Sitting of 21 January 1930

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 24th December, 1929, for the Christmas Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
FABRIC GLOVES (CUSTOMS DUTY).
Sir BASIL PETO: I desire to present to this Honourable House a humble petition signed by 147 female workers in the fabric glove industry in the borough of Bideford, in the county of Devon, showing that, whereas a Customs Duty has been imposed upon imported fabric gloves since 1925 and, as a result, employment in the glove industry has greatly increased, and new female workers and learners have obtained employment and in consequence of the fear that the Duty will not be continued after the termination of the five years for which it was imposed employment is decreasing and without the Duty half of those now employed in the industry would lose the employment they have obtained since the Duty was imposed. Therefore your petitioners pray that the Customs Duty on fabric gloves shall be continued for a further period of years.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  LABOUR STANDARDS.
  Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress the
  2
  present Government has made up to the present in safeguarding British labour conditions against unfair foreign competition and goods made from sweated labour by means of international negotiations?
  Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government propose to prohibit the importation of any foreign goods which are produced by sweated labour?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): As has already been indicated, the policy of the Government is to approach this matter by way of international discussion, and they will continue to take every opportunity to promote international agreement on labour standards. The International Labour Office have already concluded an inquiry into working conditions in the coal mining industry, and a technical conference of the chief coal-producing countries of Europe has recently been held at Geneva to explore the possibilities of reaching international agreement in regard to hours, wages or other conditions of work in coal mining. A committee has also been set up by the International Labour Office to conduct an inquiry into conditions in the textile industry. His Majesty's Government has taken an active part in the coal inquiries, and is giving every assistance to the textile inquiry. Exceptional steps for expediting the former were taken on the special representation of His Majesty's Government at the last meeting of the Assembly of the League.
  Mr. ALBERY: Is there any likelihood, as a result of these steps, that British workers will be protected against foreign sweated labour within the next 12 months?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No one can possibly put a time limit, especially where international discussions are taking place, but I am very hopeful that within that time results of some kind will be obtained.
  Mr. THORNE: Has there been any de finition of what is known as sweated labour in this country or anywhere else?
  Mr. GRAHAM: That is a very difficult point. I agree that the definitions are far from precise, but what is usually involved is the offer of goods here at a price less than the fair cost of production.
  Mr. HANNON: In the event of no decision being arrived at with the other nations, is the competition between foreign sweated labour and honest labour in this country to continue indefinitely?
  Mr. GRAHAM: It does not follow that it will continue indefinitely. I have given information in this long reply indicating all the steps which are being taken. In our view, it can only be solved on an international basis, and we are taking every step to that end.
  Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate some period of time at the end of which he will take some action?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No; no human being can indicate any period of time, when he has to negotiate with several Governments.
  Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government already possess all the necessary powers to put an immediate stop to this unfair foreign competition, and that in this country there is a strong and rapidly growing—[Interruption].

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    ARGENTINA.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement on the progress of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Govern-
    4
    ment of the Argentine Republic for the completion of a trade agreement with special reciprocal advantages between the two countries?
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade the terms of the declaration of British policy as made, or to be made, to the Argentine Government in pursuance of the British Ambassador's assurance that this country would not place any duties or any restriction of any kind on foreign imports into Great Britain?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Arising out of conversations with the D'Abernon Mission, the Argentine Government expressed their willingness to reduce the duties on certain goods of artificial silk in return for a declaration as to the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to duties and restrictions upon the importation of certain Argentine products into this country. Before any such declaration had been made, the Argentine Government issued a decree reducing by 50 per cent. the duties on yarn and piece goods of pure artificial silk as from 1st January, 1930. As, however, goods of artificial silk mixed with cotton are of much greater importance to our trade than goods of pure artificial silk, the Argentine Government were asked to consider whether the concession could be extended to cover such mixtures. This request is now being considered by the Argentine Government, and, in the meanwhile, the operation of the decree dealing with pure artificial silk goods has been suspended. No declaration has yet been made on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. HANNON: In point of fact, does not the concession which is promised, or already declared by the Argentine Government as due to commence on 1st January last, apply to every other country having trade relations with the Argentine?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would prefer my hon. Friend to give me notice of that question.
    Mr. HURD: Does the British Government confirm the statement made by the British Ambassador as to the character of British policy?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would prefer to see that statement again.

    IMPORTED MILK POWDER.
    Mr. O. LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of dried condensed skimmed milk which has been imported from abroad in each of the last three years?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The particulars available in respect of imports of milk powder in the years 1927 and 1928 were stated in a reply on 16th December last to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The quantity recorded for the year 1929 was 279,463 cwts., including 16,475 cwts. of sweetened milk powder. These quantities for 1929 are inclusive of milk powder to which other matter than sugar has been added (not less than 70 per cent. being dried milk), while the figures for earlier years did not include such products with milk powder. No information is available to show what proportion of the imported milk powder was prepared from skimmed milk.
    Mr. HANNON: Has any complaint been made to the Board of Trade of the spread of tuberculosis in this country consequent on the importation of skimmed milk?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir, not within my knowledge. I do not remember having such a complaint brought to my notice.

