Sitting of 27 February 1929

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  CHINA (DRUG TRAFFIC).
  Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to demonstrating to the fullest possible extent this country's determination to co-operate in suppressing the illicit trade in drugs, he will accede to the request of Mr. Wang King-ky, the Chinese delegate to the League Opium Committee, that foreign consuls in China be instructed in future not to extend their protection to their nationals who trade illicitly in drugs?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I much regret that, owing to indisposition, my right hon. Friend is unable to be present. His Majesty's Government have already demonstrated their determination to cooperate in the suppression of the illicit trade in drugs. With a view to preventing any possible participation by British subjects in this trade in China they have enacted regulations under which British subjects would be liable to heavy penalties, and in the last resort to deportation. This has proved completely effective, and there is no reason to believe that more satisfactory results would be obtained by the adoption of the course suggested by the hon. Member.
  Sir R. THOMAS: May I express my deep regret at the news that the right hon. Gentleman is ill.

  RUMANIA (PRISONERS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any information
  1936
  as to the political prisoners in Rumania and as to their amnestying by the present Government?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. The Rumanian Government have informed His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Bucharest that between 500 and 600 persons were arrested by the late Government for crimes against public security and the safety of the State. These crimes included inciting to revolt in the army and the fomentation of Communist uprisings. Between 50 and 60 persons have been released as a result of trial, but the present Rumanian Government up till now has not seen fit, to grant an amnesty in these cases.
  Commander BELLAIRS: On a point of Order. None of these men are English subjects. Is it any concern of the British Foreign Office? Are they responsible in any way? Is the question a proper one to put down?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that, in the case of minorities, this House has some concurrent interest, owing to our responsibility to the League of Nations?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only responsibility the Foreign Office has is that it can obtain information which it is able to give to hon. Members.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I say how much obliged I am to the right hon. Gentleman.

  BRITISH ARTISTS (BELGIAN ENGAGEMENT).
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a troupe of six girls who were lately engaged in this country for an engagement to appear in cabaret in Brussels, Ghent, and Luxembourg, and on arrival at Brussels were left stranded; and can he state whether the usual inquiries were made before passports were issued to this troupe to allow them to take up this engagement?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. The matter has been taken up with the agency in this country which arranged for the girls' employment in Brussels.
  Mr. DAY: How far do these inquiries go? Is it not a fact that several of these cases have been brought to light in the last year, and that these girls run the risk of being pushed into the white slave traffic when they get abroad?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am afraid I cannot go into other cases, but careful inquiries are being made into the particular question referred to by the hon. Member.
  Mr. DAY: What inquiries are made before passports are granted for the girls to leave, and not after they have met with these unfortunate experiences?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member knows that there is the Variety Artists' Federation, and, before giving passports, the Passport Office makes careful inquiry of that Federation.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    UNITED STATES.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any official notification has been received from the United States of America proposing their admission to the World Court on a different basis from, and with reservations not common to, other members; and, if so, what attitude he is adopting thereto?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington a telegraphic summary of the reply of the United States Government to the Note which His Majesty's Government addressed to them in accordance with the recommendations of the League Conference held in 1926, to consider the reservations attached by the United States to their accession to the Permanent Court. It appears from the summary that a similar Note has been addressed to the other Governments who also adopted the recommendations of the League Conference. The Note will receive the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, and doubtless of the other Governments concerned, but I clearly cannot define the attitude of His Majesty's Government at this stage.

    DISARMAMENT COMMISSION.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has
    1938
    yet received the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the preparatory Disarmament Commission; and, if so, whether it includes any item relating to naval matters?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Does that mean that naval questions are to be put off for the next twelve months—that there is to be no discussion on naval matters?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Certainly not. It only means that we have not yet received the agenda.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we bringing forward any naval matters for discussion?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That question does not arise. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts down a question, I will give an answer.

    MINORITIES.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Dandurand proposals and memorandum on league procedure applicable to minorities' petitions will be discussed at the next meeting at Geneva; and whether His Britannic Majesty's representatives at the meeting will go with instructions to defend these proposals in their entirety?
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision His Majesty's Government have come to with regard to a general settlement of the minorities' question in Europe; whether he will give his support to Senator Dandurand's proposals which will come before the Council of the League of Nations next week; and whether the proposal recently made by the conference of the League of Nations Union in Brussels that the whole matter should be submitted to a specially constituted commission under the League has been brought to his attention and received his approval?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The obligations of the League in connection with the protection of minorities will he under discussion by the Council of the League of Nations next week, and His Majesty's Government would hesitate to define their attitude before that discussion has been initiated and before

    1939
    they have had an opportunity of hearing the views of other members of the Council. Senator Dandurand's proposals relate solely to procedure in dealing with petitions from minorities; His Majesty's Government are giving them their careful consideration, but here again I should be reluctant to anticipate the discussion which will take place next week, and I trust that the hon. Members will be content to wait so short a time for a considered expression of the views of His Majesty's Government. The proposal of the League of Nations Union, to which the hon. Member for Brightside refers, has not been brought to my attention.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Senator Dandurand is a Canadian, that his proposals are solely as to procedure, and that they have been hotly assailed in France, and what we want to know before we take part in discussions on these recommendations on procedure is what line His Majesty's Government is going to take—whether it is going to follow the Canadian or the French line?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As my right hon. Friend has very often said, it is very inadvisable beforehand to prejudge and anticipate discussions that are to take place at Geneva.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is all very well. Are we going into this discussion with an open mind, or are we going into it having seen Senator Dandurand's proposals and having formed our own opinion on them?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already said we are most carefully considering Mr. Dandurand's proposals at the present moment.

    RADIUM SUPPLIES.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the importance of radium for the health services of the world and in view of the difficulties which health authorities are experiencing in obtaining supplies, whether he can see his way to recommend that the League of Nations institute an inquiry into the conditions of production and sale of this commodity?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As the hon. Member is aware from repeated statements in this House, the whole question
    1940
    of the radium requirements of this country and of the possible sources of supply is at present being considered by a sub-committee of the Committee of Civil Research. His Majesty's Government cannot judge what action vis-a-vis the League of Nations or anyone else is called for until the Report of this subcommittee has been presented and considered. I understand that the Report should be in the hands of the Government in a few weeks' time.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in regard to that question the Minister of Health has already promised that the question of referring it to the League of Nations shall be referred to the Research Committee, as promised last year?

    SUDAN (ATTACK BY TRIBESMEN).
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason for the attack upon Government troops by 200 Nuer tribesmen on 8th February near the Pyramid of Dengkur; and if he will make a statement on the matter?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The attack in question seems to have been instigated by a notorious witch-doctor named Gwek Wonding. I am not in a position to make any detailed statement till I receive the full report of the Governor-General.

    FRANCO-BELGIAN MILITARY AGREEMENT.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what he knows of the Franco-Belgian military agreement of 1920 and of the annex dated 1927; what our commitments are under the Anglo-Belgian Convention of 7th July, 1927; and, if these commitments arise out of the Locarno Pact, is there also in existence an Anglo-German convention with similar objects in view?
    Sir RENNELL RODDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding a secret convention concluded in 1920 between France and Belgium, supplementary to a treaty of alliance between the two States registered at Geneva; and whether he has any information regard

    1941
    ing the interpretation of that convention, resulting from discussions in 1927 on the manner of giving effect to it between the French and Belgian general staffs?
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have had any conversations with France or Belgium regarding co-operation with Franco-Belgian forces; what is the nature of these conversations; and whether any agreements or commitments have been made?
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has seen the Franco-Belgian military convention of 1920 and the text of the interpretation of that treaty formulated after Locarno and the entry of Germany into the League of Nations; whether an Anglo-Belgian treaty or convention was made in 1927; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House;
    (2) whether, since the signing of the Locarno Treaty, any conversations have been held between the representatives of the British and French staffs, or of the British and Belgian staffs, for the purpose of framing tentative arrangements designed to meet the contingency of a German attack on France or Belgium?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The text of the notes exchanged between the French and Belgian Governments recording their reciprocal approval of a military understanding, signed on 7th September, 1920, the object of which was stated to be the reinforcement of the guarantees of peace and security resulting from the Covenant of the League of Nations, was registered with the League on 4th November, 1920. I have not seen the text of the military agreement, which was of course not made public, nor have I any knowledge of an alleged subsequent interpretation of that agreement. Apart from the Treaty of Locarno, no agreement involving a military commitment has been concluded since the War between this country and Belgium, nor is any military agreement or understanding in existence between the British General Staff and that of any foreign country. I may add that no British Military Attaché at Brussels has, on any occasion even discussed the question.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it from that answer, which gives considerable relief to our minds, that no military discussions will take place with either France of Belgium which do not also take place with Germany, in order that our obligations under the Locarno Pact may be strictly maintained?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may be quite assured that we shall do nothing which is contrary to the Locarno Treaty.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman know if any steps are being taken to trace the origin of this apparent forgery? Does it conic from the same source as the Zinovieff letter?

    GERMAN AIRSHIP FLIGHT (BRITISH OPPOSITION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether permission has been sought for the German airship Graf Zeppelin to fly over Egypt, Palestine, or other British-controlled territory; and what answer has been given?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The German Ministry for Foreign Affairs inquired unofficially of His Majesty's Embassy at Berlin on 13th February as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards a proposed flight of the airship "Graf Zeppelin." After consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Air and His Majesty's High Commissioner, Cairo, I instructed Sir Horace Rumbold on 16th February to reply to these unofficial representations that His Majesty's Government were opposed to the proposed flight.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What are the reasons for apposing this flight?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It was quite understood between the Egyptian Government and ourselves, and indeed it was mentioned when the Treaty with Sarwat Pasha was under discussion, that foreign aviation should not take place over Egypt without an agreement between the two parties.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was not this flight experimental and exploratory? It was not the intention to establish a regular line.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman think whatever evil consequences could follow from allowing this flight are comparable to the great damage done to German and British relations owing to refusing to allow the flight to take place? When is the Foreign Office going to stop this pettifogging attitude?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think all foreign countries perfectly well understand that flights cannot take place except by mutual agreement between the Egyptian Government and ourselves.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was the proposal to establish a regular line, or was it only for a casual flight for scientific and exploratory purposes?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise out of this question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With very great respect, may I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that, in exploring this matter of the answer, it is necessary to know whether a regular line was to be established or whether it was to be an experimental flight.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not a time to explore, but a time for receiving answers to questions.

    EGYPT.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present situation in Egypt; whether he has any information about the crowds demonstrating in Cairo and attempting to enter the royal palace for the purpose of presenting petitions; and whether all necessary steps have been taken for the safety of the life and property of British and other foreign subjects?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No reports have reached me of disturbances in Cairo, and I understand that good order and political calm prevail throughout the country. In these circumstances no question arises of any precautionary measures.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly make inquiries as to the origin of the demonstrations in Cairo and let me know on another occasion the result of those inquiries?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As a matter of fact, I think I have seen the report on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has based his question. We have no information with regard to such demonstrations, and if such had occurred we should have heard about it.

  AFGHANISTAN.

    BRITISH MISSION.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Francis Humphrys and his staff are now transferred from Kabul to Peshawar; whether Peshawar will be used as a temporary legation; and whether he has any representative left in Kabul from whom correct information may be obtained of what is happening in Kabul?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The British Mission has been withdrawn from Kabul. It is impossible at present to say when it will return, and the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. There is now no British representative in Kabul.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether some of the other Legations or Embassies are remaining, and whether it will be necessary to obtain our accurate information from the Soviet Ambassador?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have nothing to add at present to the answer I have given.

    SITUATION.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the situation in Afghanistan; and whether he has information as to what countries are still represented diplomatically in Afghanistan?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The situation in Afghanistan remains as described in previous statements which have been made on the subject. So far as I am aware, members of the German, Persian, Soviet and Turkish Missions are still in Kabul.
    Mr. MALONE: Have arrangements been made to evacuate the British Con-

    1945
    suls at Kandahar and Jalalabad, and can we be assured that there is no intention of a policy of intervention?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I could give an answer to that question, but perhaps on the particular point of evacuation the hon. Member will put a question down.

    GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (ARBITRATION TREATY).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement with regard to the negotiations for a new arbitration treaty with the Unied States?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. I have as yet nothing to add to the reply which I returned on this subject on 20th February to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SUBMARINE SALVAGE.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the new device being tried in the United States whereby Lieutenant Monsen and a comrade emerged successfully from submarine S 54 at a depth of 120 feet off Key West; and whether he will take immediate steps to obtain, if possible, a set of this apparatus for experiment from a submarine in this country, with the view of saving life should accident occur to one of these vessels when running submerged?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the question of submarine salvage in case of accident is under investigation at the Admiralty and experiments with a submarine will take place shortly to test certain fittings which have been added. Other developments are contemplated and these include investigation of an apparatus, devised by a well-known firm, similar in principle to that used in the American experiments.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "SUSSEX."
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in view of the fact that the people of Sussex are making a, presentation to His Majesty's Ship "Sussex," it will be possible for her to call for short times at some of the principal Sussex coastal towns prior to her departure for the Mediterranean or en route?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: His Majesty's Ship "Sussex" is due to commission about the end of March, prior to proceeding to join the Mediterranean Fleet. There is no protected harbour on the Sussex coast which would take the "Sussex," and at this time of the year the weather is not propitious for a programme of visits to open anchorages. If, however, a strong desire should be expressed by subscribers in Sussex towards a presentation to the ship for the vessel to be at any special anchorage for the ceremony of presentation, a visit might be arranged subject to weather conditions on the day.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Labour if the Unemployment Fund is to be charged interest on the sums withheld from the fund to the Vote, administrative expenses, 18th August to 9th November, 1928; and, if so, what the amount will be?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): Interest on these sums has been paid, amounting to £6,818.
    Mr. TINKER: Did the right hon. Gentleman protest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer against taking this sum of money seeing that the loss was due to the Cabinet not asking for the Estimate in time?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir.
    Mr. TINKER: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Vote.

    JUVENILES.
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of male and female juveniles, respectively, upon the register, the number unemployed, and

    1947
    the number who have been refused benefit in consequence of their not having 30 contributions within two years?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 11th February, 1929, there were 40,520 boys and 38,367 girls aged 17 or under on the registers of Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux in Great Britain; no other statistics of unemployment among boys and girls are available. During the period 19th April, 1928, to 11th February, 1929, 2,727 claims to benefit made by insured boys and 1,816 claims made by insured girls were disallowed on the ground that less than 30 contributions had been paid during the previous two years. These figures relate to claims made and not necessarily to separate individuals.

    BOROUGH EXCHANGE (ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the hardship and inconvenience experienced by persons attending the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange on the weekly pay day through the shortage of proper waiting accommodation; and what arrangements are being made to alleviate this grievance?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have caused inquiries to be made and find that it is seldom that applicants are obliged to wait outside the Exchange premises. In these few cases the difficulty is generally caused by applicants coming to the Exchange before their scheduled time.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an opportunity of witnessing what takes place at this Exchange in order to see whether the conditions set out in the question are quite correct?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As far as I am informed, the case is as I have stated. If the hon. Member has been there at any time and has noted this fact and he will communicate with me, I will have the matter looked into again.

    WEST LOTHIAN.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Minister of Labour whether unemployed persons who register at Shotts and Addiewell who are resident in the county of West Lothian are included in the figures relating to unemployment in that county?
    Sir. A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is no Local Office of the Ministry of Labour at Addiewell, the nearest Local Office being at West Calder. In the ordinary course all persons who register at Shotts and West Calder would be included in the unemployment figures for Lanarkshire and Mid Lothian respectively, but a special analysis according to residence can be obtained if required.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does it follow from that statement that the figures recently submitted to the right hon. Gentleman in respect of unemployment in West Lothian are exclusive of the unemployed who register at Shotts and West Calder?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should think probably, but I cannot say without going further into the matter. It may he that it would require correction as regards about 10 per cent. of the cases that are in these other two areas. That it would affect the figures for West Lothian at all appreciably, I can hardly believe.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman Took into the matter and revise the figures if they require it?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes.

    TRANSITORY PROVISIONS (MINERS, DURHAM).
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that in the county of Durham many miners will cease to draw unemployment benefit on 19th April, 1929, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927; and whether, in view of the distress now existing, he will take the necessary steps to make it possible that unemployment benefit will continue after 19th April, 1929?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that I cannot add anything to the replies given to hon. Members on this subject on 23rd January and 20th February. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of these replies.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has said, on more than one occasion, that he is considering the matter? Are we to take it that he has definitely made up his mind that the transitory period must stop on the 19th April.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sit. That is not the inference that necessarily or probably follows. I am doing what I promised. I am considering the matter, and making inquiries.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a period of only six weeks to run before the transitory period ends, and that it will affect thousands of men? Ought he not to make up his mind?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Information is coming in, but, as the hon. Member realises, it is a somewhat difficult inquiry. It needs a great deal of adjustment by the local Exchanges. Perfectly obviously, it is a matter that will take some weeks before I can get replies. I hope to be able to give the House the information before we rise for Easter.
    Mr. BARKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question is causing the utmost concern among the workers of this country and that last night a deputation came to me—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question refers to the county of Durham.

    APPEALS.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Labour the number of appeals which were brought before courts of referees during the last three months, and which were considered by three persons, two persons, and by the chairman alone, respectively?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During the three months ended 14th January, 1929, 65,462 appeals were considered by courts of referees in Great Britain. Statistics giving the information referred to in the last part of the question are not available.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not important to have these figures, in view of the fact that, unless the full court of three members is sitting, the decision of the court is the decision of the chairman and that much dissatisfaction has been caused thereby?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member can give me any information pointing to that conclusion, I will consider it.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not a fact that, unless three members are sitting, the decision of the court is the decision of the chairman?

    UMPIRES' DECISIONS.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the importance of umpires' decisions in governing the decisions of the courts of referees; and if he will consider publishing a number of the most important in booklet form, such as that published by the Minister of Health in cases of old age pensions, etc., dealt with on appeal?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The more important decisions of the umpire have for a long time past been issued in monthly pamphlets and also in annual volumes. A single volume containing all the most important decisions up to last April will shortly be issued. All these publications are on sale in the usual way.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the importance which this matter is now assuming, seeing that the decisions are governed by the umpire, will the right hon. Gentleman make the information available as a Parliamentary Paper?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consider that suggestion.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Thank you.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that frequently when a person is before the court of referees claiming benefit he is told that a certain umpire's decision guides or governs the decision of the court; that when the applicant asks for such umpire's decision he is told he should have it; and if he will take steps to see that in any case where an umpire's decision is to be quoted that it should be submitted at the court and also supplied to the applicant for benefit beforehand?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am afraid it would be impracticable to supply copies of the Umpire's decisions to claimants as the hon. Member suggests. All decisions are available for reference by the Courts. It is their business to apply any decisions which are relevant in the particular case, and this they can only do after hearing the facts.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that this is now a Court, is it not a duty of the Department to see that the decision which

    1951
    is governing the case should be supplied to the applicant for benefit? Should he not, in fairness, know the decision governing the case?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member will realise that in this matter, just as in an ordinary Court of law, until the case is placed and considered the Court does not really know what the decisions are which may govern it.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: While it is true that in a Court of law the actual decision of the previous Court is submitted to the applicant, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will not see that the Umpire's decision is produced at the Court of Referees, as evidence?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not admit what the hon. Member has previously stated. I have considered this point with every wish to be fair in every possible way to the applicant, and I am afraid that it is not possible to do as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the case that the clerk says that a certain decision by the Umpire governs the case, and that, when the applicant asks for the Umpire's decision, he is told that he ought to have it, whereas the Umpire's decision may be given only a week or two before?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is no wish in cases like this not to give anything but what is reasonable, proper, and necessary. If the hon. Member will discuss with me afterwards the precise point, I will gladly go into it.

    BENEFIT CLAIMS.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if any new instructions have been issued to either the chairmen of Courts of Referees or insurance officers in any way dealing with the claims of persons for unemployment benefit; and, if so, will he make them available to all members of Courts of Referees and to Members of Parliament?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No instructions arc, issued either to Courts of Referees or the insurance officers with regard to the allowance or disallowance of any claim or any class of claims.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the
    1952
    difficulties experienced by unemployed persons in putting forward their claims owing to the multiplicity of regulations and conditions, and the fact that the term "genuinely seeking work" has not yet been defined; whether he is aware that many persons lose their benefit because they are unaware, for example, that they are entitled to appeal, or of the conditions of appeal, or for other reasons; and whether he will issue instructions to Employment Exchanges throughout the country to take more care in assisting unemployed persons so that no one may lose benefit who may by any possibility be entitled to receive it?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Exchanges, in accordance with instructions, always give applicants for benefit all necessary assistance. I am not aware of any case in which an applicant has lost his benefit through lack of such assistance, but I shall be happy to look into any case of which the hon. Member will give me particulars.

    FROST.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Minister of Labour if he can furnish an estimate of the number of people temporarily rendered unemployed by the recent frost?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is estimated that the recent severe weather caused an increase in the number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain of between 140,000 and 150,000.

    AGED WORKERS (BENEFIT).
    Mr. CRAWFURDasked the Minister of Labour if, seeing that certain Government Departments refuse to give employment to men of the age of 55 and over, he will circulate instructions to ensure that no man above this age is refused benefit on the ground that he is not genuinely seeking work?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir, I have no authority to issue any such instructions. The determination of claims to benefit is a matter not for me but for the independent statutory authorities.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that I have been informed by one of his colleagues that this is the practice of certain public Departments, and how can

    1953
    he expect men to seek work if it is refused by these Departments to these men?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not know what the hon. Member may have been told by anyone, but I can tell him that the facts are as I have stated in the reply.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: May I ask him to use his influence with his colleagues in other Departments not to refuse work to men over 55 years of age?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The best thing the hon. Member can do is to communicate with the Government Departments concerned.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: I have done so.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to inform the House on what information or evidence the authorities at the Stratford Employment Exchange informed Mr. E. Peart, of 517, Old Ford Road, Bow, that he was not genuinely seeking work after he had received six weeks' unemployment pay; and will he give the House this man's industrial history up to the time he fell out of regular employment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Having regard to the statements furnished by Mr. Peart as to his efforts to get work, the insurance officer came to the conclusion that he did not fulfil the conditions for benefit, and Mr. Peart did not appeal against this decision. I have no knowledge of Mr. Peart's industrial history beyond the fact that he was employed on and off as a fish curer by various firms last year.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the duty of the officer before telling a man that he is not genuinely seeking work to find out the man's industrial history? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was 16 years in one situation?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I have repeatedly explained to the House, these claims are not settled by my Department. They are settled by the statutory courts, and the chief insurance officer is an independent officer for this purpose. I have no doubt that he obtains and satisfies himself as to the man's industrial
    1954
    history so far as it could affect his decision.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as a result of this decision, that this unfortunate man went out and took his life? Is he not also aware that there is complete evidence that the officer, whoever he is, gave this decision in the face of evidence exactly contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has given? These Regulations and the officer's decision have murdered this man.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I must entirely demur to that statement. I do not do so because my Department is responsible, because, as I have said, it is the decision of the statutory officer. I should demur to it being said either that the chief insurance officer or any Judge of the Realm was responsible for murder as the result of a decision he might give, but at the same time everyone regrets, if it was the case, that as a result of the decision this man was found drowned. On the other hand, if the facts were as clear as the hon. Member states, it was open to the man to appeal to the court of referees.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly simple question; I want him to inquire from the officer who gave this decision on what evidence he based it, because it is in the teeth of all the evidence in the case.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It was for the Man, as he had every notice, to appeal to the court of referees.

    BANK RATE.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he has formed any estimate of the probable effect of the recent rise in the Bank rate upon the figures of unemployment and the cost to the Unemployment Fund?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir.
    Mr. BATEY: In view of the large increase in the figures of unemployment, has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the effect of the rise in the Bank rate?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, as far as the rise in the Bank rate is concerned, and the actual result, perhaps

    1955
    the hon. Member will put a question on some future occasion to my right hon. Friend. As regards this week's figures, they have nothing whatever to do with the rise in the Bank rate.
    Mr. SHINWELL: As the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for analysing the causes of unemployment, can he say what are the possible effects of the rise in the Bank rate?
    Mr. BATEY rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had a complete answer.

    INSURED PERSONS classified as belonging to certain industries recorded as Unemployed in Great Britain at 21st January, 1929.

    Industry.

    Males.

    Females.

    Wholly Unemployed.

    Temporarily Stopped.

    Total.

    Wholly Unemployed.

    Temporarily Stopped.

    Total.

    General Engineering

    41,400

    19,119

    60,519

    1,305

    548

    1,853

    Engineers' Iron and Steel Founding

    Electrical Engineering

    2,854

    569

    3,423

    660

    155

    815

    Marine Engineering

    6,004

    820

    6,824

    25

    —

    25

    Constructional Engineering

    2,533

    781

    3,314

    34

    3

    37

    Construction and repair of motor vehicles, cycles and aircraft.

    12,113

    2,652

    14,765

    969

    202

    1,171

    Cotton

    11,629

    9,294

    20,923

    19,774

    21,920

    41,694

    Woollen and Worsted

    6,772

    8,945

    15,717

    5,777

    15,008

    20,785

    POOR LAW RELIEF, DARLINGTON (REPAYMENT).
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Darlington Board of Guardians has sent to all recipients of relief during periods of unemployment up to seven years ago asking them to make arrangements for repayment of the relief then granted, the sums involved being from £1 up to £80 per person; and whether he will inquire into the matter, seeing that some of the persons involved are unemployed and that the majority are working in insecure employment at low rates of wages, thus rendering any repayment a virtual reduction in wages to persons already on a very low standard of living?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend's attention has not been drawn to this matter, but he is making inquiries.

    ENGINEERING, COTTON AND WOOLLEN TRADES.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women registered as unemployed from the engineering trade in February, 1929, and the number unemployed from the cotton textile and the woollen trades?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The latest figures available relate to 21st January, 1929, and I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Is this request the result of any action of the Minister recently?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have already stated that we were not aware of the matter and that we are making inquiries.

    REQUEST FOR DEPUTATION.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he has received from the representatives of the several hundred unemployed workers who arrived in London last week-end from various parts of the country a request to receive a deputation desirous of putting before him certain grievances relating to unemployment insurance administration and Poor Law administration affecting able-bodied workers, and what action he proposes to take?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend is always ready to consider

    1957
    representations from recognised representative bodies and, when desirable, to arrange that deputations from them should be received by the appropriate Minister. But he has already made it clear that no useful purpose would be served by receiving the deputation in question.
    Mr. CLYNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the figures published today, indicating the enormous increase in the number of unemployed; and, inasmuch as the Prime Minister is unable to receive a deputation, will he not, in the special circumstances, suggest that representatives of these men should be received by the Ministry of Labour, and that that Department should consider the men's position?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that the exceptional weather through which we have been passing is a not inadequate explanation of these new figures which appear to-day. Indeed, I think it shows how very unreliable are these figures, from week to week, as any guide to the real condition of the country. As to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I think it is fully covered by the answer which I have already given.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact, that these men are here, and that they have grievances which they think the gentlemen in charge of these Departments ought to hear, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the suggestion that, at least, the heads of the Departments concerned should receive a deputation of the men and consider their grievance?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I think it Would be a bad precedent altogether if we were to depart from the regular constitutional methods, which are very numerous and very ample, for discussing these matters and bringing them to the notice of the appropriate Departments.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand from that reply that no Minister ever receives a deputation unless it is officially inspired? Do they never receive deputations from groups of persons who have no special official connection with any organisation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, that may be so, but this case has been carefully considered
    1958
    on its merits, and the answer is what I have given.
    Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Really, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he has nothing more to say.
    Mr. JAMES HUDSON: On a point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that deputations from certain recognised bodies might be received by the Government. Would it not be in order, therefore, to ask what recognised body would be regarded as acceptable by the Government in this case for the purposes of a deputation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not seem to me to be a point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a very full answer to the original question.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a precedent for this, and that Mr. Bonar Law, when Prime Minister, did receive a deputation from an exactly similar body of men?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: After full and careful consideration, we have decided in this ease that we cannot do so.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that these men have travelled hundreds of miles in the most severe weather—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given his answer. He said that he has taken all these things into consideration. He has answered the question, and that is all there is to be said.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I have not had an opportunity of expressing another point of view, which I was in the midst of doing when you rose. I would ask you to allow me to put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My point is this, that here you have hundreds of men—
    Mr. SPEAKER rose—
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should resume his seat when I am on my feet. He was not putting a point of Order.

    ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY (FOREIGN ARTISTES).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour whether it is now the custom of his Department to consult the various representative organisations and obtain their views before he decides to grant permits to artistes and others engaged in the entertainment industry to land in Great Britain; and in how many cases this procedure has been adopted during the previous 12 months?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is the custom to consult various organisations before permits are issued in respect of applications which raise any doubt or difficulty. I have no figures as to the number of cases of such consultation during the past twelve months; indeed, any such figures would be valueless without a detailed account of the nature of the various applications.
    Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consult the Amalgamated Musicians Union with regard to jazz musicians who come to this country from America?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I consult the various organisations. I consulted, I think it was, the Variety Artistes Federation as regards the Coney Island freaks which were mentioned in a previous question. They raised no objection except to ask that an equivalent amount of employment of British subjects should be given. I believe that the general method which we employ has worked perfectly and without complaint. Of course, in case of individual artists like M. Kreisler, for example, no question like that arises.
    Mr. DAY: Are the Amalgamated Musicians Union consulted with regard to big jazz bands which are coming into this country and keeping English musicians out of work?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will put down a question about a particular Union I will give him an answer. He did not put down a question about a particular union, and therefore he did not get an answer with regard to that matter.

    ALIENS (CLERICAL EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many
    1960
    aliens have been admitted during the past four years in order to take up clerical employment;
    (2) how many aliens are at present holding permits of the Ministry of Labour in respect of clerical employment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of aliens admitted for clerical occupations of all kinds, including those admitted as students, etc., and who were subsequently permitted to accept such employment, was as follows:

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    …

    926

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    …

    888

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,105

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,310

    The great majority of these aliens were of one of three classes (1) foreign correspondents, (2) young persons occupying supernumerary posts for limited periods in order to obtain British experience and some knowledge of English, (3) men to take up work in the British branches of foreign companies and corporations. No information is available as to the number of aliens at present employed in clerical occupations as the result of permits issued by the Department.
    Mr. MORRISON: Is it not possible to differentiate between those who come here merely as students, in order to learn, and those who come here in order to earn a living?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, and that is clone very strictly indeed. Of such growth as there has been, part is due to the fact that before the Treaty of Locarno, former enemy aliens were generally excluded, but, after the Locarno Treaty, Germans came in here and were admitted on the same terms as others. That accounts for a slight increase in numbers. What we aim at is the degree to which British business is benefited by having some aliens with the necessary knowledge of the language in British firms here, or whether it is advisable that some employés in a foreign house should acquire a knowledge of the British language, in order to help our trade there.
    Mr. CECIL WILSON: Is there an exchange in any of these cases?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Exchange is generally applied to other kinds of aliens, such as waiters.
    Mr. MORRISON rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had a very comprehensive reply.

    TRADE BOARD ACT (MESSRS. BROUGH).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour when the officers of the Trade Board Department last examined the books and wages return of Messrs. Brough, of Liverpool?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On 26th July,1928.
    Mr. KELLY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman considers it quite satisfactory to leave a firm of this kind, whom we believe are underpaying, so long without an examination of their books?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member is himself fully aware of all the circumstances of the case. Briefly, this is one of those difficult cases, a borderline case, because part of the work may be under the present Trade Board definition, but a large part is not. As the hon. Member is aware, a fresh Trade Board definition is being got out which will clear up the situation, but it takes some lime.
    Mr. KELLY: I hope to have an opportunity of raising this matter in detail.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRAIN SERVICES (SUBSTITUTED MOTOR SERVICES).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Transport in how many cases train services on unremunerative lines have been, or are about to be, suspended by the railway companies and road motor-services substituted; what is the aggregate mileage of the lines in question; and where are they situated?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am informed by the railway companies that there is one case—namely, Old Hill to Halesowen, about 1½ miles—in which a railway passenger service has been discontinued and an
    1962
    omnibus service substituted, and that there is another case—namely, Middlesbrough to Eston, about 3¾ miles—in which the railway passenger service will be discontinued shortly. The railway companies further inform me that they have under consideration the discontinuance of passenger services in a number of other cases where, owing to omnibus competition, the railway service has become unremunerative, but that before coming to a decision in these cases they desire to take into account the effect of any such discontinuance on the interests concerned and in particular to give every consideration to local feeling.

    PEDESTRIANS (CROSSINGS).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has taken observations in London to determine what effect, if any, the erection of notices reading "Please cross here" has had in influencing public procedure in crossing busy streets; whether accidents have decreased in districts so signposted; and whether, in the interests of public safety, steps can be taken to station a constable at the authorised crossing-place at the junction of Old Palace Yard and Parliament Square?
    Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Commissioner of Police states that the public generally make good use of the crossing-places to which the hon. Member refers, but he is unable to say whether the erection of the signs has brought about a reduction in accidents. With regard to the last part of the question, it is the practice to station a constable at each of the refuges on either side of the crossing mentioned while Parliament is sitting.

    TRAFFIC DIRECTION LINES.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the possibilities of electrically-illuminated white traffic-direction lines on roads; and whether it is his intention to suggest to road authorities that facilities should be given for experimenting with such devices?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am giving consideration to the possibilities of electrically-illuminated white traffic-direction lines, and am arranging for certain trials

    1963
    to be carried out. I do not consider it desirable to make any special suggestion to highway authorities at the moment.

    BOND STREET (OMNIBUSES).
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Minister of Transport whether, before deciding to divert the motor-omnibus traffic from Bond Street to Berkeley Street and Davies Street, he will consult the various interests concerned?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Within the last few days, I have received representations in favour of the exclusion of all omnibus traffic from Bond Street, coupled with the suggestion that these services should be diverted through Berkeley Street and Davies Street, and I have referred this matter to the London Traffic Advisory Committee for consideration and report. The hon. Member may rest assured that the Committee, in considering the advice which they may tender to me on this subject, will have regard to the various interests concerned.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Will my right hon. Friend consider some kind of compromise by which omnibuses go up one route and come down another?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I certainly will.

    PICCADILLY CIRCUS (PEDESTRIANS).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to conclude the experiment with reference to foot passengers' refuges and crossing-places at Piccadilly Circus?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No such experiments are at present being carried out. When, however, the works in connection with the Piccadilly Tube Station are completed, experiments will be made with a view to selecting the most satisfactory sites for refuges and crossing-places, both from the point of view of vehicular and of pedestrian traffic.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Are certain inquiries not being made as to the extent of the refuges in Piccadilly Circus and also the shape in which they are built, which to some extent does impede traffic going round?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, of course the shape and situation of the refuges will be taken into consideration when the experiments are made.

  IRISH FREE STATE.

    BRITISH COINAGE.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Prime Minister (1) if payment was made by the Irish Free State for the British coinage hitherto used in the Free State; and, if so, what was the amount of payment;
    (2) what amount of coinage in face value will be returned to the Treasury by the Irish Free State Government; and what sum in sterling has been agreed to be paid by the British Government to the Irish Free State?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether any arrangement has been made between the British Government and the Irish Free State Government to take up British silver coins at present in circulation in the Irish Free State at their face value; what were the proposals made by the Irish Free State Government to the British Government on the matter; and what is the estimated sum involved?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Some two years ago the Free State wishing to have their own token coinage made representations to the British Government that they should take back the silver circulating in Ireland at its face value. The amount of the silver in question was variously estimated at £1½ to £3 millions. We naturally demurred to this proposal on account of the cost it would entail to the British taxpayer. The Free State Government argued that it was obligatory upon us to redeem our own coinage at its face value as we had made the profits out of its original minting. We pointed out in reply that this coinage was issued before the Exchequers were divided and that the Irish and British taxpayers were both joint participants in the profits of the issue.
    The Free State then represented that since the establishment of the Irish Free State British Treasury Notes have been in circulation throughout Ireland and that considerable profits have accrued to us through the printing and issue of these Notes. Of course it might be rejoined that the Free State used our notes in this interval for her convenience; but it cannot be denied that a substantial profit was made by the British Exchequer during this period from their circulation in Ireland. The Free State also pointed out

    1965
    that the British Government had assisted both South Africa and Australia in establishing their own coinage by repatriating the British coins at their face value, and they argued that a refusal to assist them in their turn would be invidious. Had no agreement been reached between the British and Free State Governments it would have been necessary for Parliament to legislate to prevent the repatriation of any British silver circulating in the Free State.
    In all these circumstances the Cabinet took the view that a friendly compromise should if possible be arranged, and I was instructed to negotiate with Mr. Blythe fur that purpose. In consequence I have made an arrangement with the Free State for the return of silver coins to this country at their face value up to a total of £750,000. This process is to be spread over a period of rather more than 10 years: £50,000 may be repatriated by the 31st March of this year; £100,000 in April, 1929; £60,000 in April, 1930; and £60,000 every April after 1930 up to 1939. The total cost to the British Exchequer of the operation spread over these years on the basis of the present value of silver will amount to about £500,000.
    Mr. CLYNES: Is that arrangement wholly acceptable to the Free State?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: An agreement has been made that covers 10 years.
    Colonel GRETTON: Does this agreement close the transaction in regard to the silver now current in the Free State, or is it still open to my right hon. Friend to negotiate another agreement in regard to any surplus?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, it closes it completely for 10 years. What may happen at the end of 10 years is really a more speculative matter than I can attempt to judge.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Has my right hon. Friend received any assurance from the Irish Free State of more consideration in future of British interests in connection with their tenders; for example, that British firms should have an opportunity of tendering for engineering works, and that tenders should not be given to German firms?
    Mr. ROSS: Will British currency continue to be legal tender in the Free State?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, I think so, side by side with the other; certainly with the new currency, as far as I know.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: What happens to the remainder of the coinage above £750,000? Does that remain in circulation in Ireland?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: At any rate, it will not be repatriated here at a loss to the British Exchequer.
    Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Irish coinage will be legal tender in this country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I really must ask for notice of that question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make a comparison between this arrangement, from the point of view of the Treasury and the Irish Free State, and that made with South Africa and Canada? Is it any worse from our point of view?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I think a fair arrangement has been made. We have always helped the Dominions in establishing their own currency, and I think it would have been very exceptional treatment if we had refused to assist the Irish Free State in the matter.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: Can the Chancellor not assure the House at once that no coinage that does not bear the King's head will be legal tender in this country?
    Sir BASIL PETO: Is the King's head not to be used in future on these Irish coins, and are we to have instead the emblem of the fish, hen or pig?
    Mr. SPEAKER: These supplementary questions really do not arise.

    INSURED PERSONS.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Minister of Health whether negotiations are proceeding between his Department and the Irish Free State with a view to protecting the interests of insured persons who, after paying contributions for a long period, become domiciled in Southern

    1967
    Ireland; and whether, in the event of no agreement being reached, he is prepared to make a refund to such contributors?
    Sir K. WOOD: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. So far as national health insurance is concerned the interests of the insured persons referred to are already protected by reciprocal arrangements, but no such arrangements can be made as regards contributory pensions so long as there is no similar scheme in force in the Irish Free State. In any event the financial basis of the health insurance and pensions schemes does not permit of any refund of contributions to persons who cease to be insured either on migration or other wise.

    ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS (SEAMEN).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the Government's decision to pay the claims of sufferers from the civil war in Ireland in full, he will now consider paying in full the claims of British seamen who suffered from illegal enemy action during the submarine campaign in the War; if he is aware that repeated pledges were given that these seamen of the mercantile marine would be compensated in full; and if he is aware that many of them have not received full compensation for their sufferings and losses?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the question put by the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Stephen).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said that an answer to the question would be given if notice was given, and can he say whether he is now going to reconsider the case of the seamen?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have answered it. Notice has been given. It has been considered, and the question is fully covered by the answer that I gave yesterday.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That will not satisfy the claims of these seamen, and cannot they be reopened?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They are not going to be reopened.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why should one set of claims be satisfied and not those of the British seamen?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Although this matter is alleged to be closed, if the seamen send a deputation to the right hon. Gentlemen, will he reconsider the decision?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot hold out any hope of reconsidering this decision, which has been maintained by successive Governments, including the Government of the party opposite.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SOUTH AFRICA AND GERMANY (TREATY).
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received any representations from commercial circles in this country with regard to the proposal of the South African Commonwealth to give Germany, in its new commercial treaty, the same preferences on goods imported into South Africa as are at present enjoyed in this country; whether he has any information as to the exact position at present of this commercial treaty; and whether His Majesty's Government has conveyed to the South African Government the point of view of British manufacturers?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the views expressed by commercial circles in this country is regards the Treaty recently concluded between the Union of South Africa and Germany. I would, however, point out that while the Treaty provides that goods produced or manufactured in Germany will, on importation into the Union of South Africa, be entitled to the same treatment as similar goods produced or manufactured in any other country, this concession is subject to the proviso that in the case of goods in respect of which preferential treatment is, under existing Union legislation, specifically accorded to other parts of the British Empire, Germany will not be able to claim any minimum rates or rebates actually granted to other parts of the Empire. The Treaty does not come into force until the exchange of ratifications, which has not yet been effected. As regards the

    1969
    last part of the question, I would invite reference to the reply given on my behalf by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to questions in the House on the 4th December.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire, a body in which there is no politics, was so incensed over the matter that they sent a cable direct to the Government of the Union asking the Union not to proceed with the Treaty, as they regarded it as a direct attack on inter-Imperial trade?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will my tight hon. Friend not consider the question of withdrawing the preference to South African fruits and giving it to Australia?
    Mr. AMERY: I think my answer made it clear that the existing preferences given by South Africa to this country, which are greater than the total amount, of the preferences given by this country to South Africa, are still to be continued.

