Sitting of 10 December 1929

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For Borough of Liverpool (Scotland Division), in the room of Right Honourable Thomas Power O'Connor, deceased.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. J. H. THOMAS:—
"On or before the 17th day of December a printed copy of every Private Bill for winch application is intended to be made during the present Session shall be deposited at the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.
If it appears to the Lord Privy Seal that any such Bill contains provisions relating to works the execution of which would substantially contribute to the relief of unemployment ho may on or before the 15th day of January send to Mr. Speaker a certicate to that effect and notify the Promoters of such Bill accordingly, and a Bill with respect to which such a certificate and notice is so given is hereinafter referred to as a certified Bill; and where in the opinion of the Lord Privy Seal any such Bill, in addition to containing such provisions as aforesaid, contains other provisions distinct therefrom not relating to such works as aforesaid, the certificate Shall state which of the provisions (hereinafter referred to as certified provisions) are the provisions of the Bill which relate to such works as aforesaid.
As soon as may be after it has been received by him, every such certificate shall be laid by Mr. Speaker upon the Table of the House.
In the case of a certified Bill the Standing Orders relating to Private Business shall have effect subject to the following provisions, and so far as inconsistent with those provisions shall not apply:—

(1) Every such Bill introduced into the House of Commons shall be ordered to be read a Second time on the fourth day after the day on which it is presented or, if the House is not sitting on that day, then on the next day thereafter on which the House would ordinarily sit;

(2) Where any such Bill contains both certified and other provisions then, as soon as the Bill has been read a Second
210
time, a Motion may be made with or without notice as to the Committee to which the certified provisions shall be committed, and if such a Motion be agreed to the certified provisions shall proceed separately as a certified Bill, and the remaining provisions of the Bill shall stand committed to the Committee of Selection or the Local Legislation Committee, as the case may be, and any Petition which has been deposited against the Bill shall be deemed to be a Petition for all purposes against each of the separate Bills, or if notice in writing to that effect is given in the Committee and Private Bill Office by the Petitioner against such one of the Bills as is specified in such notice;

(3) Any certified Bill promoted by a company already constituted by Act of Parliament or by any company, society, association, or co-partnership, whether a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1929, or otherwise constituted, shall not after Second Reading be referred to the Examiners, but compliance with Standing Orders 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66, or any of them, shall be proved before the Committee to whom such Bill is referred;

(4) Any Committee to whom a certified Bill is referred shall have leave to consider it forthwith, provided that a filled-up Bill shall have been previously deposited, and shall hear and determine any question of locus standi;

(5) Any certified Bill if amended in Committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table, and shall be taken into consideration on the day on which the House shall next sit provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited, and the Third Reading of such Bill may be taken immediately after the consideration of the Bill as amended;

(6) Any certified Bill, if not amended in Committee, shall be ordered to be read the Third time on the day on which the House shall next sit;

(7) All Amendments made by the House of Lords to a certified Bill shall, if unopposed, be considered forthwith and, if opposed, shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall determine.

When it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords;

(8) Where the Promoters of a Private Bill have not deposited a Petition for such Bill on or before the 17th day of December and the Lord Privy Seal sends to Mr. Speaker such a certificate as aforesaid, the Promoters of such Bill shall have leave to deposit a Petition for the Bill in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and such Petition shall stand referred to the Examiners."

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas)rose—
HON. MEMBERS: Object!
Mr. SPEAKER: Objection taken. What day?
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young): To-morrow at 7.30.
Mr. THOMAS rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: If it is objected to, we must put it off.
Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: We could not hear what your Ruling was, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SPEAKER: I said that we must put it off, if it is objected to, until tomorrow at 7.30.
Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Until this day 12 months!

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1928.
Copy ordered,
"of Accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1928, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1929; (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (SUBSIDISED WAGES).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Lord Privy Seal if he has considered the advisability of using the Unemployment Fund for the purpose of subsidising wages in respect of the anticipated schemes of industrial development, in consideration for the employment, on such work, of a minimum percentage of workers engaged through Ministry of Labour Employment Exchanges?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer the hon. and
    212
    gallant Gentleman to the reply which I gave on the 19th November to the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), of which I am sending him a copy.

    WORK SCHEMES (BRITISH MATERIALS).
    Major COLVILLEasked the Lord Privy Seal if he has issued instructions to local authorities carrying out State-aided relief schemes that British materials only shall be used on such schemes?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir. A circular has been issued to local authorities, in which, among the conditions governing Government grants for approved schemes of work to relieve unemployment, it is laid down that all materials which are required for assisted works shall, so far as practicable, be of United Kingdom origin, and all manufactured articles shall be of United Kingdom manufacture, subject, however, to such exceptions as may be found to be necessary or desirable in any particular case having regard to all the circumstances, including the comparative price of British and foreign articles.
    Mr. SMITHERS: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that policy with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the Safeguarding of Industries Duties?
    Major COLVILLE: Do I understand from the answer that the circular has gone out to the local authorities?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, last week.
    Mr. SMITHERS: May I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any objections from local authorities saying that they cannot comply with the circular?
    Mr. THOMAS: None whatever.
    Mr. EVERARD: Does this mean that if the foreign article is cheaper, the Government are going to buy the English?

    NEW INDUSTRIES (MUNICIPAL ENTERPRISE).
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Lord Privy Seal the attitude of his Department towards the promotion of civic weeks; and whether it gives encouragement to local authorities to organise them in the interests of trade and employment?
    Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to a reply which I gave on the 3rd December to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that reply, from which he will see that I welcome any manifestation of the spirit of civic enterprise.

    SOUTHWARK.
    Mr. DAYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether any schemes for the purpose of relieving unemployment have been submitted to him by the Southwark Borough Council; and, if so, what action he has taken in the matter?
    Mr. THOMAS: The Southwark Borough Council applied to the Unemployment Grants Committee on 29th October for assistance on terms not involving the employment of transferred men in respect of street paving works estimated to cost about £10,000. The Council was informed that assistance could only be granted provided employment was given to a proportion of men transferred from the depressed mining areas. This is still a necessary condition, but the proportion of transferred labour may now be modified on the lines announced in the House on the 4th November.
    Mr. DAY: What proportion were they requested to take?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have not the details.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Will the Lord Privy Seal explain why transferred labour is so good now when it was not six months ago?

    LONDON TUBE RAILWAYS (EXTENSIONS).
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the new proposals for the control of London traffic will in any way delay his schemes for the extension of London tubes?
    Mr. THOMAS: I presume that the hon. Member refers to certain extensions and improvements of the London tube railways which are the subject of an application under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act. I do not think the inauguration of these works should be delayed as a result of the recent announcement of the Government's
    214
    policy in regard to the co-ordination of passenger transport in the London traffic area.
    Sir G. HAMILTONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will encourage by some financial assistance the immediate building of a tube east of London to Ilford and beyond as an integral part of the new London traffic scheme?
    Mr. THOMAS: It would be open to any authority or company proposing to build a tube from London to Ilford and beyond, to make application under the Development Act for Government financial assistance in connection with any such scheme.

    RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. LAWTHERasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will seek to give to rural district councils a larger grant than at present allowed by the Unemployment Grants Committee for the essential work of improving their water supplies?
    Mr. THOMAS: As stated by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during the Debate on the 4th of last month, the present Government have offered greatly improved terms for certain types of work, including rural water supplies. The new terms, which are generous, provide for grants equivalent to approximately 41 per cent. of the capital cost, as compared with 26 per cent. under the old terms, and must be regarded as the final offer of the Government.
    Mr. HASLAM: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any applications from rural district councils for these grants since this offer?
    Mr. THOMAS: Quite a number; the changed terms have certainly brought forward a number of applications.
    Mr. GOULD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the de-rating proposals, which have affected the value of a penny rate in agricultural areas, make it impossible for them to consider schemes of work?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that has anything to do with this question.

    Ex-SERVICE MEN.
    Major HARVEYasked the Lord Privy Seal what arrangements he is making to ensure the employment of a proportion of ex-service men in all Government-assisted schemes; and what is that proportion?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is a general instruction to Employment Exchanges to give preference, other things being equal, to ex-service men when submitting men for employment. In particular, it is a condition for the receipt of assistance from the Unemployment Grants Committee that normally 75 per cent. of the men employed on relief works shall be ex-service men.
    Major HARVEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman find any difficulty in maintaining the 75 per cent. of ex-service men in view of the fact that there is a certain amount of transference of miners and others from necessitous areas?
    Mr. THOMAS: There is this difficulty. Certain ex-service men's organisations made representations to us that it is difficult sometimes to apply a fixed percentage, and we have laid down a general principle and told them that they must have a certain elasticity in giving effect to it.

    WORK SCHEMES, DURHAM COUNTY AND LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. HERRIOTTSasked the Lord Privy Seal how many men have been employed in Durham county on work schemes sanctioned and assisted financially by his Department and other Government Departments; and whether he can give an estimate of the number of workmen indirectly employed in the manufacture and distribution of the materials required for these schemes?
    Mr. THOMAS: According to reports submitted by local authorities in the County of Durham, the number of men employed on 25th October, the latest date for which figures are available, on schemes assisted by grants from the Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Agriculture, and from the Unemployment Grants Committee, was 1,744. As regards the last part of the question, no estimate is possible.
    Mr. BATEY: Does the Lord Privy Seal expect to be able to employ any more
    216
    men, and is he aware that there are 30,000 men unemployed in the County of Durham?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have no idea as to what further applications have been sent in from Durham. I have reason to believe that there are some. It would be wrong for me to assume that there were not more schemes—I believe there are some—but I do not know the details.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, seeing that the Liverpool City Council has submitted unemployment relief schemes totalling £2,800,000 in respect of roads, and £2,365,000 under the unemployment grants scheme, and that none of the schemes involved has yet been approved, he will say what is the reason for the delay in approving schemes which should provide work for a large number of men?
    Mr. THOMAS: I cannot agree that the situation is as suggested in the question, but, as the answer is a long one and involves figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. SANDHAM: In view of the fact that we have 57,000 people on the unemployed register in Liverpool, and 69,000 people receiving Poor Law relief, can the right hon. Gentleman allocate responsibility for the delay?
    Mr. THOMAS: It would be unfair for me to say to the Liverpool municipal authorities what they should do. They know perfectly well the terms which have been offered, and they know the position with regard to the unemployed in their district, and I not only await but shall welcome an application from them.
    Mr. SANDHAM: Has any application for grant been made in connection with any of the schemes submitted?
    Mr. THOMAS: There have been a number of schemes. As the answer is so long I am circulating it. When he reads it, the hon. Member will then see the details of the schemes.
    Following is the answer:
    The Ministry of Transport gave approval in principle to certain schemes, estimated to cost over £800,000, as long ago as 14th October, and on the 25th of that month the city council informed that

    217
    Department of the schemes they were prepared to put in hand. Since then the necessary details of some of the schemes have been submitted and these are being examined. On the 5th instant the city council were informed that no objection was raised to commencement of these works without prejudice to the question of grant. The total value of the schemes so far submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee is some £260,000. This figure includes schemes totalling £80,000 which it was not found possible to approve for grant. Of the balance of £180,000 now under consideration schemes totalling £150,000 were not submitted until the latter end of November. In the time available it has therefore not been possible for their examination to be completed.

    THAMES CATCHMENT AREA (DRAINAGE SCHEMES).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Lord Privy Seal whether any works have been sanctioned which would mitigate unemployment and make further provision against the Thames floods?
    Captain MACDONALDasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the existence of a plan for dealing with the periodical flooding of the Thames Valley; and, if so, can he tell the House how many men would be employed on such a scheme and what steps he proposes to take to encourage the responsible authorities to put it into operation?
    Mr. THOMAS: A comprehensive drainage scheme for the Thames catchment area has been discussed at various times. Its execution must await the legislation which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture hopes to introduce in the near future. Meanwhile, limited schemes for the Wey Valley and the Thames at the Wey outlet have been submitted. These schemes have been the subject of local inquiries, and it is expected that a decision will shortly be given. These limited schemes would, if sanctioned, employ, in respect of the Thames 375 men for three years, and in respect of the Wey 600 men for 18 months. In addition schemes for the Thames at the mouth are under consideration by the London County Council.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware of the seriousness of the position at the present time so far as the Thames floods are concerned, and could he not really do something immediately, in the course of his efforts to mitigate unemployment?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is a cause of serious concern, but it is not so serious as in the case of the last Thames floods. If legislation had then been introduced, we could have got on with the work.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that the matter is very urgent indeed, and cannot he take some steps?
    HON. MEMBERS: Why did you not take steps?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is because it is so urgent that I have had interviews with the authorities, but, unfortunately, legislation is necessary.
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: Does the statement outlined include anything about the River Lea, which is very much bound up with the flooding scheme?

    NAVAL PROGRAMME (ALTERNATIVE WORK).
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government will give special consideration to the case of the men thrown out of work due to the decision to cancel or slow down the building of warships and see if some alternative work can be provided for these men this winter?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on 26th November.

    STATISTICS.
    Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYERasked the Lord Privy Seal how many more persons are in employment to-day than there were in 1914?
    Mr. THOMAS: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 5th December, there are no statistics available regarding the numbers of persons employed in industry in 1914 comparable with those derived from the working of the Unemployment Insurance Acts at the present time. It is, therefore, only

    219
    possible to give an estimate. I am advised that the increase in the numbers in employment over 1914 may be estimated at between 800,000 and 1,000,000.
    Sir G. BOWYER: May I ask whether that state of affairs causes the right hon. Gentleman some gratfication?
    Mr. THOMAS: Everything which means that more people are employed ought to be gratifying to hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    Sir G. BOWYER: Then why, when we were in office, did the right hon. Gentleman pour scorn upon us Conservatives when we, too, were gratified with this increase?

    WORKERS WITH RESOURCES (APPEAL).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the fact that many members of the community with some resources are depriving others of legitimate work, he proposes to issue an appeal to them to desist forthwith from pursuing their present occupations in the interests of the unemployed?
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not think that an appeal on such lines would meet the situation.

    HOME DEVELOPMENT (GOVERNMENT PROGRAMME).
    Mr. BRACKENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has agreed to make provision for a Treasury grant to the proposed Employment and Development Board?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is to-day publishing a White Paper giving particulars of the main items which have been approved in the Government's programme of home development.

  FISHING INDUSTRY.

    SHELL FISHERIES.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is considering the installation of shellfish cleansing tanks on the model of that used at the Conway research station in order
    220
    to increase employment in coastal areas suitable for the development of mussel fisheries?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir; but it is desirable that any tanks so erected shall be maintained and managed by a responsible local authority, and this has been found to involve certain technical difficulties which I am discussing with my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Health and Agriculture and Fisheries.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman invite the coastal authorities to make proposals to him so that he may consider this matter?
    Mr. THOMAS indicated assent.

    SCOTTISH HARBOURS (DEBT REMISSION).
    Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury under what principle the Treasury has proceeded in fixing the amount of the proposed remission of debts due to public funds by Scottish fishery harbours as set out in Command Paper 3447; and whether account has been taken of the fact that the financial embarrassment of these harbours is the direct result of the War, which necessitated the steam drifters, the chief source of the harbour revenues, being commandeered for the assistance of the Navy?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): In recommending the amounts of the proposed remission of debts due to the Development Fund by Scottish fishery harbours, the Development Commissioners proceeded, I understand, on the principle of giving such relief as in their opinion would enable local authorities to meet their remaining liabilities. The effect of the War, as well as of other causes of the financial embarrassment of harbours, was thus taken into account as a reason for granting remissions.
    Major WOOD: How is it that some of them have got no remission at all, although they have suffered very seriously in revenue as a direct result of the War?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. and gallant Member reads my answer, I think he will understand the principle upon which the Commissioners proceeded. As far as the Treasury are concerned, we are limited to a certain amount.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the hon. Gentleman say why no remissions have been made of debt due to the Public Works Loans Board, as that debt amounts to by far the largest item owing by Scottish harbours; and is he aware that the proposals of the Government go no distance towards solving the financial difficulties of the Scottish harbours?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. Member puts down that question, I will see whether it is possible to give him an answer on the point?
    Commander WILLIAMS: Will a proportionate amount be given to English fishing harbours?

    CHARTS (REPRODUCTION).
    Major WOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has now inquired into the difficulties alleged to have been placed by the Government in the way of the publication of certain charts specially designed for fishermen; and, if so, whether he can state the result of his inquiries?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have had occasion to look into the question of the reproduction of charts. The present practice is to charge a small royalty for the preservation of Crown copyright. Beyond this I know of no difficulties which have arisen and I am not prepared to modify existing arrangements.

    RELIEF FUND.
    Major WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state the intentions of the Government with regard to the fishermen's relief fund?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The Government have given very careful consideration to the suggestion that they should provide from State funds a contribution towards the replacement of the gear recently lost by a number of Scottish herring fishermen; but have come to the conclusion that any such departure from practice and precedent would involve them in making a similar contribution towards other industries which from time to time suffer heavy losses of the implements of production. Any further assistance than that which I have already intimated would require to be given through other channels and in other directions.
    Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman refresh his memory as to the statements which were made by his colleagues last year with regard to the assistance which was given to the miners?
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Has the right hon. Gentleman any other proposals in view? Is he in touch with any other Department, and does he propose to do anything to help the fishermen at this time?
    Mr. ADAMSON: In regard to the supplementary questions following the question to which I have already given an answer, the circumstances are not on analogous lines at all. The assistance given to the miners was not given to replace implements of production, but to relieve the general distress existing among the mining industry. With regard to the second supplementary question, I have already said that any further assistance would require to he given through other channels and in other directions.
    Major WOOD rose—
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Arising out of the answer—[Interruption].
    Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members would not make quite so much noise, I should be heard when I call them. Mr. Boothby.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that a great deal of the general distress which exists among the fishermen at the present time has largely arisen out of this disaster, and is he of opinion that the fund is sufficient to meet the urgent requirements of the fishing communities along the South-East coast of Scotland at the present time?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have already replied to a similar question and stated that that is a matter for which I have responsibility and that, if it is brought to my notice, there will be a thorough inquiry into it.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to do anything at all in this case?
    Major WOOD: I wish to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-morrow.
    Mr. J. JONES: In spite of our sympathy with the Scottish fishermen, what about the fishermen of Silvertown?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MOTOR-CAR INDUSTRY (IMPORT DUTIES).
    Major COLVILLEasked the Lord Privy Seal if he has received representations from manufacturers of motor-cars in this country as to the effect on employment in that industry of the removal of the McKenna Duties; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply which I gave on 3rd December to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald), of which I am, sending him a copy.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the Government are still unsettled in their minds on this question?
    Mr. THOMAS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads the answer, he will understand it.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to ascertain the total amount of employment in this industry and in all the accessory industries, and, if not, will he assist in helping the Measure which it is proposed to-day to be passed?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am discussing with the motor industry every point in connection with that industry with a view to helping them.
    Sir H. CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the figures given by the motor industry do not include all the accessories, and will he take steps to see that that is taken into consideration?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am sure that the motor industry will assume that they know as much about their own business as the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Major COLVILLE: May we take it, then, that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the views expressed by the industry?
    Major THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade what increase has taken place in the number of motor-cars produced in this country since the McKenna Duties were reimposed; and what was the number of persons employed in the motor-car industry in the year 1925 and in the year 1928?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): As the answer to this question includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been an increase in the production of motor cars?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, yes; the figures certainly show an increase.
    Major THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that nothing is done to interfere with the home market for motor cars?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is not the Lord Privy Seal now saying that all our social reforms depend upon increased production?
    Following is the answer:
    According to the figures published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the number of motor cars, including commercial vehicles, built or assembled in the United Kingdom, was 146,600 in 1924, 167,000 in 1925, and about 212,000 in 1928. According to the figures published by the Ministry of Labour, the number of persons aged from 16 to 64 in the "motor vehicle, cycle, and aircraft" industry in the United Kingdom insured against unemployment was 234,830 in July, 1928, and the number aged 16 and over in July, 1925, was 214,840. The number of persons registered as unemployed at the end of June, 1928, was 18,287, and at the end of June, 1925, 12,132.

    BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (BRITISH STEEL).
    Mr. SORENSENasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has considered the advisability of some assistance being given to enable British steel manufacturers to instal the necessary plant to produce the type of steel required for high buildings to be erected in our Colonies and elsewhere?
    Mr. THOMAS: I assume that my hon. Friend refers mainly to the "broad flanged beam" which is a special feature of the buildings in question, and which is not produced in this country. I am advised that there is not yet a sufficient

    225
    market to warrant the laying down of a special mill for the production of this type of section.
    Mr. SORENSEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if financial facilities were available to assist the production of this kind of steel in this country, markets might be found abroad, and that this would assist employment in this country?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is no good providing financial facilities if there is no demand for the goods. Financial assistance is useful where it can be proved that it will facilitate business, but so far as this particular article is concerned, there is no evidence that would warrant a special mill being set up.
    Mr. SORENSEN: Does the Lord Privy Seal consider that we are incapable of competing with manufacturers in the United States in the production of this kind of article?
    Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary, I think we are capable of competing with anybody, given a fair chance.
    Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say when the White Paper which he has promised us on no lees than four or five occasions will be produced?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.
    Mr. ALBERY: wish most respect-fully to point out that the Lord Privy Seal's answer mentioned financial considerations, and on several occasions he has promised a White Paper with regard to them.
    Mr. THOMAS: It is in the Vote Office.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Now?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes.
    Sir F. HALL: Put there just this minute?

    EXPORT TRADE (CYCLES AND MOTOR CYCLES).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Lord Privy Seal if the proposals for assisting the export of motor cars now before the Government include cycles and motor cycles as well?
    Mr. THOMAS: My discussions with the representatives of the British motor-car manufacturing industry have dealt with motor cars and motor cycles.
    Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far his proposals are now advanced, and whether he is in a, position to make a statement?
    Mr. THOMAS: Certainly not. Those engaged in the industry are the beat judges as to what is best in their own interests.
    Mr. MANDER: My question was whether any discussions have now reached the stage at which the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make a public announcement to the House, which is a totally different thing?
    Mr. THOMAS: Not yet.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the principle of his last answer to the case of the coalowners as well as the motor-car manufacturers?
    HON. MEMBERS: And the miners!
    Mr. LAWTHER: And the fishermen!

    AUSTRALIAN TARIFF (RABBIT TRAPS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the effect that the new Australian tariff will have on the trap trade of Wednesfield, causing cancellation of orders and unemployment; and will he make representations to the Australian Government?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am aware that the Australian import duty on rabbit traps has been increased. As I informed the House on Tuesday, 3rd December, the question of making representations to the Commonwealth Government with regard to the recent tariff revision is under consideration.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these new duties on steel traps are absolutely prohibitive, and that 75 per cent. of the men in this industry are already out of work; and will he do something to remedy that condition of affairs?
    Mr. GRAHAM: From the statistics published in the last issue of the Board of Trade Journal, it is perfectly clear that many of these new duties are pro-

    227
    hibitory in character. I can only say to the House that representations are being received, and I am now considering them.
    Mr. HASLAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that over a period of several years, owing to -the preferential treatment we have received, our export trade with Australia has increased?

    ANGLO-ARGENTINE AGREEMENT.
    Mr. SIMONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give an estimate showing approximately how many men would be given employment directly and indirectly by the carrying out of the convention with the Argentine Government, under which £9,000,000 worth of Argentine Government orders are to be placed in this country within the next two years?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I fear it is not possible to give any such estimate.
    Mr. SIMON: Would it be correct to say that this convention is one of the biggest things that has been done for unemployment in this country since the present Government took office?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is by no means unimportant.
    Sir H. CROFT: When the right hon. Gentleman comes to collect the statistics, will he also see whether he can give the number of farmers and agricultural labourers employed in this country and in Canada who might possibly be affected?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think the last supplementary question is based on a misapprehension. I have just indicated that it is impossible to give an estimate on the lines of the question put by the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with reference to the promised concession on the part of the Government of the Argentine of a reduction of the Import Duty on artificial silk goods entering that country from Great Britain, he has any information if a similar reduction of duty will be given by the Argentine Government to other countries under commercial agreements under a most-favoured-nation clause arrangement?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that this matter is engaging the attention of the Argentine Government, but I have not yet heard whether they have come to any conclusion.
    Mr. HANNON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that, in point of fact, in the commercial agreements which the Argentine Government have with this country there is a most-favoured-nation clause?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That is quite true, but we have always explained that it is no part of our policy to ask for preferential treatment for ourselves. I have given in my answer all the information on this point that I have at this stage.
    Mr. HANNON: If it is no part of the policy of the Government to ask for preferential treatment for British trade, what does the Convention with the Argentine Government amount to?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The answer is that it is of very considerable value to this country.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does it not seem a pity to depreciate the concession which the Argentine Government has given to us?
    Mr. MATTERS: Was it not precisely to arrange such an agreement as this that the late Government appointed the D'Abernon mission?
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the overture recently made by the Argentine Government in regard to the reduction of the Import Duty on silk and artificial silk goods imported from the United Kingdom on condition that no restrictions be placed upon the exportation of Argentine wheat and meat to this country, he can state the total quantity of wheat, wheatmeal, flour, and meat, chilled and frozen, imported into this country from the Argentine and from Australia, respectively, and the value of the total exports of silk and artificial silk and the products thereof to the Argentine and to Australia, respectively; and whether any negotiations are in progress or in contemplation with the Commonwealth of Australia before the conclusion of the proposed agreement with the Argentine?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The reply takes the form of a table of figures, which I will

    229
    circulate with the OFFICIAL BEPORT. AS regards the second part of the question I would refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 27th November, to the hon. Members for Richmond (Sir N. Moore) and Devizes (Mr. Hurd).
    Mr. HANNON: Is the President of the Board of Trade prepared to give an undertaking to the House that no con-

    THE FOLLOWING TABLE shows the total imports of Wheat, Wheat Meal and Flour, and of Meat, chilled and frozen, into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year 1928, consigned from the Argentine Republic and from Australia, respectively.

    Description.

    Imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland consigned from:

    Argentine Republic.

    Australia.

    Cwts.

    Cwts.

    Wheat

    …

    24,399,294

    10,233,345

    Wheat Meal and flour

    …

    820,716

    980,568

    Meat, Chilled and Frozen:—

    Beef

    …

    9,413,063

    1,012,252

    Veal

    …

    16,225

    152

    Mutton and Lamb

    …

    1,511,468

    546,527

    Pork

    …

    57,803

    766

    Rabbits

    …

    —

    146,722

    Other

    …

    835

    —

    Total quantity of meat, chilled and frozen

    …

    10,999,394

    1,706,419

    Total declared value of above

    …

    £43,488,534

    £11,250,472

    THE FOLLOWING TABLE shows the declared value of the exports of Silk, Artificial Silk and Manufactures thereof (except Apparel and Embroidery) and of Stockings and Hose of Silk and Artificial Silk, from Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year 1928, consigned to the Argentine Republic and to Australia, respectfully.

    Description.

    Exports, the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom,
    consigned to:

    Argentine Republic.

    Australia.

    £

    £

    Silk and Manufactures thereof (except Apparel and Embroidery).

    67,918

    380,211

    Artificial silk and Manufactures thereof (except Apparel and Embroidery).

    131,559

    1,530,715

    Hosiery: Stockings and Hose of Silk and Artificial Silk.

    2,460

    66,607

    RUSSIAN TIMBER (IMPORTS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a part of Soviet Russian
    cession shall be made to any foreign country which will not be equally available for Australia and other Overseas Dominions?
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that, while the Argentine Government reduced their duties on textiles, the Australian Government have within the last few weeks increased them?
    Following is the reply:
    timber is produced by the large prisoner camps; and what steps he is taking to stop the illegal importation of such products of prison labour into this country?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the hon. and gallant Member was informed on the 10th July, I have no information as to the conditions under which Russian timber is being produced. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Government take steps to find out whether this timber is produced by Russian prisoner labour, and also by labour conscripted by press-gangs; and, if so, is it the policy of the Government to tolerate such conditions?
    Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Is it in order, in a supplementary question, to make insulting insinuations about Russia?
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it has not been the practice of yourself and your predecessors to rule that hon. Members should make themselves responsible for statements of fact contained in their questions; and may I ask whether the hon. and gallant Member has given these facts to the President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Undoubtedly it is the case that, when an hon. Member states facts, he must make himself responsible for those facts.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I make myself responsible for the question that I have asked. I have asked the Government to make inquiries.

    RUSSIA (EXPORT CREDITS).
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of trade credit given to Russia by this country since the setting up of the Soviet system of Government; and what is the total amount of British exports to Russia and of Russian imports into this country during the same period?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the answer is long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not the fact that there is still a large trade balance, amounting to many millions in favour of the Soviet Government in this country?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would invite the hon. Member to wait until he has seen the detailed terms of this reply.
    Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement made by Lord Parmoor in another place in which he indicated that every penny had been paid by Russia, which was, he said, different from any other country; and does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a fair way to criticise other counries?
    Following is the answer:
    As regards the first part of the question, although I am aware that credits have been granted by certain private firms doing business with the Soviet Union, I have no information as to their amount. As to the credits granted under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme, which has been applied to the Soviet Union as from 1st August last, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply by my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade on this subject yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood).
    As regards the second part of the question, the United Kingdom trade statistics do not distinguish trade with the Soviet Union, as distinct from the territory of the former Russian Empire, until 1921.
    The total figures for the period January 1921, to September 1929, are as follows:

    £

    Imports from the Soviet Union

    149,202,688

    Exports of British Domestic produce and manufactures to the Soviet Union

    34,177,006

    Re-exports consigned to the Soviet Union

    42,807,270

    SILK AND ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRIES.
    Sir H. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade how many artificial silk factories have been built or commenced in the last five years, and how many persons are employed therein?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: According to Press reports some 23 factories for making artificial silk have been established or re-equipped during the last five years. Of these it would appear, however, that only some 13 were actually working in October last. I have no information as to the numbers of persons employed in these particular factories, but the total numbers of persons estimated as employed

    233
    in the silk and artificial silk industries in June, 1925, and June, 1929, were 42,750 and 67,573, respectively.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Do these figures include extensions of factories as well?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Part of the reply refers to the re-equipment of factories, but, on the facts before me this afternoon, I should not like to be precise regarding extensions.

  LAND ACQUISITION.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he proposes to ask the House to pass any of the stages of the Bill to further enable local authorities to acquire land for the purposes of unemployment schemes before the Christmas Recess?
  Mr. THOMAS: I am afraid that there is no time available before the Christmas Recess for the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
  Sir K. WOOD: Would it be possible to circulate the text of this Bill before the Recess, so that we may study it during the holidays?
  Mr. THOMAS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will spend a more comfortable Christmas.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: If the local authorities fail to acquire land voluntarily will the right hon. Gentleman apply compulsory powers?
  Mr. THOMAS: That is the object of the Bill.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.
  Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any formal Reports have been made to him by the Advisory Committee appointed under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, on the position in the cinematograph industry with reference to blind and block booking; and what action his Department has taken?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: No formal Report on the subject has been made by the Advisory Committee, but at the end of 1928, on their recommendation, a letter was written by the Board of Trade to the
  234
  Kinematograph Renters' Society and the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, drawing the attention of those bodies to the tendency that was stated to exist among some renters and exhibitors to ignore the requirements of Part I of the Act, and inviting their aid in ensuring that all their members were fully aware of the requirements and would co-operate in carrying them into effect.
  Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make Regulations to see that this part of the Act is carried out?
  Mr. GRAHAM: We are doing everything in our power under the Act to see that that is done.

  WAR COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
  Mr. THOMAS LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to remove the seven years' restriction on claimants through the Mercantile Marine Department for compensation under the war risks compensation scheme; and, if not, will he consider the desirability of doing so?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir. The seven years' limit has now been removed.

  CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.
  Mr. WISEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the terms of reference and powers of the proposed consumers' council can yet be communicated to the House?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: As I stated in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for the East Willesden Division (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on the 14th November, I must ask hon. Members to await the detailed proposals which I hope later to lay before the House.
  Mr. WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Food Council is dead, or merely moribund?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. The Food Council continues.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea as to whether this new consumers' council is to be an extension of the present Food Council, or a new council altogether?
  Mr. GRAHAM: It is quite impossible to go beyond the terms of the statement which I made recently to the House, and my hon. Friend, and others, will no doubt be good enough to await legislation.
  Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: When are we likely to see the legislation?
  Mr. GRAHAM: That is information which I cannot possibly give this afternoon.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (HELM ORDERS).
  Mr. WEST RUSSELLasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the proposal of the International Conference as regards the alteration of orders to helmsmen at sea; what attitude was adopted by the British delegate at the recent conference on the subject; and whether it is proposed ultimately to lay before Parliament for ratification any specific recommendations for a change in the existing procedure?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: Article 41 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, provides that after midnight on the 30th June, 1931, helm or steering orders shall on all the ships of the contracting parties be given in the direct sense. The Convention was unanimous, and no reservation was made by the British or other delegation on this subject. The Convention will not be ratified or come in force until it has been approved by Parliament, and a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the Convention will be introduced in due course.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only British seaman on the sub-committee on Helm Orders went sick and that our representative's voice was not heard at all on this subject?
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the President of the Board of Trade not aware that there is much feeling in seafaring circles against this change?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly, representations have reached me, and they have been very carefully considered, but I
  236
  would direct the attention of the House to the terms of my reply, which states that this was a unanimous recommendation.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer my question with regard to our representative?
  Mr. ALBERY: May I point out that there is a subsequent question down on the Paper with reference to this subject?
  Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the international conference which decided on the change in helm orders, whether any British representative was present and took part who possessed professional qualifications of a seafaring nature; and, if so, will he state the nature of those qualifications?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I say that I did not notice this question in the name of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery), and that I am very sorry I intervened on a previous question on this subject?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The United Kingdom delegation to the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, included, in addition to Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond, who was President of the Conference, three Master Mariners with extensive sea experience. The delegations from the Dominions included five Captains in the Merchant Service.
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a substantial section of the Mercantile Marine is in favour of this change, and will he bear in mind the fact that much of the opposition comes from shore-living officials?
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Nothing of the kind!
  Mr. GRAHAM: I will certainly have regard to the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the subcommittee which dealt with helm orders had one British seaman on it, who went sick, and that, therefore, our voice was not heard at all?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I have already given my hon. and gallant Friend a reply on that point.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No.
  Mr. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the long and historic tradition of the sea with respect to this question, and the fact that it may take a generation of new men to understand the new orders that will be given?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I can assure my hon. Friend that representations are being made to me on this point, in which all these facts are being included, and they will be very carefully considered.

  EX-ENEMY DEBTS.
  Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELLasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the balance due represented by the unpaid 5s. 6d. in the £ on accepted proved claims by British nationals against Hungary; and upon what date the Anglo-Hungarian Clearing Office for Enemy Debts proposes to make a further distribution?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The dividends on the admitted claims of British nationals against Hungary have been calculated on the amount of principal and interest up to the 26th July, 1921, the date of the ratification of the Treaty of Trianon. On this basis the unpaid dividend of 5s. 6d. in the £ represents £1,200,597. In addition to this sum there is a further liability which cannot at present be finally calculated in respect of outstanding claims and of interest on unpaid balances subsequent to the 26th July, 1921. A further dividend of 1s. 4d. in the £ will be paid on the 11th January next.
  Captain A. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the last date upon which the Hungarian Government made its fixed half-yearly payment under the agreement of October, 1925, in respect of the Anglo-Hungarian claims administered by the clearing office for enemy debts; and is he are that the Anglo-Hungarian clearing has only declared one dividend the period of 18 months which has ce 3rd June, 1928?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The last instalment under the agreement referred to was paid by the Hungarian Government on the 30th September, 1929. During the period mentioned in the last part of the question, the Department was unable to pay a further dividend because it was necessary to reserve funds to meet new claims for considerable sums which followed upon a decision of the Anglo-Hungarian Tribunal. A settlement of these claims has now been reached.
  Mr. DAY: Can the right hon Gentleman say what the reserve fund was?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I could not reply to that question without notice.
  Mr. WEST RUSSELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Hungary has punctually discharged its agreement of October, 1925, to pay a fixed half-yearly instalment, he can see his way to anticipate the receipt of the remaining instalments by clearing off the balance of 5s. 6d. in the £ on accepted proved claims by British nationals against Hungary, and thereby close down and prevent further administrative and staff expenditure at the Anglo-Hungarian branch of the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The Government's responsibilities in this matter are confined to satisfying the claims of Hungary's creditors in this country from funds derived from Hungarian sources, and I regret that I could not agree to add to those responsibilities in the way suggested. I may add that the administrative cost involved in satisfying these claims by instalments as and when money becomes available is negligible compared with the amount outstanding in respect of British claims.
  Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether all accepted claims on the Anglo-German branch of the Enemy Debts Department have been paid off; and has this branch been disbanded?
  Mr. GRAHAM: All admitted claims have been paid, and very considerable reductions have been made in the staff concerned. Further reductions are imminent, but the work must continue until the outstanding claims in the German and other administrations have been disposed of.
  Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied with the conducting of this Department; and, if not, will he have an investigation made into the methods adopted in the Department?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I have already given various replies to my hon. Friend on similar questions, and I could not possibly add to the reply that I gave to him some days ago on this subject.
  Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider closing down the Anglo-Hungarian Department of the Enemy Debts Department and entrusting the distribution of the 5s. 6d. in the £ to the Public Trustee?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The course suggested by my hon. Friend would not be in the interest of efficiency or economy, and I am unable to accept it.
  Mr. KELLY: In view of the dissatisfaction with the conducting of the Enemy Debts Department, would it not be to the advantage of the country that this distribution should be handed over to the Public Trustee, in whom there is some confidence?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I want to be quite frank with my hon. Friend, and to say that I greatly regret these vague charges. I have always asked that I should be given any specific case that can be made the subject of a definite charge, when I will immediately have it investigated. I must protest against this constant attack upon public Departments.
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: Is it not the fact that the one individual who has made specific charges relating to the work of this particular Department and against particular individuals has been dismissed from the service of the Department without compensation, although the soundness of some of his charges has subsequently-been proved?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir; in a single sentence, the position is not as stated by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. KELLY: Is it not a fact that such charges were definitely made and were investigated by the Department?

  GOAL INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT PROPASALS).
  Major THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any communication from the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce concerning the Government's proposals regarding the coal industry, stating that those proposals will tend to increase the price of coal; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the consumer against any increase in the price of a commodity which will have the immediate effect of raising prices all round?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have received a resolution from the Cardiff Incorporated Chamber of Commerce relative to the proposals of the Government concerning the coal industry. As regards the second part of the question I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the introduction of the Bill.

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (COTTON TRADE).
  Colonel Sir JAMES REYNOLDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the total amount received in Excess Profits Duty from the cotton trade;
  (2) what is the amount received in Excess Profits Duty from the cotton trade during the last financial year;
  (3) what is the amount of Excess Profits Duty to be collected from the cotton trade still outstanding?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. P. Snowden): I regret I am unable to furnish the information asked for by the hon. Member in this and his two subsequent questions relating to the incidence of the Excess Profits Duty on the cotton trade. The statistics of the Excess Profits Duty have not been compiled in such a manner as to show the amounts payable, or paid by particular industries and any such classification would necessitate a difficult and costly inquiry that I cannot see my way to undertake.
  Sir J. REYNOLDS: Arising out of the lack of an answer on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him if he h considered the advisability of any balance of Excess Profits may be chargeable against con

  241
  are in a very difficult position and unable to raise the money?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: That point does not arise in the original Question as put by the hon. Member, but he is perfectly well aware that a great deal of Excess Profits Duty, originally assessed, has been written off.

  INCOME TAX (TRADE GIFTS AND COMMISSIONS).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the possibility of obtaining extra revenue by insisting on Income Tax being paid either by the donor or the recipient on trade gifts and commissions of all kind?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am not clear as to the precise nature of the transactions which the hon. Member has in mind. If he cares to furnish me with illustrations of any class of case for which, in his view, the existing Income Tax code does not make adequate provision, I will gladly consider his representations.
  Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this might be a very effective means of stopping a good deal of the bribery that goes on as well as being a means of raising revenue? I shall be very glad to give him the particulars for which he asks.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: If the hon. Member will respond to my invitation and submit to me the details for which I have asked, and if I can discover that there is here a source of revenue, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

  WAR LOANS (INTEREST).
  Mr. BROCKWAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of interest paid on the various War Loans between 1st January, 1915, and 31st October, 1929?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is not practicable, in view of the conversions which have taken place sit different dates, to distinguish the interest paid on War Loans from the general interest charge on the National Debt. Details of the latter will be found in the annual Finance Accounts, to which I would refer the hon. Member.
  Mr. BROCKWAY: Is it possible for office cellor of the Exchequer to state during amounts paid in interest upon elapsed si now?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think that, it is my business or the business of my staff to do simple sums in arithmetic of that kind.

  HOUSING (RATES).
  The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SIMON.
  51. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a serious burden is imposed by the present rating system on those poor families which move out from the slums to better houses; and will he appoint a committee to consider means of removing this hindrance to good housing.
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: This question is to be answered by the Minister of Health.
  Mr. SIMON: Can I have an answer?
  HON. MEMBERS: Where is the Minister?
  At end of Questions—
  Mr. SIMON: Can I now have an answer to Question 51?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I have been asked to reply. I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend. This and other aspects of the slum problem will receive my right hon. Friend's consideration in connection with the proposals for legislation which he has in preparation, but he does not think it necessary to appoint a committee to consider this particular matter.
  Mr. SIMON: Is the hon. Lady aware that the present system of rating falls very hardly upon those who wish to move out of the slums into decent houses and that it is one of the greatest burdens affecting the removal of those slums?
  Miss LAWRENCE: These matters are receiving the urgent consideration of my right hon. Friend.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir G. BOWYERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any conscientious objectors have been promoted, since the Treasury circular of 10th September last, over the

    243
    heads of civil servants who served in the Forces during the War; and, if so, how many and in what Departments?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Replies from all the Departments concerned are not yet in. Perhaps the hon. and gallant 11ember would be good enough to put the question down again next week.

    WAR OFFICE.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for War whether there has lately been complaint in the War Office of inadequate lavatory accommodation; whether the accommodation has been increased; and, if so, at what cost to the Exchequer?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Shinwell): Yes, Sir; and this has been remedied at an approximate cost of £146.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is this increased accommodation solely for the highest ranks at the War Office; and will similar accommodation be provided for other ranks?
    Mr. SHINWELL: If the existing accommodation is found to be inadequate for the other ranks, we will remedy it.
    Mr. J. JONES: Before the question is finally disposed of, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this accommodation is provided for the use of the Secretary himself?
    Sir F. HALL: Is it generally known as "Uncle Tom's Cabin?"

  GENERAL ELECTION (COST).
  Captain BOURNEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the cost to the Exchequer in respect of returning officers' fees and charges incurred owing to the last General Election?
  Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The total cost to the Exchequer of the General Election last May was approximately £400,000. These figures include a proportion of the capital expenditure incurred by the Office of Works and the Stationery Office in purchase of election equipment, but they make no allowance for free postal facilities afforded by the General Post Office.
  Mr. McSHANE: Will the hon. Gentleman say if it was not worth it?
  Mr. SANDERS: Does that sum represent what remains after deduction of the forfeited deposits?

  NATIONAL INCOME.
  Mr. KINLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department has formed any estimate of the total national income (Great Britain) for the financial year 1928–29, and what is that estimate?
  Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: No such estimate has been made.
  Mr. BECKETT: In view of the Chancellor's alleged inability to pay his debts, is it not time that his Department looked into this question?

  COMPANY FLOTATIONS (ALIENS).
  Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider as to introducing legislation to require that persons who are not British subjects and who are concerned with the flotation of companies in this country to which the British public are asked to subscribe shall be required to give substantial financial guarantees as to their bona fides?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: As at present advised I am not prepared to introduce legislation for this purpose.

  AFFORESTATION (EMPLOYES).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what is the total number of men employed by the Commissioners at the present time or on the nearest convenient date; how many were so employed on the approximate corresponding date last year; and whether he can estimate the approximate number who will be employed on forestry work this time next year?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The latest return of the number of employés in the Commission's forests is 2,735, the number on the corresponding

  245
  date last year being 2,728. There will be no great increase next year, but after that it is estimated that the average number in each year will increase by 350 annually.
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if the Commissioners are prepared to consider the question of granting to their workmen a week's holiday on conditions that have been granted to other workmen in Government Departments, having regard to the conditions under which they have to work?
  Mr. SMITH: The whole question of conditions of service of the Forestry Commission's workmen is under consideration.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RHINELAND (EVACUATION).
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in the evacuation of the Rhineland by the British Army of the Rhine?
    Mr. SHINWELL: It is hoped that the evacuation will be completed by the end of this week, except for 'a small party which is due to leave at the beginning of next week.