    TEXTILE AND IRON AND STEEL TRADES.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the unemployment in the cotton trade, arising in great part from the depression in the export branches, he will bring in a Bill on the lines of the Government's Coal Bill for a minimum price of cotton goods, a quota of production, and the amalgamation of cotton mills;
    (2) whether, in view of the unemployment in the woollen textile industry, arising in great part from the depression in the export branches, he will bring in a Bill, on the lines of the Government's Coal Bill to provide for a minimum price for woollen goods, a quota of production, and the amalgamation of woollen mills;
    (3) whether, in view of the unemployment in the iron and steel trades, he will bring in a Bill, on the lines of the
    6
    Government's Coal Bill, to provide for a minimum price for iron and steel, a quota of production, and the amalgamation of firms in the iron and steel trades?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestions, in regard to which I can only point out that action to improve the condition of particular industries, whether taken by the Government or the industries themselves, must vary according to their respective needs.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every argument which he used on the Second Reading of the Coal Bill applies equally to these three trades in my question and to agriculture; and how does he justify favouritism to the coal trade against those three other depressed industries?
    Mr. GRAHAM: There can be no complaint of favouritism. We must in these matters deal with one industry at a time. In any case, inquiries are in progress into the position of the iron and steel industry and the cotton industry. I cannot anticipate the results of those inquiries, but they will be considered when the reports are presented.
    Mr. SAMUEL: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify his statement that there is no favouritism when the extra cost of coal will fall on these three depressed industries and agriculture?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I do not agree with that for a moment. If the hon. Gentleman awaits the Committee stage of the Coal Mines Bill, he will hear what I at all events regard as powerful arguments on that point.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we can hear no more powerful arguments against the coal proposals than were put up when the Coal Mines Bill was before us on Second Reading?
    Mr. LEACH: Before any such proposals as outlined in these questions are adopted, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain whether the questioner and his friends will support them?
    Major COLVILLE: Will opportunity be afforded at the Inquiry for evidence to be given with regard to the probable effect on the iron and steel industry of the Coal Mines Bill?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have already made it perfectly plain in this House that all relevant matters are in order before that Committee. If any witness wishes to tender evidence on that point, he will have a full opportunity of doing so.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the state of the cotton industry is more serious than the coal industry?

    ANGLO-GERMAN TREATY.
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Trade if steps will be taken to ensure that in the renewal of the Anglo-German commercial treaty provision is made to prevent export bounties or their equivalent on German wheat sent to Great Britain?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The treaty does not require renewal, but remains in force continuously unless or until either party gives notice of its intention to terminate it, in which event one year's notice is required. So far as I am aware, there is no immediate prospect of any such denunciation, and the hon. Member's question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. HURD: Seeing that his colleagues in the Government have declared this to be most unfair competition, will the right hon. Gentleman intimate to Germany that it is difficult to retain this Treaty, to continue it, if this unfair competition continues?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No. I am quite willing to consider the general question with my colleagues, but I cannot give an undertaking at this Box to intervene in a way that would lead up to the denunciation of the Treaty.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman really mean that, as usual, the Government intend to do absolutely nothing for British industry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir.

    RUSSIAN TIMBER (IMPORTS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the result of his inquiries as to the extent to which prison labour and compulsory labour of detention camps has been entering into the timber subsequently exported to this country by the
    8
    Russian Soviet Government; and what steps he proposes to take to stop imports of this character?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret that I cannot undertake to make inquiries of the kind suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the current number of the "Timber Trades Journal" in reference to this question? He will see there quotations from the Finnish Press on the employment of slave labour in that country.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Without in any way accepting what my hon. and gallant Friend said on the last point, I will certainly consult that journal; but I ought to point out that I have not received a single representation on this point from any section of any industry in this country vitally affected.

    EXPORT CREDITS (RUSSIA).
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the aggregate total face value of the bills current on 11th January, 1930, drawn by British exporters of goods to Russia and bearing the acceptance of the Russian Government or its agents and guaranteed by the British Government under the exports credits scheme?
    Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): It has not been the practice to disclose the amount of liabilities outstanding under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme in respect of individual countries, and I regret, therefore, that I am unable to give the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Are we to understand, therefore, from the reply of the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government are standing by their undertaking not to guarantee credit facilities to the Soviet Government?
    Mr. GILLETT: As I explained previous to the rising of this House this scheme is an insurance for the payment of goods exported from England, and a certain amount of that business is being done with Russia.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Does not that mean that His Majesty's Government are

    9
    guaranteeing the credit of Russia and are, therefore, going back on the undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that under the hon. Member's administration they lost money in countries like Poland?
    Mr. GILLETT: I think that it is a technical point which the hon. Member raises. What the Export Credits Scheme is doing is to guarantee the goods, some of which are exported to Russia.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Member say what he means by guaranteeing the goods? We are not guaranteeing the goods. We are guaranteeing that the Russian Government will pay for the goods. That is giving the British Government's credit to the Soviet Government.

  BRITISH ARMY (PENARTH HEAD FORT).
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the fort at Penarth Head has been found to be redundant; and what action he proposes to take concerning the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, steps will be taken to dispose of the property as soon as the guns and stores have been removed, and as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary stated on 10th December last, the Penarth Urban District Council will be given an opportunity of purchasing at a fair price.

  FISHING INDUSTRY.