    OVERSEAS TRADE (FACILITIES.)
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what fee is charged in order to he put on the mailing list of his Department for the circulation of information; what information is sent in return for the fee; what is the number of firms and persons paying the fee; and whether the information supplied in this way is obtainable by firms and persons in foreign countries?
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The fee charged for entry on the Special Register of the Department is one guinea per annum, or in conjunction with a subscription to the Board of Trade Journal, a reduced combined fee of £2 4s. 6d. is charged. The information sent to such firms comprises details as to contracts open to tender abroad, specific inquiries from reputable firms overseas for supplies of British goods, information as to the demand for specific lines of British goods, reports as to foreign competition, and generally such information as is considered by reason of its confidential nature unsuitable for general publication. The number of subscribers at
    1970
    present entered on the Register is 2,057. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is information regarding openings abroad given to foreign firms if they ask for it?
    Mr. HACKING: No, Sir.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: How does the hon. Gentleman distinguish between foreign and British firms? For example, what would be the position of a large electricity undertaking, controlled by foreign capital, with an ex-Lord Chancellor of England as chairman?
    Mr. HACKING: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member does not expect me to answer that question, and I will not disappoint him.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what steps are taken to draw the attention of British firms to the services which his Department is prepared to render them respecting the goods required by foreign countries?
    Mr. HACKING: The means at my disposal are only limited by the necessity for economy in drawing upon public funds. Leaflets explaining the services of the Department are distributed to interested parties and are available on application. The Department works in close co-operation with the Chambers of Commerce and other bodies interested in trade, and I have received invaluable assistance from them in making known to their members the services we have to offer. Such information as may be published without detriment to British interests is supplied to the public Press. The British Industries Fair is widely advertised both at home and abroad.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not only fair to the Department to say that an immense number of British firms are aware of these facilities and make full use of them now?
    Mr. HACKING: Yes, that is true.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
    Sir C. RAWSONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the popularity of the British Industries Fair, it would be possible in future to permit the general

    1971
    public to be admitted earlier in the day at a cost of 2s. from 2 till 5 and 1s. after 5 p.m., as this would not only give adequate time for trade buyers but would be of great convenience to the general public and a source of increased revenue?
    Mr. HACKING: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the British Industries Fair is a trade fair whose primary purpose is to facilitate purchases by trade buyers, and it is for this reason that the general public are excluded for the greater part of the day. I will, however, gladly bring before the Committee of Exhibitors, on whose advice I rely in matters affecting the organisation of the Fair, the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. ERSKINE: How much longer is the Fair to continue?
    Mr. HACKING: It closes on Friday night.

    ROOFING SLATES (IMPORTS).
    Sir C. RAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of roofing slates imported into this country from foreign countries during the year 1928 and the value?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The total imports into the United Kingdom of slates for roofing, consigned from foreign countries, amounted during the year 1928 to 43,481 tons, of a declared value of £290,121.
    Mr. ERSKINE: How many British workmen have been thrown out of work by the importation of these foreign dates?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the hon. Gentleman know that in the West Highlands there are slate quarries which produce slates of infinitely better quality than any foreign slates?

    WHEAT AND BREAD (PRICES).
    Mr. SHEPPERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the comparative average price in London of English wheat and the 4-lb. loaf of bread, respectively, for January, 1914, and January, 1929?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: According to the statutory returns received by the Ministry
    1972
    of Agriculture, the average price per cwt. of British wheat in London was 7s. 6d. in January, 1914, and 9s. 9d. in January, 1929. The average retail price of the 4-1b. loaf in London, as compiled by the Ministry of Labour, was 5½d. in January, 1914, and 8¼d. in January, 1929.
    Mr. SHEPPERSON: Am I right in. assuming that if the British producer of wheat received to-day the same proportion of what the consumer pays for bread, as he received in 1914, British wheat would be at a figure of 50s. a quarter?

    GOOD EASTER, ESSEX (TELEPHONE FACILITIES).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the disadvantages under which farmers suffer from having no telephone at the post office at Good Easter; and whether he can see his way to have a telephone installed in the post office there?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): A public telephone at Good Easter would, under existing conditions, have to be connected with an exchange some miles distant and I should not be justified in providing one except under guarantee. There is, however, a possibility that a new rural exchange will be established in the vicinity; and, in that event, it seems likely that a public telephone could be provided at Good Easter without a guarantee.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the Postmaster-General aware that Good Easter is seven and a-half miles away from the nearest railway station anti that the farmers there are very badly handicapped at the present time in this respect; and can he see his way to expedite this matter?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have said that there is a possibility that a new rural exchange will be established before very long, and in that case I hope it will be possible to do something in the matter.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: When is this likely to happen?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Perhaps it would be appropriate to suggest

    1973
    that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should address another question to me after Easter.

    EX-SERVICE MAN (A. McLACHLAN).
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has any information about Alexander McLachlan, late sergeant, 26th Middlesex Regiment, who served during the War and is now, in consequence of disability, an inmate of the poorhouse at Linlithgow; and whether he is in a position to render any assistance to the man?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The Ministry have no record of the case referred to and there is nothing to suggest that the man is suffering from a disability connected with his war service. My right hon. Friend regrets therefore that the case is not one in which he can take any action.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that the Ministry have no record of this case, and, if so, how can they say that the man is suffering from no disability; and in the circumstances will he make further inquiries?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: We have no record of the man's case except the letters which he wrote asking if the Ministry could do anything for him, but it was never suggested that his condition was due to war service.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make further inquiry into the matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It is for the man to apply, if he thinks he is entitled.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Chanceller of the Exchequer to state the business for Friday?
Mr. CHURCHILL: On Friday, the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill, Second Reading, will be taken first; then the Supplementary Estimate for Dominion Services, Committee—that is the topic which we discussed one afternoon last week—followed by the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, Etc.) Bill, Second Reading, and, if there is time, by other Orders on the Paper.
Mr. CLYNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously think the topic referred to is of so little consequence as to be sandwiched between other items in that way?
Mr. CHURCHILL: After the events of yesterday afternoon, it does not seem that the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill is likely to take very long, so that, the bulk of the time can be given to the topic which we discussed last week.
Mr. SHINWELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, on Friday, in discussing the Supplementary Estimate which was the subject of controversy last week, the Government will have definitely made up its mind on the matter?
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government in this matter is marching hand in hand with this House.
Mr. BATEY: When are we to expect a Supplementary Estimate for the Government's contribution to the Lord Mayor's Fund?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I am not informed about that. An answer could be given to-morrow.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on any Private. Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, he exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[Mr. Churchill.]
The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 102.

Division No. 243.]

AYES.

[3.54 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Atholl, Duchess of

Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)

Albery, Irving James

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Berry, Sir George

Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Betterton, Henry B.

Amery, Ht. Hon. Leopold C. M. s.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid w.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Blundell, F. N.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Preston, William

Boothby, R. J. G.

Hacking, Douglas H.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Pringle, J. A.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Harland, A.

Raine, Sir Walter

Brass, Captain W.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Ramsden, E.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve

Hartington, Marquess of

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Briggs, J. Harold

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

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Briscoe, Richard George

Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Buchan, John

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

Ross, R. D.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hilton, Cecil

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bullock, Captain M.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Campbell, E. T.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Sandon, Lord

Carver, Major W. H.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Shaw, Lt.-Col.A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W.)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Shepperson, E. W.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sinclair, Col.T.(Queen's Univ.,Belfst.)

Chamberlain,Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Skelton, A. N.

Chapman, Sir S.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Looker, Herbert William

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Smithers, Waldron

Clarry, Reginald George

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Lumley, L. R.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Maclntyre, Ian

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Colfox, Major William Phillips

McLean, Major A.

Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

Cooper, A. Duff

Macquisten, F. A.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Couper, J. B.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Margesson, Captain D.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

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

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Tinne, J. A.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Meller, R. J.

Titchfieid, Major the Marquess of

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Meyer, Sir Frank

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Wallace, Captain O. E.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

Ward, Lt.Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

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

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cilve

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Wells, S. R.

Fraser, Captain Ian

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

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Gates, Percy

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Goff, Sir Park

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richm'd)

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Greenwood, Rt.Hn.Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. J.

Power, Sir John Cecil

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Grotrian, H. Brent

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Major Sir George Hennessy and Major Sir William Cope.

NOES.

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

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Grundy, T. W.

Murnin, H.

Ammon, Charles George

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Oliver, George Harold

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Owen, Major G.

Batey, Joseph

Hardie, George D.

Palin, John Henry

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Harris, Percy A.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Bellamy, A.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Benn, Wedgwood

Hirst, G. H.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Hollins, A.

Potts, John S.

Bondfield, Margaret

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Purcell, A. A.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Briant, Frank

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Ritson, J.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kelly, W. T.

Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Buchanan, G.

Kennedy, T.

Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Cape, Thomas

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

Scurr, John

Charleton, H. C.

Kirkwood, D.

Sexton, James

Clarke, A. B.

Lansbury, George

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lawrence, Susan

Shield, G. W.

Compton, Joseph

Lawson, John James

Shinwell, E.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lee, F.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Longbottom, A. W.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Day, Harry

Lowth, T.

Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

Dennison, R.

Lunn, William

Snell, Harry

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Mackinder, W.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Stamford, T. W

Gibbins, Joseph

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Stephen, Campbell

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

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

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

Montague, Frederick

Sullivan, Joseph

1976

1977

Sutton, J. E.

Wellock, Wilfred

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Westwood, J.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Thurtle, Ernest

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Windsor, Walter

Tinker, John Joseph

Whiteley, W

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.

Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

CLEAN POLITICS.
Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to compel all national political parties to publish annually a complete list of their subscribers."
On reflection, I am inclined to think that the Title of the Bill is a little ambitious, and it may be not quite accurate. The task of cleansing the political system cannot very well be accomplished by one small Bill, and all that I would like to urge in support of my proposals is that they will constitute quite an important step in the desired direction. I am asking that each political party should, under the compulsion of the law, be obliged to submit an annual certified return of the subscribers to its funds. In that way we hope to discover who it is that finances political parties, and we think that when we discover that we shall discover many other things, too. There is a well-known maxim, compact of cynicism and sound sense, which says that the people who pay the piper call the tune. I think that is as true of politics as of anything else, and we are concerned to find out who are these mysterious paymasters, who are calling the tunes of the Liberal and Conservative parties. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Socialist party!"] In a recent speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Labour party had a facade of respectability, and that behind this facade there were certain sinister and mysterious international figures who were doing the really dirty work. I am not proposing to judge the merits of that particular flight of fancy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would say that on this side of the House there is a very strong conviction that the Conservative party and the Liberal party are not all that they seem.
Mr. ERNEST BROWN: And the Socialist party, too.
Mr. THURTLE: We are inclined to think that behind the facade of nebulous first principles and sonorous platitudes there are certain mysterious individuals
1978
and powerful interests who really control these parties, and dictate what their policy shall be. It is common knowledge that the Conservative party, and the Liberal party too, are very much more dependent on finance than is the Labour party. It is one of our good fortunes that we are able to command a vast amount of voluntary labour. Therefore, these parties, in carrying out their political and electoral work, have to expend a vast sum of money. We know that money has got to come from somewhere, and we want to know where it comes from. We want to be in a position to judge whether this money has any influence in determining what policy shall he followed, or what particular title shall be conferred. Labour is quite willing to assist in this work. Labour is anxious to have all the cards laid upon the table. If hon. Members who want to discover how much "Red" gold comes from Moscow, will only co-operate with us in this, they will be able to find out. As a matter of fact, the Labour party already publishes an annual statement of its receipts and expenditure, and we are only asking the other parties to do likewise. We are virtuous ourselves, and we have got a laudable ambition to try to make the other parties equally virtuous. We would like to be able to do it if we could by moral suasion—
Mr. E. BROWN: Assisted by the bookmakers.
Mr. THURTLE: —but that does not seem to be effective, and so we have to resort to the compulsion of the law. I will tell hon. Members below the Gangway, so as to ease their anxiety, that it is not proposed to make this Measure retrospective in its operation, nor is it, proposed to bring within its scope what, I believe, is politically known as the personal fund. In drafting the Bill it has been found to be impossible to make such a lucid distinction as that between the personal fund and the political fund, but if the Liberal party wishes to amend the Bill in that direction, it will have an opportunity of doing so. Nor does the

1979
Bill insist upon contributions not exceeding £500 being accounted for separately. The view of the promoters is that there is no party, however straitened its financial circumstances may be, which is prepared to change its policy or to confer a title for such a moderate consideration as £500. I hope this Bill is going to command the general support of the House. It is a step in the direction of clean politics, and the public are entitled to have such a step made. The electors are very often puzzled as to why parties adopt certain policies, or why they confer titles on particular individuals. If there is a cash explanation of some of these puzzles, I think the public should be entitled to get that explanation. I will say, in conclusion, that if there is opposition to this Measure—I hope there will not be—I shall be driven to the very melancholy conclusion that there are some political parties like some men who love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Wellock, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.

CLEAN POLITICS BILL,
"to compel all national political parties to publish annually a complete list of their subscribers," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  That they propose that the meeting of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which are not Private Bills, which stands appointed for this day, be put off to Wednesday, the 6th of March next, at Eleven o'clock.
  Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Sir George Hennessy]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARRTMENTS, 1929 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum not exceeding £117,562,000 be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Pensions, Education, Insurance, and other Grants) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, namely:

    CIVIL ESTIMATES.
    Class V.

    £

    9

    Ministry of Labour

    4,600,000

    Class I.

    1

    House of Lords Offices

    26,500

    2

    House of Commons

    120,000

    3

    Expenses under the Representation of the People Act

    90,000

    4

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    125,000

    5

    Privy Council Office

    3,000

    6

    Privy Seal Office

    1,000

    7

    Charity Commission

    13,800

    8

    Civil Service Commission

    13,000

    9

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    53,000

    10

    Friendly Societies' Deficiency

    —

    11

    Government Actuary

    13,000

    12

    Government Chemist

    22,500

    13

    Government Hospitality

    8,000

    14

    Mint, including Coinage

    15,000

    15

    National Debt Office

    6,000

    16

    National Savings Committee

    26,500

    17

    Public Record Office

    13,000

    18

    Public Works Loan Commission

    5

    19

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    20,000

    20

    Royal Commissions, &c.

    16,280

    21

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    25,000

    22

    Secret Service

    80,000

    SCOTLAND:

    23

    Scottish Office

    150,000

    Class II.

    £

    1

    Foreign Office

    80,000

    2

    Diplomatic and Consular Services

    520,000

    3

    League of Nations

    40,000

    4

    Dominions Office

    13,500

    5

    Dominion Services

    81,000

    6

    Empire Marketing

    100,000

    7

    Oversea Settlement

    525,000

    8

    Colonial Office

    49,500

    9

    Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

    353,000

    10

    India Office

    36,500

    11

    Imperial War Graves Commission

    125,000

    Class III.

    1

    Home Office

    145,000

    2

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    23,500

    3

    Police, England and Wales

    3,023,000

    4

    Prisons, England and Wales

    500,000

    6

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools, England and Wales

    111,000

    6

    Supreme Court of Judicature, &c.

    10

    7

    County Courts

    5

    8

    Land Registry

    5

    9

    Public Trustee

    5

    10

    Law Charges

    45,000

    11

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    30,000

    SCOTLAND:

    12

    Police

    400,000

    13

    Prisons Department

    62,000

    14

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    20,000

    15

    Scottish Land Court

    3,250

    16

    law Charges and Courts of Law

    22,300

    17

    Register House, Edinburgh

    5

    IRELAND:

    18

    Northern Ireland Services

    4,500

    19

    Supreme Court of Judicature, Northern Ireland

    16,400

    20

    Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland

    1,250,000

    Class IV.

    1

    Board of Education

    15,000,000

    2

    British Museum

    120,000

    3

    Imperial War Museum

    4,400

    4

    London Museum

    1,660

    5

    National Gallery

    18,000

    6

    National Portrait Gallery

    2,500

    7

    Wallace Collection

    3,500

    8

    Scientific Investigation, &c.

    95,000

    9

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

    700,000

    SCOTLAND:

    10

    Public Education

    2,750,000

    11

    National Galleries

    5,000

    12

    National Library

    250

    Class V.

    £

    1

    Ministry of Health

    7,000,000

    2

    Board of Control

    408,000

    3

    Registrar-General's Office

    30,000

    4

    National Insurance Audit Department

    .56,000

    5

    Grants in respect of Unemployment Schemes

    500,000

    6

    Friendly Societies Registry

    15,000

    7

    Old Age Pensions

    15,000,000

    8

    Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions

    1,000,000

    SCOTLAND:

    10

    Department of Health

    930,000

    11

    General Board of Control

    36,850

    12

    Registrar-General's Office

    5,600

    Class VI.

    1

    Board of Trade

    100,000

    2

    Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    5

    3

    Mercantile Marine Services

    165,000

    4

    Department of Overseas Trade

    120,000

    5

    Export Credits

    24,000

    6

    Mines Department of the Board of Trade

    57,000

    7

    Office of the Commissioners of Crown Lands

    10,000

    8

    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

    1,750,000

    9

    Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain

    100,000

    10

    Surveys of Great Britain

    63,000

    11

    Forestry Commission

    200,000

    12

    Ministry of Transport

    50,000

    13

    Development Fund

    120,000

    14

    Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

    160,000

    15

    State Management Districts

    10

    SCOTLAND:

    16

    Department of Agriculture

    110,000

    17

    Fishery Board

    22,000

    Class VII.

    1

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    90,000

    2

    Houses of Parliament Buildings

    32,000

    3

    Housing Estates

    11,300

    4

    Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain

    180,450

    5

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    35,500

    6

    Osborne

    5,400

    7

    Office of Works and Public Buildings

    209,300

    8

    Public Buildings, Great Britain

    427,450

    9

    Public Buildings Overseas

    92,350

    10

    Royal Palaces

    27,600

    11

    Revenue Buildings

    364,300

    12

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    69,550

    13

    Rates on Government Property

    950,000

    14

    Stationery and Printing

    825,000

    15

    Peterhead Harbour

    11,000

    16

    Works and Buildings in Ireland

    32,850

    Class VIII.

    £

    1

    Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

    160,000

    2

    Ministry of Pensions

    21,000,000

    3

    Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &c.

    525,000

    4

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    650,000

    Class IX.

    1

    Clearing Office (Enemy Debts), Shipping Liquidation, &c

    100

    2

    Australian Zinc Concentrates

    350,000

    3

    Railway (War) Agreements Liquidation

    10

    Class X.

    3

    Railway Freight Rebates

    1,700,000

    4

    Private Mineral Railways Local Rates Grants

    20,000

    Total for Civil Estimates

    £88,112,000

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    1

    Customs and Excise

    1,750,000

    2

    Inland Revenue

    2,700,000

    3

    Post Office

    25,000,000

    Total for Revenue Departments

    £29,450,000

    Total for Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments

    £117,562,000

    Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move:
    "That Item Class V, Vote 9 (Ministry of Labour), be reduced by £100."
    I have a feeling of compassion whenever the Ministry of Labour Vote comes before this House, because I feel that it is one of those Departments which are expected to make bricks without straw, and it is very often like the kitchen maid of the administration. It has a sort of responsibility without power which is very often placed on the shoulders of the Ministry with one or two exceptions, to which I shall refer later. But there is hope, if I may carry the analogy a little further. In modern up-to-date houses you will often find that the hostess has the greatest possible pride in taking you to the kitchen where modern and up-to-date equipment is installed, and where the real necessary work of the house is mostly done; and I feel that in the modern State the Ministry of Labour ought to aim at becoming one of the most necessary Departments, because it deals, after all, with one of the most fundamental factors

    2033
    in the life of the nation. The administration of employment exchanges under the Conservative Administration, however, has not—and I think that no one will deny it—shown a great deal of vision and has been cramped by obsolete prejudice. The power of equipping and building exchanges and that of staffing the Department remain with the Minister, and yet I wonder whether some of the advances in equipment and building which are necessary to carry on the work are not held up by the prepossession of the Office of Works in antiquarian interests. We find a great deal of foolish economy in connection with the building of adequate accommodation for administrative work. The number of officials is being reduced, and the exchanges fail to meet the increased industrial activities of a district. When the numbers on an exchange register soar up very considerably, when the very nature of the industry itself indicates a change in the district, there seems very little adaptability and readiness to set the machinery of the exchange to meet the needs of the times.
    The Exchange staffs have a very difficult and harassing work, and I submit to the Minister that a serious difficulty is caused by understaffing. All departments are afflicted by the recurrent periods of illness, and the staffs of the Exchanges have not been exempted. In addition to that, unexpected peaks of unemployment suddenly appear in different districts, and I suggest to the Minister that it is more than time that something like a flying squad were organised by the Department in order that additional relief may be sent to any point where the understaffing of the Exchanges seriously interferes with the administrative work. It shows itself in two particular directions; first, in the tremendous pressure upon the individual staff officer, who very often by circumstances of pressure may he tempted to scamp the work and give less time than is necessary to the investigation of individual claims; and, second, there is a congestion of business which holds up cases of benefit, and particularly cases being referred to courts of referees, and in the paying out of benefit.
    There is in this particular work of the Ministry—and I do not raise this as a matter of criticism—probably more than almost in any other section of administration,
    2034
    the necessity for the greatest possible care in selecting the type of officer who is to handle the Employment Exchange work. Much of the harassing, grumbling and disappointment may be traced, not to an inefficient officer, but to an officer who is not the right type to handle the particular job which he has to do. I stress that point, because we know the difference between the Exchange where we hardly ever get any sort of complaint and the Exchange where we never get anything but complaints with regard to the way eases are dealt with. In this work, the human element must never be lost sight of. People who can forget that the unfortunate people on the other side of the counter are human beings and treat them merely as statistical records are the wrong type of officers to have anything to do with Employment Exchanges.
    I was much impressed by a reply given on 23th January to a question by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), in which the Minister stated, if I understand the reply aright, that during the four weeks ending 10th December insurance officers disallowed 60,361 claims, of which only 5,150 were disallowed by referees. There is a disproportion between the number of claims allowed by the referees and the number of claims held up by the officers, and it should be remembered that every one of them meant weeks of anxiety and trouble on the part of the individual claimant who subsequently got his money. He had to go through all that trouble when a little more common sense on the part of the insurance officers would have avoided it. There is a fog of imperfect statistical data, and a sort of guesswork has been going on as though, if I may use an Irishism, we were permanently living in a period of expediency. We go on from hand to mouth, and it is time that we got down to a definite system of collating statistics, so that we can get a complete picture, not merely of the number of insured persons who are receiving benefit, but of the number of persons who are unemployed, from whatever cause; in that way we should get a much more sound classification of the nature of the unemployment, and have some guide as to the volume of casual employment, the volume of the permanently dispossessed, and the numbers who are "ins and outs" because of the

    2035
    nature of their employment, that is, they are sure of a job at some time, but merely have to stand off owing to temporary circumstances. At present, all that sort of thing is to a large extent guesswork and patchy, and it all adds to the confusion in dealing with the whole problem of unemployment insurance and its administration.
    I want to turn for a moment to the question of the primary business of the Employment Exchanges. When they were first set up, their primary job was to organise the finding of work and to fit people to the vacancies. That has been overlaid by the immense mass of detail which has been thrown upon the Exchanges by the administration of the unemployment benefit during the years of distressed trade and the crisis in the export industries. We are repeatedly faced with criticism, sometimes founded on misapprehension, and sometimes due to this confusion and the absence of clearness of purpose of the Exchanges, that the Exchanges offer jobs that do not exist. I do not mean to say that that is the policy of the Exchanges; I am sure that it is not, but there is something defective in the organisation, or in the instructions given to the officers, or in the question of timing. I have here, for instance, a reference to what is known as the Chislett case, with which the Minister is familiar. It is a case of vacancies being broadcast through the "Clearing House Gazette" for 30 bricklayers who were required at Chislett. This was sent out from the "Clearing House Gazette," with the result that many more men than were required came from different parts of the country, and many had to be sent back on distress warrants. In addition, men were disqualified in different parts of the country for refusing work, and this was intensified by the fact that the "Clearing House Gazette" continued to insert the requirement for men long after the vacancies had been filled.
    I am aware that the Minister agreed that that should not have been done, but the point is that the unions are now left with these cases on their hands which they must take to the Umpire, cases that have been refused unjustifiably as the result of jobs that did not exist being offered. Yet these cases have to go to the Umpire, and the men have to have
    2036
    their benefits held up until the Umpire settles them. Surely that is a question of somebody blundering and of something loose about the administration which might easily be tightened up. It should be a matter of honour to the Exchanges not to offer a man a job unless they are sure that the job is available to the man to whom it is offered. That surely ought to be the first principle, and, if we proceed on those lines, the accidents that happen might be eliminated.
    In spite of the tremendous pressure to which the Exchanges have been subjected I am amazed to see that the personnel has been reduced at the Ministry from 17,208 to 16,282. The Ministry themselves have thrown another thousand people, apparently, upon the unemployment benefit, and that does not seem to be a very helpful thing to do at a time when Exchange officers are decidedly overworked. With regard to the transition period, the Minister again gave his categorical reply of ambiguity to the Trade Union Congress delegation. He does not appear to realise the feeling in the country about the uncertainty as to whether the transition period is to be continued after the end of March or whether that part of the 1927 Act is to be suspended.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): May I intervene so as to avoid a possible misunderstanding later? I stated that of course any inquiry of this kind involves very difficult calculations and going into statistics right through the country. I am having it done, and I hope to let the Committee have the information before Easter. It is difficult work that cannot be hurried and yet be tolerably accurate.
    Miss BONDFIELD: Then we may take it that the transition period will not be brought to an end before the end of April, if we are not going to get the figures before Easter. We must read between the lines and take what comfort we may from that statement. It would surely have been easier for the Minister to have said, "Yes, the period will be extended, but the exact lines on which it will be extended will he a matter for inquiry."
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Lady must not draw that conclusion.
    Miss BONDFIELD: If we cannot draw that conclusion, the answer is most unsatisfactory. It was laid down perfectly clearly in the actuary's report submitted to the Blanesburgh Committee that it was not even contemplated that that scheme should be considered until unemployment had come down to 6 per cent.; and at a time when the figures are still soaring, and we cannot be sure that the weather will not continue to make them soar, it is impossible to accept that decision as satisfactory. I said just now that the preoccupation of the Exchanges with insurance stultifies the value of the machine to carry out its original purpose, and I want to consider the problem in the light of a really constructive, live department. Here is the actual fact of 1,458,000 unemployed persons, presumably under the control of the Minister of Labour. I believe that there is a return which shows that 89,000 or 90,000 able-bodied persons are under the Poor Law. Is it not time that we faced up to the necessity for bringing all the able-bodied people under the Ministry of Labour without further delay? When we have 1,458,000 already dealt with by that Department, why should not these other 89,000 persons be brought in as well 9 I do not know to what extent that could be dealt with by the administrative provision that would have to be made for those who cannot possibly qualify for unemployment insurance.
    As one who cares a great deal about the success of the insurance policy of the country, I want to issue a word of warning regarding the policy of the Ministry in trying to place upon that insurance scheme a burden which it was never contemplated that it would have to bear. It is threatening the very existence of insurance as such in this country. We must face up to the problem of recognising that the unemployment of able-bodied persons is a disaster of the first magnitude, and is a matter of such national importance as to require exceptional remedies, and we ought to empty the pool of the idle unemplayed by enormously extending the opportunities for occupation and training or by relief schemes. I earnestly ask the Committee to bend their minds to this problem. Under a contributory system we cannot deal with men who are incapable of contributing to the Fund. It is not fair to that contributory system,
    2038
    and is not fair to the individual, who is constantly told that he is no longer qualified for benefit and is not genuinely seeking work. We can only deal with this problem by a definite policy which, though it will cost money, will still cost less than we have to find under the existing method.
    There are three methods by which they could be kept occupied. The first is by the provision of relief works, though no one wants to see any greater extension of such works than is necessary. Then there is the effort that could be made to stimulate employment in normal occupations; I refer to occupations that would show some definite return to the country. Thirdly, there is a category of persons to be considered for whom no work of any kind, either relief work or any other, can be found. Those people should have some occupation. They should have the opportunity of going through some form of training, either mental or physical. It is from that standpoint that we discern a tremendous lack of initiative and of planning in connection with the Ministry of Labour.
    May I give a few figures by way of comment on that statement? They are figures up to 28th January, taken from the February issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette." We have 44,409 boys and 41,080 girls returned as unemployed on 28th January. On page 42 of the same journal we find a statement about what has been done for juveniles. I assume that these figures of boys and girls mean young persons under 18 years of age. That is true, is it not?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND indicated assent.
    Miss BONDFIELD: On page 42, it states that there has been set up a network of juvenile centres in the distressed areas. This is the network. South Wales has absorbed 1,481—I think those are only boys—the North East 1,117, and Motherwell and Dunfermline 494, making a total of 3,092. So this network, which it has taken us from February, 1928, to build up, has dealt with only 3,092 juveniles, while the figures show that 44,409 boys alone are on the registers. That network is utterly inadequate to meet the conditions of the boys who are unemployed, and it is simply playing with the fringe of the question not to recognise that juvenile

    2039
    training centres must be available at every point where boys are unemployed. Even though they be unemployed for a few months only they ought to have the opportunity during those months of idleness of making the greatest possible use of their leisure, in order that afterwards they may be finer and more competent boys, and better equipped than they were at the beginning of their spell of unemployment.
    Now let us turn to the women. In saying all this I am not under-estimating the administrative difficulties, but I do say that policy is responsible for two-thirds of what is happening; it is a question of the attitude of mind of the Department towards this problem. The number of women who are unemployed is returned at 235,782, and the number of women in training at the training centres is 1,274, grouped in 35 centres round about the country. As a member of the Central Committee on Women's Training and Unemployment I have had a great deal to do with that training, and I know that all the women who pass through those training centres leave them better equipped to face life. During 1924, when we had the opportunity for a short time of dealing with this question, we did away with the provision that only those persons who were prepared to take up domestic work should go into the training centres. We did that not because we did not recognise that domestic work is honourable work, or that it provides an avenue for the absorption of a certain number of unemployed women; but, we maintain, we got more women transferred to domestic service through not making it a condition of their entering the classes than was the case when that condition was enforced. We have to recognise that that domestic training is not lost if they do not go into domestic service. Home life in the country is enriched as a result of the training given in more scientific and up-to-date methods of household management, cooking, and so on.
    To my mind, it is deplorable that we have not been able to spend a great deal more money on this important work of training unemployed women, because undoubtedly a large percentage not only acquire a better capacity for household work but are willing to go into that
    2040
    work under decent conditions rather than return to a factory. I have had that statement confirmed by letters from girls who were members of my own union, who worked in factories for years, but who are now in domestic service and tell me they would not go back to a factory on any account whatsoever. That is the result of training. It is the result of giving them—if you like to put it that way—a professional status, and an interest in their work, an interest which enables them to maintain a decent outlook and secure the conditions they have a right to expect.
    With regard to men, we have got an excellent precedent, which I believe every side of the House approves, the precedent of training at Chiselden, at Claydon, and at Brandon. I specially mention Chiselden, because it has received the greatest prominence, and in my opinion has produced the greatest results. Here we find that in spite of the gigantic figures of unemployment, showing nearly 1,250,000 men unemployed on the 28th January, we have sent overseas only 3,312—Canada 1,465, and Australia 1,081. In this work of training for overseas the Ministry of Labour has only a share of the work, it is only one of several Departments, but I do beg the Ministry of Labour to recognise that in the work of training the times of departure are important so far as success on this side is concerned. The time for effective work on this side has gone by practically at the end of March in any year. Unless the men trained can set sail for Canada at the end of March, they arrive at the wrong season of the year, they are too late to be able to settle in and get their share of the work that is going for harvest, and they have not much time to earn money enough to carry them through the winter months before they get settled in something else.
    The period for training should be made to synchronise with these conditions, and we must face up to the question of keeping the men longer at training centres and having them ready to go out at the first available opportunity, not leaving them to loaf about for a long time after the training is finished. I am pleading for greater generosity in regard to the time spent in these training centres, because I am convinced that at these residential farm centres the men are learning something effective, something that

    2041
    will stand them in good stead whether they go overseas or stay in this country. We on this side feel most strongly that side by side with any policy of sending these men overseas we must be equally keen on developing the land of our own country and equally generous in helping men to settle into permanent work on the land here.
    I am not quite sure whether I am trespassing outside the Vote, but the development of small holdings in connection with afforestation should surely provide much greater opportunities not merely for men but for their families than have been secured in the last few years. I am very much distressed to see that the negotiations which have been going on for years between the Ministry of Labour and the other authorities concerned with regard to the Hollesley Bay Colony have now broken down, and that nothing effective is going to be done this year towards securing that great area as another centre for training on the land under the direction of the Ministry of Labour. I would like the Minister to tell us whether the proposal that, under the new legislation, Hollesley Bay is to come automatically under the London County Council will mean that it is completely shut out from consideration as a national training centre, and whether it will he reserved wholly for the training of men in the area of the London County Council?
    With regard to the question of labour transference, I do not propose to au into detail on that, because I know that many of my hon. Friends on these benches are anxious to speak on it, but I would like to refer to the tragic report we have received from the commissioners in South Wales. I draw attention to this paragraph on page 9:
    "It is not too much to say that every thoughtful person to whom we have talked has expressed greater concern at the destructive effect of idleness on the character and morale of the unemployed than at the hardships involved in the scanty supply of the necessaries of life. It is a common observation that work is needed rather than food or clothing. We feel that there is much justification for this view. From the first we were struck more by the aspect of depression among the unemployed and their listlessness than by any other signs of poverty."
    What does that mean? It means that we are destroying the very foundation upon which the greatness of this country has
    2042
    been built up. By taking away from our people by such treatment their energy and their hope, and driving them to despair, you are creating for yourselves a problem that will take a generation to solve. I hope the Committee will realise that in pleading for an extension of these centres for occupation I am also pleading that some should be residential wherever suitable, and that the family group should be considered in relation to land training. In the case of Employment Exchanges, more particularly where any new Exchange is being considered, the primary purpose of finding occupation should be a part of the policy of the Exchange. Rooms should be provided and staffed as libraries and sewing rooms and made accessible. In that way, these unemployed men and women might be directed during their leisure into the finest possible channels, so that Employment Exchanges would be looked at, not merely as places for registering the unemployed, but as places where unemployed men and women could be helped to get a grip of life again, and assisted to develop that manliness and independence which the British people are capable of displaying.
    I want to refer to the question of the skill which has been lost to this country by compulsory idleness at an age when in the old days, during a normal state of trade, the class of people we are now dealing with were the most fruitful from the standpoint of craftsmanship. I have here some figures that show that the number of workers in the metal and engineering trades emigrating from Great Britain and Northern Ireland to other countries between 1922 and 1927 amounted to the gigantic total of 66,744 men, most of whom must have served five or seven years' apprenticeship. The estimated capitalised value of a skilled engineer has been put down at £10,000. Under the present system, we are going to lose all that skill, and when trade revives there will be no one to take the places of these men. Here we have a great economic waste. I do not suggest that you can train skilled engineers outside the normal channels of the engineering trade, but in the case of these unemployed men you can help them considerably by providing them with some sensible occupation, so that, when a favourable opportunity occurs, their skill will not be lacking.

    2043
    My next point raises the perennial question of the hours of labour. I think the failure of the Government to ratify the Washington Convention is recognised as a blunder on the part of the Administration. The effect of this failure at Geneva is one of dismay and deep concern. The last statement of the Government representative at Geneva was to the effect that the Government were pressing forward revision. What does the Government mean by revision? Is it a downward or an upward revision? On this question, I can speak for all my colleagues in the Labour party, and I have no hesitation in saying that we shall not quarrel if it is an upward revision. Does it mean a five-day week or a 44-hour week? If that is the revision, then we shall welcome it with both hands. In view of the enormous increase in the power of production, the shortening of the hours of labour will be one of the contributory factors in the future in helping us to solve the unemployment problem.
    I want to deal with several points connected with Trade Boards. There has been a reduction in the size and in the number of members of the boards. We very strongly criticised the suggestion that the Minister should interfere with the nominations that are made to the Trade Boards. I believe it is a fact that in a very large number of cases the employers agree that there should be no interference. The nominations should come from the trade organisations, both on the side of the employers and the workmen. We shall have a far more efficient system if trade union nominations are not interfered with unless for a good and special reason. The practice prevailing since 1918 has been that there is a definite arrangement by which the number of learners is limited in proportion to the adults. The Minister desires to substitute for that practice an undertaking that the Ministry will see "that effective instruction is given to young persons." With regard to inspection in connection with the Trade Boards, I understand that it takes 10 years to get a second visit from the inspector on the average of the present number of inspectors. With the present inspectorate, how can you ensure any effective inspection of young persons who may be in
    2044
    training? Thanks to the efforts made by the Labour Government in increasing the number of inspectors, the inspection has
    now increased to 10 per cent. of the employing firms, but that is still far too low. What is now being done really means that the proposed change is regarded with apprehension and we press for an increase in the number of inspectors who have to handle this question.
    Finally, with regard to the transference assistance scheme. I have brought this question to the notice of the Minister before. The prescribed boundaries present a perfectly illogical system of transfers. In my own area, we have an illustration of the illogical boundaries. There is what is known as the Forest Hall case. Men at West Allotment, signing at Shire Moor, are within the transference area, but men at Burradon, Seaton Burn, Wideopen, Hazelrigg, Dinnington Colliery, Forrest Hall, Dudley, Annitsford and Coxlodge are excluded. I want to bring home what seems to me to be a pettifogging distinction. It looks as if someone sat down with a map, and drew a line upon it, afterwards laying down that those inside that line will get help and no one outside the line will get any help at all. Surely the number of transfers is so small that it would not be difficult to provide all of them with the help that they require. Here is a letter which I would like to read to the House:
    "I write again hoping that I am not putting you to any trouble, but I would very much like to know whether Forest Hall has been included in the Transference assistance scheme, and if not, is there any possible chance of me getting a loan if I write to the Ministry of Labour stating my case. I am going from bad to worse, although I have obtained work for I have to pay board and lodging 25s. a week, and the rest of my wages go to keep my wife and three children at Forest Hill and my wages are £2 8s. 2d. clear. At the present time I have not got a pair of boots to go to work in and I have had to apply to the British Legion for a pair of boots but do not know whether I shall get them or not. If only I could manage to get my wife and family down here I would be all right. So you see if I could get a grant out of the transference scheme to move my family and furniture it would be a God-send to me."
    Obviously, here is a man settled in Birkenhead, and the Minister has all the details of this case. He writes begging that he may be saved from the horrible disaster of having to chuck that job up

    2045
    because he cannot snake both ends meet, although he could get along all right if he could get his wife and children transferred. Why should there be any difficulty about settling a case of that kind? I thank the House for allowing me to draw attention to these matters.
    5.0 p.m.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM REID: I do not intend to follow the very interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield), because I want to touch on a completely different aspect of the unemployment question. Let me say at once that I am of the opinion that, as in this country we have been prevented from adequately protecting the work of the workers, there is now only one real and lasting solution of unemployment that remains, and that solution is only to be found within the Empire. I am inclined to believe that the powers that be would to some extent agree with me, but on the other hand I am quite sure that they would be disinclined to embark on a bold programme of Empire development to the extent that would be necessary, for the simple reason that such a programme would need a very great deal of cash, and cash is scarce. Anyhow, for the moment, I am not concerned with the assistance that a Government could give in this direction, because I am going deliberately to suggest that the real cure of unemployment now rests with the people of this country and is not in the hands of the Government, that is to say, so long as our fiscal system is restricted to the extent that it is now. Consequently, I was interested in the remark of the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend, at the beginning of her speech, that it was quite impossible to make bricks without straw. I agree with that, and I say, further, that the Government can on these occasions judiciously assist the country to work out its own salvation by means of various palliatives of which we are all aware. But beyond that, in view of the restriction I have mentioned, I, for one, consider that in this respect they are powerless. I should not be surprised to find many hon. Members, not only on this side of the Committee but also on the other side who in their heart of hearts agree with what I have just said. Far too much is expected of the Government. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree
    2046
    with that, because they will remember very well the nine months during which they were the Government of this country. Far too much is expected of any Government at the present time. Governments are supposed to be an everlasting gold mine and a commercial traveller all rolled into one. In the old days, industrialists did not rely to the same extent on their Governments as in these days. In those days, the representatives of industries were continually going out into the world and discovering fresh markets, and the net result was that this country went further than any other country at that time in industrial supremacy.
    I am introducing these remarks because only recently I returned from a somewhat comprehensive tour of our Empire. On such occasions, travellers always say that there is something that strikes them more than anything else, and I am no exception to that rule. On this tour, what struck me more than anything else was the deplorable lack of initiative and enterprise that is shown by industrialists from this country, as compared with industrialists front other countries, in competition in the markets of our Empire. At times this comparison became actually heart-rending, and I, for one, was very glad to see the remarks that fell from a very distinguish gentleman of this land in reference to that question only a few days ago. I remember that, the last time I had the opportunity of addressing the House, I instanced the glaring example of the motor trade in Australia, and I then pointed out that the Americans in a very short time were going to have a complete monopoly of the motor trade in Australia. I have since seen by reports that my prophecy is quickly coming true. If time permitted, I could give innumerable other examples of industries in other parts of the Empire, but I will content myself on this occasion with asking the following question.
    I would like to know if it would not be possible for the representatives of leading English industries to get together and to combine in visiting the various potential markets of our Empire. I think that if they did that they would be surprised to discover the enormous possibilities that there are; and not only that, but, speaking from experience, I could tell them that they would also be agreeably surprised to find that they

    2047
    would receive, not only considerable support, but also a very warm welcome on all hands. It must be apparent to anyone who has visited the Empire that a Britisher, wherever you find him, would a hundred times rather deal with a Britisher than with anyone else, but up to the present, unfortunately, they have only been able to regret the lack of opportunity. Such enterprise as I have suggested, instigated, not by the Government of the day, but by prominent industrialists themselves, would, to my mind, do a great deal to pave the way towards a permanent representative committee on Empire trade and Empire development. Amongst other functions, such a committee would have the distribution of first-hand information regarding our farthest outposts—information somewhat on the lines of those excellent reports that were brought back to us by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. I have in mind at the moment one particular report which appealed to me, and which was not only interesting but full of facts and information. That was his report on West Africa.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but this discussion has been narrowed by the Amendment which has been moved, and I must ask him to relate his observations to matters for which the Minister of Labour is responsible.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM REID: I will abide by your ruling, Sir Archibald, and will confine myself as much as I can to that aspect. I will leave the question of the lack of enterprise shown in Empire markets, and will now turn to the lack of capital that—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On a point of Order. The ruling which you, Sir Archibald, have just given, would have a very important influence upon the scope of the Debate, and I should like to ask to what extent it will be possible for us to discuss schemes for providing work for unemployed people which would not necessarily be under the control of the Minister of Labour. For instance, the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) said something about small holdings. Would it be possible for us, not to discuss that subject in detail, but to refer generally to it? Otherwise,
    2048
    it would be quite impossible to discuss what is far and away the most important part of this question, namely, the provision of work for the unemployed.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I did not interrupt the hon. and gallant Member when he was dealing with such questions as that of a conference between industrialists, with migration, and so forth; but he seemed to me to be going on further without relating his remarks at all to any matter for which the Minister of Labour is responsible, and for that reason I asked him to bring his observations round to the particular Vote which we are now discussing.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM REID: I must apologise to the Committee; I agree that I was getting somewhat wide of the mark. I would like to refer for a moment to the lack of the capital that is necessary for really extensive Imperial development. We are often told in this House that every penny that we can lay our hands on is urgently required by the Government for unemployment insurance and for other post-War schemes, and, in order to carry out those schemes, taxation in varying forms becomes heavier and heavier, although, the cleverer the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the more cunningly is that taxation disguised. I would like to ask, what exactly have we to show for all this expenditure? It will be more than difficult to get rid of unemployment as long as we have nothing to show for the bulk of our expenditure. I have taken the trouble to make careful inquiries, and I find that unproductive expenditure during the last nine years has amounted to more than £500,000,000. That is an enormous amount, and I should be very interested to know what would have been the result if a considerable proportion of that sum had been used in productive expenditure. I somehow have a feeling that the unemployment question would now be in a very different state. In view of the fiscal restriction to which I have already referred, the cure for unemployment now lies, as I have said, entirely with the people of this country, and I consider that it is up to the public of this country to instigate a really courageous and long-sighted Imperial policy. I would suggest, in the