    PENARTH HEAD (RIGHT OF WAY).
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now received the Report concerning the right of way round Penarth Head; and when this privilege can be restored to the town?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I have now received a report from which it appears that my hon. Friend has been misinformed. I understand that the Department did not acquire any land on Penarth Head during the War, and that there is not, and never has been, any public right of way round the Battery. Subject to the usual annual closing in order to preserve the Department's rights, the promenade in front of the Battery, together with a footpath giving access to the promenade from St. Augustine's Crescent, is open to the public now just as it was before the War. I am informed that at some earlier date the public were allowed to pass on foot round the Battery, but that this privilege
    246
    was withdrawn for military reasons, and the facilities now in existence were granted in consideration of this restriction. But should the Battery at any time become surplus to military requirements, I will arrange that the question of giving the Penarth Urban District Council facilities to purchase the site at a fair price is not overlooked.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Is it not a fact that the public used this as a right of way for many years, and will the hon. Gentleman consider granting these facilities to Penarth again?
    Mr. SHINWELL: It is not agreed that there is such a public right of way.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I desire to ask for your assistance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which has arisen at the Table. On Friday I handed in a question dealing with the bad service of broadcasting in the East of Scotland. It was turned down by the Table, and, when I asked for guidance as to whom I should address the question, I was informed that there was no Department responsible, and that I could not address the question to the Prime Minister. I should like your guidance as to how the grievances of these people, who by law pay their 10s. a year for a receiving licence, can be ventilated, seeing that they have drawn my attention to the fact that broadcasting in the East of Scotland is so bad that they can get no benefit at all out of this service.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has put a question to me as to why this question was refused at the Table. It is generally understood, I think, or it should be, that one of the rules which governs questions is that questions must be on subjects for which the Minister has some responsibility. Hon. Members can easily realise that to put questions to Ministers on matters in regard to which they have no responsibility would be futile. In this case, I understand that there is no Minister who has responsibility for the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Mr. E. BROWN: Do I understand your ruling to mean that the Postmaster-General in this Government has no responsibility whatever for answering

247
questions of this kind? Questions were put to the late Postmaster-General affecting broadcasting, and they were frequently answered in this House.
Mr. MACPHERSON: May I point out that during the last Debate on the Post Office, the question of broadcasting was raised, and it was replied to at very great length by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon, the late Postmaster-General (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson)?
Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Postmaster-General will assist me in regard to his responsibility?
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): I understood that the Postmaster-General is responsible for questions of general policy, but I also understood that the Postmaster-General is not responsible for questions of details and particulars as to the service.
Sir R. HUTCHISON: There is a point of policy involved as to the strength of the broadcasting apparatus on the East Coast of Scotland.
Mr. J. JONES: I put a question the other day to the Clerk at the Table, and it was refused. It was a question dealing with perpetual pensions. I was told that I was not in order in putting that question. I would like to know what is the position of private Members of this House on the question of what they can or what they cannot do. I asked for a record of perpetual pensions, and the amount that they cost the State, and I was told that that question was not allowed. I do not know who gave the authority for saying that, and I would like to know what is the authority.
Mr. SPEAKER: A very large number of questions are brought to the Table, and hon. Members must understand that certain Rules must govern the putting of questions.
Mr. JONES: My question was addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Clerks at the Table have an extremely difficult task to perform, and they do it extremely well.
Mr. BROWN: The House will agree with that statement, Mr. Speaker, but
248
may I put this point to you: Where an issue is raised with respect to a public corporation which has been set up by Statute and which has complete control of policy, and where, as in the case of the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend, there is a question on the border line between detail and policy, ought not that question to go to the Department in order that the Department may be able to judge whether the responsibility lies there?
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think that I can charge my recollection to say that, in previous years, as Postmaster-General, I answered questions of this kind as applied to the Post Office, on the ground that these were matters of general policy, but I always refused, as the Postmaster-General has just said, to answer questions on particular details, as being not my responsibility.
Mr. JAMES GARDNER: As it is in order to raise questions regarding the Suez Canal and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, why is it not in order to raise questions about the British Broadcasting Corporation?
Mr. JONES: is not the question of perpetual pensions more a matter of public policy than the British Broadcasting Corporation?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: Can the Leader of the House tell us what business he intends to transact before the Adjournment?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Government desire that the House should adjourn for the Christmas Recess on the 20th December, that is, on the Friday, and to reassemble on the 21st January. These dates are contingent upon the completion of certain essential business. In the first place, it is necessary to provide before the end of this month £3,500,000 to meet certain charges on the Exchequer arising under the existing Unemployment Insurance Acts. This money will have to be provided by a Supplementary Estimate. It is proposed to take also a Supplementary Estimate of approximately £10,000 to provide for the Highlands and Islands Medical Service. The Government propose also to

249
take the Second Reading of the Goal Mining Industry Bill before the adjournment. This Bill, will, I hope, be in the hands of Members of the House on Thursday the 12th instant, and the Second Reading will be taken on Tuesday and Friday of next week. Perhaps I might summarise the above statement in the form of a programme:
Monday, 16th December, Unemployment Insurance Bill, completion of further stages. The House will remember that the Bill is down on Thursday for Report, and next Monday for further discussion on Report and the Third Reading. Supplementary Estimates, Ministry of Labour, for approximately £3,500,000, arising out of existing Unemployment Insurance Acts; Department of Health, Scotland, £10,000 Vote arising under the Highlands and Islands Medical Service. That will be followed immediately by Committee of Ways and Means, as usual, covering the Supplementary Estimates up to date.
Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Is all this for Monday?
The PRIME MINISTER: For Monday. There is nothing very much in it.
Tuesday: Coal Mining Industry Bill, Second Reading, first day; Report of the Supplementary Estimates taken on the 16th, and Ways and Means Resolutions.
Thursday: Coal Mining Industry Bill, completion of Second Reading stage; Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading.
Friday: Further stages of Consolidated Fund Bill, and Motion for the Adjournment.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me yesterday whether it would be possible to provide days for discussion of the Government policy in regard to Egypt and Singapore. I am afraid that it will be impossible to do that before Christmas. I propose that those matters should be discussed during the first two weeks after we reassemble.
Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this extraordinary programme the Opposition is being absolutely stifled in this House? I have only had the programme for a short time in my hands. As far as I can gather from it, the right hon. Gentleman expects us to take a Supplementary Estimate for £3,500,000 after Eleven
250
o'clock. I do not quite know what is to happen to the Report stage of the Lord Privy Seal's salary. Perhaps the Government do not want to have another discussion on unemployment, and I do not blame them. The Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill is also down for after Eleven o'clock—one of the classic opportunities for discussing Government policy. Not one hour has been given to the Opposition who have officially demanded time, and rightly demanded time, to discuss Egypt and Singapore. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether His Majesty's Opposition have any rights at all under a Socialist Administration?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he does not think it would be desirable that we should have another opportunity of discussing unemployment, and not merely the grant of £3,500,000, which is a definite proposition, and its merits or demerits, as the case may be. A White Paper has just been placed in our hands, which indicates the programme of the Lord Privy Seal. Surely, before we separate for December and January, there ought to be an opportunity for a full discussion upon that programme, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will find a day for that purpose. When will the Coal Mines Bill be in the hands of Members? [HON. MEMBERS: "Thursday!"] I know that it will be Thursday, but what time on Thursday Will it be early, so as to enable us to consider it before we separate, and so that we can have consultations among ourselves as to the line we should take?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that we are saddling them with too much. We are trying to get through what, I admit, is a pretty heavy programme, but it is essential that it should be done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Hon. Members know perfectly well that I am not likely at this time of the Session to be too controversial, but a very large part of the work which we found we had to do was left over by our predecessors. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Still, that is all right. I do not complain, but it is part of the explanation of the heavy programme which has to he got through before Christmas. With reference to the Report stage of my right

251
hon. Friend's Supplementary Estimate, we did not propose to take that before Christmas. We find that it is unnecessary from the Treasury point of view that it should be included in this Consolidated Find Bill, because another Consolidated Fund Bill will be required early in the new year. There are certain remnants—again, not our fault—which will require a Supplementary Estimate which we shall not be able to prepare before Christmas, and, with regard to the scheme for the beet-sugar subsidy, I am informed that that will require a Supplementary Estimate. We did not intend, therefore, to ask the House to take the Report stage of that Vote.
As far as the other business is concerned, the Consolidated Fund Bill is not the main Consolidated Fund Bill; it is only the Consolidated Fund Bill which covers questions which have already been discussed in Committee and Report stage, so that the field of discussion is a very limited one. As far as the Coal Mines Bill is concerned, I do not want to say that it can be had to-morrow, evening, which I am not sure would be possible. I have asked that that should be done if it can be clone, but I am told that it is very doubtful. In any event, it will be circulated with the Papers on Thursday morning.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I have an answer to the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to providing an opportunity for the discussion of the question of unemployment?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry. I understood that I had answered it. The opportunity will be on the Report stage of the Vote, and that will not be taken until after Christmas.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then there will be no discussion before Christmas?
Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS: The Prime Minister intends to avoid a further discussion on the general question of unemployment and the measures which the Government are proposing to take until after Christmas. He proposes definitely to deprive the Opposition of the right to discuss the White Paper which is now being put in the Vote Office for the first time to-day, and he is doing that, as I suggest, quite unnecessarily, because he has got the time which
252
could be used for the purpose if he were to postpone the Coal Mines Bill—[ Interruption]—I do not want to postpone its operation, its action, but it is not in the least necessary that the Coal Mines Bill should have its Second Reading this side of Christmas. If it is ready tomorrow or the next day the right hon. Gentleman can have it printed and circulated, we can consider it and it can come up for Second Reading as soon as we resume after Christmas. If the Government do that, they will not lose a single day for operative action on the Bill when it is finally carried. It is not, therefore, right to suggest that the cat is out of the bag and we are trying to postpone this Bill. That is not at all what we are doing. We are saying that there is only a limited amount of time between now and Christmas, and the Government have got the opportunity either to ask for the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill at very short notice and without the House really having proper time to consider it, or they have the right to say to the House, "Consider now our proposals that we have put into a White Paper for dealing with unemployment."
Which is the more important? Which is the more urgent? I venture to say that the Government are not treating the Opposition rightly. It is not fair to the Opposition. We ought to have some rights in the matter, and every previous Opposition has been accorded rights in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that there can be a discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill, but what does he propose to do with the Consolidated Fund Bill? He proposes to bring it in on Tuesday next after 11 o'clock, and he knows well that there cannot be an effective discussion on the Bill. We wish to challenge him on his unemployment policy, and we ask him to put the Privy Seal's salary down so that we may be able to do so.
Mr. J. JONES rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no question before the House.
The PRIME MINISTER: By the leave of the House, might I say it is of the utmost importance that the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill should be taken before Christmas? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] In order that the Bill and its proposals should be con-

253
sidered by this House at the very earliest possible moment, so that negotiations, if necessary, may be carried on after the expression and consideration of views, and the very best opportunity the Government can have for doing that is while the House of Commons is not sitting. If the Second Reading is postponed until the end of January, or the beginning of February, it will be an exceedingly unfortunate thing from the point of view of getting this Bill satisfactorily discussed by all interests and steps taken during the Committee stage to adjust anything that requires adjustment. The Government would really, with great respect to the Opposition, press for that. There is one thing I want to say. I doubt very much if Members opposite will find that the Second Reading of this Consolidated Fund Bill will give them very much opportunity for discussion. I take that into account in asking that this programme should be accepted. I am taking nothing from the Opposition, but, if they do want an extra day, I am prepared to give it. If they want two days, I am prepared to give them. I do think that, with the very short Recess, it will be perfectly possible for us to resume the business that has been left over, at the end of January, but, as has been said so often by Prime Ministers, I am perfectly willing to leave it for consideration and arrangement through the usual channels.
Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Prime Minister has made a special appeal in connection with the Coal Mines Bill, and he has put it on the ground that it is very important that opinion in this House should be expressed at the earliest possible moment, in order that considered opinion may be gained, and that the Government may possibly reconsider proposals in the light of any criticism expressed. May I put this? In the first place, this is a Bill of apparently so difficult a character that it is now six months since the President of the Board of Trade announced the general lines of his policy, and it has taken him, six months to prepare the Bill which he is now going to circulate. [ Interruption.] I think the Prime Minister would wish these questions put. It was before the Recess that the President of the Board of Trade announced his intention and the general lines of the question with which
254
he proposed to deal. It is now six months, or very nearly six months—five months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Make it four!"] Well, I will make it four—it is much nearer five. It has taken the Government that time to prepare this Bill. It, therefore, obviously, is a Bill which any reasonable critic would want considerable time to digest. In the second place, I understand all that period has been occupied in negotiations with one interest or another, or with one body or another, and, therefore, it is surely not unreasonable that further time should be required. Lastly, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that if he wants to get from the House of Commons a considered judgment on this Bill on Second Reading, is it not reasonable that the Opposition on both sides, who do not wish in this matter to be a factious Opposition, but to consider the Bill on its merits, should have the opportunity of considering its details and taking counsel with a large number of people who may be able to advise them and make representations to them?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like again to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not defer to what, after all, is the general sense of at least the majority of Members of this House? My hon. Friends and I raise no objection to the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill, and we are not asking for it not to be taken, although I think there is a very considerable force in what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that the Government have been considering these proposals for six months and are introducing the Bill on the very eve of Christmas, and therefore have no right, in my judgment, to force it through without consideration. But I am back on the question of unemployment. It is very vital that we should have a Debate upon what the Government are doing on the question of unemployment before Christmas. As far as we are concerned, we have no objection to the right hon. Genlteman sitting very late, and I do not think it ought to be said that the Opposition, or any part of it, declines on a matter of that importance to do so. I would not like hon. and right hon. Members opposite to go to the country and say that their interest in the unemployed was so trifling that they were not prepared to take another day before Christmas. Speaking for ourselves we

255
will sit on any day to consider the question of unemployment. Further, I should have thought that even on the question of mines it would have served the Government better if they had reverted to the old practice of introducing their Bill with an explanation. That was the old method always followed in regard to very important controversial bills, because the House of 'Commons could examine and discuss a Bill without coming to a decision. That is an advantage from the point of view of the Government, as well as from the point of view of the House and the country.
All important Bills since I have been in the House have been introduced in that way. We could then have a discussion, it may be a day's discussion, on the First Reading of the Bill on the question that leave be given to introduce the Bill. That does not force a division. That was the course followed in the case of the Home Rule Bill of 1903, a very controversial Measure. [ Interruption.] I am trying to be helpful. That procedure would give an opportunity to the House to examine the principles of the Bill, to call attention to any defects there may be in it and give the Government and all parties in the House fuller time to consider the matter. Anyone who has introduced a big Bill knows that it also gives the Government the opportunity to make alterations in the Bill before it is finally printed. I have seen that done by both parties, and it is perfectly legitimate. If the Prime Minister cannot give me an answer now, I hope that he will not finally close the door on the suggestion that I am making. It would give us a full day for the discussion of unemployment which everyone desires. If he cannot see his way to accept the suggestion, then I am perfectly certain that there is no party in the House which will refuse to sit at any time he likes to consider the question of unemployment.
Mr. MAXTON: I urge the Prime Minister to resist the demands of the Oppositions in this matter. I have not been in many Parliaments, but I have been in sufficient to say with authority that the Opposition have had greater opportunities for first-class Debates in this Parliament than ever before. They have also been consulted to a much greater extent than ever before. On the
256
question of unemployment, I only say this, that the Coal Mines Bill deals with what is one of the most obstinate, difficult, and pitiable aspects of unemployment. It deals with an attempt, not merely to develop fantastic schemes, but to put a basic industry properly on its feet. It would be a grievous thing indeed if the first stage of that important Measure were not completed before the House adjourned. If the Prime Minister feels it possible to give an extra day for the general discussion on unemployment by taking a day off the Christmas Recess, he may do so, but I certainly hope he will resist any attempt to press him to give up a day allocated to the Coal Mines Bill or any other discussion whatever.
Mr. J. JONES: Not being a leader of any party but, representing the back benchers, I would like to ask why this House should complacently accept the situation that we are going to have three weeks' holiday. In my constituency, there are thousands of people who are not certain of a decent Christmas dinner. They will be on semi-starvation during the three weeks that we are on holiday, and, when all these questions of time come up for consideration, cannot we consider them? If it is necessary to have a day's discussion on unemployment—[ Interruption]—some hon. Members may wriggle in their seats—I must point out that the people we represent are not so anxious as we are about holidays. Cannot we give them a whole week's discussion? I shall be pleased to 'meet hon. Members opposite and discuss unemployment at any time. They know more about it than I do. Some of them have been out of work all their lives. [ Interruption.]
The PRIME MINISTER: All I can say at the moment, in addition to what I have said, is that I am perfectly willing to leave the matter for consideration through the usual channels, that we have gone into the programme very carefully indeed, and, if the Opposition will allow me to associate myself with it for a second, from their point of view it has been very carefully considered. But we must have an adequate debate upon this Coal Mines Bill before we adjourn. The reason is perfectly obvious. It is that given by the right hon. Member opposite. We should like, after the display of this

257
Bill to the House and after getting the opinion of the House upon the general question, time for consultation and consideration of details, and that is best done after the Second Reading of a Bill and before the Committee stage. That is what I had in mind. So far as unemployment is concerned, it is absolutely impossible to discuss it and take the Coal Mines Bill unless we have an extra day. I should be glad to arrange an extra day in such a way as to suit the convenience of all parties in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Saturday!"] Yes, it might be on a Saturday. In that event, I could restore to my programme the Report stage of the Lord Privy Seal's Vote, taking care that it is sufficiently wide to cover a discussion on unemployment.
Mr. E. BROWN: May I point out that we are now proposing to adjourn on a Friday, which is only a half day? Do I understand that Friday will be treated as a whole Parliamentary day from 2.45 to 11 o'clock at night?
The PRIME MINISTER: I want the two opposition parties to decide on what they desire, and then I will then announce it on behalf of the Government.
Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: May I put the point which I have been putting in private for some time, that we should not spend two days on a discussion of the Coal Mines Bill, but should revert to the earlier practice of this House. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is willing to give us another day for the discussion on the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimate for the Lord Privy Seal's Vote, which would enable us to debate unemployment. The matter does not rest there. There have been from this Box inquiries as to a day for the discussion of Egypt and Singapore, and I do not think the just demands of the Opposition should be ignored in this way. We on this side are perfectly willing to sit on Christmas Eve, but we are not going to be deterred from doing what we think is our duty by threats about Christmas holidays.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings in Committee on the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[ The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 155.

Division No. 84.]

AYES.

[4.27 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Cameron, A. G.

Gossling, A. G.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Cape, Thomas

Gould, F.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Charleton, H. C.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Chater,. Daniel

Granville, E.

Alpass, J. H.

Church, Major A. G.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Ammon, Charles George

Cluse, W. S.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Angell, Norman

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Arnott, John

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Aske, Sir Robert

Compton, Joseph

Groves, Thomas E.

Ayles, Walter

Cove, William G.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bllston)

Cowan, D. M.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Barnes, Alfred John

Daggar, George

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Batey, Joseph

Dallas, George

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Dalton, Hugh

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Bellamy, Albert

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Day, Harry

Hardie, George D.

Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Harris, Percy A.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Dickson, T.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Benson, G.

Dukes, C.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Duncan, Charles

Haycock, A. W.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Ede, James Chuter

Hayday, Arthur

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Edge, Sir William

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Bowen, J. W.

Edmunds, J. E.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Broad, Francis Alfred

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Herriotts, J.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Egan, W. H.

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Bromfield, William

Elmley, Viscount

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Bromley, J.

England, Colonel A.

Hoffman, P. C.

Brothers, M.

Foot, Isaac

Hollins, A.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Freeman, Peter

Hopkin, Daniel

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Horrabin, J. F.

Buchanan, G.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Burgess, F. G.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Gibbins, Joseph

Isaacs, George

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

Gill, T. H.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Gillett, George M.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Glassey, A. E.

Johnston, Thomas

Jones, F. Llewellyn-(Flint)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Sinkinson, George

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Mort, D. L.

Sitch, Charles H.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Moses, J. J. H.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Muff, G.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Kelly, W. T.

Murnin, Hugh

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Kennedy, Thomas

Naylor, T. E.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Noel Baker, P. J.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Kinley, J.

Oldfield, J. R.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Kirkwood, D.

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Sorensen, R.

Knight, Holford

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Spero, Dr. G. E.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Stamford, Thomas W.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Stephen, Campbell

Lathan, G.

Paling, Wilfrid

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Palmer, E. T.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Strauss, G. R.

Lawrence, Susan

Perry, S. F.

Sullivan, J.

Lawson, John James

Peters. Dr. Sidney John

Sutton, J. E.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Phillips, Dr. Marlon

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Lees, J.

Pole, Major D. G.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Tillett, Ben

Lindley, Fred W.

Potts, John S.

Tinker, John Joseph

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Price, M. P.

Toole, Joseph

Long bottom, A. W.

Pybus, Percy John

Tout, W. J.

Longden, F.

Quibeli. D. J. K.

Townend, A. E.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lowth, Thomas

Raynes, W. R.

Turner, B.

Lunn, William

Richards, R.

Vaughan, D. J.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Viant, S. P.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Walker, J.

McElwee, A.

Riley. F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wallhead, Richard C.

McEntee, V. L.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Watkins, F. C.

Mackinder, W.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

McKinlay, A.

Romerll, H. G.

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

MacLaren, Andrew

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Rothschild, J. de

Wellock, Wilfred

MacNelll-Weir, L.

Rowson, Guy

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

McShane, John James

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

West, F. R.

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Westwood, Joseph

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Sanders, W. S.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Mansfield, W.

Sandham, E.

White, H. G.

March, S.

Sawyer, G. F.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Markham, S. F.

Scott, James

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Marley, J.

Scrymgeour, E.

Williams Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

Mathers, George

Scurr, John

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Matters, L. W.

Sexton, James

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Maxton, James

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Melville, Sir James

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Middleton, G.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)

Millar, J. D.

Shield, George William

Wise, E. F.

Mills, J. E.

Shillaker, J. F.

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Milner, J.

Shinwell, E.

Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

Montague, Frederick

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Simmons, C. J.

Morley, Ralph

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

NOES.

Albery, Irving James

Butler, R. A.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Carver, Major W. H.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Aster, Viscountess

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Atholl, Duchess of

Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Baillie Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbastan)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Chapman, Sir S.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Cockerill, Brig. General Sir George

Faile, Sir Bertram G.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Colman, N. C. D.

Ferguson, Sir John

Berry, Sir George

Colville, Major D. J.

Fielden, E. B.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Cranbourne, Viscount

Ganzoni, Sir John

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Boyce, H. L.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainbro)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Bracken, B.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th 'i'd'., Hexham)

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Grace, John

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

260

261

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Marjorlbanks, E. C.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Meller, R. J.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dina, C.)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hammersley, S. S.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Smithers, Waldron

Hartington, Marquess of

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Haslam, Henry C.

Muirhead, A. J.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Penny, Sir George

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Hurd, Percy A.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D

Purbrick, R.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Knox, Sir Alfred

Ramsbotham, H.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Remer, John R.

Wells, Sydney R.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Eccfesall)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Womersley, W. J.

Long, Major Eric

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Lymington, Viscount

Salmon, Major I.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Savery, S. S.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

Margesson, Captain H D.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Wallace.

Question put, and agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT RETURS.
Brigadier General Sir HENRY CROFT: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require employers in industries benefiting from safeguarding duties to make annual returns as to the number of persons employed."
I move this Motion, not for any party purposes, but simply in order to ascertain facts with a view to arriving at a true judgment as to the employment in the varied industries of the country which we may term "safeguarded," before any change of policy takes place. The House probably realises that up to now there is no power given to the Government to insist upon returns of employment in industries which have the benefit of the security of State action in their struggle against foreign competitors. I submit that if the State intervenes in order to assist an industry or to save it from destruction, the State is entitled to have full details, and this House is entitled to have knowledge, with regard to the employment in those industries.
Clause 1 of the Bill, therefore, requires all employers in industries in Great Britain and Northern Ireland which have the benefit of a Customs Duty or a licence applied to their foreign competitors, or subsidies or bounties applied to their own products, annually to send a urn of the number of persons employed
262
in the factories which they control to the Board of Trade. Clause 2 requires the above-mentioned employers to render a return of the names of industries which provide them with parts, accessories or materials for the manufacture of safeguarded goods. The reason why this matter is very urgent is that each successive President of the Board of Trade in recent years has had to come to the House and confess that he has not got complete figures and has no power to get them, with the result that hon. Members of this House who are considering this grave problem of unemployment have no full knowledge as to whether this policy has been successful or otherwise.
I will give two or three instances of the incomplete information that we have. In the case of musical instruments we have been told quite frankly by the President of the Board of Trade that in three years the number of persons employed in the manufacture of musical instruments went up from 19,700 to 24,340. That is an increase of 4,640, or 23 per cent. which is satisfactory. That is the official figure. But I happen to know that in one single gramophone industry employment has gone up by four times. As far as I can see, the figures are not in any way complete. For instance, we have no knowledge of the very large number of persons who are employed in making cabinets or

263
as french polishers outside the industry concerned. Again there are no separate figures for pianos. Yet we know, and the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) knows that the importation of German pianos has decreased from a total of 22,000 before the War to 1,500 last year. The inference, therefore, is that there is a very considerably increased production taking place in this country of pianos which were previously provided from Germany.
Take the case of artificial silk. We had the latest figures to-day. I did not take them down, but we find that in four years, according to the official figures, the production has increased by 50 per cent. That is satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but it is not enough, because it does not give him complete information. Mr. Samuel Courtauld, in a speech at the annual meeting of Messrs. Courtauld, estimated that the total number of persons employed in all the various processes, including mixtures of cotton and some other fibre, at the beginning of 1929 was certainly over 200,000 and probably as high as 300,000. Coming from a very conservative business man I think that that statement is encouraging, even to those hon. Gentlemen who belong to the Liberal party. But these facts are not yet ascertained.
Again, turn to motor tyres. No one knows the figures, and the President of the Board of Trade cannot give them. The Government are going to wipe out these duties, but they have not ascertained the facts. It is estimated that the numerous foreign firms that have come to this country in order to make tyres in Great Britain already employ thousands of persons. Do I exaggerate when I suggest that the persons employed in the manufacture of motor tyres throughout the country, or rather the increased number in the last three years, may be in the neighbourhood of 15,000 persons? But we have not the facts which the House ought to have. A great part of the employment in connection with motor tyres goes to the manufacture of cotton fabric. How many of us know to what extent employment has been given in Lancashire, in the last two years, in the manufacture of the cotton contents of motor tyres? Is the number
264
2,000, or is it 10,000? I do not know. None of us can have the information. I am inclined to guess that the total is. nearer the higher figure.
Then in the manufacture of road motor vehicles we know that the number of employed persons, apart from motor cycles and tyres and all accessories, since the Duties were imposed, has increased from before the first year of the McKenna Duties until to-day there are something like 170,000 persons employed. That is a very satisfactory increase. We have no knowledge of the number of persons who are engaged in making up the accessories, the body work and the wind-screens, which are given to contractors outside the industries. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really anxious to know what would be the true number of these persons so employed.
I have given a few instances—I could give many more if time permitted—to show how utterly inadequate the returns of these industries are. It has been estimated by a responsible person in the last year that, since all the duties, and the licences on the sugar subsidy, were imposed by the action of the State, some 400,000 additional persons are employed direct, and the Lord Privy Seal has told us recently that for every person for whom you find employment, you will find employment for another in addition, so I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that we may be considering 800,000 persons. When we were told at Question time today that the additional number of employed persons since the end of the War is something like 800,000 to 1,000,000—it was 800,000 in the last five years—is it not a coincidence that this figure so nearly corresponds with the estimate I have just given. It is suggested that these duties may possibly be swept away. Government supporters are just as much concerned, I believe, in their hearts as hon. Members on these benches with regard to this terrible problem of rising unemployment. I am convinced that they will agree that we should have information of the success of this policy. That was the demand of the Balfour Commission. They recommended that these facts should be ascertained and the Liberal party, who tell us they are the champions of truth, will also, I believe, be ready to support this demand because, however keenly they may feel on the subject, they w

265
not wish to act unless they had the whole of the facts before them. For these reasons I ask leave to introduce the Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft, Sir Basil Pete, Major Long, Mr. Hurd, Captain Bourne, Mr. Boyce, Mr. Hannon, and Sir George Hamilton.

EMPLOYMENT RETURNS BILL,
"to require employers in industries benefiting from safeguarding duties to make annual returns as to the number of persons employed," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
BILLS REPORTED.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (KNEBWORTH WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL AND ROSS WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Reginald Young; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Cape.
  Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had dis-
  266
  charged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Workmen's Compensation (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Atkinson; and had appointed in substitution: Lord Eustace Percy.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929).
Estimate presented, of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1930 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2 BILL).
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 9th December].
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 12.—(Further amendment of s. 14 (2) of 17 & 18 Geo. 5, c. 30).
  Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 10, line 35, to leave out the word "thirty-six," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty."
  Some hon. Friends and myself have an Amendment down to leave out Subsection (1), but I think we shall raise the issue we have in mind more conveniently by this Amendment, which provides that the extension of the transitional period shall be for six months instead of 12. This is by way of raising the whole question of the transitional period and the provisions made under the Bill to meet the transitional period which, of course, are of the very greatest importance. In the first place, let us be quite clear how temporary these provisions are. The transitional period was a device of the Blanesburgh Committee to soften the transition from the system that previously existed to the system which the Blanesburgh Committee recommended, under which a considerable number of persons would undoubtedly have been disqualified from benefit, and a transition period was allowed during which these people were carried on the fund whether they had, in fact, satisfied the statutory conditions or not. The hopes of the Blanesburgh Committee were falsified. The improvement in employment to which they had looked forward did not materialise. That was not the conclusion of one party or another, but of the Committee as a whole. I do not think any party in the House can escape from the condemnation, if condemnation it be, that they did not foresee accurately the development of industrial depression.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: We told you it was going to last.
  Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Lady told us it was going to disappear, so
  294
  that all parties are responsible for the conclusions the Committee came to. From my point of view, speaking as a private individual, I had great difficulty in seeing this lifting of the clouds of which we were so confidently assured. The position was ominous and as long as relations exist in industry such as they are just now, I do not see any immediate prospect of a lifting of the clouds which hang over the country, whatever we do in the way of rationalisation or improvement of the means of production or anything else.
  Mr. WALL HEAD: That was not your Government's point of view in 1927.
  Major ELLIOT: The Government did its best to act on the report of an all party Committee. It is true they were mistaken in the action they took upon that report, but I cannot imagine anything else they could do than to have the report and do their best to act upon it. The Samuel Commission is another Commission whose report we thought was very much mistaken, and hon. Members above and below the Gangway have never ceased to inveigh against us for not putting into force more of the results of their examination of the situation. But for good or ill, the transitional period was brought in and a step was taken towards an entirely new development in unemployment insurance, but only a very small step. People who could not be carried statutorily on that fund were carried by straining and extending the Statute, but they were still carried on the fund and they were still insured persons. This provision for the transitory period, it seems to me, takes a further step. It is true they are still nominally carried upon the fund, but the fund is merely a channel through which a 100 per cent. Exchequer grant passes direct from the general tax resources of the country to beneficiaries under this new Clause 12. Arrangements are made in considerable detail in this Clause by which the full and accurate determination of the full liability to the fund caused by carrying those persons is to be ascertained, and the whole of that money is to be carried by an Exchequer grant.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) when discussing this matter on Second Reading, drew attention to this as one of the germs

  295
  of progress that are contained in the Bill as a step—I think we must all agree that it merits very careful consideration —which any of us would find it difficult to criticise and almost impossible directly to divide against. It is practically impossible, as things stand, to increase the contributions from employer and employed and, therefore, the uninsurable risk which has accumulated in the funds must be dealt with in some fashion or another. The State has taken the step of buying up the uninsurable risk on the fund—a very interesting suggestion—but our criticism of the action of the Minister is that, having taken that step, and having determined to spend this considerable sum of money, she is not taking what we think are the inevitable consequences of that step and is not realising that what we are upon now is no longer insurance in any sense of the word whatsoever, but is really an unemployment relief scheme, Part 2, Part 1 being an insurance scheme, and Part 2 being the carrying of the unemployed persons without any pretence whatever that a contribution is being made on their behalf. That is to say that they are themselves insured persons. That, it seems to us, carries very many important consequences and my right hon. Friend, speaking on the Second Reading, pointed out that there were 65,000 people unemployed wholly maintained out of the rates, to which the central Government does not contribute one penny, and you are going to have 120,000 similar people paid wholly from the central Government and not out of the rates. He said:
  "The only essential thing is to bring those two categories together and to deal with them in a partnership between the State and the local authorities by relieving those people in a more scientific way.… If the State will face up to the problem of the submerged tenth and of how to deal with them in a humane way, then you will find your solution. The whole problem is to combine together the Necessary deterrent and the necessary incentive, the necessary preventive side with the essential restorative side in dealing with that appalling isolated mass in getting it back into industry."— [0FFICIAL REPORT, 25th November; col. 1081, Vol. 232.]
  The Minister of Labour, speaking shortly after in the Debate upon the Money Resolution, said:
  "The Government have already set up a Committee which is at work upon that
  296
  larger scheme which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford so eloquently described. I may say quite definitely that there is absolutely nothing in that speech which has not already been in the minds of the Committee."
  She added:
  "If we can bring forward a scientific basis for the relief of distress, the party opposite are already committed to the support of such a scheme."—0FFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1929; col. 1104, Vol. 232.]
  5.0 p.m.
  The right hon. Lady has mentioned that all those suggestions that were brought forward by my right hon. Friend, the partnership between the local authorities and the Insurance Fund, the combination of the preventive with the restorative side, the dealing with the submerged tenth and the dealing with people who are out of insurance, are already in the mind of her committee and are being considered in her Department. It, therefore, seems to us most desirable that this problem should be reviewed at a shorter interval than the interval which she suggests. It is agreed that it is a temporary proposal that she is bringing forward. The right hon. Lady herself said that they could definitely limit this increased Treasury contribution to 12 months. She wants the 12 months' space because of the committee which is already at work and is apparently about to introduce these further schemes. I think the Committee should certainly, when it is embarking upon this very large and, if I may say so, very novel suggestion—in fact, the first step towards the breaking up of the unemployment insurance system into dealing with the component problems—should examine this closely and review it from time to time. I have already had discussion of one kind and another with hon. and right hon. Members opposite, many of whom have had, of course, practical experience and much greater contact with the problem than I have had, but I have had contact with this problem now for many years in another aspect, the aspect of the residual authority in the local government administration of this country. The administration with which I have been connected more or less ever since 1922 or 1923 is the great relief organisations of the country, and we are dealing here, not with an insurance problem, but with a relief problem, because a grant which comes entirely from the

  297
  Treasury and is not contributed to either by employer or employed is no longer an insurance proposition at all, and we shall merely muddle our minds, and fall into wrong methods of attack on the problem, if we conceive it as such.
  In all administration in this country we have to remember that the unemployment insurance problem cannot be considered apart from the problem of local government, and more particularly the problem of the relieving authority, because all of us who have to deal with constituencies in which much distress exists know very well that one of the great difficulties of dealing with the unemployed or distressed person is the fact that from time to time he moves off one scheme and suddenly appears upon another, and the position of a great local authority, finding the sudden appearance of a number of persons at its doors to whom it has a statutory obligation of maintenance of which it cannot divest itself, is sometimes most acute, because it suddenly finds itself faced with a problem which it has no means of shouldering on to anybody else, and which it is utterly powerless to avert. The ipse dixit of the Minister of Labour may produce an alteration in local finance with which the local authority in question has no means of coping, or in many cases of foreseeing. Obviously, then, there is a case, and a strong case, for the closest possible co-operation between the great local authorities and the central organisation here, namely, the Ministry of Labour.
  The great local authorities—I should be wrong if I did more than refer to this in passing—have recently been reorganised. They cover a wider area, they are elected on a franchise which we hope, and which I think will certainly cause more attention than the franchise upon which the relieving bodies, be they boards of guardians or parish councils, were elected beforehand. The unemployed man in Birmingham comes under the review of the municipality of Birmingham, in Sheffield of the Corporation of Sheffield, in Glasgow of the town council of Glasgow, and in the great counties under the review of the county authorities of these new areas. It is wrong to suppose that these great bodies have or will have the same limited outlook which the parochial authorities necessarily bad before. We hope they will be able to take the
  298
  initiative in these matters. They are themselves great employers. The Corporation of Glasgow is in some ways the greatest employer of labour within the boundaries of the City of Glasgow, and so are all the great municipalities in their own areas.
  Therefore, you have here a new authority lately brought into existence, a new local authority, one of whose specific functions is dealing with relief. You have in this Clause of this Bill a section which definitely moves from the ambit of insurance into the ambit of relief, and therefore, we say, these two things are converging, and now is the time for the Minister, if not in actual Clauses of the Bill, or in the Regulations which she proposes to lay, by speech, to indicate to us what she has in her mind, to indicate to us what the proposals are which her committee has been considering, to indicate to us the method of approach which she foresees as the line of dealing with this problem. Clause 12 is the new departure in the Bill. It is the constructive side of the Bill. I might say that, urgent as these problems were before the re-drafting of Clause 4, they have become infinitely more important since that time. The whole problem is revolutionised by the action of the Ministry with regard to Clause 4, and, as far as one can see from the Debate which went on, an unemployed man carried under Clause 12 has to be carried under the same conditions as any other; that is to say, that it is improbable that he will be struck off benefit unless he has refused an actual offer of employment which has been made to him. A greater and greater number of persons will find themselves carried by this Section of the Act, and not by any other.
  Here we have a portion of the Bill which the Minister herself says is a temporary portion, and which she limits to 12 months; here we have a portion of the Bill where there is a possibility of active and fruitful co-operation between national and local governments; and for all these reasons the operations of this Clause should be brought under the active review of Parliament, and we suggest should be reviewed, not in 12 months as the Minister proposes, but in six months after the passage of the Bill. It may be that the Minister will say that that is too short. Well, we are

  299
  quite willing to listen to her arguments on those lines, but we say that this new departure demands the closest examination by this House, not merely on account of the insured persons, but on account of the country as a whole, because here for the first time the whole weight of this new relief is being borne, not by the insured persons contributing to the Fund, but by the general taxpayer and by him alone.
  The agricultural workers are paying for this, the small shopkeepers are paying for this, all the persons who can never receive relief under this Clause are paying for this. Therefore, it is only right that we should examine and review the conditions under which this relief is being given. A small shopkeeper who falls into indigence and goes for relief will have to suffer a much more stringent examination than anything proposed under this Clause, although he has been paying in the past for this benefit. An unemployed agricultural worker who goes for relief will have to have the examination which the Poor Law authorities conduct, and he will not come under the benefits of this Clause, although in the past through his taxes he has contributed towards the Fund out of which other people have received benefits at his expense. Therefore, for all these reasons, we say that this is a new proposal, an interesting proposal, a proposal which should receive close consideration, but that it is not a proposal that should be parted with for any length of time by this House.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I am very glad that this discussion has been inaugurated in such a thoughtful and, shall I say, non-party spirit, because it is important for the whole Committee to address itself to the seriousness of the problem raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). But I cannot help thinking that his address would have been so much more effective if it had been delivered to the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) during his period of office, in order that it might have been acted upon in the period since 1926.
  The reference which was made to the recommendations of the Blanesburgh
  300
  Committee seemed to me to be singularly lacking in certain material facts. For example, that Committee recommends that the transitional period should be used for the purpose of some energetic action by the State to stimulate employment. I remember that the suggestion was definitely made that the Government should see whether it would not be advisable to set up committees of employers and workers to examine each industry, and see whether it had expansive powers or whether it was a contracting industry. It also made the suggestion that the contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be one-third from the Treasury, an equal third, and if that had been done, we should not have been in the same difficulty as we are to-day. Therefore, I think I am justified in pointing out that if some of the other recommendations of that Report had been acted upon, the situation to-day would not have been as bad as it is.
  With regard to the time factor, I should be very glad if I could feel that it was possible to find some alternative form of dealing with the transitional provisions in six months, but I do not believe that that is so. I believe that the whole time is required in order to have the necessary consultations with the bodies that must be brought into relations. As I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, the big Committee is in being and is considering this question in relation to the general question of the social services, and in relation to the right allocation of the burden that must be borne by the community for those who are not in a position to live an independent life as a result of occupation or their own exertions. I think it must be quite obvious to the Committee that this transitional group, the cost of which will fall upon the Exchequer under the Bill by reason of the fact that they have ceased to maintain their 30 contributions, is not a steady factor every week or every month, but is a factor that will reach its peak point and then tail off again.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are the figures available showing the variations?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The right hon. Gentleman will find them in the Actuarial Report. It begins with this year's indebtedness to the Fund, and next year is the full year, and then it tails off.

  301
  The position with regard to this group is that we have not yet got, because we have not set up the machinery to get it —I am now setting up that machinery—an analysis of the quality of this group. That is one of the fundamental questions before we can go much further, and we are making this minute examination of the quality of those recipients of benefit at the present time who are not within what we call the insurance range. That examination is proceeding. When we have got the examination complete, we shall still have to have a certain amount of time in order to find out how far we are able to say that group A can never again hope to be absorbed in industry.
  That is the proposition, and you are dealing with human lives. You cannot deal with it on a statistical basis. You have to deal with individual difficulties and with individual tragedies, and therefore I can see no short cut, I can see no quick road, to the solution of this problem. But I am convinced that we can develop an infinitely more satisfactory system than the one we have at present, if we keep this in mind, that this is not a party question but a question where the whole House wants to bend itself to the solution of one of the most terrible problems that any civilisation has ever had to meet. I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The Committee are indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) for his constructive speech on a matter of vital importance. When the right hon. Lady says that he ought to have addressed that speech to the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), she overlooks the fact that a speech on those lines was directed to him by others when he sat on the Government Bench. It is not wholly true to say that only those who will not be employed are not entitled to have their benefit still running under this scheme. For instance, take a shipbuilding and marine engineering centre like my seat at Leith. That trade has been worse hit than any other, taken over the period of nine years. There was one period when the coal-mining industry was worse, but, on the average, it has been hit the hardest. There are inside the great group of people in that trade, who may not easily obtain employment again, a
  302
  large number of elderly men above 50, some of them approaching 60 years of age. That group of men were included in the first 3,000,000 to be insured in 1912 under the first Insurance Act. The great bulk of them paid their insurance contributions consistently during 1912 and 1913 when trade was good; they never had a day's unemployment during the War period, or in 1919, and did not fall out of employment until 1921, and in some cases, through the actual closing down of yards, until 1921.
  That illustration does not apply to the hundreds of thousands of men whom we are now discussing in terms of statistics. I agree with the right hon. Lady that we must think of them in terms of human life as well as in terms of statistics. Take the statistics. You talk about an indebtedness of the Fund of £38,000,000. What is the indebtedness of the Fund on balance at the moment to that great group of insured people who paid up to 1920, and, when the extension came, bringing in £9,000,000 extra to the Fund? They actually, on balance, had nearly £22,000,000 to their credit in the original scheme. That ought not to be overlooked. I make the point now, because in all the discussions on this matter which are bound to take place in successive Parliaments, until the logic of the facts are faced by a Government, it ought never to be overlooked that these men ought not to be pushed off the Insurance Fund, and made paupers while they still have remaining a credit which they built up in their more prosperous days, when the first experiments were made with the limited group of trades. I go further, and say that this is a matter that cannot be dealt with merely in terms of present debt. I am not of those who have ever addressed the Committee on unemployment in optimistic terms. I happen to be the Member who moved the first Amendment to the Bill of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and the Amendment was that the transitional period should remain and that it should not be varied unless and until the Blanesburgh figure, which I accepted for the purpose of the Amendment, of 1,270,000 on the total live register had been reached.
  We are now talking about a debt of £38,000,000. Let us suppose that, in the course of 12 months, or 18 months, or two years, that figure drops, either

  303
  through the efforts of the Lord Privy Seal, or a recovery in general trade. What about the debt on the Fund then? The fact is that the moment we get below the million figure, we shall not have to worry about the permanent debt on the Fund, and therefore I protest at the continued assertions in these Debates that this Fund is bankrupt. It is not bankrupt; it is in debt at the moment, but, given any favourable turn in trade, it will be able to stand not only the insured side, but the older men too. Until this House is willing to face the problem of the men and women who will never get employment again, and separate them and make them a national charge outside the Insurance Fund, and apply its mind to producing schemes of work for them, I am going to take no part in any arrangement, to push them off the Insurance Fund. I can see no possibility of ending these transitional periods inside six months or even 12; nevertheless, while the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove ought to be weighed, I hope that they will be weighed in his own party, and by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and will not be produced every time that we discuss this matter.
  The past history of this great experiment should not be forgotten, and the men, many of whom have paid eight and nine years' contributions, should not be treated now as if all you have to do with them is to push them off the fund, which they made solvent, and put them on to the local rates. I hope with the right hon. Lady that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends, when they are talking about the Blanesburgh Report, will not forget paragraph 14, which is perhaps the most valuable part. It. sets out that it ought to be a national duty to make a concerted effort to lessen unemployment by constructive schemes of work. If that. paragraph had been acted upon when the Conservative Government were in power two years ago, and if they had not been overborne by what they called the economic view of the thing, we might have had less talk to-day about the necessity for extending the transitional period, or we might have had a far smaller total of unemployed on the live register. Of course, the Amendment is impossible, but the Committee ought to
  304
  direct their attention to the constructive ideas in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I am surprised that we should be confronted with a manuscript Amendment of such grave importance which has such little justification. It is not as though the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced the Amendment is something that had immediately flashed across the horizon. It is something that has been with us and discussed time without number, and it is now brought in as a lever to try and destroy whatever value there might be in a transitional period. It means that the transitional period on its expiration must fall due for discussion either in the late autumn, or the early spring, because of its operation in April. If the period is reduced, it will be reviewed when the aggravation of unemployment is not quite so much to the fore; it will be midsummer, when the public are less aware of the problem in its aggravated form. We are now at a. period of peace on earth and goodwill towards men. It is at such a time, when prominence is given to the poor, unfortunate, weary-minded unemployed person, that they are enabled to get some measure of notice. In the Blanesburgh Report, the actuary's estimate was based on 6 per cent., and it says that until you get unemployment down to that figure, the stamp qualification cannot operate on strict insurance lines. The right hon. Gentleman who was the Minister of Labour in the last Government said, when introducing his Bill, that it was because of that figure of 6 per cent., which he thought might well be 8 per cent, that he proposed a transitional period until April, 1929.
  If one examines the position at the time when the right hon. Gentleman and his party thought it right to have a transitional period, and the position as it is now, when they think it right to shorten the proposed transitional period by half, one sees a slight inconsistency. The figure for November, 1927, when the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was under discussion, stood at 1,181,546, or 9.9 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman fixed his transitional period for only one year in the belief that the figure of 8 per cent. unemployment would be reached by April, 1928. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman made the statement that he expected that

  305
  it would get to 8 per cent, but he well knows that, when the period was about to expire, he had to 'Lake into consideration the fact that, not only had the figures not dropped below 9.9 per cent., as they were in 1927, but that they had actually increased. In October, 1928, just before the review, the figure had increased to 1,356,037 on the live register, or from 9.9 per cent. of unemployment in November, 1927, when the Bill was under discussion, to 11.8. These figures showed that the whole basis upon which it was assumed that the 30 stamps qualification could operate was completely upset, and that was because the Government of the day refused to do that which they are now asking should be done in six months, and which they refused to do during two years. The figure to-day is somewhere about 1,280,000. That is higher than in 1927 when the Bill was introduced. It is because we have a figure greater than that of 1927 that it is necessary again to renew the transitional period.
  Therefore, we come to this plain, indisputable fact. You knew in 1927 that you could not make an Insurance Act on the basis of an unemployment figure of 9.9 per cent. You cannot operate it until you have got the percentage of unemployment down to at least 8 per cent. Therefore, we have two years of what I may call a transitional charge upon a fund which, according to the actuaries and the Blanesburgh Report, cannot bear the cost if the figure of unemployment is higher than 8 per cent.; and the borrowing which has been resorted to has had the effect of putting the fund in debt. There is now no choice about carrying over the transitional period for six or twelve months. We cannot avoid doing so. The House and the country dare not let it lapse in April of next year, because of the suffering which would be entailed and of the sudden load which would be thrown on the Poor Law authorities. The outcry would be too great.
  Seeing that we have to make the necessary provision, the question arises of whether we are to do it by a direct grant from the Treasury or are to allow the debt of the fund to go on increasing during the 12 months. Already that debt stands at £38,000,000. Are the Government of the: day to have to come to the House every three or four months for permission to increase their borrow-
  306
  ing powers, or will the House now say "No, the insured person has carried the load for two years. The fund should no longer be burdened in this way." So far the fund has carried the State's burden, but the Government of the day now say the State must carry its own burden, and it is better that there should be a direct charge. The fund would not be in debt if the State had fulfilled even its one-third of responsibility throughout the period that the Unemployment Acts have been in operation. Is it not equally true to say that if they had released the £80,000,000 under the old Out-of-Work Donation scheme, which they got rid of, the fund would certainly not be £38,000,000 in debt but, in spite of all its adversities, would have a surplus of many millions. Then, perhaps, it would have been possible either to increase the scale of benefit or reduce the contributions.
  Seeing the fund has carried the burden of the State for so long, who shall cavil because the State is asked to carry its own burden now that we have come to the straining point? Who shall complain, also, if the period is 12 months? It may have to be renewed for another 12 months. Who wants to have, twice a year, the agonising experience of trailing the misfortunes of the unemployed in debate on the Floor of the House? Once a year is quite enough to review the misery and poverty of this class of the community. I would support a proposal that the State should carry the financial burden of those who cannot supply a stamped qualification entitlement to benefit until such time as the figure of unemployment falls to the point of 8 per cent. They should carry the burden at all percentages of unemployment over and above 8 per cent. I am pleased to find that the Minister is resisting this Amendment, and I hope the Opposition will not press it, or in any way try to justify it now that they have called attention to their point; and 1 hope further that the Government, whoever they may be, will give some attention to the easement of the situation in another direction in place of our having to deal with the difficulties of the poor by transition periods.
  Mr. TINKER: I am opposing this Amendment, but I want to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved

  307
  it for the opportunity of discussion which it has given. I realise the meaning behind the Amendment, because anyone who has sat on a court of referees sees what are termed the derelicts of industry. First of all, there are the aged, who, it is very evident, will never get employment again save in exceptional periods. Then there are the men who have been injured in industry and the ex-soldiers who are suffering as the result of their war injuries. I cannot see that these men will ever get any work again, save in an exceptional period of employment. The question then arises, what is going to happen to these people; and I take it that that is the point the Amendment is raising. We say that, for some time at any rate, these people must have protection through the Unemployment Fund, but I cannot agree with the suggestion that there might be a possibility of driving them back on to the local authorities. [Interruption.] I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman argued that with the bigger areas which have been created under the Rating and Valuation Bill the new local authorities could better bear these burdens.
  Major ELLIOT: I should like to explain what was meant. That point has come up more than once. It is a little difficult to express it, because whenever one mentions local authorities the inference is that we wish to throw this burden right back upon the local authorities. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and I have more than once pointed out that it is more or less a question of administration and working with the local authorities. I think the great burden of the expense will have to come from the State, but that the new bodies which have come into existence are bodies which can consider this question without its acquiring the stigma of narrow, parochial relief; they have an ambit scarcely less dignified than that of the State.
  Mr. TINKER: I am very glad of that explanation, because later on, when things come to be reviewed, I shall probably call the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to what he has just said. That is our whole idea, that the State should hear the burden of these derelicts of industry. Probably we shall come to a certain agreement later on, but it is our
  308
  belief that we cannot bring about an alteration in six months—that is an impossible position. We say you have no right to force the Amendment at this juncture, because it will take at least 12 months before there can be any examination of the question at all. Though I think there will be common understanding on the idea put forward, it can only come later on. It cannot be done now; probably it will take more than 12 months. On those grounds and on those grounds alone, am I opposing this Amendment, although I agree with the idea behind it.
  Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment, because the situation at the present moment is rather a hopeless one. Our discussions have shown the hopelessness of trying to combine two different schemes, a scheme for contributory unemployment insurance and a scheme for relief. I hope the Minister may be able to give us some idea that she is really going to tackle this problem—
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that if the Minister did she could not be allowed to proceed. At the moment we are dealing with a particular Clause on the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Captain HUDSON: The object of this Amendment is to limit the transitional period by six months in order that, during that six months, we may try to see if a new scheme can be brought in. Boards of guardians, who are soon to be superseded, time after time send resolutions to Members of this House saying how utterly impossible it is becoming for them to give relief to the able-bodied unemployed; and then there is the question of the position of those who are contributors to this scheme. Those are people who are in regular employment and find their contributions used for a purpose which was never intended. I, and other hon. Members on this side of the House, hoped this Amendment would bring from the Minister some statement as to when she would be able to do away for ever with the transitional period and get on with some scheme of relief dividing unemployment insurance into the two parts into which it should be divided, one, relief for the able-bodied poor—
  The CHAIRMAN: I have already told the hon. and gallant Member that he cannot pursue that subject on this Amendment.
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: With all deference, may I submit that this point is directly material? We have moved this Amendment in order that the matter should be brought up again quickly for review. We do not want to lay too much stress on our ulterior motive for its being brought quickly under review again, but it is that the whole business should be put on a lasting and sound basis. That is the reason; and I think that is directly pertinent to the consideration of an Amendment to limit the transitional period.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have not ruled against discussing a limitation of the transitional period, but against a widening of the discussion.
  Captain HUDSON: I will leave that point and will merely say that I hope the period of six months will be accepted by the right hon. Lady because she has a hope of being able to bring forward some other scheme in the interval.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) in dealing with the shipping and other trades. The trade I represent, the iron and steel trade, has suffered as much as any other. I think the percentage of unemployment in it to-day is something like 27 per cent, though, according to the statistics reported to our executive while sitting in London last week, the trade has improved during the last six months.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot bring those observations round to this discussion on the transitional stage.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: Oh, yes, I am going to bring my observations round to the Amendment. Reports that I have received from my own constituency of people who had been refused benefit as a result of "not genuinely seeking work" are being reduced, but those who have been disqualified as a result of the 30 stamps disqualification are getting more numerous every week, because the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is really beginning to operate. I hope, therefore, that the transitional period will be continued, because there 'are people in my society who have been idle for eight and nine years. They have not
  310
  worked since the slump of 1920—the autumn of 1920 or the spring of 1921. I hope the Minister of Labour will not accept this Amendment, because these people are going to be seriously affected. This disqualification is nightmare to unemployed men in the steel trade. I have letters in my locker showing that this is a vital matter, and had it not been for the blunder made by the ex-Minister of Labour on this question we should not have been discussing this matter here to-day.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think it is a little regrettable that the Minister of Labour, after congratulating those on this side of the Committee upon dealing with this question in a non-party spirit, should herself have proceeded to deal with it in an entirely party manner. There is not the least intention, under this Amendment, of preventing those who at present are receiving benefit under the transitional provisions from continuing to do so. We want to be able to keep every point, under review, and we wish to continue the transitional provisions. It would be easy later on to pass a Bill dealing with this matter without taking up much of the time of the House or of the Committee. I know that the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) said that we do not want to bring the agonising position of the unemployed before the House, but really what is wanted is to provide that this House, from time to time, should be able to review the treatment which this problem is receiving in order to see which remedy is the best one to apply.
  There is no intention in proposing to reduce the period from 36 to 30 months to have a review of this question at a time when the House is not likely to be sympathetic. If hon. Members will refer to the dates, they will see that a period of 30 months has been taken. This would give an opportunity during the summer session to review the position. That is why we considered that, if there was to be an early review, we should have the period sufficiently extended to allow the question to be reviewed at any time during the Session. If I desired to be controversial, I could point to the fact that we have the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for saying that the number of unemployed under a Labour

  311
  Government ought to be greatly reduced within 12 months, and that the return to power of a Labour Government would create an entirely different situation. That is the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it seems to be one in which hon. Members opposite have very little confidence. That is the true reason why we ask for an earlier time limit.
  Under the Act of 1927 it was intended to give the proposals contained in the Blanesburgh Report a fair trial. What was the reason why we could not apply them at once without modification? It was because we needed time to give them a trial. I had in mind what I am urging now, that is, to continue the transitional periods for a definite time, after which it would be possible to go into the whole unemployment scheme with the possibility of placing it upon another basis. I am arguing strictly in favour of an extension of transitional provisions. Last winter, as soon as I had a little time to spare away from the work of the office which I formerly held, I remember carefully drawing up a memorandum which I had no opportunity of carrying into effect. This memorandum provided that we ought to consider dividing the insurance system into two parts. I came to that provisional conclusion after going into the matter myself. That is an urgent matter at the present time, and we want to ensure that it will be done very soon. We object to the extension for a year of the existing system, and we are taking steps to reduce that period because we believe that it will produce a worse state of chaos than exists at the present time. We think that a period of 12 months is too long, and we fear that the way in which the existing scheme has been treated under this Bill is likely to make confusion worse confounded. We are trying to put all the pressure we can on the Government to substitute a more workable scheme.
  Mr. GOULD: It is certainly clear in the minds of the Members of the Committee that this Amendment reflects a desire to separate those who come under the transitional period from the other unemployed who have a right in contract. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and the right
  312
  hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) say that the partnership which they desire is one with the public assistance committees. I wish to state very definitely that the unemployed who come under the transitional period are wholly connected with industrial districts which are suffering the greatest distress, and any partnership which the six months' treatment would bring at that period would be a partnership with the rate-aided burden which is oppressing those districts. Any alliance which segregates and separates those long-standing unemployed men and women in the distressed areas from the mass of unemployed will at least create a psychological problem that I believe will be resisted by all parties in the State, and especially by the rate-payers.
  The worst result of a review under this six months' Amendment would be to put those men and women in a separate camp, and it would create an opinion in their minds that they have been segregated and driven to accept Poor Law assistance. That would create an unemployment problem of a very grave nature. I hope the Committee will resist this Amendment. We want to create new machinery for dealing with this problem, and if you can by the efforts of the public assistance committees and the employing authorities such as the district councils and the county councils you should draw up some plan to get the men back into normal channels rather than make a new psychology of Poor Lawism with the unfortunate long-standing unemployment cases.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I think the Minister of Labour ought to be grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) for bringing forward this Amendment. The right hon. Lady made a request that this question should be treated in a non-party spirit, but the present Government have always made a party question of unemployment, and they carried out that policy all the time that the last Government were in office when they tried to deal with this problem. The Minister of Labour and her colleagues have had plenty of time to think about this question, and it is very disappointing to find that the Government have done so little in the direction of dealing with this problem. 1 would like to ask why hon. Members

  313
  opposite do not criticise the Labour Government on this question in the same way as they criticised the last Government?
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the Noble Lady to confine her criticism to the Amendment which we are now considering.
  Viscountess ASTOR: We are not disappointed with the Minister of Labour because I am very sorry for her, but we are disappointed with the Government. I think we have every reason to be disappointed with the whole attitude of the Government on this question of unemployment. I think the country will also be disappointed, because many people really believe that the Labour Government would come into office with fresh ideas—
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady's speech would be all very well in the Debate on the Second Reading, but we are now dealing in Committee with the transitional period provided in this Clause, and the Amendment under consideration is one to reduce the period by six months. That is the only question which can be discussed.
  Viscountess ASTOR: The reply which has been given by the Minister of Labour has been very disappointing, and she has given us no hope. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) spoke about dealing with this problem in the summer time. May I remind him that the present Government have been in office all the summer, and instead of thinking over this question and dealing with it, they have been all over the country—
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must really try to follow the discussion, and come to the Amendment which is now before the Committee.
  Viscountess ASTOR: On this side of the Committee we have constantly been told that we are not interested in the unemployed and that we do not represent the working classes. The hon. Member for West Nottingham was allowed to deal with that point.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for West Nottingham was arguing upon the point whether the period should be six or 12 months, and whether the post-
  314
  ponement or modification of the Clause should take place at a certain time. That is the only point under discussion.
  6.0 p.m.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I am referring to it. The point was that we were not trying to cut them out; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) explained that. The whole point of this Amendment is misrepresented, and, when hon. Members make these accusations against us, we are bound to reply in the spirit in which they are made. I think that it would be far better, and more calculated to satisfy the country outside, if the right hon. Lady made sonic constructive reply, and gave us some hope that she was going to consider this matter in a non-party spirit. We all know that the question of unemployment can never be settled by any one party—
  The CHAIRMAN: Really, the whole Bill deals with unemployment, but the Committee is now dealing with the details of the Bill, and I must ask the Noble Lady to try to bring herself down to the detail that is under discussion.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I have listened to every word of the discussion, and have heard hon. Members opposite trying to misrepresent the purpose of this Amendment—
  The CHAIRMAN: Will the Noble Lady try to obey my Ruling?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Certainly.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it not the custom and practice of the House that an hon. Member who has been called to order at least three times should be automatically asked to sit down?
  The CHAIRMAN: I hope to be saved that necessity.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I do not mind receiving a rebuke from you, Mr. Young, but a rebuke from hon. Members who have been taken feet foremost out of the House is really too much.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is clearly some doubt in the minds of a good many hon. Members as to the reasons why we have moved this Amendment. The object of moving it is to make it clear that we

  315
  think that another Bill ought to be introduced dealing with the transitional period, and with these transitional categories of unemployed people, before the House rises next August, and before there is a long Recess almost till Christmas of next year. We consider that there will be ample time for the Government to receive the Report of the Committee which they have set up, and for the Department to make the necessary inquiries with a view to carrying out what we want to see carried out, and what clearly, from the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), he hoped never would be carried out. The hon. Member for West Nottingham argued in favour of carrying on from year to year the transitional proposals, of carrying them on on the Unemployment Fund with the machinery of the Employment Exchanges, of carrying on this element of the unemployed who, in fact, have fallen out of insurance. We say that the effect of this Clause dealing with the transitional period is for the first time to take out of and away from the Insurance Fund the chronically unemployed who are no longer insurable, and to carry them as a 100 per cent. charge on the State. That is the one constructive thing, and we believe—
  Mr. BATEY: We are doing what you did.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not care twopence about the past. Any politician who worries about, the past is not constructive. What we want to do is to look forward to the future in dealing with the unemployed, and not to get involved in the past. That will not help the unemployed. Let us look forward to the future, and see how we can get out of this state of affairs and do something that is really helpful. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) keeps on repeating the old tag, but that will not do a single thing. We want to get a Bill, and to get it quickly, that will separate these unfortunate people from the fund. They are, I admit, very largely confined, as was pointed out by an hon. Member who spoke earlier, to the necessitous areas, the over-rated areas, which are carrying large numbers of unemployed on already over-burdened rates. We want to take those people,
  316
  as well as the categories dealt with in Clause 12, and produce a constructive scheme for them quite apart from unemployment insurance. Then there will be some hope of dealing with the chronically unemployed, and the sooner that matter is dealt with the better. We are afraid of what was foreshadowed by the hon. Member for West Nottingham, namely, that something will happen whereby this category of people, who have been unemployed, as I showed the other day, in some cases for three and even four years, are going to fall hack into the fund, and be treated with the other vast mass of unemployed people. We want them taken out and dealt with in a separate Bill, and the object of this Amendment is to make it necessary for whatever Government is in office to produce that necessary Bill before the House rises in August. next year.
  Mr. DIXEY: A very pertinent and important point has been put to the Minister of Labour. Surely, there are Members in this Committee who are torn by the differences of opinion that seem to manifest themselves on the Government side, and I think it would be very advisable if the Minister would give us mine idea as to where the Government actually stand in regard to this important point. Is it the right hon. Lady's idea at a fairly early date to introduce some legislation for the purpose of drawing a distinct line between the two classes of unemployed in this country 1 Some hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite seem to be in favour of that. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), as I understood him, agreed with the principle underlying this Amendment—he agreed that we should have legislation which would draw a line of demarcation between the two classes of unemployed. [Horn. MEMBERS: "No!"] I understood the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) to take an entirely different view, considering it better to keep one class of unemployed. An hon. Member who spoke subsequently also agreed. What I want to know, and what I think we are entitled to know, is what the Government are going to do on this point. [Interruption.] Any words that I address to the right hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, will certainly be courteous, but I think we are entitled, on art important Amend-

  317
  ment like this, to some reply as to the intentions of the Government. It would clarify the position.
  Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member, apparently, was not here when the Minister spoke. She has dealt with that particular point.
  Mr. DIXEY: I am not putting this as an absolute demand, but there are some in the Committee who are very much torn. Some agree with the principle of this Amendment, while, on the other hand, some do not want to do anything to embarrass the Government in dealing
  with unemployment. [Interruption.] I am as keen on seeing that the regulations benefit the unemployed as any man on the benches opposite. What I should like to hear from the Minister is some statement as to whether we may hope that the principle underlying this Amendment will be carefully considered by the Government in a very short time, and some definite legislation introduced.
  Question put, "That the word 'thirty-six' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 170.

  Division No. 85.]

  AYES.

  [6.11 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)

  Dukes, C.

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Duncan, Charles

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Ede, James Chuter

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Edge, Sir William

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Angell, Norman

  Egan, W. H.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Arnott, John

  Eimley, Viscount

  Kelly, W. T.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  England, Colonel A.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Foot, Isaac

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Ayles, Walter

  Freeman, Peter

  Kinley, J.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Knight, Holford

  Barnes, Alfred John

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

  Batey, Joseph

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Lang, Gordon

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Bellamy, Albert

  Gill, T. H.

  Lathan, G.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Gillett, George M.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Law, A. (Rosendale)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Gosling, Harry

  Lawrence, Susan

  Benson, G.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Lawson, John James

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Gould, F.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Blindell, James

  Granville, E.

  Lees, J.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Longden, F.

  Bromfield, William

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Bromley, J.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Lowth, Thomas

  Brothers, M.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lunn, William

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  McElwee, A.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hardie, George D.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Burgess, F. G.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Mackinder, W.

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  McKinlay, A.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Cape, Thomas

  Haycock, A. W.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Hayday, Arthur

  McShane, John James

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Chater, Daniel

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Church, Major A. G.

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Mansfield, W.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  March, S.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Herriotts, J.

  Marcus, M.

  Compton, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Markham, S. F.

  Cove, William G.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Marley, J.

  Cowan, D. M.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Mathers, George

  Daggar, George

  Hollins, A.

  Matters, L. W.

  Dallas, George

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Maxton, James

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

  Melville, Sir James

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Middleton, G.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Millar, J. D.

  Day, Harry

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Mills, J. E.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Isaacs, George

  Milner, J.

  Dickson, T.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Montague, Frederick

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Morley, Ralph

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Tillett, Ben

  Mort, D. L.

  Sandham, E.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Toole, Joseph

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Scott, James

  Tout, W. J.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Townend, A. E.

  Muff, G.

  Scurr, John

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Sexton, James

  Turner, B.

  Murnin, Hugh

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Viant, S. P.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Shield, George William

  Walker, J.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Shinwell, E.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Palmer, E. T.

  Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Perry, S. F.

  Sinkinson, George

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Peters. Dr. Sidney John

  Sitch, Charles H.

  West, F. R.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Wheatley. Rt. Hon. J.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  White, H. G.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Potts, John S.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Price, M. P.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Sorensen, R.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Richards, R.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Ritson, J.

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Wise, E. F.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Sullivan, J.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Rothschild, J. de

  Sutton, J. E.

  Rowson, Guy

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.

  NOES.

  Albery, Irving James

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l., W.)

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Atkinson, C.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Balniel, Lord

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Edmondson, Major A, J.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Berry, Sir George

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Fielden, E. B.

  Locker-Lampson. Com. O. (Handsw'th)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Long, Major Eric

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Boyce, H. L.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

  Bracken, B.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Butler, R. A.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Meller, R. J.

  Carver. Major W. H.

  Grace, John

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Morrison Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Merrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Cranbourne, Viscount

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Penny, Sir George

  320

  321

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Savery, S. S.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Purbrick, R.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Reld, David D. (County Down)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Remer, John R

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Stanley, Maj, Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Salmon, Major I.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Thomson, Sir F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Major Sir George Hennessy and

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Sir Victor Warrender.

  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

  Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I beg to move, in page 11, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (3).
  As this Amendment deals with a rather technical point some explanation is necessary. The explanatory Memorandum states that this Sub-section (3) proposes to repeal paragraph (c), Subsection (2) of Section 14 of the Act of 1927. By that paragraph a. claimant who had not paid 30 contributions might satisfy three additional conditions in lieu of the 30 contributions—one of these being that he had had insurable employment to such extent as was reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The omission of this paragraph which the Government propose in this Sub-section (3), was not asked for by the Morris Committee. It was not asked for in the Minority Report signed by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). The paragraph seems not unfairly to comply with the words used by the Attorney-General on Thursday last, when he gave an explanation of his views with regard to what would constitute a fair test. It seems to me that anyone who has not fulfilled the conditions of the 30 contributions and has not even been employed to a reasonable extent for the previous two years, might be ruled out of the insurance scheme. I also submit that these words might well be considered in connection with the fresh Clause 4 which we are promised for the Report stage on Thursday next. Whether or not this Sub-section (3) should be included, depends very much on the words which are to be inserted in place of "not genuinely seeking work." I suggest to the Minister that no ease has been made out for the omission of paragraph (c). It has done very useful work where it is. It has stopped certain people getting
  322
  benefit who had not been reasonably insured in the last two years, and I suggest that the right hon. Lady might, pending the Report stage at any rate, leave out Sub-section (3).
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am not surprised that there should be some doubt as to why this amendment of the Act of 1927 has been inserted, because it deals with a very technical point. It arises in connection with what is known, on these benches at any rate, as Decision 5061. I think it is necessary that the Committee should realise exactly what that decision has done, in order that they may see that the proposal in Sub-section (3) is, as far as we can find, the only way to remedy the real injustice which has been created. The position is this. Originally there were words, which appeared to be a commonsense set of words which no one would misunderstand and which would be easily applicable, but this is what happened. The conditions "not genuinely seeking work," or "not able to obtain suitable employment," or "not available for work," or "voluntarily leaving without just cause," or "dismissal for misconduct"—these are the requirements which are in point in cases of this kind. It so happens that the. umpire has ruled that whenever an applicant is found to have been refused benefit on any of these grounds, that, in itself, is a prima facie case that he could have had a reasonable period of employment, but had not such employment and it penalises him for two years. If this point is brought up when the case is considered under the transitional condition and it is found that the applicant, at any time during the previous two years, has been disallowed on any of these grounds, that, in itself, is sufficient to cause the court of referees under Decision 5061 to hold that the claimant's claim must be dis-

  323
  allowed. That is an impossible position and the words in themselves are not, I hold, essential to the proper adjudication of claims or entitlement to benefit, because we have the four statutory conditions in any case. This paragraph (c) was put in specifically in relation to the transition period and I have described to the Committee how it has been interpreted and the consequent administrative confusion and the consequent injustice have been so great, that I beg the Committee to allow me to have this Sub-section.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I put one or two considerations to the Committee on this point. I have never heard quite so unconvincing a defence as that which the Minister has just given. It amounts to this—that because the Umpire has laid down a certain doctrine in Decision 5061, therefore that doctrine is to be like the law of the Medes and the Persians. It cannot be touched, and on that account a provision which reasonably construed as is good in itself, has to go. There has never been an argument like it put forward in this land before. With all respect to the umpire, he is not a court of justice. [HON. MEMBERS "He is."] Perhaps hon. Members will listen to my argument. Cases are brought before the High Court. They are taken to the Court of Appeal and from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. The House of Lords gives a judgment and the principle involved in that judgment is binding, unless it is changed. But it is possible to change a judgment of the House of Lords by Act of Parliament. Therefore you need not necessarily abolish a test like this on the grounds suggested. The whole vice of Decision 5061 can be quite easily removed by Act of Parliament. What was the vice in that decision? In itself this was a proper and reasonable kind of condition, but this Umpire's decision—equivalent to the House of Lords' judgment in these cases —has been closely wrapped up with the conditions about "genuinely seeking work," and to a less degree with the other conditions as well. The objection to this condition does not lie in the condition itself, but in the interpretation of the condition in combination with the phrase "genuinely seeking work."
  Miss BONDFIELD: That is the whole point. The umpire, in interpreting the condition, has held that a person ought not to be regarded as having had a reasonable period of insurable employment, if his claim for benefit has been disallowed on one of these grounds during the last two years. Therefore, if the umpire, who is the highest authority on the matter, has held that he is bound to construe these words in that sense I maintain that an alteration of the law is required.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am familiar with paragraph 45 of the Morris Report which is, I think, the one which the right hon. Lady has been reading.
  Miss BONDFIELD: It is a statement of the umpire's decision.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is dealt with in paragraph 45 of the Morris Report. It is quite clear that the umpire has tied himself up with a decision which rules the cases. I venture to point out it is not the question of "a reasonable period of employment" which is at fault. No one really pretends that it is. The fault is, that he has ruled that he will construe it in close combination with the other conditions of genuinely seeking work. The difficulty to which most exception has been taken—the fact of a man being disqualified for not genuinely seeking work—has already been done away with because ex hypothesi under this Bill the genuinely seeking work condition has gone. And any other condition of that kind could very easily go at the same time. I ask the Committee to think of this because no explanation of the point has been given by the Minister at the present time. You can alter an umpire's judgment just as clearly as this House can alter a decision of the House of Lords, namely, by Act of Parliament. That can be done, and I am asking the Government to do it. If the Committee will really bend their minds to it they will see what is clear not only to Members on this side above the Gangway, but to hon. Members below the Gangway, namely, that they can alter the wrong application to which the umpire committed the administration. The Morris Committee did not recommend that paragraph (c) should be abolished. They pointed only to the fact that it had been, so to speak, wrongly

  325
  used, or, at any rate, used in a sense that produced a regrettable result by the umpire and by the judgment he gave. The Morris Committee have never suggested this, and what is more, the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) in his Minority Report did not suggest it either. No reason of any sort or kind has been given, and now, after all these conditions have been subjected to review, we are asked to abolish paragraph (c) while as yet the whole situation is pending and open as regards Clauses 4 and 5 of this Bill. It really is absurd for the Minister first of all to put forward a completely mistaken idea of the real gravamen of the criticism of the Morris Report, and, secondly, to leave in this Sub-section when she has taken out Clause 4 and Clause 5 for the time being.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), having gone so far, did not go a step further. He and the Minister are agreed that this umpire's decision cannot stand, and, indeed, by implication, so was the Morris Committee. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to read the relative passage from that Committee's Report, and will bear in mind that this concerns the transitional provisions:
  "Transitional condition (c) applies in cases where the claimant has not paid 30 contributions in the two years preceding the date of his claim, and it requires him to prove that he has during the two years immediately preceding the date of the application for benefit been employed in an insurable employment to such an extent as was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to the opportunities for obtaining insurable employment during that period.' In a number of decisions given by the Umpire"—
  and this includes 5061—
  "he has held that a claimant cannot be said to have satisfied this condition if, during the period of two years over which the reasonable period of employment must be shown, he has had a claim for benefit disallowed on any of the grounds 'not genuinely seeking work,' 'not unable to obtain suitable employment,' 'lost his employment by reason of misconduct,' or 'left his employment voluntarily without just cause.'
  It was contended before us that the effect of these decisions is that a claimant who has once been disallowed benefit on the grounds set out above is unable to bring
  326
  himself within the condition until he has requalified himself by obtaining 30 stamps, or two years have elapsed since the date of the disallowance."
  The Committee adds this conclusion:
  "We do net think that this incident of disproof, the consequences of which are so severe on a claimant, was intended or contemplated by the Legislature."
  It is because of that passage that I presume the right hon. Gentleman is at one with us in holding that the umpire's decision cannot stand. The question before us is: How are we to upset the umpire's decision? We can do it only in Parliament. We can do it only by absolute authority. His interpretation holds until this House decides by law to change the law. It is umpire-made law instead of being Judge-made law, and is absolute in its effect on an insured person just as is Judge-made law until the Legislature alters the law by Statute. If the right hon. Gentleman claims that the method which the right hon. Lady has adopted is either clumsy or goes further than it ought to go, surely, before he concluded his speech, he ought to have directed his mind to telling the Committee what particular form of amendment he would make in the law in order that the umpire's decision, so manifestly unfair, should be upset, as, indeed, the Committee agreed that it should be upset. Having examined the method of the Minister, I have come to the conclusion that it is the simplest way out. The Committee must remember that this does not affect the permanent structure of unemployment insurance in this connection. It really affects the men who are in difficulties because of the transitional provisions. It is in the transitional provisions in the Act of 1927 that the umpire's decision has its worst effect on those men who are nearest the exhaustion of their rights under the transitional period and who are suffering most severely by Decision 5061. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that my argument is a fair argument. If he says that the Minister's way is clumsy, he ought to say to the Committee precisely what he would have done, if he were in charge of this Bill, to amend the law at an early date.
  I take another point. If we remove this paragraph (c) are we doing anything to invalidate the permanent structure of the Act? Certainly if those words can be construed in these terms by one

  327
  of the most able umpires of the Insurance Office, is it not proof that you cannot put into the structure of your Insurance Act any of these subjective tests—that is what they are—without rendering absolutely certain that sooner or later application will be made in some case differing in point of fact from every other case? And the result will be that hardship will not only be felt in the particular case which differs from all other cases which come before the umpire, but it will be felt in thousands of other cases in the same way. I have no alternative to offer the Minister by way of amending the law, but I am sure that the umpire's decision ought to be upset. That was undoubtedly the opinion of those who signed the Majority Report of the Morris Committee, and, indeed, I think, of the whole Committee. Therefore, this Amendment should be defeated by the Committee.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Let me reply at once. I have no wish to prolong this Debate, as we have a lot of ground to traverse before 12 o'clock, and I shall not divide against the Government on this matter. The point is that we all agree that the present umpire's decision should not stand. I have never made any secret of the fact. I am clear, too, that the Morris Committee did not recommend the complete abolition of it. They did not mention it in their summary of recommendations. I can only say to-day that this sort of business is just another stage in the making of the whole of the system as proposed to be amended by this Bill, a thing that cannot last more than a few months.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I want to ask the Minister a question on this Clause. I do not wish to do so from the point of view of obstruction. What exactly is the meaning of Sub-section (2)? I have read, of course, the explanatory memorandum, but how does she pass from that Sub-section to the third part? How and why does that arise? In paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) the right hon. Lady will see that, first of all, the
  328
  Treasury undertake to shoulder the amount of the cost up to the date of the beginning of this Act. The transitional provision is extended by reason of the words "or as extended by this Section." That is the second burden of the Treasury. Then we have lines 6 to 13, which also deal with a particular additional sum. I wish she would explain exactly what that is.
  Miss BONDFIELD: These words provide for the Exchequer to bear the cost of a small part of the benefit paid under the original transitional period of 12 months. That is quite clear. The Exchequer will bear approximately half the cost of transitional benefits paid after 31st March, 1929, to 18th April, 1930, and, secondly, the whole of the cost of the extension of the transitional period made by the Transitional Provisions Amendment Act after 18th April, 1929; and also the whole of the cost of the extension of the transitional period to be made by Sub-section (1) of Clause 12 of the present Bill from April, 1930, to April, 1931.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is the right hon. Lady sure that there has not been a misprint somewhere? I am thinking of the provision in Sub-section (2) which says:
  "Sums paid at any time after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, by way of benefit under the said sub-section as originally enacted to persons whose benefit years began in the period between the thirty-first day of March and the nineteenth day of April in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-nine; and."
  Clause 16 (7) provides that:
  "This Act shall, except as otherwise expressly provided, come into operation on the thirteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty."
  Surely, the right hon. Lady means that it ought to be on the 31st day of March, 1930, because it is a question of the benefit year running. I will not further take up the time of the Committee, but I would like the Minister to look into the matter and see if there has not been a little slip.
  Miss BONDFIELD: It is the overlap. The 31st March, 1929, is the correct date. I will, however, look into the matter.
  Clauses 13 (Minor Amendments) and 14 (Application to Scotland), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Transitory provisions.)
  Major GLYN: I beg to move, in page 12, line 14, to leave out from the word "Act," to the end of the Subsection.
  Our object in moving this Amendment is to draw the attention of the Committee to the position in which we are placed on account of the withdrawal of Clause 4. It is obvious that Sub-section (1) of Clause 15 does not make sense, because it refers back to Clause 4, the exact form of which is not yet known. There is a further Amendment by the Minister of Labour on this Clause—in page 12, line 16, to leave out from the word "if" to the word "six," in line 17, and to insert instead thereof the word "section." She will move out those words, I suppose, for the same purpose as on Clause 7, where certain words were taken out temporarily, with the idea of putting them back later. It does make the Committee stage very difficult when an important Clause like this, dealing with the transitory provisions, refers back to Clause 4, the exact terms of which we do not know. If Clause 4 in its new form is going to be satisfactory to ail sections of the House, it will be the most remarkable Clause ever drafted. It may be that it will be satisfactory to hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on the Government side, and to hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on this side. It will be extremely interesting for us to see the form that the Clause takes. In the meantime, I do not think the Government ought to ask the Committee to accept Clause 15 until we have had some more information on the subject.
  Miss BONDFIELD: As the hon. and gallant Member has rightly said, I propose to move out certain wards in this Clause, in order to move them back again on the Report stage. The Clause reads quite well without those words, because it remains applicable to the other provisions mentioned in the Clause and it will be applicable to Clause 4 when that is approved by the House on Report. Hon. Members must realise that in dealing with conditions of benefit you have to consider the machinery by
  330
  which the change-over is going to be effected. This is a pure machinery Motion, which enables me to spread the change over six weeks. We shall give a slight advantage to those whose disallowances mature or whose claims mature during that six weeks period, and it will enable us instead of penalising people after the 13th March under the old Act to begin to bring the new provisions into operation under the new Act as from an earlier date. It is quite impossible that on a particular day, the 13th March, we should be able to deal with the tremendous numbers of persons who would be ripe for dealing with in connection with the change-over. Therefore, from the standpoint of the smooth working of the machine we have put in this six weeks' period during which the disallowances to be considered will be dealt with under the new Act instead of under the old Act.
  Earl WINTERTON: The Committee will be aware that from the point of view of drafting we are in a remarkable position in connection with this Bill. I have been in this House longer than anyone in the Chamber at the present time. I have been a Member of this House for a quarter of a century. I have seen many Governments and many Ministers and many methods of doing business, but I have never seen any Government and I have never seen any Minister conduct business like the present Government and the present Minister of Labour. The right hon. Lady is proposing to move to leave out certain words, which she will put back again later, because neither she nor the Government nor the extraordinary collection of groups which form the Socialist party have yet made up their minds how they are going to deal with the most important portion of the Bill. If this is not an instance of administrative incapacity and chaos, then I have never known a case of that sort.
  Major GLYN: If the Minister of Labour can give me some idea of the expense involved, I will withdraw my Amendment, in view of her explanation.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I believe that the cost of the operation is estimated at about £500,000.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In page 12, line 16, leave out from the word "if" to the

  331
  word "six," in line 17, and insert instead thereof the word "section."—[Miss Bondfield.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: There is an Amendment standing upon the Order Paper in my name and the name of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway), providing that regulations and instructions sent to the officials of Employment Exchanges shall be published and made available to insured persons at the Exchanges. Hitherto, most of the regulations issued in regard to Unemployment Insurance have been in private and confidential circulation. Such regulations ought to be made public, so that the unemployed persons may know what conditions govern them. Perhaps the Minister of Labour will give us that assurance.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am trying to avoid any misunderstanding in regard to regulations, whether confidential or otherwise.

  CLAUSE 16.—(Interpretation, repeal, application, short title and commencement.)
  Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "in page 12, line 40, to leave out the word 'Fifth,' and to insert instead thereof the word 'Third.'"
  This was a misprint in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Major ELLIOT: Would it be possible when giving a definition under this Clause to give a definition of what Clause 4 will mean? If so, it would be a great convenience.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision of approved courses of instruction for persons under eighteen.)
  (1) The Minister, after consultation with the Board of Education, shall, subject to regulations made with the approval of the Treasury, make arrangements with local education authorities for the provision, so far as is practicable, of approved courses
  332
  of instruction for inured contributors under the age of eighteen years who claim benefit.
  (2) In any case where a person, being an insured contributor who is under the age of eighteen years and has been unemployed for such period as may be prescribed, claims benefit, it shall be the duty of the Minister, if there is an approved course of instruction at which that person can reasonably be required to attend, to cause notice in writing in the prescribed form to be given to him informing bins that such a course is available, and that if he fails without good cause to attend the course he will be disqualified for the receipt of benefit, and if it is shown that such notice as aforesaid was given to any such person and that on any day lie did not duly attend the course of instruction in accordance with the notice, he shall, unless he shows that he had good cause for not so attending, be disqualified for the receipt of benefit in respect of that day.
  (3) For the purposes of this section the expression "approved courses of instruction" means courses of instruction approved under paragraph (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act. —[Miss Bondfield.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  We had a very considerable Debate on this question at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by going over again the statement of the case. I very cordially move this new Clause, and I hope that it will meet with satisfaction from hon. Members who have shown a very real interest in the question.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I thank the Minister for putting this Clause into the Bill. Some of us have watched with considerable anxiety the bringing of young people into insurance. We are very anxious that the young people should not too soon be launched into the world of industry. We desire that as long as possible they should be kept in the world of education. Unfortunately in 1931 children will only be kept at school until the age of 15. I hope that the time will come when we shall keep them there until the age of 16. During the Debates great contrasts have been drawn by hon. Members opposite between the children of the poor and the children of the rich, and special reference has been made to the great advantages in regard to training and education which are open to the children of the rich. The

  333
  great advantage which they have is that they have greater provision and care made for them in regard to education, and we consider that the same opportunity should be given to poorer children. This Clause will help in that direction.
  We want to feel that when young persons become employed that they are not tree from supervision and care, but that when they pass from industry and become unemployed they will pass, as it were, under the operation of this new Clause, into the world of education, where they will still be looked after. The words of the Clause assure us that the Minister is going to do what we asked her to do, and that is to make arrangements with the local education authorities for the provision, so far as is practicable, of approved courses of instruction. I take it that that means that, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Education, she is going to make great efforts to provide such courses of instruction. That is the only real meaning that the Clause can have, if it is to be any help to the children. It is a great improvement to the Bill and it will give great value to numbers of young people. We do not want, in this Bill, to make the children grow up too soon. We want to preserve the home influence and the school influence so long as we can. Because the new Clause does go a great way in doing that, I thank the Minister for having brought it forward, and I congratulate the Committee on the fact that we have improved the Bill by putting such a Clause into it.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I am very pleased that the Minister has seen fit to bring in this new Clause, but I feel it is dependent on too many things. It says:
  "after consultation with the Board of Education, shall, subject to regulations made with the approval of the Treasury, make arrangements to local authorities for the provision, so far as is practicable, of approved courses of instruction for insured contributors under the age of eighteen years who claim benefit."
  7.0 p m
  We do not know what the Minister of Education has to say, because during the whole of this Debate we have not been able to get one word out of him. We know perfectly well what the Treasury is going to say, because, if the Treasury is willing to take money from children of
  334
  15 years of age, it is perfectly obvious that it is not going to give anything new towards the development of these centres. If the Government are really thinking of the children, why did the Minister leave out the most important recommendation of the Shaftesbury Committee, namely, the training of juveniles? We know how few centres there are—only 31 local education authorities out of 371 have got them. It is not going to be made any easier to start them; on the contrary, owing to the Regulation which the right hon. Lady issued in September, it is going to be much more difficult for local authorities to start them. In fact so much so, that I do not think the Committee realises that in the first report of the National Advisory Council on Juvenile Employment, there is a reservation made in the names of Mr. Conley, Mr. Elvin, Sir Percy Jackson, Mr. Keen, Mr. Ben Turner and Miss J. Varley. I think the Committee would like to know what they said:
  "We feel with much regret compelled to record our view that the criteria for establishing centres are much too stringent to encourage, indeed to enable, the establishment of centres in many areas in which they are necessary. In particular we believe that the insistence that there should be 35 juvenile claimants on the register before a centre can be established, is likely to make it impossible to establish centres, for it must be borne in mind that a juvenile cannot become a claimant until he or she is at least 16 years and 30 weeks of age. The scheme, however, is intended to provide for juveniles of from 14 to 18 years of age.
  We attach special importance to the clause of the report noting that the scheme is regarded in many respects as experimental, and but for that clause, we should not have felt able to accept the report."
  The circular sent out by the right hon. Lady is far more reactionary than anything that the late Government sent out. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I wish hon. Members would listen instead of interrupting me. It is very difficult really to carry on an argument, but it is very easy to interrupt—any ass can do that. If you are going to have a centre in an area of five miles, you must have 50 juveniles unemployed, 35 of them have to be drawing the benefit, and, if the average attendance falls below 40, the centre can be closed. If that Order had been in operation, we should never have got juvenile employment centres established. For instance, in Plymouth, where they have been established and are flourishing,

  335
  there are five of them, but, if this Order were enforced, they would be closed. This is a most reactionary Order, and it is no wonder that Miss Varley, Mr. Ben Turner and Sir Percy Jackson have put in a protest.
  We know that there are certain moments when the children get to work; in the month before Christmas, for instance. It falls off, and again in the summer it falls off. Under this circular, any local authorities who do not want centres—and there are many who obviously do not want them because only 31 out of 371 have started them—are going to be enabled to shut down these centres. When the right hon. Lady's Bill comes into operation, there is going to be a positive shortage of juveniles. She might have said that there was something happening in the country which we deplore, namely, that the children are going into industry at 14 and are being turned out at 16, and that we have always protested against that And think it a crime. I, personally, welcome the raising of the school age and the lowering of the age of insurance, but by the time that this Clause comes into operation there should be no juvenile unemployment, and the dangerous thing is that it will be very difficult, from the educational point of view. Most of the local authorities who are really progressive think that, and they are positively alarmed. We all know the horror of blind-alley employment. I think it is even worse if you take a child whose parents are willing to exploit it, and they may have to do so on account of their own low wages. We have the greatest difficulty in persuading parents to allow the children to go on, although we know that in the end those children will make far more from staying on at school a year or two more. There are some who do not want it, and think of the temptation it is going to be to them to take their children from school as soon as they have sufficient certificates and put them into work and then pull them out and draw the dole.
  The right hon. Lady is really thinking too much about insurance and not enough about the children themselves. It is from that point of view that I do not feel satisfied about this Clause. It is better than nothing, but why was it not in the original Bill? That is what I do not
  336
  understand. The child ought not to draw benefit unless it attends a centre or continuation class. It should be forced to attend some educational centre. Can the right hon. Lady assure us that she has some pledge from the Minister of Education and something from the Treasury, even if it is going to be a little more expensive? Is she going to say that in those areas, where there are not 50 unemployed children within a radius of five miles, those children are to get some sort of instruction I want to know, because I am certain, if the late Government had brought in this Clause, there would have been such a howl that it would have been heard from here to Timbuctoo It would have been said: "There are those wicked capitalists exploiting the children and not thinking of education." That is what we have had for 4½ years. We know, whatever hon. Members opposite feel about juveniles, they feel that our one object was to exploit them. I think the Government are exploiting them over insurance and that they are not thinking of the future question of raising the school age. I am thinking of it.
  Education is one of the most important things this country has to face—advanced education. We know it is no good telling us that this is to get the children to stay on at school. When they get a certain number of certificates, they can go into a job and get out and draw the unemployment benefit without even going to centres, because in some places they will not have centres. I should hate my child going into a blind alley occupation, but I would rather he went into that than sit at home and do nothing—from the point of view of his character. This is not insurance for the purpose of education. It is only going to make it easier for those who do not want their children to be educated if they stay at home. It is all very well people telling you that the whole world is made up of keen educationists. It is nothing of the kind. If it were, we should have a different world. I have no doubt that hon. Members regret the lack of education as much as I do. If we had had an educated democracy, it would have been a more intelligent democracy. From that point of view, I want the right hon. Lady to give us some assurance that she is not going to be dependent on consultations with the Minister of Educa-

  337
  tion and with the Treasury. We have heard great rows outside about what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done. We know that he is adamant. As to the Minister of Education, I feel like a certain singer. He reminds me of the lines:
  "Say something, sweet Belinda,
  Thy voice I long to hear."
  I have hardly been able to resist singing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may shout, but they know perfectly well I am speaking from the point of view of the children. They know that there is a real danger in this Bill, because when the time comes that it is in operation, there will be very little juvenile unemployment, but it is going to stand in the way of advanced education.
  Mr. COVE: How?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Nobody knows better than the hon. Member. Why was he so keen against lowering the insurance age in 1924? Because he said it would make it much more difficult to raise the school age. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] It is no good shouting at me. Hon. Members know it. I honestly thought that the Government which the right hon. Lady represents was interested in the children, but I do not think so now. I am deeply interested in this matter. I am not scared about the industrialists. I am thinking of the children. Under this new Circular you are going to make it almost impossible for the children who are not in insured trades to get any training at all. That did not happen under the late Government. Any child unemployed could go to a juvenile employment centre, but this new Circular makes it dependent on having 35 out of 50 children drawing benefit. That did not happen under the last Government. That is why Miss Varley and the others registered a complaint. The House should bear that fact in mind. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to say that they are pleased. I am not in the last pleased, and I do not believe that the country will be pleased. I do not think that there is anything constructive about this Clause at all. With my hand on my heart—and thank God I have got a heart as well as a head—I can say that if I thought this was going to make for the welfare of the children I would not mind. I do not
  338
  believe that it is. It is only because of pressure from the Committee that the right hon. Lady has brought up this Clause. It shows that the Government are thinking of the fund, not of the children. Hon. Members opposite should think a little ahead. This will not keep the young children out of blind-alley occupations, but it will be a real deter-refit to further educational advance. The Government I think, should have given us something a little stronger. After all, they are a party which is on trial for the first time. They jeered at the failures of Liberals and Tories, and perhaps had some reason to do so, but their failures are nothing to the failure of the Government in this respect. The right hon. Lady should give us something a little more reassuring. If not, she and her party, will live to regret the day.
  Captain CAZALET: The extremely sincere, eloquent and well-informed speech of the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) shows that not only her heart but her head has been deeply interested in this particular question, and I feel certain that what she has said will produce a more satisfactory statement than we have yet heard from the Minister of Labour. In introducing this new Clause she gave us the benefit of just one or two sentences, and I assume that she intends at a later stage in the Debate to reply to the points which have been raised. At the same time I may not have judged her action rightly, and perhaps the truth is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who is now present, is to give us some explanation of this Clause. I sat here during the whole time this matter was being discussed on Clause 1, when we had the privilege of the presence of the President of the Board of Education, but in spite of many appeals we were quite unable to elicit from him one single sentence in regard to the matter. The Minister of Labour recognises that we on these benches are deeply and sincerely interested in this matter. The Clause says:
  "The Minister, after consultation with the Board of Education, shall, subject to regulations made with the approval of the Treasury."
  It is obvious, therefore, that in framing this Clause the right hon. Lady has had consultations with both these other De-

  339
  partments, and we have a right to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to tell us what happened at those consultations, and what is the opinion of the Board of Education. He might tell us how the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education proposes that these training centres shall be extended. It is clear that these problems have been discussed and thought out by the various Departments, and all we are asking is that they should give the Committee some information as to what occurred. If the President of the Board of Education on a previous occasion had only vouchsafed a few sentences on this matter, he would have saved hours of discussion in Committee. We quite understand that the representatives of the Treasury are not present as they are fully occupied in dealing with their own back benchers upstairs, but the Parliamentary Secretary is here, and I think he might give us the benefit of his opinion.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Who is upstairs?
  Captain CAZALET: Well, in another part of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish!"] It is perfectly clear that the truth of what I have said is realised by hon. Members on account of their completely irrelevant interruptions.
  Mr. BECKETT: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member does not want to make a deliberate misstatement. May I tell him for his information that there is no meeting going on between the officials of the Treasury and the back benchers on this side at the present moment.
  Captain CAZALET: I am glad to hear that at least on one day in this week it has not been necessary for representatives of the Treasury to discuss the future policy of the Government at the dictates of the back benchers of their own party. It has been contended on many occasions that the operation of Clause 1 of this Bill, which brings people between the ages of 15 and 16 into unemployment. Insurance—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I really have allowed more latitude than I ought to have done on this new Clause. It deals with the provision of approved courses of instruction for persons under 18 who claim benefit. It doss not raise the general question of unem-
  340
  ployment insurance for young people. That question has already been decided in Clause 1.
  Captain CAZALET: The only point I want to make is that as the Unemployment Insurance Fund is going to benefit to such a great extent through the operation of this Clause, we think that the result of a week's thought by the right hon. Lady on this matter is entirely unsatisfactory. The fact that the fund will benefit to this large degree by the contributions of these children is a reason why these further facilities should be given, and we think that more information should be given as to the future intention of the Government on this particular point. May I once again most respectfully suggest that as we have a representative of the Board of Education present, and as this is essentially an educational matter, we should have some information and guidance from him. We do not desire to obstruct business in any way. The President of the Board of Education should offer us a little advice on a matter which is so essentially an educational question. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will do the Committee the honour of giving us the result of the conversations which have been held before we decide on the future of this Clause.
  Mr. HARRIS: I confess to a little surprise at the speeches of hon. Members above the Gangway. They have devoted much eloquence in criticising what after all is really a constructive effort. It may have come rather late in the day, it may have required some persuasion, but it does something which hon. Members above the Gangway did not do throughout five years. On the contrary, I have a certain quarrel with them because the existing machinery was allowed to rust. In 1922 there were 17 centres in London offering facilities to out-of-work juveniles up to the age of 18 years. For various reasons those centres were allowed to die, and at the present moment there is not a single centre in London. That is under the benevolent guidance of the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway who has just been returned to this House. I am not going to be ungrateful to the right hon. Lady, because this is really an excellent attempt to embody what was the general feeling of the Committee. I am quite prepared to recognise that she is quite new to these Debates, and to guide