    INSURANCE FOR FISHERMEN.
    Major WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has completed his investigations into the question of a comprehensive scheme of insurance for fishermen; and whether he is now in a position to announce the Government's proposals in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. Johnston): Inquiries into this question are still proceeding. The question, as the hon. Mem-
    10
    ber is aware, is necessarily a complicated and difficult one, but there will be no avoidable delay. I am not at the moment in a position to make any further statement on the subject.
    Major WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any idea of how long it will take to conduct this inquiry?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: It all depends on the reports that we get from the responsible insurance interests, with whom we are in consultation.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does the inquiry include English as well as Scottish fishermen?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: No, Sir; in this particular inquiry we are only considering, from the Scottish Office point of view, the question of Scotland.

    RELIEF AND LOANS.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state the terms, including the rate of interest, upon which credits will be offered to Scottish fishermen for the replacement of their nets lost off the East Anglian coast on the 11th November; and in what manner it is intended that the voluntary fund should be utilised for the assistance of these fishermen?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The rate of interest to be charged will be 3 per cent. The other terms upon which loans will be granted are under consideration. The relief funds raised by the Lord Provosts will be pooled to form a national fund and distributed by the central committee with the assistance of local committees among the Scottish fishermen referred to for the purpose of assisting them to replace their nets.
    Major WOOD: Are we to understand that the loans are to be confined only to those who lost their nets on 11th November, or to all fishermen?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have another question on that point.
    Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are going to be separate applications, or, as before, he is going to ask the two classes of fishermen to fill up the same form?
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the needs of share fishermen, other than those who suffered in the East Anglian disaster, for credits to replace lost and worn-out boats and gear, will be provided for in the Government's credit scheme for the Scottish fishing industry?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I regret that it is not practicable to utilise the Loans Fund except for the purpose stated in my reply to the hon. Baronet's question on the 23rd of December.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that for some time there has been a strong demand from the fishing industry for these credits, a demand which he himself supported in the last Parliament; and is he not also aware that a great many men in much poorer circumstances than some of those who lost their nets in the East Anglian disaster urgently require assistance, which some of us would give them?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am quite as well aware of the difficulties of the subject as my hon. and gallant Friend, but, when an appeal was made for the fund, its purpose was stated to be to replace the nets which had been lost in the gale off the East Anglian coast on 11th November.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: My question referred, not to the voluntary fund, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will see, if he is good enough to refer to the question, to the Government's credit scheme. It is that credit scheme which I wish to see extended to those who were not concerned in the East Anglian disaster.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I think my hon. and gallant Friend forgets that all the appeals that were made for help, and for the help that the Government might give, were based on the loss that had been sustained by the fishermen on the 11th November.
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL- THOMSON: Is there a credit scheme and the voluntary fund, or is there only one scheme?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I think I have already explained that the voluntary fund will be distributed by the committee that has been set up, and that there will be a loan of £50,000 to the fishermen at the
    12
    rate of 3 per cent., the conditions of which are now being considered by the Fishery Board.
    Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the credits mentioned in this question were promised by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in their election campaign and that they are a part of their election programme? When is the right hon. Gentleman going to carry out this definite pledge?
    Mr. ADAMSON: Whatever may have been in the election programme, I want my hon. and gallant Friend to realise that since this Government came into office some seven months ago, or thereabouts, a considerable amount of relief has been granted to the fishermen on whose behalf he is appealing and that other forms of assistance are now under consideration by the Government.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement as to the policy of the Government with regard to the fishing industry; and if he will assure the House that no consideration of party polities will influence his estimate of its needs?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): An Interim Report of the Fishing Industry Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research is about to be published, and the hon. Member may accept my assurance that this Government at any rate will not allow party politics to determine its interest in the present hardships of the fishermen.
    Mr. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause that answer to be circulated to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, and to members of the Opposition as well.

  AGRICULTURE.

    SCOTLAND.
    Major COLVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the situation which exists in the farming industry in Scotland owing to the inability of producers to obtain a reasonable price for their produce: and if he will state his proposals for helping that industry?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I am aware of the difficulties which at present confront agriculture in Scotland. It is not possible for me, however, within the limits of question and answer to discuss what the Government have done and are doing and have in view for the purpose of assisting the industry.
    Major COLVILLE: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that we have not had an answer at all as to what the Government are prepared to do in regard to Scottish agriculture?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: In the closing days of the last Session my right hon. Friend made a very considerable and long answer on that subject, and I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's consent, to send him a copy of it.
    Major COLVILLE: Will the hon. Member consider that the only possible means of giving help is to exclude new foreign potatoes for a definite period?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: What about oats?

    ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now make any statement regarding the Report on the Royal Veterinary College?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I am fully aware of the need for urgency in this matter, and discussion between the Government Departments and other bodies concerned are being pressed forward. I am not in a position to make any further statement on this subject, but the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that a decision will be reached and made public as soon as possible.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYERasked the Minister of Agriculture when he will announce the Government's agricultural policy?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) on 16th December.
    Sir G. BOWYER: Has not the right hon. Gentleman had time to reconsider the matter during the Recess?
    Mr. BUXTON: I think the reply to the question on the Paper is fully given in the answer to which I have referred the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the Government's agricultural policy being placed before the Agricultural Conference that is now sitting?
    Mr. BUXTON: That question does not arise.