    2049
    first place, that they should subscribe generously to an Empire loan of considerable magnitude—one that would be raised very much in the same way in which the War Loans were raised, that is to say, by direct appeal to the country. Secondly, it is essential that our industrialists in this country should attempt to find far wider fields within the Empire, and, by such enterprise, provide additional work in their factories and workshops; and last, but not least, I think that, if we want the Empire to help us in many directions, such as by taking some of our surplus population, buying our goods, and so forth, it is essential that, in as many ways as possible, we should reciprocate. As to an Empire loan, I think hon. Members will agree that every pound that we invest in the Empire is returned to us in some form or other, many times over, The most usual form it takes is work for our unemployed. This is more than can be said of past British investments in foreign countries. The only return that I can see in cases such as that is the return that we get from the dividends. Further, the greatest incentive to emigration to any country is the development of that particular country, arid, consequently, development will always he the forerunner of any extensive migration. If the contentions which I have, in all deference, placed before the Committee, have any substance and receive any support, should not an endeavour be made in a completely new direction, especially by some such policy as I have suggested? We should at any rate have something to show for our outlay of capital, even if it were nothing more than the permanent sealing of the bonds of Empire.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not propose to take up very much of the time of the Committee, but I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. I was very disappointed that he did not open the Debate, so as to survey from the official standpoint the whole position of employment and trade in this country. I think that not merely the House of Commons, but the country also, would be very interested to hear what is the view of the Government as to the prospect, because, wherever I go, I find that people are very seriously concerned about the
    2050
    present position of things. I was also hoping that the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, would announce some policy for dealing with the problem—for increasing the number of those who are at work, and, consequently, diminishing the number of those who are living in enforced idleness and maintained by the State. I assume, from the fact that he is postponing his speech till the end of the Debate, that he has no announcement of that kind to make.
    I am not going to dwell upon the present very alarming unemployment, figures. The explanation which has been given in the announcements in the Press is probably the correct one, that the increase is very largely due to atmospheric causes, through a large number of people, owing to the frost and snow, being unable to pursue their ordinary avocations. I am not going to assume that, even after making a deduction for that cause, the still very large figure remaining is going to continue, because at this time of the year the number of unemployed is always higher than later in the year. I will assume that there will be a steady diminution up to the summer, but I cannot see any prospect of a realisation of the hopes we have had that at last there is some rapid restoration of prosperity which will liquidate these terrible figures and bring us down to the normal. I have heard very often, both in the House and out of it, optimistic speeches as to improvements in trade here and there, but, somehow or other, up to the present they have been falsified, and it is very much to be regretted that the Government during their five years of office seem to have built, their policy upon estimates with, regard to trade prosperity which have been falsified in every case.
    One would like to hear from the Government what their view is after consulting their experts in the Labour Department and the Board of Trade as to the trade prospects. What do they think is going to happen to this figure of the unemployed? If it is going to remain at abnormal dimensions, as I am afraid it will, what scheme have they for the purpose of putting these hundreds of thousands of people to some useful task? The hon. Member who has just sat down gave us a very interesting

    2051
    speech with regard to the possibilities of development in the British Empire, and I am entirely in accordance with him. I think there are vast possibilities in the development of the Empire. I do not agree with him that it would be an unwise investment—I am not sure that he put it as high as that—for the Government to expend even a considerable sum of money in developing certain parts of the Empire as long as it is development of the kind that really increases the resources of the Empire, because I agree with him that it has paid us fourfold up to the present.
    I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what he proposes to do with the development of the part of the Empire with which we are most intimately concerned—our own country. The hon. Lady, who made a very important speech, has indicated one or two directions in which something could be done. What has the Minister to say about that? At any rate he will be in charge for a few months if not longer. [Interruption.] That is a matter to which we shall soon he able to give an authentic answer. The first thing one would like to know is whether the Government are going to reverse their policy of the last five years. They certainly have pursued a very reactionary policy in the matter of unemployment as compared with both their predecessors. Take such a question as small holdings. What have they done there? We were increasing small holdings by thousands before the Conservative Government came into power. They are doing it barely by hundreds now, and there are parts of the country where the register of applications is overcrowded, but you can get no small holdings, because there is no real support from the Government, and no drive, It is no use asking our traders to press their wares upon the British Empire and abroad. You must have a Government showing the example of drive, and they have not done it. With regard to small holdings there is barely a trickle. That is a fruitful way of dealing with the problem as far as the country districts are concerned.
    Take the question of drainage. A sum of money was set aside by the Government of which I was the head, and by the Labour Government afterwards. In
    2052
    Scotland, in the last Return I have seen, only £970 was spent in the course of a single year, although they have been warned by agriculturists, and even by their own Departments, that the number of waterlogged areas has increased. The sums of money which were set aside both by the Government of which I was the head and afterwards by the Labour Government have not been spent. There was nominally £1,000,000 to be spent in five years. Nothing is being spent at present. Take main roads. In 1920 there was an Act of Parliament passed to raise a very considerable sum of money with a view to reconditioning the roads of the country to meet the new traffic. That sum has now grown to such dimensions that in the last year for which there was a Return it was £25,000,000. I believe in the course of the present year it will be nearer £30,000,000. That was to he allocated for the purpose of reconditioning the roads of the country and adapting them to the rapidly growing demands of the new motor traffic. Everyone knows what happened. I remember the Act of Parliament carried in 1909. Part of the purpose of setting up the Fund was in order to make grants to meet exceptional unemployment. You have had exceptional unemployment and what have they done? They have taken away considerable sums of money. They have even confiscated sums of money which have been accumulated to meet the programme that was started by the Government of which I was the head, and the Labour programme as well. The Ministry of Transport had accumulated something like £19,000,000 to meet programmes which had been started. The whole of that £19,000,000 has been confiscated, and many further millions a year taken away. By the end of this year something like £30,000,000, which ought to have been applied to the purpose of developing the road system of the country, will have been confiscated.
    It is computed that for every £1,000,000 you spend on the roads you can employ 5,000 men for a year. The figure given by the Treasury Report on Mines is an absurd one, because it only applies to those who are directly employed on the roads. Those who are providing various materials, such as cement and iron, are rules out. I have gone into the matter with the greatest care. I have consulted

    2053
    the highest authorities, and I am authorised to say that for every £1,000,000 you spend upon the roads you can find employment for 5,000 workmen, directly and indirectly, for a year. You have confiscated £30,000,000 of money that was raised for this purpose, and during that period we have been spending somewhere between £50,000,000 and £100,000,000 upon maintaining in enforced idleness 1,250,000 men and women. It is inconceivable folly that we should be going on like this. Here we have great unemployment and the Minister of Labour is compelled to sit back. It is not his fault. After all, these are questions of policy which ought to be decided by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all those who are concerned in the matter. They ought now, in the fifth year of the life of the Government and the sixth year of Conservative administration since the War, to be in a position to say that the policy which had been initiated by their predecessors, and which they have cancelled, should be restored when unemployment is going up to such an extent that we are two or three hundred thousand to-day higher than we were when they took office five years ago. I ask the Minister whether he is authorised to make any statement as to some new plans to be inaugurated by the Government to provide work for the hundreds of thousands of the young unemployed. That is a new feature of unemployment, not merely that there are people who have lost work but people who have never been able to get work at all. I have heard of people of 19 and 20 who are lounging about and have never been able to get a job. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in a position to give us some statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to providing work.
    Mr. SHIELD: A new Member when be comes to the House has at some time to make a maiden speech. If that was the reason for my rising to-day it would be a very natural one; but my reason is very much deeper than that. It is because the question before the Committee is one about which I feel very deeply indeed. I come from a district in Northumberland which at one time was a hive of industry. To-day it has 206,000 male insured persons on the unemployed register, which equals 21.2 per cent. of the male insured persons in the county. In
    2054
    two district in the Division I represent the rate of unemployment is 28.9 per cent. and 26.4 per cent. of the male insured persons. That is a very serious state of affairs. Probably everyone will come to the House with certain preconceived ideas as to its constitution and its methods. I was genuinely impressed last week. The first Debate to which I listened was that on the question of a grant to the Irish loyalists. I was greatly impressed and somewhat disillusioned to find hon. Gentlemen opposite so very anxious to honour all the pledges given to the Irish loyalists. It was a pleasing experience to note the determination of hon. Gentlemen opposite—a determination horn of a sense of honour. But I find, as I continue to sit in this House, that I become further disillusioned inasmuch as I do not find the same desire shown to help the workers in this country as on that occasion was shown to help the Irish loyalists.
    I come from a district, as I have said, where unemployment is very deep and very keen and desperate indeed. Just before coming to this House it was my unfortunate experience to have to give out to our people in those distressed areas bundles of second-hand clothes to be worn by men, women and children of the working classes. I cannot think that any self-respecting man or any self-respecting country can be satisfied with a position of that kind. It is not charity that our people want. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) said in the discussion on the Irish loyalists that you cannot value an obligation of honour on a principle of percentages. Neither do you fulfil an obligation of honour by an appeal to charity. It is not charity that our people want; they would much prefer to experience the blessedness that comes from giving rather than the humiliation which comes from receiving in that way. I know that certain suggestions have been made and certain things put into operation by the Government as means to limit or minimise unemployment. Our people have been asked to emigrate—to go to Canada or somewhere else in order to lessen unemployment in this country. Many of our people have a deep and a very laudable desire to remain in the country of their birth. Some may call it sentiment. This sentiment in past epochs of

    2055
    this country's history served the country in very good stead. Why should our people, born in the country and who love their country, be asked to go to another country to till the land of another country when thousands of acres of land in this country are awaiting the hand of labour to yield their increase and give, forth their harvest?
    The transference of labour which is taking place is not a cure for unemployment. As a matter of fact, the number of unemployed to-day is very much larger than it was at this time last year. By transferring men or women from one district to another you may, to some extent, lessen the percentage of unemployment in a particular district, but you do not necessarily make the total any less. If I have neuralgia on one side of my face and the doctor is clever enough to move it to the other side, he does not cure it. I understand that some of those men who came from London under the transference scheme were handed over to contractors, and that, owing to the frost and the severe conditions of the last week or two, they have been unable to work, and, consequently, have had to revert to unemployment pay. Naturally, they want to go home, but they have been told that if they attempt to go home they will lose their unemployment pay. The result is that these men, stranded in London, are asked to pay board and lodgings out of their very inadequate allowance, while their wives have to go in humiliation to boards of guardians to be kept from starvation at home.
    In existing circumstances the present system has broken up the most sacred thing in the life of an Englishman, namely, his home. Our people, owing to the tremendous unemployment which at present prevails, are losing all touch with home life. To-day the homes of our people are overshadowed by fear and uncertainty. There is no sense of security and no hope for the future. It is deep, black despair, and in many cases it is ending in tragedy. The whole position that exists to-day is morally bad both for those who are affected and for national life. I wish I could impress upon the Committee the position as it really exists. When I see the despair, the hopelessness and the tragedy in the homes of
    2056
    the unemployed in this country I am inclined to say: "How long, O Lord! How long!" There must be a limit to this sort of thing. It cannot last. If I have read anything of history at all I have read that it has been in positions like this that great upheavals have arisen. I am anxious that the Government should rise to their responsibility. I am anxious that the Government should seek to meet their obligations to the unemployed. It is an anxiety born of love for my country, born of a love for constitutional government, and, greater still, born of a love for my fellow-men.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I wish to pay a, compliment to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Shield) for his maiden speech. I am sure that all Members on this side of the Committee, whether they agree with that speech or not, were struck by the obvious sincerity of it, a sincerity which rendered it effective. The speeches so far seem to me to have been extremely reasonable and, I hope, of a helpful character. I trust that I shall be equally reasonable in the short time which I shall address the Committee. This problem of unemployment has been of such long duration and so deep-seated that nobody with any reason can expect the present Labour Minister to perform a very miraculous cure, nor could hon. Members opposite expect their own Labour Minister to effect a cure. I agree very heartily with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in expressing the hope that when the Labour Minister rises, he will be able to announce that the Government have decided upon some more effective policy for the relief of this problem. It is admitted on all hands, I think, that our usual methods to deal with unemployment have hopelessly broken down. We have put an undue strain upon our unemployment insurance scheme, and the guardians have really no money in hand, in these distressed areas, at all events, to carry out their proper duties. The Chief Inspector of the Ministry of Health, when he went down to Wales the other day, said that the Unemployment Insurance Fund does not provide the necessaries of life and adequate clothing for those who are in receipt of it. If the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the boards of guardians have

    2057
    proved inadequate to meet this terrible depression, can we really claim that the supplementary measures taken by the Government are likely to prove any more effective?
    It is perfectly correct for the Government to appeal to charity. I have done my best to support it in the county in which f live. The emigration policy is admirable from every point of view, and so is the policy of transference. Here, again, I have tried to do my best to support it and recommend it as strongly as I possibly could in my own constituency where I live. But we cannot hide from ourselves what the Chief Inspector of the Ministry of Health has said. I t is perfectly true that it will he nothing short of a miracle if the transference scheme really does anything to diminish the pool of unemployment in our distressed areas to a very considerable extent. Strongly as I appeal for a more effective policy to meet the distress in our worst areas, the areas of South Wales and Durham, I appeal equally strongly for all the other areas of unemployment in the rest of our industrial centres. In every industrial centre in this country there are, I am sorry to say, thousands of unemployed people who have been unemployed for a very long time.
    It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) has said, that not only in the distressed areas, but up and down the country there are thousands and thousands of young people suffering from physical and moral deterioration arising from prolonged idleness. I believe it to be a fact that there are thousands of young people who have never done any work since they left school. Are we justified as a nation in tolerating this state of things? Is it not a social injustice of the very worst kind, to subject thousands of our fellow-countrymen to these destructive influences? Is it not possible for the Minister of Labour, to-day, to announce that he and his Government are prepared to start training schemes which will stop this terrible social injustice, and give the young people a chance of making their way in the world? We are laying up for ourselves a most terrible problem, a problem which, I believe, will be almost insoluble, because we shall have thousands of young people who are practically
    2058
    destroyed body and soul through the constant idleness to which we have subjected them. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warrington (Captain Reid) advocated a national loan for Imperial purposes. I agree with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in appealing to the Government not to forget our home necessities.
    I feel very strongly that nothing can really solve this problem except a national loan for internal development. We are told that a loan for internal development is an unsound proposition, because it would deflect so much money from industrial development. Would it not be better from the national point of view and from the economic point of view, to deflect money from investment in all the bogus and trashy companies that we see launched every day in the Press? Would it not be better to develop our own resources? Would it not be better to invest our money in the land than to invest it abroad, as I am told they are doing to a dangerous extent at the present moment? Voltaires Candide, after travelling all over the world, settled down to cultivate his own garden. We have travelled all over the world and painted the map of the world red, and, in the same way that Candide did, could we not settle own and cultivate our own cabbage patch?
    Is it not a fact that there are 2,000,000 acres at the present time waterlogged and useless for want of drainage? Are there not schemes held up because there is not enough money to carry them out? Are there not thousands of acres of derelict land which are capable of plantation, but which have been derelict ever since the War? Are there not thousands of acres of land which are too poor to cultivate properly, which would form admirable subjects for plantation? If the development of roads would be an economic advantage to the country, and if quick transport is essential, could we not see that our roads are adequate? Is it not true that every town in this country needs a by-pass road round it, and is it not deplorable that the land of this country is deteriorating to the extent that it is at the present time?
    Perhaps I should not be in order in dealing with the necessity for an agricultural policy, but can we not envisage the land of this country as a means of

    2059
    absorbing more labour, instead of resigning ourselves, as we do, to letting it go out of cultivation, thereby adding to the numbers of our unemployed? I ask the Government to face up to this problem in a much more courageous way than they have done in the past. There is profound dissatisfaction in the country at the policy of the Government in regard to unemployment. I speak with some knowledge, because I represent an industrial constituency which is suffering very largely from unemployment. Unless the Minister of Labour, this afternoon, can say that something more statesmanlike, something more far-reaching is contemplated, very serious consequences will result.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I rise to reinforce the plea that has been advanced from this side of the Committee, and especially by the Noble Lord, the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) that we should hear from the Minister this afternoon and, if possible, early in the Debate, something concerning the policy of the Government in regard to this great problem of unemployment. It ought not to be necessary to recall to the Minister that the present Government have been in office 53 months, and that in the whole of that period there has been no sort of comprehensive scheme whereby work could be provided as a result of the initiative of the Government. It would not do to allow the Debate to pass to its close before we hear from the Minister a statement of the Government's attitude on this problem. I ask for the statement to be made early in the Debate, because it is fair that hon. Members on both sides should have an opportunity of discussing the statement. Many suggestions have been made from both sides of the Committee in regard to the ways and means of dealing with this terrible problem. Fundamentally, I think, the criticism is sound that we should not feel satisfied with a palliative for unemployment, or with any charitable effort, whatever form it may take. What is needed is the creation, if possible, of some work for the people.
    I should like to refer specifically to the question of juvenile unemployment. I am deeply interested in this matter from one particular point of view. It is
    2060
    well known to hon. Members that there are large numbers of juveniles—by juveniles we generally mean people below the age of 18, although there are people beyond that age, up to the age of 19 and 20, who are concerned—who, ever since they left school, have not had an opportunity of doing one day's work. It is unnecessary to emphasise the fact that the inroads that are made upon the mentality and morale of these young people, are very serious. There have been—and I acknowledge it with great pleasure—efforts made in various parts of the country to deal with the matter in juvenile unemployment centres, but I do not think that the number of juvenile unemployment centres is sufficient to cope with the tremendous problem with which we are confronted. These centres ought to be multiplied to a very considerable extent. Is any attempt being made to arrive at some sort of co-relation of the work that is done in the juvenile unemployment centres on the Ministry of Labour side with the work of the Education Department? That is very important, because it has a very distinct bearing upon the chances which these young people have of obtaining employment other than employment in the neighbourhood where they happen to be attending centres. Take an ordinary mining district. The mining districts, certainly in my part of the country, are one-industry areas. Therefore, if we are to encourage these young people to go away from their homes to work, we must give them equipment for some other trade than that of mining. Is an attempt being made, with the assistance of the education experts at the disposal of the Board of Education, to give these children a technical equipment, so that they may be able to take jobs in other departments of industry than the one which they would normally enter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The hon. Member is speaking now of juvenile unemployment centres?
    Mr. JONES: Yes.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I wanted to be quite certain, in order that I may deal with the question.
    Mr. JONES: I ask the question because it has been my privilege and pleasure to

    2061
    go into several juvenile unemployment centres. While I admit that the work that is done is very valuable in its way, and I am aware of the limitations imposed upon the centres by reason of the fact that the juveniles are not there for very long periods, and that that is a handicap which it is difficult to overcome, nevertheless, in spite of all that I can say in favour of the centres, and although the work is exceedingly well done, it seems to me that the equipment of the centres is not ample for the purpose they have in mind. The work seems to me to be rather —I hope the Minister will forgive the expression—a little wooden in character. It is rather mechanical and there is not a sufficient diversity. Moreover, the actual tools, if I may so express it, at the disposal of the teachers, are not ample enough to enable them to turn out the very best product from the centres.
    6.0.p.m.
    May I turn from the juvenile males to the juvenile females? I suppose that very few of my colleagues in coming up from South Wales in recent months can have failed to have been impressed by the very large number of young domestic servants coming into domestic service in London. There must be hundreds corning up in the course of a week or a fortnight, and many of them are of a very tender age indeed. Considerable disquietude has been felt on this matter in South Wales, largely because of the reflections of a certain magistrate in the City, and there is a general desire to know whether any machinery is available, and is being used by the Ministry, to keep in touch with these young people who take up positions through the assistance of the Ministry. Does the Ministry make any sort of inquiry as to whether the place to which a young domestic servant is sent is suitable or not? That is a most important question, and one upon which we should like to have a specific answer. I happen to know that real anxiety is felt concerning the type of places to which some of these young girls have gone, and I should like to know whether any officer of the Department keeps in touch with these young girls after they have been placed in domestic service? We hear a great deal from hon. Members opposite about the danger of allowing s, flood of aliens to come into this country, but when I turn to the annual Report of the Ministry of Labour for the year 1927, I
    2062
    am astonished to find on page 28 that the permits which have been granted by the Home Office on the certificate of the Ministry of Labour to aliens to come into this country for domestic service, and as nurses, number 2,429. I thought hon. Members opposite and the Ministry were very keen that no young people should come in and take jobs for which there is a sufficient number of applicants in this country. Where is the justification for allowing all these domestic servants to come in? I am not at all anti-alien in my attitude, but if there is any merit at all in an anti-alien policy, why is it that these people are allowed to come in? Are there not enough young girls in this country already unemployed, who could surely take these jobs if the machinery of the Ministry was adequate for the purpose? I come back to the point of the juvenile unemployment centres in respect of females. Are sufficient facilities provided for the actual training of these young girls of the age of 15 or 16 before they enter domestic service?
    Then there is the question of the relation of the Ministry to local authorities where unemployment is really serious. I am prepared to make this confession; I admit that for areas like my own, distressed mining areas, we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that there must be a certain amount of transference in the coming years. It is obviously agreed amongst experts that the mining industry cannot absorb all the people who have lost their employment; but the rate of transference is not an exceptionally rapid one. It can take place only in accordance with the availability of places, and I want the Minister of Labour to realise that, because the rate of transference must necessarily be slow, it is incumbent upon the Department to see that local authorities who are saddled with this great burden are not handicapped in their means for providing employment in their own areas. I am fortified in that observation by the recently issued report of the gentlemen who went down to South Wales on behalf of the Ministry of Health. On page 9 they say:
    "We have met nobody who doubts that the policy adopted on the recommendation of the Industrial Transference Board is the right one, but it is pointed out that without something like a miracle it will he several years before many thousands who must leave the area can be transferred to work elsewhere, and that in the meantime

    2063
    a large number of men, even if a steadily diminishing one, must remain exposed to the demoralising effect of idleness."
    My complaint is that, seeing that these local authorities have this heavy burden and tremendous load of unemployment upon them, the Minister has not facilitated their task in providing work in these very areas. When the Ministry on 9th November, 1928, issued conditions for the provision of work for the relief of unemployment, they specifically excluded from the benefits of that scheme these very areas which are now suffering most from depression. That is rather unjust. What the Ministry apparently fear is that if they encourage the provision of work in these areas they may, in that way, arrest the flow of transferees from these areas to other places, but I do not see why it should he beyond the wit of the Ministry to devise ways and means whereby certain categories of people could be guaranteed work under these schemes, leaving the younger persons to become subject to the policy of transference. I feel sure that something must be done, and that speedily, in order to help these areas to meet these most pressing problems. There are a large number of roads in these areas which are still far to narrow to meet the new methods of transport. I can think of innumerable roads in my own native area where money could be advantageously spent, not wastefully but economically, in putting them into a fit condition to meet the new problems which modern transport involves. I plead with the Minister that rather than be content with this sort of calculated silence about the provision of work for the unemployed, he should examine afresh the problem as to whether something tangible cannot be done immediately to relieve the distress in those areas which cry most for our attention.
    Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: I think it will he agreed that this is a problem which interests hon. Members on this side as well as hon. Members on the other side of the House. Some time ago the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) asked the House to consider whether it would not be wiser to take this particular problem outside party politics altogether and appoint some committee to consider it. That suggestion was accepted by the Minister of Labour, and that is the last heard of it in this House. I am very
    2064
    sorry, but I am satisfied that if some joint committee of that kind, unofficial, could be set up we should get a better solution of this difficult problem than we are likely to get this afternoon. The subject has been treated to-day with much less venom than ever before. Everybody seems to be desirous of finding a solution. My intervention at the moment is purely to try to throw a new light on the matter. I may be altogether wrong, but I am satisfied that the centralisation of this question of employment is altogether the wrong way to go about it. If we could, by some means, pass it back to the district and local councils, to the county councils and town councils, who have certainly more direct interest in the people, and if the Ministry of Labour would help with the money, I think we should get something done.
    The Transference Board is, I think, working in the right direction, but it is dealing only with a small portion of the problem. One hon. Member has found fault with the desire for emigration. We must accept the fact that we shall never cure unemployment by emigration, but, surely, it is a move in the right direction? It would be well to cultivate that desire for the wide open spaces which the people of this country used to have; it would be well to cultivate such a desire in the young people of the country instead of drawing the dole from 18 to 25 years of age, then getting married and drawing a bigger dole still. That is all wrong. The spirit of adventure has not gone altogether from the young people of this country, and to speak of emigration as breaking up the home is unfair and uncharitable and does not help the question of unemployment. With regard to the number of domestic servants and nurses coming into this country to which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) referred, it may be that some of our people go to these other countries and we get some of theirs in return. As far as I am concerned, I would keep out every foreigner, every man and woman, until the people of this country were fully employed. It would protect the labour of cur own people; and we have no right to provide labour for the foreigner until we see our own people employed.
    The figures of emigration for the year 1926–27 give much food for reflection; 2,500 fewer people emigrated in 1927 than

    2065
    in 1926, and that, again, makes the question of employment in this country more difficult. Taking the figures for Canada, in 1927, 8,382 more people emigrated to Canada than in 1926, but in the case of Australia there were 3,546 fewer, and in the case of New Zealand 7,349 fewer. What does that mean? That Canada, by arrangement either with our own Ministry or some other body here, has accepted a larger number of migrants during the years mentioned. I would like to see that arrangement further advanced. I would also like to see our people getting the same facilities for going to New Zealand and Australia. But when we come to study the pounds, shillings and pence of the matter, we are rather startled to see what is the cost of the present system. I take it that the object of every Member of the House should be to give helpful suggestions. In 1926 unemployment benefits reached a total of £50,187,000, and Poor Law relief of able-bodied persons and their dependants a total of;£7,313,000. For the six years ended in 1926 we get a total of nearly £280,000,000 of money, and of nearly £42,000,000 for Poor Law relief of able-bodied persons. Those are tremendous sums of money. The cost of the Exchanges, for the unemployment service in the six years, was nearly £31,000,000. In the year ended on 31st March, 1927, the cost of out-relief in money and kind by boards of guardians in England and Wales to persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation, and their dependants, was £15,100,000.
    So one could go on. And we are to-day discussing whether we should quietly sit down and accept the proposition that to have 1,000,000 unemployed is normal. It is a most deplorable state of things. I believe that if you decentralise and get the three bodies that are now dealing with unemployment to take the problem in hand, some improvement would be possible. We are dealing with the problem here through the Minister of Labour; the hoards of guardians are dealing with able-bodied people; and at the same time corporations and councils are endeavouring to find work for the unemployed. I suggest that the Government should say to a city council: "Have you any work to be done? It
    2066
    does not matter what your scheme may be; we leave that to you." It would be their duty to see that the money was spent wisely. We should find 50 per cent. of the actual cost of labour. I believe that such a scheme could be carried out without spending a farthing more than we are spending now. If it were a case of helping the farmer, if the farmer would provide new labour we could afford to give him 50 per cent. of the cost. There is no end of facilities for employing people, particularly labourers on new waterways. Most of the cost is for labour. Someone may say that the money we spend on roads goes largely to foreigners for the supply of materials. I would stop that as long as there are 4,500 quarrymen out of work. The money that we spend to assist the unemployed should certainly be spent in this country and nowhere else. Whether the material used be brick or marble or granite, it is a raw material which does not cost very much in itself, and the cost of schemes is mostly in labour. The present system that we have tolerated for so long is producing big figures in the central department and does not help one bit. I asked the Committee to consider my suggestion, which is to decentralise this particular kind of work and to let local authorities take more real interest in it. I am satisfied that if the suggestion were adopted it would find work for more men.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: It seems to me that possibly one of the reasons why we are still faced with this critical question, as we have been faced with it since the War, is that practically all the measures taken by successive Governments have been based on the supposition that what we are dealing with is what nearly every speaker in the Debate has termed an abnormal state of unemployment. When the figures of unemployment have been for many years over 1,000,000, it is a misuse of terms any longer to call that condition abnormal. It has endured for a number of years, and to my mind the protraction of the period of intense unemployment has been largely due to the fact that every Government which has held office since the War has dealt with the problem as if it were a temporary problem, and as if we had just to tide things over for a time and the situation world right itself.

    2067
    I would call attention to the fact that the unemployment problem is not felt only in countries like our own, where certain of the big industries are undoubtedly very depressed, but is also felt in the United States during a period of commercial and industrial prosperity such as has never been known in any nation on earth before. It is with the United States quite a serious problem already—the problem of unemployment during a trade boom. I shall not pursue thatmatter further, because at the moment it is really rather too theoretical and academical for discussion upon a Vote of the Ministry of Labour. But I recommend to Members of the Committee for their study and consideration, to see whether it is a necessary condition of affairs, as a result of improved methods of production of the necessities of life. As to those very unfortunate figures that we see week by week in the returns of the Ministry of Labour, we must always bear in mind that at least 150,000 to 200,000 of the weekly total are those who are registered as being connected with the coal mining industry.
    I am not blaming the Government, because I do not see what they could have done. But it is a fact that I and others warned them so far back as 1925 that there were at least 200,000 men redundant in the mining industry of Great Britain. When I say "redundant," I mean this—that on any possible return, on the proceeds of the industry, it was impossible to give the number of men that we had then employed a really satisfactory standard of living, and that we could not anticipate being able to provide for more than 950,000 men. I do not blame the Government because, honestly and candidly, it is very difficult to know what the Government could have done to meet that particular situation.
    Several speakers, including the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) have put forward the idea of raising a great development loan, which apparently is to be devoted to such purposes as road making and the drainage of agricultural land. With regard to the latter, surely it would be a very grave mistake, in a country where hundreds of thousands of acres are going out of cultivation year by year, to invest our capital in producing more and more
    2068
    land, which presumably would lie uncultivated, since we have already more land than we can cultivate? So far as road schemes are concerned, surely that is an example of dealing with the problem as if it were a temporary and abnormal problem Leading economists have calculated that the capital resources of this country after the War were distinctly greater than the total capital resources of the country in 1914. But what they failed to point out to the public, with all the power that they had at their command, was that those capital resources are not in the same form as they were before the War. The proportion of the capital resources of Great Britain now, which are in a fixed form rather than a liquid form, has gone up very greatly indeed since the period before the War.
    If I may use a metaphor, I would say that we have got more water wheels than we have ever had in our history before, but we have precious little water to make those wheels turn round. That is to say, the frozen or solid capital resources of the country are very great, but our liquid capital resources have been distinctly limited by continuing the policy of what is called social reform, which undoubtedly, no matter what its benefits —we need not argue that now—does reduce the liquid capital resources of the industry of the country. It is impossible to deny that. Therefore, the policy, immediately after a European war of immense magnitude, of continuing the process of freezing capital, is truly a most detrimental policy to the people of the country. It is bound to produce a state of, not abnormal or temporary unemployment, but a condition of continuous unemployment, because it automatically prevents the natural forces from correcting the evil under which we are suffering.
    What I said about freezing capital and making our assets into fixed capital is exemplified, for instance, in the policy of housing immediately after the War. To go in for gigantic housing schemes immediately after our resources and liquid capital have been depleted, seems to me a policy which is simply suicidal. Again, in the matter of road construction, it is perfectly ridiculous to say that the road resources of this country are not really ample for an impoverished nation. Miles and miles of gigantic roadways are lying

    2069
    idle for nine-tenths of their time. In many cases arterial roads are being made which would be better used for hard tennis courts, because the traffic on them would not really interfere with the, progress of the tennis. To go on with that expenditure and to deplete and again deplete the liquid capital resources of the country, and to consolidate them into roads and buildings and other things which may be very beneficial to the country but cannot give a real return for many years to come—that policy is really one of the chief reasons why the unemployment problem, which should have been abnormal, is rapidly becoming normal.
    As far as I know, no one, either in a newspaper press or in this House, has ever considered or asked the Ministry of Labour to consider the effect of our system of Unemployment Insurance upon the numbers of our unemployed. I ask the Minister and the Government to consider whether one of the first necessities in dealing with this problem is not this—to ascertain within reasonably satisfactory limits bow many of the 1,250,000 unemployed that we see reported week after week and year after year, are there because of the existence of the Unemployment Insurance system introduced by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. That system does to a certain extent deplete the capital resources of the country which otherwise could be diverted into useful work. Its effects must be profound upon men who, at the best of times, and in full work, can only draw a miserably poor wage. It must submerge many men just below the limit where they would be workers if it were not for the Unemployment Insurance system set up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs.
    Hon. Members Opposite have pointed out with great justification the moral degradation which must come from continuous unemployment, especially in the case of young people. But even that moral degradation of our nation is as nothing compared with the moral degradation which has come upon our people ever since the days when the slogan of the time was "Ninepence for fourpence" and ever since our people were told that the first duty of a citizen was to take 9d. out of the common purse
    2070
    for every 4d. that he put in. I say that the degradation of this people dates back to long before the War, and that now, in these unemployment figures, we are to a very large extent reaping the fruits of that degradation. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is not in his place, or I might have been tempted to make some almost controversial remarks about his policy in the past, but the point which I wish to impress upon the Government is this. Surely the time has come for a really serious inquiry into the effect upon the numbers of unemployed of the system of unemployment insurance at present in force, and I ask the Government to consider whether a modification of that system might not have the effect of actually reducing the number of unemployed for whom we have to provide.
    Mr. RITSON: We have had a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) who does not, I understand, speak for any political party, but as an independent. When we hear a responsible Member of Parliament talk about converting our arterial roads into hard tennis courts, I think that is enough, and I would like to turn from the hon. Member's speech to that of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Gadie) on the subject of emigration. He complained rather bitterly that we did not encourage our people more to go abroad. Coming from Durham and speaking with some knowledge of Durham, I assure him that we are going to give no encouragement to people to go abroad, unless better facilities are afforded for settling our people when they go abroad. I have a letter in my pocket now and many more in my locker, from which it can be seen that there are miners out in Australia now who are working only two or three days per week and who are anxious to be home again. If we are to have an emigration scheme, let us have one which is in keeping with the conditions of our people. The Government will have to make better provision not merely as regards transit abroad but for the establishment of our people abroad either on the land or at their ordinary work.
    I think we have reason to complain of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they seem to consider that it is always the

    2071
    other fellow who ought to go abroad. We are told that capital is wanted abroad. Well, the capital seems to be on the other side. Why should not those who have the capital go over there and use it, instead of merely seeking to drag our people across into deserts such as there are to-day? I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Bradford that, in so far as our people are willing and anxious to go, we should give them all the encouragement we can. In the County of Durham, however, while we have agent after agent preaching emigration to Australia, we are finding it, day by day, harder to get people to go out because of the terrible conditions of some of our people who are already there. To be frank, they are not wanted in Australia at the present time. Why not admit it? Canada, I agree, is a rather better proposition as far as the welcome is concerned, but if one reads the letters which are sent home from our own people, as to the Australians and our trade unionists who have gone over there, one will see that they are not wanted. Frankly, I am against asking any of our people to go out in these circumstances. I am not willing to be a recruiting sergeant to ask our people to go where they are not welcome.
    Captain BRASS: Will the hon. Gentleman say in what part of Australia they are not wanted?
    Mr. RITSON: It is the general complaint that I get. I have not been on a deputation to Australia—perhaps I am not respectable enough yet—but this is what I gather from the people who have gone out there. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Bradford that we have to go back to the local authorities again to get our men employed. Why not trust the local authorities? They can employ thousands of men and they know the men and the needs of the districts. It is rather strange that the hon. and gallant Member should have mentioned this particular point because a very distinguished personage in this country went into the North of England some time ago and in every street which he visited he laid emphasis on the words "squalor" and "horror." We have thousands of men out. of work, and yet there is hardly a village in those
    2072
    areas where the streets and roads have been properly made up. I had a deputation last week which was seeking borrowing powers for road construction and, surely, some of these men who are about at the present time, only too anxious to work, might be given the opportunity of laying out roads and doing other work of that kind in colliery villages where it is very much needed. There is always an opportunity in that respect. I was rather struck with the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He always gives us the same speech on these occasions. We get that speech from him on this Vote every time. If he had put as much action into his work when he was in power as he puts into his speeches now, we would be better off for it.
    Mr. E. BROWN: He did more than your people ever did.
    Mr. RITSON: If the right hon. Gentleman had taken on the work of an artist he could have beaten anybody at painting sunshine and moonshine over the Welsh hills, but it would have been better if he had done something more practical.
    Mr. BROWN: He did not breed rabbits.
    Mr. RITSON: No, but he seems to be surrounded by them.
    Mr. BROWN: The rabbits did not come out of the hat.
    Mr. RITSON: No rabbits came out of the hat, but we get that speech from the right hon. Gentleman every time we have this Vote.
    Mr. BROWN: And a very good speech, too.
    Mr. RITSON: I would only say, as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, that we owe more of our distress to his anxiety for political popularity, probably, than we owe to any other man. When he was the leader of the people he led them over the hills and wastes of Wales and other parts of the world, and finally left them in the Scotch mist in which we have been ever since he was in power. When I was interrupted by the hon. Member—the Englishman who has to go to Scotland for a seat—I was about to refer again, in connection with the

    2073
    remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Bradford, to the visit of a very powerful personage in this country to the North of England. We were very pleased to see him, and we are very happy to know that he has pointed out certain things which we have attempted to point out again and again. Over and over again, we have brought before the House of Commons the condition of our people and the remedy therefor, but we have never been believed. Now that someone in authority has spoken there is a greater interest in our county and its affairs, and I feel sure that at last we have aroused some enthusiasm, and I hope it will not die down.
    As regards Empire settlement I am perfectly frank about it. I do not intend, and I do not think any of my colleagues intend, to send our people out unless they have a better assurance as to the conditions than they have at present. In Durham to-day we are told the only hope we have is the Transference Board—[Interruption]. Well, however rough or vulgar I may be, I do not think a yawn like that is justified. It is enough to upset anyone, and surely it was not merely a political yawn. This is a rather serious matter. If the Transference Board is doing anything at all I suggest that what it is doing is setting a task such as we give to people in the workhouse. I was asked to visit some of my men who are working in London. They are doing 12 hours a day from getting up in the morning to getting back at night. They have to send home 25s. a week for their wives and children and they have to pay 25s. a week for their board. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Shield) has already pointed out a case of this kind where men who have been out of work for some time felt that they could not pay their lodgings and the other demands made upon them and decided that it would be cheaper to go home to Durham and try to pick up a job there. Then they were threatened that if they did their money would be stopped. Our people have the desire to pay their way and I hope they will always have that feeling. I know how uneasy they are if they feel that they cannot pay their way and think the Minister ought to take that fact into consideration. Then, as regards domestic servants, there is a point which I wish to put to the Minister. I am not one of those advertising Members of Parliament
    2074
    who, if they cannot get in a speech, will find a dead dog or have one sent to them or do something of that sort.
    Mr. E. BROWN: A goat.
    Mr. RITSON: The hon. Member knows more about goats than I do. Every Monday morning when I come down to London from the North with any colleagues there are, on the average, about 36 girls travelling to London to undertake domestic service. Is the Minister aware that many of these girls are not met at the railway station? I hope this is not going to be put into the Press but I have considered it my duty as a man who knew a little about London—as also have two or three of my colleagues—to look after these girls and see that they were put on their way in safety. I have no dignity as a Member of Parliament, but I have some as a father of a large family, and when we are sending these girls, who are good girls, well trained in domestic life, for God's sake save us as far as you can from the anxiety of what may happen to them.
    I have had some experience of small holdings, and I would like to see the Ministry develop them as far as possible. It may seem strange to hon. Members, but I do not agree with some of my hon. Friends on this subject. I feel that the more we can develop small holdings and encourage and train our own people to go on the land, the better it will be. I know the troubles of the farmers. I was brought up in three or four mining villages in the North of England, where each miner had a fowl or two, and perhaps had a pig, or a cow, and when a, man and his wife became interested in an animal, it was the best fed cow or calf in the world. We had the whole system working, and there was no fear of rickety children in that area, because they had at least fresh new milk from the cow, and fresh eggs from the hen, and home-fed bacon. That was at a rent of about £6 a year, and the people were delighted in their work on the land. I have always felt this, and I want people to take an interest in nature. If they do, I have no fear of them going wrong at all. I do not want to swallow your tinned milk. I will help the farmers in any direction that will lead to our having improved dairy produce in this country, and I think it could be done.

