed to have become vacant as from the commencement of his absence.
(5) Where a person obtains leave of absence in pursuance of this section he shall be entitled to receive during his absence such leave-allowances as may be prescribed by rules made by the Secretary of State in Council, but, if he does not resume his duties upon the termination of the period of the leave, he shall repay, in such manner as may be so prescribed as aforesaid, any leave-allowances received under this subsection.
(6) If the Governor-General or the Commander-in-Chief is granted leave for urgent reasons of public interest, the Secretary of State in Council may, in addition to the leave-allowances to which he is entitled under this section, grant to him such further allowances in respect of travelling expenses as the Secretary of State in Council may think fit.
(7) Rules made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be? after they are made.")(Lord Oliver.)
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TON: My Lords, those of your Lordships who were present when we discussed this question on Second Reading will remember that several of us on this side of the House, and some noble Lords of the Liberal Party, directed certain criticisms at the Rill in the form in which it had been introduced by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India. We have been ourselves, on this side of the House, in general agreement in those criticisms, and at the close of our proceedings, feeling it most desirable that the House should act as far as possible with unanimity in the matter, and that there should be no conflict of opinion between the two sides of the House, I suggested to the noble Lord that he might
534
allow me, as representing those who sit here, to enter into private consultation with him as to the form which Amendments to the Rill as originally proposed might properly take. He was good enough to accede to that wish. As he told your Lordships just now, we have had more than one meeting since, with the result that this rather considerable change in the Bill is now proposed, with full Government responsibility, by him.
I think it is really a little more than he was inclined just now to suggest. He seemed almost to imply that the change was only one of form, and that he would have preferred to deal with the matter in one way, while we, on the other hand, on this side, were more anxious that it should be dealt with in another way. I think it is a little more than that, because now under this Amendment you do get clearly stated in the Bill exactly what you propose to do in each case, the reasons for which you act in each case, the conditions under which leave may be given, and the restrictions under which it ought to be given. That surely is a very much better plan than trusting to those Rules for which the noble Lord has just expressed a sort of academic preference. I am much obliged to him for the courtesy and consideration he has shown in the matter. I think the Amendments which he has just explained and defended really meet every point that we raised two or three weeks ago. I need only, therefore, comment upon one or two.
The first subsection of the new clause which he has read gives, as we urged on the previous occasion, leave of absence, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State in Council, both to the Governor-General and to the Commander-in-Chief. I think that is right, because I can conceive conditions (indeed I indicated some the other day) in which both of those high officials might—not of course at the same time, but independently—in the course of their term of office be required to come home in order to consult with the Secretary of State here. Let me add now, what I did not say then, that I can well conceive a case in support of my general proposition in which the Governor-General, reluctant himself to take his hand from the plough even for a period of three or four months, might at the same time think it desirable to depute his most important councillor—namely, the Commander-in-Chief

535
—to represent views on his behalf, which no one could do with so much authority, to the Secretary of State at home. That, I think, apart from the justification which I indicated the other day, is a reason for giving this privilege to the Commander-in-Chief as well as to the Viceroy.
The noble Lord has been good enough to accept the suggestion which was made from this side the other day, that leave of absence granted under the new provisions should be limited to four months, but he mentioned one reservation, and I think rightly mentioned it. He pointed out that under the existing law members of the Executive Councils in India can, upon the production of a medical certificate, obtain leave of absence during their tenure of office to this country for a period not of four months, but of six months, and he said that we are extending an advantage to those persons which they have never hitherto enjoyed—because we are going in future to let them come home for urgent reasons of private affairs as well as of health, a prerogative they have not hitherto possessed. Therefore, he said we are not only not doing them any injury, but, on the contrary, we are conferring upon them an advantage. At the same time he said we do not want to take away from anybody the statutory privilege which he at present enjoys.
I think there is force in that, but what he did not make quite clear was this—and I ask him if my interpretation is correct. This privilege, which he says depends upon an understanding, will I gather under the new Act apply to those persons who at present enjoy it—that is to say the members of Executive Councils—in the future. But they are far more numerous than they were in my day, when there were only three Governments, the Governments of India, Bombay and Madras. The members of all these Executive; Councils in future are not, as I understand it, going to be put in the exceptional position of having their six months while everybody else has four months. All the noble Lord means is that those who already under the existing law can take advantage of the six months' privilege will not be deprived of it. Perhaps before we conclude he will tell me if I am right in my interpretation of what he has just said.
Then he has introduced in the second part of subsection (3) a condition which,
536
I think, is justified. He proposes that the power of extending the period of leave beyond three months shall be vested in the Secretary of State in Council. I think that is reasonable, not because I anticipate extension will be asked for or given in cases of urgent private affairs, or even in cases of consultation with the Government, but because a case might very well arise in which a man came over under the terms of this Act for reasons of health and the cure which he was going to take in this country might not have been accomplished at the end of four months. It would be only reasonable in such a case to give a certain power of extension to the Secretary of State in Council. That power the noble Lord proposes to take, and in the statement he has just made he proposes to vary the Amendment as it is on the Paper and to substitute for the words "shall in every case publish his reasons for so doing," a formula which he says is much more common and regular—namely, that he shall lay upon the Table of the House a statement of the reasons which have decided him in Council in giving the extension suggested. I have no objection to offer to that proposal, and indeed when I asked for publicity the other day I contemplated something of the sort. The Secretary of State in Council is not the least likely to abuse the privilege which he enjoys under the proposed legislation, but it is only right that Parliament and the public should have an opportunity of knowing the reasons for which on this or that occasion it may be departed from.
Those are the only points to which I need call attention in the substituted section which the noble Lord has proposed, and subject to anything which may be said in any other quarter of the House, I think your Lordships may accept the Amendment in the conviction that the Bill is a better one than in the form in which it was originally introduced.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, the noble Marquess has raised one point on which he thinks I should make a further explanation. It is with reference to the power of granting six months' leave to Executive Councillors. As I pointed out this is not a legal right on the part of Executive Councillors, but the Governor-General may grant them six months' leave on a medical certificate. I thought it