    CORN AND MEAT PRICES (STABILISATION).
    Mr. W. B. TAYLORasked the Minister of Agriculture if he proposes to introduce a Bill to stabilise the prices of corn and meat produced in Britain?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the Noble Lord, the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) on 23rd December, to which I have nothing to add.

  SCOTLAND.

    JUVENILE OFFENDERS (PROBATION BILL).
    Major COLVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Government propose to introduce a Probation Act for Scotland to further the probationary method of dealing with juvenile delinquents?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: A Probation Bill for Scotland has been prepared. The date of its introduction must, however, depend upon the exigencies of Parliamentary business.
    Major COLVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in this instance Scotland is behind England, and will he take steps to push on this legislation?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that any delay in that Bill being brought forward was due to the party opposite?
    HON. MEMBERS: No.

    DEER FENCE, STRATHNAVER.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds the crofters of Strathnaver, who have been suffering from the depredations of deer, have been refused by their proprietor, the Department of Agricul-

    15
    ture for Scotland, the materials for a deer fence which they are willing themselves to erect; and whether he is now prepared to sanction the grant of these materials?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: I am advised by the Department of Agriculture that the responsibility for the erection of the deer fence at Strathnaver to which the hon. Baronet refers should be borne by the landlord from whose lands the deer come, and against whom damages have been awarded by the Land Court in respect of the depredations in question.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this matter is dealt with, because in the meantime the crofters are suffering, and they are willing to put up the fence?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is correct, as stated in this question, that the Department of Agriculture is the proprietor of this land, or whether it is some private owner?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The Department of Agriculture is not the proprietor of the land from which the deer came. Steps have been taken to obtain damages from the proprietor.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Are steps being taken to get the fence put up? That is the important point.
    Mr. W. THORNE: If these landlords do not pay, is there not power to send them to prison?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have no power of that kind.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government has any new measures or plans for reducing unemployment?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am continuing steadily to expand and develop the policy I have already explained to the House. In particular, the policy of aiding and encouraging the revival of industry, especially the export trades, is being actively pursued, and in this connection I have recently been able to make an
    16
    authoritative pronouncement upon the relations between the City and industry which makes it plain that proposals put forward for assisting the reorganisation of industry on sound lines will receive the sympathetic consideration and the cooperation of the City in working out plans and finding the necessary finance.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give any further details, particularly in relation to his statement at Manchester with reference, for instance, to the City and industry and matters of that kind?
    Mr. THOMAS: Certainly, at the most convenient opportunity; but the House will appreciate that, when negotiations are going on affecting the reorganisation of certain industries, for the purpose of which millions of pounds have to be found, it would be undesirable and unwise on my part to make such announcements, because the firms concerned would resent them more than anyone else. At the first convenient opportunity, however, I shall be delighted to elaborate my views.
    Sir K. WOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman in the interval, because an opportunity may not occur for a week or two, issue a White Paper or give further particulars, so that those engaged in the industries concerned may know exactly what it is proposed to do and take their course accordingly?
    Mr. THOMAS: The issue of a White Paper is entirely unnecessary fur the purpose that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. There are already thousands of schemes and applications. The difficulty is not that people do not know, but to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman do us the favour of explaining here and now what he means by the word "City"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It would take too long to answer that question.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Lord Privy Seal the total amount of money spent on unemployment schemes since he assumed office, and the estimated number of people who have thereby received employment?
    Mr. HANNONasked the Lord Privy Seal the amount of the guarantees