    2075
    My last word is this: I am anxious for the morals of our people, and one of the things that touches me to the quick is that men and women of religious, devotional types are going down and down. I am not saying that it is due to what the hon. Member who spoke of 9d. for 4d. said. If you buy humanity at 9d. or 4d., you buy it cheap, but I am referring to the type of men and women whom you have kept alive with this Insurance Act. Although another party gave it, I give them credit for that. Believe me, these types and characters that have given us the men and women we have to-day have been well worth all that money; but we feel that to-day these men and women are getting down-hearted and below par, and we cannot raise them up. Do not tell me they will not work. I am a great football enthusiast, and a fortnight ago this week-end, when Sunderland was playing Manchester City, there was a great storm, and at two o'clock in the morning before the game there were hundreds of men and women sheltering behind the hoardings of the football ground. How they could live in such a storm, I know not, but what were they there for? Not to see the football, hut that they should be there at nine in the morning, when the manager of the team came, so that they might earn a few shillings for cleaning the ground. The anxiety of those men and women to get a chance of earning those few shillings proved that, although we may have some wasters among us, they are the exception rather than the rule, and that sort are spread over the whole population. Do not, for God's sake, let us lose faith and admit that these men are not seeking work. They are anxious for work, and we should spend our money on men and women of that kind rather than let them rot and rust as they are to-day. If we do help them, our returns, I am sure, will be greater than we anticipate.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the appearance of the hon. Member for Durham City (Mr. Ritson) is rare in this House, I hope he will cultivate us a little more and give us a little more of his company in future for I am quite sure that whether or not we all agreed with him we all enjoyed his speech. Earlier this afternoon I was also impressed—even though
    2076
    with a large part of it I could not agree—by the sincerity of the maiden speech delivered by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Shield).
    There was one point earlier in the Debate which was separate from the others raised by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield), and that was her reference to the Washington Convention, with which I will deal at once. I have always been, and am now, a supporter of the principle of the Washington Convention. I have always considered—but it has been considered, not only by people in this country, but by people of all countries—that there are some points in it too vaguely expressed and which ought to be made more precise. Similarly, there are some other points, practices in industry which are admittedly within the spirit of the Convention, but which, because of the drafting of it and the canons of interpretation of English law would fall without the letter of it as interpreted here. Those, briefly, are the reasons why, as a Government, we want to revise the Convention. Obviously, it is not to whittle it down. We explicitly accept the principle of the Convention, and we want to get that principle applied operatively and uniformly to the different countries that are signatories. For that reason the question of the revision of the Convention is coming up again before the governing body which starts its sittings on the 11th March next. I propose that I should myself, being a signatory of the London agreement, attend the Governing Body, in order to explain precisely the reasons why we want the revision and to see if, after listening to those reasons, the Governing Body will not agree to send the Convention forward to the different nations to have it considered for that purpose.
    The hon. Member for Wallsend, in the rest of her interesting speech, raised a large number of points, all of them important, but some of a rather more detailed character and some more general. I will leave most of those of a detailed character for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, if he will, to deal with at a later stage. The hon. Member asked me what kind of policy should be adopted with regard to the mitigation of unemployment. Should we proceed with relief works, or should we pursue a second alternative, that of trying to

    2077
    stimulate the trades whereby men could work in their normal occupations, or should we follow yet a third path, that of training?
    Miss BONDFIELD: There were more.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At any rate, those are three different methods of attack, not necessarily mutually destructive, and which could be pursued at the same time. The right hon Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) again raised the general question in the short speech that he made, and, with the permission of the Committee, as I have been invited to do so, I would like this evening to take the opportunity of really endeavouring to analyse rather more closely than I think has hitherto been done in public, the question of our unemployment, the causes of it, the character of it, and the lines on which alone treatment can proceed.
    With regard to the causes of unemployment in this country, there are some factors, I believe, which have met so Far with very little general recognition. I have studied the calculations that relate to the volume of our export trade before the War as compared with the volume of our export trade now. I came myself, somewhat roughly of course, to the conclusion that, if the country's export trade at the present moment had been comparable in volume to what it was before the War, it would have given employment to some 600,000 more insured persons at this time. In order to try and correct my own conclusions, I wrote to one of the best known and best respected economists and statisticians in this country, Professor Bowley, who has published a paper recently. He estimates the additional employment at 700,000 to 800,000. I invite this Committee to consider the fundamental importance of this fact. Everyone knows that the value has increased of our export trade as of our import trade but that increase of value has marched with a very considerable decrease in volume. It is of fundamental importance to realise that the falling off in the volume of our export trade is responsible for the unemployment of between 600,000 and 800,000 persons who would otherwise have been employed.
    The next fact that is somewhat more recognised, but still, I think, has not met with the full recognition that it
    2078
    deserves is the falling off in emigration. There are no figures of emigration as such before the War, and we have to fall hack on what is called the outward balance of passenger traffic, but if I take the balance of the outward passenger traffic as contrasted with the inward passenger traffic, I get some very remarkable results. I did not want to take the year or two immediately before the War. It might have been said that those were special years of emigration. I took, therefore, the net outward balance of passengers, as being the nearest approach to emigration that I could find, for the whole of the last eight years and for the corresponding eight years up to 1913. I find that during the past eight years the decrease compared with the corresponding period ending 1913 was no less a figure than 940,000 persons. That total, of course, includes not only heads of families and single men but in the case of families, wives and children, if any; but, broadly speaking, I think it might be said—no one can give the figures accurately, as they are not available—that that would correspond to at least 300,000 to 400,000, and probably nearer 400,000 than 300,000, additional persons in this country in the insured trades.
    7.0.p.m.
    Let the Committee then realise what the position has been. I have been asked to give an analysis of unemployment. At the end of the War, this country, which is more dependent on its export trade than perhaps any country in the world, except possibly Belgium, had suffered a greater dislocation of the whole of its national industrial existence than any other of the great nations, even of those which participated in the War. It had to readjust itself like every other nation to the new conditions after the War and get into working order again. At the same time, it was faced with a great addition to the working population it had to digest. An additional load is put on the engine, which was just getting into working order again, of anything from 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 insured persons. That is one of the reasons why the problem has been so intractable. It has been difficult to get this surplus population digested. Every Government, one after another, has tried to deal with the problem, and, if any fault was to

    2079
    be found it was when an undue inducement was held out to the electorate that a problem like this could be easily dealt with.
    Mr. OLIVER: Has the Minister taken a survey of the unemployment in other European countries?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have, but comparable figures are not available. When we come to 1926, we were beginning to absorb fairly quickly. Hon. Members opposite must not believe that I wish to deal with the subject in any controversial sense, I am dealing with it purely from the point of view of analysis. The trouble about the general strike and the coal stoppage was this: As a result the figures of unemployment increased so that over eight months in that year we had something like 2,600,000 insured persons or more out of work. Now what does that mean? It means that you have one in five of the whole of the insured working population in this country out of work for eight months. If they are out of work, obviously they are not getting wages and their purchasing power comes down. For the time being, they are living partly on credit which affects the purchasing power again if and when they pay off debts. If the purchasing power diminishes, as it must in cases like that, articles cannot be obtained on which otherwise they would spend their money. If articles cannot be obtained, then when stocks are used up, new articles are not made and the makers of them are unemployed. That is exactly what has happened in this country.
    The effect of it was camouflaged for a time. In the succeeding year, 1927, there were a lot of postponed orders for machinery, postponed orders for ships and other orders which could not be fulfilled during the last part of 1926. These came to be worked off in the early months of 1927 in addition to such current work as there was. Towards the end of that year also apprehension about the housing subsidy created a special stimulus. The result was that the situation in 1927 was artificial; there was a temporary stimulus which for a moment caused employment to be better than it otherwise would have been. It was when that stimulus came to an end at the end of the year that the
    2080
    poverty, the want of purchasing power and the lack of renewal of capital had its effect, causing the lack of improvement last year. The chain of cause and effect is perfectly clear, and it cannot be gainsaid.
    The question now is how we can get the purchasing power back and how the load on the engine can be taken up. When I consider the whole of the difficulty, it makes me, not pessimistic, but surprised at the extent of vitality in this old country of ours. When all is said and done, there were over 600,000 more insured persons in work at the end of last January than there were five years previously. I am stating this only to put the picture in its proper perspective with the light colour as well as the dark. In the matter of real wages, we are some 7 per cent. better to-day than we were five years ago.
    Mr. BATEY: Not in mining.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am talking of the general level of real wages throughout the country as a whole. As I say, taking into account all the facts, the general result of what may he called the index figures of prosperity shows that there has been a distinct improvement.
    Turning to the position of unemployment as it exists, if we wish to find out how it should be dealt with, it should he split up. It is no good talking of the register as a whole. To start with, the register is probably the most accurate instrument known for registering total unemployment, and sometimes that is why misleading comparisons are drawn with foreign countries. The only figure of unemployment which at all approaches us in accuracy, f believe, is that of Germany. Germany at the end of December had about 2,500,000 unemployed. A good deal of that was due to seasonal weather, but in November it was still about 1,750,000. Year by year as time goes on the total of unemployment given by the live register is a more and more accurate picture of unemployment in this country. If, for instance, anyone goes for poor relief he is required to register before it is given. If a person is out of employment, he can get his health insurance card stamped provided he has registered, and anybody who looks ahead with regard to health insurance takes the precaution of registering.

    2081
    To get at the true character of unemployment we must not regard it as a whole. To start with, there is the special problem of coal, and to a less extent of other particular trades, which bulk largest in the unemployment figures. London last year and the year before had the most prosperous time it ever had for the past 100 years. Unemployment outside the coal trade and the other depressed trades consists mostly of people who are in and out of employment. They are not a standing army, but a large body of people who are either working short time or out of work for a certain number of weeks and coming back on the register for comparatively short periods. They are, again, quite a different kind of problem from the residue at the bottom who are out for a considerable period. To deal with the problem adequately one has got to take all the different pacts. There is no conceivable way of solving the problem of unemployment in the coal trade except by the policy of transfer. That has been recognised. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO"] I have given my opinion. I am not asking hon. Members to agree, but I am stating my opinion with absolute confidence. The same opinion has been reached by the Trade Union Congress, by the official Labour party, and by the official Liberal party. [Interruption.] That is the only way, I am absolutely convinced, of dealing with the problem, and the Industrial Transference Board which has no politics, has come to the same conclusion. One might get an improvement in the coal trade from new methods of treating coal. One might get an improvement possibly, by the use of pulverised coal with high-pressure steam for ships, but I am sure the bon. Member for Swansea will bear me out that, failing some revolution in the coal-mining industry, there is no possibility of the re-employment of all the miners again.
    Turning to the problem of training, about which the hon. Member for Wallsend asked, training is good for boys and for the residue of the men unemployed. For boys, training is essentially good where it is needed. Both the hon. Member and I sympathise with training, but we differ in this. She would like to have it everywhere wherever there are boys out of work. I do not think that that is needed, and the attempt to provide it would cost money which could be
    2082
    more usefully spent in other directions. The amount of unemployment among boys has fallen immensely, and in the course of the next two years it will be at vanishing point. I have already sent out from my Department a questionnaire to find out in what districts there is likely to be a shortage of young persons in industry, and it is clear there will be in a large number.
    Mr. J. JONES: They sack men and put boys in their place.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, the reason is the fall in the birth rate. In regard to the districts where there is a large number of boys unemployed, the hon. Member for Wallsend is at fault. I do not think that she got hold of the right statistics. It is true that in South Wales there are 1,680 boys in the Centres, and the proportion is 62 per cent. of all the boys registered there as unemployed. In these depressed areas where training is necessary for boys up to 18, they are getting it, or they can get it, because there is accommodation for them to get it adequately. As regards the men, the area over which training can do good is a comparatively small one, but we have increased the home training until the output is now over 6,000 a year. To deal with other men from the coal areas, or men who have been out of work for a long time, the training centres for overseas have a potential output of 9,000 a year, but we are limited by the number of people who volunteer for overseas training and the number of men whom the Dominions can take. Allowing for that, we can, I think, supply all that is wanted.
    Now I come to the main question of the rest of the men. The problem is partly due to under-employment and partly to a certain lack of employment, and what is wanted is the stimulation of trades so that it can take up the transferees from the coal areas. It is true that there is no essential incompatibility between the provision of public works and the endeavour to stimulate ordinary trade. No Government, however, can at once set to work all the men who want employment. It is not humanly possible for any Government to do it. All that can be done by any Government is by wise measures—and we may always differ as to the wisdom—so to help the situation as to enable the natural powers of recupera-

    2083
    tion, which were already at work in 1926, to get to work so that all the. Additional population which the country has to digest can be digested. A large amount of public work, as a matter of fact, has been undertaken, though not so much as under the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). That is where, I think, he and the present Government would differ. We think that the field for it is limited by the usefulness of the works, and also by the power that they possess of absorbing the transferees from the coalfields. The right hon. Gentleman was a little more restrained this afternoon than he was previously, but that is perhaps because he feels the responsibility of the coming General Election. At any rate, he only asked me questions and did not suggest a £200,000,000 loan which he did on a late occasion. I think that the field for public works is, from the point of view of employment, largely restricted. Perhaps I would not go so far as the words which I am going to read:
    "There have been large public works done at the public expense which really have brought very little return, and in some cases no permanent return whatever. We have passed from the stage when that is likely to be or can he a solution of these very difficult problems."
    That was the statement of the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and I think it would apply to the impossibility of a loan of £200,000,000 for development work. Even if 5,000 men would be set to work by £1,000,000, it stands to reason that the number of million pounds that would be needed to set 250,000 men at work would be an impossibly large sum, especially when it is realised that that work is provided for only one year, and that the loan would be used up at the end of the year. What the Government have in mind is to take steps, as far as we can, to train people and to increase training, so that they will be able to take advantage of Vacancies in so far as they occur.
    This problem, as the hon. Member for Wallsend has said, has to be attacked from quite a number of sides, for there is no one specific cure for it. There are productive works; there is training. But nearly all economists would say that work done at a man's own trade is better than
    2084
    any amount of work that can be provided by public relief work. We have encouraged training, and we have provided a limited amount of what might be called relief works, but which are really public works, the usefulness of which is apparent. We have not spent as much on roads as the right hon. Gentleman wished, nor did he himself by his own standard; otherwise, he would not have accumulated a surplus of £19,000,000 during the time when construction could have gone forward. At the same time, the amount of development that is indicated by the electricity programme means that money will be spent, to the extent of £3,000,000 up-to-date, and a good deal more before the year is out. That is without question the kind of work that could be justified on any economic grounds. From the same point of view, although I am precluded from discussing it, that is why we think that the de-rating proposals are likely to mitigate unemployment because they help industries and those very export trades, the contraction in the volume of which has been a great part of our trouble. Frankly, I say that safeguarding, too, will help. I have always freely admitted the limits that should be put to safeguarding. I am against extremes of any kind, but a moderate policy of safeguarding is likely, not, to increase the cost of living, nor the cost of production, but to be more powerful in giving work to people at their own trades than any other remedies I have yet heard put forward.
    Mr. SHORT: I am voicing the feeling of the majority on this side of the Committee when I say that we have heard a very disappointing speech from the Minister of Labour, a speech which will be read with dismay by the million and half unemployed who look to this House for some redress of their wrongs and amelioration of their sufferings. I cannot help thinking that the earlier part of the Minister's speech, lasting some 30 minutes, might well have been delivered by some lecturer to the school of economics. He told us all about the proposed causes of unemployment, he mentioned the repercussions; he suggested that you could not do things from this point of view or from the other; and we listened in vain for any scheme which would put one single unemployed worker into work. He told us that no Govern-

    2085
    ment could cope with or cure this great problem. How does he reconcile that statement with the positive remedy that the Tory party had in 1924? How does he reconcile it with the expression of opinion of the Prime Minister when he said that the Unionist party would fail in their primary obligation if they did not find a solution for the great unemployment problem? How does he reconcile it with the pledge of constant work at high wages for those who seek it? We have received little or no comfort from the Minister's speech. He told us about the growing shortage of boy labour. It seems that under our industrial system only boys can get jobs. When they leave school at the age of 14 they have no difficulty in finding employment, but as soon as they reach the insurable age of 16 they are dismissed. Then some of them are employed from 16 to 21, and as soon as they become entitled to adult wages, they are dismissed again and thrown on the Unemployment Fund.
    It being half-post Seven of the Clock and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL (By Order).
    Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I would like to ask those in charge of this Bill if they will bear in mind that there is a great deal of feeling among the people in Edinburgh about the difference in the charges made for admission to the platforms at the London, Midland and Scottish station and the Waverley Railway Station. In one case the charge is ld., and in the other case it is 3d. This charge of 3d. is a heavy burden on poor
  2086
  people who wish to go on to the platform to see their relatives off by train. I do not wish to delay the Bill, and I only call attention to this matter in the hope that the anomaly may be remedied.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to have any reply from the hon. Member in charge of this Bill? Courtesy alone entitles the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) to some expression of opinion in answer to his request. I am not sure who is in charge of this Bill, hut, if anyone is in charge, clearly we ought to have a reply.
  Sir MURROUGH WILSON: I stood up to reply when the lion. Member himself rose. I wish to say that the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) will certainly be given full consideration.
  Mr. SHINWELL: What does that mean? I am glad to know that there is an hon. Member in charge of this Bill and representing this particular railway company, and if he is cognisant of the affairs of that company surely he must be in a position to say quite definitely and without any ambiguity what the company can do in this matter. It is a perfectly reasonable request which has been made. There appears to be no reason why the anomaly which has been pointed out should exist. Why should anyone be charged 3d. to go on one platform and only 1d. on another? I cannot see why anybody should be charged at all for going on to a platform to see persons off by train. At all events there is no reason for a charge of that kind being made in Scotland. We have no desire to do anything unfair towards this railway company, and if they are in a position to reduce the charge to that which is made by other companies we shall be satisfied. But information has been conveyed to me, in a somewhat surreptitious but none the less welcome fashion, that this point has now been settled, and, therefore, there appears to be no reason why I should detain the House.
  Sir ROBERT HORNE: I would like to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary contrast between what is happening this evening and what took place last evening. Last evening a Member who was in charge of a particular Bill was denied a hearing, or at least an attempt was made to deny him a

  2087
  hearing. To-night we have a demand that the Member in charge of the Bill should get up in his place and should not remain silent.
  Mr. SHINWELL: May I, by leave of the House make this observation in reply? There is a very big difference—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House is no longer in Committee and the hon. Member has already spoken once.
  Mr. SHINWELL: But on a point of correction. May I not be permitted to say—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The point has already been decided.

  LONDON, MIDLAND, AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL. (By Order.)
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. (By Order.)
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL. (By Order.)
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir JOHN POWER:
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a Clause providing for a footbridge over the existing level crossing at West Barnes."
  Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Instruction which is on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power), it would be unreasonable for the House to impose a mandatory Instruction on the Committee to insert a Clause which we do not know that the Committee would be able to do. I therefore rule the Motion out of order.
  Mr. HARDIE: May I ask whether the Rules of the House preclude that Instruction being given to the Committee?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not out of order to move an Instruction to a Committee, but in this case the House would be asked to impose an obligation on the Committee, not knowing the circumstances of the case, which perhaps the Committee would be unable to carry out. That would be a ridiculous position.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1929 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Postponed proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £117,562,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Pensions, Education, Insurance, and other Grants) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."
  Question again proposed,
  "That Item Class V, Vote 9, be reduced by £100."
  Mr. SHORT: When I was interrupted in my speech I was referring to what had been said about the difficulty of young persons finding employment and their services being dispensed with when they reach adult age so that younger persons can be taken on in their place. It is no comfort for us to hear about that from the Minister of Labour. We look for something more helpful from him in the handling of this great problem of unemployment. He told us the usual story about morn, people being employed. That may well be so, and it would, indeed, be a sad commentary on our industrial and economic system if, with the growth of our knowledge and scientific attainments, and our increasing control over nature, me were unable to absorb more labour. But what will the unemployed think of the Minister's statement? What comfort will it be to the unemployed in my constituency—in Wednesbury, Tipton and Darlaston—to be told by the right hon. Gentleman, "Ah, well, never mind, there are 600,000

  2089
  more people employed now than there were a few years ago." There is no food for them in that statement. There is nothing in that to give them either satisfaction or material comfort. We expected the right hon. Gentleman to come down here at our invitation and the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to tell us precisely what the Government intended to do.
  Mr. DUNCAN: They have told you!
  Mr. SHORT: Yes, and did we expect anything else? Of course we did not, either from the right hon. Gentleman or his friends or from the Cabinet. We know they are only waiting for the opportunity to go out of office, and that they expect a scheme to come into operation at the end of October this year which they think may do something. The unemployed are entitled to something better than that. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to put his faith in training. Figures have been quoted of the small number of people being trained to follow useful occupations; but afterwards it very often happens that they cannot get work, and when they do they find that it is not permanent. Though that may be some contribution towards the problem, it is a very small one indeed. If I understood the Minister aright, he told us they had reached the limit of potential output from their institutions; in other words, the institutions are unable to deal with any more persons, and, therefore, the hopes which were held out to us a few days ago about the training of the unemployed are not likely to be realised.
  Reference was also made to emigration and training for work overseas. I particularly object to members of the working class being singled out for emigration. Why are the poor unemployed men and women the ones to be provided with the opportunity of emigration? I should prefer to see some of the super-men, some of the clever men, some of the men who tell us they know how to do it—those who can leave the law and polities and go into the city to run great businesses—taking their brains and their wealth, if they have any, to Canada or to Australia. Let, them go there and create an El Dorado, and then, when they have done that, we will follow. But, no, it is the unemployed
  2090
  man who is to be transferred to Canada and Australia. He goes there under doubtful conditions, with no real security, no certainty of permanent work, and having to compete, in many cases, with people drawn from all the races in Europe—if my correspondence bag is to be believed. This is not the way in which we expect the unemployment problem to be dealt with in the fifth year of office of His Majesty's Government. I hope that when the speech of the Minister is read by the great mass of the working class, and particularly by the unemployed in our great industrial centres, that they will give the right hon. Gentleman a message regarding his policy which he will not like. I must, however, pay a tribute to the civil servants of his Department. They seem to have great ability in producing all kinds of reasons and all kinds of explanations for this happening and the other, but little, if anything, in the way of a remedy to deal with the situation.
  I will now say a few words about matters which concern the administration of the Employment Exchanges. I have had occasion to complain before about the lack of accommodation in my constituency so far as the Employment. Exchanges are concerned. It has been reported to me from time to time that hundreds of people stand in queues out in the cold and are unable to get inside the Exchanges to sign on when they go to receive their benefit. When I raised this question by letter in connection with the Wednesbury Exchange I was told it was due to the holidays and the abnormal condition of unemployment. Later on when I pointed out that the queues still continued then I was told that something would have to be done to remedy this grievance. I should like to know where the Minister got his information from. Why are we told that this state of things is due to the holidays and afterwards it is discovered to be a real grievance? On another occasion we were told that the women's department of this particular Exchange would be transferred, and after that we were told that the Government were going to build a new Exchange at Wednesbury.
  I have received another complaint from Tipton that between one hundred and two hundred unemployed persons have been standing out in the cold

  2091
  during the wretched weather we have had recently waiting to sign on, and could not get inside the Exchange for over one hour. The Minister of Labour has admitted this afternoon that he has no remedy to absorb the unemployed, and as far as the administration of his Department is concerned we can get very little comfort. The people continue to stand in queues outside the Employment Exchanges protected, as they were in Wednesbury, by a policeman. That state of things should be remedied and I hope the Government will find the money to provide adequate accommodation for the unemployed. This is a grievance not merely in Wednesbury and Tipton but we get similar complaints from other parts of the country.
  I wish to raise a grievance in connection with the Court of Referees. Very often either the employers' representative or the representative of the workmen is not present at the Court, and the Chairman of the Court sits and adjudicates without the assistance of those two representatives. That ought not to be permitted, and steps should be taken to ensure the presence of the representatives of the employer and the workmen when the Court of Referees adjudicates upon any case. With regard to the administration of the Court of Referees frequently an employer's written statement is accepted but the workman is obliged to attend the Court and give evidence, and he must support his written statement. In the case of the employer it does not seem to matter because he is allowed to sign the document and need not appear before the Court. In one case which came to my notice the Chairman of the Court happened to know the employer, and he even went and telephoned to him to ask whether a certain passage in his statement was correct. This is not the kind of treatment which the people I represent ought to receive, and if necessary there ought to be an amendment of the law to make this kind of thing impossible.
  I wish to raise another point in connection with the transference scheme. I have waited in vain for the Minister of Labour to tell us anything about the number of people transferred, the number of schemes approved by the appropriate Committee and the local
  2092
  committees, the number of workpeople provided with labour, and the cost. On the 20th of February I asked a question and I gathered that 120 schemes had been approved and the estimated cost was roughly £1,600,000. That seems to me to be a very small contribution even if we put our faith in the transference scheme. I am not referring merely to the transference of miners, but transference in connection with the schemes of local authorities where they undertake to employ 50 per cent. from the depressed areas. I am disappointed that the Minister of Labour has not told us more about these schemes, the opportunities of labour provided and the expenditure of the local authorities in this direction.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am speaking from memory, hut I think that under the schemes already approved, whereby 50 per cent. of labour will be transferred, the total will amount to between 30,000 or 40,000 or 40,000 and 50,000 man months of labour.
  Mr. SHORT: As the Government put so much faith in the appeal of the Prime Minister and the transference of men from depressed areas I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have given us a fuller and a more complete statement.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member is asking for that information, I can give it. I did not deal with transference, because there were so many other subjects to deal with. About 11,000 people have been transferred directly through the exchanges or the training centres. At the end of the present month, another 3,000 will have been transferred through the Prime Minister's appeal. That does not take into account the number transferred through the efforts of their own friends to find them places by talking to the foremen and so on and probably they amount very nearly to as many again as those transferred directly from the exchanges. On the whole, I should be surprised if not less than 20,000 have been migrated in that way.
  Mr. SHORT: I am very much obliged for that additional information. I quite appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in covering all the ramifications of his Department. We are dis-

  2093
  appointed with the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I think the country and the unemployed will be disappointed. It is clear to us and it is becoming clearer every day to the country that there is no hope for the unemployed so long as the present Minister of Labour sits on the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. GROTRIAN: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) was good enough to say that at any rate the suggestions of the Minister of Labour were not contributions to the solution of the unemployment problem. I think the Minister of Labour might well retort that we get very few contributions from hon. Members opposite. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have any real remedy for unemployment surely in the face of all the misery and distress in the country they would not be so callous as to keep it to themselves. I think it is sometimes forgotten that the causes of unemployment are not one or two but they are many and various. It may be that we have almost reached the saturation point in the employment of labour, and that trouble is aggravated by the fact that fewer people are leaving for the Dominions than was the case before the War. Another cause of unemployment is the greater output of machinery by means of which we can now manufacture more goods with fewer men and that aggravates the trouble. Since the War other countries have made more of their own goods and we are no longer the workshop of the world. Other countries cannot or they will not take as many of our manufactured goods as they used to do.
  I came across a very striking illustration the other day of how difficult it is to create more employment in this country under our present system of working. Some friends of mine have spent something like £750,000 in equipping a mill with the most up-to-date machinery for making certain kinds of paper. Any hon. Member can go down to that mill in a motor car in under one hour. The mill is already equipped on a most expensive and efficient scale, and it was ready to set men to work in order to manufacture this particular sort of paper. Immediately that fact became known abroad the Germans and other foreign countries where this particular paper is made, dropped the price of that article by £6 per ton, and that made it impossible to manufacture
  2094
  that paper at a profit in his country. The consequence of that is that that particular mill has never been opened and can never be opened as a factory to produce that particular kind of paper. It may be that the engineers will be able to find some other use for the mill, and they have great hopes that it may eventually be put to some useful purpose. That is the sort of thing that happens when you try to create employment in this country. Of course, the remedy for that state of things is the one proposed by the Government—
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a remedy which would require legislation, and it cannot be discussed on this Vote.
  Mr. GROTRIAN: I am sorry if I have transgressed the Rules of Order, but thought I might be allowed to go into our remedy now. On this point I do not expect to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite, because nothing would convince them, but I think I have said enough to show them that we have a remedy it they will only allow us to put it into force, as the working men of the country want us to do, and we are only prevented from doing so by the leaders of the party opposite.
  8.0.p.m.
  Mr. CAPE: I have heard the Minister of Labour on many occasions during the last four and a-half years defending the Government and his Department in regard to the unemployment problem, but I have never heard him make a poorer defence than the one he has made tonight. The right hon. Gentleman has gone into the details of various schemes, and he has given us reasons why certain things could not be done. It seemed to me that he had been reading a lot of memoranda, probably compiled by some professor of economics, and that he was delivering them to us like a lecture to students of economics.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They were my own.
  Mr. CAPE: Throughout the right hon. Gentleman's speech we had no reference to anything that would be likely to mitigate the present unemployment in this country. He told us that he was of opinion that safeguarding and de-rating would help to reduce the number of unemployed. The hon. and learned

  2095
  Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) said that we had never put any remedies before the House for the solution of this problem, but might I remind him that none of the back-benchers on that side have put forward any real practical remedy except that of migration? Many interesting points have been raised in the discussion to-night. The Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) commenced his speech by referring to the Report of the Ministry of Health Inspector on the conditions in South Wales. That is a most appalling document, but I venture to say that, if a report were made on any other of the distressed areas in this country, it would be to a similar effect. Throughout the length and breadth of the land it is quite apparent that men, women and children are losing their vitality through this terrible disease of unemployment which prevails in our midst. Therefore, it is a problem, whether we make it political or nonpolitical, to which everyone in this House ought to bend his energies with a view to trying to find some solution.
  With regard to the transference scheme, the right hon. Genleman, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short), said that he would not be surprised if upwards of 20,000 men had been transferred from the depressed areas. We should be very much surprised if the number had reached that figure. I understand that, according to the scheme referred to in the circular issued on the 9th November, 1928, local authorities can only get a certain element of relief if 50 per cent. of the men employed on a new scheme are drawn from a depressed area. A depressed area may itself have a hundred and one schemes in its own midst that it could put into operation, but it would not be allowed any grant from the Grants Committee unless it brought in men from a depressed area. What is the good of bringing men from one depressed area into another depressed area to carry out schemes of work? I have here an extract from the minutes of the Highways Committee of the Cumberland County Council, and I expect the right hon. Gentleman has received a copy of it. It says:
  "Unemployment Relief Works.
  A circular letter dated 9th November. 1928, was submitted from the Unemployment
  2096
  Grants Committee, together with a report by the county surveyor, and the same was considered.
  Resolved:
  '(a) That the Unemployment Grants Committee be informed that so far as this county is concerned the terms of their circular of 9th November are considered exceedingly unsatisfactory, and they be urged to give consideration to the varying of the conditions to meet the exceptional unemployment that exists in the county, and thereby permit schemes such as the Moss Bay road widening being eligible for the highest percentage grant, as indicated in the circular letter.'"
  The Moss Bay road-widening scheme is on the very doorstep of a large steelworks. In that area, where there is something like 26 per cent. of unemployment, and where the greater proportion of that unemployment is due to lack of employment in the steelworks, it will not be possible for the local authority to get any grant for the purpose of that necessary road-widening scheme if they only employ men from the immediate neighbourhood. That seems to me to be a ridiculous idea. The resolution goes on to point out that, owing to the decline in rateable value—
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Have they applied under the old scheme of grants? This does not preclude an application under the old scheme of grants. Perhaps the hon. Member does not understand that, and perhaps he will have a talk on the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. CAPE: I should like very much to have a talk with either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, because this is a very important matter to the part of Cumberland which I represent. The resolution goes on to point out that the reason why the county council cannot do this work themselves is that their rateable value has become abnormally low owing to the decline in industrial undertakings. In my Division there is a large number of iron ore workers, steel workers and miners. I am not going to deal with the question from the point of view of the miners, because the Miners' Federation Executive have already met the Secretary for Mines and have put before him their proposals and suggestions as to what should be done in the way of relief so far as the mining problem is concerned. I may say that we received no consolation whatever

  2097
  from the Secretary for Mines, but I see, from an announcement which has been made, that we are now going to have the privilege of meeting the Prime Minister on the 5th March, and placing before him the situation in the mining areas, so that it would not be advisable for me to deal now with the miners' point of view.
  As I have already said, in my Division there is a large number of steel and iron workers, and also of iron ore workers, unemployed. These men have been unemployed intermittently for a period of seven or eight years, and the result has been that the industries of the district have declined, the rateable value has gone down, and the county council and local authorities cannot raise the money necessary for putting into operation schemes of work for these unemployed men. They have been told exactly what we have been told here to-night. Every time that the men go to the Employment Exchanges they are told about emigration schemes. One hon. Member said this evening that surely the spirit of adventure had not left the young man-hood of this country, but I think he was speaking from an angle quite different from ours. He was thinking about the young man who goes out to explore, to find what there is to be done and what he can do. He, if he fails, has a, good home to come back to, and ample provision will be made for him. But these men who have been unemployed for several years, if they go out to a strange country amongst strange people to seek work, may find themselves stranded, and in a worse position than that in which they would have been had they remained in their own country.
  It is no use giving us figures regarding what took place in connection with emigration 20, 25 or 30 years ago. We are all agreed that our Colonies have been developed, and their industries have now become almost stabilised. Twenty, or even 15 years ago, large numbers of mechanics were required for those industries, but to-day, if I am rightly informed, the largest demand is for people to work in agriculture pursuits, and, therefore, the skilled mechanic or artisan who goes out from this country may find himself taken right out of his own profession and put into an occupation of which he has never had any experience.
  2098
  Therefore, I am not prepared to agree to an extensive emigration scheme of a compulsory character, under which our men would be dumped down in those Colonies and left absolutely alone. I think that we should devote our attention to finding work for our own people as far as possible in our own country, under the conditions that ought to be created in this country. The Minister referred to the fact that wages had gone up by 7 per cent, in the last five, years, but he did not tell us which five years he meant. Did he mean the years 1923 to 1927, inclusive? He probably has not the figures yet for 1928. He must remember, however, that the biggest advance in wages that took place during any of those five years took place in the year 1924, and neither he nor his Government was responsible for any part of that advance.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Speaking from memory—I will obtain the figures before the end of the Debate—it was 7 per cent. since 1924.
  Mr. CAPE: Then it was not five years.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Four years.
  Mr. CAPE: Then we have got that put right.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I hope the hon. Member will withdraw that. I made a slip.
  Mr. CAPE: I withdraw it without hesitation, but it is rather a peculiar thing that the right hon. Gentleman was so emphatic about, five years, because he repeated the expression "five years" more than once. If 1924 was included in those figures, I should be prepared to say that there is a good deal of truth in the statement which he made, because wages in certain industries went up in 1924, but I have looked very closely at the Labour Gazette, and I have failed to see any appreciable advance in wages which would make me think we had got an advance of 7 per cent, in real wages from 1924.
  I want to make a complaint or two about the administrative side of the Department. The right hon. Gentleman cannot keep his eye on everything that happens in every Employment Exchange, but I have appealed to him in regard to

  2099
  the accommodation for the men in Workington and in regard to a new exchange, and he has commenced to build a new one. The Court of Referees is composed of three persons, and, generally speaking, the Chairman of the Court is a solicitor. I have been before the Court of Referees on behalf of men belonging to the Cumberland Miners' Association, and I invariably find that, if there is a big case involving a good many men, the chairman is there less in the capacity of an impartial chairman than of counsel for the employers, puts questions which appear to cast doubt on the statements of the men and their representatives, always seems to favour the statements of the employers, and cross-questions and cross-examines the men on information that he has received from the employers. Admirable as some of these men may be, probably with good legal knowledge and experience, I am afraid they forget that they are sitting in the capacity of judges, and it should be an instruction to them that they sit there in an impartial capacity to hear the evidence of both sides without bias.
  I put down a question two or three weeks ago complaining of delay, and the Minister in his reply said that if I had any specific cases he would be very pleased to hear them. I could give a large number of specific cases, but mine was a general complaint in regard to our own district. There is delay in hearing these cases. I have a letter from the Department saying that they found I have some cause of complaint, and that they are proceeding to remedy it as quickly as they can. The complaint I want to make now is in regard to delay by the chief insurance officer. A case is heard before a court of referees and a fortnight or three weeks will elapse before there is any information from the chief insurance officer as to whether he is accepting the decision of the court or not. If he declines to accept the decision, there is a right of appeal. If there is delay, these men have to apply to the Poor Law authorities for relief, and they are told, because they are able-bodied men, and because there is doubt whether it was a trade dispute or not, that they can only get relief for their wives and children. The result is that able-bodied men have been going about for weeks
  2100
  pending a settlement of their case practically starving. Surely, there can be a better system than that. I admit that the chief insurance officer may have had a lot of cases to deal with, but surely they can be dealt with more quickly than they have been in the past. The right hon. Gentleman's new Act, which became operative in April last, has done a grievous amount of injury, not only in creating unemployment, but in forcing men to work at reduced wages, because now an employer can break any agreement with impunity, and we cannot take any action unless we resort to a strike, whereas before, if we could prove that he had broken an agreement, we had a right to appeal for unemployment benefit and were entitled to it. The reason road schemes cannot be carried out—and we need miles and miles of new roads and miles and miles of roads want widening and opening out—is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer robbed the Fund of every penny it had and left local authorities to their own resources. They have borrowed beyond their powers of borrowing and, while these schemes would not have solved the problem of unemployment, they would have been a palliative and would have helped to lessen the amount of suffering. These men have been left high and dry owing to the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in taking away a fund created for the very purpose of making new roads, which would have meant employment for unemployed men. I remember Sir Eric Geddes bringing the Road Act before the House and telling us of the employment it would create, but he never dreamed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to raid the fund. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will do something to alleviate some of the things I have mentioned.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I now give the hon. Member the figures I promised him? The increase in real wages, that is to say, the rate of wages and the cost of living combined, at the end of 1928, as compared with the end of 1924, was 8 per cent. In 1923, it was, on the average, 1 per cent. lower than in 1924. The hon. Member will find the figures in the fourth column of the table on page 44 of this month's Ministry of Labour Gazette. He will see that I was meaning four years. I was comparing

  2101
  with 1924 throughout, and the figure I gave was amply justified. I was speaking from memory, and it was 8 per cent. and not 7. I was dealing with real wages, which is the important thing—what money will buy. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much was advance of wages and how much cost of living?"] The first column gives the rate of wages based on a normal working week, the second column gives the cost of living, and the third column gives the real wages, which is what a man's money will buy. There was a rise of 8 per cent, over 1924 and 9 per cent. over 1923.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: There is always a temptation in a Debate on unemployment to repeat arguments and to indulge in recriminations, but I would like to exempt from this charge the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield), who opened the Debate, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Ritson). They were both, in their observations, helpful and constructive, and were, I believe, an example to all Members on all sides of the Committee in their attitude towards this terrible curse of unemployment. As a matter of fact, I rather sympathise with the hon. Member for Durham in his reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs Mr. Lloyd George). I visualised as I heard the right hon. Gentleman's remarks the instructions to his private secretary when he knew this Debate was going to come on: "Where is that speech on unemployment?" This is not uncommon among many Members of this House; in fact, I detect in some of the remarks I have heard from Members on all sides of the Committee references that I have heard in previous Debates. To get a real appreciative point of view of this problem of unemployment, we want to realise how it came about or to what it is due. We should remove from our minds that if is due to any particular form of society or the lack of any other form of society. That is absolute nonsense. Unemployment will exist under any form of society if the conditions which govern unemployment remain.
  Let us examine the position. To what is unemployment due? We must clear our minds of party politics altogether. It is due to one thing to a major extent
  2102
  and to another thing to a minor extent. It is due to the War primarily, and it is due to the General Strike in a lesser degree. [Interruption.] I am now referring to the present exaggerated position of unemployment. You cannot throw away the lives and productive elements of a country every day in the year for four years; you cannot saddle the country with a thousand million pounds of debt; and you cannot place a burden on the country of millions of pounds a year in pensions, without it having effect. Those are to my mind the basic reasons of unemployment. At the end of that time, after four years of continued dissipation of our national wealth and our productive efforts, you cannot then blow a bugle on Armistice Day and say: "Now, business as usual." Governments can help, but they cannot work miracles.
  I will try and show, from my point of view, what the present Government have done in the way of assistance and what they can do. To my mind, the lack of prosperity of this country and the unemployment in this country can only be rectified, as Mr. Goodenough said the other day, by hard work, by economy, and by sacrifice. I am not talking exclusively about the unemployed, but about every section of the community. During the War we were forced to absorb into the big basic industries of the country—coal mines, shipbuilding, cotton—a vastly increased number of men to-satisfy the enormously increased demand that the War made upon us. When the War came to an end and these demands subsided, we found ourselves with our big basis industries glutted with men who never again could be employed as long as normal demands remained. We have to face that point. How are we going to find an egress for this increased number of persons who were employed during the War owing to the urgent demands of that time and who are now looking fur jobs? The Minister stated to-night the means he is using and has used, and as the hon. Member for Wallsend has admitted, many of them are of great use. He has told us about the easy and cheap migration that has been arranged. I would say this, in reply to some hon. Members opposite, that migration is not to be sneered at. No one wants to make migration compulsory. It is a free migra-

  2103
  tion for those men of our country who, some of us on this side of the Committee think, may have the adventurous spirit and want to carve out a new career for themselves under new conditions and with new hope. The Ministry have arranged and are arranging schemes of preliminary training which no other Government in this country have put forward.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon; it was started by the Labour Government.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Perhaps the hon. Lady will permit me to say that it has been very greatly increased by the present Government, far in advance of anything that her Government had in view. There is the scheme of the transference of labour, and that, again, we know is working, though, unfortunately, only to a limited extent. We hope that it will increase and go on and that, where fresh industries are created and where fresh opportunities are being created for the wage earners, men will be sent in increasing numbers to districts where they may find a reasonable standard of life. I do not know whether I shall be in order in mentioning this, but I hope that the Minister or those whom he can influence—that is, of course, when we return to power this year—will advocate a more progressive system of safeguarding so that our basic industries will really he able to prosper.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in Order.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The Unemployment Grants Committee is a body for whom I, personally, have great respect. They have met me in every way, and in every case in a spirit of understanding, of sympathy, and of generosity. I have no complaint to make whatever against the machinery of the Unemployment Grants Committee, but I have perhaps a complaint to make against its limitations. I would like to see the Unemployment Grants Committee given far greater powers of assisting, because we know that if the local authorities are given confidence that their requests will be met their requests will be trebled within a month. Work is waiting to be done. All they want is confidence, and the knowledge
  2104
  that the machinery of the Unemployment Grants Committee will be made sufficiently wide to admit of far greater assistance being given.
  With regard to the question of the decentralisation of unemployment which was referred to by an hon. Friend on this side of the Committee, I should like to say that I think it is a very good idea. The county councils or the local city councils are the people who are directly cognisant of the situation in their areas. They are directly in touch with the necessities of creating fresh road work, erecting new buildings, and embarking upon other forms of industry. They know the individuals in their areas who are most suited to the different types of employment which they might create. My suggestion is that it would be a good thing if the Minister could see his way to make some sort of arrangement whereby, instead of the soul-destroying dole being continued as at present, the money payable by the Government could be allocated to each county or city and handed over with certain restrictions and governing powers. The local authorities might then be empowered to expend the money not only in relief works, but in beneficial work in their own areas. That would create a new standard of self-respect for the men employed. It would create useful work in the neighbourhood and would do a good turn to the district and the country by providing not only necessary work but effecting necessary improvements. We should, also, be giving to our young men and youths the self-respect which honest work gives, coupled with a new hope and a new confidence in life which they have not at the present time.
  Mr. SEXTON: Like my colleagues, I have been greatly interested in the statement of the Minister of Labour and, like them, I have a feeling of disappointment. I am not, however, going to pour the vials of my wrath upon the devoted head of the right hon. Gentleman, because I want to say that even the devil is not as black as he is painted. Relieved from his official environment and approached—I am afraid that I have given him very considerable trouble in this respect—in a private capacity on questions to which he has applied his own individual mind, I have always received from him very careful and sometimes generous treatment. It is not the individual whom I am attack-