  341
  a Bill of this character through Committee is no light task. When dealing with the Amendment, of which this new Clause is the result, she expressed the opinion that she did not see how it could be translated into an Act of Parliament. Still, we have struggled; we have saved it, and I am sure she is grateful. It was a long struggle, but the result has been this excellent new Clause. I would remind the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) that this is mandatory. It puts an obligation for the first time on the Minister to provide these classes. It says:
  "The Minister, after consultation with the Board of Education shall, subject to regulations made with the approval of the Treasury, make arrangements …of approved courses of instruction for insured contributors under the age of 18 years."
  That is a great step forward. Hon. Members above the Gangway in Committee asked that they should be provided for those under 16.
  Viscountess ASTOR: May I explain. We did so because we thought the Bill was only dealing with children from 14 to 16 years of age.
  Mr. HARRIS: Now it deals with young people up to 18 years of age. We have got what we wanted; we must not grumble. These words are rather exceptional in an Act of Parliament. Where it can be proved that it is practicable to provide these classes it is the obligation of the Minister to see that they are provided. I do not want to underrate the difficulty of carrying out this proposal. There is a difficulty in organising these classes. Very often you have young persons scattered over a large area. That has been one of the difficulties in London, where you have pockets of unemployed, 20 here and 30 there, and as far as I understand the proposal is to organise two classes for London. Imagine what it will mean to ask a small boy at Hammersmith to travel all the way to the charming and delightful neighbourhood which I have the honour to represent. That is the proposal I understand. I am very fortunate I am told that the first centre—perhaps it is to commemorate my effort to convert the right hon. Lady—is to be in Bethnal Green. That would be a most delightful journey for the small boy from Hammersmith, and I am sure it would be profitable to him to get to Bethnal Green; but I suggest that by the
  342
  time he has arrived his enthusiasm for education will have waned. The latest suggestion is that his fare will be paid. That will be of considerable assistance.
  I suggest, however, that if this scheme is to be a success the Government must not be content with any half measures in sending all the children North of the Thames to Bethnal Green, or all those South of the Thames from Battersea, Greenwich and Woolwich, all the way to Bermondsey or Southwark. What we want above all things is the active cooperation of the Board of Education. Under the last Government the Board Of Education stood aside as a sort of observer, leaving the whole burden to the overworked and over-worried Minister of Labour, whose troubles were quite big enough without his having the business of organising these classes. It may be that the Minister of Labour will have to foot the bill, but the work should be carried on under the supervision of the Board of Education representatives and inspectors. That is most important.
  Secondly, there must be elasticity. Where you have a lot of juveniles it would be wise to have sufficient classes in a building specially located for the purpose, but where you have scattered children I see no reason why other facilities should not be utilised. There are the technical schools, the continuation schools, and even some of the central schools, where you could get the co-operation of some of the teachers. That brings me to the most important part of the subject. The whole success of these proposals depends on the securing of the right staff. Schemes have broken down in the past because they were a make-shift arrangement. It may be information to some Members, but under the old arrangement the instructors charged with the duty of training out-of-work juveniles up to the age of 18 were paid by the hour. I believe the rate in London was 5s. 6d. per hour. When three or four boys got a job in a factory and took themselves away from the school, the teacher lost his job.
  I do not want to be unkind, for some of the men were splendid, but in many cases you had the dregs of the profession who could not get on the staff of the ordinary schools because they were either too old or unqualified, and they were thrown into these training centres just

  343
  to carry on. That could not be a success. You want really the pick of the profession, men who have the social sense, men who desire to sacrifice themselves to this great social work of helping these young people. In other words you want to provide a permanent staff and organisation, men who make it their business and train themselves to handle these young persons.
  Even more important than that, you want proper equipment. You do not want these boys coming back to the school in the ordinary sense to learn ordinary arithmetic, something they had broken away from when they entered industry. You want these institutions to be living institutions, with proper craft rooms, proper art rooms, and all the necessary appliances for physical culture, a proper gymnasium, and in the case of girls opportunities of attending at a cookery centre where they can learn to keep their self-respect while out of the labour market. I am grateful, I shall not say for small mercies, because I believe that this is the beginning of better things. I believe that out of this small beginning will come great good, and I congratulate the Minister of Labour on her willingness to listen and learn and help when members try to assist her—willingness which she has put in the tangible form of this excellent Clause.
  Earl WINTERTON: No one wishes to deprive hon. Members of the Liberal party of the small triumph that they have had in securing the adoption of a principle which was ably and cogently put forward from the Liberal benches in earlier Debates upon the Bill. Every one who knows the record of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) on this subject of education, knows that he has given very close attention to it and is an authority on it. But I must say that I agree with my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) in thinking that those who occupy the Liberal benches are rather optimistic in their belief that the Clause will do everything that they claim.
  There are one or two questions that I wish to ask. I know that it is of no use protesting against the absence of the President of the Board of Education, but I think it is a great pity that on a
  344
  question on which there is very little party feeling, and on which Members on all sides are anxious to find a common focal point for their views, the Minister who is as much concerned as the Minister of Labour has not once taken part in the discussion. He was present when the original Clause was brought forward. I do not know whether he thought that this side of the Committee was trying, to use a slang phrase, to "rag" him when he was asked to speak. I can assure him that it was an entirely genuine and sincere appeal. To-day, he has not even come down to the House and has sent his Parliamentary Secretary, who has not as yet taken part in the Debate. I do not protest because it is no use protesting, but I do make an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to reply to certain questions which, as must be apparent, cannot be dealt with solely by the Minister of Labour. The very words of the Clause show that. The case for the intervention of the President of the Board of Education is much stronger in this new Clause than it was on the original discussion. The first words of the new Clause say:
  "The Minister, after consultation with the Board of Education, shall, subject to regulations made with the approval of the Treasury, make arrangements with local education authorities for the provision, so far as is practicable, of approved courses of instruction for insured contributors under the age of eighteen years who claim benefit."
  The Minister can only do so after consultation with the Board of Education. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green has said that the Clause is mandatory. On a strict interpretation, I do not think it can be called mandatory, because it contains the restraining words, "so far as is practicable."
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Can anybody do more than that which is practicable?
  Earl WINTERTON: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in this House to know that there constantly occur in Acts of Parliament the words "The Minister shall," without any qualifying condition.
  Mr. JONES: If the Noble Lord will read the Clause without the words "so far as is practicable," he will see that the meaning is nothing.
  Earl WINTERTON: Our whole contention is that the Clause is a weak Clause so far as instruction is concerned.
  Mr. COVE: Will you tell us precisely how you would strengthen it?
  Earl WINTERTON: That is the question with which I was about to deal. This phrase, "so far as is practicable," may be necessary, but it is essential that in a matter of this kind we should have from the President of the Board of Education his definition of what he means by "so far as is practicable," or tell us what is in his mind. It is essentially a matter for his Department. It may be that these words have had to be put in, but from the point of view of Parliamentary purity it is no good to say that this is a mandatory Clause, It is not a mandatory Clause. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister has not chosen the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) to be his Minister at the Board of Education, and, as the hon. Member is not the Minister, we cannot have from him an authoritative statement on the interpretation of what is admittedly a very important Sub-section of this Clause. I have the greatest admiration for the hon. Member's Parliamentary character, but he is not the Minister.
  Mr. COVE: I have asked you to say what you would put in its place.
  Earl WINTERTON: I hope that we shall have from the Parliamentary Secretary the interpretation that he puts on the words "so far as is practicable." Another point has already been referred to. That is the question of the distance of a boy's or girl's home from the centres that he or she can reasonably be required to attend. I presume that those words "can reasonably be required to attend" have reference to the distance of the insured person from the course of instruction. We ought to have some statement on that point. This new Clause has been brought forward as a result of pressure from all parts of the House, and especially from the Liberal benches, but really it is no use for the Minister to dispose of the matter without explanation by saying it is a happy solution of a difficult question. It may or may not be a happy solution, hut we have had neither from her nor from the President of the Board of Education any adequate explanation of all the conditions governing the Sub-section. I would again
  346
  appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to give us that explanation which we have been seeking on so many occasions when the matter has been under review.
  Miss BONDFIELD: In the original discussions on the general principle of the Clause, it was pointed out that the insertion in the Bill of this provision for the development of juvenile centres arises out of the reports of the juvenile advisory councils. This action which I have taken, and which the noble Lady deprecated so strongly as being utterly inadequate, at least is action definitely taken as soon as that report was in my possession. I gave instructions immediately that the recommendations of the advisory council are to become operative, and a circular went out. It is true that those recommendations do not go the whole way, but they go very much further than anything else that has happened, and to that extent it is a very great advance upon the position prior to October. This advisory council's recommendation is based upon the threefold action of the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Education, and the local education authorities. The primary step had to be taken by us. We are most anxious, and it is clear that the whole Committee agrees, that we should maintain that threefold responsibility. The financial basis—it is a definite part of the plan with regard to setting up centres—is that the local education authority should pay 25 per cent. of the cost, not so much on account of the money as that they should be definitely identified with the education given and feel that it is part of their work, and that it should not be merely Ministry of Labour work or Employment Exchange work but juvenile centre work, and, therefore, we place the greatest importance upon the co-operation of the local education authorities.
  I can assure the Committee, and my hon. Friend will reiterate the statement if it id required, that the President of the Board of Education is cordially and enthusiastically in favour of doing everything possible to carry out the scheme. The position hitherto has been that these unfortunate centres have had to live from hand to mouth. I have taken the step of giving them permanence for three years, and we will see how we get along with a greater degree of per-

  347
  manence. These centres are only the first step. It is quite obvious that there will be children so few in number that no one could justify setting up a centre with a fully-equipped staff for two or three, or 10 children. The expense would be out of all proportion to the results. In addition, therefore, to setting up centres on this basis, which is described in the report, we propose to take every channel available. If we can get a single child linked up with a class, we shall do it. If we can get three or four children into an institute, we shall do it. We shall use every opportunity and every vacant place which would enable us to bring children into touch with the education authorities. The details of all these things will necessarily have to be worked out in each locality. The Noble Lord asked whether distance was to be a factor. Decidedly, it will be a factor in connection with the matter of whether it is reasonable to ask a child to attend a centre.
  Earl WINTERTON: Could the right hon. Lady give any indication of what sort of distance?
  Miss BONDFIELD: No, that would be a question to be settled locally. We welcome the feeling that has grown in the House. The Ministry of Labour will go forward knowing that there is a united House behind it in the desire to develop it. I shall use the powers conferred upon me to the fullest possible extent, and I can confidently count upon the cordial co-operation of the Board of Education in that effort. I have been asked where the Treasury comes in. It comes in in this way. It has consented to put up 75 per cent. on the understanding that, in regard to insured persons, the Unemployment Insurance Fund puts up half of that 75 per cent., so that the Treasury has a very direct interest in the whole business.
  Viscountess ASTOR: The Treasury has always put up 75 per cent. Under the new circular it is going to put up much more to give uninsured children juvenile unemployment pay.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady has already spoken.
  Major SALMON: I rise because of the observations that fell from the hon. Mem-
  348
  ber for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who complained of the system of education under the guidance of the late Minister of Labour. The London County Council was really the responsible body for seeing that these classes were held and properly staffed, and it comes with a very ill grace from the hon. Member to criticise my right hon. Friend when he himself was a member of that education authority.
  Mr. HARRIS: I was one of a minority of five out of 130 and I was powerless.
  Major SALMON: It is also within the recollection of the Committee that they had never seen or heard of him having complained to the London County Council that the method of education, or the provision of staff, was not carried out in the way he thought they should be. Therefore, I think it is very bad form on his part to try to take party advantage when, as a matter of fact, the late Minister of Labour was not responsible for the way in which educational matters were carried out. But I think the Minister of Labour is doing the right thing at last by setting up these classes. They are very essential. I am glad to observe that the Ministry is going to find 25 per cent. of the cost. No doubt on the last occasion the contribution of the Treasury was somewhat small, but on this occasion they are going to increase it. The reason they can afford to increase it is that they are receiving money from a very large body of children who will never get any benefit from it, and they can obviously afford to find the money on this occasion, whereas previously children of 15 did not come under the insurance scheme. I also suggest that, when these classes are set up, it will be very desirable if the Minister would, in conjunction with the juvenile committees, have courses of a character that would be of real use to those who are out of employment. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green mentioned domestic training for girls. That would he an excellent idea. It is a thing that ought to lie much more encouraged than it is at present. Generally I am hopeful that these classes will prove successful. It is gratifying to find that the Minister has altered her mind. She first said this could not be done because there were administrative difficulties. It is an ex-

  349
  traordinary thing that those administrative difficulties have disappeared since the feeling of the Committee was so strong that the classes should be held. But we must not look a gift horse in the mouth. It is certainly better to have these classes late than never and I hope they will prove a success.
  Mr. MANDER: I wish to express gratitude for the action of the Government in accepting the Amendment. At the same time I should like to make one or two comments on it, because I am by no means satisfied that it is all we might have obtained. It is a very great advance and it entirely depends on the way it is handled whether we get all we might out of it. I should feel much happier if these words "in so far as is practicable" were not present, because that means a very wide margin for the Ministry and various officials to say such and such a thing is not practicable. I am sure, if some of the existing regulations of the Ministry of Labour are maintained unaltered and are not made more flexible, there will be a great deal not done that ought to be done. This is not a new problem. After the War, when the troops were being demobilised, we were faced with exactly the same problem of giving instruction and training to those who had had their careers interrupted, but the difficulties were overcome and it was found possible by one means or another to give the training. Where it was not possible to set up centres in towns it was got over either by paying the fares of men to come to the centres or, where that could not be done, in certain cases arrangements were made for instruction to be given in the villages by the local wheelwright, carpenter, shoemaker, or farmer. It ought not to be impossible to face this problem in the same spirit and to overcome the difficulties on the same lines. Although the words are riot absolutely mandatory I hope the Government will feel that the issue is so imporant that they will go as far as they went when the troops were being demobilised.
  8.0 p.m.
  To show the difficulties that are sometimes raised, I should like to give an account of what happened in the case of the very progressive town which I represent—Wolverhampton—and how they
  350
  faced this matter. They had the credit of being the first town in the after-War days to bring forward a juvenile training scheme. That was in 1921, and they were met with the strongest opposition and obstruction from the Ministry of Labour at that time, but they persisted, and although they were told that they would have to pay the whole of the expenses out of the rates, they consented for 12 months, to their eternal credit, to pay 100 per cent. out of the rates, so keen were they on the scheme. When, in 1923, the national scheme came out, it was founded very much on the lines on which it was started in Wolverhampton and on which it has continued ever since. I think the name of Miss Fitchett who has been at the head of this scheme is very well known at the Ministry of Labour, and that the Ministry are fully aware of the excellent pioneer work that has been done by Wolverhampton in this matter.
  While the Ministry, with their Regulations, have been very helpful in connection with this centre, I say, quite seriously, that the Regulations want altering, because they are not sufficiently flexible. I know of cases where in one week there have been perhaps 700 attending and in the next week 1,500, and then the number has gone down again, and that has meant that the staff has had to come and go weekly, just as the numbers have seemed to ebb and flow; and I urge that the teaching staff should be put upon a more permanent basis. You cannot deal with it on a day-to-day or a week-to-week programme. You want to set it up so that you will know that for a definite period ahead you will have a staff capable of dealing, with the problem, and I hope the Under-Secretary will consider most carefully whether it is not possible to make the rules very much more flexible than they have been up to the present time.
  With regard to the human value of these centres, I would say that in our case many of those youths, who came reluctantly, with no good will towards the scheme, boys who came to scoff, remained to pray. It appealed to them; they realised the advantage which they got, and it had a very valuable effect on their self-respect, so much so indeed that these youths, after the compulsory part of the training was over, kept in association voluntarily, formed a little society of those who had

  351
  been through the centre, and indulged in all sorts of cultural activities which would never have taken place at all if it had not been for the control that was kept over them at that very important period by the juvenile training centre that was set up in Wolverhampton. I want to urge the Government most strongly to go as far as they can, to take trouble, to take heroic measures, because they are worth taking in this matter for the sake of the children, to face the administrative difficulties that undoubtedly exist, and to overcome them.
  Mr. COVE: I am very glad that the Minister of Labour has not embodied in this new Clause the original suggestion of the Liberal party. It is not the Minister who has been converted; it is the Liberal party that has been converted to the practical necessities of the situation. It has been said that it is only the Liberal party which has any educational concern for the children, but I want to apply a corrective. The original suggestion of the Liberal party was that every child everywhere should be compelled to go to a juvenile unemployment centre— [Interruption.] If the Noble Lady will listen a moment—
  Viscountess ASTOR: I really protest.
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Viscountess ASTOR: On a point of Order. Every time I look over to the other side, hon. Members say that I should stop interrupting. There is no sense in it.
  Mr. COVE: I want to say, briefly, that the original suggestion had the backing of neither the second report of the Advisory Committee nor of the first report of that Committee. As a matter of fact, the Committee, after prolonged consideration, said it was not advisable to put compulsory powers upon local education authorities to provide juvenile unemployment centres up and down the country. Not only is this a wise thing from the point of view of the child, but I say that the child who has paid for his insurance should have the benefit. There has been a very greatly exaggerated idea as to the educational effect of juvenile unemployment centres. I want to give them full credit for what they have done. I have been round to
  352
  a number of them, and undoubtedly they have done good in some cases, but the suggestion is that they are training centres, and one would imagine that they could be made training centres for vocations, that they could be set up everywhere as permanent institutions. We have had it suggested from the other side that there should be a permanent staff, with permanent equipment. Just imagine putting up juvenile unemployment centres permanently everywhere, when, as a matter of fact, in those already established in the worst areas the average attendance is only a matter of three weeks! The child is in and out. The Malcolm Committee considered it and said quite distinctly that you could only frame the curriculum in these unemployment centres, not for a week, not for a month, but from day to day. Why? Because the child is in and out, because the child is looking for a job; and I am not going to stop the child looking for a job.
  While I realise the benefits of the juvenile unemployment centres, I want to say quite distinctly that they are not the permanent next step in education. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has missed one very important point, and that is that you are putting these centres under the aegis of the Ministry of Labour. I want all educational endeavour to be definitely under the Ministry of Education, and the next permanent step forward is not a juvenile unemployment centre at all. If we are to have a permanent scheme, we shall have not merely to raise the school-leaving age. It has been amusing to hear of the great interest in education of the Conservative party, when they are opposed all the time to the raising of the school age. We invite the spirit which has been displayed to-night in the next step forward, and I regard that as the permanent institution of the Fisher continuation schools. There you will get your permanent structure, there you will get your equipment. I am glad the Minister of Labour has not accepted the original compulsory Clause, and that we have got an instruction to the Ministry to set up these centres "so far as is practicable," realising at the same time that our next great step forward is along the line of compulsory continuation schools.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. Member think that this Bill makes that more easy?
  Mr. COVE: Yes, certainly.
  Sir BASIL PETO: The Minister of Labour told us that 25 per cent. of the cost of these juvenile unemployment centres would be borne by the local education authorities and that 75 per cent. would be advanced in the first instance by the Treasury, which would recover 37½ per cent., as I understand it, from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has pointed out that she is proud of Plymouth because it has five of these unemployment centres, and she says they are flourishing. Plymouth is a part of the same county of which I represent the north-west corner, and I can understand that you might well get, in a great centre like Plymouth, with a population of a quarter of a million or more, a sufficient number of children who were out of work to justify those five unemployment centres, and therefore Plymouth would benefit; but in the whole of the rest of the area of Devonshire there is probably not a single place, with the possible exception of Exeter, where there might be one, where a juvenile unemployment centre on these lines would be a practical proposition, because the children could not possibly attend it, even if they were there, and they would probably be so scattered and so few in number that I am indeed thankful for the insertion in the Clause of the words which have been criticised by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), namely, "so far as is practicable." The scheme would be impracticable in Devonshire for the whole of the county excepting Plymouth, and I want to know why the county rate should he charged with the cost of an educational effort which can only benefit Plymouth.
  With regard to the 75 per cent., the same objection is applicable, though in a less degree, because whether the money comes out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund or out of the Exchequer, there is only a very small fraction of the people in the county who can possibly benefit, and the taxpayers and the contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in all the rest of the county cannot possibly get any advantage at all. Therefore, I
  354
  think the finance of the scheme is very unfair and does not place the burden in the slightest degree on those localities that will benefit. It is only in the great centres of population that this scheme can possibly be carried out at all, and I say that those portions of the population which can benefit by it ought to bear the cost of it. I can understand, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said, that Wolverhampton was a progressive place and that the ratepayers were prepared to pay 100 per cent. of the cost of the first unemployment centre set up, but if Wolverhampton was able to get children to go there, Wolverhampton ought to pay for it. I do not think it ought to be divided over the whole of the rest of a large agricultural county.
  I would ask the Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Education whether this question of the finance of these centres, as the only localities in which they can ex hypothesi exist are the great towns and cities, has been considered at all. When this Clause comes to be put into the Bill, I think the hon. Gentleman will hear something from the local education authorities in counties such as that a part of which I represent, which will point out to him that it is a very unfair proposition indeed, in a county where there is only one city large enough to benefit by the scheme, to charge the cost of it over the whole county through the county rate.
  Commander WILLIAMS: Many of us thought, when the Minister of Labour rose to move this Clause, that we should have some explanation from the Minister of Education. I was inclined to look with favour on the Clause until the speech that was made from below the Gangway by one of the great authorities in this House on education, but I must say quite frankly that by the time he had finished his speech I doubted whether this Clause would really carry out what we wished to do, namely, to make as many of these centres as possible. Many of us have appealed for a considerable time to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to give us a definite answer on one or two points. We want to know what organisation he has, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, to put this Clause into effect. We have had some figures, not necessarily authoritative, as to the number of centres

  355
  that there are already. May I ask the hon. Gentleman what preparation he is making to build up new centres? That is a perfectly fair question, which I have no doubt that he can answer—that is, always presuming that he intends to answer, and to take charge of this part of the Bill on behalf of the Government. Under this Clause, there is to be not only the consultation of the two authorities that have been mentioned, but also the approval of the Treasury.
  We have heard from the Government Front Bench that 50 per cent. will come from the fund, and 25 per cent. from the Treasury, so that there will be a contribution of 75 per cent. in all towards these schools. What, approximately, does the fund expect to make out of these particular juveniles? The Minister of Labour said yesterday that they would not be one of the very expensive sections of the insured people. What amount is likely to be made out of the juveniles, and will that amount be balanced, roughly, by their contributions to this fund? If we could have answers to these questions, which we have been seeking for well over an hour, we could go on, provided that they are satisfactory, to deal with the matters following. The other day the Chairman ruled that insolence of speech on that occasion was perfectly legitimate; some people can be very polite in speech and others less polite, hut, if there is a form of insolence in the House of Commons which is much worse, it is that of a Minister who comes here and, after having had repeated requests to give a reply, remains silent. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education will be the last to refuse a request which has been expressed by many hon. Members, and that he will not for a moment like to refuse the appeal which has been made to him.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to first statutory condition for receipt of benefit.)
  Where during any periods falling within the period of two years mentioned in the first statutory condition for the receipt of benefit an insured contributor has been offered, and has accepted, employment which is not insurable and subsequently becomes
  356
  unemployed, the said condition shall have effect as if for the said period of two years there were substituted a period of two years increased by the said periods of non-insurable employment, but so as not to exceed in any case four years.—[Dr. Marion Phillips.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This is a very small and non-controversial Clause, which endeavours to put right an injustice under which a small number of workers are suffering. The object is that, when an insured person who is unemployed takes suitable employment in a non-insurable trade, the period up to two years during which he is employed in that trade may count as illness would count. Then, if he becomes unemployed up to a period of four years from his last employment, he will start again in insurance at the point where he left off. The injustice is very great on the small number of workers who are affected. I would mention especially two classes—industrial workers who go into agricultural employment, and industrial workers who go into domestic service. They go into a non-insurable trade in order that they shall work rather than live on the benefit, but, if they become unemployed again, they lose everything which they have paid into the fund; and, though they may have been on benefit at the time of taking the non-insurable work, they will not be able to return to it. We propose that they should be able to do that up to a maximum period of two years. It is a very small Amendment, which I hope that the Minister will be able to accept.
  Miss WILKINSON: I want to urge the Minister to take this question into consideration. The words, as they appear on the Paper, may not exactly fit the position, but I am sure that words may be found on the Report stage, which will do what we desire. May I point out, as I did on each occasion when an Unemployment Bill was before the last Parliament, that the present provision definitely discourages people from trying to help themselves and to get off the Unemployment Fund. If you have a man, say, in an area like Middlesbrough, a devastated area with terrible unemployment, who gets a bucket and leather and sets up

  357
  as a window cleaner, and then after-wards tries to get on to the Unemployment Fund, he is told that he has gone out of insurable employment. The same thing applies to all such attempts to get off the fund. Unless there is something like this proposed Clause inserted in the Bill, people will be penalised for trying to get off the "dole," because, if their little venture is not successful, they are told, however many years they have paid into the fund, that they are not in an insurable occupation and therefore cannot get benefit. The same thing applies to domestic service. I am not one of those who desire to see our industrial women workers, with their skill, put as unskilled workers into domestic service. Those who are willing to find work, however, and pick on this type of work for a short time while a mill is stopped, and later try to get on to the fund, are told that they are in a non-insurable employment. I do not believe that a large number of people will he concerned, or that it will mean a large charge on the Treasury—or any charge at all—I hope the Minister will be able to accept the Clause.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): The new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) needs no explanation from me after her speech and that of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson). I am sure there is scarcely a Member of the House who at one time or another has not come into contact with this very serious difficulty, which, although it does not affect a very large number of people, is yet an acute difficulty. In some parts of Scotland we frequently have difficulties arising over men moving from the mines to agriculture, particularly in the areas where mines have been closed; and in other parts of the country, particularly in the Midlands, we get eases where a mill may be stopped and domestic service is offered to sonic of the workpeople.
  I think every one who has held the post in the Ministry of Labour which I have the honour to occupy will agree that there is undoubted evidence of a reluctance on the part of people to take work in various non-insurable industries, not because they are reluctant to do the work but because of the fear of losing their
  358
  insurance rights. The solution of this difficulty has received careful consideration on previous occasions, but it has not yet been properly settled. There are certain difficulties in regard to the drafting of this particular Clause. I think it is modelled on a Clause in an earlier Act dealing with periods of sickness, but all the same there are certain administrative factors to be taken into consideration. I am instructed by the Minister to say that the Government will undertake to attempt to redraft this Clause in order to give expression to the principle contained in it, and will bring up the new Clause on Report stage. The hon. Member for Sunderland will then have the satisfaction of having ended a very difficult position which has continued for a long time.
  Dr. PHILLIPS: On the undertaking that we have been given, we are perfectly willing to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Dependants' benefit.)
  Where an insured contributor having dependants in respect of whom benefit is payable is able to obtain suitable work only at a distance of more than twenty miles from his home and shows to the satisfaction of the Minister in such manner as the latter may by regulations prescribe either that the work is or is likely to be temporary, or that suitable accommodation, regard being had to the means of the contributor, is not available at his place of employment, benefit shall be payable in respect of his dependants as though he were unemployed; provided that such benefit shall not be payable for more than twenty six weeks in any year and provided that this section shall mot apply to an insured contributor who is earning an average weekly wage of more than fifty shillings."—[Sir R. Aske.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir ROBERT ASKE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The object of this Clause is to deal with cases of unemployed men with dependants who are unable to get work in their own districts and have to go a considerable distance in order to obtain work. May I give a typical case. Suppose there is on the East coast a man who is unable to get any work in the vicinity of his home but learns that work is available on the West coast. He goes to the West coast and obtains a job. Up to the time when he left home he was in receipt of

  359
  32s. a week unemployment benefit; that is, on the assumption that he had a wife and small family. As a shipyard labourer his wages will be about 39s. a week nett. Out of that he will now have to pay about 25s. a week for board and lodging, and is left with only 14s. to send home to his wife, with which sum she has to attempt to pay the rent and to feed and clothe the family. Although when in receipt of unemployment benefit the man was able to keep clear of parish relief the result of his going elsewhere for work is that his wife and family have to go on the parish in order to supplement what he has been able to send them out of his wages. One appreciates that this is a difficult question, and I have no doubt that the Minister will say there are various objections to the proposal as it is framed in this Motion.
  The Clause proposes, that where a man cannot get work in his own district and goes to another district to undertake work which is temporary in character—or even of a more permanent character, if it is in a place where he cannot get a house to which to take his wife and family—then under those circumstances and for a limited period he may be able to draw benefit for his dependants in the same way as he would have done if he had remained unemployed. Cases of this kind give rise to a considerable sense of grievance, and they are becoming more and more common as rationalisation or centralisation of work goes on. In the amalgamation of shipyards or factories there is a temptation to close some of them and concentrate work in other places. The result of that is, very often, a temporary demand for considerably more labour than is available in a particular district, and men have to be brought from other districts—in the ordinary course merely temporarily, sometimes for one month or three months and in some cases up to six months. In such cases it is very hard that men who are anxious to work should find their wives and families have temporarily to go on the parish. The situation is likely to become more exaggerated still in certain eventualities which may arise out of the famous Clause 4.
  It is possible that more and more frequently men will be required to go to work in various parts of the country away from their homes. Therefore, we ask the
  360
  Minister to try to deal with this matter, even though it may not be in the particular way suggested in this new Clause. It proposes that dependants' allowances should continue to be payable for a period of not more than 26 weeks, with a limit on the wage of the workman. If it is not possible for the Government to accede to that proposal, perhaps they will accept the principle of the Clause, because it is most desirable that these married men should have the opportunity of taking work, even though it is away from their homes, without being penalised by finding their families driven on to the parish.
  Mr. FOOT: If some proposal of this kind can be adopted it will solve some of the problems with which the Minister of Labour has been confronted. I approached the Minister of Labour some time ago with reference to the question of transferred labour, and one of the difficulties which I experienced was that of inducing men to go from one district to another where the wages are so small. I have already quoted the unfortunate illustration from my own part of the country where the wages are 32s. 8d. net. The full wages are 34s. per week, but certain deductions have to be made for insurance and other payments, and the net wage is 32s. 8d. per week for work on the roads. I understand that there is sometimes a further reduction from the 32s. 8d. on account of wet weather, and we have recently had a disproportionate amount of wet weather. It is estimated that three-quarters of a day's wages per week are lost in this way.
  I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has recently been confronted with the difficulty that it is impossible to get men to go from a town like Plymouth into some of the country districts in the County of Cornwall, where the wages are so small. When a man goes to work in another part of the country he has to pay, first of all, for his lodgings, and it is extremely difficult for that man to get lodgings at less than 25s. per week. That man who leaves his home to find work as a transferred workman receives 32s. 8d. per week, and he frequently is obliged to pay between 20s. and 25s. per week for his board and lodgings. The result is that he has left a derisory amount. I am not defending the payment of such wages which has rightly been called a scandal, but that

  361
  is the difficulty. Whenever I have had an opportunity of interviewing the Department of the Ministry of Labour I have often been confronted with that difficulty.
  I know that in some parts of Cornwall an effort has been made to raise wages, and it has been successful in some cases, but even when the wage has been raised to 40s. per week the same difficulty remains. My point is that if a man does comply with a request of the Department by going into a country district in Devon, some provision should be made for his wife in order that she shall not be left to exist on the very narrow margin which is sent to her by her husband which is often barely sufficient to keep body and soul together. That is why we are putting forward this proposal, and if the words of the new Clause cannot be accepted, I hope the principle will be acted upon. I know it may involve some increased burden, but I think it is a burden which we ought to carry. Perhaps some guidance can be given upon this matter, but if it does involve an increased burden then we revert to the position that those who are in need should have the first claim upon the Government.
  Mr. LAWSON: I am sure that the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle, East (Sir R. Aske) is one worthy of sympathetic consideration, but the Government cannot accept the principle which the hon. Member has laid down. This new Clause lays down the principle that an employed man shall receive full unemployment benefit, and that is a proposal which the Government cannot accept. I regret that, because we know that this is a matter of very real grievance, and one which gives considerable concern to men in the distressed areas. It is quite true that men from these areas are sent from one part of the country to another and for long weeks they have to remain there living under difficult conditions while their families are in a different part of the country. It is quite true that certain additions in the shape of lodging allowances are given.
  Mr. FOOT: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any precise particulars in regard to the lodgings allowance?
  Mr. LAWSON: I am afraid I cannot do that. The principal difficulty in this matter is the housing difficulty. It is a well-known fact that employers find great difficulty in getting men with families to transfer, and the chief difficulty is that there are no houses for them to live in. The whole of the industries of the country are changing in such a way that balances of men and women will have to be removed from one part of the country to another. The problem will have to be dealt with on altogether different lines from that which is proposed, and therefore the Government regret that they cannot accept this new Clause.
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I think the Parliamentary Secretary has hardly done justice to this new Clause. After all, we are aware that the housing difficulty is one of the things which has aggravated this problem. These men are unable to find suitable accommodation in the districts to which they are transferred. We are fully aware that one of the difficulties is that a man who has been transferred has to maintain two houses, but I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary was accurate when he said that what we were proposing to do by this new Clause was to give unemployment benefit to an employed man. What is proposed in this new Clause is not to give unemployment benefit to the man, but to those who are called upon to live under very trying circumstances when the man has been transferred to another district.
  May I point out that my hon. Friend who has moved this new Clause is not wedded to dealing with this problem in the particular way suggested by the words? If it be inconvenient or difficult to meet the case in the precise way here indicated, I feel sure that an indication that this problem is going to be faced in some way would go a long way to make us realise that we need not press the Amendment in this particular form. We have had from the Parliamentary Secretary a reference to lodging allowance, but we do not quite know how that operates, and I think we ought to have some kind of assurance that more consideration is going to be given to this matter, and that more is going to be done in regard to it, than has been the case already. The present circumstances are interfering wits the most important

  363
  principle in dealing with the unemployment problem, namely, the fluidity of labour. Ever since the Industrial Transference Board issued its Report, it has been the aim of the last Government, and I think of the present one, to see that the present distressed areas are not simply made a pool of unemployment which remains stagnant. I think that everyone desires that to be ensured, but no one desires it to be ensured in a way that will be oppressive, not so much to the unemployed man who moves, as to his wife and family whom he is compelled to leave at home. I hope, therefore, that the matter will receive rather more definite and detailed consideration than I have gathered from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I should like to say a word on this Amendment, in support of what I think is the appeal of the Mover, not so much that the Amendment itself should be accepted, as that some indication should be given to the Committee of how the Government propose to tackle this problem. If I may say so, the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary would have been perfectly sound in any Debate on any previous Unemployment Insurance Bill. It is true that it is almost impossible, when you have an Unemployment Insurance Fund, to throw upon it, the burden of paying benefit to a man, or to the dependants of a man, who is not unemployed; but this Bill, as has often been pointed out, has gone far beyond an Insurance Bill. The State itself is putting money directly into the Fund for certain particular objects, and, while the Amendment would throw the cost of this proposal on to the Fund and not on to the Exchequer, it is a serious question, when once the resources of the Exchequer have been put at the disposal of the Fund for certain objects, whether this is not the most important object to which those contributions could be devoted. Everyone who has had any experience of trying to transfer labour knows that this is the most serious obstacle to exactly the transfer that is most required.
  The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned houses, and on that point one reply has been given by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith). I should like to give another reply from
  364
  my own personal experience. A friend of mine offered to take two married miners from South Wales and settle them at his place in the country, providing them and their families with cottages—building cottages for them if, when they once came, they decided to settle down. Those men, at the best, would have had to spend six months while the cottages were being built, and the result was that, although my friend wanted married men preferably, no married miners would accept the offer on those terms. The wages were considerably better than the wages mentioned by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), but still they were not sufficient to maintain any married man's family during the six months for which he would be absent. This is the most important problem that arises in connection with transference. It is an answer to it to say that expenditure of this kind cannot be thrown upon the Insurance Fund, which is kept up by contributions on an insurance basis. It would be an answer to say, "We cannot afford any more money." But when, as in this scheme, a large volume of Exchequer money is being provided outside the insurance scheme altogether, then, surely, if this particular expenditure is not to fall upon that Exchequer contribution, if that is not one of the objects to which this special Exchequer contribution is to be devoted, I think we might ask the Government to give some indication of how they propose to deal with this problem in other ways, and a rather more extensive indication than was given by the Parliamentary Secretary a few moments ago.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I have every sympathy with the object of this proposed new Clause, but I regret that it has had to be brought in at the end of the Bill, and in a way which I believe cannot be made to apply through the operation of the Bill. I see the difficulty of the Minister and of the Government. It has been urged that you cannot pay an employed man out of an unemployment fund. The Parliamentary Secretary hare said that there is a lodging allowance. That appears really to be going outside the objects of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and it would appear that, if a lodging allowance can be made, a dependant's family allowance might be made. The prime difficulty, however, is

  365
  that under this scheme no man ought to be transferred into a wage that does not permit him to keep his family. That is the difficulty that has to be met. I represent one section of a very large area in South Wales which has been very much hit by the transference scheme, and. I have had to go to the Ministry many times. I am bound to say that I have always received as sympathetic consideration as it is possible for the Minister to give under the law, but the difficulties that have arisen have shown that there is a tremendous hiatus in our methods of dealing with the problem of the transference of unemployed labour.
  The difficulty arises that, when a man is transferred from one occupation to another, he is invariably compelled to take up one of the lowest paid jobs, usually a labourer's job, where the wage may vary from 10d. to 1s. 2d. per hour; ant, no matter what he gets in his new job, if he is living away from home and has to maintain the wife and family whom he has left behind, he is left in a very difficult situation. I would suggest that the Government, before they complete the Bill, should meet this difficulty. It is not merely a passing phase; it is not something that will pass away in a few months.
  The hon. Member who moved the Clause mentioned the question of rationalisation. We are now getting into a position in which industry is avoiding those violent rises and falls which used to take place a few years ago. We have overcome the violent over-production of commodities, with consequent slumps, and we have passed from the era when, while the percentage of unemployed was at one period 3 or 4 per cent. or less, at another period it was 6 or 7 per cent. Industry has overcome that difficulty, and we have now got more correlation between production and available consuming power. But, while industry and the controllers of industry avoid these sudden rises and falls over periods of six, seven, eight or nine years, we have in place of that a permanent reservoir of surplus labour, which is likely to be kept filled for a very considerable period by the process that is now called rationalisation. It seems to me that before long we shall begin to
  366
  call it irrationalisation unless some means—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going a long way from the proposed new Clause.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I am coming back to the question of surplus labour, transfer, and the maintenance of the man who is transferred. At any rate, that is the point which I wish to make. This is a very serious problem and is not a matter which can be dealt with in any party manner. It is a human problem which concerns a very large number of our fellow countrymen and I am sure that sooner or later it will have to be dealt with along the lines laid down in "Labour and the Nation"—the Labour patty's programme—by the establishment of a living wage.
  Mr. FOOT: Why not the Yellow Book?
  The CHAIRMAN: This is a question of dependants allowances and not of what might be done under any other Measure which might be produced at any other time.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I leave the matter where it is. I have said what I wanted to say, and I conclude with the hope that before very long the House of Commons will see its way to make adequate provision for dealing with conditions such as I have indicated.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to make special arrangements for notifying vacancies in certain employments.)
  The Minister may make regulations, respect of such industries as may seem to him desirable, whereunder vacancies in such employments as are prescribed in the regulations made under this Section may be notified in such areas as are prescribed in such regulations in accordance with special arrangements to be concluded between the Minister and the employers and the associations of workpeople concerned; and the regulations made by the Minister may prescribe that claimants to benefit who are insured in respect of the employments covered by such regulations and who, having complied with the prescribed conditions, have failed to secure employment, shall have established a prima facie claim to benefit.—[Mr. Graham White.]
  The CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the hon. Member for East Birkenhead to move his proposed new Clause, may I

  367
  ask him a question? Is not this proposal covered by Section 35 (1, b) of the Act of 1920?
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I may answer your question, Sir, in the negative. I do not think that the aims which we seek to accomplish in this new Clause have figured in any previous Measure.
  Clause brought up, and read the First, time.
  Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  9.0 p.m.
  This is a Clause to which we attach considerable importance. As I have just indicated, it seeks to establish a new principle which we think will enable an attack to be made upon one of the most serious blots on our industrial system. We have this evening added to the Bill what is really the first constructive new proposal which has been made in connection with it. That is the new Clause moved by the Minister of Labour and, in spite of the observations of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), I think we ought to try to introduce here proposals which, if not actually insurance, have a constructive purpose which is cognate with the general subject of insurance. That is the nature of the proposal in the new Clause. During the Second Reading Debate I drew attention to the extraordinarily chaotic conditions under which labour is engaged in this country, and I expressed the opinion in connection with Clause 4, over which we have spent so many dreary hours of Parliamentary time, that the right solution of the difficulty with which we were trying to deal was the minority report of the Morris Committee coupled with a constructive Measure for dealing with the engagement of labour. This new Clause has as its object to make a beginning with new and constructive proposals for the engagement of labour which will he complementary to Clause 4 as it was in the original draft of the Bill and as it probably will be when it comes back to the House of Commons on the Report stage. I think it is relevant and indeed necessary to my present purpose that I should remind the Committee of what I said on the Second Reading. I drew attention to the conditions under which
  368
  large numbers of men congregate outside works without the slightest protection against the weather and without the slightest sanitary conveniences. At the end of their period of waiting they are often dismissed with scant courtesy. It is an experience which no man would undergo unless he were genuinely seeking work. When these congregations of men break up, they not infrequently do so without any signal or sign from those inside the works, and when the crowd has melted away—to use a popular expression—there may be half a dozen who remain at the street corner when the bulk of the men have gone away. These quietly go into the works when the other men have gone, in accordance with an arrangement made on some previous occasion—an arrangement which is very often neither honourable nor worthy and which is often accompanied by some sort of consideration for the job.
  If all the vacancies which become available in industry to-day were notifiable to the Employment Exchanges, we should have had no long discussions in Clause 4. We should have had no "genuinely seeking work" condition. We should have had no problem, and we should have saved an immense amount, not only of Parliamentary time, but of distress and hardship of the kind which we have been discussing during the past few days. The right hon. Lady has indicated that it is impossible to make all the jobs notifiable to the Employment Exchanges and also that it is undesirable to do so, and I agree. There are, in the first place, physical objections to it. We could not, with the present volume of unemployment, make all vacancies available for the simple reason that large masses of men could not come to the Exchanges. They could not be contained in the Exchanges.
  There are other reasons which are equally weighty. The people of this country do not like compulsion in anything. It is upon the basis and the principle of making the Employment Exchanges responsible for their original purpose of providing work and notifying vacancies that the solution is to be found of all these difficulties with which we have been confronted in the last few days and in the discussions on all previous Bills. It is on these lines, and on these lines only, that these difficulties will be over-

  369
  come. If it is impossible to deal with the matter in this way, it has occurred to us that the best way to solve the difficulty is to put down this enabling Clause which will enable experiments to be made on these lines, and also enable the Minister, for example, to say, when it is agreed between the employers' organisation and the association of employés in a certain district in respect of a certain trade, that all the vacancies in that trade shall be notified to the Employment Exchange, that all these outside stands shall be done away with, and that the men shall attend at the Exchange, if possible, or if not the Exchange, some other place where they may meet in ordinary comfort and be protected from the inclement weather. The conditions under which they have to meet are bad for the men, who often get wet through waiting in the open and whose physical condition deteriorates. It is bad for the men and also bad for the employers. The system by which they congregate on these stands, which, I repeat here, are the modern counterpart of the ancient slave market, is not desired by many employers and is not desired by any considerable number of trade unions. Therefore, if this blot upon the system is one of which, we can get rid, we ought to make up our minds to get rid of it and take the first step necessary towards getting rid of it, for it is a thing which we can cure and cure speedily.
  This is not a question of Socialism either in our time or in anybody else's time. If we take the first step now, we can, in a short space of time, clear away this blot of the stand system from the industrial life of our country. We suggest in this enabling Clause that the Minister should take power in conjunction with the associations of employers and of employed and the local officers of her Ministry, to make such arrangements as will enable the employés to attend at a certain place, to enable all the jobs to be, notified, the employers to send, if they wish, their foreman in order to interview men they wish to employ, and the trade union delegates to attend if they wish. We further suggest that arrangements should be made enabling the attendance at such places of applicants in search of work to be recognised as prima facie evidence that a man is seeking work and is entitled to benefit. Such a thing would naturally follow,
  370
  because it would be the only place in the area where a man in a particular trade could look for work with any chance of getting work.
  I submit, on behalf of the hon. Friends whose names are associated with mine in moving this Clause, that the Clause should receive the favourable consideration of the Committee and also of the Minister. The right approach towards a solution of this matter is in the direction of local experiments in certain areas. I know that in Germany experiments have been tried in respect of certain employments and in certain areas. I am not sure what the results of those experiments have been, but they are, no doubt, available and within the archives of the Ministry presided over by the right hon. Lady.
  There is another point which I should like to mention. In the course of these discussions, there arises from time to time references to the number of persons who, for one reason or another, are unemployable. It is a serious problem, but we do not know the magnitude of it, and we have no certain information about it. There is only one way in which the country can find out the nature and size of the problem which requires to be dealt with in that respect, and that is to carry out in each trade some such arrangement as I am foreshadowing here. The Clause which I am moving is not a mere castle in Spain, but an attempt to extend an experiment which has been made and in regard to which there has been a certain amount of experience gained. We suggest that the process of experiment should be carried further, and that it should have official approval and an official standard of regulations made by the right hon. Lady in consultation with all the local interests concerned in the matter.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I hope very much that we shall have some discussion on this Clause, because I think it deals with a matter of extreme importance, and 1 should like to know the sense of the Committee upon it. I am very anxious to develop the intention of this Clause. I have a little doubt about whether the last part of it is really in order. It seems rather to suggest the introduction of a new title to benefit. I do not think that this matter should be associated with benefit at all. In regard to the question of building up the work-finding