    17
    which have been approved under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, for undertakings which will provide additional employment in the case of municipalities and public utility companies, respectively; and the numbers now employed on projects which have been brought into operation during the latter half of 1928?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Lord Privy Seal (1) the value of the schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee since 28th November, 1929; the amount of Government guarantees on their account; and the estimated number of man-months of employment to be provided by these schemes during the current year;
    (2), what is the value of schemes approved under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, since 29th November, 1929, the value of Government grants on their account, and the estimated number of man-months of employment they will provide during the coming year in Great Britain?
    Mr. REMERasked the Lord Privy Seal how many schemes have been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee since the House adjourned; and how many men and women it is estimated will be employed under these schemes?
    Mr. WELLSasked the Lord Privy Seal the total amount of expenditure sanctioned by him for providing work for the unemployed, both in grants to local authorities and grants for other schemes, up to 31st December, 1929?
    Mr. MILLSasked the Lord Privy Seal how many local authorities, county councils, or corporations have submitted schemes for internal improvements; and, with a view to easing the local problem of unemployment, how many have been examined and how many have been approved?
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Lord Privy Seal how many people are at work as a result of the new schemes put forward since the present Government came into office?
    Mr. THOMAS: While it is not convenient within the limits of a Parliamentary answer to give the information asked for hon. Members are clearly en-
    18
    titled to it, and, as stated on the 24th December, I propose to issue very shortly a further statement amplifying the White Paper recently issued.
    Mr. ALBERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only two figures are asked for in my question; and, further, that during the last Session I put a similar question to him week by week and never got a reply?
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not know about the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but, if he will look at the whole of the questions to which I have referred in one answer, he will see that they all ask for information which it is difficult to give by question and answer. As I have said, I will deal with it in a further statement.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: When the right hon. Gentleman presents his White Paper, will he take pains to show how much of the employment is fresh employment, and how much is only in replacement of schemes which are terminating?
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not know that that will be possible, but I will endeavour to do it. I have in my mind a dock which is being finished now. A new contract has been given, probably to the same contractor, but the Government cannot say, "You must employ certain men." It may easily be that some of those who are now finishing will get new work, but the Government cannot particularise.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any of these schemes are going to deal with the thousands of unemployed women in the country?
    Mr. THOMAS: Only in so far as they are related to the general unemployment problem; but the Ministry of Labour, as the Noble Lady will know, is considering the question of special schemes of training for women.
    Viscountess ASTOR: In regard to special schemes of training for women, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the late Government did that, but that we were always pressing them to do more; and will he take a step forward, and not backwards?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is a very modest request to make to ask us to do more than they did. I think that that would be easy.
    Viscountess ASTOR: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the present Government, although they have been in office for seven months, have done less than the last Government did in this matter?
    Major ELLIOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an opportunity of making some statement during the forthcoming Debate when the Government will be asking for many more millions of pounds for the relief of unemployment?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have to meet a number of deputations, and, although it would be a disappointment to me to miss the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, and I shall be here if I can, it is only fair to say that it may not be possible. The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave me notice of the questions that he is going to raise, and someone will be here to deal with the situation. If I am absent, it will only be due to certain conferences which I am attending.
    Major ELLIOT: Will someone be here on behalf of the Lord Privy Seal?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes.
    Mr. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the White Paper figures bearing on the effect on employment of the measures which are being taken for the revival of the export trade?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is impossible for anyone to do that. It is true that certain schemes of rationalisation, which I am encouraging because they are in the interest of the country, must have the effect of adding to the number of unemployed, and not decreasing it. It is of no use to run away from that fact.
    Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. I desire to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I have a question on the Paper which involves merely two figures. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to this and other questions, has made many statements and given many answers, but on previous occasions I have found it practically impossible to get a direct answer. I desire to ask you, Sir,
    20
    whether it would be in order to raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It would be in order to raise a question of that kind on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. REMER: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, with reference to Question No. 33? That question has nothing whatever to do with the points raised in the other questions. It deals with the Unemployment Grants Committee, which is an old Committee, and it merely asks how many schemes have been approved during the Recess and for how many men and women they have found employment?
    Mr. THOMAS: If I may say so, this is not a different position. There are three Committees, namely, the Unemployment Grants Committee, the Development Committee, and the Colonial Development Committee, and the Government in various ways are giving financial assistance to each of these Committees. In my answer I merely stated that I anticipated that the House would like a full statement of all the grants made by each of these bodies, and that in the White Paper I would give that information.

    RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can make any statement on the schemes for electrification of railways which have been definitely completed or which will be completed at an early date: and when operations on these schemes will be commenced?
    Mr. THOMAS: Grants were approved by the Development (Public Utility) Advisory Committee in November towards schemes for electrifying the London Midland and Scottish Railway between Dagenham and Upminster, and also the Wirral Section (Birkenhead to West Kirby and Bidston Junction to New Brighton). It is anticipated that an early start will be made on both these works. The Company have also undertaken to electrify the track between Barking and Dagenham. Following upon the remission of the Railway Passenger Duty, the Southern Railway Company propose to electrify their line between Coulsdon and Brighton: Bedhill and

    21
    Guildford; and Preston Park and Worthing. Contracts for a considerable amount of this work are expected to be let shortly. The Company have also announced their intention to electrify by next summer their lines between Hounslow Junction, "Whit-ton Junction and Windsor; Dartford and Gravesend; and Wimbledon and West Croydon. In addition the Railway Companies are understood to be considering further schemes of electrification.
    Mr. HANNON: Is any progress being made with the London and North Eastern Railway scheme in relation to Liverpool Street?
    Mr. THOMAS: The difficulty of the London and North Eastern Railway in relation to Liverpool Street is the problem of the whole of London traffic. You cannot disconnect one from the other. Negotiations on those lines are taking place at present.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that two or three years ago a scheme for the electrification of the London and North Eastern Railway relating to Liverpool Street had actually been completed? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to ascertain how soon it can be given effect to?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is true that certain engineers submitted a scheme, but the railway company turned it down then, and they have turned it down to-day. The Government are not in a position to say to a private company. "You must adopt this particular scheme." That is their business and not the Government's.
    Mr. HARRIS: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the electrification of Liverpool Street is to be held up pending agreement with the combine?
    Mr. THOMAS: I did not say it was to be held up. I said negotiations were taking place, because it could not be separated from the general question of London traffic.

    ZAMBESI BRIDGE (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether any contracts have yet been placed in this country on account of work in connection with the Zambesi Bridge scheme?
    Mr. THOMAS: Orders have been placed for a certain amount of material in connection with the approach railways. It is hoped that the main contract will be placed at the beginning of May.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Have the final plans been approved and passed for the construction of the bridge?
    Mr. THOMAS: I believe that is so, and the tenders, we anticipate, will be let in May.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Seeing that the Zambesi Bridge will be in Portuguese territory, will the Lord Privy Seal take steps to provide for the employment of as much British labour as possible?
    Mr. THOMAS: The aspect of the question that we are mainly concerned with is that the very important contracts for the steel should be given in this country. It is rather in that direction that I am concentrating.