537
would be sufficient for us to limit the grant by the Governor to four months and to state publicly that their rights were not impaired because the Secretary of State still has the power to grant them a further extension which is not limited to six months. It may exceed six months.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TON: The noble Lord has not quite answered my question. Here is a privilege which has hitherto been enjoyed by certain persons and the noble Lord says, in effect, and not improperly: "I do not want to take away from these people the advantage which they at present enjoy, although we are giving them something in addition." My question was: Will the people who enjoy this privilege in the future be only those who have enjoyed it in the past, or will it be enjoyed by all members of Executive Councils at all times in the future? That is giving them an additional privilege. It is not only giving them the privilege of coming home for six months or four months on urgent private affairs, but an opportunity which no one else is to enjoy of coming home on a medical certificate for six months instead of four.
LORD OLIVIER: I do not think we need make any discrimination, because all that the Governor-General can grant Executive Councillors is four months' leave of absence.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TON: That is clear, then?
LORD OLIVIER: That is perfectly clear. All they can get from the Governor-General is four months' leave of absence. If Executive Councillors come home they will have a presumptive claim for special compassion from the Secretary of State because they can say: "If you had not passed this law I should have got six months."
LORD RAGLAN: The Commander-in-Chief in India is a Regular Officer and it is difficult to see, why, when he is on leave, he should be treated as regards his pay differently from any other Regular Officer
LORD OLIVIER: I am afraid that is a conundrum which we shall have to thrash
538
out with the War Office. We can make Rules with regard to his pay, but we have not yet made those Rules.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD OLIVIER: The Amendment in substituted Section 87 (1), after the first" appointed 'to insert "to act," is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 11, after (" appointed ") insert ("to act").—(Lord Olivier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD OLIVIER: The last Amendment to Clause 1 is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 30, at end insert:
("(3) When during the absence on leave of the Governor-General a Governor is appointed to act in his place, the provisions of this section relating to the appointment of a person to act in the place of a Governor to whom leave of absence has been granted in pursuance of the foregoing section shall apply in the same manner as if leave of absence had been so granted to the Governor.")—(Lord Olivier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2.
Amendment of s.92 of Government of India Act.
2. For subsection (4) of Section ninety-two of the Government of India Act there shall be substituted the following subsections:—
(4) Until the return to duty of the member so incapable or absent, the person temporarily appointed shall hold and execute the office to which he has been appointed, and shall have and may exercise all the rights and powers thereof, and shall be entitled to receive the emoluments and advantages appertaining to the office, forgoing the emoluments and advantages (if any) to which he was entitled at the time of his being appointed to that office.
(4A) When a member of an Executive Council is by infirmity or otherwise rendered incapable of acting or attending to act as such and a temporary member of council is appointed in his place, the absent member shall on resumption of his duty be entitled to receive half his salary for the period of his absence.
LORD OLIVIER: The Amendment to
Clause 2 is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 3, line 5, leave out ("on resumption of his duty").—(Lord Olivier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (COST OF MEDICAL BENEFIT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

IRISH FREE STATE AND THE UNITED STATES.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE had given Notice to ask his Majesty's Government—
1. Whether the statement in The Times of May 8 is correct that a Minister representing the Irish Free State will shortly be appointed to Washington, and that His Majesty's Government has raised no objection to such an appointment;
2. Under what clause of the Irish Treaty will this appointment be made;
3. What steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to harmonise the representations of the British Ambassador and of the Free State Minister in respect of matters which concern both Great Britain and Ireland or the whole British Empire;
and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, His Majesty's Government have asked me to
540
postpone the matters referred to in these Questions, and I have not thought it right to refuse the request put to me, as it was rather forcibly, by the Lord President of the Council. Therefore, I ask leave to put the Questions down again for Wednesday, June 25. On that occasion I shall hope to proceed and endeavour to show the House what grave issues are evoked by a consideration of my third Question particularly.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his remarks. I made him an urgent request not to proceed with his Question to-day, and I thank him for not doing so.

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Lord MacDonnell be discharged from serving on the Standing Joint Committee, and that the Lord Willingdon be named of the Committee in his place.—(Lord Olivier.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.