  371
  machinery of the Exchanges in consultation with employers and trade unions, I am absolutely and wholeheartedly in favour of having such experiments made. There is one thing to which, I think, the Mover of the new Clause is clearly alive, and that is, that there is no question of being able to insist upon compulsory notification. It will have to be a voluntary arrangement entered into by the employers. We have an illustration in connection with the Potteries, where 80 per cent. of the employers in the trade have agreed to take all their labour from the Employment Exchanges. That immediately simplifies the whole problem of work-finding. It is an incalculable advantage to the whole machinery of work-finding to have these agreements with employers. I hope very much indeed that it will be possible to carry out the intentions of this Clause, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me to adopt the exact words, because that might be a little difficult. But, subject to that, and to what I hope may be the general expression of opinion in the Committee as to the possibility of proceeding in this direction, I shall be glad to give my approval to the proposal.
  Mr. WHITE: May I say, in reply to the right hon. Lady, that it was not the intention of the Clause to stake out any claim or any form of claim for benefit.
  Lord E. PERCY: The object of the new Clause is, clearly, of enormous importance. My difficulty about it is that it says that the Minister may prepare regulations, but it provides no material for making regulations. She can at the present time make arrangements with employers, as has been done in the pottery industry, by which vacancies can be registered. The new Clause suggests that she should make regulations. About what? Imposing what compulsory power? Imposing what penalty? Offering what advantages? It is suggested that the Minister should make regulations for inducing employers to come to an arrangement, but the only inducement offered is not an inducement to the employer but an inducement to the insured worker, with regard to benefit. What we really want is to offer an inducement to the employer to notify all his vacancies and to make proper arrangements
  372
  for engaging his labour. Until you do that and until you have some sort of penalty on the employer who maintains an absurd margin of casual labour over and above his requirements, you will not attack the real root of this evil. You need to decasualise labour. You need to ensure that, as far as possible, the employer shall not engage his workmen in such a way as to make the workmen largely of the casual labour class. All that is done by this new Clause and its suggested regulations is to say to the employer that, if he will notify all his vacancies, then all the people that he will require will gather in one particular street or one particular building. That does not really help to decasualise labour.
  Mr. WHITE: In reply to the noble Lord, I would point out that there are many subsidiary advantages which would arise to the employer under this arrangement. For instance, he would have the knowledge that he was protecting public funds by increasing to an enormous degree the better administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He would know that the men whom he wished to engage were always to be found in the same place, and that he could send for his own men. The Clause does not interfere in any way with the right of the employer to engage the men whom he wishes to engage. In the practical working of the idea, so far as it has been carried out in practice, there arc many advantages which the employers have found of benefit to themselves.
  Lord E. PERCY: Take the case of the docks. There are arrangements by which the dock employer knows exactly where he can engage his men, but we know that that arrangement alone does not prevent the dock employer from maintaining on his dock register an enormous surplus of casual labour. That does not result in the decasualisation of labour.
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: I am not sure whether the new Clause in its present form is necessary, especially the last few lines, in view of Clause 4. The re-drafting of Clause 4 would in any case necessitate the re-modelling of the last part of the new Clause. Whether the new Clause as a whole is necessary or whether it requires to be re-drafted, I think there is tremendous importance

  373
  attaching to its objective. It is a misfortune that almost ever since Unemployment Insurance was instituted, the Minister of Labour has had to face an abnormal situation, in which the original function of work finding has been almost entirely absorbed by the function of paying out benefit. Anyone who is familiar with the inside of an exchange knows from experience that so great is the pressure upon the machine by the necessity of paying unemployment benefit to many hundreds of people each week that the job-finding function of the exchanges throughout the country has been subordinated to what was originally the least important of the two functions of the Ministry. So far as we can see ahead, there is no prospect of that matter being put right within the Ministry for a very considerable time.
  If in the earlier days a smaller unemployment problem had been dealt with, and the machinery for finding jobs had not been subordinated to the necessity of paying out unemployment benefit, probably the work-finding side of the Ministry would have developed in such a way as to keep pace with the necessities imposed upon it. That has not been the case, and, with an unemployment figure of over 1,000,000, it probably will not be the case for very many years to come. In these circumstances, it seems to me that tremendous importance attaches to devolving the work-finding function of the Ministry. In my own town of Wolverhampton, it is a pathetic sight to see men drawn up day by day, standing in a barn-like building, or down a flight of steps or outside a yard, waiting, in all kinds of weather, because the whole function is concentrated within that particular building. It ought to be possible to devolve that function and to distribute it in various parts of the town. That is one of the objects of the new Clause. Subject to what the Minister may say as to whether the new Clause is necessary, because she already has power to make arrangements, I think the sense of the Committee, including the fourth party, is in favour of encouraging the Ministry to proceed as far as possible along the lines suggested.
  Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: This new Clause seems to raise a rather serious question. I gather that the intention is to provide for regulations whereby a
  374
  voluntary arrangement will be made under which employers' associations may notify vacancies. There seems nothing to prevent penalties being inflicted for failure to notify. While it may well be that circumstances may arise in which it may be right and proper for penalties to be inflicted for non-notification, that would be far too serious a matter to put into the hands of any Minister, without qualification, because, while it may be true that such associations of employers and associations of workpeople may have consented to the arrangement, and would thereby be consenting to their own liability, once the regulations were made, they would have a wider application, and they might affect employers other than those who had assented to the arrangement. There would be power given to the Minister to involve others in liability to penalties of a quasi-criminal character, without this House having the smallest say in the matter. While the principle of the new Clause is extremely good that notification should be encouraged, if we are to take a step which may involve the question of penalties, there ought to be more adequate safeguards than there are in this Clause.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I can realise the force of the criticisms that have been made. We had no intention in regard to penalties when we drafted the Clause. We drew the Clause in its present foam, allied to benefit, because we thought we might not get it in in any other way. In this Clause, we approach the notification problem from the simplest end. The most difficult part of the unemployment problem must always be to supply single jobs, or jobs in small numbers. Here you are dealing with large masses of men going to a particular place, say, in a shipbuilding or engineering town, where no adequate accommodation is provided. Our intention is not to suggest a penalty, but to give the Minister power to facilitate arrangements suggested in the Clause, and to make it possible that a man may sign on there, and thereby make a prima facie case that he is genuinely seeking work, as he is now asked to do. At the moment it is impossible to check large masses of men unless you have a special arrangement and a clerk of the Ministry calling the roll at the end of the job. We are not concerned with the words in the

  375
  Clause, but we do regard the issue raised by it as one of the very biggest which can be raised in connection with this matter.
  Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: We appreciate the sympathetic reception given by the Minister of Labour and Members in all quarters of the House to this proposal. It is recognised that this new Clause touches questions of very great importance and suggests a reform which is eminently desirable in the interests of those who are temporarily without work. Our present arrangements impose very great hardships on numbers of working people and are really uncivilised in some respects and unworthy of a highly-developed industrial community such as ours. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) stated, quite rightly, that when the Employment Exchanges were first established it was intended that their. main purpose should be that of Labour Exchanges. I was a Member of the Government of that day, and certainly our intention was that the chief object of these new institutions should be to save people from the hardships and discomforts which arose from searching and struggling for work in large competitive crowds. Unemployment insurance came into force at the same time, and naturally the two schemes were linked together, and in the course of events which have since occurred the unemployment insurance side of the work of the Labour Exchanges has become much more bulky and far more conspicuous than the other.
  The purpose of this Clause is to suggest to the Ministry of Labour that it should take more active steps if possible to introduce more rational methods of enlistment of labour and to promote its decasualisation. It was not intended that it should have a compulsory effect. It would be useful if in an Act of Parliament there were some kind of declaratory Clause expressing what is the desire of Parliament. Such a Clause would stimulate the Ministry, and make it its clear duty to perform those functions, and arm it with further moral authority in approaching employers. If there is a Clause in an Act of Parliament, when circularising employers that Clause would no doubt have considerable influence upon them and be a reason for the
  376
  Ministry to approach them and be a direction by Parliament to proceed along those lines. In those circumstances, it does seem to us desirable that there should be a Clause of this nature in this Act when it finally leaves this House. As my hon. Friends have said, we are not tied to the precise wording that we have suggested, and we recognise that the latter part of the Clause is open to some objection. In view of the very sympathetic reception that has been given to it by the Minister and by the Committee, I would propose, if this Clause were now withdrawn, that she should offer to prepare a Clause with the assistance of the Department and the draftsmen, which would effect what is obviously the desire of the whole Committee, while freeing the provision from such objection as may reasonably be raised against the present drafting.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I very gladly accept that suggestion and will consider the preparation of a declaratory Clause which will meet the case.
  Mr. G. WHITE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Spennymoor has four new Clauses on the Order Paper, and I propose to take the second one.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Payment of contributions in insurable occupations.)
  Where any person has paid unemployment contributions for a period of five years and then goes into an uninsurable occupation he shall be entitled to pay his own and the employers contributions and be entitled to draw benefit.—[Mr. Batey.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I move this Clause for the purpose of enabling a number of men to remain members of the fund who are prevented from doing so at the present time. In the colliery villages, we have started workmen's clubs whose members are drawn from the mining classes. When they are in the mines, they are able to pay to the Insurance Fund. As soon as a man becomes a steward of a workmen's club, as he is not in any insurable trade, he has to leave the fund. Many of

  377
  these men are desirous of continuing payment to the fund. The object of this new Clause is to meet that position. I think it would be a. very considerable improvement because so long as the men are stewards of clubs they will be paying to the fund hut not able to draw benefit. It would enable them to go back into the mines and still be members of the fund instead of leaving it. That also applies to caretakers of workmen's institutes and schools. Since we have had distress in the mining areas many of our people are glad to get a position of any sort, and they become caretakers of schools or workmen's institutes. I am anxious to enable these people to continue to be members of the fund, because it will not be a disadvantage hut an advantage to the fund.
  I can anticipate the Minister's argument that this new Clause would be opening the door too widely. Perhaps it might. It might open the door to men in any uninsurable trade, but a large number of our people are glad to take temporary work anywhere, and, even if it did open the door a little way, it may be wise, to do so in order that they can take up temporary employment and keep their connection with the Insurance Fund. Then when they leave uninsurable work they can go back in the mines and be members of the fund. My chief object is to meet the position of stewards of clubs and caretakers of workmen's institutes and schools. If the Minister cannot accept the Clause in its fullness, I would like her to say what she can do, so that we can put down words to meet it on Report stage.
  Mr. TINKER: I wish to support this new Clause. I have had a good number of applications from people situated as the hon. Member has stated. They ask that something should be done to give them an opportunity of continuing in the fund. I can confirm that, because in my own constituency there are quite a number of working men's clubs of all kinds, Labour, Conservative and Liberal. The stewards of these clubs are taken from the milling community. These men have to cease paying to the fund. Therefore, if nothing is done, they do not get benefit. They ask for the opportunity of being able to continue if they take on such a position. We recognise that the Minister has accepted an Amendment to
  378
  cover the two years already, and I am wondering whether this Clause will cut across that Amendment. If she can accept this Clause we shall be very glad.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am very sorry that it will not be possible to accept this Amendment. It cuts across the basis of the principal Act. It widens the basis of persons who may be regarded as being in insurable occupations, without taking steps to widen that ambit. I have already made a considerable step in advance in this direction on a previous Amendment and I am very sorry that I cannot accept this proposal.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I should like to put one point to the Minister of Labour. During these times of industrial depression a number of unemployed people have been able to get their friends to advance them a little capital with which to start a small business. After they have been in it for some time they find either that they are getting on very well, or that it is not possible to make it a success, and in the latter case they have to leave the small business and look for work again. They find it difficult to get work, and during the time they cease to conduct this small business and the time they are looking for a job they are under very difficult circumstances. They are ruled out from obtaining benefit. I wonder whether the Minister will look into this matter and consider the possibility of providing for these people who are making this attempt to get out of their terribly depressed conditions. There are quite a number of people in every industrial district who have made this attempt, and I hope she will reconsider the matter in order to encourage them to make an endeavour to help themselves in the assurance that if they fail and have to come back to the ordinary field of unemployment they will have the Unemployment Insurance Fund to fall back upon until they find employment.
  Mr. GOULD: I should like to support what the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has said. There are quite a number of men who have made an effort to find work in an uninsurable trade and, although there is the understanding that employment in an uninsurable trade will not deprive them of their right of appeal, what we find is that if they have spent 10, 12 or 20 weeks in an uninsurable trade

  379
  they have found it difficult to establish their claim again as in an insurable occupation. There is a great fear in the minds of unemployed men that they do prejudice their claim by looking to an uninsurable trade for temporary work, and I hope the right hon. Lady will give this point her very serious consideration in view of the fact that this fear prevents men and women looking for opportunities of employment in uninsurable trades, and secure to them the right to follow it without the risk or danger of prejudicing their rights under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There may be valid reasons for rejecting this new Clause, but they have not been forthcoming from the right hon. Lady. The great object of the nation at the present time is to get employment for the people, and, if these men are inclined to refuse employment because it is an uninsurable occupation, it reacts to the disadvantage of the whole community. Up to 1924, a man who had paid his insurance contributions was entitled to recover them. That is no longer the case, and there is a strong deterrent to women going into domestic service and to men taking employment on the land because they feel they are going to lose the benefit of years of contributions.
  There may be valid reasons against dealing with this matter in this way, but T would point out that under the Health Insurance Act it is possible for a man or woman to become a voluntary contributor. I do not know why that should not be the case under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If it was so, it would encourage a large number of persons to take work which they at present refuse, and, therefore, I submit that the right hon. Lady, or anyone who is assisting her on the Front Bench at the moment—nobody has assisted her very much so far, although I see that the Minister of Labour in the Socialist. Government of 1924 is here; what for I have not the slightest idea, nor has anybody else—before the new Clause, which does benefit the Unemployment Fund and increases the chances of men getting work, is withdrawn, should give us a little more adequate reasons why the Clause is unacceptable.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I really think that this Amendment needs a little more consideration than the right hon. Lady has given to it. May I put one or two cases? There is the case of the agricultural labourer. It is a very difficult job to get casual labour at certain times of the year. When the potato picking season arrives, as well as other classes of vegetable cultivation, and also in the ease of sugar-beet lifting, a, considerable amount of extra labour is required. At the present time a large number of agricultural labourers come from Ireland, who take the money back to Ireland and spend it in that country, riot in England. If the right hon. Lady would consider this question a little more it is quite possible that she would be able to introduce legislation which would improve the prospects of employing English agricultural labourers in this country instead of Irish agricultural labourers. I hope we shall give further consideration to this Amendment because there is a great deal more in it than meets the eye.
  Mr. J. JONES: I am one of the very few Irish Members in this House, and I regret to hear the racial animosity which has been reflected in the speech just delivered. When I came to England from Ireland I came with a bare face. I want to ask the right hon. Lady and the Committee whether they agree that this is a, question of Irishmen, Englishmen, Scotsmen or Welshmen. This is an Insurance Bill, and we are supposed to be discussing the needs of individuals under this scheme. I suggest that the only question before the Committee is the right of the child to receive benefit under the insurance scheme. You can have all you like. I do not care what you have; you will not get it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is speaking to the wrong Clause. This has nothing to do with children.
  Mr. JONES: I never did speak to the right Clause, and I, therefore, withdraw and apologise, hoping to have an opportunity of speaking to the right Clause.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I did not deal at length with this new Clause, because it seemed to me obviously the wrong way to do things. It suggests that you should allow people voluntarily to pay

  381
  contributions while in an uninsurable occupation in order that they can ultimately get benefits. That is the wrong way. I have just agreed to an Amendment which, I think, some Members who were not in the House at the time may not be aware of; I have promised to incorporate a proposal on the Report stage to lengthen to two years the time in an uninsurable occupation without the loss of qualification. That meets substantially the main point of this Amendment, and it is as far as the Committee should expect me to go in this matter. If it be desired to increase the categories of insured persons it cannot be done by a Clause like this.
  Mr. BATEY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Payment of benefits in respect of persons under sixteen.)
  The benefits payable under this Act in respect of any person who has not attained the age of sixteen years shall be payable to the claimant's mother (if the mother shall by notice in writing to the insurance officer so require) in such manner as the Minister by regulations made under the principal Act shall direct; provided that in cases where the claimant does not reside with his mother or where the Minister is satisfied that for some other reason the payment of benefit to the claimant's mother is undesirable the benefits shall be payable to the claimant or to such other person as the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances, shall by regulations authorise.—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This is the Clause on which the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) rather prematurely spoke just now. I hope that as the subject in which he is interested is now before the Committee he will give us the benefit of his enlightenment at a later stage. This new Clause is a permissive Clause. It enables the benefit, in certain circumstances, in respect of children under 16, to he paid to the mother. I submit that it is a suitable appendage to the Clause which lowers the age of insurance to 15. I realise that on a first view there may seem to be very valid objections to the Clause. Many of ray hon. Friends in
  382
  this Committee have proud recollections of the day on which they first brought back their wages to their mothers. I am sure that I can include my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown in that number.
  Mr. J. JONES: Hear, hear! Two-and-a-tanner for eighty hours.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is a grave reflection on times past. I hope that the two-and-a-tanner was taken back in solid form?
  Mr. JONES: Hear, hear!
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I quite agree that no recollection could be more poignant or sentimental than the recollection of the first day on which a boy took back his wages to his mother, but I hope that no confusion of thought will arise on account of that. We are not dealing in this Bill with the disposition of the first wages of a boy. We are not dealing with his first employment. We are dealing with his first unemployment. I think that no Member of the Committee could be so individualistic as to maintain that it was a matter of indifference as to what the child did with this money. If you look at recent legislation you realise that we have safeguarded the child under 16 with a particular care. Only a fortnight ago, under the Contributory Pensions Bill, we raised the age from 14 to 16 in respect of which an allowance might be paid to the mother for her child. Why should you differentiate within a fortnight between the child in respect of whom a mother is to draw a pension under the Contributory Pensions Act and in respect of the child that comes under this Bill?
  The Children Act, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was responsible, made it a penal offence to sell spirits to a child under 16. The child under 16 is not allowed to buy tobacco or cigarettes. Special Courts, the juvenile Courts, are established for young persons, who are not allowed to be tried either in the same place or at the same time as older offenders. They cannot be conveyed to and from the Court in the same vehicles as older offenders. This Bill is professedly introduced in order to spare the child from unpleasant contacts, but what contact could be more unpleasant than the contact of a child with the grinding machinery of the Employment Exchange?

  383
  It is in order to spare the child that contact that I have drafted this Clause. But I go further in reference to past legislation. The legal responsibility for maintaining a child rests upon the parents; a Board of Guardians can require the parents to contribute to the support of a child. Why should you make an exception in this Bill? Surely the benefit ought to be paid where the responsibility rests?
  What happened on the Second Reading of the Bill? Where did the whole weight of the argument lie? My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made a very passionate and moving speech, in which he talked about the responsibility of parents in maintaining their children. This Bill does not bring a penny into the pockets of the breadwinner, of the head of the family. It enables benefit to be paid to a child of 16. That does not enable the persons about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton was talking, to purchase more books or more food for their children. The Bill simply puts money, without condition, in very unfortunate circumstances, into the pockets of children. What can be the objection to this Clause It may be said that the decent child already takes the money home to his parents. Are you going to give a legislative advantage to the child who is not decent, to the child who stops on the way home and, although he knows that the larder may be empty, prefers not to take that money home? The decent child, anyhow, will take the money home. I want to secure that the money shall go into the home in all circumstances, whether the child be good or be bad.
  What is another objection to the Clause? It is said that wages are paid to the child when it is in work. Certainly they are. What did the Minister say? She said she wished to inculcate habits of independence in the child. What could be a greater stimulus to the child than to know that if it gets a job it will be able to enjoy the pride of taking its wages home, whereas if it does not get a job, its mother will get the money, and if it is a proud thing to take home the wages that you have earned, who can say it is an enviable thing to be able to take home a dole which you have not earned? Would hon. Members opposite
  384
  who have told me how proud they were to take home their wages have been equally proud to take home something that they have not earned? What credit could possibly rest upon the child for taking home something that was doled out to it in the Employment Exchange?
  Hon. Members have to make up their minds. They cannot talk about the deprivation of the home and reject this Clause. If their desire is to give the mothers the benefit of the money, so that they can keep their children in good health and good condition, they cannot vote against the Clause, for it has nothing to do with money that is earned. It is to do with money that is unearned. Some hon. Members opposite suffer from the delusion that they can redress the inequalities of society by giving 6s. a week to a child, or any other sum of money to any other human being. The inequalities in this social world of ours arise, not because of an uneven distribution of wealth, but because of an uneven distribution of opportunity. What differentiates the child who leaves the council school at the age of 15 from the child who goes to Eton at 15, is not 6s. a week, but an entirely different, opportunity. I want to establish 'this principle, that maintenance grants shall be paid to parents, so that you will create no vested interest in unemployment, but will rather create a vested interest in raising the school-leaving age to 16. I wish hon. Members opposite had taken the great opportunity that presents itself to them of raising the school age to 16 and thus doing away with the gap, rather than lowering the age at which the child is stamped with the brand of Cain. Therefore I move the Clause with great confidence, because it secures that the money you are giving to the child shall be spent in the best interest of the child and because, also, it is a recognition of the responsibilities of motherhood.
  10.0 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment in my name to the First Schedule on similar lines to this new Clause. I should like to have your ruling, Sir, whether, if this Clause is defeated, my Amendment will be in order, especially as it was on the Paper long before the new Clause was put down.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not cognisant of the time when new Clauses or anything else were put on the Paper. We are discussing this Clause at the moment, and, if the other Amendment covers the same ground, it is not likely to be called.
  Mr. LAWSON: When hon. Members first raised this point, I failed to understand on what ground they based their demand for the principle of the Clause. I now gather from the hon. Member's exceedingly able speech, dealing with a very difficult subject, that the real position is that they want to keep the boy from contact with adults at the Exchange. The boy never comes in contact with adults, for he is paid at a different department. The hon. Member has assumed that the juvenile is getting something for which he has not paid. He made the point that he could understand the great pride the boy took in giving his first wages to his mother. If any mother was to suggest that she should go to the pay office and take the boy's wages because he was not fit to carry them home, there is no Member of the Committee who would have any respect for such a mother who had not sufficient trust and faith and admiration for her boy.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we would no longer respect a mother because her son did not take the money home?
  Mr. LAWSON: I think we should not have much respect for a mother who had not sufficient faith in her boy. As a matter of fact, it is not true that the boy has not earned the money. He only gets what he is entitled to and, therefore, it is not true at all to assume that the boy is getting something which is charity, or what is called the dole, instead of something for which he has paid.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not a fact that the other side have suggested that the boy is paid too much?
  Mr. LAWSON: My hon. Friend is right, because there are Amendments down suggesting that the boy is paid too much and that the amount should actually be reduced. But, apart from that, I submit that there is not a Member who would not have felt that it was a reflection upon himself as a boy if he had not been allowed to carry the money home, and he would certainly have felt that it was a
  386
  grave reflection on him if his mother suggested that he was not sufficiently capable and honest and reliable to carry it home.
  Mr. FOOT: Is not the point being strained in saying that it is a reflection upon the boy? I do not know that a father would look upon it as being a reflection on his boy if an arrangement of this kind were made that the mother was to receive the money. May there not be a proper pride on the part of the boy that where there is this need in the home he is conscious of the fact and that there is being directly contributed to the means of the home the six shillings, partly provided for by his own contributions? Why should that infer some humiliation to the boy? It is an assurance that the six shillings, which was intended for the upkeep of the home, should always go in that direction. Is there no danger that it may go in other directions? [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I think those hon. Members who say "No" are some of the beardless bachelors on the other side. When the suggestion was made just now that the boy did not take his money home, I think it was suggested that there might be the brand of Cain, only "Cain" might not be spelt in the usual way in that connection. I ask hon. Members opposite to take that into consideration.
  Does it necessarily mean humiliation to the boy because this arrangement has been made, probably with his own consent? Why not? It does not necessarily mean that the mother is going to act over the head of the boy and contrary to his wishes. This Amendment may contemplate an arrangement that is made in the home, that the money shall be paid direct to the mother instead of to the boy, and I think the advantage of the proposal is that we shall be able to ensure that the money that is needed for the upkeep of the home shall go, to the extent of every penny, to the upkeep of the home, and to the advantage of the boy himself. I ask that the Amendment shall not be dismissed as being an irrelevant and unimportant Amendment. It contains an important principle. Hon. Members opposite will appreciate that throughout the country there is a great deal of apprehension as far as the application of this scheme to boys between 15 and 16 years of age is con-

  387
  cerned—perhaps greater apprehension than they at present realise—and I think that that apprehension will to some extent be removed if this Clause can be introduced. It does not make it obligatory, but it makes it possible, after family arrangement, that the money should be paid direct to the mother.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Before an hon. Member on these benches speaks on this Amendment he has to assume a great deal. After having assumed that it is a good thing for these juveniles to be brought into the atmosphere of the Employment Exchanges, and after having assumed that there will be sufficient juvenile unemployment to justify any such daring experiment, I think we can say on these benches that there is no harm in this Amendment. I think every hon. Member in this House has appealed at some time to the cause of youth and has tried to move election audiences by appeals to young people for their support and by promises to support them, and I think every hon. Member is sufficient of a psychologist to know that the age between 14 and 16 is probably the most important in the spiritual, moral, intellectual, and educational development of the young citizen. Everybody knows that at this particular age, the age of adolescence, when these members of our population are no longer children and not yet young men and women, when they are on the threshold of their experience of life, we should be most careful in dealing with them.
  One would have thought, therefore, that the Government, in approaching this problem in relation to unemployment, would at any rate have used all the skill and care and scientific knowledge that they possess to deal with it properly, but what do we find? We find, on the one hand, that the Government are prepared to extort these contributions from these juveniles without any relation at all to the risk of juvenile unemployment. On the other hand, we find that they are prepared to expend what they collect from the individual members of the juvenile population without any regard to how it is going to be spent, and this seems to me to embody an attitude at once mercenary and careless. On the first occasion on which they had the
  388
  opportunity, the Government resisted the only possible excuse for bringing these juveniles into unemployment benefit, which was to make payment of benefit dependent on training. They really persisted in their refusal to-day, but one would have thought that they would have taken some steps to see that this money was properly spent. After all, legislation must be considered with reference to general rules and not to exceptions. As a rule the vast majority of these young people who are going to benefit under this new Bill will be living with their fathers and mothers.
  I think that hon. Members opposite have taken an entirely optimistic view of human nature in this matter. I am sorry, but I say that it is in the nature of young children of all classes not to know their own interests in relation to money. Certainly it was my own experience. I had the great privilege of being educated at Eton, but the pocket money which I received from my parents was not very great, and I confess that it was invariably misspent. I say that quite frankly, but I do not think I am so entirely different from all other young people in England as to be an exception in wickedness. I think that throughout the whole population it is in the nature of young people not to know how to spend their money. The famous German philosopher Nietsche said it was in the nature of children to prefer sweetmeats to bread, but after all sweetmeats are comparatively harmless things.
  The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) introduced a very high ideal at the beginning of these Debates, when he said that we should act as politicians as we would act as fathers, and in introducing that analogy to family life he was only following the example of another great political philosopher, the philosopher Plato. Hon. Members on all sides will probably agree that if we could possibly bring that analogy into our political life we should be achieving a great deal. Is this really going to help family life at all? There is no guarantee that this money which is going to be brought in to the children will be properly, sensibly, or evenly decently spent. I think there is a very serious danger that it will only reach the pockets of the purveyors of cheap amusements, and I think very

  389
  likely that these new payments, which will not in any way help the family in a number of instances, will lead away the children from their families and from their families' influence as surely as did the Pied Piper of Hamelin. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that a reference to poetry means a peroration, but that is far from being the case with me.
  The first and second Clauses of this Bill, without this new Clause, will show the recklessness of unscientific expenditure in which the largest party in the State indulge when they embark on important legislation. Let me refer again to the great principle which was enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton, that we should act in this matter as politicians as we would act as fathers. If we could embody that principle into every piece of legislation which we attempt to pass, we should become Christian statesmen of the highest type. Let us apply it to this one new Clause, for, after all, he who is faithful in small things is faithful in great. Imagine a father of a family with six shillings which he can barely snare would it be wise to hand that six shillings to his child as pocket money? Would it not be wiser for him to keep that six shillings and spend it on his child's food or clothing, or, perhaps, even save it for the child? Would it not be a better way of giving the child a better show in life, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton wishes us to do? If we cannot; act thus as fathers in this matter, how much less can we act as statesmen of a great nation? Why should we hand out this money to young children? If we do it, we are really doing it in a cause which may very likely pauperise and demoralise the children of this country who are our special care.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The charming and poetical oration of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) has brought me to my feet, but I would refer him to the description of the speeches of Gratiano by his friend Bassanio:
  "His reasons are two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff."
  I have had the advantage of taking wages home at the age of 10, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks are quite undeserved. In 99 per cent. of the cases coming under this category, the child
  390
  will have earned wages for at least 30 weeks and taken these wages home. Is there any reason to assume that that child is not as capable of taking his benefit home as he is of taking his wages home? Those of us who began life as child workers and took their wages home think that there is no earthly necessity for this Clause. It deals with a very simple matter, and there is no need for the hon. Member for Eastbourne to wander through the philosophy of Plato and quote the Pied Piper of Hamelin to show whether a boy of 16 is or is not able to take his benefit home, or whether his mother should be sent for. It is a matter of common sense and common experience, and common sense and common experience say that the boy is quite as capable of taking his benefit home as he is of faking his wages home. See what the new Clause says. It lays down the administrative duty, literally, of finding out whether the claimant's mother is undesirable when she makes the application. Apparently an investigation has to be made as to whether she herself is a desirable person to have the money.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Where did you get that from?
  Mr. SHAW: If the hon. Member instead of being studiously insulting—
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I did not hear the expression. If hon. Members would be quieter, one could listen to the speeches. The Table did not hear the expression, and therefore I cannot interfere.
  Sir B. PETO: On a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS "Sit down!"] Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to misquote the terms of the Clause so as to cast a reflection on the mother of a claimant.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt.
  HON. MEMBERS: It is not a point of Order.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot hear whether it is or not. I want to hear it.
  Sir B. PETO: May I put my point of Order to you again, Sir? The question

  391
  is whether the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to misquote the terms of the hon. Member's Clause so as to cast the reflection that the mother of the child is an undesirable person, because there are no such words in the Clause. [Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point raised by the hon. Member is not a point of Order. If an hon. Member misquotes anything, he may be asked to correct it. It does not come within my province to correct misquotations.
  Mr. ALBERY rose—
  Mr. J. JONES: Take your gruel like we have to do. Sit down!
  Mr. ALBERY: I rise to a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in asserting that an hon. Member has made a speech in a studiously insulting manner, and is it not a fact—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN rose—
  Mr. ALBERY: May I complete my point of Order?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already said, and I am perfectly honest, when I repeat I did not hear the expression. The Chair did not hear the expression—[HON. MEMBERS: "We did!"]—and therefore I cannot interfere.
  Mr. SHAW rose—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we must allow the right hon. Gentleman to explain.
  Mr. SHAW: May I explain that certain hon. Gentlemen opposite were not in the Chamber when I made the reference to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), and consequently they have not the slightest idea what was said.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sure that the Secretary of State for War, occupying the position which he does, would not wish to do an injustice to an hon. Member who is a colleague of his in this House. The right hon. Gentleman characterised my speech as being "studiously offensive." [HON. MEMBERS: "So it was."] I ask hon. Members opposite, is it fair to say that to an hon. Member who has been charged with something? I am within the recollection of the Committee and of every honest Mem-
  392
  ber in it. I said nothing that was studiously offensive—[An HON. MEMBER: "You did."]—if I did, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to specify what; otherwise, I can only attribute his remark to the evidence of his own courtesy.
  Mr. SHAW: When the hon. Member made his previous speech, he said "the ex-Minister for Labour has come down to the House. I do not know what he has come for, nor does anybody else"—[Interruption].
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I want to ask you, Mr. Dunnico, whether it is in order for a right hon. Gentleman during the discussion of this Clause, to refer to a speech which he had an ample opportunity—[Interruption.]—I desire to have your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, on the point whether the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to refer to a speech which was made on a previous Clause, a speech to which he himself listened, and to which he could have replied had he been able to do so.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not really a point of Order. It is quite a common practice in these discussions to refer to speeches made the day before, and therefore I could not say that that is out of order. May I appeal to the Committee. If remarks are made to which hon. Members take exception, they are bound to lead to retaliation. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides to try and conduct this Debate without referring to one another in offensive terms.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am asking for your protection, Mr. Dunnico, from the most indecorous language of the right hon. Gentleman. I am unconscious of having—[Interruption]—some hon. Gentlemen are—been studiously insulting to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to direct your attention to Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice," on page 325 of which it is stated that
  "The use of temperate and decorous language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate. The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged; misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation; charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind—

  393
  all of these are stated to be unparliamentary, and would., of course, be ruled out of order. I am charged with using studiously insulting language, and I ask you, Mr. Dunnico, as Chairman of this Committee, whether, had I done so, you would not have ruled me out of order, and whether, you not having ruled me out of order, it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman to accuse me?
  Mr. MACKINDER: On that point of Order. May I remind you, Sir, and the Committee, that last week the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) studiously and deliberately accused the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) of selling the children?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I wish that the paragraph which the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has read out from Erskine May might be printed daily on the Order Paper. I have already said that I did not hear the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, but, if that Expression were used, it is at least an undesirable expression, and I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman would not desire to say anything which was undesirable.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Mr. SHAW: I come now to the new Clause—
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! [Interruption.]
  Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. [Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
  Mr. ALBERY: Yes, Mr. Dunnico. I wish to ask you, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he used that language, whether he should not be desired to withdraw it?
  Mr. MOSES: On a point of Order. As regards the expression that was used in the first place, was not that an insulting expression towards the Secretary of State for War?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not admitted to me that he made use of the expression.
  Sir PATRICK FORD: Am I in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman to state definitely if he used that expression?
  Mr. SHAW: This new Clause—
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.
  Sir P. FORD: On a point of Order. May I have Ruling from the Chair as to whether the right hon. Gentleman did use that expression or not.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already informed the Committee that I did not hear the expression.
  Mr. SHAW rose—
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Committee to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of proceeding with his speech.
  Mr. McKINLAY: Is it in order for hon. Members above the Gangway on the other side to say that you, Mr. Chairman, did hear what the right hon. Gentleman said?
  Sir P. FORD: On a point of Order. May I point out—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—that we are not saying that you heard anything, but that we are asking the right hon. Gentleman himself if he used the expression.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: On a point of Order—[Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No further point of Order can arise. The Secretary of State for War.
  Mr. SHAW: The last part of this new Clause—
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.
  Sir H. SAMUEL: On a point of Order. I am sure that the whole House desires to terminate this scene and to get on with business. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), in the course of his speech, made an observation which was not, I am sure, intended to be insulting, but rather to be an amusing observation. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the Committee are exceedingly glad to see the Secretary of State for War in his place, and we all cordially welcome his intervention in Debate. My hon. Friend made an observation which was, I am sure, intended to be of a semi-humorous character—[Interruption]. I am only trying to pave the way to a resumption of business. Upon that, the Secretary of State for War commented in very severe terms.

  395
  in terms which, I understand, the Chairman would have ruled, if he had noticed them, as having been undesirable. That being so, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend behind does not desire to make any observations to hurt the feelings or arouse the wrath of the Secretary of State for War, nor does the Secretary of State for War desire to make any observations which the Chair would think undesirable. I am sure that the hon. Member for Devonport will agree that I am expressing his mind, and I hope that in these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will not insist on his rather severe observations.
  Mr. SHAW: If the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) says that his remarks were not meant to be insulting in any way, I will at once consider the question of what I can do—[Interruption].
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sorry, Mr. Dunnico, if it should fall to me to teach the right hon. Gentleman how to behave himself.
  An HON. MEMBER: You dirty little pig.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: A remark was made somewhere in that corner which was entirely unparliamentary, and it was an expression which ought never to have been used in this House.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I would put it to you, Mr. Dunnico, that whoever made the remark had considerable provocation—[Interruption]. Is it in order—[Interruption].
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No matter what the provocation may be, an expression of that kind should never be used in this House.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it in order for the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) to talk about the manners of hon. or right hon. Members on these benches? Is that in order? May I ask for your Ruling?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has taken the unusual course of saying that he will consider whether he will with-
  396
  draw his expression. I can only repeat now, what I said at the beginning, that I would unreservedly withdraw any insulting observations that I ever made in this House. I have never in my life intentionally made an insulting observation. I did humorously remark—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh! Withdraw!"] I did humorously remark—[Interruption]. There were only about 20 hon. Members opposite when it happened. Why, therefore, are hon. Members opposite so persistent in their interruptions? I did humorously make an observation which has been considered perfectly legitimate in all quarters of the House, that the right hon. Lady was conducting her Bill without assistance. I pointed out that the Secretary of State for War was sitting by her side, and did not come to her assistance. [Interruption]. That is a perfectly accurate statement, as everybody in the Committee knows. Why are hon. Members opposite so eager to interrupt me? I asked why the right hon. Gentleman was here at all. I have since learned why he was here.
  Mr. SHAW: I shall now proceed to discuss the new Clause.
  HON. MEMBERS: No! Withdraw!
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought that the hon. Member for Devonport stated that he meant no offence, and that he did not intend to be offensive.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Hear, hear!
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought that that statement might relieve the position and that we might get on with the business. I thought the hon. Member would respond to the appeal of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel).
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I made an appeal to my hon. Friend to make such a statement, and I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman also to withdraw his rather harsh observation. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman said that, if my hon. Friend would withdraw, he would consider what action he would take. That is not the usual course in this House. The usual course is for an hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench in such circumstances to say: "Of course, if the hon. Member withdraws his remark, I will withdraw mine." If

  397
  the right hon. Gentleman will give that assurance, my hon. Friend will immediately withdraw his observations.
  Mr. SHAW: Unqualified withdrawal on both sides, Yes.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is not nor has there ever been any question about that. I certainly reciprocate what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. SHAW: I agree to an unqualified withdrawal on both sides. Turning to the new Clause I suggest that the last part of it is undesirable, complicated, and unnecessary. See what the onus is which falls on the Minister. First of all, the Minister has to say whether the payment to the claimant's mother is desirable or not and then to decide how the particular benefit is to be paid. A complicated mechanism is set up which is totally unnecessary and wide of the mark and likely to lead to inquiries as to whether the mother is a person who ought to be given the control more than anybody else. I admit at once that there may be some boy who might draw his benefit at the Employment Exchange and not take it home. That boy might have been taking wages, and there is no reason to assume that in this case a complicated mechanism and a bureaucratic control is any more necessary in order to ensure that in, say, one case in a thousand, a boy should be prevented from going home without the money he has drawn from an Employment Exchange. The new Clause is totally unnecessary and practical experience of working-class life would prove it to be so. It would lead to 10 times more complications, and I suggest that it should be withdrawn.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I do not see any harm in the Clause. It is no reflection on either the child or the mother. It is really a protection. All mothers and children are not alike, and the conditions here are quite different from the case of a child who is in work and bringing his wages home. The child might be out of work for weeks and weeks, and everyone knows that nothing is more demoralising for grown-ups than being out of work. In the case of the child, it is five times as demoralising. I cannot see what is the Minister's objection. I speak from the point of view of having a good many sons, and I am perfectly certain that, whereas it might not affect one child to
  398
  be out of work for a long time, another might be of quite a different disposition and if I, as the mother, had any control over his money, I would rather do it. The hon. Member is perfectly right in bringing forward this Clause because I am perfectly certain it will help many cases which the right hon. Lady will want to help. There are hon. Members in this House whose wives would be very wise to take their salaries before they get them.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Mr. LINDLEY: Is the Noble Lady referring to hen. Members on her own side of the House?
  Viscountess ASTOR: The hon. Lady is not the Secretary of State for War; she knows when not to say who she is referring to. [Interruption.] I do not think—
  HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of' Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will address the Chair we may keep some semblance of order.
  11.0 p.m.
  Viscountess ASTOR: My heart aches; and certainly I am not going to add to your burdens, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, tonight, but when hon. Members opposite, gentlemen in silk hats, Socialist in silk hats, say that we do not understand working men and women the temptation, Mr. Dunnico, is sometimes too much. This Amendment guards the position in every way. There was the case the other day of a woman who had slaved to give her boy a good education and now that he is in a position he is not sending one single penny home. He is not very old. That is normal; but we do not want this Amendment for normal cases. In the ordinary case the mother will not say a word about it, but there are other cases where it will be very demoralising and we think a child should be guarded, and the parent also. I hope the Government will not reject the Amendment on the ground fiat they consider it is an insult to the child or the parent. Why should they assume that all parents are alike and all children alike? Hon. Members of this House are not all alike. We on this side are practical people and realise that very often

  399
  the children of the same parents are not alike. I cannot see why the Government should refuse to give help where it may be very much needed. Once more I ask the Government to take a practical point of view. Hon. Members opposite have shown throughout this Bill that they little understand some sort of women, whether they are rich or poor, and I ask the Committee to take the advice of a Woman who knows children. I am certain that hon. Members' wives, if asked, would say that they would rather have this safeguard. It is rot to ride off on the class conscious cry. We are told that on this side we do not understand the working man. We say that hon. Members on the Government side do not understand the working man. We are not insulting the working man.
  Mr. HASLAM: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member in the Gallery to be standing all the time?
  Viscountess ASTOR: I think that the new Clause shows an amazing understanding of women, and that the Minister of Labour in opposing it shows a real lack of understanding. I plead with the Government to accept the Clause.
  Mr. POTTS: After having listened to hon. Members opposite I cannot for the life of me understand why they should have talked as they have done. There can be only two things to which they refer. Either they are unwilling to risk allowing a young boy to take a few shillings home to his parents, or they do not want the children of the working classes to mix with other people in connection with the receipt of unemployment benefit. Let me deal with the question of not being able to trust the young boys, and let me say where I stand. I have had over 40 years' experience in dealing with the children of working people. My experience is that these children almost universally can be trusted to take their wages to their parents. The argument that they cannot be trusted is as hollow as any argument can be. If hon. Members opposite think that young boys and girls cannot be trusted, it only goes to show that in their minds they believe that young boys and girls of the working classes are dishonest. [HON. MEMBERS:
  400
  "Rubbish!"] I hope that the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. Why should you ask the mother to get a few shillings from the Exchange? It is a reflection upon the children of the working classes.
  Mr. LAWSON rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I have had a long experience of people in industrial life. We have heard to-night of one or two cases of the very important age of 14 to 16, the adolescent age, when the child is growing mentally, psychologically and physically and how very important it is that at that age nothing should be done to upset the child in any way whatever. We have in the industrial districts the rule that a child of 15 is paid his wages and is entitled to take them home. What would be the effect on the child if sonic one turned round and said, "We cannot trust you to take your wages home. We cannot trust you to take your unemployment money home." That is immediately going to put into the child's mind a feeling of resentment and suspicion either that the people surrounding him do not trust him or, worse still, that his mother does not trust him and, therefore, I think a great deal of the argument that has been used on this side is really rather irrelevant, and I agree in the main with the arguments used by the Government. I think even those arguments are quite irrelevant. The money would be paid at the unemployment office to the child unless the mother in writing demanded it. I am sure there is no one opposite who would object to that. If the mother for some reason, probably a good reason, states that it is not in the child's interest that he should draw the money, and she went to the trouble of writing to that effect, I imagine every father in the Committee would say the mother was justified in her action and, therefore, this Clause is important. The question of not trusting the child does not arise and, therefore, all the opposition that has been offered has been quite unnecessary. But I should like to associate myself with the Members of the Government in their trust in the boys of the working class.
  Mr. LAWSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 243.

  Division No. 86.]

  AYES.

  [11.13 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Albery, Irving James

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Glassey, A. E.

  Penny, Sir George

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Grace, John

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Granville, E.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Balniel, Lord

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Pybus, Percy John

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Blindell, James

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Remer, John R.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Boyce, H. L.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Bracken, B.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Savery, S. S.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Scott, James

  Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Smith Carington, Neville W.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Edge, Sir William

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  England, Colonel A.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)

  Meller, R. J.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Millar, J. D.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Fielden, E. B.

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Foot, Isaac

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Major Owen and Viscount Elmley.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Dickson, T.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Bromfield, William

  Dukes, C.

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Bromley, J.

  Duncan, Charles

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Brothers, M.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Buchanan, G.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Burgess, F. G.

  Egan, W. H.

  Angell, Norman

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Freeman, Peter

  Arnott, John

  Cameron, A. G.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Cape, Thomas

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Ayles, Walter

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Gill, T. H.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Chater, Daniel

  Gillett, George M.

  Batey, Joseph

  Church, Major A. G.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Gould, F.

  Bellamy, Albert

  Cluse, W. S.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Compton, Joseph

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Benson, G.

  Cove, William G.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Daggar, George

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Dallas, George

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Shinwell, E.

  Hardle, George D.

  McShane, John James

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Mansfield, W.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Marcus, M.

  Sinkinson, George

  Haycock, A. W.

  Marley, J.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Mathers, George

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Matters, L. W.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Maxton, James

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Melville, Sir James

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Messer, Fred

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Mills, J. E.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Herriotts, J.

  Milner, J.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Montague, Frederick

  Sorensen, R.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Morley, Ralph

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Hollins, A.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Mort, D. L.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Strauss, G. R.

  Isaacs, George

  Muff, G.

  Sullivan, J.

  Jenkins, w. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Johnston, Thomas

  Naylor, T. E.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Toole, Joseph

  Kelly, W. T.

  Palmer, E. T.

  Tout, W. J.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Turner, B.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Perry, S. F.

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Kinley, J.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Walker, J.

  Lang, Gordon

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Wallace, H. W.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Lathan, G.

  Potts, John S.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Law, A. (Rosendale)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

  Lawrence, Susan

  Raynes, W. R.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Richards, R.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Lawson, John James

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Ritson, J.

  West, F. R.

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon.F. O. (W-Bromwich)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Lees, J.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Rowson, Guy

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Longden, F.

  Sandham, E.

  Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Lunn, William

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Wilson. J. (Oldham)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Scurr, John

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  MacDonald, Rt. Han. J. R. (Seaham)

  Sexton, James

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)

  McElwee, A.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Wise, E. F.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Mackinder, W.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  McKinlay, A.

  Shield, George William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Paling.