    MOTOR INDUSTRY.
    Mr. REMERasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is in a position to state what progress he has made with his negotiations with the motor industry?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am not in a position to make any further statement at the present time on the matter to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement in a fortnight's time?
    Mr. THOMAS: I could not commit myself to a day. The hon. Member may take it that those engaged in the industry themselves are the best judges.

    TIN INDUSTRY.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals have been placed before the Government for the revival of the tin industry in Cornwall; and has he considered the Report of the Cornish mining engineers as to the good prospects of development in this industry throughout the whole county of Cornwall?
    Mr. THOMAS: No definite proposals have been made to me, but if the hon. Member is in a position to submit information or proposals, I shall be glad to examine them in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines.

    SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Lord Privy Seal when the Government will be in a position to announce their policy in regard to the Severn barrage scheme; and whether full information as to the Shannon enterprise has been placed at the disposal of the Commissioners who have been investigating this question?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The preliminary investigation undertaken on the recommendation of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research was completed last year. The results disclosed were considered to justify more detailed investigations which are in progress. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

    DERBYSHIRE.
    Major POLEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has had schemes to deal

    Local Authority.

    Nature of Work.

    Estimated Cost.

    —

    £

    Alvaston and Boulton U.D.C.

    Sewers

    2,800

    Under consideration.

    Alvaston and Boulton U.D.C

    Sewers

    12,300

    Under consideration.

    Alvaston and Boulton U.D.C

    Roads

    1,000

    Under consideration.

    Belper R.D.C

    …

    …

    Sewers

    5,850

    Under consideration.

    Belper U.D.C

    …

    …

    Water

    2,700

    Rejected.

    Blackwell R.D.C.

    …

    …

    Water

    5,695

    Under consideration.

    Bolsover U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Roads

    3,508

    Approved.

    Bolsover U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Roads and Water

    1,492

    Approved.

    Bolsover U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Roads

    1,036

    Approved.

    Bolsover U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Water

    688

    Under consideration.

    Bolsover U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Sewers

    2,042

    Under consideration.

    Chesterfield R.D.C.

    …

    …

    Sewers

    6,058

    Approved.

    Chesterfield R.D.C.

    …

    …

    Sewers

    1,874

    Approved.

    Chesterfield R.D.C.

    …

    …

    Water

    33,000

    Under consideration.

    Chesterfield T.C.

    …

    …

    Roads and Sewers

    7,895

    Under consideration.

    Clay Cross U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Sewers

    3,500

    Approved.

    Clay Cross U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Sewers

    720

    Approved.

    Derby T.C

    …

    …

    River Improvement

    162,000

    Under consideration.

    Glossop B.C

    …

    …

    Roads and Sewers

    14,000

    Under consideration.

    Heage U.D.C

    …

    …

    Sewers

    25,000

    Approved.

    Ilkeston T.C

    …

    …

    Roads

    3,825

    Approved.

    Long Eaton U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Water

    20,000

    Approved.

    The Matlocks U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Water

    2,650

    Approved.

    New Mills U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Electric Supply

    27,000

    Rejected.

    New Mills U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Gas

    2,870

    Under consideration.

    Ripley U.D.C

    …

    …

    Roads

    1,200

    Approved.

    Ripley U.D.C

    …

    …

    Water

    1,306

    Under consideration.

    Shardlow U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Sewerage

    15,280

    Approved.

    Shardlow U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Sewerage

    15,235

    Approved.

    Shardlow U.D.C.

    …

    …

    Sewerage

    13,200

    Approved.

    As regards road schemes three schemes for widening sections of route A.6, estimated to cost £485,000 have been approved
    with the unemployment problem in Derbyshire submitted to his Department by local authorities; which authorities have submitted such schemes; whether he can give particulars of such schemes; which of these schemes have been approved and which are still under consideration; and the total amount of money involved in each case?
    Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that, in addition to important road schemes submitted by the county council, 30 schemes have been submitted by 17 local authorities in the county of Derby. As the details involve a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the details:
    The following applications have been considered by the Unemployment Grants Committee from local authorities in the county of Derby since the 1st June, 1929.
    proved in principle under the Trunk Road programme for grants of 80 per cent. and the Highways Committee have decided to

    25
    recommend the county council to proceed with such works. The county council have submitted a five years' programme consisting of 12 schemes estimated to cost £676,361. Five of the schemes estimated to cost £657,500 are under discussion with the county council. The remaining seven schemes estimated to cost £18,861 have been approved for grant. The Derby County Borough Council have also submitted a programme consisting of six schemes estimated to cost £428,100. As regards two of the schemes estimated to cost £285,000, it will be necessary for the council to obtain Parliamentary powers before the works can be put in hand. Details of a scheme estimated to cost £100,000 are now being examined, but the details of the other schemes have not yet been submitted. In addition to the schemes referred to above, grants have been made during the current financial year to local authorities in the county of Derby in respect of road improvement schemes estimated to cost £73,474 and one scheme in the county borough of Derby estimated to cost £820.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to ascertain the number of unemployed agricultural workers at the present time in England and Wales?
    Mr. W. B. TAYLORasked the Minister of Agriculture what machinery exists to provide a record of unemployed farm workers; and, if not, what steps can be taken to ascertain them?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: Owing to the non-inclusion of agricultural workers in schemes for insurance against unemployment, no machinery exists for obtaining exact statistics of the number of unemployed in the industry.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate estimate of the number of unemployed agricultural workers?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am obtaining the information that can be obtained from the unions concerned, but exact statistics are not available.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that this information will be available to Members?
    Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question.
    Major WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman decided to take crofters into the Unemployment Insurance Scheme?
    Mr. BUXTON: That should be the subject of another question.
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Minister of Agriculture when the Unemployment Insurance Bill for farm workers will be introduced?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have been asked to reply. The Departments concerned have this matter under consideration, but I cannot at present say when it will be possible to lay proposals before the House.