  2105
  ing, but the Department, and I would like to supplement what has been said with respect to the administrative work of the Department. Much of that ground of criticism has been covered, and there is only one point with which I should like to deal. With regard to the Court of Referees, I can speak from practical experience.
  The only fault I have to find with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is its sheer poverty of policy on the general question of unemployment. With respect to the composition of the Courts of Referees, the Chairman, of course, goes there to deal with questions from the purely technical, legal point of view. I have often thought that if these gentlemen had a little more human experience, in addition to their legal knowledge, it might influence their minds in a more humane direction. We have heard to-night eloquent and practical speeches, particularly from a new Member. In so far as my particular industry is concerned, I have very little, if any, fault to find so far as unemployment benefit is applied, except to say that the percentage of unemployment in casual labour is higher than in any other industry in the country, and it might be improved upon. I am not a miner, but I claim to represent a mining constituency. There is scarcely any hon. Member on these benches who could not repeat from his own personal knowledge the experience of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Shield) who spoke from the point of view of the mining industry.
  The right hon. Gentleman went into the question of cause and effect, and spoke of imports and exports and their effect upon employment. It is an acknowledged fact that exports mean imports, yet the record of the present Government has been to put obstacles in the way of imports coming into the country, thereby affecting the conditions of employment. The right hon. Gentleman went into the question of causes, and went far back before the War. I could go much further back. I could go back to the root causes in Genesis, but it is too long a story, and the lynx eye of the Chairman would he upon me. The right hon. Gentleman referred, incidentally, to the coal stoppage, but he was very careful not to allocate any responsibility for the coal stoppage. I have often wondered what the Conservative
  2106
  party would do without the slogan of the general strike. The roll it like a sweet morsel under their tongues on every available opportunity. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here. It certainly comes with very bad grace from him or from any member of the Government to lay at the door of the general strike any of the causes of unemployment to-day. What was the history of that strike?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I thought it was a stoppage, not a strike.
  Mr. SEXTON: First of all, the Miners' Federation were compelled by sheer stress of circumstances to accept conditions which broke up the national agreement, and sent them back to district arrangements. Then the Government subsidised the coal trade, and the subsidy, instead of relieving the industry, was used by the coalowners in cut-throat competition amongst themselves in order to capture foreign trade. The Government appointed a Commission, which reported, and then the Government callously and brutally tore up the report of the Royal Commission, and handed the miners, body and soul, to the coal-owners. That was the cause of the trouble. The cause of the general strike was the fact that the limit of human endurance had been reached. When hon. or right hon. Members talk about the whole of the blame being attributable to the general strike, my reply is that there comes a time in human affairs when human endurance breaks down, and that strike was one of those occasions.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that wages have increased by seven or eight per cent, during the last four years, but he forgot to tell us a much more important fact, that previous to the last four years wages were reduced by £6,000,000, 7,000,000 and £8,000,000 per week, so that the seven or eight per cent. increase does not at all bring us up to the previous level. He also believes—I do not think there are many outside his own party who will agree with him—that the de-rating and safeguarding proposals are going to have some effect in reducing unemployment in this country. We have had three solid months of de-rating. The Local Government and Rating Bills have dragged their weary length along for nearly two

  2107
  Sessions of Parliament, and even now I doubt whether anybody outside this House understands what it means, where it begins or where it ends. With my limited lay knowledge I fail to see how any of the suggestions made by the de-rating and local government policy of the Government is going to find employment for a single individual in this country. One hon. Member has asked whether we have any suggestions to offer. I am now over 70 years old, and I have been in the Labour movement for 50 years. Ever since my apprenticeship to the Labour movement I cannot remember a single day, a single week, a single month or a year, when we have not offered suggestions and proposed remedies to the Government. The only consolation we have to-day is that the Government themselves have endeavoured feebly, very feebly indeed, to adopt some of the suggestions we have made to deal with the question of unemployment.
  My mind goes back to the middle nineties when I was President of the Trade Union Congress. At that time I waited upon the father of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and Mr. Balfour, and put before them the proposal that at 70 years of age 5s. per week should be paid as an old age pension to the workmen of this country. They held up their hands in holy horror at the idea of pauperising people. Yet they are offering to-day a pension of 10s. per week at the age of 65. That was one of our suggestions, made many years ago but very feebly applied by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The fault we have to find is that the application is altogether too feeble and not as practical as we would like it to be. The hon. Member who spoke last said that it was difficult to solve the problem of unemployment under the existing system. I agree. What is the present system? We have a million and a half of men unemployed, they are on the live register, and another half million who are off the register; deliberately shut off by the legislation of the Government. I do not say that the Minister of Labour has shut them off deliberately, he is bound to act under the general regulations imposed.
  May I refer, incidentally, to another matter; the question of genuinely seeking employment. A more monstrous and
  2108
  iniquitous rule was never created by the mind of man. I am not going to say much on this question now because I consider that personal contact with the Minister of Labour is much better than a cross-examination across the Floor of the House. But I have a case before the right hon. Gentleman now from my own constituency, which is typical of hundreds of others. It is the case of a young woman who has never drawn any unemployment benefit. She has been out of work for two or three months and has looked for work all over the place, but because she refused to go 30 or 40 miles from where she lives, and where she might get the chance of a job, she has been refused unemployment pay on the ground that she was not genuinely seeking work. That is typical of hundreds and hundreds of other cases. I quite agree with the hon. Member that under the present system it is not possible to solve the unemployment problem. That is why we are up against the present system. Here we have 1,500,000 men on the live register, and another half million off the live register, about whom nobody speaks and nobody cares. These 2,000,000 people represent another 2,500,000 dependants, altogether you have 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 or perhaps 5,000,000 human beings concerned.
  I will take the adults, the 1,500,000, who are willing and anxious to produce and add to the wealth of the country but who are denied the opportunity under the existing system. I will not detain the House much longer. What is the existing system? It lays down this principle, that men and women are employed to produce and are paid sufficient wages to keep them alive until the warehouses are bursting with the produce of their hands or brains. Then there comes a slump, not because of any fault of theirs, but because it is said that there is no demand for the commodities they are producing. Therefore, they are shut out of work; they have no wages; there are not customers for the produce. These 1,500,000 people are out of work, on the dole if you like, with no wages, living in starvation, while the warehouses burst with the produce they have made. They are told that they must starve in the midst of the plenty they have produced. There is something wrong in the state of Denmark when wealth pro-

  2109
  ducers are denied the opportunity of working and becoming customers and consumers.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Would it not require legislation to alter that state of Denmark?
  Mr. SEXTON: I only wish we could force legislation in this matter, because that is the only remedy. Talk about no contributions to this problem from this side of the House; we are sick and weary of offering suggestions. Let me make one suggestion. The only thing to cure unemployment is work, and it is the duty of the Government, for their own sake and in the interests of the community, to see that where private enterprise has failed to provide it, they themselves should step into the breach. It is a Christian doctrine, but; I am afraid that there is not much Christianity about present-day politics. What the future may hold is still in the lap of the gods. Over and over again this question has been raised in this House, but it appears to me like thrashing a dead horse. The time may shortly come when there will be a change in the situation. The sooner that time comes the better, and with it the application of the real Christian doctrine:
  "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
  Mr. BETHEL: It has been very interesting to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), but all that he has done has been to point out the evil of the unemployment which already exists. He has failed to realise that unemployment and the distressful conditions in this country ought to be a non-party question. It is not a bit of use going about the country and at street corners pointing out the condition of evil which exists and not pointing out any remedy. The hon. Member accused the Government of being responsible for the unemployment of 1,500,000 people, with their 2,000,000 dependants. What we want to do, what every party in the House wants to do, is to remedy the unemployment. The hon. Member mentioned that wages have been reduced by £7,000,000. He did not say from what point the wages had been reduced, nor did he say that wages went up £70,000,000 or £170,000,000 during the War. Everyone regrets, and no one more
  2110
  than I do, that there should have been this drop.
  I represent a purely industrial constituency in which, unfortunately, three of the basic industries are at about the lowest ebb—coal, cotton and iron. It is all very well to talk about poor starving miners, but let us also think about the poor starving cotton operatives and iron workers. The problem is threefold; all these industries are hit together. It is the prosperity of the country that is at stake, and the only way to get the nation's industries going on a sound foundation is to get our heavy industries started. We must persuade the Opposition in this House to use their energies in raising the standard of living and of wages in those foreign countries which are dumping in this country the produce of their sweated labour. [HON. MEMBERS "The Washington Convention!"] We want to wash out the Washington Convention. Take the cotton trade, to begin with. What is needed is the introduction in the importation of cotton goods into this country of the same conditions as are applied to the importation of cotton goods from Lancashire into the United States.
  9.0.p.m.
  If one happens to be fortunate enough to produce goods which can be exported to America, in spite of the high tariff wall there, one has to get what, is called a consular invoice. That costs 10s. 4d. On that invoice one has to state the name of the customer, the price and width of the cloth, the actual number of threads per inch in the warp and the actual number of counts per inch in the weft. When the invoice goes to the States with the bill of lading, there has to he submitted a sample six inches by four inches, and a pattern three inches by two inches, and there may be as many as twenty designs. When the goods arrive in America, any United States citizen can go through the appraiser's house and look at the invoice. The exporter has to give the actual counts, that is to say, has to state the texture of the article and to give his trade secrets away. No matter what the weight of the cloth may be, if the actual counts are stated on the invoice the American gets to know what he wants to know. He can look at the patterns and can see the texture of the cloth, and he knows immediately whether he can produce at a competitive price

  2111
  or not. That enables the American manufacturer to say, "I can produce these goods." Immediately he produces the goods, up goes the tariff and the British manufacturer is shut out.
  As a measure of retaliation it is not necessary to impose a tariff or a duty here. All that is needed is to give our cotton manufacturers a chance of knowing exactly what comes into this country from Belgium or from France. I defy any expert to tell what is the composition of some of the textiles that are imported from the Continent to this country. If we compelled foreign manufacturers to do what we have to do when we export to the United States, that is, to state the width of the cloth, what the yarn is composed of, and so forth, that would enable our manufacturers, without any tariff and without any interference with Free Trade, to know whether it was a legitimate business. Up to the present we do not know that. The hon. Member for the Rossendale Valley (Mr. Waddington) represents a great manufacturing place for sheetings and cotton blankets which are within the reach of every working man. As to this, a question was asked the other day. Belgian sheets are coming into this country loaded with 54 per cent. of china clay. I say it is china clay because I have used it myself. These Belgian goods are loaded with it. If our Belgian competitors were compelled to state the actual counts of the yarn in these sheetings and the rest of the information that America demands from us our manufacturers would be able to compete with the stuff that is coming into this country.
  Another point that I would like to raise relates to the Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Probably everyone in this country is under the belief that, in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation, everything is British, but I would point out that this is not so. I refer to the cords for wireless sets and, in connection with the Post Office, there is also the case of the pendant cords for telephones.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that broadcasting does not come under the Ministry of Labour.
  Mr. BETHEL: I merely wanted to show, in connection with the question of unemployment, that the British Broadcasting Corporation, by importing foreign cords, are doing thousands of British workers out of employment. The hon. Member who represents the constituency where a great deal of this work is done has, I think, pointed out that some 5,000 men were working in this industry, but I do not think that they have more than 200 working at present, and that is all through the system which exists at the present time of importing these covered wires or cords from abroad. I do not wish to chastise the Opposition, but they do not suggest any remedies. They only point out the difficulties which exist. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who has been somewhat unfortunate in his experiences on the Mediterranean is not here, but his deputy is here in the person of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), and I hope he will do something to stop the Free Trade parrot cry and give the British working man a chance of earning good money.
  Another point on which I would touch is in connection with the British Industries Fair. I think one would be safe in saying that the goods there are about fifty-fifty British and foreign production. I looked at several of the stalls there and made inquiries and I found that the bulk of the goods had been imported into this country and only minor details added to them. Then, in connection with an Admiralty contract for bootlaces, I am informed that the bootlaces were imported from abroad in foot lengths and the tags were imported in separate cases. British labour was employed simply to put the tags on to the bootlaces, and then they were supplied to the Admiralty as British-made bootlaces. I hope all parties will join in doing their utmost to relieve our unemployed and to get our people work again. We have the best workpeople in the world if they got the same chance as other people, and I hope the day will soon arrive when we shall prevent any goods made by sweated labour coming into this country.
  Mr. OLIVER: I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his very interesting discourse on the textile industry.

  2113
  I wish to deal with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Acts and to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he can do a great deal to mitigate the conditions under which his Department is at present administering those Acts. The introduction of the 1927 Act did away with the local committees, and brought into prominence an officer who in the past had not been so prominent, namely the insurance officer. My observations are not confined to one small geographical area when I say that the activities of the insurance officer have made the Ministry of Labour repellant to every self-respecting unemployed man. When a man applies for benefit he is subjected to some of the most outrageous questions imaginable. The men are treated as if they themselves were the cause of unemployment, instead of being the victims of conditions over which they have no control whatever. We all know that the unemployment problem is due to national and international causes, but instead of the insurance officers treating these men as the victims of circumstances, they treat them as though the men were responsible for unemployment.
  The attitude adopted is not one of finding out what is right but of how to get these men off the Fund. I do not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept my unsupported word, and I have taken the trouble to bring with me original documentary evidence. There is one case in which a man who was seen holding the head of a fractious horse, was reported to be in receipt of remuneration for doing so, and was struck off the unemployment roll. We challenged this decision through the Ministry of Labour and had it put right, but what happened? The case occurred in October of last year and the man did not get his benefit until February of this year. That man had a wife and four children, and when he was denied benefit in these ridiculous circumstances, he had to go to the Poor Law guardians to obtain support for his family. When the Minister's officials were inquiring into the case they submitted certain questions to a farmer and the farmer objected to signing the document because, he said, things were put down which he had not said. I quote the farmer's own words in his letter:
  "I told him (the official of the Ministry) that he seemed to want to put statements
  2114
  down which were not true and was wanting me to sign it and therefore I would not sign anything,"
  That is a very serious allegation against an official of the Ministry. It is to be remembered that the official was interviewing, not the applicant for relief, but an independent person, and it is suggested that he put words into the mouth of the independent person to such an extent that the latter refused to sign the document when it was presented to him. I hope the Minister will take cognisance of that case, and that he will make it quite clear that he will not tolerate any official in his Department conducting himself in that disgusting fashion. There is another point of importance. When men make an application for benefit, the question of merit is not uppermost in the minds of the people who, temporarily, at any rate, decide the question, but how long has it been the policy of the Ministry of Labour that when a man asks for benefit because he is out of employment, it should be suggested to him that his wife might take in washing, or take in lodgers, so that the Unemployment Fund should be relieved of the wife's dependent allowance of 7s. a week? I think this is Bumbledom brought up to date, and I will quote, for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary, a letter which has come to me from Yorkshire, corroborating the statement that I have made. It is from a man in a representative capacity, and the letter shall be handed over to the Parliamentary Secretary if he desires to see it. It says:
  "I know from personal experience that the insurance officers have endeavoured to initiate claims to be made upon the housewife when the husband has been up for examination, as to whether he was diligently seeking occupation in some way or another, that they wanted to know what the wife was doing, and could she take in washing; could she not do some charing; could they not take in lodgers; and other similar insinuations; that because the husband was unemployed she ought to be compelled in some way to be keeping the house going."
  Does the Parliamentary Secretary justify that conduct on the part of his officials? I want him to answer that question either now or when he rises to reply later on. Many of these men either have their benefit cut off or they have it temporarily suspended until the matter can go before the court of referees, and the plight in which these people are placed is intolerable. They have no

  2115
  Surplus on which they may feed their families pending their appeal to the court, and many unfortunate men who go before the court of referees are ill equipped to make a decent statement. Even the managers of the Employment Exchanges themselves are not always clear as to whether a man is entitled to receive benefit. I have a letter in my hand which deals with the case of a man who desired to clean a car at 2s. 6d. a day. He might clean a car one day at 2s. 6d. and a couple of days later another car at 2s. 6d. He asked the manager of the Exchange if he might do so, and the manager told him frankly that he must not earn the 2s. 6d., because, if he did, he would destroy his right to draw benefit; though it is well known that there are subsidiary occupations which men may follow provided that the work is done outside the hours during which they would normally be working.
  Unfortunately, these men go before the court of referees very ill equipped to state their case, and many times, with a little application of common sense, a man's benefit would never have been stopped in the first place. If the Ministry's officials were as helpful in finding men jobs as they are zealous in applying themselves to striking men off the books, there would be some extenuating circumstances. We have heard of centres for training boys, but I had a case recently where a miner, working on short time, asked that he might be permitted to learn motor driving, so that he could equip himself to be a driver in the omnibus service in my own constituency, which the Parliamentary Secretary knows well. He applied to the Minister of Labour to know if he might do so. He was not to be paid, but merely to be taught. The reply was, "If you are taught driving in your spare time, you cannot possibly draw unemployment benefit." If the man had stood by the door of the public house instead of trying to learn another trade, he would have been entitled to draw benefit. It is surely to the advantage of the Ministry to encourage men to train themselves for other occupations, instead of allowing them to remain in industries which are obviously suffering from the general depression.
  2116
  In view of these and hundreds of similar charges which might be brought against his Department, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will institute an inquiry to see whether his officials are doing what I am alleging that they are doing. We do not ask him to accept my word or that of any of my colleagues on this matter, but we want him to see whether the 1927 Act is fulfilling the promises which he held out when it was before the House. I make bold to say that some of the conditions under which men are given benefit and struck off benefit constitute a scandal, and I hope the Minister, when he replies, will be good enough to tell us what he or his Department proposes to do in the matter.
  Mr. HILTON: I make no apology for joining in this Debate. I think it is about the fourth time that I have taken part in an unemployment Debate, and there seems to be a paucity of ideas, especially among Members of the Opposition, as to any sort of cure for unemployment. Indeed, several hon. Members have spoken in a way that I could more or less have dictated to a typist. I could almost tell what they were going to say. For a complete proposition I have had to look to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but what does that amount to? I represent some of the finest skilled operatives in the world, and they are proud of their Member. [Interruption.] I join with my operatives in being able to work with them and to work the same number of hours. I heard a suggestion made by the Minister of Labour that he would like to keep a man to his particular trade, and I agree with that.
  What is the position with regard to our great industries? I am referring entirely to cotton. I was born in the cotton trade, as were my father and grandfather. At present in my division and throughout Lancashire the position is that for the last seven years our operatives have been on short time. In Bolton we are now on short time. What is the remedy to get people off the unemployment dole? I want a real, concrete suggestion from either side. This subject is so serious to me that, were I on the Opposition side and had I a cure, I would give it to the Committee this moment. The man who refuses to lay be-

  2117
  fore us his cure for unemployment is a traitor to his fellows. The right hon. Member for Come Valley (Mr. Snowden) said that that was not a job of the Opposition; their job was to oppose. If I had a. cure I would lay it before the Committee. It is a very serious matter for us. We have the most skilled artisans in the world. We have no competition in the sense that we spin the finest fabrics, and no other country can spin the same fabrics, yet we are on short time. We are working two weeks and playing one. The hon. Member who has just spoken had the privilege last week of addressing my constituency and the Leader of the Labour party spoke on Saturday, yet the only suggestion that they made in Lancashire was that if they were returned to power they would appoint a Royal Commission. For what purpose? To tell us in Lancashire something we know already and we know more about it than they will when they have finished their investigations. They have got no remedy. The right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw), who was Minister of Labour prior to my right hon. Friend was a failure. If he were here he would know what I was saying.
  I want a suggestion that will put another 200,000 people on full time, and there is no suggestion coming forward. I would like to make a suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary. On the last occasion when I spoke I referred to the monetary policy of the Government. I have not receded a fraction of an inch from the position I took up then, and since the Bank Rate has gone up I am more sure now than I was. My suggestion is this: In the Budget of 1926 we extended the McKenna duties from motor cars to motor tyres, and every tyre coming into this country has to pay a duty of 33⅓ per cent. I submit that when that was passed, it was in the mind of every Member of this House that it was a complete 33⅓ per cent., and not half of 33⅓ per cent. What I mean is this: Six huge concerns have erected mills and workshops in England to turn out motor tyres. Every Member of the House thought that the whole of the tyre would be taxed and not half the tyre, but what has happened? These mills have got to work, and are turning out tyres now, and will probably be working to full capacity this year. The makers of those
  2118
  tyres realise that the Lancashire cotton operatives are the highest paid artisans in the world. I am proud of that, and I say that they are entitled to it because they are such adept workers. The operatives who spin the yarn to make the cloth produce half of every motor tyre. I mean half of the intrinsic value, because, if a tyre costs £5, then, roughly speaking, 50s. of it represents the cotton fabric. These mills are importing that cotton fabric into this country, and it is coming in free. The foreigner realises he cannot get the whole tyre into the country without paying the tariff, so he imports half of it and makes the other half here.
  I do not want to advertise any of these firms or speak in any derogatory way of them. There are at present French, Italian and American firms producing these tyres. In spite of the hon. Member's references to the Washington Convention, the French are working double the time that we are, the Belgians are doing double shifts and the Italians are doing three shifts in many instances. They are dumping this cheaply produced cloth into Lancashire, and we are buying it in our tyres and putting it on our motor cars while our own spindles are stopped. I have samples here which I can produce to any Member. Is the Minister of Labour aware of the unemployment in the cotton trade due to this particular cause? Has he considered how many people are employed in the making of motor tyre fabric? Broadly speaking, over 1,000,000 pounds of cotton are used a week for this purpose, as it takes four pounds of cotton, on the average, to make a pneumatic motor tyre. If the whole of that was made in Lancashire, there would not be an unemployed operative in Bolton. This fabric is made from the best Egyptian cotton, but it is being made by sweated labour abroad and imported into this country. This duty of 33⅓ per cent. has been passed, and the House has agreed that a 33⅓ per cent. duty should be placed upon these tyres, yet the intention of the House is being evaded in this way.
  Why is this material coming in? I am ashamed to say it, but it is because of the incompetence of our Customs officers. It is a serious statement to make, but I have seen them and they told me that they cannot tell the difference between a sponge cloth, which engineers know as

  2119
  cleaning cloth, imported into this country, and a loose tyre imported into this country. I say "loose" because it has not been proofed. I told them that if they could not tell the difference between a cloth which is made out of waste at 4d. per pound and a cloth which is made out of the best Egyptian cotton, then they wanted better Customs officials, and that if I were appointed I would work free. Here is a great source of employment to Lancashire, yet our Customs officials say that they cannot discriminate between stuff made out of waste for cleaning the outside of engines and stuff made out of the best Egyptian cotton. If that be so, then it is time the Minister of Labour explored that avenue in order to see if he cannot get us that trade, and let the mills of Lancashire be used for the purpose. I suggest that there are many other avenues which the Minister might explore.
  I was for many years head of a firm employing 80 girls on a process which finished shoe-laces. It takes about 20 processes to get to that stage—the mixing, the carding, the spinning, the winding, and others. Our customers were in Yorkshire, good customers who paid regular cash on the nail: that is the real Lancashire idea of business. To-day, that stuff is coming from Germany, and our people are out of work. Has the Minister of Labour explored every Avenue of helping our people? I could multiply cases and could name them in hundreds and thousands. I want the Government to realise that the Lancashire cotton operative is real good Tory, and he wants full work and full time. It is our duty to find it for him, and if I can contribute anything to help the Minister out of the morass in which he is, and to help him to look forward to 10 years of full employment, that will be my job here.
  I am not out to make any political kudos or capital out of this question. Anyone trying to make political kudos out of unemployment ought to be ashamed of himself. I am talking to all parts of the House, and to the Labour party in particular. The only remedy which I have heard yet has been to turn our cotton operatives on making roads or to transfer them to Another part of the country of which they have no idea. I would rather send them to Canada or
  2120
  South America to do cotton spinning there. I would love to go with them, and, were I a single man, I would not hesitate to go to Brazil and be a cotton spinner. Every other country offers facilities to men to work, but this country seems to offer them only facilities to be idle. It is every Englishman's duty to be employed, and it is the Government's duty to assist him with all their might.
  Mr. BROAD: If you, Sir, were presiding over a safeguarding inquiry, I could reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton) who has just spoken, but the question which we are discussing is the administration of the Minister of Labour, particularly with regard to transference. The Minister will make the position worse instead of improving it by the way in which he is applying his powers of transference. I will give an illustration. In the North of London, where there are two Employment Exchanges covering a population of about 300,000, I have it from the Minister that 8 per cent. were unemployed before Christmas. It would be nearer 12 per cent. or 13 per cent. now. That was the percentage over the w hole number, but if we take the percentage on the unskilled element, it would be nearly 20 per cent. Yet the Minister's officials, instead of paying proper attention to their work, are busy looking into firms and jobs and trying to persuade employers, foremen and managers to take men from other districts rather than men who are standing on the spot waiting for jobs. When there are men in that proportion in the district already out of work, and when they are told that they are not genuinely looking for work after waiting hour after hour at places u here men are expecting to be taken on, it is very wrong for an official of the Ministry to try to persuade employers to take men from hundreds of miles away instead of the men on the spot. When the local man goes to the Employment Exchange for his benefit, he is wiped off the list because he is not genuinely seeking employment. When he goes to sign, he sees in the Employment Exchange a notice or he will get a request from the officials to find lodgings in his house for a man who has come to take his job.
  You do not improve the conditions by removing the sore from one district to

  2121
  another. There is no saving to the nation in taking one man from one end of the country, removing his benefit, and putting another man on. If a man who is unemployed in his own district got a job, he would be able to live in his home at the lowest possible expense, but under the Minister's scheme, under which the wages paid to these unskilled people are very often far below the rates of the district, the man has to keep a tamely in Durham or South Wales, and he cannot pay his way in his lodgings and keep his wife and family at home. The result is that the man's wage has to be subsidised from the Poor Law of the district where the family lives. It is an abominable practice, and it is a pretence of doing something to help when it is, in tact, doing a great deal of harm. I am inclined to think that the purpose of the Minister is to use transference under impossible conditions as a trap, so that men may refuse or show unwillingness to be transferred, and so that they can be cut off from benefit. We find such cases as this occurring. A man from Tottenham will be sent to Hayes for an odd job, and, when he gets there, he finds men sent from other Employment Exchanges; and men from those other districts will be sent 12 or 15 miles across London to the very district from which the Tottenham man has come. We know of a great catering firm which employs a large number of young women of 30 years and upwards as scrubbers, and, it these women refuse these jobs, they are turned off benefit.
  Figures show that, proportionately, about three times as many women workers are denied benefit for not genuinely seeking work as men. Is the reason that the women are so dishonest that they would sooner hang about than work? The fact is that the Minister takes advantage of the women, because they are not well organised enough to put their case forward. The whole system which is being applied by the Minister is a travesty of justice as we in our British minds understand it. Any pretext is put forward in order to deprive a man of his benefit on the ground that he is not genuinely seeking employment. Then he goes to the court of referees—a man who is not used to presenting a case! The Minister's official is there to put a number of questions designed to trip the
  2122
  man up. He is asked, "Where were you last Thursday week at 10 o'clock in the morning?" The man cannot recollect. He makes a shot at a reply, he is wrong, and then it is said that he has told an untruth. Could any Member of this House say where he was last Thursday? That is the kind of thing done by the Minister. After his case has been heard the man retires, but the Minister's representative remains there to confer with the court and influence them. He has secret reports, prepared by the Minister's officials, which the man knows nothing about, and he prejudices the court behind the man's back. I can prove that from a secret instruction which was sent out by the Minister. It is marked "Confidential," and was issued on 26th March last year. It is headed "Ministry of Labour (Employment Insurance Department). Memorandum on changes in procedure necessary under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927." Paragraph 55 says:
  "In forming a conclusion as to whether the claimant is genuinely seeking work the local officer may also be influenced by a general impression which cannot be stated in either Part 1 or Part 2 of the Form"—
  That is the form which the man sees—
  "It is important that the chief insurance officer should he fully advised of any definite opinion formed. Observations having this purpose in view which the interviewing officer may wish to make for the guidance of the chief insurance officer should not be included in Form U.I. 567A, but should be put on a blank sheet U.I. 589, which should be pinned to U.I. 567A. Remarks on those sheets are for the purpose of assisting the chief insurance officer, and are not for communication to any person outside the Department."
  Paragraph 57 goes on to say:
  "It is not necessary to retain at the local office copies of reports submitted to the chief insurance officer under these instructions."
  That is the position. The man is given a form in which are entered the grounds of the objection to the payment of his claim. In all good faith he goes before the court of referees, and, when he has left, the prosecuting counsel remains with the judge and gives the man a stab in the back under the instructions of the secret circular of the Ministry of Labour. If that occurred in any other court, it would be denounced as something entirely un-British; yet this is the method which is employed by the Minister of Labour.

  2123
  I questioned the Minister on of these instructions and the reply was:
  "They are departmental which we cannot publish,"
  I say they have not been published because the Minister knew that if they were known to the House they would not be tolerated. So it is we find that a tremendous number of people were last year deprived of benefit on the grounds that they were not genuinely seeking work. There were 212,000 of these cases last year. If that were a true picture of the working class of this country, that there is this large number of working men who are so lazy that they would sooner linger along on the miserable pittance of unemployment benefit than do An honest day's work, then the outlook for Britain would be deplorable indeed. It is not a fair picture to represent the British working man as dishonestly trying to get benefit to which he is not entitled, but it is the measure of the dishonesty of the Minister in depriving men of benefits for which they have qualified.
  There is something else. A decision in favour of the man is given by the court after they have heard his case. Is he allowed to know that? Is he then entitled to draw his benefit? No. That decision has to go back through the offices, back to the Exchange. Then we find this further instruction:
  "If in any case the local insurance officer is doubtful of the court's recommendation to allow, he shall refer the papers to the chief insurance officer, but should continue payment except where a new circumstance has arisen since the court's hearing which would justify suspension of the benefit."
  This is the position. The case has been heard, all the evidence against the man has been put before the court, and any secret reports have had their influence; notwithstanding that the decision of the court is given in the man's favour, but yet he is not to get his benefit. The Minister is going to see if some other case can be trumped up against him to deprive him of the benefit of the verdict, not because it is an unfair verdict, hut because of something which has occurred since.
  The figure of unemployment which we have in this country to-day, 1,400,000 persons, by no means represents the full measure of unemployment, if we take
  2124
  into account the large number of people who ought to be on the registers but who know that it is hopeless to register in view of what the Minister has done for them; because, once a person has been turned down on such a case, never again can he get benefit without a tremendous amount of trouble. Here is the case which the Minister has to answer. He is responsible. He appoints the referee, he appoints the insurance officers, he issues his confidential instructions, and it is no use for him to say the person responsible is somebody apart from him. The Minister of Labour is as much responsible to this House for the chief insurance officer as is the Home Secretary for the Commissioner of Police.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry I have to rise just now to deprive at least one other hon. Member on the benches opposite from, the opportunity of speaking, but the Debate has to finish at a certain time in order that we may take a Vote. I am sorry the two hon. Members who enlivened the proceedings a little while ago have gone. No one has any right to challenge us for bringing forward criticism of the Minister of Labour and his Department, because if we were to add up the number of times our party has challenged him during the last four or five years, it would be found to be fewer than the occasions on which the party opposite challenged the Labour Government during their eight months of office. I regret very much that more interest is not taken in this question of unemployment, even at this late period, in the life of Parliament, than is evidenced by the state of the benches all around us. I think it is a very terrible satire on this assembly that we can crowd and pack the House upon such a question as the Irish loyalists which only affects about 200 cases or a theological quarrel about the Prayer Book, but very few Members remain throughout a Debate on the unemployed. Here is a question which, when the Labour Government was in office, all parties united in saying was the one question by which this Parliament would be judged. I think those who sit on the Labour Benches are free from the charge that we try to make party capital out of the unemployment question. On three separate occasions, my hon. Friends sitting on these benches have appealed to the Government to set up a non-party com-

  2125
  mittee to discuss ways and means of dealing with unemployment. It seems to me that everybody charges everybody else with not having found a remedy. My remedy for unemployment is a complete change in production and distribution, and it is known as Socialism.
  10.0 p.m.
  We all know that this question is one which worries the Government very much. I have listened to most of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite on this subject, and I think they have all admitted that the problem is insoluble. Supposing it is true that Safeguarding is a remedy for unemployment and that Protection is a remedy, what sort of men are hon. Members opposite to sit in this House for four years without putting their policy into operation? We are not strong enough on this side of the House to prevent the Government doing anything they like, but the Government know that Protection is no remedy. Hon. Members opposite know as well as I do that in countries where they have tried Protection and Safeguarding up to the hilt they have a great deal of unemployment, great fluctuations in trade, and every other difficulty that we have to face. The sole reason is that the fundamental thing to be changed is production. If you increase your power of production and at the same time your markets become contracted and your former customers become your competitors it must mean that you are thrown back upon your own resources. Under those circumstances, you must find some means of producing things in your own country, and bring about a better distribution than that which obtains to-day. The Minister of Labour told us to-day in his analysis of the situation that one of the things which was pulling us down was the fact that we were able to produce so much more. If hon. Members look at the "Daily News" of to-day, they will see a large headline:
  "Six women doing the work of 200."
  Fancy six women displacing 200 others! That can be multiplied in every industry in the country, and you do not overcome that difficulty and tail fundamental change in production merely by saying: "Let us penalise the foreigner." If we could have had a non-party committee, we might have considered such cases sitting
  2126
  round a table. In that way, I am confident that we could convince the Minister of Labour that we are right and that the policy of the Government is wrong. I know I should be out of order if I pursued that argument, but I did want, in dealing with the analysis of the Minister of Labour, to point out that we are aware of what he laid down, but we deny that the Government or the party opposite have found any remedy whatever. I believe with William Morris:
  "If society does not settle unemployment, unemployment will settle society."
  Society to-day is being pulled down by economic decay which brings about moral and mental decay. This is apparent to any hon. Member who goes into industrial centres or reads the reports of the two principal officers of the Ministry of Health who recently investigated the conditions in South Wales. Those two officers have put it on record, first, that the children in South Wales are developing rickets, which everyone knows is a poverty disease. They also reported that the unemployed population are losing their vim and spirit and all interest in life. Not only this, but we are told by those two officials that the men in the South Wales area are losing their self-respect. I am not one of those who can say that I have endured poverty, but for eight weeks of my life I was out of work, and I must say that as the weeks went by my willingness to work became less. There are men in my Division who have been out of work for three, four, and five years, Some of them are men of 50 years of age with wives and children to support. Some of them are skilled men who made gun sights. The gun factory in our district has closed down, and that means ruin to these men, and none of them have been able to get other jobs. They know that it would be hopeless to go to Birmingham, because it is well known that the manufacturers of small arms have introduced many improvements, and the ability to turn out mass production and the decreased demand for small arms has displaced thousands of men. Under those circumstances, it is impossible for the men on whose behalf I am speaking to get work elsewhere.
  This society, which we in this place are responsible for administering, says to

  2127
  these men, not, indeed, "To Hell or Connaught," as Cromwell said to the Irish, but "To the workhouse or starvation." The Minister tells them that insurable employment will not be available for them, and that, therefore, they are not an insurable proposition. The Ministry of Health says, "You must not degrade them by giving them out-door relief for so long a period." It would be better to kill them and be done with it than to leave them in that position. I listened to hear what the Minister was going to say, and the only thing that he put forward that appeared to be of any value was what he said about transference. He said that everyone agrees that there must be transference. Yes, but transference where? That is the question. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies—I have asked the question in the House many times—to say what particular trade or industry there is in this country that wants men or women. I want him to tell me the names of the towns where there are no people unemployed in the particular work which it is said there is to be done. I have asked that many times. We believe in transference, but we believe in transference to work of a permanent character.
  I will tell the House what the right hon. Gentleman is doing for East London. I raised, just before the Adjournment, the case of 12 men who were displaced from a job in Whitechapel. It was said that they were displaced because of a union dispute, and 12 miners were taken on to do some other unskilled work. I have gone into that, and what really happened was that there was a dispute about some particular form of work, but the 12 East London men who were displaced could just as easily have done the unskilled work which the miners were doing. All that the Minister did in that case, therefore, was to throw 12 other men out of work. That is not the worst of it. Anyone would imagine that unemployment had only arisen since the coal strike or the War, but when I came into this House for the first time, in 1910, we had a great inquiry about the conditions in East London. The Minister of Health took part in that inquiry, and he knows better than any other man in this House that casual,
  2128
  intermittent labour is the curse of East London, and the curse of every waterside district. He knows, and all his officials know—and that is the crime that they are committing against their own intelligence—that every man whom they bring into London without finding him a permanent job will in the end swell the ranks of the casual labourers on the waterside.
  Everyone knows also, and no one better than the officials at the Ministry of Labour, that for years the Transport Workers' Union and humble individuals like myself have been wrestling with this problem, and trying to get it put on an equitable footing; and now the Minister, whose memoranda, prepared for the Poor Law Commission, of which I was a member, can be seen in the Library, has the impudence to stand at that Box and defend the bringing in of these men to London. His officials cannot deny that in London to-day there are miners whom they have transferred here and who are now taking unemployment pay in London. Was there ever such a crime committed as to bring these men here and only give them temporary work, displacing other men and in the end re-creating and making worse the terrible problem of casual labour which has worried and distracted every social reformer in London? The Minister boasts—he did to-day—that it is not always the same man who is out of work. There is nothing to boast of in that. I should like to know what his precious officials, who supply him with all these arguments and figures, would do if they were in work for three months and out of work for a couple of months. They know perfectly well that that sort of thing pulls down the general standard of life of the worker. And if you say that you have a million and a-half of men and women out of work to-day, and that to-morrow 100,000 of them will be in work and another 100,000 will take their places out of work, that is merely to extend the area of demoralisation and make the problem a thousand times worse. Of course, if there is work for men to do, we agree to transference.
  I want also to say that when the right hon. Gentleman—I am sorry he is not here—interrupted one of my hon. Friends about the question of grants and public works, I was amazed at his impudence in doing so. He and his Department know

  2129
  perfectly well that they practically stopped giving assistance to local authorities, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made them stop. If there are three men more responsible than others for the position we are in, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health. I am often asked what the country ought to do under these circumstances. I maintain without fear of contradiction that the more we are able to produce of the things that the community wants, the higher the standard of life of the people should be. During the whole period of capitalist development, the workers have got back portions of the advantage that the capitalist has received in certain social services. What I would do if I had my way would be to take out of industry all the aged and partially infirm people and the men and women who are more or less worn out and give them, not a miserable, rotten pension of 10s. a week, but adequate maintenance for the rest of their days I would also raise the age of the school children.
  As for work, if right hon. Gentlemen liked, under the powers they already possess, there is not a slum in England and Wales that could not be dealt with. I read to-day the Bishop of London's statement in reference to slums. We have talked about slums almost as long and as wearisomely as we have talked about unemployment. I can take you to slums in the East End which have been there since I was a boy and for years before. There is nothing to prevent right hon. Gentlemen if they will use their intelligence as intensively to find work and treat the unemployed decently as they do to treat them indecently, putting all the able-bodied to work to-morrow, and clearing up this mess of the slums. It would pay the country to do it, because it is out of the slum conditions and the low wages which accompany them that comes the necessity for the public health expenditure that you incur year by year. If that were done, you would be able to do something decent for the community. I believe, too, in spite of what the Minister said, that you ought to raise a loan for internal development. I can see from the trend of the newspapers, and the people who speak of this subject outside the House, that, whatever Government comes in next time, one of
  2130
  the first things it will be driven to do is to develop agriculture, and you will have to do it by raising a big loan and putting men on idle land and bringing waste land into cultivation. You do not need legislation for that either. Those are propositions which I am sure would ameliorate the conditions that prevail today. Speaking for myself, I do not believe that within what is known as a pure and simple capitalist system there is any real root remedy for unemployment. You can only get rid of unemployment when you carry on industries for the service of the community so that every time you get an increase in production you have a higher standard of life for the whole of the people. The extraordinary thing to-day is that, because we can produce more, the people have got to get less. That is the most absurd position possible.
  I want to finish with a point that I consider of some importance. I know an individual case does not prove everything, but when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) just now, I was reminded that the Ministry of Health during the administration of the right hon. Gentleman spoke just like a charity organisation society—just like a board of guardians. The men pay into an insurance fund and the officials treat them as if they were interlopers who had no right to be there. I put a question to the Minister to-day and I repeat the request to the Parliamentary Secretary. I want to know on what evidence the officer—I do not care whether he is a statutory officer or what is his position—deemed this man Peart to be a person who was not genuinely seeking work. Here is the letter written by the man's wife which called my attention to the case:
  "My husband was employed for 16 years with a certain firm of fishmongers, Manor Park. After that he was in short jobs, nine months in one job, and odd work. Eventually he had to apply for unemployment benefit."
  He did not rush to draw unemployment benefit directly he was out of work. He did his best to keep away because workmen hate the Employment Exchanges and all the inquisitorial business.
  "After he had been receiving this for six weeks, he received a notice from the Employment Exchange to the effect that he was not genuinely seeking work."