  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to arrangements with associations of employed persons.)
  Section seventeen of the principal Act as amended by Section ten of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, shall have effect as though in Sub-section (1) of the said Section ten all the words after 'the excess is payable in at least ten weeks in the year' were omitted.—[Mr. Hayday.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The purpose of this Clause is to remedy an undoubted grievance which has confronted trades unions administering under the Act, more particularly during
  404
  the past two or three years. Under the Act as it stands a trade union administering must make its payment with every payment it makes on behalf of the State. During a long space of unemployment a member of a union may have run through the union unemployment benefit, which may be 5s. or 7s. a week until exhausted; but under the Act they must continue to make a payment of not less than 6d. per day as long as the person is unemployed. In that way you get a position which we desire to remedy and which will be remedied by this new Clause. When a member has run his unemployment pay through he must have his indirect claim

  405
  transferred to a direct claim and when the union brings him back into benefit he is retransferred from the Employment Exchange to the union. A deputation waited upon the late Minister of Labour and he certainly expressed sympathy with that point of view, and he certainly does understand and appreciate the difficulty which has grown up. I hope the Government will be able to accept this new Clause, because, if the Clause is carried, so long as it pays a minimum amount of 75s. in at least 10 weeks of the unemployment the union would be permitted to carry on the administration of the State side of the matter and not be compelled to transfer their member to the books of the Exchange.
  This proposal saves the transfer from direct to indirect claims. It puts at the disposal of the members the available vacancy-filling machinery of the trade union, and it makes the process readily available in that connection. The trade union first meets the State benefit payment from its own funds, and it can only recover from the State such payments as it makes on behalf of the State; and that is a course which has the approval and sanction of the Minister of Labour, so that we use the trade union funds to meet the State responsibility, and there is a method of settlement which may, of course, be fortnightly or monthly. There is one other small point which which shows that trade union administration is very helpful to the general administration. In 1922 a statement was made that out of 614 convictions, there were only 20 of them through trade union administration, and those 20 were in respect of persons claiming direct.
  The number represented by trade union administration was 25 per cent. of the whole of those receiving State benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am sure that there will be general agreement on this point, which is quite a small matter. It is a point which has the sympathy of the late Minister of Labour, and when we approached him he told us that his difficulty was the law at that time. We now ask that the law shall be varied to permit trade unions to have facilities without transferring to the Exchange and back again to the associations, a practice which makes
  406
  more work for the Employment Exchanges and loss of contact with the trade union administration.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I have given much thought to this question, and this proposed new Clause seems to be entirely in line with the general sense of the Committee on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). We are doing everything we possibly can to develop responsibility on the part of the organised employers and the organised trade unions in the administration of the Fund. As the points have been so clearly expressed by the hon. Member who moved the Clause, it is unnecessary for me further to explain it, and I am glad to accept it.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Contributions not payable in, respect of persons under eighteen attending continuation schools.)
  No contribution shall be paid in respect of any person under the age of eighteen who is under an obligation to attend a continuation school in accordance with the provisions of Sections seventy-six and seventy-seven of the Education Act, 1921.—[Lord E. Percy.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Do I understand, Mr. Dunnico, that you are not calling the Clause—(Waiting period)—which stands in the names of the hon. Members for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare), Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) and Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha)?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I have not called that Clause.
  Mr. MAXTON: Then the Clause—(Waiting period)—which stands later on the Paper, in the names of myself and several of my hon. Friends, will be called in its proper place?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not arrived at that point yet; I have called upon the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy).
  Lord E. PERCY: The intention of the Clause which I am moving is that no contributions shall be demanded from a young person who is attending a compulsory day continuation school under the provisions of the Education Act, 1921. I think it has been the general feeling in this Committee that the exaction of contributions from young persons below the age of 16, and bringing them into the insurance field, is only justified because it is necessary to have some means of what is commonly called "bridging the gap" between school and insurance. We have spent a great deal of time in discussing how that gap may best be bridged by more or less makeshift educational arrangements under the juvenile employment centres and the like; but, however important juvenile employment centres may be, we agree that they are makeshifts, and that they can never be fully educational. The system of compulsory day continuation schools contemplated in the Act of 1918 was a complete method of bridging the gap. At the present moment the Act of 1918 is in force in one area in this country, namely, Rugby, and in that area the gap is already completely bridged, and every child, employed or unemployed, up to the age of 16, is receiving regular day education—part-time day education—in continuation classes. I hope that, if the finances of the country will allow it, that system will be greatly extended in the future, and I want to make it clear in this Clause that we do regard that education scheme as the true way of bridging the gap, and that, consequently, as the gap is bridged by solid educational provisions of that kind, we will take young persons again out of unemployment insurance.
  The beginning that, we can make in doing that is to see that those who are already at school are not bound to pay contributions, and of course I assume it to follow that they should not be entitled to benefit. That is the purpose of the Clause, and I hope that, even if the right hon. Lady cannot accept it, either she or a representative of the Board of Education will give us some indication of the reason why it cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that this is a bridging of the gap which it is the firm intention of this Bill to bridge.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid I cannot accept this proposed new Clause, and that for a very simple reason. A child attending a public day continuation school is an employed person. The Bill is based on the assumption that as soon as an employer employs a boy or girl, he shall pay contributions into the fund in respect of that boy or girl. That is one of the principles underlying the Insurance Acts and we cannot exempt employers from contribution to the fund, nor should I wish to exempt the Treasury from contributions to the fund in respect of any employed person of whatever age, if such person is in fact a wage-earner. Apart from that consideration one can easily see that it would be very difficult to make an exception of the kind proposed in the new Clause. If the idea in the mind of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is that children in that position should receive some encouragement, that is another matter but it should, I think, be dealt with in some other way and not by way of excusing them from contributions. One of the objections to the "gap" was that the employer could take children up to the age of 16 for whom he had not to pay contributions and dismiss them when they reached the age of 16. I do not want to perpetuate that evil in the 16 to 18 group.
  Lord E. PERCY: Surely it is not a question of offering an inducement to the children. The children are under compulsion and have to attend the continuation school. I see the force of the right hon. Lady's intention and her desire to get rid of the old system under which an employer got an advantage by employing child labour. But she is not getting rid of it. There is still a differentiation between the contributions payable in respect of juveniles and those payable in respect of adults. If the Minister were proposing in the Bill to get rid of any incentive to employers to dismiss young persons when they attained the age of 18, I could then have understood her argument but she is not doing so in this Bill. I hope she has not considered her remarks too closely when she says she is setting up the great principle, that the moment a boy or girl is employed contribution shall be paid in respect of that boy or girl. Hitherto we have had

  409
  these proposals justified on the basis of "bridging the gap" but if we bridge the gap educationally then certainly—and whatever differences there may be between us on other points, we ought to agree about this—there is every reason for keeping those boys and girls outside
  the insurance scheme with all its implications.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 260.

  Division No. 87.]

  AYES.

  [11.40 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Albery, Irving James

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Remer, John R.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Astor, Viscountess

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Balniel, Lord

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Savery, S. S.

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H,

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Boyce, H. L.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Bracken, B.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Butler, R. A.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. sir Arthur

  Carver, Major w. H.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Long, Major Eric

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Cranbourne, Viscount

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Meller, R. J.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Womersley, W. J.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Sir George Hennessy and Sir George

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Penny.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Freeman, Peter

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Buchanan, G.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Burgess, F. G.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Calne, Derwent Hall-

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Alpass, J. H.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Gill, T. H.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Arnott, John

  Charleton, H. C.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Chater, Daniel

  Gould, F.

  Ayles, Walter

  Church, Major A. G.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Granville, E.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Cluse, W. S.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Bellamy, Albert

  Compton, Joseph

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Daggar, George

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Dallas, George

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Benson, G.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Blindell, James

  Dickson, T.

  Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Dukes, C.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Duncan, Charles

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Bowerman Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hardie, George D.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Edge, Sir William

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Bromfield, William

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Haycock, A. W.

  Bromley, J.

  Egan, W. H.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Brothers, M.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Hayes, John Henry

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Foot, Isaac

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Marley, J.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Mathers, George

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Herriotts, J.

  Matters, L. W.

  Shield, George William

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Maxton, James

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Melville, Sir James

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Messer, Fred

  Shinwell, E.

  Hollins, A.

  Middleton, G.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Millar, J. D.

  Sinkinson, George

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

  Mills, J. E.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Milner, J.

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Montague, Frederick

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Isaacs, George

  Money, Ralph

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Mort, D. L.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Johnston, Thomas

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Sorensen, R.

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Muff, G.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Jones, T. I, Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Murnin, Hugh

  Strauss, G. R.

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Sullivan, J.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Kinley, J.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Kirkwood, D.

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Lang, Gordon

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Toole, Joseph

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Palmer, E. T.

  Tout, W. J.

  Lathan, G.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Turner, B.

  Law, A. (Rosendale)

  Perry, S. F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Walker, J.

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Lawson, John James

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Watkins, F. C.

  Lawther, w. (Barnard Castle)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Potts, John S.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Lees, J.

  Pybus, Percy John

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Raynes, W. R.

  West, F. R.

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Richards, R.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Longden, F.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  White, H. G.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Ritson, J.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Lunn, William

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W,Bromwich)

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  McElwee, A.

  Rowson, Guy

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Mackinder, W.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  McKinlay, A.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Sanders, W. S.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Sandham, E.

  Wise, E. F.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Scott, James

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  McShane, John James

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Scurr, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mansfield, W.

  Sexton, James

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Marcus, M.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Thomas Henderson.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Waiting period.)
  Section three of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925, is hereby repealed and paragraph 1 of Part I of the First Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924 (which provides that benefit shall be payable in respect of each week after the first three days of a continuous period of unemployment) is hereby re-enacted in this Act.—[Mr. Maxton.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The purpose of the new Clause is to reduce the waiting period from six days to three days. Everyone knows that the six days period may mean that a man who becomes unemployed may have to go
  412
  the best part of three weeks before any money goes into his home. The principle of the new Clause has been well admitted in the past. It was admitted in the 1924 Unemployment Act, which was brought in by the previous Labour Government, and presumably the arguments in favour of it in those days are even more cogent now, having regard to the long duration of unemployment, generally. I have been told that the only reasons against it are financial, but I cannot feel that the finances of the country in 1929 are in any worse plight than in 1924. There are no evidences in trade or in the taxation returns that indicate that they are, nor do I believe that

  413
  the Chancellor's powers of taxation today are less than they were at that period. I think the present Government is much more favourably situated for conceding this demand than was the 1924 Government when the point was raised. I have no wish to detain the Committee and will content myself with moving the Clause.
  Miss BONDFIELD: This matter has received a very great deal of consideration, and, if I could have seen my way to embody it in the Bill I would have done so. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that the objection to it is a financial one. It is a very heavy item indeed, and it has to be considered in relation to the present state of the Fund. When this was moved in 1924 by the then Labour Government, the Fund had only a £7,000,000 deficit and had by no means exhausted, and had not trespassed very far upon, its borrowing powers. To-day, we have the Fund with a debt of £38,000,000, and its borrowing powers nearly exhausted. That fact makes the situation very much worse financially than it was when the Labour Government was in office in 1924. It is with very much regret that I have to refuse to accept the Clause.
  Major ELLIOT: Obviously, as the Minister has advanced the argument that the state of the fund precludes the suggested improvement in the benefits, it would not be possible for us on this side to oppose that argument. It has been pointed out on more than one occasion that the fund is heavily in debt, and, balanced as it is at a figure which is below the figure of the present state of unemployment, it is not in a position to be loaded with fresh commitments. An important fresh commitment has been entered into as a result of the Debate last Thursday. Therefore, we on this side find ourselves compelled to back up the Minister in the view that the fund in its present state is not able to bear any fresh commitments.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I support the Clause, notwithstanding the Minister's statement that the fund is overloaded. The position I take up is that the sufferers from unemployment ought not to be penalised by a position for which they are not in any way responsible. We can realise the difficulty from the standpoint of the Chancellor of the Exchequer;
  414
  but, from the point of view of those who are making most urgent claims on Members of this House as to the difficulties which are confronting them in the way of life, they should not be held back and prevented from getting their legitimate rights of which they have been deprived, because of conditions for which they are no more than partly responsible along with the general body of the nation. They ought not to be penalised for such a situation, and I certainly hope that a protest will be made in the Division Lobby by Members on this side.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I only rise for the purpose of putting two questions to the right hon. Lady. In the first place, I should like to know what burden this will place on the Unemployment Insurance Fund? She has said that the fund is not in a condition to support this burden. I think we are entitled to know what it would mean. I believe that the cost would be about £4,000,000; or rather that it would be the interest upon that sum, because if the Lord Privy Seal is successful in finding work for the 1,300,000 people who are unemployed the Unemployment Insurance Fund would recoup the amount. The annual charge would be about £200,000. Does the right hon. Lady realise that by resisting this new Clause—I do not support it—she is throwing a burden on local authorities. These men have to be supported, and if a man goes out of work and does not get any benefit for 10 days he is thrown upon the ratepayers in the meantime. Therefore, the second question I have to ask is, when the right hon. Lady intends to implement the pledge that was given by the party opposite to make unemployment a national and not a local charge. The answers to these questions are distinctly relevant to the new Clause and would help hon. Members to decide which way they should vote. The fact that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has moved it proves that it is a non-party Amendment. He has moved it from an impartial point of view, and I think he is entitled, and the Committee is entitled, to know exactly what the right hon. Lady means when she says that the Unemployment Insurance Fund cannot bear the burden how much burden is going to be thrown on local authorities, and when unemployment is going to be made a national charge.
  Major HARVEY: The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) is not quite correct when he says that all these people will be thrown upon the rates, because local authorities give this relief as a loan and on condition that they will be repaid when the man gets work. It is not strictly correct to say that they are thrown upon the rates.
  Earl WINTERTON: Before the right hon. Lady replies I should like to draw attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). The hon. Member who moved the new Clause is perfectly consistent. He has taken up a line with which we on this side do not agree and with which the Government do not agree, but at any rate it has been a consistent line. The right hon. Lady hast any rate it has been a consistent line. The right hon. Lady has quite rightly, from the point of view of the Department whose finances she has to look after, resisted the proposal. But what is the attitude of the hon. Member for Devonport? What has become of the old tradition of the Liberal party, retrenchment—
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was asking a question.
  Earl WINTERTON: Everyone who heard the speech of the hon. Member knows perfectly well that he was pushing the Government forward and involving them in yet further expenditure. It is curious that we have all these speeches from Members of the Liberal party everyone in favour of putting fresh burdens on the fund and on the taxpayer, and it would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) is going to support the hon. Member for Devonport in putting another charge on the Insurance Fund.
  Sir H. SAMUEL: Certainly I support my hon. Friend in asking the Minister to answer the very relevant questions put to her.
  Commander WILLIAMS: The Minister says that the state of the finances makes it impossible for her to provide a sum of
  money which has not been stated. Would she tell us what the leaders of her party said at the time when the proposal for the shortening of the period from six days to three was being advocated? A few quotations from speeches of the leaders at the time would be of interest to the Committee?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am sorry if I did not give the information required. The sum required—it can be only a rough estimate—is from £3,500,000 to £4,000,000. To this you have to add the attraction of the reduced waiting period, and that is incalculable.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is that what falls on the local authorities?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Obviously not. Take the case of a man who has been in employment but comes out of employment—I except the case of the dockers, who are in and out frequently—the case of the man who comes out of employment. He does not, in fact, generally come under the Poor Law. That is not the highly necessitous end of the thing at all. The terrible thing is when a man is out of work for two or 2½ years, and has not a scrap of anything at the back of him. The case rests upon abstract justice, upon the contributions that the ordinary man pays and which should entitle him to have a three-days' waiting period. But the fact is that I am giving so many concessions in other directions under this Bill that I have already overstepped the limits, and I cannot go any further.
  Mr. D. SOMERVILLE: What does the Minister mean by the attraction?
  Miss BONDFIELD: That is a word very frequently used in connection with this class of case. We do not know the number of additional persons who would claim if there were only a three-days' limit.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 279.

  Division No. 88.]

  AYES.

  [12.5 a.m.

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Sandham, E.

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Lees, J.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

  Maxton, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Gossling, A. G.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Mort, D. L.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Greene, W. p. Crawford

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Albery, Irving James

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Ammon, Charles George

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Arnott, John

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Ayles, Walter

  Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon, William

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Illord)

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Balniel, Lord

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Penny, Sir George

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Perry, S. F.

  Bellamy, Albert

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Benson, G.

  Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Potts, John S.

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Herrlotts, J.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Richards, R.

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Boyce, H. L.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Bracken, B.

  Hollins, A.

  Ritson, J.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Bromfield, William

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Bromley, J.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Brothers, M.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Rowson, Guy

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Johnston, Thomas

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Burgess, F. G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Butler, R. A.

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Cameron, A. G.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Sanders, W. S.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Scurr, John

  Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth,S.)

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Sexton, James

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Lang, Gordon

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Chater, Daniel

  Lathan, G.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Church, Major A. G.

  Law, A. (Rosendale)

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Clarke, J. S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Shield, George William

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lawson, John James

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Shinwell, E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Sinkinson, George

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Cranbourne, Viscount

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Long, Major Eric

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Daggar, George

  Lunn, William

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Dallas, George

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Dalton, Hugh

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  McElwee, A.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Dickson, T.

  Mackinder, W.

  Sorensen, R.

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Dukes, C.

  McShane, John James

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Duncan, Charles

  Mansfield, W.

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Marcus, M.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Edge, Sir William

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Marley, J.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

  Egan, W. H.

  Mathers, George

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Matters, L. W.

  Sullivan, J.

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Melville, Sir James

  Sutton, J. E.

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Messer, Fred

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Freeman, Peter

  Middleton, G.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Millar, J. D.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Milner, J.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Toole, Joseph

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

  Montague, Frederick

  Tout, W. J.

  Gill, T. H.

  Morley, Ralph

  Turner, B.

  418

  419

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Viant, S. P.

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

  Walker, J.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Wallace, Capt D. E. (Hornsey)

  West, F. R.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Wallace, H. W.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Womersley, W. J.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles

  Edwards.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  First Schedule (Weekly Rates of Unemployment Benefit in Case of Persons under the Age of Twenty-one Years), Second Schedule (Minor Amendments), and Third Schedule (Enactments Repealed) agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 96.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOOTLE WATER RATE) ORDER, 1929.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Local Government (Bootle Water Rate) Order, 1929, dated the 26th day of September, 1929, made by the Minister of Health under Section 130 of the Local Government Act, 1929 (19 and 20 Geo. V., c. 17), for the removal of difficulties arising in connection with the application of certain provisions of that Act to the city of Liverpool and the county borough of Bootle, which was presented on the 29th day of October, 1929, be approved."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood)rose—
HON. MEMBERS: Object!
Mr. GREENWOOD: I did not anticipate opposition, and I wanted to say a word in explanation of this Order. I gathered in conversations which I have had with hon. Members on the opposite side that it is not controversial, but that it was desired that some explanation should be made. The House will remember that, under the Local Government Act, power was given for the removal of certain minor difficulties. A case has arisen which affects Liverpool and Bootle. Under a private Act promoted by the Liverpool Corporation—
Sir JOSEPH LAMB: On a point of Order. If the Order is objected to, is the Minister in order in giving an explanation?
Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill may be objected to, but it can be proceeded with.
Commander WILLIAMS: I do object.
Mr. GREENWOOD: The Eleven o'Clock Rule has been suspended; besides, this is an Order and not a Bill.
Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: The Rule was suspended for one thing, and for one thing alone.
Mr. SPEAKER: This, I understand, is similar to a Gas Order, and is exempted business.
Mr. GREENWOOD: If hon. Members do not wish to hear the explanation, I have no special desire to give it. It is a simple matter, dealing with a difficulty which could not have been foreseen when the Local Government Act was passed. As I was saying when I was interrupted, by the Liverpool Corporation Act, passed eight years ago, it was arranged that a water rate of 6d. in the £ should be levied both in Liverpool and in Bootle. The rate in Bootle is actually levied by the Liverpool City Corporation. When the Local Government Act was passed certain difficulties arose because it took the smile definition of a local rate as was contained in the Rating and Valuation Act. The result of that is that a rate levied by the Liverpool City Corporation on Bootle is not a local rate within the meaning of the Act. The Bootle Corporation desire that Liverpool should continue to levy this particular water rate, and Liverpool is prepared to do so, but this curious circumstance has arisen, that the rate in Liverpool ranks for de-rating—I hope I shall have hon. Members opposite with me on this—and is to be taken into account in calculating the Exchequer grant, whereas the same rate in Bootle, because it is levied by the Liverpool Corporation, will not rank for de-rating. In Liverpool all industrial hereditaments will be de-rated in respect of this rate, while in Bootle they will not be.
It is not for me to argue whether particular hereditaments should be de-

421
rated or not; that question was settled in the last Parliament. But we are, as a result of the Act of 1929, faced with this situation, that unless we get this Order people of precisely the same class, possibly competitors in business, in adjacent boroughs, will find themselves in entirely different circumstances. If this Order is passed it will enable us to declare that the Bootle water rate shall be regarded as a local rate, so that industrial enterprises in Bootle shall be de-rated and be on the same footing as those in Liverpool. I was informed that this was a question on which there could be no difference of opinion. We are not discussing the rights and wrongs of the Local Government Act, but a difficulty which has arisen with which this House is empowered to deal.
Earl WINTERTON: I understand this Order is based largely on the De-rating Act, and is intended to give a certain local authority advantages under that Act. It would not be in order to discuss de-rating on this occasion, but I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's commendations of it. [Interruption.] Oh, yes; otherwise the right hon. Gentleman would not be bringing in this Order. He used the phrase that the Order was intended to confer the advantages of the De-rating Act, and I do not know what other meaning can be attached to those words. [Interruption.] I take it to mean that the Act has advantages. If the right hon. Gentleman meant something else, he did not say so.
Mr. GREENWOOD: Equality of treatment.
Earl WINTERTON: At any rate, he appears to be converted to the Act today. I was going to say that he need not have taken up such an aggressive attitude when he rose to move the Order. [Interruption.] There was no reason why he should have been aggressive to those on this side of the House. The question was not whether—[Interruption.] There was no reason, I repeat, why he should have been aggressive. The question was not whether we on this side of the House objected to the Order, but whether the right hon. Gentleman, by the ordinary arrangements come to through the ordinary channels, was or was not entitled to take the business at this late hour. That was the only
422
point at issue. The right hon. Gentleman, to the surprise of this side of the House, adopted towards us a rather aggressive attitude. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, certainly. [Interruption.] I intend to say this. It is not the least use trying to interrupt me. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that if they wish to get this sort of business through—[Interruption]—if they wish to get their business through at this hour they must ask for permission through the ordinary channels. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of some conversation he had had with a right hon. Gentleman on my left. In future, when he wishes to get these Orders through let him ask for permission to do so from the Opposition through the ordinary channels, and not adopt towards the Opposition an attitude which is a mixture of aggressiveness and discourtesy.
Mr. MACKINDER: You never have any other attitude.
Commander WILLIAMS: I have no particular objection to this Order, but there are one or two points on which I should like more enlightenment. It is quite clear that this Order is to meet an exceptional case, but I would like to ask whether there is any likelihood of similar Orders having to be issued. [Interruption]. It is a very serious point. It may concern people in a great many towns, and if hon. Members below the Gangway do not choose to look after the interests of the nation that is no reason why others should not. It is quite conceivable that other places may be in the same position as Bootle and Liverpool. Plymouth and Devonport may be, or Edinburgh and Leith.
Mr. E. BROWN: Edinburgh and Leith are one city now.
Commander WILLIAMS: I know they are one city, but exceptional circumstances may arise there, and I think the hon. Member ought to be very careful, or he may be let down. It would be a terrible position if he should be left in the dark and could not say anything. I really would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Order knows if there are any similar cases likely to arise. Another point I wish to know about this very, very curious Order is whether the Govern-

423
ment have taken the advice of the Law Officers to see whether this is really good law or not. I know that the Law Officers are not here; they very rarely are. As it seems, on these occasions, that there is always someone to step into the breach, I wonder if the Secretary of State for War could step in?
Mr. T. SHAW: I am already one foot in.
Commander WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has already put his foot in it—at least I conclude that that is what he said. But I do think that the House is entitled to an answer to the two questions—firstly, whether any similar cases are likely to arise; and, secondly, whether the Government have consulted the Law Officers.
Mr. E. BROWN: The zeal of the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) for light at this hour of the morning in 1929 is amusing. If that zeal fox light had been exhibited, as it was not, in the debates of 1926 and 1927 when his own Government was passing an Act in regard to which this Order seeks to remedy one small anomaly, then I could understand his attitude; but he is not entitled to talk now. He did not make his voice heard in the darkness of 1926. I would like to add that when the matter of finance is discussed no one has ever denied that you can spend £24,000,000 without doing someone some good. The argument is as to how much better the money could be spent in such a way that it would do most good.
Commander WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the merits of the De-rating Act?
Mr. SPEAKER: I should say not.
Mr. BROWN: I do not mind how long this discussion goes on because I have lost my last tram, and, unlike the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams), I have not a Rolls-Royce. I only wish to say, in conclusion, that this desirable light is very belated on the part of the Conservative party.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): In answer to the two questions that have been asked, I desire to say that we do not know of
424
any other such anomalies in the Acts, but, if such a one be discovered, we will bring up a similar Order. Now, as to whether a legal opinion has been given to us on this matter. It has, and I will read it:
"There is grave doubt as to whether the conjoint effect of the Local Act of 1921, the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, the Rating and Valuation (Bootle Water Rate) Order, 1927, and the Local Government Act, 1929, is that the water rate as levied in Bootle is a rate to which the Act of 1929 applies, and consequently there is grave doubt as to the extent, if any, to which the de-rating provisions of that Act apply to it, and, as a further consequence, there is grave doubt as to whether there is any loss of rates arising under the Act of 1929 which can be taken into account in calculating the new Exchequer grants provided for in that Act."
Consequently, we have introduced this Order. Though, personally, I think the Act of 1929 is a grave misfortune for Liverpool, I do not think that Bootle, of all county boroughs, should be made to suffer inequalities.
Captain GUNSTON: I wish to thank the hon. Lady for the very clear way in which she has dealt with this point. It was for such cases as this that there was put into the Act the provision giving the Minister power to remove difficulties that were bound to arise. I am also glad to see that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is at last getting a little light on this subject.
Resolved,
"That the Local Government (Bootle Water Rate) Order, 1929, dated the 26th day of September, 1929, made by the Minister of Health under Section 130 of the Local Government Act, 1929 (19 and 20 Geo. V., c. 17), for the removal of difficulties arising in connection with the application of certain provisions of that Act to the city of Liverpool and the county borough of Bootle, which was presented on the 29th day of October, 1929, be approved."

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Halstead Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 4th day of November and published,

425
be approved, with the addition of the following Clause after Clause 33 of the draft Order:—
For protection of the Essex County Council.
For the protection of the county council of the administrative county of Essex (in this Section called 'the county council') the following provisions shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing between the company and the county council, apply and have effect within the limits of supply (that is to say):—

(1) In the case of any trunk mains to be laid down by the company under the powers of this Order the company shall not permit any trench made by them in any main road vested in and maintainable by the county council to be open for a greater consecutive distance than four hundred yards, if in such length of four hundred yards there is not room throughout for two carts to pass one another, and in the case of any other main to be laid down in any such road under the powers of this Order there shall not in like circumstances be more than two hundred consecutive yards in length of trench open at any one time, and the company shall, if and when required by the county council or their surveyor, provide to the satisfaction of the county council for the regulation of traffic while any trench referred to in this Sub-section shall remain open;

(2) In approving the plan to be delivered to the county council under Section 9 of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, the county council may require that all mains and pipes of the company shall, wherever practicable, be laid in or at the side of the road, and if any main or pipe of the company shall be laid below the surface of the carriageway of any main road at a depth of less than two feet the county council shall not be liable for or in respect of any damage or injury which may be caused to such main or pipe by the use by the county council of any steam or other roller for the repair of any such road or of any traction engine belonging to the county council provided that such roller or engine does not exceed twelve tons in weight;

(3) In the case of any main or pipe which it is reasonably necessary to lay otherwise than in the roadway over any county or main road bridge vested in the county council, the same shall be carried on the structure of any such bridge in such manner as the county council may, in writing under the hand of their surveyor, reasonably direct and, except as aforesaid, the company shall not interfere with the structural part of any county or main road bridge without the consent in writing of the surveyor of the county council, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld;

426

(4) The provisions of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, with respect to the breaking-up of streets for the purpose of laying pipes as modified by this section shall, in their application to the laying of any pipe in such mails road, county or main road bridge, and the roadway over and approaches to such bridge, be read and construed as if the notice required by Section eight of that Act was not less than seven clear days instead of three clear days;

(5) The exercise of any of the powers of the company within the limits of supply shall not interfere with, prejudice, or affect the right of the county council at any time to alter the level of or deviate or improve in any manner they think fit any main road in or along which any mains or pipes of the company shall have been laid, and the company shall, on receiving notice in writing under the hand of the clerk or surveyor of the county council so to do, alter with all reasonable dispatch the position of any such mains, pipes, or works in the manner and to the extent prescribed by such notice or as, in case of difference, shall be determined by arbitration in the manner hereinafter prescribed, and the county council shall repay to the company the expenses reasonably incurred by the company in effecting any such alteration;

(6) The exercise of any powers of the company under this order within the limits of supply shall not prejudice or affect the right of the county council at any time to remove, alter, rebuild, widen, or repair any county or main road bridge or the approaches to any such bridge or the roadway over the same in, over, or attached to which any mains, pipes, or works of the company are carried in the same manner as the county council might have removed, altered, rebuilt, widened, or repaired such bridge, roadway, or the approaches if this order had not been made, and such mains, pipes, or works had not been so laid or attached, and the county council shall not be required to repay to the company any expense to which the company may be put by reason or in consequence of any such removal, alteration, rebuilding, widening, or reparation, but the county council shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent injury to the works of the company, and shall pay compensation for any loss which the company may sustain by reason of any such injury. In the event of any such bridge, roadway, or approaches being removed, altered, rebuilt, widened, or repaired as aforesaid the company shall at their own cost in all things alter the position of any such mains or pipes carried in, over, or attached to such bridge or approaches as aforesaid in such manner as the county council or their surveyor may reasonably direct;

427

Provided that during any such removal, alteration, rebuilding, widening, or reparation the county council shall afford to the company all reasonable facilities for temporarily carrying such mains, pipes, and works across any stream or river so as not to interrupt the continuous supply of gas or to diminish the pressure of such supply through such mains or pipes, and the company may carry such mains, pipes, and works accordingly;

(7) If the company shall after reasonable notice from the county council, under the hand of their surveyor, neglect to do or complete any work or act required by Sub-sections (5) and (6) of this section to be done by the company then and in any such case the county council may do such work or act themselves under the superintendence (if given) of the company completing the same with all reasonable expedition and in a proper and workmanlike manner, and causing as little damage or inconvenience to the company as circumstances admit, and in respect of any work or act required by Subsection (6) the company shall repay to the county council the reasonable cost of doing any such work or act;

(8) The county council shall not execute any works under this section or enforce any of the provisions of this section so that the supply of gas by the company shall be interrupted, and if the county council so interrupt, or cause to be interrupted, the supply of gas they shall repay to the company any loss, damage, or expenses to which the company may thereby be put or become subject;

(9) If any difference at any time arises between the county council and the company touching this section, or anything to be done or not to be done thereunder, such difference shall be settled by an arbitrator to be agreed upon between them or, failing agreement, to be appointed on the application of either party by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers and, subject as aforesaid, the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall apply to any such reference to arbitration as aforesaid."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

Commander WILLIAMS: May I have some explanation of this Gas Order? I notice that it is quite different from the ordinary Gas Orders. In fact, I should not like to comment on it, because it is so very long. I would ask particularly that we might have some explanation of paragraph (6), which provides that the exercise of any powers of the company under this Order shall not prejudice or affect the rights of the county council. That seems to me a provision that I have not read very often before.
Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: This is a very long and complicated Order. I would particularly like to have some explanation of paragraph (2), which says that the county council shall not be liable for damage caused to pipes in certain circumstances. I should like to know whether any other unfortunate owner is to pay if he does the same?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): In the case of this Order there were certain objections raised by the county council and the railway company. After consultation, the railway company agreed to withdraw, but the county council was not so minded, and an attempt was made to hold these points over for an inquiry to be held. That was not found to be possible, and, rather than hold the proceedings up for a longer period, it was agreed to add this paragraph. All opposition to the Order has been withdrawn.
Earl WINTERTON: Does not this paragraph (2) come to some extent in conflict with the new Road Traffic Bill before the House of Lords? Are there not provisions in that Bill regarding the damage done to roads?
Mr. SMITH: I am afraid it is rather difficult for me to answer as to how far this Order will clash with any proposed legislation. If there is any such difficulty, that is surely a matter for legislation in this House.
Commander WILLIAMS: The hon. Member has not explained paragraph (6). May I have an explanation? I am sure the hon. Member would wish—
Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) in order in speaking twice on the one question?
Mr. SPEAKER: He is only asking a question.
Commander WILLIAMS: I am trying to ask the question in such a way that the Minister may have time to get the answer. If he has got it now, I will come to the end of the question. If, on the other hand, he has not got it, I will amplify my question so as to be still in order. But I conclude, as he has returned to his seat, that he has got an answer. Of course, if he would like me

429
to amplify my question, so that he can consider his answer, then I am prepared to do so.
Mr. SMITH: It is impossible for me to give a detailed explanation. As all opposition has been withdrawn to the Order, it is not unusual that it should be placed on the Paper to be dealt with in the way that we are asking, and I think it is usual, if points are to be raised, for information to be given in advance in order to enable the necessary inquiries to be made to answer the points. I can only repeat that the whole position now is agreed between the contending parties concerned in this matter.
Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It is surely unusual for a Minister to come
down with a long Order like this and not know a single word of it.
Lord E. PERCY: I perhaps have not been in this House a very long time, but I have never before heard such an excuse made by any Minister. The fact that a notice of this sort is put on the Paper is entirely the business of the Government. When has it even been ruled before that notice should be given in advance of any questions that may be put about an Order on the Paper? In view of the extraordinary statement which we have heard, I think we must press the Government to postpone this Order until we can discuss it.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 46.

Division No. 89.]

AYES.

[12.42 a.m.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Raynes, W. R.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Ritson, J.

Arnott, John

Kelly, W. T.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Romeril, H. G.

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Lathan, G.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Bellamy, Albert

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Scurr, John

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Lawson, John James

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Lees, J.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Bowen, J. W.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shillaker, J. F.

Buchanan, G.

Lindley, Fred W.

Simmons, C. J.

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Longbottom, A. W.

Sitch, Charles H.

Chater, Daniel

Longden, F.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Church, Major A. G.

McEntee, V. L.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Clarke, J. S.

Mackinder, W.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Cluse, W. S.

McKinlay, A.

Sorensen, R.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

McShane, John James

Stephen, Campbell

Compton, Joseph

Marley, J.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Daggar, George

Mathers, George

Sullivan, J.

Dallas, George

Matters, L. W.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Maxton, James

Thurtle, Ernest

Dickson, T.

Melville, Sir James

Toole, Joseph

Duncan, Charles

Middleton, G.

Tout, W. J.

Ede, James Chuter

Mills, J. E.

Vaughan, D. J.

Edmunds, J. E.

Milner, J.

Walker, J.

Gibbins, Joseph

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Wallace, H. W.

Gill, T. H.

Morley, Ralph

Watkins, F. C.

Gossling, A. G.

Mort, D. L.

Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).

Moses, J. J. H.

Wellock, Wilfred

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Haycock, A. W.

Oldfield, J. R.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Paling, Wilfrid

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)

Hoffman, P. C.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wise, E. F.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Potts, John S.

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Albery, Irving James

Butler, R. A.

Glassey, A. E.

Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Colville, Major D. J.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Beaumont, M. W.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Hartington, Marquess of

Boyce, H. L.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Bracken, B.

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Womersley, W. J.

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Smithers, Waldron

Mond, Hon. Henry

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Captain Sir George Bowyer and

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Captain Euan Wallace.

Muirhead, A. J.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Watford Gas and Coke Company, which was presented on the 19th day of November and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]
Commander WILLIAMS: As far as this Order is concerned, I know the Minister is sublimely innocent, so I shall not press for details to-night. I have no desire to be personally rude to him, but, knowing that these Gas Orders always have been criticised, it is amazing to me that he did not know about
432
the first Order. In future, I feel sure that he will come prepared with all the details.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Ten Minutes before One o'Clock.

POST OFFICE.
  UNDERGROUND CABLES.
  UNDERGROUND CABLES.
  ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT (ACCOMMODATION).
  ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT (ACCOMMODATION).
  TELEPHONE MESSAGES, RUGBY.
  TELEPHONE MESSAGES, RUGBY.
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (.RENTAL CHARGES).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (.RENTAL CHARGES).
  LOST POSTAL PACKETS AND PARCELS.
  LOST POSTAL PACKETS AND PARCELS.
SCOTLAND.
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE).
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE).
  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  AGRICULTURE.
  AGRICULTURE.
  POTATOES (EMBARGO, AMERICA).
  POTATOES (EMBARGO, AMERICA).
  NESS-TOLSTA ROAD, ISLE OF LEWIS.
  NESS-TOLSTA ROAD, ISLE OF LEWIS.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  WESTERN ISLES (TRANSPORT SERVICE).
  WESTERN ISLES (TRANSPORT SERVICE).
  STATE ASSISTANCE, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  STATE ASSISTANCE, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE (FATAL ACCIDENTS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (FATAL ACCIDENTS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  EXPORT TRADE.
  EXPORT TRADE.
  CHINA CLAY WORKS, DARTMOOR.
  CHINA CLAY WORKS, DARTMOOR.
  WOOLWICH.
  WOOLWICH.
  GROCERY TRADE BOARD.
  GROCERY TRADE BOARD.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  MATERNITY.
  MATERNITY.
  MENTAL NURSES.
  MENTAL NURSES.
  SMOKE ABATEMENT.
  SMOKE ABATEMENT.
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
HOUSING.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  PLYMOUTH.
  PLYMOUTH.
  BECONTREE ESTATE.
  BECONTREE ESTATE.
  RENTS (REDUCTION).
  RENTS (REDUCTION).
  "MUNICIPAL REVIEW."
  "MUNICIPAL REVIEW."
  FLOODS, BRECONSHIRE.
  FLOODS, BRECONSHIRE.
  GRAIN ELEVATORS.
  GRAIN ELEVATORS.
  ROADSIDE LANDS (TAXATION).
  ROADSIDE LANDS (TAXATION).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  LANCASHIRE (CLOSET) PITS).
  LANCASHIRE (CLOSET) PITS).
  DRILL MACHINES (SILICOSIS AND ANTHRACOSIS).
  DRILL MACHINES (SILICOSIS AND ANTHRACOSIS).
  PROFITS AND TAXATION.
  PROFITS AND TAXATION.
  DEPARTMENTAL REPORT.
  DEPARTMENTAL REPORT.
  MINERAL ROYALTIES.
  MINERAL ROYALTIES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MECHANISATION.
  MECHANISATION.
  RANKER OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  RANKER OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  DIRECT TAXATION, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  DIRECT TAXATION, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  TARIFF PREFERENCES (COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES).
  TARIFF PREFERENCES (COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES).
  CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  AMERICAN SECURITIES (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  AMERICAN SECURITIES (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  TRAFFIC NOISES (PROSECUTIONS).
  TRAFFIC NOISES (PROSECUTIONS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  EDUCATION (SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS).
  EDUCATION (SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICES, MARYLEBONE).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICES, MARYLEBONE).
  ROYAL PARKS (ORGANISED GAMES).
  ROYAL PARKS (ORGANISED GAMES).
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  POTATO INDUSTRY.
  POTATO INDUSTRY.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) ADDITIONAL GRANT BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1ª; and to be printed.

WATFORD AND ST. ALBANS GAS ORDER, 1929.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name upon the Paper.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MENTAL TREATMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, and in so doing I might tell your Lordships that it is hoped to conclude the Committee stage to-day. I think that, with your Lordships' assistance, we shall be able to do so at a fairly reasonable hour.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to receive voluntary boarders.
1.—(1) Any person suffering from mental disorder who is desirous of voluntarily submitting himself to treatment, and who makes a written application for the purpose, may without a reception order be received as a voluntary boarder in an institution

1051
within the meaning of this Act, or in any hospital or nursing home approved for the purposes of this section by the Board of Control, or, with the consent of the Board, into single care.
(2) Any unmarried person under the age of eighteen suffering from mental disorder whose parent or guardian is desirous of submitting him to treatment may, if the parent or guardian makes a written application for the purpose, be received as a voluntary boarder under this section, but such a person shall not be so received on his own application.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the expression "parent or guardian" in relation to an unmarried person under the age of eighteen includes any person who undertakes or performs towards that person the duty of a parent or guardian.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "suffering from mental disorder." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment, which is a very small one, is to make it as easy as possible for persons who are suffering from incipient symptoms to become voluntary boarders. Your Lordships will observe that the terms of the Bill are:
"Any person suffering from mental disorder who is desirous…."
and so on. My anxiety is based on the view that it should not be necessary for a person to be so far gone in the disorder as these words imply before submitting himself to treatment. The Bill says, in effect, that he must be actually suffering from mental disorder. I am very desirous that no person should be deterred from offering himself for treatment as a voluntary boarder, even by implication, when he is not so far gone as to be properly described by the words of the Bill. Accordingly I propose to leave out the words "suffering from mental disorder," and I had intended to move to insert after "treatment" the words "for mental or nervous disorder." I should really be content merely to leave out the words that I have read. Under the corresponding section of the Lunacy Act, 1890, there is no definition of the voluntary boarder's malady. All that is necessary is that a person should be desirous of voluntarily submitting himself to treatment. I understand from my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill that he would not be content to leave the matter quite so much at large as that, and I also understand that, for administrative
1052
reasons, he does not desire me to include the word "nervous." He prefers the words "for mental disorder" alone. If he is prepared to meet me to that extent, I am equally prepared to meet him. I should be prepared to insert after "treatment" the words "for mental disorder." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("suffering from mental disorder.")—(Lord Sandhurst.)
EARL RUSSELL: We can practically accept this Amendment. The noble Lord's object is to leave out these words and to insert after "treatment" the words "for mental or nervous disorder.' There are objections, as he has said, to including the word "nervous," but we would accept the second Amendment without the words "or nervous," so that the Bill would read:—
"Any person who is desirous of voluntarily submitting himself to treatment for mental disorder…."
and so on. If the noble Lord will agree to move the second Amendment in that form, we will accept both Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("treatment") insert ("for mental disorder").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "eighteen" and insert twenty-one." The noble Viscount said: The first Amendment which I have down on the Paper relates to the age at which a person may voluntarily place himself in an asylum or mental home. My important Amendment is the second one dealing with the conditions under which he places himself in a home, and therefore I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time on this first question. It does appear to me a little questionable whether a man or woman of eighteen years should be allowed in any circumstances voluntarily to place himself or herself in a mental home. I should have thought that the ordinary age at which a young person comes of age and is able to take important decisions in life should be the age at which he or she should be able to take this most important decision of all—namely, whether he or she should without any certification

1053
of any kind have the right to place himself or herself in a home or an asylum. I should be glad if the noble Earl would give us the reasons for fixing upon the age of eighteen, and I should also be glad to know whether, if the House agrees, he would consider an Amendment raising the age to twenty-one. I therefore beg formally to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount asks me where the age of eighteen came from and the reason for its suggestion. It comes from an Amendment which this House itself inserted in the Mental Treatment Bill of 1923 and, therefore, it was thought well to follow it. I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment. There are other Amendments suggesting that the age should be reduced at which the parent or guardian can act for the child, but there is a later Amendment coming which we hope to accept and which would, I think, meet the point. It is an Amendment by Lord Danesfort that the application should be accompanied by a medical certificate. We think that perhaps in the case of minors there should be in addition to the consent of the parent or guardian a medical certificate that the patient would benefit from treatment. If the noble Viscount would accept that Amendment instead of his own, I think it would meet all objections to dealing with a young person without his personal consent.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I am prepared to withdraw this Amendment, but I should be glad to hear what my noble friend has to say with regard to his Amendment, because I place great stress upon my Amendment with regard to people under the age of eighteen.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The next Amendments by Lord Sandhurst are consequential, I believe.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("suffering from mental disorder").
Page 1, line 17, after ("treatment") insert, ("for mental disorder").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, in subsection (2), after "purpose," to insert "and where such a person is not under the age of sixteen his consent to the application by the parent or guardian is given in writing." The noble Earl said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the London County Council, who, as Earl Russell knows, have a great many mental institutions and large experience in dealing with people suffering from mental disorder. They feel that the age of eighteen is too high for the parent to have sole control over a practically grown-up man or woman. At the age of sixteen a young person is allowed to marry, and sixteen also, I believe, is the age at which a young person is allowed to give his or her consent to undergo an operation. Therefore it is felt by the Council that the consent of the parents should be accompanied by the consent of the patient. I hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, after ("purpose") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
EARL RUSSELL: Your Lordships will notice that whereas the noble Viscount wanted to raise the age to twenty-one the noble Earl wishes to reduce it to sixteen. We still think that eighteen is the better age, and that it is not really necessary to accept the Amendment in view of the one which I have indicated that we propose to accept, which would mean that the judgment of the parent or guardian would be reinforced by the recommendation of a doctor. In that case, I think your Lordships would feel that a person whose parents express a desire that he should be treated voluntarily would be protected if the application were accompanied by a medical certificate. I may say at once that we propose, if the noble Lord [Lord Danesfort] agrees, to use the word "recommendation" rather than "certificate." We wish to avoid the use of the word "certificate," which suggests the certification of a person. I shall be much obliged if the noble Earl will not press his Amendment, because we think the age of eighteen is better, and does agree with a previous decision of your Lordships.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I had thought of putting down an Amendment on the same lines as that of Lord Danesfort, but when I saw the Amendment of Lord Danesfort I did not put one down myself. We feel rather strongly that persons of sixteen, who are able to marry, which is a much graver step than going for treatment in a mental hospital, should have a say in their own affairs.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the noble Earl will reconsider his decision. I do not differ from the view that he should withdraw his Amendment at the present moment, but I do not think that this is covered by the decision to which the House has just arrived. The effect of the Amendment now before your Lordships is that the consent of the individual young person should be essential. It does not mean the removal of the action of the parent, which was the effect of the last Amendment, but that they should both consent. I agree with Lord Brentford that we ought to have the action of the parent in the case of these minors, but I also agree that in the case of a young person still a minor, but approaching the age of an adult, the consent of the individual should also be required. That is what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has moved. I am sure that the noble Ear] will see that the two points are not inconsistent at all; they are supplementary the one to the other. And I am sure it is a very strong measure indeed to say that a young man or young woman of eighteen may be "voluntarily" shut up as it is called without his or her consent—because that is what the proposal of the Bill is. That a mere child should be shut up without its consent by the decision of the parent or guardian is a reasonable thing; but when you get to the age of eighteen to say that the individual who really is quite capable of decision on a great number of subjects of vast importance, such as marriage, for instance—to say that the consent of a young person of eighteen should not be a pre-requisite seems to me a very strong doctrine. I do not desire to press the noble Earl at the present moment, but I hope he will not think the point is covered by the view of my noble friend Lord Brentford—which is quite different—and that he will reconsider this between now and the Report stage.
EARL RUSSELL: What the noble Marquess says is this, that between the ages of sixteen and eighteen a person might be allowed some will of his own. I quite see that point, but does not the noble Marquess think that if it is to be accompanied by a medical recommendation that will in effect cover that point? It is not in the least likely that any doctor will sign a recommendation to say that the patient will be better for voluntary treatment if the patient has said to the doctor: "No, thank you; I do not wish to have voluntary treatment." However, I will consider it between now and the Report stage.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: I think, perhaps, I can say something which will elucidate the difficulty of the noble Marquess. Is he not making the mistake of thinking of these people in terms of the normal mind? If we were dealing with people of normal mind I would give my support entirely to the young person having the right of decision; but unfortunately nature has decided this matter for us, and there is a great proneness for these mental disorders, which may so easily develop into insanity properly so called, to arise at these ages of sixteen and eighteen; and the very existence of these mental disorders, slight as they may be at that stage, makes these young people very difficult. Sometimes it is almost impossible to get them better in their own homes. They are, in a sense, anti-social, and therefore they do want rather more pressure than those who are normal. In fact, these young people with these incipient disorders are to be looked upon more in the light of normal young people who are younger by two years, and it is because of the very conditions which we have to meet that it is desirable to put a little more power in the hands of the parents for this particular type of ailment. If you support it with a medical certificate or medical recommendation—which, I quite agree, is the better term—I think you will meet the difficulty and safeguard the Bill against abuse, which I am sure we all desire to do.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I dislike very much differing from my noble friend, but the whole tenor of his speech makes me anxious about this clause. This clause relates to the voluntary right