    LEITH.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons registered at the Employment Exchange, Quality Street, Leith, on the 15th January, 1928, 15th January, 1929, and 15th January, 1930, respectively?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The number of persons on the registers of the Employment Exchange at Quality Street, Leith, on 6th January, 1930, was 4,886, as compared with 5,193 at 7th January, 1929, and 3,889 at 9th January, 1928.

    SCOTLAND.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Labour the number of un employed persons registered at the Ex changes in Scotland on 15th January, 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Scotland at 6th January, 1930, was 193,238, as compared with 187,305 at 7th January, 1929, and 146,675 at 9th January, 1928.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has now received the Report of the Channel Tunnel Committee; and whether he can make a statement of the Government's intention in connection therewith?
  Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Lord Privy Seal what action he proposes to take with regard to the Report of the Channel Tunnel Committee?
  Mr. THOMAS: Unexpected delays have occurred in the later stages of the work of the Committee, owing partly to the necessity for considering additional matter which has been laid before them, but it is hoped that the Report will be submitted shortly.
  Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea as to how long it will be? Will it be a week or two, or a month?
  Mr. THOMAS: This is not a matter in which the Government are responsible. I saw the Chairman of the Committee myself last week, and he explained the difficulties in regard to the necessity for additional expert advice. I gave him authority, but it was not for me to say to him, "Issue your Report at a given date." That is his business, and not mine.

  COAL INDUSTRY (EXPLOSIONS).
  Dr. DAVIESasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the fact that in 1927 three men were killed as the result of explosions in mines due to striking matches or smoking and in 1928 five deaths resulted from the same causes, he proposes to introduce legislation to further safeguard miners from such practices?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): The existing legal provisions are strict and comprehensive, and I do not think that breaches of these provisions can be prevented by further legislation.
  Dr. DAVIES: Is the hon. Gentleman of opinion that the penalties at present imposed are sufficient?
  Mr. TURNER: Yes.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, if automatic gas alarms were installed and it was known that gas was present, the men would not take the risk of smoking? Does he not think the time has arrived when automatic alarm should be made compulsory in all mines?
  Mr. TURNER: I should like notice of that question.

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister what facilities he proposes now to afford for slum-clearance legislation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is hoped that the Bill may be introduced at an early date.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate a little more precisely what he means by that? Would it be within the next two or three weeks?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Possibly.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does the Prime Minister mean to introduce a Measure for Scotland at the same same time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will put down a question.

    FLOODS, SOMERSET.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Health the number of working-class houses rendered unfit for human habitation by the recent floods in the Somerset area?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): My right hon. Friend has no official information on this subject. He will send to my hon. Friend a copy of some private estimates which he has received.

  MINISTERS (ABSENCE ABROAD).
  Mr. ALBERYasked the Prime Minister which Ministers have been, or are at present, absent from this country in connection with the duties of their office?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As the reply is in tabular form I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  No Ministers are at present absent from this country, but the following Ministers have at various times been absent in connection with the duties of their offices:
  The Prime Minister: Delegate to the Assembly of the League of Nations. Visit to the United States and Cunada.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer: Dele-gat to The Hague Conference
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: Delegate to The Hague Conference. Delegate to the Assembly of the League of Nations. Representative on the Council of the League of Nations.
  The Lord Privy Seal: Visit to Canada.
  The Secretary of State for War: Visit to Vimy in connection with the unveiling of windows in the French Memorial Chapel. Visit to Malta and Gibraltar to see conditions under which the troops serve.
  The President of the Board of Trade: Delegate to The Hague Conference, Delegate to the Assembly of the League of Nations.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: Substitute delegate to the Assembly of the League of Nations. Representative on the Council of the League of Nations.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air: Study of continental air transport systems.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty: Inspection of naval establishments, Mediterranean Station,
  Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade: Delegate to the International Labour Conference. Delegate to the Preparatory Technical Conference on Conditions of Work in the Coal Mining Industry.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour: Representative on the Governing Body of the International Labour Office.

  COAST PROTECTION BILL.
  Mr. WEST RUSSELLasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the Money Resolution relating to the Coast Protection Bill?
  Mr. O. LEWISasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the Money Resolution for the Coast Protection Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am not at present in a position to indicate when it will be possible to take this Resolution.
  Mr. LEWIS: Is it a fact that notice has already been given of nearly 500 Amendments?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In the earlier stages of the Bill I indicated that it could not be proceeded with unless it was received with something like general agreement. The fact that it has not had that general agreement is the reason for the delay.