  2131
  I repeat I want someone to stand at that box and tell me what evidence they had and where they went in order to get the evidence.
  "The bad times that he had had before this had greatly depressed him and getting this notice"—
  Hon. Members may laugh at this—
  "seemed more than he could stand out against. During the three weeks which followed he hardly ate anything and on the 17th November a telegram came to him offering him work but he did not seem able to understand. He went out the next day and was drowned."
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take notice. This is not written by anyone whom I know. I just happened to see this in the paper, and that was the reason why I put down the question.
  "I am writing this to you because if there is any way by which other men who are placed as he was can be saved the heartbreak that he suffered I shall be glad. He had always worked hard and been prosperous until latter years, and when one sees some men having unemployment for a much longer time than he had it is difficult to understand. If I can in any way save any man from such suffering, I shall be glad."
  I want to say that if there is only that one case those Regulations under which that man was charged with something of which he was not guilty ought to be altered. Although I say very hard things about him, I do not believe that in his heart the right hon. Gentleman would want to do a cruel thing to anybody, but these Regulations are cruel. I know. I have had long years, bitter years, of experience. There are people, good people, who belong to the Charity Organisation Society who get it into their minds that the poor are, as Tennyson said in one of his poems, "bad in the lump" and that you must be very careful and you must never give them the benefit of the doubt. I have taken some trouble to inquire about this man, and, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to inquire about him, or if his wretched umpire or whoever he was wants to inquire about him, let him go down to Stratford Market. That man stood waiting for a job again and again. He was out at six o'clock in the morning, long before any of us, and this is the end of it. He is not the only one by many thousands. It may be said that the coroner's jury did not bring in a verdict
  2132
  of murder against the Ministry of Health Regulations. They brought in a verdict of suicide while of unsound mind. The man was driven that way by the fact that after having lived a decent, honourable life, that was the end for him—"not genuinely seeking work." How many hearts of men have you broken at the age of 45, and how many hearts of women have you broken at the age of 45, by telling them that insurable employment is not likely to be available for them? Therefore, you shove them off. You are not dealing with bits of wood or bits of metal; you are dealing with human beings, with the same feelings and the same flesh and blood that we have. It is time that this House revised these Regulations, and if we had the non-party committee that we begged the Government to set up in order to deal with this question, we should be able to deal with this and all the other questions connected with unemployment.
  We have had many discussions on unemployment. We have debated the question again and again, and to-night we are finishing on the same note—there is nothing at all from the Ministry. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite may denounce the 700 or 800 men who marched, I think mistakenly, into London; they may think what they will of those men, but the fact that there are millions of them to be found, in all parts of the country, sitting dumbly, waiting for something to be done, is a greater menace to the future of this country than anything else. Those who charge us with having no remedy; those who say that we have no proposition to put forward, would do well to remember that we have not had a chance. If we had had the years of government, the centuries that Liberals and Tories have had in office, and the majorities that they have had in this House, and if, under those circumstances, my friends failed, it would be right to condemn us. I say to hon. Members opposite: "Up to the present time you have held the field, and all the evils that we see around us are the results of your administration and of the system that you support."
  Mr. BETTERTON: When this discussion opened, we were warned that it would range over the whole field. That intention has been fulfilled to the letter. We have been attacked in our administra-

  2133
  tion, the Government has been attacked in its policy and the social system which prevails in this country has been attacked. The only specific remedy, so far as I could gather, which has been put forward is that lion. Members opposite should again be given the opportunity to return to the office which, for a few uneasy months, they held in 1924. I do not intend to deal with the questions of principle that have been raised to-night, or to discuss questions of policy. That was done by my right hon. Friend earlier in the evening. I have been asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House to give certain information and to deal with certain questions which they have put to me, and it would not be right or courteous to them if I did not make some answer to the specific points which they have raised. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield), who opened the discussion, said that the human element should come more into the administration of our offices, particularly in the districts. Having had a good many years experience of our offices in the country and of the way in which our Exchanges carry on their difficult duties, I have been impressed more and more with the sympathy which they exercise and the care with which they try to do their duty.
  I will give the Committee one illustration, which arose out of a case put to me a day or two ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He put a question, and he also wrote to me, that in the recent snowfall at Hull unemployed men came very early in the morning to the Employment Exchange in order to be taken on for sweeping the streets. Half-past five was the earliest time at which they could be employed by the corporation, and the officials of the Exchange said that in that case they would be there at half-past five in order that the men might get the chance. It was then found that these men came before half-past five and stood out in the cold waiting for the Exchange to open. Our officials said that in that case they would come at four o'clock in order that the men who would be likely to be taken on should have shelter between four o'clock and half-past five. That is one example which has come to my personal notice within the last few days. I have known many instances in which the officials
  2134
  of Employment Exchanges have worked all night in times of stress in order to make quite sure that the recipients of benefit next day might not have to wait a single day for it. It is only right in justice to these men to place these facts upon record.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. Can he tell me whether arrangements will be made in future to prevent men having to go at that early hour when there is not work for them.
  Mr. BETTERTON: I have just explained that we have arranged to have the Employment Exchange open at four o'clock when there is a snowfall, and it will give shelter to as many men as the corporation are likely to take on. Those who come at four o'clock will get shelter until the time their services are required for sweeping the streets. I do not think we can do any more than that. This is a spontaneous act on the part of the officials at Hull, and I think it should be placed on record. The hon. Member who opened the Debate said that she was disappointed with that part of the work of the Department which relates to the placing of persons in employment; not with the work relating to the payment of benefit. The number of persons placed in employment during last year by the Ministry was over 1,300,000. That figure is not negligible or unimportant. The point was raised by the hon. Member, and I thought she would like to know the figures.
  The hon. Member also raised the question of the proportion of the number of appeals from insurance officers which were allowed, and she gave figures showing that 60,300 claims were disallowed by insurance officers and that, of these, only 5,150 remained disallowed by the Court of Referees. The suggestion there is that the Court of Referees allowed no less than 11 out of 12 appeals. She is under a misapprehension as to the facts; she thought they were appeals from the insurance officer. The figure of 5,000 to which she referred had nothing whatever to do with appeals at all. It was the number of disallowances in reviewed cases. Out of 60,000 cases, 21,000 only were the subject of appeal to the Court of Referees, and of these, 9,000 were allowed

  2135
  and 12,000 disallowed. That, of course, is a very different position.
  One other matter that the hon. Member referred to related to Trade Boards. She complained that the Ministry had told the Trade Boards, which for years have had rules regarding the number of learners in relation to the number of adults, that those rules were ultra vires. That is true. We have done so because we have legal authority for saying that the rules are ultra wires, and if they are ultra vires, obviously we cannot enforce them. The next point was with regard to inspection. That is a point which has been raised very often before. It is a fact, at which I am sure the hon. Member will be just as glad as anyone, that by an improved system we have been able very largely to increase the number of inspections in the course of the year. For instance, in 1925 the number of inspections was 5,076, and in 1928 it was 14,438, or nearly three times as many. That total represents something between 13 and 14 per cent. of the employers on our list. I give these answers because the hon. Member knows as much about the administration of the Ministry of Labour as anyone in this House, and as she asked the questions, I thought it right to give her specific answers.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) raised a very important question. He asked whether there was any attempt to relate the work of the juvenile employment centres and the work of the Board of Education. There is the closest co-relation between the two. The centres are under the control of the local education authorities so far as instruction, staffing and equipment are concerned. On the other hand they run these centres on lines and according to schemes that are agreed between the Board of Education and ourselves. Therefore there could be no better assurance that there is complete co-operation between the Board of Education and ourselves in the matter.
  The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), the hon. Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Sexton), and the hon. Member who has just sat down made serious statements to which I must refer. These so-called regulations—that of "genuinely seeking work" is one of
  2136
  them—have been referred to over and over again as if they were the arbitrary regulations of a remorseless Minister. They are nothing of the kind. These are statutory conditions laid down in an Act of Parliament, the responsibility for the administration of which the House of Commons itself placed in the hands of my right hon. Friend. I do not wish to make any point of it, but it is the fact that these words "genuinely seeking work" were the invention of the Labour Government and first appeared in the Act of 1924. It is perfectly true that the Blanesburgh Committee considered these words and could not improve on them. I speak in the presence of a Member of that Committee when I say that when they were asked whether they could improve upon these words, what they said in effect was that each case must be judged on its merits. All that the Umpire can do is to lay down, as far as he can, the general principles which are applicable to all cases, but each individual case must depend on the facts of the individual case.
  We come, therefore, to this position—that these so-called Regulations are statutory requirements imposed by this House upon my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Ilkeston, as a trained lawyer, will follow me when I say that these words, according to the Act of Parliament, are to be construed by the statutory authorities. This is a matter of some interest to me, as we have been so often denounced in years gone by in connection with this matter. My right hon. Friend has often been told about our cruel exercise of the Ministerial discretion, and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I am bound to say, was one of the first to appreciate the fact that administration by the statutory authorities would not necessarily be more favourable than that of the Minister.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Worse.
  Mr. BETTERTON: The position now is that the discretion of the Minister has been taken away, and the construction to be placed upon this and other Sections of the Act has to be made by the statutory authorities themselves. It is significant that one thing—I was going to say the only thing—about which the evidence before the Blanesburgh Committee was almost unanimous was that

  2137
  the discretion of the Minister should be taken away and that the obligation to construe this Act should be placed quite outside any Parliamentary officials and in the hands of the independent authorities appointed to administer the Act. I do not wish to labour the point, but I would remind the Committee that in the evidence given on behalf of the Trade Union Council by that expert in insurance, the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), and by Mr. Bevin and others, they said they were satisfied with the principle of adjudication by courts of referees and appeal to the umpire. They said, at another point in their Memorandum:
  "We desire at this point to express our satisfaction with the system whereby the umpire, a completely independent authority, is the final court of appeal."
  That is what the Committee recommended in their Report, and that is exactly what we have put in the Act of Parliament.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not the case that out of our experience we asked the Minister not to have this statutory condition of "genuinely seeking work," but to make the only condition, other than stamps, for the receipt of benefit, the lack of provision of a job at trade union rates? That was our case.
  Mr. BETTERTON: I do not dispute what the hon. Member says, but I am pointing out that what the Act which it is now our business to administer contains is just that form of procedure which was asked for, first of all, in the evidence before the Blanesburgh Committee, which was recommended by the Blanesburgh Report, and which is now incorporated in the Act of Parliament.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I think there is a genuine misunderstanding here. The point of criticism which, so far as I can gather, has been consistent throughout the evening, is that, instead of doing what was asked by the Blanesburgh Report, namely, to try and work out a definition, and that each of these cases should be adjudged by the court of referees or the umpire, you have attempted to establish a sort of cast-iron regulation which is exercised by the officers of the Ministry.
  Mr. LANSBURY: All that I ask the hon. Gentleman to do is to give me the, evidence on which this man was adjudged.
  Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member is dealing with a particular case, but I am now on the general principle with regard to the way in which this requirement is interpreted—[An HON. MEMBER: "Regulation!"]—It is not a Regulation it is a statutory requirement, and it really is the fact that hon. Members themselves, the Blanesburgh Committee, and everybody who has tried has failed to give any definition of "genuinely seeking work," for this reason, that you cannot give a definition which is applicable to every kind of case. Therefore, you are thrown back, as you must be thrown back, upon the decision of the umpire, stating in general terms how the condition must be dealt with.
  Now I want to refer to what is known as the secret Circular, and really the statement of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) as to what takes place was, I will not say wilfully intended to mislead the Committee, but so fantastic and such a travesty of the situation—
  Mr. BROAD: I have copied it from your Memorandum, which I obtained surreptitiously.
  Mr. BETTERTON: I do want to ex plain exactly what happens, and why it happens, and the Committee will then see that, so far from being an injustice, it is nothing of the kind. The interviewing officer, as hon. Members who are acquainted with the actual procedure know, first of all fills up a statement of facts supplied by the applicant, who signs it, and our instructions are specific and definite. They are, to quote them verbatim:
  "This statement should be signed by the claimant and care should ho taken to see that he has full knowledge of what he is signing."
  Up to that point it will be seen that we have given the most explicit instructions to see that he is aware of what he is doing before he signs it. That, again, was a concession or alteration which we made in the applicant's favour in the last year or two and which did not exist in 1924 when the hon. Members opposite were in office. In those days, the report went straight to the court of referees or the insurance officer. The applicant did not know what was in it; he was not

  2139
  asked to sign it; it was not even read to him. In order to protect them, we have that most explicit undertaking that the applicant must have full knowledge. That is the first stage. This is the second stage: The interviewing officer also gives on the form information which would be useful, if required, to the court of referees. The sort of information given is the state of local employment which is very relevant and the chances of the average workman. These remarks are seen by the applicant if the case goes to the court of referees. There is nothing then concealed from him there. If it does not go to the court of referees, then presumably benefit is allowed. So far from being kept in the dark, contrary to the former practice everything is disclosed to him, and he is under no illusions as to what the ease is when he goes to the court of referees. Now we come to the point raised by the hon. Member, the so-called secret report. The fact is that, if there is anything which he thinks the insurance officer should know, which is not appropriate—and I will explain what I mean by that—for inclusion in the form, he is to enter it on a separate sheet. This is not shown either to the man or to the referees.
  Mr. BROAD: What I said was that that secret report was in the possession of the Minister's officer who confers with the court of referees and remains in the court.
  Mr. BETTERTON: I am pointing out that the court of referees have not this so-called secret report disclosed before them and know nothing about it. I will explain why it is made at all. When this question was first raised, my right hon. Friend asked for a sample to be taken quite at random from the so-called secret reports. That was done, and far the larger number were reports made in the interests of the men themselves. It may quite well be that the interviewing officer sees that the man perhaps has had some industrial accident, and is therefore not so well equipped for competing in the labour market of the country, and he thinks it only fair that that fact should be known to the insurance officer before the insurance officer gives his decision. On the other hand, it may be—I put the other side of the case quite fairly—that
  2140
  there may be something which he thinks the insurance officer should know which is not to the man's credit. It is quite untrue to say that these secret reports are necessarily to the man's detriment, because in the samples taken the majority of the reports were in the man's own favour.
  I have only one word to say, in conclusion, on the major question of relief. We have been asked over and over again to-day from hon. Members both above and below the Gangway to devote more money for road making or something else which will involve the employment of a larger or a fewer number of men. It is perfectly obvious that if proposals for road making or for anything else are in excess of the economic requirements of the country, and are only for the purpose of making employment, they are simply relief work and nothing else. One of the most distinguished Members of the party opposite, who is no longer a member of the House, and was the first member of the Labour party to hold office, had views from which I do not differ as to the value of relief work. Mr. Burns, speaking in the House of Commons, on the 19th July, 1906—
  Mr. LANSBURY: He was a good Liberal.
  Mr. BETTERTON: Well, you repudiated him then.
  Mr. LANSBURY: He was a Liberal Minister.
  Mr. BETTERTON: All right, but this is what he said:
  "I believe that relief works ought to be the last resort of any community. They sterilise volition, sap self-reliance, and introduce into industry those very conditions of irregularity and low pay which we are seeking to remove.…If the works are State-aided, charity-fed, tax-founded, or rate-subsidised, they will only be a form of public benevolence that will divert the right money in the wrong way to wasteful ends with demoralising results. New works unproductive and unremunerative, fed by rates and taxes, are about the worst form of relief that can be imagined."
  I will give one other quotation which shows that Mr. Burns was not alone in the views that he expressed, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) in one of the first speeches that he made at that box after he became Prime Minister,

  2141
  said much the same thing in rather less florid language. He was speaking in this House on 12th February, 1924, and he said:
  "I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Government have no intention of drawing off from the normal channels of trade large sums for extemporised measures which can only he palliatives. That is the old, sound, Socialist doctrine, and the necessity of expenditure for subsidising schemes in direct relief of unemployment will he judged in relation to the greater necessity for maintaining undisturbed the ordinary financial
  facilities and resources of trade and industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1924; col. 760, Vol. 169.]
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If that is a description applied to such works as road making, land drainage and afforestation, the sooner the present Government get out of Office the better.
  Question put, "That Item Class V., Vote 9, be reduced by £100."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 149.

  Division No. 244.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

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

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hollins, A.

  Scurr, John

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  Sexton, James

  Batey, Joseph

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewie

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shield, G. W.

  Bellamy, A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Shinwell, E.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Kelly, W. T.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Kennedy, T.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bondfield, Margaret

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

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Briant, Frank

  Lansbury, George

  Snell, Harry

  Broad, F. A.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromfield, William

  Lawson, John James

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bromley, J.

  Lee, F.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Buchanan, G.

  Lowth, T.

  Sullivan, Joseph

  Cape, Thomas

  Lunn, William

  Taylor R. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Clarke, A. B.

  Mackinder, W.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Compton, Joseph

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Westwood, J.

  Connolly, M.

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

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)

  Montague, Frederick

  Whiteley, W.

  Day, Harry

  Murnin, H.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Duncan, C.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Dunnico, H.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Gardner, J. P.

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Palin, John Henry

  Windsor, Walter

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Gillett, George M.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

  Potts, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B. Smith.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

  Hardle, George D.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Dawson, Sir Phillip

  Albery, Irving James

  Burman, J. B.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

  Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Atkinson, C.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

  Clayton, G. C.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Bethel, A.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Blundell, F. N.

  Couper, J. B.

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

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

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

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Buchan, John

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

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Skelton, A. N.

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

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  King Commodore Henry Douglas

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Styles, Captain H. W.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Preston, William

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Loder, J. de V.

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Long, Major Eric

  Ramsden, E.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitehell

  Lougher, Lewis

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Tinne, J. A.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Ward, Lt.Col. A. L. (Kingston-on- Hull)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Ross, R. D.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  McLean, Major A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wells, S. R.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Wallace.

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

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Resolution agreed to.

  It being after Eleven, of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote.
  Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow: Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported:
  "That it is expedient to confirm an Agreement, dated the 14th day of December, 1928, and made between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland for continuing the Agreement confirmed by the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1926; and to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sum certified by the Joint Exchequer Board to be payable after the 31st day of March, 1930, from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom under the last-mentioned Agreement as so continued.'
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, and Mr. A. M. Samuel.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL.
  "to confirm and give effect to an Agreement made between the Treasury and the
  2144
  Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland for continuing the Agreement set forth in the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1926," presented accordingly, and read the First time; and to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MAN'S PENSION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres-Monsell.]
  Mr. POTTS: I hope the House will excuse me, because I am in rather a difficult position to speak, but I am rising, in accordance with arrangement, to put the case of Ernest Gillett, who resides in my borough. This man served for four years in the Army, and came back from the War Al, as he entered. He enlisted a second time during the Great War, and during the second period he was sent to Ireland. At a rifle practice in Ireland, he received an injury to his knee. Following thereon, other ailments developed in the man's leg, and the second paragraph of the Minister's letter, which I received on the 20th March, 1928, when I was dealing with the case, reads as follows:
  "It would appear that the writers of the medical certificates forwarded by you are under the impression that the functional

  2145
  paralysis came on Shortly after Mr. Gillett's discharge, but, as pointed out in the letter addressed to you on the 25th August last, it was not until some years after his discharge that he developed functional paralysis and chronic arthritis in the left leg, which subsequently extended to the right leg."
  I am going straight to the issue, because I want to give the Minister as much time as I have myself. The Minister says that the functional disorder arose in the left leg, and ultimately extended to the right leg, for which they are not responsible. When I was dealing with the case in March, 1928, I was not able to get certain certificates which, during the last few months, I have been able to get, and which I now have in my hand. The Minister cannot very well go back on his statement in the letter I have just read, and it has been repeated more than once, that chronic arthritis appeared in the man's left leg, and ultimately went into the right leg. I am not going to say that the Minister and his Department are wilfully or designedly making any statements which they do not honestly believe, but the documents in my hands absolutely disprove the statement that it arose in his left leg. In September, 1921, I find that it was assessed at 50 per cent. I have the Ministry's own document which I will hand to the Parliamentary Secretary when I have finished. The statement is contained in all the documents. I have 33 certificates, and these words are in certificate after certificate, In 1922 the documents say "chronic arthritis due to War service." When I get to 1923 find "chronic arthritis in the right knee due to War service." I have consulted doctors, in order to be sure of my position. I have taken advice and I find that chronic arthritis is paralysis or inflammation of the joints. I have a letter which is most convincing, dated 14th July, 1926:
  "With reference to your letter of recent date. I am directed by the Ministry of Pensions to inform you that in view of the fact that you are aware of the nature of your disability and entitlement, namely, chronic arthritis in the right knee, attributable to service, further notifications to this effect are considered unnecessary."
  Therefore, I say they have been holding out all the time in all the documents and in all the statements made, that it arose in the man's left leg. He used a calliper to the right leg for some considerable time and had to give it up. He then had to walk on two crutches, with
  2146
  the left leg in use, within my knowledge. You do not find the left leg named anywhere. If there are any more documents the man ought to have them, but he has not got any. If an injustice has been done to him, let it be put right. The doctors tell me this man has a good case and is entitled to a permanent pension. I have consulted three doctors in my own town and one in the House of Commons, and got the same information from all four.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I am sorry the hon. Member has to speak at a disadvantage, but I think I have all the points he was making. I have never disputed the fact that the man had chronic arthritis in the right knee. That has been accepted from the beginning. But the hon. Member said he got it at rifle practice. At the time he was injured there was an inquiry, and the man said he was not on duty at the time. After being discharged he said he got it at rifle practice. If he was at rifle practice he was on duty. That was not his statement at the time. We endeavoured to get confirmation of this fact from a comrade of his, who gave a different version altogether. I do not want to go into that matter, because the Ministry accepted the chronic arthritis of the knee as due to the service, and he was therefore pensioned for it. The demand is not for a further pension for the chronic arthritis of the knee; the demand is that because he now has the left leg bad this also is due to his War service, and that is the point on which we differ from the hon. Member. The contention that has been put forward by the British Legion is that the man used a caliper splint and that that was apparently responsible for the affection in the left leg. Their second contention is that the left leg condition is possibly due to the extension of the trouble in the right knee through the spine to the left knee. That is a contention put forward by his advisers that no medical officer of the Ministry nor, I fancy, any other competent doctor would accept as a proper suggestion. The view of the Ministry's medical officers is that this condition is purely functional, and that is borne out by a certificate which was sent by the British Legion, the certificate of a very well-known specialist in

  2147
  Leeds, who had the man under observation for some three weeks at his hospital. His certificate is to the effect that the paralysis is purely functional. There was a condition—I will not attempt to pronounce the word—but it means deformity of the spinal cord, which probably had nothing to do with the present condition. The specialist went on further to state that the fact that the paralysis was functional would be the only way in which there could be any possible connection with the original accident. He went on further to point out that there was an absence of any desire or intention on the part of the man to make a real effort. What does that mean? It means that the original accident could only indirectly be connected with his present condition by the fact that the man, who is, unfortunately, naturally a somewhat hysterical subject—a fact which had been noted in every medical board he has been before—might therefore have been led into imagining a general inability to use his other leg. That had to be rejected because even this remote possibility is held not to be really relevant, because of the lapse of time since the accident. The hon. Member has said a great deal about the fact that we had said that it was not until some years afterwards that we heard anything more about the paralysis. That is perfectly true. We have never disputed that he has had an injury to the right knee. In accepting that, it is only fair to say that we had given him a considerable benefit of doubt, and we pensioned him for that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is he getting a pension now?"] Yes, for the injury to his right leg. [An HON. MEMBER "What proportion?"] I am coming to that if the hon. Member will allow me to say it in my own way. We have never disputed that he had an injury, but what we do dispute is that the paralysis of the left leg is in any way due to the injury he had to his right leg some years before. He was injured in 1917 and he has been continuously pensioned at varying rates
  for that injury. It was not until 1926, some nine years afterwards. that
  this disability in the left leg began to appear. The medical officers of the Ministry do not agree that that is in any way connected with the original injury.
  2148
  I have been asked about the pension. The man has, for the injury to the right knee, a pensionable disability of 20 per cent., which is based on the degree of disablement found by the medical board in 1923. This assessment has been confirmed by two subsequent medical boards, one in March, 1926, and another on 31st May, 1926. A report by the Area Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services, who made an examination in November, 1926 in connection with the deterioration claim, indicated that no further treatment was then necessary for the right knee condition, and that it had not deteriorated since the last medical board. The only pensionable disability for which we are responsible is the injury to the right knee. We contend, and it is borne out by the specialist who examined him on behalf of the British Legion, that the disability to the left leg has nothing whatever to do with the disability in the right knee. For the latter injury we pension him, and that pension he has and will continue to have, but we cannot accept any liability for any further disability which has appeared in his left leg and which is now incapacitating him.
  Mr. POTTS: Can the hon. and gallant Member explain the letter from the Department which I have in my possession? There can be no doubt how the accident arose. Here is his own writing; no matter what the Minister now says.
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: If the hon. Member wants to know why I made the statement, it is because I have had the opportunity of seeing the certificate which he signed at the time that the injury took place, in which he wrote, in his own handwriting, that he was not on duty at the time. That is why I said it.
  Mr. POTTS: I will inquire into that statement. I will not dispute it at the moment. Can the hon. and gallant Member answer this letter, in which the Department says that the trouble arose in the left leg and ultimately went into the right leg? That is quite contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary states now. As a matter of fact, the man says it arose in the right leg, went into the right arm, and then went into the left leg. Those are the facts.
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I say that the accident happened to his right leg and the trouble is in his left leg. It was the right leg in which the injury took place.
  Mr. POTTS: You said that it took place in the left leg.
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, I said it was the right leg.
  Mr. POTTS: His pension is 8s. a week, with 2s. for the wife. They had a pension of 28s. a week for the two, which was reduced to 10s. a week for the two, and they have to live with her father and mother, two old age pensioners. This is not a permanent pension but is simply a conditional pension carried on for a few years, as the case may be, and from time to time reviewed. I hope that the Department will reconsider the matter and find out the actual facts of the case, and do justice to this man.
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I have given the hon. Member all the actual facts. If it is a conditional pension the man can
  2150
  always claim deterioration for the injury to the right knee. The Department is only responsible for the injury to the right knee; and for nothing else.
  Mr. POTTS: The arthritis arises out of the accident. On the hon. and gallant Member's own showing, the Department is paying for arthritis now.
  Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: We are paying for the injury to the right knee, and we say that the paralysis of the left leg has nothing to do with the right knee. The disability to the left leg has no connection with the injury he received to his right knee. We pension him for his right knee but for this further disability which has supervened we are not entitled to pension him.
  Mr. POTTS: If a man gets a slight injury somewhere and dies, are you not responsible for his death?
  It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES (STATISTICS).
  SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES (STATISTICS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  LAWN-MOWERS (IMPORTS).
  LAWN-MOWERS (IMPORTS).
  MPERIAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS (PROFESSORSHIP, LONDON UNIVERSITY).
  MPERIAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS (PROFESSORSHIP, LONDON UNIVERSITY).
  ANNUAL REPORTS (SALES).
  ANNUAL REPORTS (SALES).
  EAST AFRICA COMMISSION (REPORT).
  EAST AFRICA COMMISSION (REPORT).
  IRAQ (ARMED FORCES, COST).
  IRAQ (ARMED FORCES, COST).
  ANGLO-FRENCH NAVAL COMPROMISE (CANADA).
  ANGLO-FRENCH NAVAL COMPROMISE (CANADA).
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND).
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND).
  CIVIL AVIATION (DEVELOPMENT).
  CIVIL AVIATION (DEVELOPMENT).
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
ROYAL NAVY.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  HEATING ARRANGEMENTS, DEVONPORT BARRACKS.
  HEATING ARRANGEMENTS, DEVONPORT BARRACKS.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  CLERICAL AND EXECUTIVE GRADES (PROMOTION).
  CLERICAL AND EXECUTIVE GRADES (PROMOTION).
  WRITING ASSISTANTS, CLERICAL AND "P" CLASSES.
  WRITING ASSISTANTS, CLERICAL AND "P" CLASSES.
  CLUBS (STATISTICS).
  CLUBS (STATISTICS).
  STATIONERY OFFICE (ACCOUNTS).
  STATIONERY OFFICE (ACCOUNTS).
  INCOME TAX (PASSPORT HOLDERS).
  INCOME TAX (PASSPORT HOLDERS).
  BETTING DUTY.
  BETTING DUTY.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  CLOWNE, DRONFIELD AND WHITWELL.
  CLOWNE, DRONFIELD AND WHITWELL.
  SHEFFIELD.
  SHEFFIELD.
  BUILDING INDUSTRY.
  BUILDING INDUSTRY.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  HOMECRAFT TRAINING.
  HOMECRAFT TRAINING.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (SUPERINTENDENTS, RETIREMENT).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (SUPERINTENDENTS, RETIREMENT).
  MOTORING OFFENCES.
  MOTORING OFFENCES.
  CASUAL WARDS.
  CASUAL WARDS.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  RADIUM.
  RADIUM.
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES.
  MENTAL DEFECTIVES.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD SACKVILLE.
Charles John Sackville-West, Lord Sackville of Knole in the County of Kent, K.B.E., C.B., C.M.G., having succeeded to the title on the death of his brother, Lionel Edward Sackville-West, Lord Sackville, by virtue of a special remainder contained in a Patent dated October 2, 1877—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
AGE OF MARRIAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Adjourned debate on the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (which stood appointed for to-day) put off till to-morrow.
ASIATIC STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Rend 3ª and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY) had given Notice to move, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Local Government Bill and to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill (in the event of its being received from the Commons) over the other Notices and Orders of the Day whenever the said Bills are set down.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper relative to dispensing with Standing Order No. XXI in respect of the two Local Government Bills. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, was good enough, as we
1098
might have expected, not to press his Motion for the Committee stage of his Bill which was set down for to-day. He has taken it off the Paper. But I think it would be just as well, if your Lordships are willing, that we should pass the Motion which stands in my name in order to avoid a similar difficulty arising in the future. It is really very important that these two great Local Government Bills for England and Scotland should have a fair opportunity when they are set down, and I believe your Lordships would agree with me at any rate to that extent. Therefore, if the House is good enough to pass this Motion, then they will have precedence whenever they are set down.
But it has been pointed out to me since the Motion was put upon the Paper that there may be reasons to make an exception. Some very important matter might arise interesting to noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, or noble Lords sitting above the gangway, and it might be well to make an exception in special cases even when one of these Bills is set down. Therefore I propose to add at the end the words "unless the Government agree to the contrary" in order to leave a locus penitentiæ in that portion. It is according to precedent. I move the Motion with that addition.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI. be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Local Government Bill and to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill (in the event of its being received from the Commons) over the other Notices and Orders of the Day whenever the said Bills are set down, unless the Government agree to the contrary.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess has said. I think that important business of this kind should have precedence, leaving it open, as the noble Marquess says, on any special occasion which might arise, to decide otherwise where the Government might think an agreement to the contrary would be better. I thank the noble Marquess and think it will be a great advantage.
LORD OLIVIER: May I take this opportunity to remind the noble Marquess that there is a Motion on the Paper for

1099
March 13 which might interfere with the Scottish Bill, but which was put down for that day on the suggestion made personally by the noble Marquess?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think, if I recall my programme to my mind, there is any chance that the Local Government Bill will be set down on that day, but I would not pledge myself.
LORD OLIVIER: The noble Marquess said it would be put down for the 13th.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I dare say I did say so. I say a great many foolish things.
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, namely, That the Bill be read a second time this day six months, which was moved yesterday by Lord Parmoor.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, those of your Lordships who were here yesterday afternoon, and all who have studied this Bill, will agree it is seldom that so complicated a measure is introduced into your Lordships' House. It consists of 130 clauses and 12 Schedules. I am sure your Lordships will have been very grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the clear and lucid explanation which he gave of what is contained in that measure. Indeed, so clear and lucid was it that in the course of his explanation I felt that I myself almost understood what was in the famous formula, although I am afraid, on reconsidering the matter this morning, my understanding of the formula is not quite so clear as it was while the noble and learned Lord was speaking. I hope that when we come to discuss the matter in Committee he will be able to make it completely understandable to every member of your Lordships' House.
This is, we are all agreed, a very large and a very ambitious Bill. It covers a great deal of ground. In the first place there is the reform of the Poor Law, which is contained in Part I and Part II. I regret that Part II was never considered
1100
in Committee in another place. Unfortunately the operation of the "guillotine" allowed no opportunity of discussing it; therefore your Lordships will, I hope, be the more ready to give some consideration to Amendments which will probably be moved in Committee of this House dealing with that Part of the Bill. Then, there are the changes in the highway administration which are in Part III, the rating relief to the agricultural, industrial and freight-transport industries in Part V, the institution of new financial relations between the Exchequer and the local authorities in Part VI, and then again the recommendations of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government, more or less agreed to by everybody, which are in Part IV.
It would be idle for the most determined opponent of His Majesty's Government to declare that there was not some considerable amount of good to be found in this long and complicated measure. It is not our business to point out what is good. It is rather our business to concentrate upon the criticisms which we may wish to make. There is in the first place the considerable increase in the bureaucratic power which is conferred in this Bill. There is running all through the Bill an increase of power to the Ministry, to the Minister himself and also to the members of the Ministry behind him. Let me take a few instances. There is Clause 4 of the Tenth Schedule, there is subsection (4) of Clause 130, and also—and this is the only one with which I will deal at length—there is Clause 123. That, I agree, is only a temporary power to the bureaucracy, but it does confer upon the Minister of the day very large and wide authority. I would only venture to suggest to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether it would not be possible to make some little alteration in subsection (2) of Clause 123, which says:—
"Every Order made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made."
I am not quite sure whether it would not be a good thing if His Majesty's Government would agree to make some such Amendment to this as they have made to the Cloth Manufacturers' Bill, which is to the effect that the Order is to lie upon the Table of your Lordships' House for 26 days before it can become effective.

1101
To say that the Order shall lie upon the Table of the House for some unlimited period does not seem to me to give to either House quite the same authority as if there was a definite period fixed in the Bill during which it is to lie upon the Table.
There is also, I think, some ground for complaint of the extent to which this Bill has been brought into your Lordships' House and into another place as the result of outside bargaining amongst the various local authorities concerned. There has been for a very long time a number of consultations as the result of which we may find here, as happened certainly in another place, that Amendments which we may wish to propose have already been made the subject of bargaining between local authorities and His Majesty's Government and that it is difficult for your Lordships' House to make Amendments.
There are really, of course, two principles underlying the Bill. The first is that some change in the local government system should be made. All Parties are agreed that it is necessary that there should be a change in our system of local government to-day. We are agreed upon that, although there are a large number of people who would wish to see the operation of this Part of the Bill postponed until the autumn—not, indeed, that anything is likely to take place under this Part of the Bill until after the autumn, but because after the intervention of the General Election we shall be perfectly certain that this Bill, the principles of which were not before the country at the last General Election, has met with the approval of the country. If such an Amendment were proposed and accepted by His Majesty's Government a very simple Resolution in the next Parliament would allow the Bill to be proceeded with without any further delay. The second principle underlying the Bill is that there should be relief to the rates. We are all agreed that there ought to be relief to the rates, and the criticisms which I shall make this afternoon are on the methods by which both these principles are applied. We are all agreed that in both these matters there is need for a change. Where we part company is that we are not convinced that the methods which are suggested by His Majesty's Government are the best in the circumstances,
1102
and we regret that the more because adopting a wrong principle now will make it more difficult to adopt a better principle in the future, and what is already a complicated matter will become still more complicated in the future.
I will venture to make one or two criticisms on the reform of the Poor Law as proposed by His Majesty's Government. In the first place, I would say that His Majesty's Government do not seem to have been bold enough, because, the question of the able-bodied unemployed is not dealt with. There is no greater question before the country than how to deal with the great mass of unemployment which exists. It is really an urgent question which ought not to allow of delay. There is nothing in this Bill which deals with that question. I would even say that the problem of the able-bodied unemployed is entirely shirked by this Bill; there is nothing in the Bill which deals with the matter, which really is one of immediate importance.
In the second place, I would say that the Bill seems to me to abolish boards of guardians and Poor Law unions and to transfer their functions to the county councils and county borough councils without altering the provisions of the law itself. Local public assistance committees will be appointed and that, I think, is a very valuable step, because it will undoubtedly give that local knowledge and that sympathy which are really essential when you are dealing with the classes who are going to be dealt with under this Bill. For myself, I venture to say that the disappearance of the guardians is a matter of sentimental regret. There has been in the last few years an immense improvement in the work which has been carried on by the boards of guardians. Those of your Lordships who remember the Report of the Royal Commission upon Local Government in 1909 will remember how severely they were dealt with in that Report, and how their abolition was recommended, and how at that time people of all Parties were agreed that they ought to disappear. Stimulated, I think, very largely by the criticisms which were made at that time, these bodies are now doing very much better work than they were doing in 1909, and although I am not sure that that entirely

1103
justifies their existence, at any rate I would say it is a most praiseworthy development on their part.
These committees, however, are not to be elected committees. I would like to see a certainty that the people upon these local Public Assistance Committees or Guardians Committees will be elected and not selected. Indeed, I would go further and say that I would like to see the members elected by some method or proportional representation, for the reason that it is, unfortunately, a growing custom with some of our public authorities that when one Party secures a majority they should sweep away altogether all the representatives of the other Parties from that same body. I think it has been done by bodies with which noble Lords below me are connected and that is a most unfortunate thing. Very often it sweeps away that continuity of administration which is a very valuable thing in our local administration, and I think it is a very real danger, whether it is done by noble Lords opposite or by noble Lords beside me, that people serving on those committees should be entirely swept off unless they happen to agree with the Party which has a majority upon the county council for the time being.
There is yet another hint or criticism which I would make, and that is whether there is not something in the complaint, of which most of your Lordships must have heard, that the county councils are gradually finding too much work to do. Hardly a year passes in which Parliament does not give to county councils more and more work. Those of your Lordships who are at all associated with local government will, I am sure, bear me out in the statement that the work is increasing to such an extent that it is becoming more and more difficult to find suitable people in the various areas who are able to give time voluntarily to carry out this largely increased amount of work. For the moment they can be found, but I think there is a very real danger that before very long the supply of people of this kind may really be exhausted and it may be difficult to find those who will be able to carry on the work in future. This Bill adds a great deal to the work of the county councils. They will have all the work of the boards of guardians, and they will also be expected to work on the new
1104
committees, and as time goes on they will, I think, have more and more work to do. It is really becoming in some areas a very serious question as to how far people will still be walling to come forward in order to carry on this work.
The third criticism I venture to make is that there is no certain abolition of the general mixed workhouse. There is no Party in the State which does not agree with the criticisms made in the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government that there really are evils in these general mixed workhouses which ought to be got rid of as soon as they possibly can be. I very much regret that there is nothing more distinctive in this measure which would secure an object of that kind. The fact of the matter is that this Bill does not really break up the Poor Law: it only transfers its work from one body to another. I doubt whether county boroughs and county councils will always be the best areas to work the Poor Law. Very often their areas are small and the trade interests within the county boroughs are so small as to be homogeneous. In those districts if trade is bad everybody in the area suffers and there is not that chance of elasticity from other trades in the same area doing better while one trade is doing badly. In instances of this kind we really want, if possible, to secure an area sufficiently large to make it certain that if one trade is doing badly, there will be a chance of other trades doing better and therefore of being able to bear the additional burden.
I regret another thing about the Bill and that is that non-county boroughs and urban districts with populations of over 50,000 are not to be given the same status as county boroughs. I do not understand what seems to me to be almost a prejudice against non-county boroughs. Take some of the cases. There is Rhondda, which is bigger than any Welsh county borough except Cardiff, and yet that is to be under the Glamorgan County Council. Take Cambridge, with a population of 59,000. That is to be under the county council. Oxford, which has a population of 2,000 less, 57,000, is to be entirely independent. That is so simply because Oxford is a county borough and Cambridge is a non-county borough. That seems to be an anomaly which might very well be

1105
altered, and I am glad to think that one of my noble friends will propose an Amendment in the Committee, affording to non-county boroughs and urban district councils with a population of over 50,000 an opportunity of being put upon the same status as county boroughs, which are very often much smaller than they are themselves. I think Canterbury is a county borough with a population much smaller even than that of Oxford or Cambridge, and yet it is to have independent powers which are denied to non-county boroughs in Essex, including Ilford, with a population of 108,000, Leyton, with 128,000, and Walthamstow, with 124,000. All these are to be put under the authority of the county council. The county boroughs, which I think on the whole are rather artificial divisions, will be independent, while these very much larger non-county boroughs are to be put under the authority of the county councils.
I will venture to make yet another criticism—namely, that there is no grant in this Bill for the assistance of poor relief as such, and it extends Government control over county boroughs by bringing Poor Law expenditure under district audit, from which it is now free. I am not at all sure that that is not another example of the centralisation and bureaucracy of which your Lordships have expressed more than once in debate, although never in Division, your apprehension and doubt. I am not quite sure whether it would not have been a good thing if the Government had taken this opportunity of making larger regional units to deal not only with the highways but with other subjects of the same kind. The roads almost certainly ought to be dealt with by regional units, and although there is power for county councils to combine among themselves and to consult with county boroughs, I am not sure that it would not have been a good thing to allow them to make a more compulsory scheme than at the present time. There are, at the present time, 82 county boroughs and 62 county councils, and I am not sure whether, if larger units are instituted for these regional objects, it would not be a good thing to consider the appointment of smaller bodies for the Poor Law, which needs a democratic and personal touch.
1106
There is an alternative, upon which I will touch briefly. It is that the Poor Law functions should be split up altogether in three directions. In the first place, all the health, the mental deficiency and the children's services should have been given to the county councils, the county borough councils, and the non-county borough councils, to be dealt with under the powers which they already have to deal with those not under the Poor Law. All those authorities have considerable powers to deal with other people, and it seems to me that the relief of the able-bodied poor might have been delegated to those insurance committees of which we have heard something, linked up with the unemployment insurance scheme; and that the relief of the other poor should have been entrusted to the home assistance committees of which there is some real need. Probably the best thing would have been a kind of registration committee, which ascertains what kind of relief or assistance is going into the various homes. I do not think that that would have been a very difficult thing to carry out.
The problem is not so very large. There are, at present, under poor relief, 450,000, including dependants, receiving domiciliary assistance—part of the unemployment problem—and out of these it is generally considered that there are some 200,000 amongst the unemployed at the present time. Then the sick and lunatics, whether in institutions or not, number 507,000, and those might be treated with other people not paupers, for whom services are already provided by the local authorities under various Acts. There remain, in and out of institutions, 407,000. These can be further divided. Over 230,000 of them are children, with whom it is quite evident the local authorities should deal as part of the general educational system. Then there are 118,000 women, of whom 100,000 receive relief at home, and many of whom are old age pensioners. There remain only 58,000 men, of whom 53,000 are in institutions and 5,000 receive relief at home. I cannot help feeling; that by dealing with them under the unemployment insurance scheme we might have done more by co-ordination to deal with the problem in a more satisfactory way, especially in