1057
of a person to shut himself up. It is not a question of pressure, it is not a question of a condition of mental disorder under which he is not able to take a voluntary decision. Under the clause a young man of eighteen may, and can if he wants, make a voluntary decision and he can then go into a mental home without any doctor's certificate.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: With a doctor's certificate.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Without. Under the Bill as it is drawn if a man over eighteen desires to place himself in a home where he would be well looked after it is part of his own volition. The voluntary judgment of this so-called voluntary patient is to be taken away, and pressure is to be put upon him by the parent and by the doctor who is prepared to sign the recommendation. It is quite possible that a young person under eighteen may be put under proper safeguard and proper certificates in a mental home or asylum. But the very essence of this clause is that it is a voluntary clause. There are other clauses of the Bill under which you can put pressure, and other clauses of the existing law under which a young man or young woman under eighteen can for his or her own benefit be incarcerated. But I think the proposal of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is really an improvement on the Bill. It is a proposal which will make the Bill more popular, as well as more reasonable.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Surely my noble friend is mistaken in saying that this is a voluntary clause. Let him read the subsection:—
"Any unmarried person under the age of eighteen suffering from mental disorder whose parent or guardian is desirous of submitting him to treatment may, if the parent or guardian makes a written application…."
and so on. Therefore, this young person cannot submit himself to voluntary treatment unless the parent or guardian makes a written application. What is to prevent the, parent saying to the young person: "I intend you to go into this home; you have got to say that you are going to do it voluntarily, and I will make a written declaration that you are doing it voluntarily." I must say I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn, that this is not a voluntary clause but a clause which might lead to pressure.
EARL RUSSELL: As the noble Earl has offered to withdraw the Amendment, and I have promised to consider it, I think on the next Amendment I can show your Lordships how it may be met.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, in subsection (2), after "purpose," to insert "accompanied by a medical recommendation." The noble Lord said: I am using the word "recommendation" instead of "certificate" in my Amendment on the advice of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I understand that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. Under the Bill as it was drawn it was open to the parent or guardian of any young person under eighteen practically to put him into a mental home, whether he desired it or not, and to have him detained there for a period which may be considerable without any volition whatever on his part. I do not wish to say anything about parents and guardians in general, but it is quite possible to say that in some cases there might be parents or guardians who would like to lock up a child who might be a little unruly or disagreeable, and I think that, in the interests of the liberty of the subject, it is absolutely necessary to have some further protection in the Bill. It was suggested during the Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, and others that this incarceration of a young person should not take place unless there was a medical certificate or recommendation saying that it was desirable for him to be so detained; and therefore I move my Amendment as being at any rate a partial remedy for what might have been a great evil. I hope your Lordships will consider the suggestion sufficient to avert any possible evil, but if the House desires to strengthen it further I should be quite prepared to accept any suggestion.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, after ("purpose") insert ("accompanied by a medical recommendation").—(Lord Danesfort.)
EARL RUSSELL: The two Amendments of the noble Lord must be read together—this one and the one on page 2, line 2, where it is proposed to insert a new subsection. That subsection is founded on Clause 5, subsection (3), and prescribes the person who is to make the recommendation and it finishes in this way—

1059
"…that the said person is…likely to be benefited by being received as a voluntary boarder under this section."
I shall want, when we come to it, to ask the noble Lord to change it a little to fit in with Lord Sandhurst's Amendment. If it is desired to afford an expression of will in regard to persons between sixteen and eighteen it will be a matter that I will consider between now and Report stage, but it seems to me it might be possible, and entirely protective, to insert in that recommendation a provision that if the person is over the age of sixteen he has expressed willingness to agree to the treatment. That would be a certificate by the doctor that the minor agreed to be treated. I think if noble Lords would allow me to consider that between now and Report stage I might meet the objections raised.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That would also include the parents' consent?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: You would have the consent of the parents and guardian and the medical recommendation?
EARL RUSSELL: The consent of parents would be a pre-requisite to the medical recommendation arising.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I do not want to be insistent in regard to these matters if your Lordships really desire to accept the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Danesfort, which has been agreed to by the Government in substance. I would not then take my objection any further, except to say I personally regret very much that a young person under eighteen can be locked up in any form of home or asylum without judicial proceedings. Under the law as it stands to-day everybody has the protection of the judicial authority before being put into any one of these institutions, whatever name you like to give them. Under this clause, as it is now proposed to be amended, a young person who should be, as my noble friend said, a troublesome child or even an unwanted child, is to be locked up on the recommendation of one doctor without the right to go, as he has to-day, before some kind of judicial officer, even a magistrate. Your Lordships will remember that the Royal Commissioners themselves—I shall
1060
come to that on Clause 5—have very grave doubts whether anybody should be locked up without some form of judicial proceeding. Here you have a young person, who is not so able to protect himself as a man of twenty-one or twenty-two, and who may be put away by the father and mother with the family doctor's advice, for that is what it comes to, and nothing more. I see one or two noble and learned Lords present, and I do not know whether they would think this is a right course to take or not. If they think it is right I will not press your Lordships further. I am bound to confess that, personally, I conceive that it is a very grave breach in the law as it now stands, and a very unsatisfactory position for the Government to take up.
LORD ATKIN: There is one further protection that I think might be taken; at any rate I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to it, which I am sure he will give. It is this. The proposal, which carries out the scheme of this clause that the treatment is voluntary, is that the young person of seventeen or sixteen will have intimated to the doctor his consent to be so treated; but, as I read the clause as it now stands, there is no limit of time during which he will be kept in a hospital in those circumstances, except the consent of his guardian. It seems to me that if you carry out the idea that the young person of sixteen or seventeen ought to consent to treatment he ought to be consenting throughout, and he ought not to be in the position of being detained against his will. I do not know how that is to be met. There is no provision at the present time. It seems to me to be unsatisfactory, if he has to consent to his being in a hospital to begin with, that when once his consent is obtained he can only be removed at the request of his parents or guardian. I think some provision ought to be made to meet that.
LORD MERRIVALE: I do not know whether my noble and learned friend has considered the effect of Clause 1, subsection (3), which provides that a person received as a voluntary boarder may leave the institution upon giving seventy-two hours notice—that is three days—of his intention to do so; or, if he is unmarried, upon such notice being given by his parents or guardian. If you would extend the first paragraph of subsection

1061
(3) so as to combine the two consents I think that probably would meet the difficulty, but I venture to press upon my noble friend and my noble and learned friend the necessity for seriously considering the great innovation in the Common Law rights of His Majesty's subjects which is made if, instead of the standard age of sixteen which has been known for generations as the age of right and of responsibility on the part of individuals, you substitute an arbitrary age without any safeguard except the certificate of one medical man. I say no more than that to my mind it is a grave innovation. Everybody who knows anything about the personal law of this country knows what an outstanding feature the rights which arise at sixteen always is. If a lad of sixteen and a half is detained, even by a parent, a friend may obtain a writ of habeas corpus to ascertain whether he ought not to be released. The principle which that represents you are infringing by this provision, and I think you are doing it with an inadequate safeguard.
EARL RUSSELL: Of course it is quite true this is an invasion of the Common Law right of personal liberty which is recommended in the interests of the patients, and it will be for your Lordships to decide whether on balance the course proposed will be in the interests of these patients and will lead to their recovery or not. With regard to the particular point of the consent of the person over sixteen, of course it is not met now, because the suggestion that they should consent on going in has not been before us till this moment. That will be part of the matter I will look into before Report stage. I agree, in principle, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, that if the patient who is over sixteen has to consent to go in for this treatment he must continue to consent when he is there. That follows naturally. That will be one of the matters I will consider before the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD had given Notice to move, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:—
"( ) No person under the age of twenty-one years shall be received as a voluntary boarder unless a reception order shall be made under the provisions of Sections four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten of the principal Act."
The noble Viscount said: I take it that it will be the wish of your Lordships that I shall not move this Amendment, which is intended to restore the statutory right of a man to be put into a home or asylum only by a judicial authority. I gather that your Lordships wish to give the Government an opportunity of trying this new method and in the circumstances I shall wait to see their new clause on the Report stage. I will not now move this Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to move, after subsection (2), to insert:—
"( ) The medical certificate referred to in the last subsection shall be signed by a registered medical practitioner, who shall be either the usual medical attendant of the person to whom the application relates, or a person who has been approved for the purpose of making a medical certificate under this the last subsection either by the Board of Control or by the local authority within whoso area the said person then is. Such certificate shall state the qualifications of the medical practitioner, the date or dates on which he examined the said person, that the said person is suffering from mental disorder and is likely to be benefited by being received as a voluntary boarder under this section."
The noble Lord said: I rise to propose the Amendment standing in my name to insert a new subsection, but the Amendment as printed on the Paper will require one or two verbal amendments. In line 1 the word "recommendation" will have to be substituted for "certificate" and the same substitution will have to be made in line 6, and I think also in line 9. Then after the word "boarder" in the last line but one—
EARL RUSSELL: The words in line 12 "suffering from mental disorder and is" should come out.
LORD DANESFORT: Do we not want those words?
EARL RUSSELL: No.
LORD DANESFORT: I do not quite see why they should come out, and I should like to hear the reason. I think it is rather necessary that the doctor who examines any person should make this statement that the person is suffering from a mental disorder. Unless he is, how is he likely to benefit from treatment for mental disorder? It seems to me that the words should remain unless the noble Earl in charge of the Bill can give me some reason.
EARL RUSSELL: It is consequential upon Lord Sandhurst's Amendment which has already been accepted.
LORD DANESFORT: I was going to put in after "boarder" the words "for treatment for mental disorder." If I may be allowed I will move my Amendment in that form. After the discussion that has taken place, I do not think it is necessary to trouble your Lordships with any further remarks.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps I had better read the whole Amendment as it has been altered so much. The Amendment proposed is to insert the following new subsection:
"The medical recommendation referred to in the last subsection shall be signed by a registered medical practitioner, who shall be either the usual medical attendant of the person to whom the application relates, or a person who has been approved for the purpose of making a medical recommendation under this the last subsection either by the Board of Control or by the local authority within whose area the said person then is. Such recommendation shall state the qualifications of the medical practitioner, the date or dates on which he examined the said person, that the said person is likely to be benefited by being received as a voluntary boarder for treatment for mental disorder under this section."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, at end insert the new subsection.—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD ATKIN: I thought the first Amendment moved by Lord Danesfort to insert "accompanied by a medical recommendation" was associated with further words which the noble Earl opposite suggested—namely, a recommendation that he should be received for treatment for mental disorder. The noble Lord, I think, suggested that the recommendation should be defined and it seems to me to follow that if he may submit himself under the first part of the clause and consent to be treated for mental disorder—the idea being that he is to be treated in the incipient stages and without mental disorder being present—it is plain that the recommendation of the doctor must conform to that state of things, and that it should be a recommendation that it would be beneficial for the person to be treated for mental disorder. If you require that he should be found to be suffering from mental disorder you put him in a different category from the
1064
person who need not be suffering from mental disorder but need only volunteer to be treated.
EARL RUSSELL: I am very sorry, but I do not quite follow the point. We have taken out the words "suffering from mental disorder" and put in the words "for treatment for mental disorder." That is in accordance with the Amendment made earlier. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would put it down on Report stage if he thinks the Amendment necessary. I think it would be inconsistent with the previous Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT: May I consider the matter between now and the Report stage? I quite see the objection, and if it is desirable I will strike out the words on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Viscount said: I move to leave out this subsection because I really do not understand what the position is going to be. The House has now decided that a voluntary patient who is under eighteen may be put into a hospital with the consent of his parents or guardian. Then follows this very remarkable subsection:—
"For the purposes of this section, the expression 'parent or guardian' in relation to an unmarried person under the age of eighteen includes any person who undertakes or performs towards that person the duty of a parent or guardian."
I have had some experience in drafting Bills in another place, and I remember the passing of the Guardians Act, which, of course, also passed through this House, but I have never come across a clause referring to a person who is not a parent, not a guardian, but somebody who undertakes or performs the duties of such a person. I do not quite know what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill means. Does this subsection mean, for instance, that a parent who has had very little to do with an illegitimate child may take upon himself the duties of a guardian—that a man who has neglected his child up to this moment may take upon himself the duties of a guardian and lock him or her up in a home or an asylum in accordance with the provisions of the clause? I hope before your Lordships pass this clause—my noble friend, Lord Merrivale, has said we are going a

1065
long way to delete Common Law right—we may have some explanation as to who is to exercise this power.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELL: Unfortunately it happens sometimes to the children of the poor that they do not find themselves in the happy position of having a home with a definite father and mother with whom they are living. All sorts of things may happen to them. They may be abandoned illegitimate children. There may be cases where the father has been sent to prison, and the mother has run off with someone else, and the child is taken in and looked alter by a neighbour. They have not got the conditions of certainty which obtain in happier classes. That is a difficulty which has to be provided for. The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment seems to think we have devised an addition to the general idea of parent or guardian which is something totally new. If he will look at the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, Section 71, he will find these words:—
"The expression 'parent or guardian' in relation to a defective shall include any person who undertakes or performs towards the defective the duty of a parent or guardian."
The words, therefore, have ample authority and actually, I think, in the case of these particular people who are not in the fortunate position of having, as I say, any very definite or legally-appointed guardian, the words are necessary. I think the noble Viscount would be well advised not to press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: I would like to put a question on this point. You surely do not want to give these powers to somebody who is not a legal parent or guardian but who undertakes duties and does not perform them. That is what the words say.
EARL RUSSELL: That must surely depend upon the circumstances. Somebody may have undertaken to be the guardian of a child and may or may not be performing the duties, but, if they are in fact paying for them and being in fact their guardians, you must accept them. Somebody who may not have undertaken the duty of guardian in the
1066
sense of assuming legal responsibility may be performing the kind duty of a foster mother and may look after them. The words are disjunctive in the Act of 1913 and it would be desirable to preserve these words as they have been found satisfactory in that Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl assures us that this provision has already proved satisfactory, that, of course, makes a difference, but the words reach a limit of vagueness which is almost unparalleled. Before whom are they to undertake them? In the sight of public opinion? In the knowledge of the neighbours around them? In the presence of a magistrate? How is it recognised and established that a particular person has undertaken to do a particular thing? Is it merely that A.B. says: "I undertake the duty"? It must be something more than that. Although it may be that by some series or legal decisions the matter has been stabilised, yet, otherwise, if the words have not been defined, they seem most marvellously vague.
LORD ATKIN: The difficulty is this. A guardian means a legally-appointed guardian and there are numbers of cases of children, both rich and poor, who have not a legally-appointed guardian. The parents have died or have deserted them and they are in the hands of relations or kind friends who have brought them up and who are, in the legal phrase, guardians de facto. Those are the guardians who a re meant to be included. Whether this phrase is the aptest phrase or not for the purpose I do not know; but it is essential that this phrase should be there, otherwise these children would not be able to get this treatment like other people and would have to be treated in hospitals. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider whether some better phrase could be found.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am always unwilling to intrude with cases which have come within my personal cognisance; but I know a case where this subsection, had it been in force, would have been very useful. I shall not go into the details, but generally speaking the case was that the father died after marrying again. It is difficult for a step-mother to undertake duties of this kind, nobody was appointed the legal guardian, and in this case such a phrase would have been very useful.

1067
The noble Earl has assured us that it has worked well and therefore I think we should accept it.
EARL RUSSELL: These are cases where there are no legally-appointed guardians, cases of neglected children, of deserted children, of children picked up in the streets, and under this phrase you can call in the people who are actually looking after them. It has the authority of sixteen years behind it and we ought to adopt it now.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If the Amendment proposed by Lord Brentford were adopted, would not the parents or guardians have the power to go to a doctor and ask for a recommendation, and would not the doctor presumably be liable if he gave a recommendation to somebody who is not a proper guardian? Am I right in that?
EARL RUSSELL: It may be, but the doctors who attend the poor take a great many risks with the intention of helping them. The alternative, if you want some legal person, is to turn the child over to the Poor Law, and the relieving officer would be the parent or guardian. That is not desirable in the interest of the child or patient and I hope your Lordships will accept these words.
LORD DANESFORT: It is generally agreed that one must have some words for some person who is not the legal guardian but is acting de facto in that capacity. That being so, I think the words here used are most vague and on the face of it exceedingly unsatisfactory. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill referred to the Mental Deficiency Act in which he tells me these same words are used. Has that Act ever come before any Court to consider it? Has any question ever come before any Court of these words? If there had been such a case, it would probably have been very useful to us now. If no such case is produced, I hope the noble Earl will consider these words again before Report stage. As my noble friend said, the words appear to be very vague. What has a person to do in order to undertake the duties of a guardian? How long before must he have undertaken those duties? In what form must he have undertaken them? Is there to be any record of his having undertaken those duties? I merely throw
1068
out these suggestions to show that the words as they stand are exceedingly vague. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor or some great legal authority will consider the words before we reach the Report stage and see whether we cannot have something rather more definite which will hold water.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: I hope your Lordships will not tighten up this clause too much. You are dealing, it is well to remember, not only with the very poor but with a large class rather above them, separated from the poor but very far separated from those who can look after themselves. An ounce of experience in this matter is often worth a great deal of theory and it falls to me from time to time to be in the chair of one of our great educational foundations of a charitable nature when children of the poorer middle class are being admitted. Very often you will get a case in which the father has deserted the children and the mother is of no use, and there comes along an aunt in charge of a boy or girl who tells you: "I am not the guardian, but he (or she) always stays with me in the holidays." There has been no sort of legal arrangement about it and there is not likely to be. But the policy of the school is, apart from any sort of legal transaction, that that person is recognised as the guardian of the child and all questions that may arise in regard to that child in the school would be referred to that very aunt. In a case like this you cannot define the aunt. She indeed both undertakes and performs the very kindest duties, but you cannot put her into an Act of Parliament. If you begin to try to do it you will probably deprive her of her quite excellent functions.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I take it that the wish of your Lordships would be that I should not press this Amendment, but I would like to ask the noble Earl what would be done if one of those pseudo-guardians puts a child of seventeen into a home and the child, under the provision we have made, desires to come out of the home and the pseudo-guardian has disappeared? How are you going to get the signature of the pseudo-guardian?
EARL RUSSELL: I shall enquire into the question before Report and I would remind the House that this has worked well under the Mental Deficiency Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Notice of reception, death and departure of voluntary boarders and provisions as to boarders who become incapable of volition.
(3) if any person received as aforesaid becomes at any time incapable of volition, he shall not thereafter be retained as a voluntary boarder for a longer period than one month, but shall on or before the expiration of that period be discharged, unless in the meantime he has again become capable of volition or steps have been taken to deal with him either under the principal Act as a person of unsound mind or under this Act as a person incapable of volition who is likely to benefit by temporary treatment.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in sub section (3), after "time," to insert "in the opinion of the medical superintendent or such other person as afore said." The noble Lord said: This is an important verbal Amendment. Subsection (3) of Clause 2 provides that—
"If any person received as aforesaid becomes at any time incapable of volition—"
certain consequences are to follow. It was pointed out on the Second Reading that incapacity of volition was a very difficult thing to define and it must in the nature of things be, in point of fact, a matter of opinion. This, I think, ought to be recognised. It also struck me that somebody should be made responsible for formulating that opinion. Nobody could more properly be made so responsible than the superintendent of the institution or the person into whose charge the voluntary patient has gone. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, after ("time") insert ("in the opinion of the medical superintendent or such other person as aforesaid").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
EARL RUSSELL: We think that this Amendment will make for clarity, and we accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST had given Notice to move, in subsection (3), before "volition," to insert "rational." The noble Lord said: After discussion with my noble friend I have decided not to move either this or the following Amendment.
LORD ATKIN: May I say a word about this Amendment? I thought my noble friend would be moving it and would give us an opportunity of saying something about it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Lord move it formally?
LORD SANDHURST: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, after ("of") insert ("rational").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
LORD ATKIN: As the Bill was drawn, the person received as a voluntary boarder had to be suffering from mental disorder, and it was a person suffering from mental disorder who became in capable of volition, so far as this subsection is concerned. This would conform to Clause 5, as to which I under stand that we are going to have some discussion later and which deals with a person who is suffering from mental disorder and is for the time being incapable of volition. But now we have amended the first clause by allowing a person to be treated for mental disorder without there being any certificate or statement that he is in fact suffering from mental disorder. Accordingly a person who is merely being treated is now said to be incapable of volition. At this stage I am quite unable to understand what is meant by "incapable of volition." If it means "incapable of volition as the result of mental disorder," surely some such definition ought to be inserted. "Incapable of volition" is one of the vaguest terms you could possibly have, standing by itself. You surely need something to relate it to mental disorder or unsoundness of mind.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has moved the insertion of the word "rational."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that the noble Lord has moved it, merely in the interests of order.
EARL RUSSELL: We should regret the insertion of that word, because there

1071
may be such a thing as irrational volition. The word is not really useful here and would lead to great difficulties. Your Lordships must remember that there are infinite grades of this malady. There is confusion, as in the case of a person who merely feels that he is getting more and more nervous, that his nerves may break down, that there may be a nervous explosion if he carries on. Such a person feels that treatment might do him good. Then there is the person who has plenty of volition of the wrong kind—an insane or disordered volition. This subsection applies to people who have become incapable of volition in the sense in which they exercised will when they came in. That is to say, they are no longer there of their own free will; they are there without any will at all. The object is to protect them. The insertion of the word "rational" would create considerable and unnecessary difficulties, and I hope that your Lordships will not insist upon it. People may be incapable of being rational without being incapable of volition. The two things are not necessarily the same. On the whole we feel that these words would be very difficult to construe.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to prolong this debate, but I hope that the noble Earl will realise that as this phrase appears, I think, in our legislation for the first time—am I right in that?—
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, I think so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I am sure the noble Earl will not think us hypercritical if we are rather careful as to the form of words. I am inclined to agree that "rational" would not improve matters very much, but I think we require something more than the mere word "volition." The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, has given it as his opinion that we do require something more. I hope the noble Earl will consider this.
LORD ATKIN: Would the noble Earl accept something like "incapable of volition as the result of mental disorder"? That is the kind of phrase I would suggest.
EARL RUSSELL: This is really more difficult, I think, than noble Lords
1072
realise, and I should prefer not to accept anything at this stage. I will, of course, consider any suggestion from the noble and learned Lord or anybody else, and I will go into the matter. I prefer not to accept any new words at this stage, for they might easily turn out to be the wrong words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Power to lodge relatives and friends of boarders.
4. Any relative or friend of a person who is received as a voluntary boarder under Section one of this Act or under the provisions of any local Act may be received and lodged as a boarder in any registered hospital or licensed house as long as the voluntary boarder is resident therein:
Provided that in calculating the number of patients for which a licensed house is licensed, or for which a registered hospital is certified, any such relative or friend shall be reckoned as a patient.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, after "voluntary boarder," to insert "or as a patient." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one which does not really deal with patients at all. If your Lordships will allow me, I will read the relevant words of the clause:—
"Any relative or friend of a person who is received as a voluntary boarder under Section one of this Act or under the provisions of any local Act may be received and lodged as a boarder in any registered hospital or licensed house as long as the voluntary boarder is resident therein."
Your Lordships will observe that this section enables licensed houses or registered hospitals to receive the friends of voluntary boarders only. It does not enable them to receive the friends of certified patients. The reason that it is necessary, in my judgment, to move this Amendment is that Section 229 of the Act of 1890, which is the corresponding section in that Act, is wholly repealed by a Schedule to this Act. That section enabled the friends of patients, whether voluntary boarders or not, to be received in licensed houses. The section applied only to licensed houses, but a similar result was achieved in the case of registered hospitals, I believe, under regulations. It therefore appears to be necessary to insert the words that I propose, and also to insert the words "or

1073
patient' after "voluntary boarder" where the phrase occurs again. I may add that it has been my experience on more than one occasion to find friends of a patient resident in the institution in which the patient was living. Certainly there could be no greater safeguard for the wellbeing of the patient than the fact that his friends are willing to share his lot with him.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, after ("boarder") insert ("or as a patient").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
EABL RUSSELL: There are four Amendments of the noble Lord, all designed to effect the some purpose. There is, I think, no objection to accepting them. It is unlikely that very great use will be made of this provision in practice. It applies only to private institutions, and the position is safeguarded by the proviso at the end, which means that any boarder who lodges there must occupy the bed of a patient. Therefore the owner of an institution will not welcome boarders if his house is full. It is only a permissive power, useful in some cases. There is no objection to it, and we are willing to accept the Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 24, leave out ("Section one of this Act or")
Page 3, line 25, after ("of") insert ("the principal Act or this Act or any local Act")
Page 3, line 27, after ("boarder") insert ("or patient").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Provision for treatment without certification of persons temporarily incapable of volition.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person who is suffering from mental disorder and is for the time being incapable of volition, but who is likely to benefit by temporary treatment, may, on a written application duly made in accordance with the provisions of this section but without a reception order, be received as a temporary patient for the purpose of treatment—

(i) into an institution provided by a local authority; or

(ii) into a registered hospital; or

(iii) into any such other institution, hospital or nursing home as may be
1074
approved by the Board of Control for the reception of such temporary patients; or

(iv) with the consent of the Board of Control, into single care.

(2) An application under this section must be in the form set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act and must, if possible, be made by the husband or wife, or by a relative of the person to whom it relates, or, on the request of the husband or wife or of a relative, by a duly authorised officer of the local authority within whose area the said person then is, and, if the application is not made by any of the persons aforesaid, it shall contain a statement of the reason why it is not so made, of the connection of the applicant with the person to whom it relates and of the circumstances in which he makes the application.
(3) The application shall be accompanied by a recommendation in the form set out in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, signed by two registered medical practitioners, of whom one shall be either the usual medical attendant of the person to whom the application relates, or a person who has been approved for the purpose of making recommendations under this section either by the Board of Control or by the local authority within whose area the said person then is.
(4) Each of the medical practitioners by whom a recommendation under this section is to be made shall, before signing the recommendation, examine the person to whom the recommendation relates either separately or in conjunction with the other and shall specify in the recommendation the date on which he so examined the said person.
(5) A recommendation shall be of no effect for the purposes of this section if there is a greater interval than five clear days between the dates on which the person to whom the recommendation relates was examined by the two medical practitioners respectively and any such recommendation shall cease to have effect on the expiration of fourteen days from the date on which the person to whom the recommendation relates was examined by the two medical practitioners, or if he was examined by those practitioners on two different dates, on the expiration of fourteen days from the later of those dates.
(6) Where a person is received as a temporary patient under this section, notice of his reception together with a copy of the application on which he was received and of the recommendation accompanying the application shall before the expiration of the day next following the day on which he was received, be sent by the medical superintendent or other person in charge of the institution, hospital or home or the person with whom he is residing in single care to the Board of Control, and, in the case of an institution which has a visiting committee, to the clerk to the visiting committee, and in any other case, to the clerk to the visitors of licensed houses for the district in which the patient is.
(11) A person received as a temporary patient may, subject to the provisions of this section, be detained for a period not exceeding six months but shall not be detained as such for any longer period.
(13) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last two preceding subsections, the provisions of Sections seventy-two to seventy-four, seventy-six to eighty and eighty-two and eighty-three of the principal Act (which relate to the discharge of persons of unsound mind detained under that Act) shall apply to any person received as a temporary patient under this section as they apply to persons detained under that Act, subject, however, to such modifications and adaptations as may be prescribed By rules made under Section three hundred and thirty-eight of the principal Act.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and is for the time being incapable of volition." The noble Viscount said: We now come to an Amendment which is I think of very considerable importance. The noble Earl opposite promised to consider the question of the meaning of the words "incapable of volition" in the case of a person who has become a voluntary patient in one of these establishments, and wants to go out. We are now dealing with Clause 5, which we may call the most important new clause in the Bill. Under this clause a man suffering from mental disorder, and for the time being incapable of volition, may be put into a medical home by the order of two doctors, without the judicial safeguard which up to the present time has always been considered right by the laws of this country. I have a further Amendment but I am not dealing with that for the moment. What I want to ask is what interpretation the noble Earl places upon these words "incapable of volition," and I do that in consequence of the speech of Lord Dawson of Penn on the Second Reading. That speech is of vital importance.
If the interpretation which Lord Dawson of Penn—and I assume from his speech medical practitioners—places upon these words is correct, then we are in a very serious position! If a man is incapable of volition I should have thought it meant incapable of expressing a decision of any kind, whether he desired to go into a hospital or not, but if a man says: "It may be I have, been ill; it may be that a trip to Bournemouth or a
1076
sea voyage would do me good, but my wife and the doctor want me to go into a mental home, and I will not do so," what is the position? I want to ask whether that man is incapable or capable of volition? Lord Dawson takes the view that he may be quite incapable of volition because his volition is not of the proper kind. This is what the noble Lord said:—
"There is this question about volition, in which I hope that noble and learned Lords may help us, and that is that the volition would need to be an intelligent volition."
In other words a volition coinciding with the views of the medical men.
The noble Lord went on:—
"I admit the difficulty of that point because, if you are going to get the full benefit of this part of the Bill dealing with volition and if you want to do as much good as possible, you want to distinguish between an automatic refusal, for example, and an intelligent negative. For instance, you may have people who in the stress of illness may say 'No' or 'Yes' when that is a reflection of their previous character, an automatic process and not an intelligent volition. Whether it is one or the other you can safely leave—as you must leave questions in other professions—to skilled men. But with those who are accustomed to deal with such cases as these—and they are not uncommon—you may rely on their judgment to say 'Yes' or 'No.'"
This may be a case of locking a man up in an asylum against his own volition, because the doctors—and there is no judicial authority yet imparted into this clause—might say his volition is not intelligent. They may say that he may think a sea voyage or a trip to Bournemouth would do him good, and that, he will not go into an institution, but they, the doctors, think it better that he should go into a home and, therefore, they say that this is not intelligent volition, and he is, in the words of the Bill, "incapable of volition," and in the circumstances they send him into a home. Before dealing with the clause as a whole and the question of safeguards as a whole, I want to have it made clear by the Government whether my view or the view of Lord Dawson of Penn is correct on this question.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 35 and 36, leave out ("and is for the time being incapable of volition").—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELL: The answer to the noble Viscount is very simple. We agree with him. When we say without volition we mean without volition, whether that volition be uncontrolled or an insane impulse or not. If the patient says: "No, I will not go into your asylum; I will have nothing to do with it," then, unfortunately, he will have to come under the full certification treatment. Clause 5 is intended for the cases of which there are a very large number and which doctors, I think, generally call confusional cases, in which people are indifferent to their surroundings and whom treatment may benefit. Emphatically it is not intended for the reception of a patient who, rightly or wrongly, objects to treatment. If he takes that view, then we do not, at any rate at present, intend that he should be included in the definition of this clause. Non-volitional means expressing no view one way or the other—indifference. The moment he says—to use an expression which I believe was used by the noble Viscount on a former occasion—" I'll be blowed if I will go into an institution," then he need not go. I do not know whether the noble Viscount desires me to deal with the whole question of safeguards now, or whether he wishes to come to that on a later Amendment. On the question of volition, there is no doubt about our meaning. The clause means without volition.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for making his reply so definite, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved in subsection (1), to leave out "on a written application duly made in accordance with the provisions of this section but without a reception order." The noble Viscount said: This is part of my long Amendments to Clause 5 and the Schedule. The question I desire to raise is whether these patients who are suffering from mental disorder and who are incapable of volition but likely to benefit by temporary treatment, may be shut up under the decision or certificate of two doctors without the judicial authority which up to the present has been regarded as of vital importance in all these cases. Noble Lords will remember that the Royal Commission did not take
1078
the view which the Government have taken. In fact, this Amendment is the proposal of the Royal Commission. I have had the proposed new subsections drafted by a learned lawyer very carefully to carry out the opinion and the decision of the Royal Commission. That Report of the Royal Commission was signed by the noble Earl opposite and unanimously by the other Commissioners. I frankly admit they said they signed it with reluctance because they thought it would be better, in the interests of the patients themselves, to do away with the judicial authority and allow a patient to be shut up on the certificate of two doctors; but they said that, owing to the weakness of the minds of the people of this country in regard to the liberty of the subject, they could not and did not consent to the proposal which is now included in this Bill. I suggest that the first view, the Royal Commission's view, was the right one, and that the Government have taken the wrong view—a view which will not, I think, add to the success of the Bill.
The House will remember that the original Acts were passed by Parliament in order to protect the rights of the subject, in order to prevent a man or a woman being locked up without a judicial authority to whom appeal could be made. Here, in order to save expense, I have suggested, as indeed the Royal Commission suggested, that instead of two doctors there should be one doctor, but that there should be a magistrate who should see the patient, and his friends if necessary, and decide whether it really was desirable, in the interests of the subject, that the liberty of the subject should be done away with. This is a very important question. The liberty of the subject is at stake in this clause of the Bill. Up to the present we have never allowed that liberty to be interfered with by any advisers except under judicial authority. You may say that you do not like the particular form of judicial authority that I propose. I do not mind; any form that the noble Earl likes I am prepared to assent to. But was it not a very great alienist who said the number of wives who came to ask him to certify their husbands was only equalled by the number of husbands who came to ask him to certify their wives?
And you must remember this, that when there is incipient mental disorder the wife goes to her own doctor and says she is worried about her husband: it is the wife's doctor who goes and sees the husband. If the wife has incipient mental disorder the husband goes and sees his doctor—quite honestly—who goes and sees the patient. There really is no adviser on behalf of the patient, for doctors naturally cannot be called in by the patients themselves; they can only be called in by the husband or wife, or some other relative. There is nobody at all who is directly the friend and adviser of the incipient patient—nobody except a judicial authority who stands quite independent of those who desire to place the patient under control, who has no feeling one way or the other, but who must, as the representative of the law, give a certificate in some form or other before the patient can be incarcerated.
The noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn, in his speech on the Second Reading, said in reference to this proposal that if you introduced judicial authority you would do great harm to the Bill; you would not have the advantage of this great part of the Bill, which would not be taken advantage of by the patient. I do not quite see how a patient who is incapable of volition, suffering from mental disorder, can take advantage of this part of the Bill. The noble Lord went on:—
"Nor will the doctors try to make them take advantage of it. We are not going to have our skilled opinion overhauled by local magistrates who do not understand the A, B, C, of our profession."
It has nothing to do with the A, B, C, of the medical profession. It has nothing to do with the skilled opinions of the doctors as against those of the law. It is a question of whether there shall be any person unconnected with the patient, unconnected with the medical adviser who has been called in in order to consider whether or not this patient should be locked up—somebody representing the law of the land, who shall have the final decision.
But I do appeal to your Lordships to consider the fact that the proposal that I make is in accordance with the considered view of the Commission itself. I frankly admit that they prefer the Bill, but it is because of this very point
1080
of the liberty of the subject, and the feeling that might be aroused in the country in regard to the infringement of the liberty of the subject that the Royal Commission prepared and formulated this very scheme that I am submitting to your Lordships. In the circumstances I hope that the Government will admit some form of legal decision. I do not press them to take even the scheme of the Royal Commission, but some scheme which will prevent a man who is suffering from mental disorder, and who is ex hypothesi incapable of volition himself, from being locked up without a judicial authority of some kind. It has been the law of this country for more years than members of this House can remember. All the various Acts of Parliament which have been passed for, I think, two centuries dealing with questions of lunacy have always insisted upon there being some independent judicial person, acting judicially, before the patient's liberty is taken away from him.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out from ("may") to ("be") in line 39.—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELL: When I replied to the debate on the Second Reading I dealt with this subject, which was then raised by the noble Viscount opposite. I said that I implored him, because I knew he was as anxious as we should be that these people should be properly treated, if only he was satisfied that there was no danger involved, to consult with me or with the Minister of Health and see what we could do to adjust his view. I pointed out to him that we were afraid of anything which was formal, and I took a second opportunity of saying that I hoped he would consult with us and see whether we could not explain to him the reason for our point of view and come to some adjustment. I regret that the noble Viscount has not given us the benefit of any conference on this matter.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My noble friend will please forgive me. I put this Amendment down on the Paper. I have been here every day, I have been in touch with the noble Earl, and I should have been only too delighted to consult with him. It was certainly for no lack of courtesy to himself that I did not. I thought, when he had seen that Amendment, if he had any proposal to make

1081
to me he would have mentioned it across the floor of the House.
EARL RUSSELL: I am not complaining of any lack of courtesy. I think the matter is much too serious for that. I was hoping the noble Viscount might have intimated that we could have discussed this with him. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but I was expecting and hoping to get some communication from him on this point. However it so happens we have not been able—I quite acquit him of any discourtesy—to have any personal communication with him. We shall therefore have to discuss these things across the floor of the House, where, no doubt, it is quite proper they should be discussed. We may take this. I suppose, as being, may I say, a test Amendment covering the whole of the suggestions which the noble Viscount has made on this part of the Bill. I think it will be desirable to take the whole general discussion upon this.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Certainly.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount said once or twice that he would be willing to consent to any judicial authority I would agree to, or any form of judicial authority I would agree to. It is not a question of what I have no objection to. I have no objection to a judicial authority; the Minister of Health has no objection; nobody has any objection to a judicial authority in itself. The objection, unfortunately, comes from the patient and the patient's relatives. That is the very thing we want to get over. There is no objection on the part of the Minister of Health himself, or the Royal Commission, or the doctors, or anyone else, except, perhaps, some doctors, but the objection is on the part of the patient, and the moment you interpose this judicial authority he looks upon the matter in a totally different light.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: The patient is incapable of volition.
EARL RUSSELL: Of course he is, but it affects his relatives, and they are the people who set the law in motion. The scheme which the noble Viscount has put down is the provisional treatment order of the Royal Commission. He is quite right in saying he carries that out, and he has told your Lordships quite truly that we recommended that with great reluctance; but we think it would
1082
be very much better for the patient if the matter could be done in a less formal way. What is it we want to treat under this clause? We want to treat incipient mental disorder without the stigma of certification, and this, whether you call it provisional certification, or whatever you call it, is certification, and the public will regard it as certification. That really is the fatal objection as the law is now. If the patient is rich enough to be treated in his own home he may not come under the Lunacy Act at all. He need not be reported; he need not be certified; you need not get the doctor's certificate. But the poor person who has to go to an institution to be treated can now only be received and treated there after certification.
We are anxious that he should be able to be treated there in the early stages without certification, because he may recover in quite a short time. The figures furnished to the Royal Commission showed that in a large hospital, taken over a period of four years, 25 per cent. of recoveries took place within six months of admission. It is an advantage also to these patients' mental state, because, though a patient is incapable of volition, he is not always incapable of some sort of thought, though it may not be coherent, and some sort of feeling. Is it not desirable, if you can make that person well within six months and send him out again a cured man, to do so in such a way that nobody should ever be able to say he has been certified, and that his relations should not feel he has been certified as a lunatic? Every one who is connected with the matter agrees that it is an immense advantage in treatment and an immense advantage from the patient's point of view to do that, and that it is likely to conduce to his more rapid recovery.
The class of people to whom Clause 5 is most likely to apply are generally people who are rather indifferent as to what becomes of them; therefore, as I have said, they are really non-volitional. They are not people who are resisting. For the resistant, unfortunately, certification must remain; but here the suggestion is that the non-volitional should be treated without the intervention of a judicial authority for the period of six months. I will remind your Lordships of what the safeguards are. I would beg the noble

1083
Viscount when he is speaking not to talk about being locked up and being put away. Those are the very expressions we want to get out of the mind of these patients. We want to talk about their being treated for their health. We are most anxious they should not associate it with the idea of locking up or detention, even if in fact they have to be detained. The very thing we want to avoid associating in the minds of the patients and their relations is any idea of locking up. We want to assimilate the treatment as far as we can to the treatment for ordinary illness. Detention may be a necessary part of it, but that is not the part on which we wish to insist.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: It is the part you insist upon.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount does not know that in quite a number of asylums, among certificated patients, a large percentage are allowed out by themselves for exercise and go back to the asylum. That is the sort of detention you get. You get no more detention than the patient at the moment requires. The whole object is to encourage the patient to be fit to look after himself. Again, in the case of the normal certificate, he is given far greater freedom than was ever talked of twenty years ago in those circumstances. I have heard of one institution where over 50 per cent. of the patients go shopping in the town, and 25 per cent. of them go unaccompanied by any attendant to look after them. Those are the methods of treatment to which we are looking. We want to do it in the least formal way possible.
I was pointing out what precautions are to be taken. There are to be two medical recommendations. One of them is to be signed either by the usual medical attendant of the patient, or by someone specially approved by the Board of Control or the local authority—that is to say, some formal and official person. The patient may then be received into an institution provided by the local authority, or any registered hospital—that is, your Lordships understand, a charitable institution where no profit has to be made out of the patient. It is not a question of keeping him for profit. He may only be received in a licensed house if it has been approved by the Board of Control
1084
for the reception of this particular kind of case. When he is received notice of the reception and a copy of the medical recommendations have to be sent at once to the Board of Control, where they are scrutinised. Within a month of his reception the patient has to be visited, as I told your Lordships on Second Reading, either by two members of the visiting committee or by two of the visitors of licensed houses appointed by the justices, one of whom must be a medical practitioner, and, when they visit him, they are required to sign a statement that the patient is properly detained, or, if they are not satisfied, to report to that effect within two days to the Board of Control. While he is under care he will receive the ordinary periodical visit from the Board of Control and from the visitors of the institution, and, finally, the period is limited to six months, and the Board of Control have power to discharge him at any time.
As I have told your Lordships the reason why the provisional order of the Royal Commission was not adopted was that it was practically indistinguishable from the full certification. I think I ought to read your Lordships these words from the Report of the Royal Commission. They will be found on page 53, paragraph 107:
"(i)Provisional Treatment Order.—In framing our proposals for this procedure we were confronted with a choice between what may be ideally desirable and what is practically expedient. Some witnesses, whose views are entitled to the most careful consideration, have urged that in dealing with an incipient or non-volitional case which is likely to recover quickly without recourse to certification, the warrant for detention should be made without the intervention of a magistrate. If we were free to consider exclusively the medical treatment of the patient, we should have little hesitation in accepting this suggestion. But it is a principle of English law that the liberty of the subject may not be infringed without the intervention of some judicial authority; and we doubt whether public opinion is ready to countenance a departure from it."
That is the very question we are to decide this afternoon so far as this is concerned.
"It may be that ultimately the treatment of mental illness will be so assimilated to the treatment of physical illness that the participation of a magistrate will no longer be considered necessary. But we are concerned to recommend reforms which may be practicable in the immediate future; and we

1085
have come to the conclusion, though not without reluctance, that the provisional treatment order should be made by a magistrate."
Well, now the Minister considers that public opinion may be ripe for that step forward. I am inviting your Lordships this afternoon to take that stop forward. It is a step forward. It is a change, but it is a change which it seems to me has nothing against it except a prejudice and a formula. There are no real dangers of any sort or kind, nothing but benefit to the patients involved, no possible harm, no probable harm to any individual in this country. I hope your Lordships will have the courage to take that step this afternoon. By this clause it is provided that there should be no intervention by a magistrate. If you destroy the attempt to get this treatment without certification it will, as I think I said on Second Reading, very largely destroy the value of this clause. There was a sentence in a leading article in the Sunday Times of December 1 which referred to this Bill's conception of a patient going temporarily to a mental home without the stigma of judicial interference, the fear of which often causes unconscious conspiracies of delay by relatives with disastrous results to the patient. I think I may safely say that all who are familiar with the actual facts of this subject, who do not deal with them as theories in the air but are acquainted with the patients, the institutions, the form of treatment, the feelings of doctors and the progress of science, are all unanimous that this treatment would be an advantage.
Here is a letter which I received on the introduction of the Bill and I think it is one from which I should read a few sentences to your Lordships. The writer said:—
"The Bill is one that is long overdue… The only people who appreciate your splendid move are the unfortunates who have come in contact with that terrible thing mental derangement. My own wife had a breakdown six weeks after the birth of our little daughter. We had to get her away at once to a private mental home. She was absolutely fit again in three weeks. Yet, to get her tinder proper fare, she had to be 'certified' by two doctors and a J.P. She does not know it and I pray she never will. For the knowledge that she had once been certified as a lunatic would be enough to send her permanently insane. I do hope most sincerely that your Bill will go through successfully, and thereby save many a person
1086
from an anguish and despair that cannot be described."
That letter exactly illustrates the feeling I have referred to. I do not think I can put it higher than that.
I would ask your Lordships seriously to reflect what is the protection given. In theory it is all very well to say you have not infringed the liberty of the subject in this way before, but I would ask your Lordships to reflect what real protection in practice has been given by the intervention of the justices. Do you suppose if two competent medical men had signed a certificate giving perfectly clear facts on which they based their conclusion, that a justice would take upon himself in the ordinary case to override that certificate? I do not wish to use the perhaps rather provocative language of my noble friend Lord Dawson, but do you think he would take upon himself to overjudge those men with their professional skill and say: "No, in spite of this certificate I do not think this person is insane"? What he can do and the most he can do I think, is to see that everything is regularly done. That of course becomes the duty both of the superintendent of the institution to which the person is taken and of the Board of Control who receive the certificate. It is their duty to see that everything is regularly done. They are much more competent to perform that than the ordinary justice. We had evidence put before us that in an ordinary case of full certification—it was very wrong, but it is what happened—the patient was put into a taxicab and taken to the door of the justice's home, that the justice ran down the garden, poked his head into the cab and then signed the certificate.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: You admit it was wrong.
EARL RUSSELL: I admit it was wrong, but what I am saying is that it is what is done sometimes and what may often happen. A careful medical man whose reputation is at stake, and who may be cast afterwards in an action for damages, whereas a justice cannot be, is I think much greater protection than that. I do ask your Lordships to remember that all through what we are dealing with and considering is the patient and the patient's benefit only. We want to cure these people, we want