1107
view of the fact that the whole problem of the able-bodied poor is not dealt with in the present Bill.
I have spoken so far of the amendment of the Poor Law, and I would like to say something with regard to the financial provisions of the Bill. The complicated formula I have already referred to, and I will not venture to repeat my remarks, but I think we ought to remember that this formula does not come into full operation until 1947, and that until then there is a series of transitional measures under which the grant is given. The real difficulty about the formula seems to me to be this, that the Government necessarily had in the given circumstances, and because of the premises they laid down, to make good the loss of rates to the local authority and redistribute the grant, and they tried to do it under one formula. I think it would be easier to make some formula for either one or the other; but it is extremely difficult to have any single formula to deal with both, because the conditions are so different that it is almost impossible to make a single formula which deals with both cases. And indeed, on the whole I would say that the difficulties might almost have proved to the Government that they were perhaps proceeding upon a wrong path, and that they might have tried a different method.
But I suppose the real criticism which most of us will make in the country, and which, therefore, it is only right to mention here, is the criticism which the Lord Chancellor seems to be quite conscious that we should make, find that is that in the circumstances of the case a great deal of this relief will go to prosperous industries, as well as to industries which are not prosperous. A certain amount of it, of course, will go to agriculture, and here we have to deal with the question as to who gets it—whether it goes to the landlord or to the tenant. The object of the Government was to secure that any relief under this Bill should go to the tenant. The noble Lord who spoke last night and moved the rejection of the Bill said that in his opinion it would certainly go to the landlords, and I really do not know which view I ought to take. But, on the whole, I thought the right thing to do was to refer to a previous debate which was mentioned by the noble Lord, which took place in another place in the year
1108
1896, and I was very much struck by reading what was then said by a right hon. gentleman who has been mentioned in this House before, Mr. C. A. Cripps. Now, Mr. Cripps in 1896 had a very different opinion from that which Lord Parmoor expressed last night.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl but—
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Lord did not wish to interrupt, and I do not know why he did it. The noble Lord is more anxious than anybody else in the House that nobody else should speak while he is speaking, and if he claims that right himself he really must allow other people to claim it for themselves.
LORD PARMOOR: Where a misrepresentation is made, as a matter of order one is entitled there and then to say it is a misrepresentation. But for that, you could not have an ordered discussion.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Of course, there is no question of misrepresentation. And if the noble Lord really insists upon the matter I would venture to go a little further, and point out to him that, while he is speaking no member of your Lordships' House is allowed to speak. I always thought it was the inalienable right of any noble Lord to speak to his neighbour if he is not interested in the speech which at that moment is being made, and in another place it is the obvious way in which members express their opinion of the speaker who is then addressing them. The noble Lord is the only member in your Lordships' House who never allows us to exercise that right, and I may say that it is very inconvenient on his part.
I will now resume what I was saying when the noble Lord said he did not wish to interrupt my remarks. He said last night that the benefit will not go to the farmers, but in the main to the landowners. As I say, Mr. Cripps in 1896 had a very different opinion, and he expressed it not only once, but three times. First of all, on April 28 he said that far the largest part of the relief would go to the tenant and not to the landlord, though the labourers might get a little share; on June 23, he said that the tenant would get the benefit in the vast majority of cases—in some cases the labourer, and in some cases the landlord,

1109
who ought to get it; and on July 1, he said the benefits would go to tenants and labourers. In those circumstances I naturally found myself in a great difficulty. I really did not know which was the right opinion, and on which side I ought to come down, but I will admit that in the end the correspondence which took place between the Ministry of Agriculture and the local authority at Sutton Bridge convinced me that on the whole it would go to the landlord. Because on that occasion the Ministry wrote to the local authority to say that, having regard to the relief which was to be anticipated under this Bill, the rent in future which was paid by the local authority should be higher than it had been in the past.
As your Lordships know, industries are to have 75 per cent, relief whether the rates in that area be 36 s. or 8s. It is as if His Majesty's Government went to industry as to an unjust steward, and said: "Take thy bill and write down quickly. Write off 75 per cent, of the rates that you owe." This relief, when it comes to be translated into what is useful to the consumer, represents but a small sum, and amounts in the case of the brewer to 144th part of a penny on a pint of beer; or one-fiftieth of a penny on a packet of ten cigarettes, or one fiftieth part of the cost of a penny newspaper. Remissions of that kind can only lead to an increase of dividends, and not to a reduction of price to the consumer. That is one of the chief reasons why we object to it.
But there is this, too, that there is nothing for the benefit of housekeepers or shopkeepers, who are very often themselves much worse off than these prosperous trades, and who may find that while their assessment will very likely be higher they will also have to pay the Petrol Tax. It is rather hard on shopkeepers and householders who are badly off to find themselves mulcted to that extent. We would wish rather in the first place to relieve distressed areas, and also to take the pressure from the poor people who feel the burden. This Bill ignores almost entirely the shopkeeper and the householder, however badly off they may be, however high may be the pressure of rates upon them; and it confines its attention to freights, agriculture, and manufacturing industries. It is
1110
based, further, upon an arbitrary distinction between production and distribution—a confusing distinction, and one which, I think, is very likely to give a great deal of employment to the legal profession during the next few years. After all, what is a baker? Most of us would say that a baker produced bread, but, as I understand, the baker will not benefit from any relief of rates, while he will have to pay an additional amount for the Petrol Tax when he goes round distributing the loaves, of bread in the villages which he supplies. Very often the small shopkeeper needs help much more than the successful manufacturer, who is working on a very large scale. They may, indeed, not only find that they have no reduction of rates to-day, but that in the future their rates will go up. They may pay more because the guarantee of 1s. per head, which was referred to by the Lord Chancellor yesterday, is based on the standard year of 1928, and does not cover those increases which are almost certain, due to better education and increased expenditure upon health services.
There is this additional hardship on the shopkeeper and the householder, that any future increases of rates will be levied upon a narrower basis, because agriculture will be left out altogether and industry will be relieved to the extent of 75 per cent. The result must be that the shopkeeper and housekeeper, if there is any large expenditure upon education and health services, such as we all of us on both sides of the House wish to see, will have to pay more because the rate is levied upon a narrower basis. These health services, I am sure, we are all anxious to see extended as far as possible. They are already doing great service to the community. They have, I am quite sure, a real effect upon the death rate, and all of us, irrespective of our politics, congratulate ourselves and the country as we see those services growing and prospering. We wish to see them grow still further. It is a very curious thing and very hard upon the shopkeepers and householders that the very large increase which is taking place must really be paid foe by the shopkeepers and householders, and that these large and successful factories will be relieved of the burden except as to 25 per cent of their rateable value.

1111
These seem to be anomalies which might well have been like a finger post to His Majesty's Government, making them ask themselves whether they were not really treading the wrong road and whether they might not have found in some other methods a better way of relieving the over-burdened ratepayers of this country. There is a curious anomaly in Clause 96, which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack yesterday, the clause by which the Minister of Health can stimulate these health services. The only way he can stimulate these health services is by taking away all the money which they are allowed to spend on that particular object by way of stimulating them to spend a little more. Surely, the Government could have devised some other method which would have been better and would have done more to help these health services to be continued.
I confess that I distrust the system of block grants. The percentage grants have not operated badly on the whole. Something at any rate has been accomplished, and with more pressure on the part of the Minister in Whitehall more might have been done. The whole additional cost will now fall upon a narrower basis, on people whose assessments, as I have said, may be higher, and who will also have to pay the Petrol Tax. I am not sure that it would not have been better to have had a combination of the block grant and percentage grant systems. There might have been, for example, a block grant to begin with and on top of that a percentage grant to encourage the local authorities to spend more on these services than they do at the present time.
The noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack rightly pointed out last night that under the scheme of His Majesty's Government a very large portion of the rate relief is made to industries which are suffering particularly at the present moment. That is so far true. On the other hand, there are a certain number of prosperous industries which get more than it seeems to me they need get. It is true that coal, cotton, iron and steel all get a very large proportion of the relief and so does engineering, which is undoubtedly suffering, but, on the other hand, industries like the chemical industries, breweries, bleaching and dyeing, foods, tobacco, paper and allied trades, which are comparatively prosperous and
1112
some of them very prosperous indeed, are getting a good share of this money which might well have been given to industries or individuals who are suffering very seriously to-day. I doubt very much whether the £5,000,000 of new money will be enough. It is not fair to speak of it as new money; a great deal of it comes from the Road Fund. I cannot help feeling that before very long, probably in three years from now, there will be a considerable deficit to be met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Petrol Tax, unless it increases very largely, will be quite insufficient to pay for the relief now given, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a few years will probably be obliged to meet fresh expenditure and to impose fresh taxation upon the country. Nor do I feel altogether certain that these large industries will in future pay even for the services which they receive or that the rates that they pay will cover the benefits they get in such matters as police, sewage, and street lighting. The extra charge will be thrown upon those small ratepayers, of whom I have already spoken, who are just as much burdened by rates as these larger factories.
While all of us are in favour of the principle that some reform in local government is needed and that some relief should be given, we have a profound distrust of the methods adopted by His Majesty's Government. The Government have diagnosed the evils. Other people have diagnosed and exposed those evils even before His Majesty's Government introduced this Bill. My political friends have pointed them out, but instead of the remedies which we proposed we have the remedies embodied in the Bill which I have ventured to criticise to your Lordships this afternoon. I hope that the remedies in this measure, proposed in haste, will not be repented at leisure. For myself I think that in many respects which I have indicated they will prove to be unsound and deleterious.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, whatever may be the opinions held on this Bill, all will be agreed that it is a great constructive measure which shows vision and far-reaching knowledge. For myself, in spite of the lucid exposition given by the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack last night, I still find myself in the maze of derating. I pro-

1113
pose to limit my remarks to Part I of the Bill of which I have some knowledge, and particularly to that part of it, which concerns the foundation of hospitals. I do so with less hesitation because in another place pressure of time was such that discussion was strictly limited. In the clauses of Part I of this Bill there are clauses which enable, and, more than that, may easily encourage, councils to found general hospitals for the treat merit of general medical and surgical cases. Whether this is a right or wrong policy, it is wise to impress upon your Lordships that this is a new departure, a departure which probably ushers in a new era in the administration of medicine in this country.
For myself, I am inclined to think that the proposals are right if they are suitably safeguarded. I ask your Lordships to imagine the whole field of curative medicine of which neither the councils nor their medical advisers have had any previous knowledge or experience. They have gained a certain limited knowledge in the application of curative medicine in the tuberculosis clinics and in maternity. As regards that large field of general surgery and medicine which are treated in the general hospitals of this country their experience amounts to extremely little. The fact that the councils have run Poor Law hospitals is but little training for the running of big general hospitals as we know and understand them. These powers which are given in the Bill not only enable the councils to convert Poor Law hospitals into general hospitals, but give them the power of founding general hospitals. These powers come at a time when the demand for hospital accommodation is increasing throughout this country. The fact is that the hospitals are no longer the need of a class; they are the need of the whole nation. They used to be for the sick poor; now we are all poor and sometimes sick. Anyone may need a hospital in these days. The progress in knowledge demands it. Social and economic conditions demand it.
The first reason why is the progress of knowledge. The art of medicine now calls to its aid a number of sciences, sciences mobilised on its behalf. These new sciences require team work. If I may give a simple example, years ago a cough, a disease of the chest, required a stethescope and a bottle of medicine. To-day it requires, besides, the clinical
1114
knowledge of the physician, the radiologist and the bacteriologist. A surgeon who wishes to operate on the stomach now requires in addition to his own skill, the skill, perhaps, of the chemist or the radiologist. In other words there is the necessity of bringing together many branches of knowledge which have to act in co-ordination if you wish to attain your result. That can only be done by organisation. Each of these specialities requires its equipment. These equipments have to be brought together not only for efficiency but for cost, because you have the striking fact that the more that science progresses the greater the cost of treatment becomes. Therefore, but for what I might call mass production a large proportion of the community would be without those benefits. That, then, is a reason why people in increasing numbers need institutional treatment, which, in other words, is hospital treatment.
It is a fact which has to be admitted that the voluntary hospitals of this country cannot entirely fulfil those functions. It seems to me that the question—I have no doubt that it was before the Government when they drew up this Bill—is how this hiatus is to be filled up. There is one way in which there can be a considerable extension of a, form of co-operative hospital in those homogeneous communities which are increasing in number and are known as garden cities and garden suburbs. There is great scope there for a system of cooperative treatment and for co-operation in matters of health. By linking up these co-operative health societies with the insurance companies there could be a certain solution of the difficulty of hospital provision. Even when that is allowed for there still remains a large gap to be filled. That is why I think it is proved and that the case is made out that further hospital provision is needed. In short it comes to this, that all the conditions of to-day tend to move the location of illness from the home to the institution, and the need for this hospital accommodation is great.
We have to remember, however, that neither the councils nor their medical advisers have had up to now any experience of the curative treatment of disease. If, for example, you take the medical staffs that advise the councils, they con-

1115
sist of medical officers of health and certain people who look alter the clinics. Their experience is limited to their own domain and very excellent work they do; but their experience of curative medicine is little or none; yet they will be called upon under this Bill to fulfil those important functions. It must be borne in mind that four-fifths of the medical men of this country are engaged in curative medicine. It is in this respect that I think Part I of this Bill is defective. It seems to show a lack of appreciation or the essential conditions of success. It is almost as if it said in effect to the Public Assistance Committees: "You can convert your Poor Law hospitals if you wish. You can build large hospitals if you wish. We would like you to co-opt a few people who know something about the running of a general hospital, but we will not force you to do so."
No doubt some councils will think that anybody can found a hospital. I would point out to your Lordships that a hospital is not a building made with hands; it is an organisation, it is an assemblage of great traditions. The hospital service of this country has grown up through the years. Its efficiency, its flexibility of administration, its public spirit and its warmth of heart have all gathered round what is called the voluntary system. That system has made the hospitals of England famous throughout the world. More than that, these hospitals draw to their service the young man of talent. It is his great ambition to get there. There he works for years at a pittance in order to gain experience. There he earns his reputation and his discipline. There he gets that curious atmosphere of knowledge and service. That is the current of events. That is the recognised road within the profession. Further than that it is from these hospitals that the nurses come.
Is it not obvious that the voluntary hospitals of the country should be made the centre, the kernel round which any new hospital system should be built, and that any legislation should provide that this mode of progress is not only permitted but secured? Surely, the correct policy is to foster the voluntary hospital, remembering that it is a very tender plant and might easily be killed. Let the voluntary hospital lead, let it direct you in building up what I admit is
1116
needed—that is, a new and extended hospital policy for the country. The dangers of not doing this are very real. Supposing there is no co-opted minority on these Public Assistance Committees. Supposing, for example, they have a free hand to do what they will. Supposing (and this is not imagination) a council is returned committed to the policy of a whole-time municipal medical service. That council would set out to build up a service independent of the voluntary hospitals, competing with them and overlapping them, and there is no one to say them nay. That is no mere figment of the imagination. There are, at this moment, boroughs running, or trying to run, a municipal service. There are certain people who avow that their object is to set up municipal hospitals, to staff them with a full-time staff, and run them as a form of municipalised service. That surely would be a disaster.
How are they going to get their staff? I presume they would advertise for it, just as if skilled men like physicians and surgeons grew like gooseberries on a bush. It has already been tried. Advertisement does not bring the right people. It does not secure that round pegs go into round holes, and already there have been consequences which are lamentable as the result of the wrong people staffing hospitals and doing work for which they were not trained and are not suited.
There is a danger, and a very serious danger, if you permit the councils, whose experience of running curative medicine is up to now small, almost to diminishing point, to undertake this new venture without on the one hand any form of co-option of people who are skilled in the administration of hospitals, and on the other hand without any assistance from doctors whose lives are spent in doing the work of curative medicine. I plead that the Government will make it compulsory that there shall be co-option of a minority skilled in hospital work on these Public Assistance Committees. It was done in the case of education. On the Education Committee it is compulsory that there shall be a co-opted minority of people skilled in education. If it was sound to do it for education, why not do it for health? There is no argument for the one which is not applicable to the other.

1117
One knows that when this Bill was before another place the Government had not been able to take a full measure of the opposition to the Bill, and I have no doubt that when they made co-option optional they did it because they did not wish to increase the opposition in the country. But it is surely clear now that the country is in favour of the Bill, and there is no longer, therefore, an excuse for not doing that which all those people who are connected with the public health outside the official world are in favour of doing. The medical profession, by practical unanimity, has requested that the co-option of the minority skilled in hospital work shall be made compulsory, and we do appeal very strongly to His Majesty's Government to concede that point. King Edward's Hospital Fund has taken the same line, and, on its merits, I put it to your Lordships, would you start a new venture and a sound venture, one that may lead to a wide establishment of municipal hospitals for curative medicine in this country, and neglect all the traditions and the knowledge that have been gathered during the years?
There is one other Amendment I would urge on His Majesty's Government and that is this. Up to now the medical staff of the health services of this country has been run by a small number of medical men. They have been men who have specialised in preventive medicine. They have consisted in the country of medical officers of health, tuberculosis officers, school medical officers, and I would like to guard myself by saying that there is no one who admires their work more than I do, but it is a work of a strictly limited application. They have never had anything to do with disease. Many of them have never had any contact with hospitals since their student days. How can those men be expected wisely to advise their councils on this large question of curative hospitals? Ever since the Ministry of Health Bill was passed it has been a most regrettable fact that the policy of the official doctor—the doctor who is paid by fee, the medical officer of health and the officers I have already noted—proceeds on lines totally divergent from that of those doctors who constitute four-fifths of the profession and who belong to the curative branch. That divergence is lamentable.
1118
It was a serious matter when the council only had to deal with preventive medicine, and it is a still more serious thing if this divergence should continue now—this divergence for which the Ministry of Health has been responsible, from the time the Ministry was founded.
To meet that I suggest quite a simple method, which has been before the Ministry of Health for some time, and that is that there should be set up under the chairmanship of the medical officer of health an advisory council of doctors in each district which the council administers. That is a simple remedy. It would bring the experience of the men who know to the benefit of the medical men who have to administer. I believe that the hospital policy in this Bill is capable of great and continued benefit to the community, and if only the Government will accept the safeguards which I have adumbrated, and which should take the form of Amendments at a later stage, they would ensure that this scheme not only reforms but opens up avenues of progress which will lead to the greater health of the people, in which respect we fain would see this country show the way.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, having until quite recently been shamefully ignorant of the subject of local government, and having given a considerable amount of study to it during the past three months, I have come to the conclusion that this Bill is an attempt at government of the people by experts for experts. I do not think I have met a single expert even who understands it all, but I am living in hopes that the noble Earl (Lord Onslow) will prove a brilliant exception to my experience. There are a great many experts, like the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, who understand part of this Bill, but very few, in my limited experience, who really grasp it as a whole. At the same time there has been an atmosphere of unreality about recent discussions on this Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, said, the battle has been fought really outside Westminster between the Ministry of Health and the local authorities in different parts of the country. They fought each other to a standstill, and they stand oposite to one another with heads blooded but deeply bowed, and no one, really knows what is

1119
going to happen once this measure is passed.
This House does, I think, possess an expert, or several experts, on nearly every conceivable topic of discussion. I certainly think, after hearing the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, last night, that we have had a very great deal of luck in meeting a Peer who is a member of a county council, of a rural district council, and of a board of guardians, all at one and the same time. He was certainly an expert on agricultural labourers' cottages. If he moves the Amendment on Clause 65 which he envisages he will certainly get my support. To prove the complexity of the Bill and how difficult it is for an ordinary layman to follow it, take the case of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack. Personally I always listen to his speeches with a kind of terrified admiration. Their architecture is at once so massive and so simple. On this occasion I observed that the noble and learned Lord made use of copious notes and read large portions of his speech. Nothing could be a better proof of the complexity of this Bill. Feeling that deeply, I took the trouble to consult various experts from different parts of England and even of Scotland. I did not confine myself to partisans of the Labour Party. In fact, the expert I am going to quote to-day was—I will not say is—a staunch Conservative. He may be a Conservative still, but he is no longer staunch. I doubt if ho will vote at the next Election. What recommended him to me was that he was and is a fervent admirer of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I need hardly say that, when I discovered that, my already high opinion of this gentleman was confirmed.
I am going to give his criticisms of this Bill because I think that in a sense they are really likely to be most damaging to this measure in the eyes of its Conservative supporters—a measure which, in my view, is really not a good one: I will put it no higher than that. Let me begin by saying what this expert thought were the points in favour of the Bill. He said there were three. He said he thought that the co-ordination of health services was a move in the right direction. He said that he thought highways finance was being put upon a better footing. This expert was a councillor for even more years than the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor.
1120
I am judging by his appearance. I think he has been 35 years a councillor. He has been mayor twice of a non-county borough. He is an alderman, I think, at this moment. He said that though the highway services had been put upon a better footing, he and his colleagues on the municipal council felt that the Government had not done all that they might have done in regard to relieving municipalities of such charges as the charges for main roads. His municipality suffers from a plague of main roads. The third point upon which he thought the Government had excelled was the payment of county councillors' expenses. I am not sure that this Bill does provide really for the payment of county councillors' expenses. I know that there is provision for the payment of Scottish county councillors' expenses, but then Scottish people are notorious for being able to arrange these things better than we do.
I took the trouble to sit in the gallery of another place the other day and I witnessed a sham fight. There was a member of my Party with a strong Doric accent—I think he is member for Dumbarton—who was on the most friendly terms with the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland. They really did not differ. All these Scottish members of Parliament were purring at each other in the Doric, and I had a most uneasy feeling that it was we Anglo-Saxons who were going to pay the expenses of the Scottish county councillors when they travel. I hope the noble Earl will remove my misgivings on that point, but I am almost certain that none of these Scottish members would have looked so pleased unless they had been almost certain that we were going to pay. They are far cleverer than we are and I have heard dark rumours of some clause tucked away in the 177 pages of this Bill which makes that enormity possible.
Now let me pass to the criticisms of the Bill by my expert, the county councillor of 35 years standing. He says it is a gamble. He says that it is based on figures which are mainly guesswork, that it is roughly estimated on insufficient data. He complains that the formula provides a rule—a rule of thumb, if you will—but it does not embody any principle. He says that if it is slavishly and

1121
unintelligently followed—as most likely it will be when one thinks of the large variety of people who are going to use this formula—it will be open to very grave abuse. He admits that in an empirical way it may be effective in certain cases, but he, with his vast experience of local government in a non-county borough, is filled with genuine alarm about the slavish unintelligent application of this formula. Those of us who have had anything to do with State Departments know that formulas are slavishly applied. He then says that the Bill subordinates the local authorities of non-county boroughs—most important boroughs, as I am sure the noble Earl will admit—to county councils whose members really do not understand local problems. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has given us many cases of non-county boroughs. They are very important places—no one denies, that—and many of them are industrial centres. They are going to be subordinated to the members of county councils who are generally chosen from a class of person who is not really acquainted or conversant with the problems of non-county boroughs.
He says—and this is a very serious charge—that it will not help at once, and, until there is a trade revival, in his view never at all, the depressed industries. He gave me several instances of that which I will not inflict upon your Lordships. He gave me figures of large firms and of small firms. He said this money is being put into people's pockets, but so little of it that they will not be able to pass on the benefits conferred by this Bill to the consumers in the form of reduced prices. This is a man who is not speaking in any bitter spirit. It is his genuine opinion. He gave me the case of a firm with a turnover of £100,000 a year. He said that firm might get £1,500 a year out of this measure. A percentage like that cannot be passed on to the consumer in the form of reduced prices, and if it is not passed on in the form of reduced prices, he argued, and I think quite correctly, then you are not going to help trade, you are not going to promote that trade revival on which the success of this measure really depends. He then said—what I think Lord Beauchamp pointed out—and he gave mo chapter and verse, that this measure must in the end bear very hardly
1122
on the private householder and shopkeeper. It seems inevitable—the money has to be found from somewhere—and he proceeded to explain how this Bill would, in his particular locality, actually discourage trade expansion. He said: How are we to build working class dwellings, for example, which are a concomitant of an expansion of trade, if we are not going to get back on the rates we can charge on them anything like what we require for local services?
I think it is not really unjustifiable to stress the question of these non-county boroughs, because if we are going to have a trade revival and industrial expansion in this country it is more than likely that it will occur in those localities. I have given the criticisms of an expert, and I will refer only briefly to the more sweeping criticisms made by my own friends. I think that the criticism that this Bill is timorous cannot be resisted by any noble Lord opposite. It is timorous. It does not attack the central and urgent problem of unemployment and necessitous areas. Can any noble Lord opposite deny that there was need for discrimination in regard to necessitous areas, where unemployment is excessive? It seems to me that it is not a question of general economic principles. There is this stark tragedy going on in South Wales and other parts of the country. Everybody admits that the tragedy is concentrated, and yet on the ground of some general principle the Government say that you must give it to the just and the unjust unlike, that you must give it to the prosperous as well, and that you must not penalise success, with the consequence of the various anomalies which are occurring in this Bill.
I understand—Lord Beauchamp gave the figure—that the brewing industry cannot pass on the benefit under the Bill because a penny off a pint of beer means a loss of £30,000,000 annually. I calculate that that means that we as a people are drinking 7,200,000,000 pints of beer each year, but, of course, £400,000 to an industry like that is only a drop in the great ocean of beer. Why give it in the name of general principles? It seems to be most wasteful, and almost heartless in view of the suffering that is going on. Another criticism is that this measure is perverse. It is perverse because it is a kind of back-door Protection. It gives

1123
a subsidy or bonus to certain industries, and, as is usually the case with proceedings of that kind, it hits other industries. There is a case which I trust Lord Onslow will deal with. It is that our export coal is being cheapened for the benefit of brick manufacturers in Belgium, who are competing with our own manufacturers at home.
I have always understood that the noble Marquess was a Free Trader. He comes of a family only accustomed to ruling this country by making people happy, contented and prosperous, and there have been certain people in his Party who have said that the way to do that is to make the foreigner pay. This is a most astonishing reversal of that policy. Here we are subsidising foreign manufacturers at the expense of our own men at home in a trade which in proportion to the capital involved gives an exceptionally large amount of employment. The Government took office pledged to deal with this matter of unemployment. They have run away from Protection. They found a precarious refuge in Safeguarding, and now they have produced, in their fifth year of office, this Bill whose fruition, as I understand its clauses, will not be complete for another seventeen years. The noble Viscount doubts me, but all the provisions of the measure will not come to pass until then. The first stage is seven years—
VISCOUNT PEEL: The advantages begin at once.
LORD THOMSON: I do not know that. The noble Viscount was not present when I gave the criticisms of my expert, a staunch Conservative.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: What is his name?
LORD THOMSON: It would not be fair to give his name but he is a really live man, and I repeat that he is a fervent admirer of the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury). In their fifth year of office the Government, pledged to reduce unemployment, put this measure before us. I am inclined to describe it as a legislative octopus. May I read to your Lordships what an octopus is? I looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary this morning. It is:
"A genus of cephalopod mollusc with eight arms"—
1124
the eight Parts of this Bill—
"surrounding the mouth and provided with suckers. Body small, but it has logs 1½ feet long, with about 250 suckers in each leg."
The legs are the schedules. I think they are twelve in number: I doubt whether even the noble Earl (Lord Onslow) has read through the Eleventh Schedule.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is a very interesting Schedule.
LORD THOMSON: It is sad to think that so distinguished a public servant should go through so much to get so little. This is the figurative use of the word "octopus":
"Usually applied to an organised power having extended ramifications and far-reaching influence especially harmful and destructive."
We might have had to-day the Committee stage of a Bill put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, on Second Reading, with his accustomed force and eloquence. I cannot help regretting that we did not have it to-day before starting on this Bill because it seems to me to be extraordinarily pertinent. Here we have a sort of misbegotten offspring, fathered by conflicting interests, its mother the national distress, the midwife (if I may say so), a lot of inexperienced county councillors, the destined dry-nurse a centralised bureaucracy, and it is going to be spoon-fed with a formula. How that infant is going to grow up Heaven only knows. As my expert friend says, it is a gamble. But as the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has pointed out, it is going to obstruct the path of simple, clear legislation in this matter—legislation which is badly needed. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that you can really play a useful part to-night by exercising a form of legislative birth control, and refusing to give a Second Heading to this measure. We can postpone its Second Reading for six months. By then there will be another Government in power—I am not here to prophesy what kind of Government.
A NOBLE LORD: We know all right.
LORD THOMSON: But we as an Upper House will, anyhow, have had some time to rub up our algebra. I beg to support the Motion of my noble friend and leader, Lord Parmoor.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I rise with some considerable diffidence to address you to-day, because I am well aware of what the dominant thought among most of you is, and that is that anything worth saying about this Bill, besides a good deal else, has probably already been said. Yet, as a dweller in one of the poorest agricultural counties in England, perhaps the poorest, and as one who will have some small part in the administration of this measure, I should like to say a few words as to why I give it my very hearty support. The first reason is because of the relief that it gives to agricultural land, and also to farm buildings, which I have not heard mentioned in your Lordships' House. I was glad, indeed, to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack mention that that had been put in as a matter of pure justice. I have seen several programmes which dealt with the suggested improvement of agriculture—one by the Farmers' Union, another by the Land Union, another by the Central Landowners' Association, another by the Land Agents' Society; and in every one of these, and in the forefront of the programmes, was placed the total relief of land and farm buildings from rates. I therefore feel that we must dwell on this.
I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that there has been no great gratitude shown for this particular clause, but I profoundly disagree with the reason that he gave for that ingratitude. I understood him to say it was because the farmer realised that eventually the bulk of that relief would go into the pockets of the landlord. That is an argument that I was somewhat surprised to hear in your Lordships' House, although I was well prepared to find it used later on upon the hustings. After all, what does it amount to? I take it that it amounts to this, that in some few cases farms that would otherwise have gone derelict will, with this aid, be let to tenants, and some few men will be found employment who would otherwise have lost it. Is that such a serious objection to this help? If it is, does it not apply to almost every other help that you can give to agriculture? And, if so, am I to take it—I think I am right in assuming that I can take it—that any measure of help to agriculture will have the opposition of the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill?
1126
I think the ingratitude comes from other causes than that. The first cause is the parlous state in which the farmer finds himself to-day. If a man finds himself, say, £1,000 down, he has not a great deal of cause for gratitude when he is told that he will at some future, date be let off £50 which he has long thought was his due. The second cause, I think, is due to the delay in getting this relief. The farmer will not get the relief till next October, and in the meanwhile every farmer who has a tractor is finding some additional sum to provide the means whereby the relief will be given. I, like many others, was brought up on the principle that the jam followed the Gregory powder, and vice versa, but an interval of eighteen months is more than I, for one, was accustomed to. And the third reason was this—and I would call the attention of your Lordships to it rather particularly. It is an undoubted fact that assessment committees in various parts of the country have, contrary, I know, to the instructions of the Central Valuation Board, and contrary to a clause in this very Bill, put up the assessments on farm houses, and in some cases to such a degree that the whole of the advantage gained by this relief will be lost, owing to the increased assessments of farm houses. I know you may say that assessment committees probably have farmers on them, and it is up to them to see that their assessments are right. Assessment committees are very largely led by the official who is in charge of them, that is to say, the Government valuer. And I, for one, wish that it had been possible to give some more definite instructions that these assessments should not be made.
The second ground on which I welcome this Bill is that it seems to me to be almost the first measure which has realised the great, I might almost say the overwhelming, burden which, in a county like mine, has fallen upon us in the upkeep of the roads. We have had to, find (1 do not wish to exaggerate) two-thirds of the upkeep of roads, on which perhaps nine-tenths of the user and the damage have been done by persons dwelling outside the rate-paying area. Now that has been realised and dealt with in this Bill. It is realised in two ways—first, by the increase of the percentage grant from 50 to 60 per

1127
cent., and, secondly, by making it a factor in the formula for estimating the Government grant. And, although I know that the formula has given great cause of pleasure to many people, and been a great cause of mirth in your Lordships' House, there are two things that I have not heard about the formula—one, that it was not necessary to have a formula, and the other that anybody else had a better one.
The third reason for which I am especially grateful for this Bill is that it makes the first attack on what I call the pernicious tyranny of the percentage grant. I have been a member of a county council for more years than I care to say—very nearly as many as the friend, the mysterious friend, of the noble and gallant Lord who last spoke; and if I had one quarter of the money that I have seen wasted through the operation of this percentage grant I should be a source of gratification, and not of grief, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Again and again expenditure, sometimes running into thousands of pounds, has been on the point of being turned down, because either it was unnecessary or not so necessary as some other reform. There may be some still small voice, perhaps an official, more often a councillor, who said: "You know, if you turn that down you lose £2,000 of public money"; and nearly always that, to my mind false, argument has won the, day, and the expenditure has been carried through.
I regret about this Bill this one thing: When the Bill was first introduced I received with the utmost pleasure reports of speeches and statements which said that this attack was to be made upon this pernicious system of the percentage grant, but I regret to find that it really amounts to little more than carrying the outpost line. The percentage grant still in large measure persists. But I shall venture to hope that at no very distant date the attack will be pressed further and possibly the whole position carried.
When this Bill was first introduced I confess that I, no doubt in common with many of your Lordships, was very much worried as to the difficulties in administration and reorganisation that would be entailed on county councils. Your Lordships must have had experience of how much more work is now thrown upon all classes of men. The farmer has to spend
1128
more time on his farm if he wishes to reduce his losses, the landlord has to spend more time looking round his estate, the man of business has to spend more time looking after his business. I had a fear, and I think a justifiable fear, that, if any more work was thrown upon the county councillors, the work would in time devolve upon two classes of people—(1) the rich man with no occupation, and (2) the professional politician, both to my mind little more than parasites upon the human race. Amendments have, however, been passed lately which have removed from my mind most of this apprehension. I believe now that in a county like my own hardly anybody who has been undertaking public work and doing it efficiently will not be found available for work under the county councils. I am indeed glad of that for if we have been forced to decrease the basis of taxation in this matter we do not wish to decrease the basis of public service.
I believe this Bill to be a great one, I believe it to be the best Bill, perhaps, that has been brought forward since the War. It has two great advantages. The first is that it will loosen some of the shackles which handicap our industry in foreign competition, and the other is that it will shift the burden of local taxation to the shoulders that are fittest to bear it. I know that noble Lords opposite are bound to oppose and criticise this Bill, but if they are bound to oppose and criticise these two principles, I feel—and the noble Earl who spoke this afternoon admitted it—that they do it with a certain sense of unhappiness.
I would like to refer to one thing which has been said about this Bill outside, though not here. I do not believe that the Bill is a great vote-catching effort. I do not see a poster saying "Vote for Jones and his nice new formula." I do not think their bitterest opponents would ever accuse His Majesty's Government of having an excess of political acumen. I am no politician myself, but I would have thought; as a simple man that, if they had had this excess of political acumen, they would have started this work with the reform of your Lordships' House, they would have proceded to this Bill, and they would have finished up with a measure giving pensions to widows and orphans. Yet, as it is, there are some in your Lordships' House who say that the reform

1129
of your Lordships' House has been subject to some degree of bungling. And there are some outside who say the Widows and Orphans Pensions Act is a Socialist measure to which the only contribution of His Majesty's Government is the contributory portion. Nevertheless, I myself do not grumble very much that they first brought in a measure giving justice to the widows and orphans and finished their work with this great reform which I believe in years to come will redound to their credit. When the verdict on this measure is given, not the verdict of that licensed period of mendacity which is known as a General Election but the verdict of the clear light of history, I believe that His Majesty's Government will have no cause to be ashamed of what they have done.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, after the perfectly admirable and convincing speech to which we have just listened, and after the somewhat unconvincing utterances—I will not say arguments—addressed to us from the now somewhat empty Opposition Benches, I feel it is almost an intrusion on my part to participate in this debate at this hour of the evening. There was, however, a very surprising contention put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, which I feel bound to refute to the best of my power. Of course, the noble Earl opposite who leads the Liberal Party has been so eloquently scathing in his comparison of the noble and learned Lord in the days when he used to sit alongside some of us on the Tory benches of the House of Commons and as he figures to-day as the Leader of his Party in this House, that it is almost unnecessary for me to press the point once more that there was no member of the House of Commons in the old days with all the experience that he possessed—and he never failed to remind us of his experience as a member of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation—who so often or so emphatically referred to the rate burden as an injustice to the agricultural community which ought to be either removed or alleviated at the earliest possible moment. Some of us have unfortunately lively memories and we cannot fail to regard the remarks made in this connection by the noble and learned Lord yesterday as positively staggering. When he goes so far as to say that there is no possible advantage to agriculture in this Bill and that
1130
not a single acre that has been laid down to grass will continue under arable cultivation, I should like, as a somewhat extensive farmer, to tell him that I am only one of several farmers in the West of England who feel justified in holding our hands at the present time from the nationally undesirable work of laying down land to grass in consequence of this Bill, because we feel it is a premium on the retention if not on the extension of our arable laud and on the employment of persons in arable cultivation.
What I wanted to refer to was his suggestion that this is a Bill to relieve agricultural landowners. He seems to have forgotten that, unlike the agricultural industries in most other parts of the world, the industry in this country is run by two partners who furnish their share of capital and that the larger holder of agricultural capital is the landowner and not the tenant farmer. There is no more serious detriment to the agricultural industry in this country to-day than the ever-developing deterioration and neglect of farm equipment and farm buildings, land drainage, liming and other expensive capital improvement work which would normally be carried out by the landlord but which, unfortunately, in existing circumstances, the landlord cannot to-day carry out. There is a serious and growing deterioration and detriment of the agricultural industry. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to put a premium upon the almost non-existent landlord enterprise which we so much want to see than the realisation that some of this benefit may conceivably pass to the landlord; at any rate, he has some encouragement to maintain the equipment on his land and so maintain his rent, which is a very desirable thing to do, as Cook of Norfolk, who is our great pioneer of agriculture in this country, emphasised more than anyone else, and he was a Liberal; and not only to maintain the rent but to maintain the productivity of the land which he owns.
I want to ask your Lordships whether you realise this effect. I venture to say, and I speak with some little experience on this subject because I have travelled pretty extensively on agricultural tours in various other countries of the world, that I have reason to believe that there is no country in which the rent of agricultural land is so low, bearing in mind the quality of the land and its accessi-

1131
bility to markets. I go so far as to say, and most agricultural experts in other countries contend, that it is not a good thing for the country, that it is not a good thing for the agricultural industry that the rent-producing capacity of the land should be so low as it is in this country. There is the fact that our agricultural land is not costly land. It is cheap land. It is land that really is too cheap. Finally, if there was some greater encouragement to invest capital in our agricultural land and farther to develop it for agricultural purposes it would be all to the advantage of the agricultural industry, and it is just the sort of impetus which this Bill provides, which is calculated to give that encouragement to agricultural owners, that is so much needed.
There is only one other matter I want to refer to and that was most fully dealt with by my noble friend Lord Dynevor yesterday. I venture to hope that the Government will see their way to put a stop to the process which has already begun under the system of valuation or re-valuation which is now being conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Valuation Act of last year. My noble friend Lord Dynevor found no fault with the basis which is usually adopted for the re-assessment of farmhouses. Upon that I am afraid I should differ to some extent. I should feel more inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Cranworth. But what is going on in the case of untied agricultural cottages is very serious indeed, and if my noble friend Lord Dynevor puts down an Amendment I shall feel bound to support it along the lines which my noble friend indicated. Clause 65 of this Bill not only puts a premium upon tied cottages—the sort of cottage which in my judgment is in some cases most desirable where stock owners, particularly, have to provide for accommodation close to the stock which their keepers tend, though it is at any rate thought by many noble Lords on this side of the House to be in principle undesirable and is always put forward from the Liberal Benches as the type of cottage which should not be encouraged—but it unfortunately puts a premium also upon tying cottages which are at present untied.
My noble friend Lord Dynevor suggested that it would put a premium upon letting them to week-enders. In my own
1132
part of the country I am afraid we have not many week-enders because we are too far from London or from any large city that provides that profitable type of human being. But we find that there is considerable competition by the employees, particularly the clerks and other well-paid employees, of other industries in the district, and there would be more than a temptation on the part of many landowners to-day, if Clause 65 is passed in its present form, to give preference to an occupier of a well-equipped cottage who can pay something like £10, £12 or £15 a year for it rather than to an agricultural worker required upon the farm on which the cottage is situated, and who, of course, can only provide, or have provided for him, a low rent of something like £7 or £8 a year.
I should not have referred to this but for the fact that I myself am having upon my estate an unfortunate experience of this kind. Only some six years ago I put up two well-equipped cottages for the benefit of the stock-keepers close to a large dairy farm building. In those cottages to-day are the foreman of the farm and the cowman. Unfortunately, I had this farm on my hands for some years and it now comes to be let. It has been assessed after being considered by the assessment committee of the district at an annual value of no less than £18, with the result that the incoming tenant, a shrewd man from Scotland, says that he cannot possibly take over that cottage for the purposes for which it was provided, and I am requested by my own agent to consent to a clerk occupying that cottage at something near, but not as much as, a rent of £18 a year.
That cannot be in the interest either of agriculture or of the community generally, and I venture to ask that Clause 65 shall be so altered as to render it possible for the cottage of any bona fide agricultural worker for whom it is intended and in which he is at present living, to be assessed for the purposes of this Bill at the sort of rent which may be deemed a proper rent for the dwelling of an agricultural labourer. At any rate there is a most dangerous trend all over the country to-day in the direction of putting a premium upon the tying of agricultural cottages and letting essential agricultural cottages to persons other than those belonging to the agricultural

1133
community. I venture to hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept an Amendment on this subject and that your Lordships will see your way to pass it.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it will be gratifying, I am sure, to my noble friend who moved the rejection of this Bill to learn that he has succeeded in staggering the noble Lord opposite. He is not so easily shaken. I am glad to think that ho did not succeed in staggering the noble Earl who leads the Liberal Party in this House and did not prevent him from having his usual gibe at this Bench in the course of his remarks. The proposition which seems to have upset the noble Lord may be stated in this way, may it not?—that the market rent of land with a certain burden is not affected by the burden upon that land being lessened, but the market rent remains exactly the same whether the burden upon it be larger or smaller.
I will relieve your Lordships' mind at once by saying that I am proposing to deal almost entirely with the First Part of this Bill. A lean and hungry opposition have had to study this Bill without having had the special advantages of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Onslow) which we have read of in another place, though from the trade union point of view we regret to observe that he has been paid on piece-work and has not apparently been paid for overtime. We look upon that with envy, but without ill-will and without any grudge. We have not those advantages. But one of the additional reasons why I should like to speak specially about Part I of this Bill is that I have also in the past had experience upon these small local government authorities, and I know something about the work of guardians and rural district councils. Much of Part I of the Bill does what I think may be regarded as useful, but it has the aspect which my noble friend referred to of being timorous in not really carrying out the full reform that is possible. Taking the guardians first, they appear to be abolished with the one hand and to be restored with the other. Their functions are all transferred to the county council, but no sooner have you done that than you come back and set up again the guardians committee upon which you are to co-opt many of those guardians.
1134
I am not at all sure that this is necessarily bad. In administration you get, of course, the advantage of a wider area. You get the advantage of reducing expenses in many ways by having the wider area and the wider field to choose from where institutional treatment is required. You lose the advantage of the local interest and the local knowledge which these small local bodies have. I understand the provisions of this Bill to be intended to preserve as, far as possible that local interest and to restore it as far as possible by means of the people who are to be co-opted upon the guardians committees. That seems to me to be a perfectly good idea, but, unfortunately, although you change the authority and the name of the authority, you have done nothing to change the Poor Law. In this measure at any rate there is no abolition of the Poor Law, and there is no breakup of the mixed workhouse. I would like to ask the noble Earl who is going to reply, this question. As I understand it, all the institutions—which means the workhouses, the workhouse infirmaries and so on—are to be taken over and managed, save in exceptional cases, by the county council through the local government committee.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Unless they are delegated.
EARL RUSSELL: Save in exceptional circumstances and subject to the county council deciding they should be delegated. Is it contemplated that that procedure may be used to abolish to some extent the mixed workhouse, and where you have four or five or six workhouses, to allot a particular institution to a particular purpose? If you do that you will have done something to do away with the mixed workhouses, which were of course the great cause of complaint in the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission of many years ago, which your Lordships no doubt remember and have often heard of.
Then I have been a little interested in a matter in which I have a special interest, and that is as to the pauper lunatics. They were, of course, the charge of the guardians, and I rather gather from this Bill that the guardians committee, with the county council money, will now pay the maintenance rate to the asylum or institution in which they are maintained,

1135
just as the guardians did before. I am not quite clear what will happen to the visiting powers of the guardians, powers to which, the noble Earl will I am sure remember, the Royal Commission attached some value. I am very glad to see in the White Paper which accompanies this Bill that it is contemplated that at some time in the not too distant future some steps will be taken to deal with the administration of lunacy on the lines recommended by the Royal Commission. That reform, as I have pointed out to your Lordships before, is urgent and long overdue, and I am glad to think that it is clearly contemplated by the Minister of Health that at an early opportunity he will deal with that as supplementary to this Bill.
There are one or two questions about the co-opted members about which I am not clear. Are they to have full membership of the committees upon which they sit, including the voting of money? Those committees, as I understand, will have the spending of the public money of the county council, and it may seem, as a question of policy, doubtful whether co-opted members should have the power to spend the public money and should be able to vote upon questions of that sort. I can understand that their advice and assistance may be very valuable. I need not deal with Clause 12. I do not know whether it is contemplated now or at any future time to combine in any way the management of the mentally deficient and of the insane. I am well aware they are two very different classes of case and they require very different treatment, but if you are to put the whole thing under the county council it seems to me that it may be possible that something will be done in that respect.
There is a point I would like to put to the noble Earl, and which we shall make the subject of Amendment afterwards, upon Clause 15. Clause 15 begins by stating that it shall be the duty of the councils to recover the whole of the expenses incurred, and later on there is a definition which says that those expenses include the fabric of the institution as well as the maintenance. It is perfectly true that later on in the same clause it is provided that they need not do so if they are satisfied that the patients cannot reasonably be required to pay the whole of them, but I confess I would rather myself the clause were turned the
1136
other way round, because there must be innumerable cases in which the relations of those maintained in institutions may be able to pay 5s. a week 8s. or 10 s. a week perhaps, but would obviously be quite unable to pay the 30 s. or 35 s. which would be represented by the maintenance charge. The clause rather reads as if their primary duty was to exact the last farthing from these people, unless the council come to the conclusion that they cannot be required to pay the whole, having regard to their financial circumstances. I think something might be done to soften the rather harsh character of that clause.
There is a minor point which we propose to make the subject of an Amendment that I should like to mention—I think it can be introduced into this Bill—and that is the point that arises upon the judgment given by Mr. Justice McCardie the other day, with which I am sure the noble Earl is quite familiar. The Judge decided that no matter what agreement was made with a certain local authority, at any rate in certain cases, none the less the appointment was held at pleasure and was determinable without cause and without notice at any moment. It does not seem to us right, and it does not seem likely to make for good administration, nor likely to make for securing the best people, that, no matter what agreement is made with them by the local authority, no matter how far the local authority pledge themselves to give three months or six months notice, nevertheless they are to be able under Statute to turn round and say that the agreement is not worth the paper it is written upon, and you are to go. Security of tenure, as your Lordships will appreciate, is one of the first conditions of obtaining good service, and if an Amendment can be properly introduced I hope we shall be able to do something in that respect.
The next point which I wish to touch upon is the question of the rural district councils. The maintenance of the roads is to be transferred from these councils entirely to the county councils.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Unless they are delegated by the county council, which they have a right to do.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, but none the less they will still be merely the agents

1137
of the county council. The primary responsibility for the roads, including the smaller roads, which now rests upon district councils, will be transferred to the county council. If these functions are taken from them I do not quite understand why rural district councils are maintained in existence at all. The only thing that I can see left for them to do is to maintain footpaths and rights of way or something very small.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: They remain the sanitary authority.
EARL RUSSELL: I see. They will remain, therefore, the people who look after nuisances and the local drains and so on.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There will be water and sewerage.
EARL RUSSELL: Of course, there will be something for them to do, but whether it is necessary to have a separate authority in that case I do not quite know. It means that you will have elections just as before when the boards of guardians were in full existence, but if they are deprived of all their powers, except those rather uninteresting sanitary ones and the preservation of rural rights of way, I am not sure that you will find many people very anxious to serve upon them. Then the question of the roads is very difficult to follow. I am sure no one will appreciate that more than the noble and learned Lord' who moved the Second Reading. This is a very large Bill, and it is difficult to pretend that one can follow it even upon a second or third or fourth reading. The noble and learned Lord gave us a simplified statement which did him enormous credit, but I think he will recognise that he did not cover the whole Bill. Roads in some cases, as I understand, are to be taken over nolens volens the county councils by urban districts. They are to have the right to maintain main roads in an urban district.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: They have it now.
EARL RUSSELL: They have it now I dare say, but you are going to make a change. There again I would ask whether it is altogether a wise provision. It is undesirable, surely, that a length of main road should be cut up more than
1138
is necessary and maintained by a larger number of authorities than is necessary. Just because a mile of road passes through an urban district it hardly seems to be a reason why it should be maintained by the urban district rather than by the county council. I should have hoped that the Bill had gone further and had begun the making of national roads. That is a question which is too large to enter upon now, and I merely mention in passing that I think it would be better if many of these main roads were routes nationales and that whoever did the maintenance it should, in fact, be the responsibility of a central authority.
Then there is the clause about the payment of expenses which has already been referred to. I do not think that that clause as it stands goes far enough. If your Lordships will look at Clause 49 you will see that at merely says that a county council may pay expenses. The clause says it "shall be lawful" for the council to pay expenses. That means that they must pass a resolution deciding that they will pay such expenses, in the case of a county council where there are only two or three people to whom it is of sufficient importance that these expenses should be paid, they will be in a very invidious position if a resolution has to be passed covering their expenses when none of the rest of the county councillors desire or require it. Surely, it would be far better to provide that any person who had incurred these expenses should have the right to recover them without any resolution from the county council.
The clause is a little grudging in other respects, because it limits the payment to expenses incurred in the discharge of functions which cover the whole of the county. Subsection (4) of Clause 49 says it shall
"apply to any committee appointed for the discharge of functions throughout the whole area for which the county council is charged with those functions."
It may very well be that in a smaller area than the whole of the county expenses of 10 s. or something of that sort may be incurred which may be a burden upon the poorer councillors, of the sort whom we on this Bench want to be able to serve and not to be deterred from serving by questions of personal expenses.

1139
That limitation, I venture to suggest, is a rather unnecessary one. That, also, we shall deal with in Committee.
Then in many places throughout the Bill power is taken to make Orders for carrying out the various provisions of the Bill, and, in particular, there is that famous clause taking for a short time a very large general power. That power may be necessary in that large and general form in a Bill so complicated for the purpose of bringing it into operation, but if so I venture to suggest to the Government something which goes a little further than the noble Earl who spoke from the Liberal Benches. I hope I shall be able to carry him with me in this. I suggest that in that, case it should not be sufficient merely to lay the Order on the Table but that it ought to be provided that there should be an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament to the Order. Such an affirmative Resolution presents no difficulty. In your Lordships' House no difficulty will arise from a merely negative Resolution being required, because no one would have any difficulty in raising a debate upon it and, if he could, in carrying a negative Resolution. But your Lordships know very well that in another place that is not so. It would be impossible in another place for a private Member who wanted to challenge one of the Orders to find or obtain time or opportunity to move a negative Resolution before the Order became effective. It is in order that he should be given an opportunity of challenging an Order that I suggest that an affirmative Resolution would be a better manner of dealing with it.
I do not wish to say much to-night on the general point of the exemptions from rating. I was struck, if I may say so, by the courage of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack when he dealt with points that had been made upon the incidence of these exemptions. He said this is not to be looked upon as being an eleemosynary grant; this is to be looked upon as a matter of justice. To give relief to the rich, to put additional burdens upon the poor, because in the case of such things as breweries, distilleries and tobacco factories you will be putting money into the pockets of people who do not require it and have not the slightest necessity for
1140
it, while I think that none of us can doubt that sooner or later, at some time or another, as a result of these proposals, the ordinary householder, including the cottager and the labourer, will be penalised in the amount of their rates—that is not the conception that we on this Bench have of doing justice. I should be glad to hear from the noble Earl how he thinks that can be justified. We shall deal later on, by way of Amendment, with the special case of these breweries and these rich tobacco manufacturers. It does not seem to me to be beyond the wit of man to devise some plan by which the Imperial Tobacco Company and Imperial Chemical Industries should not be enriched at the expense of the public, and it does seem to me to show remarkable courage to be prepared to go to the country and to say you are doing justice by doing a thins of that sort.
The noble and learned Lord spoke-about the statesmanlike efforts and the genius of the Minister of Health in dealing with this Bill. I think he has had to direct his efforts in another place very largely to making a bad egg look like a good egg, and our view is that the longer this egg is kept the more its badness will appear. It is very difficult for this Bill to be appreciated, and although it is remarkably little understood in this country at this moment—that is only natural considering its complex character; probably only a few technical advisers to local authorities grasp what is going to happen when it is in working order—when the effect is felt and you get the ultimate increase of rates and the smaller basis for putting your rates upon, and people begin to notice their particular burden, it will not be a Bill as popular as it was expected to be when it was introduced by the Government. Everyone fears, I think, that all the valuations in the country will probably be raised, as one method of disguising the rise of rates. It will be very easy to point to the fact that the rates have not risen if you succeed in raising more money by raising the valuations. I think everyone is afraid of that.
Then, finally, you have at the end of the Bill those very remarkable provisions about transport hereditaments and the relief given to them. Those provisions seem to me to be some of the most remarkable ever produced. It appears to

1141
me to be a remarkably complex scheme, to put taxation upon one form of transport, by road, in order to subsidise another form of transport, by rail, and by that remarkable Schedule XI you are going to endeavour to make that benefit enure to particular industries in particular circumstances. Never in all my parliamentary experience have I known a more roundabout way of achieving an object, and whether you will achieve that object remains yet to be seen. Although there is much in this Bill in the matter of administration which will do good, and which might well have gone further, there is so much in it bad in principle, doubtful in working, and very unfair in its application, that I am afraid we on this Bench are quite unable to support the Second Heading.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, if my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had not shown your Lordships, in his most able exposition of the Bill, how comprehensive a measure it is, the criticisms and comments, some friendly and some otherwise, of noble Lords would have shown it to be one of the most far-reaching measures laid before Parliament for many a long day. I have heard the Bill criticised as being complicated, lengthy, complex, and so forth, but I have never heard it before criticised as being timorous. My right hon. friend has been called rash, foolhardy and headstrong, but I never thought that, he would be accused of being timorous in this Bill. The, Bill, in the criticism which it has received in this House, has not, I think, been wholly condemned by any speaker. Even the noble and learned Lord who moved its rejection somewhat reluctantly admitted that, like the egg, part of it was excellent, and Earl Beauchamp began his speech by telling us that some of it was not bad. Even Lord Thomson, assisted by his un-staunch Conservative, who, as we all are, is a fervent admirer of the noble Marquess, had something to say for the Bill, although he compared it unkindly to an octopus, and he read to us the various attributes of that disagreeable animal.
The statesmanship of my right hon. friend Mr. Chamberlain has produced a carefully conceived measure of local government reform which touches local government on all its sides—on its financial
1142
side, its administrative side, and its legislative side—and brings it up to date and up to modern requirements; for with the exception of education local government has not been touched since 1894, and indeed most of the structure remains as erected in 1888. Noble Lords have asked me a large number of questions which I will endeavour, in the short time at my disposal, to answer to the best of my ability. Some noble Lords have indicated an intention to raise Amendments at a later stage, and so, if I do not deal at any great length with matters which will be dealt with in Committee, they will understand that it is not because of any discourtesy towards them, but because there will be a better opportunity of dealing with such matters later on.
I will take shortly the general criticism of the Bill. The first criticism is that it has been said to be too long in extent, and that it deals with too many subjects. Of course, it is a long and comprehensive Bill, and does deal with a large number of varied subjects: how can you deal with such subjects without a large and comprehensive measure? It is not so long as the Public Health Act of 1875, nor as the Local Government Act of 1888, though it is a little longer than the Local Government Act of 1894. But in spite of the criticism coming from some quarters that the Bill is too long, others of our critics would have had it a great deal longer still, and would wish it to deal with such questions as the amendment of the Consolidation Act of 1927 as well, and perhaps with other things also.
There is one other point which I think I ought to deal with and that is the extension of the bureaucratic power which the noble Earl condemns in this Bill. I would mention a circumstance which came to my knowledge the other day. I had the honour of being Chairman of the Royal Commission on Local Government, and we produced a Report which is largely embodied in Part IV of this Bill. I was speaking of that Report to a friend, a prominent county councillor. I asked him what he thought of it, and he said that he did not dislike it on the whole, but what he did not like was the way in which it was strewn with appeals to the Ministry of Health. I replied that it was impossible to help it. I said that in a Bill of this kind, which arranges for the transition of local government powers,

1143
there must be naturally disagreement between local authorities, and that if you have disagreement between two authorities you must have a third person to whom they can apply, and that obviously the third person should be the head of the Government Department entrusted with local government. I think that is generally recognised and was recognised by my friend, a very distinguished person in county council matters.
I think the best way that I can deal with this matter is to take the Bill Part by Part. The first question that I have to mention is that of the Poor Law, which was dealt with by practically every speaker. In the first place the principle of the Act of Elizabeth is not interfered with. In the Act of 1601 the unit of the parish was taken. Sparseness of population and inadequate means of communication rendered that necessary. The legislators of those days legislated well, because that provision lasted for some two hundred years, and it was not until the Act of 1835 that any alteration was made. That Act made no alteration in principle, but the unit became the union of parishes and the area of charge was spread over a larger district. Now we cannot say that the legislators of 1834 did worse than their predecessors of Elizabethan days, because I do not think anybody would contend that the difference in conditions, population, communications, and so forth, between to-day and 1834 is not as great as, if not even greater than, it was between 1834 and 1601. And we do not change the principles of 1601. As the parish of 1601 became the union of 1834, so the union of 1834 becomes in 1929 the county, the union of unions, as we might call it. In local government before 1888 there was no really cohesive policy. Much was left under the justices, many things were handed over to ad hoc bodies.
Then came the Acts of 1888 and 1894, when the system of local government crystallised. After the reform of 1894 there was only one service remaining outside the jurisdiction of the county council—and the district councils, of course, in certain cases—and that was education, which was brought into it in 1902. We simply follow the same principle, and the Poor Law is brought under the county council in the same way as education was in 1902. And the principle which we
1144
follow is the same as was followed in 1834 in regard to the Poor Law, and that is that the area of charge is spread widely, and, while the general administration and the cost are spread over the larger area, yet the detail of local control is left with the local inhabitants, who best understand it. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said: "You are taking from the guardians with one hand and giving back with the other." To a certain extent that is true. I do not think the noble Earl particularly quarrels with the system, but rather thought that was one of the parts of the Bill which was not so bad as the others. So I need not dwell upon that.
I would like to point out that it is not only in the Poor Law that this principle is followed. It is also followed in the case of the roads. The expense and the responsibility of finance for unclassified roads will be taken over by the county council, the management will be delegated to the rural district councils, and in the case of urban councils they have, of course, considerably more powers than the rural district councils possess under the Bill. I think the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, criticised the constitution of the Guardians Committees, and said that the Guardians Committees will have no control and so but little important work to do. But if the noble Lord studies the Bill he will see that it is laid down that they have detailed control of all the relief in their area, and the only supervision which they will have will be the necessary supervision which they will be under—the financial control and the appointment of officers which will be in the hands of the county council. I think the only way in which the noble Lord's idea could be followed out would be to put the Guardians Committees in a position to raise a rate. If that happened, the utility of the county council's control would disappear. And there is another thing—the difficulty of finance, which has been alluded to so often, would not be met, because you would not then spread the area of charge. The area of charge would remain the union, or whatever takes the place of the union.
Now I think that under the Bill what will happen will be this. The Guardians Committee vis-à-vis the county council will be in the same position as a Government Department is to Parliament. The

1145
Guardians Committee will have the administration of poor relief in the same way as Government Departments administer the business entrusted to them. The financial control will be in the hands of the county council in the same way as the financial control of Departments is in the hands of Parliament. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked a question as regards co-opted members—would they be allowed to vote? The answer is that they would. I think that the noble Earl who leads the Liberal Party was under a misapprehension in one particular. He complained, if I understand him rightly, that the members of the Guardians Committees were appointed members and not elected persons. In a certain sense that is true. Under the Bill the elected county councillor and the elected district councillor are appointed to the Guardians Committees, but they are elected persons, and the co-opted persons are in the same position as co-opted persons on any committee set up under the Bill. But the principle of election is certainly adhered to, because two-thirds of the members of these Guardians Committees are elected persons, and only one-third co-opted.
The next point in regard to these Committees was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor. He regretted the fact that women might be squeezed out from these various Committees. Well, is that so? At the present time there are some 20,000 guardians. Nobody knows until the scheme is completed how that will compare with the numbers of the Guardians Committees. Of those 20,000 guardians 2,319 are women, that is to say, one in nine. But here is the point: at the present time, no woman has a statutory right to be on a board of guardians because she is a woman; that is to say, no board of guardians need necessarily have a woman member. Under the Bill women as women will have a statutory right to be on every one of these Committees; the Committees must co-opt a certain proportion of women. That will be settled in the scheme.
EARL RUSSELL: There is no proportion in the Bill?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No, there is no proportion in the Bill, but that will be settled in the scheme. But women must be on these Committees. It is a
1146
statutory obligation on every Committee to co-opt women, or, at any rate, one woman.
LORD PARMOOR: My point was the proportion.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Of course, I cannot answer that question now. That will be in the administrative schemes, which will be developed later on. Now I come to another point, and that is the question of the recovery of expenses. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said he was going to move an Amendment, which we can discuss when he moves it, but I may say it is not the primary duty of the authority to exact the uttermost farthing. It is the case now that such payments should be demanded from patients as they can properly be expected to pay. It is not only in these institutions, but it is done in maternity homes and hospitals all over the country. I was, I remember, chairman of a maternity hospital in London, and the work was done by the almoner, and the payment was, I must say, very ready and free. I do not think we need anticipate that terrible pressure will be put upon patients to make payments beyond their means.
I turn to another very important question, and that in the statement, made very freely, that this Bill does not break up the Poor Law. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, made that statement, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also. I should like to make that quite clear. This Bill only deals with the transfer of the Poor Law powers from the guardians to the counties and county boroughs. It does not pretend to break up the Poor Law—at this time. It is intended to encourage the break-up of the Poor Law and the adoption of the transferred functions under other Acts, so far as that is possible; but it does not pretend to reform in detail the Poor Law, which was consolidated in the Act of 1927. This Bill is accused of being too long, and if you had attempted to amend the huge Consolidation Act of 1927, you would have over-weighted the Bill quite hopelessly. There is another point. If you attempted to do that now, you would not have had the advantage of being able to discuss the amendment of the Poor Law with those actually administering and responsible for it at the present time, because the guardians are now in a moribund condition and the counties and

1147
county boroughs have not yet come into their inheritance. It is recognised that the existing Poor Law and Poor Law arrangements must be discussed with a view to reform and therefore it is proposed to initiate discussions at a convenient time after the passing of this Bill with the association representing the Poor Law authorities as to what changes may be necessary in the Act of 1927. As to the question of mixed workhouses, I cannot deal with that at length. It must be left to the local authorities and to the schemes they put forward. As to institutions, the Bill will give the county councils an opportunity of reorganising the whole of the institutions within their areas. They will have not only the Poor Law institutions but those which they maintain themselves.
Now I come to the question of unemployment being a national service. The question put to me is: "Why do you not take unemployment out of the Bill altogether and deal with it as a national service?" What would happen if you did? If you had a national system of dealing with able-bodied unemployed, it would lie quite impossible to avoid a rigid bureaucratic organisation with more hard and fast rules than are necessary under the organisation proposed in this Bill. If you had a rigid bureaucratic organisation you would have to have an army of officials to administer it. There is nothing at present in existence which could do the work and you would have to create the whole machinery. Another and far greater objection is that you would have two authorities dealing with the same people. The national or central authority would deal with them when they were well or able-bodied and the local authority would deal with them when they were ill. Obviously, there is no hard and fast distinction. You cannot draw a dividing line between the sick man and the man who is well. You cannot draw a line between the same man when he is well and when he is sick. The result would be constant confusion, overlapping, delay and dissatisfaction. Lastly, there is another difficulty. In my humble opinion, it would be difficult to administer this service nationally without a return to the principle of the "dole." I do not think it would be possible to expect any Government, certainly not this Government, to consent to such a course in view of the
1148
Act of 1927 which put unemployment insurance upon a sound contributory basis.
A small point has been raised in regard to lunatics. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, this Bill does not deal with lunatics. Just as we are waiting for the Act of 1927 to be amended, so we are waiting for another Bill which will deal with this question after consideration of the Report of the Royal Commission of which the noble Earl was so distinguished a member. The answer to the question he put to me is that with the duties of the guardians go their liabilities. When the duties of the guardians are taken over the maintenance of a pauper lunatic will be paid for by the county. That is covered under Clause 1.
I now come to the question of the hospitals which was so ably dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn. He was on the whole in sympathy with the measures which this Bill adumbrates. I would like to say something about the hospitals because it is borne in upon me that there is some misapprehension as to the effect the Bill will have. The Bill only makes one change in the law. That is to give the county councils the same powers possessed now by the county boroughs and county districts to establish hospitals or to subscribe to existing voluntary hospitals. Those powers were given under Section 131 of the Act of 1875. That section gave the powers to local authorities, but in those days local authorities did not include county councils for the very excellent reason that county councils did not exist until thirteen years afterwards. This Bill, therefore, merely puts county councils in the same position as county boroughs.
As to the other point mentioned by Lord Dawson, the control of institutions which the Bill gives to county councils, it gives, of course, the county councils the right and the duty to take over the existing Poor Law institutions and manage them together with those they manage themselves at the present time. They will allocate them all to the best advantage, using one for tuberculosis, another for chronic cases and so forth. As to voluntary hospitals, existing or to be established in the future, we look to the closest co-operation between them and the local authorities. We regard it as of the greatest importance that the county councils, with their new hospital

1149
activities and powers, shall work in close co-operation with the voluntary hospitals in London and everywhere else. As Lord Dawson mentioned, co-operation between voluntary hospitals and local authorities has been growing fast recently and we hope that this Bill will prosper and increase it. As to the particular point Lord Dawson mentioned, co-operation between the voluntary hospitals and the local authority is a matter to which we look forward and I am sure we shall not look forward to it in vain.
As I understand that he will put Amendments on the Paper about it, I shall not now deal with it at great length. I may say that it will be a very difficult matter to insert an Amendment on this question in the Bill so as to make a statutory provision. I should suggest that possibly the machinery of the Voluntary Hospitals' Committee constituted by the Voluntary Hospitals' Commission some years ago, which includes representatives of the hospitals, the medical men in the district and the local authorities, might be made use of. The noble Lord also spoke of co-option. He has to recognise that co-option exists on the Public Assistance Committees and is compulsory on the Guardians Committees. He wants co-option to be made compulsory in all the committees.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: Will it be compulsory on the Public Assistance Committee just as it is on the Education Committee?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Perhaps it would be easier to discuss those details if he would move an Amendment. I now come to Part II of the Bill. Lord Parmoor mentioned that there was some discontent in regard to this Part. I have had the same letter as he had. There is a misapprehension. Representations have been received in regard to certain superintendent registrars. Those gentlemen will not be affected by the Bill unless they want to be. Existing officers can remain on the same basis as they are at present and no change will be made until there is actually a change of personnel. The other registrars I believe are practically all strongly in favour of the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, said he was going to move some Amendments to this Part of the Bill, but I will not deal with them because he did not mention what they were.
1150
Coming to the question of roads, two of the noble Lords who sit opposite were somewhat in disagreement, I think; at any rate, the unstaunch Conservative of Lord Thomson was in disagreement with that staunch member of the Labour Party, my noble friend Lord Russell.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not mind disagreeing with a Conservative.
LORD THOMSON: I was only quoting.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, or said vicariously, that the urban districts would be overwhelmed with the duties which would fall upon them under the Bill in respect to the maintenance of roads. I would commend to the noble Lord's notice Clause 33, which gives them an opportunity of escaping from their difficulties should they wish it. Then the noble Earl, Lord Russell, told us that the urban districts have been far too well treated because certain of them were allowed to claim the management of roads.
EARL RUSSELL: Of main roads.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes. I would like to point out that all urban districts now have the right to claim. As the noble Earl is well aware, there are some which are admittedly of an unurban description and they would be allowed to claim the roads if they wished to do so. The whole of this question was examined by the Royal Commission and we made a recommendation on which this is based, that the right to claim should be still exercised by the urban districts which have a population of over 20,000. A town with over 20,000 inhabitants is a considerable place, and it ought to be able to maintain its main roads which, of course, are the streets of a town, probably the high street, in a suitable fashion in agreement with the county council. I do not think that is really a very wrong provision to make.
My noble friend Lord Russell also said: "You are going to take away from the rural districts all the duties they have to perform." But they remain responsible for the sanitation, the water and the sewage, both very important matters. They may not be visible, one doss not want them to be, but still they are none the less important. There are certain provisions in Part IV of the Bill which

1151
deal with this question of sanitation, water and sewage very minutely and which will enable those rural districts, which at present are really not able to do justice from poverty, not from want of will, but want of money, to deal with these very important questions in a right and becoming manner. All those duties are left to the rural districts. They have also the right to ask that the roads should be delegated to them and the county council cannot refuse unless there is a really good reason, either that the district does not administer the roads economically, or that they are extravagant or inefficient, which they are not very likely to be. It is only in those cases that the roads will not be left to their management.
EARL RUSSELL: Have the rural districts the right to insist upon the maintaining of the roads?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Certainly. They can claim under Clause 34 of the Bill, and can go to the county council and ask for delegation. It is within three months, I think, after the appointed day and after every quinquennial period.
EARL RUSSELL: I thought it was only permissive.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: They can claim delegation and it cannot be refused unless there is good reason, and they have an appeal to the Minister of Transport. There is only one other point I want to make in regard to roads and that concerns the Road Fund, it has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, and it was mentioned the other day by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the £3,000,000 payable from the Road Fund towards the general Exchequer contribution is not new money but old money.
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Earl says, "Hear, hear"; I am quoting him. This sum of £3,000,000 comes out of the Road Fund which, as the noble Earl knows, was started in 1920. In that year the Road Fund produced £8,000,000. That income is now very much larger. It has increased, and it is increasing, and it is morally certain to go on increasing. Therefore, the payment of £3,000,000 from the Road Fund to the general Exchequer contribution is clearly utilising
1152
money produced, from the source from which the Road Fund is obtained, for the purposes of the roads. It is going to the roads, and it is new money which is derived from a source of taxation which is constantly increasing.
Parts V and VI of the Bill are all that are left for me to deal with. It has been generally agreed by all speakers that the rating system is not all that it should be. That has been the opinion of many people for a very long time indeed. It was indicated so long ago as the Public Health Act of 1848. It is provided in a section of that Act that the payment, not for the Poor Rate but the general district rate, should only be one-quarter of the rateable value in regard to agricultural land, canals, railways and so forth, and that was repeated, of course, in the Act of 1875. Then there came various other Acts providing for certain exemptions and differentiations which culminated in the recent legislation dealing with agriculture, which exempted all agricultural land and buildings from the rates up to 75 per cent. That is a measure which I know had the approval of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, because he said so when it was brought in and he repeated that statement yesterday.
It is obvious, not only from what Parliament has done in legislation but also from the Reports of Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees, as well as from the strenuous representations both of employers and employed, that the rating system which obtains today is obsolete and out of date and is therefore unjust and unfair. That being the case reform is obviously demanded and this Bill produces that reform and carries it along on the same lines as have been followed in the past. We have been told that this rating reform—I insist upon the term—is a "dole" to industry. To me that description of it is really a travesty of the facts. If de-rating agriculture by 75 per cent, was a debt long due, overdue I think Lord Parmoor said, to agriculture in 1923, how can the increase of that 75 per cent, become a "dole" in 1929? I know what the noble Lord said yesterday. He said that we were exempting agriculture when we ought to classify it. Does he say that 75 per cent, is the limit of classification or does he say that so long as you keep some charge on the rates against

1153
agriculture that you are doing wisely and well; but if you exempt agriculture altogether you are doing wrong? Does he say that you may exempt agriculture from rates up to 99 and 99-100ths per cent, and that so long as you leave one-hundredth of one per cent, that is classification, but if you go to the extent of 100 per cent, you are making exemption? That is really a very fine distinction, it seems to me. I am afraid I am so obtuse that I do not understand it. But I would submit that if the de-rating of agriculture up to 75 per cent, is right, if the de-rating up to 100 per cent, would be of assistance to agriculture, then we are right in this Bill in taking the measure we have taken.
Let us take industry. Everybody agrees that the incidence of rates upon industry is unjust. If you relieve industry from an injustice how can you describe that action as giving it a "dole"? I really think that is a misdescription. I would have dwelt in referring to agriculture on the very old question—I think it has been heard a great deal of before—of who gets the benefit in the derating of agriculture, but my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has dealt with that so faithfully I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with further observations on the subject. I am asked to reply to three questions which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Parmoor) put to me yesterday. He put three questions in regard to agriculture, and at the same time he answered them entirely to his own satisfaction and said: "I shall expect you to confirm that to-morrow." I always try to do my best to oblige my noble and learned friend, but I am afraid in this instance I shall have to disappoint him. I will answer these questions by a short statement. Agriculture at the present time is suffering from the cost of production overwhelming prices. The difference between the cost of production and prices is too small, or the cost of production may even be greater than the prices realised. For that reason farmers have been obliged to reduce the costs of production. One of the means by which they have done that has been by the employment of less labour. That has been possible by putting arable land down to grass. A part of the cost of production is the burden of the rates, and another part is the
1154
burden of freight charges. This Bill will remove from those two charges (rates and freights) over £5,000,000 from the cost of production throughout the country—about £4,300,00 in rates, £800,000 in freights, and various other sums under proposals which will cheapen capital. Altogether the cost of production in agriculture will be diminished by over £5,000,000. As arable land has been reduced by the heavy cost of production and grass land has increased for the same reason, so the reduction of the cost of production will increase the amount of arable land and decrease the amount of grass land, and as arable land increases so employment will increase. I think the noble and learned Lord asked me it there would be one single acre more of arable land converted back from grass. We have had that answered by my noble friend behind me, Lord Bledisloe, and I do not think I need say anything further on that point.
With regard to Clause 65 I only want to say one thing, because my noble friend Lord Dynevor is to put down an Amendment and therefore it will be discussed later. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Parmoor) seems to be under some misapprehension. He thinks this is a new provision. It is true it has been slightly extended, but the reason of putting in this clause as it stands is that with the exception of the slight extension I have mentioned, the Act of 1894 is repealed under the Twelfth Schedule—I have got as far as twelve: the noble and learned Lord only got as far as eleven. I will not dwell on that further.
I come to the question of the relief of rates upon industry. I do not think there has been any great objection to the depressed industries receiving relief from the rates, but there have been voiced in many quarters of your Lordships' House objections on the ground that industries which are prosperous receive the same relief as those which are doing badly. Is it really contended that an industry which is well managed and prosperous, because it is well managed and because it is prosperous, should be subjected to taxation which we deem to be unjust and to be based upon obsolete conditions? Is that reasonable? Surely the proper thing to do in every case, whether it is taxation or anything else, is to put your house in order, to put your taxation upon a just basis. That is the first thing. If

1155
any particular industry is so prosperous that it will bear further taxation, that is a question which can be dealt with on its merits, but to say that because an industry is prosperous it should therefore be subjected to a bad system of taxation really is the negation of reason. The proper thing to do is to put your taxation in order and then adjust it accordingly.
I come now to another point. Why, it has been asked, should the productive and distributive industries have differential treatment? Why should not the distributive industries have the same relief as productive industries? I do not want to dwell upon this at any length because I understand Amendments will be put down, but I would like to point out that the distributive industries are on quite a different footing from the productive ones. Employment depends much more on the productive than upon the distributive industries. A shop for example, or a house, bears far more relation to the ability of the owner to pay than a factory does, and the relief given to a shop would be far less in proportion to overhead charges than the relief given to a factory.
I will not labour that point at the present time, for I must deal with the question of block grants. It has been contended that the system of block grants, especially in the case of maternity and child welfare, will militate against the efficiency of the various services. It must be remembered that the poorer districts especially will be those in which the maternity and child welfare services are most essential. Those districts are not in a position to spend a considerable amount of money upon them. In order to earn the block grant you have to spend 10 s. before you get the second 10 s. If you have not a large number of ten shillings to spend, then you cannot earn a high percentage on your expenditure. Under the Bill the necessitous areas, owing to the formula, which I do not think is denied, will receive a larger proportion of the general Exchequer contribution, and so, consequently, the poorer areas will be able to devote more money to maternity and child welfare and other health services than they were able to do in the past. I think it must be obvious that is so.
1156
We have heard it said to-day that there has been too much left to their discretion. The Minister under the Bill has power to withhold grants if a reasonable standard of efficiency and progress is not maintained. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, said that was a funny way of dealing with a recalcitrant authority—saying you will not give it the money it ought to have spent. Let us examine that a little more closely. Supposing an authority does not spend sufficient money on, say, maternity and child welfare. The Minister, I presume, would say: "You have so much in your block grant. Of that sum you ought to have spent £10,000 on maternity and child welfare You have not. You have spent it on roads or something else. This year"—and this is operative every year, there being a discretion—"we shall not give you £10,000. You will have £10,000 less. If you refuse to spend it on child welfare you shall not be able to spend it at all." That is the pressure which can be brought to bear by the Minister upon a recalcitrant authority. I do not suppose for a moment such a contingency would arise. The existence of the power would be sufficient to prevent it. If, however, the Minister had to call a recalcitrant authority in question under this clause, naturally that authority would come and argue its case and probably a satisfactory solution would be reached by negotiation, but having that clause puts a weapon in the hands of the Government and the Minister which has never existed before. I think your Lordships will see that that power is sufficient to ensure that the block grant will be spent in a proper way and that those services which we have so very much at heart will not be neglected.
One or two question were asked yesterday that I want to touch upon but which I will not deal with at length. One is an important one. That is the question of the export of coal. It has been suggested that what is proposed is a gift to foreign industry and that it will assist foreign industry to make more cheaply goods for export to this country which will compete with British goods. I wish I could give the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, more information on the subject of Belgian coal and Belgian bricks, but I cannot at the present moment. Doubtless, as the noble Lord is not going to let the subject alone, I shall be able to give an

1157
answer another time. Generally speaking—I am not touching on bricks, I leave that question in the air for the moment—it has been found after careful inquiry that the bulk of British coal exported abroad is used for purposes which do not compete with British industry very much. I should think the greatest part goes for bunkering ships, including British ships, sailing to foreign ports. Some goes to railways, some goes to electricity works, some to gasworks, and only a very small proportion to industry. British coal sold abroad has to meet very formidable competition indeed. As your Lordships are aware the French Government has given special railway rates all over northern France to its own coal, and Poland has given subsidies to export coal. But perhaps the most convincing proof that this is the best way to help the coal industry is the united demand made both by the employers and employed in the coal trade for the extension of the relief to export coal. Any of your Lordships who had the good fortune to be in the House yesterday and to hear the noble Lord, Lord Joicey, will be convinced of that fact. I think that everybody is agreed that the maintenance of the export trade is essential to the coal industry, and the stimulus given by this relief will contribute very largely to the prosperity of the coal industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, said that it might be all very well to give a rebate to coal which is supplied to ships going foreign, but why should not a rebate be given to coal utilised in coastwise traffic. I will explain that if I may. The reason is that coast-wise traffic, although it is carried by sea, is really an internal traffic. If you were to give a rebate to coal used for bunkering coastwise ships you could not refuse to extend it also to coal used for railways in this country. Rightly or wrongly—noble Lords opposite say wrongly, we say rightly—the advantage of the rebate is only given to coal used for iron and steel. It would prejudice railway interests if you were to give a rebate for coast-wise bunker coal and not to coal used for railway engines. The noble Lord quoted the Liverpool shipowners, but I do not think that they suggested that a rebate to foreign bunker coal would prejudice coast-wise traffic. They did not complain that it would cause injury to them to give a rebate to foreign coal. Their com-
1158
plaint was that it was not extended to them.
I come now to the question of travelling expenses, and on that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has asked a question which I cannot answer, because it related to the Scottish Bill and that Bill is as yet on the knees of the Gods and has not yet reached your Lordships' House. When it does, we shall doubtless be able to give the noble Lord the information which he desires. On this question of travelling expenses the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, asked why it should not be taken into consideration in determining the grant. It is not proposed that the county council shall not be able to pay for travelling expenses out of the pool of the rates and the block grants, the £45,000,000 plus the £135,000,000. It only means that it will have no effect on the percentage grants which county councils will still receive. On the question of the restriction of travelling expenses only to those incurred in relation to business over the whole county, I think the reason is a very obvious one. In the case of subcommittees of county councils formed of local people they have not far to travel. The position will be the same in county boroughs. The people all live there. It will not be a question of a railway fare, say, from south Lancashire to Preston or north Lancashire to Preston.
There is only one other question with which I want to deal, and that has reference to railways. Complaint is made that private railways are not treated in the same way as public railways. That is true in a sense. The relief to public railways is pooled and the advantages are only obtained by those who use the railways for heavy traffic. That is to say, a passenger line is derated, but the advantage of that derating does not go to the passenger traffic but to heavy traffic and is passed on to the user of the railway for heavy traffic. Private lines could not pass on the advantages of the Bill. That is the answer to that question. I have taken too much of your Lordships' time and I know you wish to go to a Division. I do not want to say more than this: This is a very complicated Bill. It is one which has been thought out with the very greatest care, not only by members of the Government but by those distin-

1159
guished permanent officials who so ably support my right hon. friend. Noble Lords have expressed misgivings as to the working of the formula and other parts of the Bill, but I venture to prophesy that when history comes to be written this Bill will be classed among the great
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
reforms of local government such as those of 1888 and 1894.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Glanusk, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hanworth, L.

Elibank, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Argyll, D.

Falmouth, V.

Hawke, L.

Somerset, D.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wellington, D.

Hambleden, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Hood, V.

Islington, L.

Bristol, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Jessel, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Joicey, L.

Winchester, M.

Novar, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Peel, V.

Kylsant, L.

Airlie, E.

Lamington, L.

Ancaster, E.

Liverpool, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Askwith, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cawdor, E.

Avebury, L.

Monson, L.

Clarendon, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Dartmouth, E.

Biddulph, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Denbigh, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Remnant, L.

Howe, E.

Clinton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Iveagh, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Cranworth, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lichfield, E.

Cushendun, L.

Sempill, L.

Lindsay, E.

Darling, L.

Sinclair, L.

Lovelace, E.

Daryngton, L.

Strachie, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Dawson of Penn, L.

Suffield, L.

Lytton, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Swansea, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Desborough, L.

Templemore, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Dynevor, L.

Teynham, L.

Munster, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Trevethin, L.

Onslow, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Wargrave, L.

Plymouth, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Warrington of Clyffe, L.

Sandwich, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Wavertree, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Faringdon, L.

Wharton, L.

Spencer, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Cowdray, V.

Gorell, L.

Buxton, E.

Hemphill, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Arnold, L. [Teller.]

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Olivier, L.

Russell, E.

Clwyd, L.

Parmoor, L.

Farrer, L.

Swaythling, L.

Allendale, V.

Forres, L.

Tenterden, L.

Thomson, L.

PARLIAMENT SQUARE AND OTHER STREETS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendment proposed by the Committee made.
House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.

WINCHESTER WATER AND GAS BILL.
Examiners certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
TUNBRIDGE WELLS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  STOKE-ON-TRENT EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]

    OLDBURY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    WARRINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    KINGSTON-UPON-HULL EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
    YORKTOWN (CAMBERLEY) AND DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    GRIMSBY CORPORATION (DOCK, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—

    V. Bertie of Thame,

    L. Braye,

    L. Sinclair,

    L. Loch (Chairman),

    L. Ruthven of Gowrie:

    1162
    Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, March 12 next, at half-past eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have come to the following Resolution to which they desire the concurrence of this House, namely:—"That it is expedient that the London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."

PEACEHAVEN ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of part of the parish of Piddinghoe in the rural district of Newhaven, in the Administrative County of East Sussex:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
A message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the meeting of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which are not Private Bills, which stands appointed for this day, be put off to Wednesday, March 6 next, at eleven o'clock.