1087
them to get well. All opinion is satisfied that the less formality that attends them in these incipient and early and comparatively mild cases the better the chance, and the more rapidly they are likely to get well. I do ask your Lordships not for the sake of a fetish to throw away a reality, but to resist the Amendment which the noble Viscount has put on the Paper.
LORD DARLING: The noble Earl who is in charge of this Bill has read a portion of paragraph 107 of the Committee's Report. Perhaps it was the part which he thought most striking, but I think your Lordships would be glad to hear the conclusion of that paragraph for it is evident that the Commissioners were not very determined and did not come to an irrevocable view of the matter. I rise to say, in the few words that I intend to use, that I trust your Lordships may see some reason for passing the clause as it stands. After the word with which the noble Earl concluded his quotation the Commission went on to say:—
"It may be that ultimately the treatment of mental illness will be so assimilated to the treatment of physical illness that the participation of a magistrate will no longer be considered necessary, but we are concerned to recommend reforms which may be practicable in the immediate future and we have come to the conclusion, though not without reluctance, that the provisional treatment order should be made by a magistrate."
Is not that a very hesitating way of coming to a conclusion upon a matter so grave as this is represented to be?
It was said by the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment that this deals with an invasion of the liberty of the subject which has always been considered absolutely sacred in English law. Why, the noble Viscount himself has, as I have, interfered over and over again with the liberty of the subject—greatly to the subject's advantage and particularly to the advantage of the subject's friends and relations. What is here in question? By this Bill we get the opinion, the necessary opinion, expressed solemnly and with a full sense of responsibility, of two doctors, one of them if possible the patient's own habitual medical attendant. What is the difference between us? The difference is whether, in addition to that, you are to take the patient before a magistrate or
1088
bring a magistrate to the patient. The patient is not an absolute lunatic. He is a person capable of understanding a great deal. What is said here by those who advocate passing this clause as it stands? This is a man in a very, very delicate situation. Be rough with him, frighten him, and you will make a permanent lunatic of him. Be gentle with him, let him be treated not as though he were mad or about to go mad, but as if he were ill, and to be treated by the man who habitually treats him for illness, and to be quite certain call in another man of the same profession, the same standing, the same education, and let him confirm the opinion of the first. In those circumstances the patient, because that is what he is—he is not to be regarded as a prisoner—will think: "This is my habitual medical attendant. He has come to prescribe for me. If he prescribes a draught for me, I will take it at once. If he prescribed an operation, I should very likely consent to undergo it. Here is another doctor who has been called into consultation. They agree that for my health I should go away somewhere, not to be detained for long, but somewhere to stay for a moderately short time."
We know, and the noble Earl has read out what I also had heard, that in a very large proportion of cases, treated as it is intended these patients should be treated, they recover and they recover within six months. But it is authoritatively stated by those who have to do with them that everything depends upon concealing from them the fact that it is suspected that they are mentally deranged. If you bring in a magistrate and not a doctor, the patient might know him. He might be simply some man in business, the squire or somebody in the neighbourhood, a very decent, sensible man no doubt, but the patient would know at once that he did not come to see him because he was unwell. The patient knows he is the sort of man who spends a good deal of his time sending people to gaol. What would be the effect upon him? The effect would be, as was said by many witnesses before the Commission, that the man would be worse than if nobody had come to see him at all.
They hesitatingly said that they preferred that a magistrate should, as at present, be called in to add his opinion

1089
to that of a doctor's. The noble Viscount relied upon the old law with regard to lunacy; he said it was in the old Statutes with regard to lunacy. So it is, but we are dealing with something different. They were aiming at people many of whom were so far gone in mental derangement that they were absolutely dangerous to themselves or to others. We are not dealing with that class of person. Our law long dealt with such persons in ways no one would deal with them now. This mental disease was long looked upon as a thing without a remedy. Your Lordships will remember, as soon as I say the next words, a doctor who was asked
"Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased;
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow;
Raze out the written troubles of the brain."
and the doctor had to say: "No, I cannot." That is no longer true. Another doctor, not a fully qualified one, said: "Nous avons changé tout cela." Now everybody knows that by modified treatment, by sympathetic treatment, which does not mean a justice of the peace to intervene at any point of it, these people can be cured and cured in the large proportion which the noble Earl has indicated.
There is only one other word I should like to say. A statesman long known in the other House of Parliament wrote on "The Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion" and I have his assent to my saying this. The Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Hugh Macmillan, one of His Majesty's Counsel—and I have his assent to my saying this—is of opinion that what is proposed in this Bill is the proper way of dealing with these incipient cases. He is not a doctor; he is a justice of the peace for every county in England because he is a member of the Privy Council. That is his opinion. He has come to the conclusion that the intervention of justices of the peace would be bad for the patient and he differs from that clause of the Report of the Commission, a clause, as I have indicated to your Lordships, only arrived at after very hesitating consideration.
LORD LAMINGTON: We have listened to two very convincing speeches why we should not accept the Amendment. This seems to be the time when we should take a step forward in the treatment of
1090
these sad cases. That treatment would be more successful for the reason given by my noble friend behind me just now, that the intervention of a magistrate would only do harm and would possibly give pain to the patient. Moreover, his intervention would be of no value from a medical point of view. My noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn will agree that a man who came in to see a patient suffering in this way could not possibly tell by a short interview what was the real condition of that person's mind. After all, there are plenty of safeguards included in the scope of the Bill and it is only temporary treatment. It is not a case of permanent inclusion like a certified person. There is every other kind of safeguard that can be devised so that there can be no malpractices. I believe that in Scotland it is not necessary to have the certification by a magistrate or a judicial authority. I feel very strongly that it is desirable to avoid giving unnecessary pain to people in these very delicate and difficult border-line cases so as to prevent any undue suffering and give a better chance of speedy recovery. I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
LORD SANDHURST: I hope your Lordships will not pass this Amendment. I associate myself entirely with what the noble Earl said about such words as "incarceration" and "locking up" which I was sorry to hear used two or three times. That is the very thing we want to put out of the public mind altogether. The noble Viscount referred to the fact that for 200 years the law had been such that a patient's liberty could not be interfered with except by judicial authority. Two hundred years ago views on lunacy were entirely different from those of to-day. Patients were chained in asylums down to the end of the eighteenth century. The patient at that time was regarded as a pariah against whom the public had to be protected. To shut up a person in those circumstances was, of course, analogous to shutting up a person who had committed a crime. He was treated almost, if not quite, as if he was a person who had committed a crime. We have got away from all that. When a patient suffers from scarlet fever or smallpox he is carried off to one of the Metropolitan Asylum Board's hospitals. Is that called incarceration? Does the

1091
patient consent? His case is really analogous to that of the patient who is mentally afflicted.
The real reason why I rose was to refer once again to the practice in Scotland. The right rev. Prelate opposite quoted a familiar phrase about an ounce of practice being worth a pound of theory. According to the law of Scotland, as in England, an offence is committed if a patient is detained otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Lunacy Act, but in Scotland the provision is subject to this exception: that where a certificate is given by a medical person that a patient is afflicted but the malady is not confirmed, and the medical person considers it expedient with a view to his recovery that he should be placed in a specified home for temporary residence for a specified time not exceeding six months, the patient can be detained without any certification at all. He may be detained for six months merely on the certificate of one medical practitioner, no notice, so far as I have been able to discover, has to be communicated to the Board of Control unless the detention extends to twelve months, and there is no visitation except under the general section of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913. What is the result of that? The result is that in connection with, but not as incorporated parts of, the great Scottish asylums, homes have been opened in which patients can be received without certification, treated by the medical officers of those asylums for six months and given every prospect of recovery without being condemned as lunatics. That is the sort of thing that we want to see in this country, and I hope and believe that the proposal which His Majesty's Government are now putting before the House will greatly conduce to that end. Let me say once more that I sincerely hope that this Amendment will not be carried.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I say one word? It seems to me that we are perhaps getting away from the point which my noble friend behind me made. The noble Earl opposite gave us a very satisfactory statement in regard to this question of volition. A man who is incapable of volition is a man who is incapable of saying: "Yes, I should like to go for treatment," and who is equally
1092
incapable of saying "No." He really does not know what he is doing; he is in a comatose condition and is incapable of any decision or even of any expressin of will. When he is a great deal worse he may be more decided in his mind, he may be able to say "No" and no action in the world can make him go into one of these institutions apart from the full method of certification. I think I have stated the point correctly and that my noble friend opposite agrees. What does my noble friend behind me ask? He puts the case of a man with no will of his own who does not know what he is doing and cannot say "Yes" or "No." His wife, or somebody very anxious about him, calls in a doctor. The doctor shares the anxiety. They say, perfectly justly and rightly, that the man is in a bad state of health and they seek the opinion of a second medical man. To carry out the intention that has been very clearly stated by the noble Earl opposite we want to be perfectly certain that this person is really incapable of saying "No," however feeble or foolish his "No" may be. As I think my noble friend behind me suggested, the case is not quite the same as that which calls for a full certificate.
What I understood my noble friend to say was that, if the patient himself has an outside adviser or impartial friend who may be able to say that he thinks that the man is capable of volition and he ought to be treated, the only way in which he can be treated, if he is not willing to go into a home as a voluntary boarder, is by certification. That would carry out the intention of the Act as I understand it. I quite see the point made by the noble Earl opposite and by other speakers, that it is very difficult to distinguish in the public mind between a certificate for temporary treatment of a man who is not a lunatic—I gather that the whole point is that such a man should not be considered a lunatic—and a full certificate. Let me make a suggestion. I have not examined it and I do not know whether it is possible, or even whether on fuller examination it would be desirable. It is just a suggestion for the consideration of noble Lords opposite. Would it be possible to entrust this form of recommendation, or rather the endorsement of the recommendation of the two medical men, to the Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of the Board of

1093
Control, or at any rate to the authority of that Board, rather than to a judicial authority? I do not know whether that suggestion might help your Lordships if it were worked out and might possibly meet the case. I make it for what it is worth, but I do not insist upon it in any way. Perhaps the noble Earl opposite will examine it.
LORD MERRIVALE: I hope that the noble Earl will consider the suggestion that has just been made. I do not think that anybody here is desirous of preventing the fullest possible proper effect being given to these new provisions for the benefit of people who are not insane but who want particular care. Many people think, and I confess that I am one of them, that we must pay a proper price for the liberty of the subject, that this is a thing which we must not put out of mind. What is proposed here is that, if a man is sick or is thought by those about him to be sick, then upon the certificate of two medical men whom they will call in—because he is incapable of volition—he may straightaway be placed under treatment. In nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand it is most desirable that he should be under treatment, but everybody knows that the odd case occurs, whether through interest or malice or some indirect motive, and produces mischief, I hope that the desire that we all have is to guard against mischief of that kind. Certainly it has been the practice in this country to safeguard the liberty of the subject.
A good deal of reference has been made to the safeguard provided by the present reference to magistrates. I happen to have seen, in one capacity or another during many years, how totally unsatisfactory a safeguard, if you can call it by that name, the present procedure provides. It really is not a safeguard. I have heard the cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and others, and I could supply abundant eases where the farcical character of the present safeguard has exposed itself. But common knowledge of this has not prevented our countrymen from desiring some safeguard. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, suggested the Board of Control. I cannot help thinking that for a delicate matter of this kind you might have a nominated body of referees, nominated in the public interest as proper persons.
1094
For my part I believe that, if you had a body of referees and one of these were designated, no matter how, by the medical man or by the family, to see that the thing was being fairly done, that the patient was being treated as he ought to be treated, you would provide a real safeguard. The choice of the Board of Control presents difficulties. They are entirely official persons, but it is quite open, I think, to those who will bring this Bill into operation to provide a special body of referees—call them what you will—whose duty it will be to have regard to the fairness of the proceedings. There need not be any publicity at all, if you have your panel. It will be a panel of qualified persons in whom medical men and everybody else who knows anything about the matter will have confidence. If you interpose a safeguard of that kind I think you will have something to which the most delicately-minded patient or the most intimate friend will not object.
LORD HANWORTH: I hope the Government will hold to the Bill, and I desire to say why, if the noble Viscount goes to a Division, I shall vote against his Amendment. The speech of Lord Merrivale seems to me to overlook the safeguard which is provided in subsection (9). Within one month of the reception of any person he is to be visited by two members of the visiting committee of the institution and further, if they are of opinion that the patient should not continue to be detained, immediate notice is to be sent to the Board of Control. It is no use setting up another body of referees, for the real difficulty which you have to deal with is this, that there would he a reluctance on the part of friends to put the Act in motion. Take the case of the poor wife referred to in the letter which has been lead to the House. The husband had to get her certified in order to obtain proper treatment for her, and he says, and everybody must sympathise with him, that he hopes that she will never learn that she was a certified patient.
You want to get treatment for that type of person. There is reluctance to go before or apply to the board of referees, and equally there is reluctance to go to the magistrates. The stigma is really the same. You are going to introduce some authority other than a doctor, which is going to say: "In our judicial opinion

1095
we say you ought to be certified and go to an institution." If that is done, it is just the very step which will interfere with the patient's recovery. So long as it is left in the hands of the medical man, and treatment is given by the medical man, you can secure some hope for these people. After all, they are only going to be treated for a period of six months, and no more, with the safeguards which have already been read out to the House. The noble Earl has stated them, and I am not going to remind your Lordships of them; but really the point of the clause is to get rid of the stigma, which acts as a preventive of any action by the relatives, equally with the fear of the patient if he realises that he is being certified.
In view, therefore, of the purpose of the clause, I believe that the Government have provided sufficient safeguards. All patients in institutions have a right to communicate with the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices in Lunacy. I am one of those who from time to time receive letters from patients detained in institutions. If I ever get a letter that seems to offer any hope at all, I always send it to the official solicitor and direct a special report to myself. Inquiry usually satisfies me—in fact I might say in all cases—that there has been no improper detention, and I have never yet found a case in which, in spite of that right of the patient to write to those who have jurisdiction in lunacy, the powers have been abused. In the interests of medical treatment for persons who can be cured by medical treatment, I trust that the Government will stand by their clause, and although I regret to dissociate myself from the noble Viscount, I shall vote with the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have listened to the discussion with the greatest interest, and I admit with great doubt and hesitation of mind. It seems to me to be a very difficult issue indeed, but before the Government definitely make up their mind I would like to put one or two considerations before your Lordships. In the first place, I think it is fair to say that the opponents of this Amendment prove too much, because their contention is that where a person who is mentally afflicted has a very good chance of recovery, it militates very much against that chance being realised if there
1096
is the intervention of a judicial authority. They will, of course, observe that that runs directly in conflict with the present Lunacy Acts. I do not put it by way of a debating point, but the Government do not suggest any modification of the Lunacy Acts, under which a judicial authority is always essential. Yet we have it from noble Lords, and we know it of our own knowledge, that there are many cases in which a definite certified lunatic recovers. Are we to be told then that we ought to modify the Lunacy Acts, and to do away with the judicial authority in the Lunacy Acts, and to allow the Lunacy Acts to be put in motion by two medical practitioners without this safeguard of the intervention of a judicial authority? The argument, if it is worth anything at all, which has been submitted to your Lordships, would certainly go that length, and I think most of your Lordships would shrink from that rather formidable logical conclusion. That is one consideration which I would like the House to bear in mind.
There is another. Just now we had an Amendment proposed by Lord Brentford, in which he sought and obtained from the most candid management of this Bill by the noble Earl, an explanation of the meaning of volition in connection with this very clause. The want of volition means, according to the Government, that the man cannot say either "Yes" or "No." If he says "No," however good the treatment may be for him, he is not to be subject to the operation of this clause. That is to say, the policy of the Bill is that where a man is capable of saying "No," he is to be immune from this particular clause. That is a very difficult question—whether he has said "No." Who is the judge of that? Is it really contended that two medical practitioners are appropriate persons to determine whether there is a real negative uttered by the patient? That is my difficulty. Here is a case of a rather torpid patient. Does he or does he not accept this treatment? If he says "No," it is the policy of the Government that the certificates of two doctors should not be sufficient; but they are not very capable of judging whether what he says amounts to a negative. And indeed it is a very delicate matter.
That is the kind of thing which a judicial authority is eminently capable of

1097
deciding: does that amount to a refusal? I know your Lordships who sit in Quarter Sessions or petty sessions are very well acquainted with the interpretation of a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" by prisoners. It has often happened to myself to have to say whether what the prisoner says amounts to a plea of "Guilty" or a plea of "Not Guilty," because the subsequent course of the trial depends upon that. It is a delicate matter, and the magistrate has to say to the Court and the jury: "That does not amount to a plea of 'Guilty.' You must take it as one of 'Not Guilty,' and try the case." I hope that noble Lords will see the force of the analogy. Has this patient, who is ex concessis rather confused and torpid, said that he is not willing to go, or has he not said it? I must say I think it very difficult to trust the doctors entirely in that respect. Their technical ability is not called in question there at all, and their whole bias would be the other way. Their bias would be to say: "It would do this man good. Surely what he says does not amount to a negative. Cannot we put a little strain upon it? Cannot we say that on the whole it was not 'No'? Put him under treatment."
I am sure your Lordships appreciate the difficulty—that the decision is not a purely medical decision. If it were a purely medical decision there would be something to be said for the contention of the noble Lords, but this is largely a matter of appreciating the actual evidence of how the patient receives the proposition, and I think that in many cases it would be a very difficult and delicate matter to decide. Of course, if the policy of the Bill had been that whether the man said "Yes" or "No" he might have been compulsorily treated, that would be different; but we know that that is not the policy of the Bill. If the man says "No" then he is not to be treated under this clause. I confess, therefore, that my hesitation is very great. If I had the least expression of opinion from the noble Earl opposite that he appreciates the point I have tried to put before your Lordships and that he would consider it, I should personally be quite glad if this Amendment were not pressed. But unless the noble Earl will be willing to consider the difficulty of determining what the actual volition of the patient is
1098
—whether he has a volition or not and whether he has exercised it—then I should feel a great difficulty as to my vote. I earnestly hope the noble Earl will say he realises the difficulty and will see whether he cannot meet it.
EARL RUSSELL: I think I ought to reply at once to the appeal of the noble Marquess, though I am not sure whether he will consider my reply altogether satisfactory. But I really do not think this difficulty will arise in practice. The person is not necessarily comatose—confusional is rather the word. It is a little like the person who is very ill, and a kind nurse comes and says: "Won't you take a treacle posset?" and he pushes it away; and the nurse says: "It will do you good," and then he takes it. That is the kind of thing. You cannot get any will of any sort out of it.
I think I ought to meet the noble Marquess on another point. It is a good logical point he made. He spoke about medical certification, and said: "Surely everything you have been saying applies to the medical certification." I think he is perfectly right. There are cases of patients so demented that they neither know whether they have been examined by a doctor or certified by a magistrate; it all passes in a dream. But there are a good many, particularly of these confusional cases—and I think you would find every superintendent of an asylum tell you the same thing—cases of people who are so excited and upset by the procedure of certification and by seeing a justice, and by the whole thing, that it very often puts them back a week, and sometimes as much as six weeks, before they begin to make progress in the quiet surroundings of an asylum. It is the kind of excitement that is very bad for that sort of unstable brain which puts them back. If you ask me from the purely medical point of view what would be better for them I should say it would be better not to have the justice. But the practical argument is what we are putting before you this afternoon, which is limited to this particular class of case—the class of case which it is hoped might recover most easily and most quickly within a short time, and where we are most desirous of not having the intervention of any official person, if it can possibly be helped.

1099
I would ask your Lordships to remember, as I think the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls said, that after all you have got two visitors to visit these people within a month and see them when they are in the asylum; you have the superintendent of the asylum himself whose duty it is to satisfy himself that they are proper people to go in; and you have the over-riding consideration of the Board of Control who see the recommendation and the statements upon it, and who are in a position to send down any one to make a special visit if they have any ground for suspicion. The patients are really very well protected, and I do hope your Lordships will reject this Amendment, and allow us to make this experiment, which, in the opinion of everyone concerned, is going to be of very great benefit to these afflicted people.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I was going to make a suggestion, because I feel that this is a very difficult question for any of us to decide, and since it is quite plain that there is not really a very great deal of difference between the two views, I was wondering whether a possible solution might be found by a slight extension of the words in subsection (3). That subsection provides that of the two medical practitioners one is to be either the usual medical attendant or a person who is approved for the purpose. Would not it be possible to insist that in every case one of them shall be a person who has been approved for the purpose by the Board of Control? I do feel that there is a great deal of force in the proposition that one of the medical practitioners ought to be the kind of man who is accustomed to judge evidence in order to arrive at a judicial decision.
EARL RUSSELL: And fairly independent.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: And fairly independent. Of course we do trust doctors as judicial officers. Many of the coroners of this country are doctors and not lawyers, and, as far as I know, they discharge their duties quite satisfactorily. I think if we could have that slight additional precaution it would make me feel happier in giving my vote on the present occasion.
EARL RUSSELL: I think that that is a valuable suggestion, and I will certainly
1100
consider it between now and Report. There may be practical objections to it, but in all other respects it seems to be quite a valuable suggestion.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: I would like to make it clear that the medical profession has no objection to safeguards, provided those safeguards are such as will not prejudice the cure of the patients who are ill. We frankly admit that those patients with which this Bill deals do constitute a class that has not hitherto been dealt with by the Legislature. They are people for the most part living in small houses and earning small incomes. The difficulties are much less among the well-to-do. They have large houses where persons mentally sick may perhaps have two nurses, and where the treatment can be carried out quite easily. The class of patient to which this Bill refers is a class that is grievously suffering, with very little or no opportunity of being relieved. Take the case of an out-patient at a hospital. That patient may have influenza or some simple illness. He goes there with a feeling of depression, under a power of self-criticism, subject to introspection, and may go step by step down to that absolute suffering which we all know, and for which we are perfectly powerless to do anything under present conditions. If we want to do anything with such patients now they have to be certified.
That brings me to the question of certification. The word "certification" conveys notions of a madman, and all the things that have been from generation to generation associated with that name. I am quite prepared to admit that many of the fears entertained are unreasonable, but they are there, and we, who have to do with the sick, constantly find these difficulties arising. It has to be borne in mind that the patient whom we hope to help by this Bill is often a very sensitive, a very impressionable, and sometimes a very competent person—someone who is cut a little bit too fine for the environment in which the world has placed him. These people are very easily wounded—I mean in their nervous system. They are a class which is increasing with the civilisation that we have to-day. They may be very competent in their work, they are very often efficient and capable of being leaders. We often came across them in the War. Such people may get

1101
some toxic condition arising from influenza; or, in the case of a woman, it may be due to childbirth. Under the stress or strain of that, or because of overwork, they will begin that downgrade with which we are familiar. They will have a want of confidence, will indulge in self-criticism and self-abasement, and may in the end become insane.
There is no class which has to be more carefully handled by medical men. There is no class of illness that requires a greater intuitive insight, a greater tenderness, and a greater sympathy. One false word and your influence has vanished. Very often you have carried the patients along and convinced them that all their distresses, their sleeplessness, that burden of life which has become a horror to them, are due to overwork, and that by proper treatment they will get better. Then, suddenly, they turn to you and say: "Do you think I am Do you think I am going to lose my reason?" They are so quick in feeling that. Supposing you have carried them along with you, or supposing they have reached the stage where you have to put them under treatment, and supposing at that time you introduce anything like certification, anything that has an association with certification, you get not only their friends but people who know them, the social circle in which they move entertaining certain feelings towards them. It is a fact that certification is associated with a very grim past. Anything that interferes with the secrecy and the confidential relationship of medical advice is to be avoided and that is why it is so important that the provisions of this Bill should be carried out.
You can have precautions if you like, provided they do not become so cumbersome as to render the measure nugatory. You may have precautions provided they are careful precautions that will not in any way damage the good effect of these provisions. If these patients once realise that they are thought to be insane, you have given them for the rest of their lives a sense of inferiority. They will constantly say: "I am damaged; I have been insane; I have been locked up." They get the thought that they have done an injustice to their children. They know it prejudices the chances of the marriage of their children. Your Lordships know full well from your experience how very
1102
anxious people are if there is any question of insanity in the family. It is for these reasons I would like to emphasise the benefits of this Bill.
It will enable the poorer classes to get at any rate some of the benefits which are now open to the more prosperous and happier classes. Further than that, it will do what the medical profession and those who have thought upon this matter desire: it will bring about the prevention of insanity. This Bill does not deal with insanity, and, therefore, we ask that it should be kept away from all mention of the machinery of insanity. Its whole object—and I am quite confident that it will be successful in this—is to take these people when they are suffering from mental illness in the same way as we take them when they are suffering from physical illness, and treat each according to his need, in the same way as in the case of physical illness. If that is carried out with any precautions that are suitable, provided they do not run counter to the feelings of the people whom we desire to help, I am confident this Bill will be of great good to the community.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I have listened to the debate this afternoon, and I want to assure not only your Lordships but also the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, that I and those who have spoken and supported the Amendment are just as keen for the betterment of these unfortunate people as he is. But I have been very much impressed during the speech which he has made by the effect which might be produced upon the minds of these people by the inclusion of a judicial authority, by the impression that might be created upon their minds that they were thought to be mad or incipiently insane. With all that noble Lord said in regard to that I agree. I realise the dangers and difficulties that might arise to the incipiently insane person or the man or woman who has mental disorder, from the fact of the judicial inquiry which I have suggested—that in consequence they may go over the line—but the very proposal here is that, after a friendly visit from the doctors, these persons will wake up next morning in an asylum, in a registered home, in a public institution. The noble Lord referred more particularly to poor people. With all due deference I think the fact of finding themselves in a registered mental

1103
institution or in a public lunatic asylum is much more likely to have the effect of pushing the patients over the line than the mere judicial investigation which I have suggested. I submit that to the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, as being a very feasible result of the proposal he makes. On the other hand, I need hardly say that I want to do what is best for these people consistently with the rights of the liberty of the subject. I think the noble Earl opposite agrees with me in that respect. The noble Earl began his speech earlier in the afternoon by reflecting upon me for not having gone to consult him.
EARL RUSSELL: Regretting it.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: We have had a debate this afternoon and opinion is undoubtedly very divided. I do not want to press my Amendment, either to carry it or lose it by a small majority. I think that would be very undesirable in the interests of the patient, and in view of the desire we all have to deal with the matter in a way that will remedy the evil. I propose, therefore, if your Lordships will allow me, to withdraw the Amendment and to ask the noble Earl if he will consider the various proposals made by my noble friend on my left, Viscount Cecil, and others, which may get over the difficulty. They are worth consideration. I do not think the noble Earl would put forward a definite non possumus to anything, and if he would have that consultation which he wished I had had a day or two ago I should be very glad to confer with him, and perhaps some of my noble friends would also talk the matter over with him. Our object is, as the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, said, to give every possible security without doing harm to the patient. That, I understand, is my noble friend's desire, and I should be very glad to discuss the matter with the noble Earl in order to try to arrive at a solution which I am sure the whole House desires.
EARL RUSSELL: I think I ought to say at once that of course I shall be only too delighted to confer with the noble Viscount. There is really only one object and that is to benefit the patient. If we can devise anything which would not hinder the patient's recovery and yet be an additional safeguard, there would be
1104
not the slightest objection. I shall be glad to consult with the noble Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 14, after ("not") insert ("so")
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("by any of the persons aforesaid").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (11), after the second "not" to insert "save as hereinafter provided." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I am now moving is really dependent upon a new subsection which I will move later. I think it is a very important Amendment, but I hope it will not be a controversial one. Under the Bill as it stands the non-volitional patient will be able to receive treatment for a period not exceeding six months. My object is to enable the Board of Control, upon the application of one of the persons mentioned in subsection (2)—that is one of the persons making the original application—to extend the period in a case where the patient has not recovered but his early recovery appears reasonably probable. I propose that the period should be extended for a further period of such length, not exceeding three months, as may be specified by the Board of Control, provided that the total of such further periods shall in no case exceed six months. My Amendment is really taken almost straight out of the Mental Treatment Bill of 1923, which contained a similar clause. The only substantial difference, I think, is that in my Amendment I propose that the extension shall be by steps not exceeding three months at a time. It seems to be obvious that if a patient enjoying the advantage of temporary treatment without certification has not fully recovered but is likely to recover, it will be a great pity to compel him to accept certification in order to complete recovery. I do not think there can be any prejudice to the patient by the adoption of this Amendment as I have drafted it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, after the second ("not") insert ("save as hereinafter provided").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
EARL RUSSELL: The Government have no objection to this Amendment, nor to the next Amendment. The noble Lard has stated the effect of them. It does not, I think, really make the thing any more dangerous because, as I apprehend, if you discharged a patient for a week you could then start on a further six months. That would be a very silly way of carrying on treatment. If the treatment is desirable, it had much better be continuous.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, at end insert the following new subsection:—
"( ) Where it is anticipated that a person who is undergoing treatment as a temporary patient under this section will not recover within the period of six months, but his early recovery appears reasonably probable, that period may from time to time be extended for further periods of such length not exceeding three months as may be specified in directions given by the Board of Control upon the application of one of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, accompanied by such evidence or recommendations as the Board may by rules prescribe, provided that such further periods shall in no case exceed six months in all."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to insert the following new subsection after subsection (11):—
"( ) If a person received as aforesaid at any time recovers his volition he shall be discharged within twenty-eight days unless steps have been taken to detain him under the provisions of the principal Act or unless he becomes a voluntary boarder under the provisions of Section one of this Act."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to meet the case of a non-volitional patient who recovers volition after treatment and expresses a violent dislike to continuing the treatment. As I read the Bill, that patient might be retained for the full six months, which I think would spoil the whole principle of the Bill as it would prejudice other people against submitting themselves to treatment. I put the period at twenty-eight days in the Amendment because the process of recovering lost volition is, I am told, apt to ebb and flow, and, twenty-eight days will be ample time to see whether recovery is going to be complete or whether certification will be necessary. I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment because I feel that it will improve the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
EARL RUSSELL: The position is that the Government welcome this Amendment, but they would rather not have it inserted at this stage, for drafting reasons. It only appeared on the Paper this morning and there has hardly been time to consider it. We would rather have it put down for Report stage if the noble Earl does not mind, and meantime we shall be able to consider other questions and see whether it is necessary to make any alteration to enable it to fit in.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: In that case I will withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had given Notice to move, in subsection (13), after "Act," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "and of Section one hundred and sixteen of that Act (which relates to the management and administration of the property of certain persons of unsound mind)." The noble Earl said: This Amendment requires re-drafting. It has been discovered that it is not satisfactory in its present form and I wish to leave it over until the Report stage.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Powers and duties of local authorities.
(3) Subject to the approval of the Board of Control, a local authority shall have power—

(a) to make arrangements, whether by the provision of institutions or otherwise, for treatment as out-patients, either gratuitously or on such terms as to payment as they think fit, of persons suffering from mental disorder;

(b) to make and carry into effect agreements with any other local authority providing for co-operation between them, or for the joint exercise and performance of any powers or duties for the time being vested in or imposed on them, and for the apportionment between the authorities of the expenses incurred under the agreements;

(c)to make provision for the after-care of any persons who have undergone treatment for mental disorder and to contribute to the funds of voluntary associations formed for that purpose;

(d) to undertake research in relation to mental disorder and the treatment there

1107
of, and to make contributions towards the expenses of any body of persons engaged in such research.

LORD COTTESLOE LORD COTTESLOE moved, at the beginning of subsection (3), to leave out "Subject to the approval of the Board of Control." The noble Lord said: We have dealt with the medical and largely with the legal aspect of this Bill, and to my mind it is a very admirable Bill in those respects. Now we come to the administrative clause. By that clause the local authorities are given not only duties but powers to do certain things. They are given powers to make arrangements for treatment of out-patients, to make agreements with other local authorities for co-operation and to provide for aftercare, to contribute to the funds of voluntary associations and, not least important perhaps, to undertake research. All those things are committed to the local authority as having power to do them. But we begin the clause with the words "Subject to the approval of the Board of Control" and I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether at this time of day that is a necessary provision.
The local authorities have much more than come-of-age. The county councils have been in existence for forty years. They have had given to them under the Local Government Act of the present year greatly extended powers and responsibilities, which I believe it is generally recognised they are entirely competent to undertake and carry out. The approval of a Ministry or of a higher Board in my experience really effects very little. Where authorities are competent there is always the same correspondence and delay, perhaps for weeks or months, in obtaining approval and in the end, in my experience, it very seldom happens that we do not come round again to the original point and that sanction is given in almost, if not quite, the original form of the proposals, after delay, after expense, and after a good deal of circumlocution which is not only difficult but expensive.
This is perhaps rather a large point to raise and it may be that in accordance with precedent, the Bill has been so drafted as to make this necessary. I am not sure that the precedent we should go to is not that of the Local Government
1108
Act of the present year which expressly relieves local authorities to a very large extent from that meticulous supervision which has in fact hampered their liberty, their discretion and their actions for a good many years. There is no precedent, so far as I can ascertain, for what is proposed in paragraph (b), for sanction having to be obtained for agreements between local authorities to co-operate. The view which I have put forward is strongly held not only by the County Councils Association but by the Mental Hospitals Association and I should be very grateful, and I am sure the local authorities generally would be very grateful, if the noble Earl could meet them in this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("Subject to the approval of the Board of Control").—(Lord Cottesloe.)
EARL RUSSELL: The county councils have no doubt come of age, but many of these powers are comparatively new and I am sure the noble Lord has heard of the magic word "co-ordination." It is thought that a central authority like the Board of Control would be useful, and I might almost say necessary, for co-ordinating these powers. The noble Lord said there was delay and correspondence, but think how often have the county councils been saved from making a mistake and what wise advice have they received in that correspondence! The same suggestion was made to the Royal Commission. The County Councils Association put their case and here are some of the recommendations.
In connection with research the Commissioners said:—
"Some machinery will be needed to focus the activities of the several central laboratories to prevent overlapping. We think that this duty can most appropriately be entrusted to the Board of Control, and that this might be effected by the provision contemplated in the Mental Treatment Bill."
They then stated that that suggested supervision was opposed on behalf of the County Councils Association and they went on to say:
"We have carefully weighed the objections put forward, but we are of opinion that the development of this highly technical service and the expenditure of public money thereon should be under the guidance of the responsible central authority."

1109
As regards after-care, they said:—
"We think that local authorities should be empowered subject to the approval of the Board of Control."
Again, as regards out-patients clinics, the Royal Commission said:—
"We do not desire to prescribe too narrowly the lines cm which this provision should be made. Subject to the approval of the Board of Control the powers should be sufficiently wide to enable various expedients to be tried."
I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I hope my noble friend behind me will not insist upon the Amendment because, although, as he said, the Local Government Act has done away with a good deal of the control or supervision or interference or whatever you may like to call it of rural authorities and local authorities, and it is the policy of all Parties to give to local authorities the widest possible discretion in the administration of their affairs, yet you are dealing here with a very special subject of administration. You have got a very special Board, constituted, as we shall see in a moment, by technical advisers, legal, medical and so forth, and it is no derogation to local authorities to ask them to accept the advice of this highly specialised Board. It is really very necessary because you do want to get the treatment and administration of all this mental disease on one more or less uniform system. You cannot have violent changes in every area. Take the ease of after-care mentioned by the noble Earl. A man may move from one place to another. He may have aftercare first in one county and then in another or he may move from a county borough to a county. Is it not desirable that the type of after-care should be prescribed so that we may have one smooth system? Otherwise, while you might have excellent methods, they might vary, and it is undesirable that they should vary. The same thing applies to clinics and so forth. It is no derogation to local authorities to ask them to submit to the co-ordination—because it is co-ordination and not interference—which the Board of Control will exercise with regard to this question of mental disease.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Provisions as to visiting committees.
(4) A local authority may appoint as members of a visiting committee persons who are not members of the authority by which the committee is appointed, so however that the number of persons so appointed shall not exceed one-third of the total number of the committee.
(6) Two members at least of every visiting committee appointed under this section shall be women.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to subsection (4) the words "or where the whole of the committee is not appointed by that authority, one-third of the members appointed by that authority." The noble Earl said: This is really no more than a drafting Amendment to provide for co-option in the case of joint committees.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert:—
"and where under an agreement to unite a separate visiting committee is appointed in respect of any mental hospital, one at least of the members appointed after the commencement of this Act by each local authority which appoints three or more members of the committee shall be a woman."
The noble Earl said: This is also a drafting Amendment for the same reason. Where committees are joint committees it is to provide for the appointment of women.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 2, after ("women") insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Reorganisation of Board of Control.
11.—(1) The Board of Control shall, notwithstanding anything in the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, consist of the chairman (who shall be a paid commissioner) and not more than four other commissioners, all of whom shall be paid commissioners.
(2) Of the members of the Board of Control one at least shall be a legal commissioner, one at least shall be a medical commissioner, and one at least shall be a woman.
(5) The commissioners other than the chairman who are at the commencement of this Act members of the Board of Control shall as from that date cease to be members thereof:
Provided that—

(i) nothing in this section shall affect the tenure of office, salaries, rights (other than the right to be members of the Board), privileges or titles of the commissioners so ceasing to be members of the Board;

(ii) such of the said commissioners as are paid commissioners shall be eligible to be reappointed to the Board.

(8) Where a person in the service of a local authority in respect of whom contributions have been paid under the Asylums Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, is appointed to be a commissioner or assistant commissioner he may be allowed to reckon years of service under the local authority as years of service for the purpose of determining the amount of any superannuation allowance or gratuity which may be payable to him under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the words "notwithstanding anything in the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913." The noble Earl said: This is only a drafting Amendment. We leave out these words here and similar words are inserted at the end of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 19, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 20.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "four" and to insert "five." The noble Earl said: Perhaps I might discuss together this Amendment and my subsequent Amendment to this clause, which provides for two Medical Commissioners. I mentioned the matter on the Second Reading. My point is that, in the Bill which I had the honour of introducing to your Lordships and which received a Second Reading in this House some six years ago, we provided for eight Commissioners, two of whom should be Legal Commissioners and two Medical Commissioners. I dare say that this was too many, that it was unnecessary to have eight Commissioners and perhaps even to have two Legal Commissioners. I should like the noble Earl, if he can, to answer me a little fully. It is very important that the Board of Control,
1112
having grave duties thrust upon it and duties that will be graver still under this Bill, should be as strong as possible. I think we require very urgently a medical man with the full authority of the Board to be available at any moment at the Board of Control. If you have only one Medical Commissioner, I am disposed to ask the noble Earl if it will not be difficult, in the case of his illness, to have that officer's advice and authority. It is very necessary that you should have available the full authority of a Medical Commissioner. Perhaps my noble friend will suggest, as a way out, that the duties of the Medical Commissioner should be delegated to another Commissioner, not a member of the Board.
EARL RUSSELL: I could accept the two Medical Commissioners, but not the total of five in addition to the chairman.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I was coming to that in a moment. I have a reason against it. If he could tell me that there would always be a medical man with full authority, that would go a very long way to meet the difficulty that presented itself to my mind. In regard to the suggestion that we should retain five Commissioners and make two of them. Medical Commissioners, I would point out that you might have a layman who was a most excellent person in every way and, if you have to have a Chairman, a woman, two Medical Commissioners and one Legal Commissioner you have no room for an outside man. I have no doubt that the Board of Control will manage its affairs very well indeed, and it is very unlikely that the difficulty that I am bringing forward will arise. I think I would rather leave the possibility of putting in an outsider, who might be an excellent man in every way but would not have technical qualifications, than suggest that there should be two Medical Commissioners. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell me whether there would always be two medical men available, whether they were the Medical Commissioner and his deputy or not, who could perform the duties.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 22, leave out ("four") and insert ("five").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
EARL RUSSELL: I was hoping to meet the noble Earl, but I rather gather that my suggestion will not meet his view. I had hoped to meet him by using, instead of the words "not more than four other Commissioners," the words "four other Commissioners," so that there certainly would be four, and then to accept his other Amendment, so that it would read: "two at least shall be Medical Commissioners." I rather gather, however, from what the noble Earl said that he would not like that arrangement, since it would not leave a vacant place for anyone else.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think I would rather leave it as it is.
EARL RUSSELL: There is, of course, the possibility of the woman member being a medical person. The, Government are very reluctant to increase the numbers of other commissioners to five. I hope the noble Earl will not press that point. If he asks whether any senior Medical Commissioner could have as deputy another Commissioner, that would certainly be so.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Would he have full powers, to be exercised in case of emergency?
EARL RUSSELL: The only power he would not have is the power of sitting on the Board.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Would he have all the other powers—all the administrative powers?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think that would meet my point.
EARL RUSSELL: Then we can leave it as it is.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would rather leave it as it is than lose the chance of getting a good outsider.
EARL RUSSELL: I think perhaps the noble Earl is right, from the point of view of administration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (2), after "Control," to insert "other than the Chairman." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which is a very short one, is partly aimed at the same object as that of the noble Earl
1114
who has just spoken—namely, that there should be at least four members of the Board of Control.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, after ("Control") insert ("other than the Chairman").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
EARL RUSSELL: We will accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to proviso (ii) in subsection (5) "and if any such Commissioner is so re-appointed, he shall hold office on the same tenure as that on which he held office before the commencement of this Act." The noble Earl said: The words above do not entirely cover this.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 11, after ("Board") insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, at the beginning of subsection (8), to insert "The following provisions shall have effect in any case." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the two Amendments that follow are drafted to prescribe how the continuity will be effected.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 21, at the beginning insert ("The following provisions shall have effect in any case").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 25, leave out from ("commissioner") to end of the clause and insert:
"(a) The Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, shall apply to the said person subject to the following modifications—

(i) if he has served in an established capacity in the permanent Civil Service of the State for less than ten years but the respective periods during which he has so served and during which contributions have been paid in respect of him under the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, amount in the aggregate to ten years or upwards, there may be granted to him under and subject to the provisions of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, an annual superannuation allowance equal to one-eightieth of the annual salary and emoluments of his office for every completed year during which he has served as aforesaid; and

(ii) for the purpose of determining whether an additional allowance under subsection (2) of Section one of the Superannuation Act, 1909, may be granted to

1115
him or whether a gratuity may be granted to his legal personal representatives under Section two of that Act, any period during which contributions were paid in respect of him under the Asylum Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, shall be taken into account as if it were a period during which he had served as aforesaid; and

(b) on his retirement from the permanent Civil Service of the State in such circumstances that an annual superannuation or compensation allowance might be granted to him under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, as modified by this subsection, he shall be entitled to receive during life a superannuation allowance under and subject to the provisions of the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, as if on being appointed a Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner he had retired from the service of the local authority in circumstances entitling him to a superannuation allowance under that Act."
Page 11, line 29, at end insert:
(" ( ) (9) The provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Provision as to the exercise of powers of visitation and inspection]:
EARL RUSSELL: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, after ("1927,") insert ("or by this Act").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORDhad an Amendment on the Paper to insert the following new clause after Clause 16:—
Amendment of Section 338 of principal Act.
". Subsection (6) of Section three hundred and thirty-eight of the principal Act shall cease to have effect, and the following subsection shall be substituted therefor:
(6) Rules made under this section after the Mental Treatment Act, 1929, comes into operation shall be laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any such rule has been laid before it praying that the rule may be annulled, the rule shall be annulled and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under or to the making of a new rule.
Provided that where any such rule modifies or adapts this Act or any other enactment the rule shall not come into force unless within the said period of twenty-one days it has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Brentford, I beg to move this Amendment. I think your Lordships will see his intention in bringing it before you. It is an old question that was discussed a great deal in principle on the Local Government Act when it was passing through your Lordships' House. The object of the Amendment is, of course, that these rules should be passed by Parliament. The suggestion is a familiar one—namely, that the safeguard of Parliamentary sanction should be provided. I do not know that I need explain the Amendment at any length, for the point has often been discussed in your Lordships' House.
EARL RUSSELL: The Government could accept this Amendment without the proviso. I think it is unnecessary that we should have an affirmative Resolution. The rest is, I think, quite the usual and proper modern form. If the noble Earl would move the Amendment without the proviso we should be glad to accept it.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will certainly do so, on behalf of my noble friend. My noble friend is not here and, of course, if he should wish to raise the point again on Report I am sure that your Lordships would not question his right to do so.
EARL RUSSELL: Certainly not.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 22, at end insert the following new clause:
(" . Subsection (6) of Section three hundred and thirty-eight of the principal Act shall cease to have effect, and the following subsection shall be substituted therefor:
(6) Rules made under this section after the Mental Treatment Act, 1929, comes into operation shall be laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any such rule has been laid before it praying that the rule may be annulled, the rule shall be annulled and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under or to the making of a new rule.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Amendment as to persons of unsound mind liable to be removed to workhouses]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 15, leave out the first ("a") I and insert ("any such")
Page 14, line 15, leave out the second ("a")
Page 14, line 16, leave out ("appropriated or")
Page 14, line 16, leave out ("for the purpose")
Page 14, line 20, after ("1875") insert ("as the council may approve for the purposes of this section").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Form of application for reception of a temporary patient]:
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, after the second form in Part I of the Schedule, to insert "3. I undertake to visit the said…at least once in every three months of his temporary treatment." The noble Lord said: This is designed to impress upon the applicant for non-volitional treatment the duty of visiting the patient. Every application or petition for an ordinary reception order has to contain an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner undertakes to visit the patient twice a year. There is no similar undertaking inserted in this Schedule. It is, I regret to say, notorious that there is no effective means of enforcing that undertaking, and I rather understand that the Government, did not think there would be any advantage in inserting such an undertaking in the present Schedule. Nevertheless, I feel that an applicant for non-volitional treatment ought to realise that it is his duty to visit the patient in whom he professes to be interested, and even if he does not keep his undertaking I think it is a good thing that he should be expected to give it. I say this more especially as one of the sections which it is proposed should be adapted by rules under the Third Schedule is one which would or might enable, the applicant to direct the discharge of the patient with the approval of the Board of Control,
1118
and another section may give him power to remove the patient to another place. If he is given those powers, he ought to realise that it is his duty to visit, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, after ("follows") insert ("3. I undertake to visit the said…at least once in every three months of his temporary treatment").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
EARL RUSSELL: No doubt it is his moral duty to visit the patient, but we think it is undesirable and unnecessary to put a legal duty upon the applicant. The noble Lord is more accustomed to persons who are persons of property, to whom time and distance are of no great importance, but under this Schedule we are including rate-aided patients, and the Government would rather not have this in the Schedule, and would be glad if the noble Lord did not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Matters with respect to which rules may be made by the Board of Control]:
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved to insert, "5. Prescribing the evidence required on application for extension of temporary treatment." The noble Lord said: This is consequential upon the new subsection added to Clause 5 which enables the Commissioners to extend the period of non-volitional treatment.
EARL RUSSELL: We will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 16, at end insert ("5. Prescribing the evidence required on application for extension of temporary treatment").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Repeals]:
EARL RUSSELL: These are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 8, after ("subsections") insert ("(2)")
Page 21, line 27, leave out ("who") and insert ("and")
Page 21, line 28, leave out ("and")
Page 21, line 30, after ("State") insert ("who")
Page 21, line 38, after ("(5)") insert ("(6)")
Page 21, line 39, leave out ("provision") and insert ("proviso")
Page 21, line 40, leave out ("seven") and insert ("eight").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COUNTY DISTRICTS, VALUATION OF RAILWAYS, &c.) ORDER (SCOTLAND), 1929.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, entitled the Local Government (County Districts, Valuation of Railways, &c.) Order (Scotland), 1929, which was presented on the 31st October, 1929, be approved.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord who leads the House can tell us when it is proposed to take the Report stage of the Mental Treatment Bill?
EARL RUSSELL: I hope to take it next Tuesday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I thought next Tuesday was already occupied, but perhaps the noble Earl knows.
EARL RUSSELL: I think there will be time on that day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: At any rate, we may take it that the Report stage is provisionally fixed for Tuesday next.

TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAMROADS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.