  RATING (LAND VALUES AND SPORTING RIGHTS).
  Major POLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any resoutions, and, if so, how many, urging the Government to allow local authorities to levy rates on land values as an aid to the solution of the problems of unemployment?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): No record of such resolutions, if any, has been kept in the Treasury.
  Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is intended to introduce legislation to secure that rates are paid upon all sporting rights?
  Miss LAWRENCE: I have been asked to reply. I understand that a test case under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, is likely to come before the High Court in the near future, the decision in which should resolve doubts as to the liability of sporting rights in certain circumstances to separate assessment for rates. In the meantime, it would be premature to consider the question of amending legislation.
  Mr. GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that, where sporting rights are let separately from the ownership of land, they are rated at present, and any such proposal as proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Kelly) to rate all sporting rights would take away from the owner occupiers, who now cultivate more than a third of our land, a great part of the benefits which they have received from the derating of agricultural land?
  Miss LAWRENCE: I am afraid the practice is conflicting and uncertain.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Would it not be more in the interest of the country to find work for these sporters instead of them hunting all over the country using up their time enjoying themselves?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
  Sir G. BOWYERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many conscientious objectors have been promoted in Government Departments over the heads of civil servants who served in the War?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have repeated the inquiry made for the purpose of replying to the same question put to me on the 17th of last month by the hon. and gallant Member, and the answer is the same, namely, three.
  Sir G. BOWYER: Can the hon. Gentleman now give me one reason for this preferential treatment?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite incorrect in calling it preferential treatment. The information has been given before, but I will give it again. Promotions are made solely on the ground of merit and in the interest of the efficiency of the service.
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: Would it not be more correct to describe what has happened as the removal of disabilities which ought never to have been imposed?

  INCOME TAX (INSURANCE POLICIES).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any estimate has been made of the number of those who avoid payment of Income Tax and Super-tax by taking out a 10-years' or endowment policy on which the insurance companies give a loan of 85 per cent. of the single premium, enabling them to debit their accounts with the interest on this 85 per cent.?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I regret that I am not in a position to give this information, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the effect of these arrangements on the yield of Sur-tax is not being lost sight of.

  RIVER POLLUTION.
  Mr. WEST RUSSELLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Tyne Experimental Committee, particularly the reference to the pollution of the River Tyne from sewage; and whether, having regard to the damage done to fisheries upon which many people depend for their livelihood, he is taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. N. BUXTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the condition of the river has been kept
  32
  under observation by the River Tyne Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on River Pollution, and the Reports of this Committee have been communicated to the sanitary authorities, with whom responsibility for action lies.
  Mr. W. RUSSELLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in accordance with the recommendation of the Joint Advisory Committee on River Pollution, county councils and county borough councils have been reminded of the power of any one of them as to the setting up of a river board to control the whole length of a river, including its tributaries; whether any applications for the establishment of a river board have been received; and which river board, if any, has been set up?
  Miss LAWRENCE: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No new rivers joint committees have as yet been set up. One application has been received but not proceeded with. The question is being considered by conferences of the local authorities or special committees in a number of cases, and this will, my right hon. Friend hopes, lead to results.

  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  Sir G. BOWYERasked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to ratify the Washington Hours Convention?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The Hours of Industrial Employment Bill is in course of preparation, and I hope to be able to introduce it before Easter.

  INDIA (HAJ COMMITTEE).
  Major POLEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Haj Committee set up by the Government of India has presented its Report; and, if so, whether he will inform the House of the terms of this Report?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The report of the Committee has not yet been presented to the Government of India.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH RELATIONS).
  Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the

  33
  names of the British members of the joint committee set up under Article 4 of the Protocol of 3rd October to negotiate with Russia?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): The joint Committee provided for in Article 4 of the Protocol has not yet been set up.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Does that mean that no negotiations are going on?
  Mr. DALTON: Discussions are proceeding.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: How can they be if there is no Negotiating Committee?
  Mr. DALTON: I did not catch the question.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: If there is no Negotiating Committee, how can discussions be proceeding?
  Mr. DALTON: The Foreign Office is quite capable of conducting those discussions.

  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.
  Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a further statement as to the present position with regard to the proposals for a draft treaty with Egypt?
  Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir. The speech from the Throne at the opening of the Egyptian Parliament on the 11th January contained a friendly reference to the treaty proposals which, the High Commissioner reports, was cordially received by the Chamber and by the public generally. The Egyptian Parliament has hitherto been occupied with its internal re-organisation, and, while these inevitable parliamentary preliminaries are in progress, the new Egyptian Government has naturally been unable to establish contact with the Chamber on the treaty issue.

  VACCINATION.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position
  34
  to announce his intentions as to any proposed amendment of the law relating to the Vaccination Acts?
  Miss LAWRENCE: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend's question on the 12th December last.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider introducing legislation giving the same amount to married couples over 60 as a pension on retirement from remunerative work that is now being received by younger married unemployed persons with families?
  Mr. THOMAS: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. Such a scheme is quite impracticable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I should like to ask the Leader of the House if he has to announce any alteration in the business which was foreshadowed before we parted?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I am sorry to announce to the House that it has been found—at least I am not sorry—that the yield of sugar from beet has been considerably greater on account of the mild weather at the end of the ripening season than was originally estimated. From the Treasury point of view, it means that a further sum will be required, and I felt that it was more convenient to the House that it should be voted in one sum. Therefore, the Supplementary Estimate under the heading of Beet Sugar will be withdrawn to-day, but it will be circulated to-morrow and put down on Thursday. As a matter of fact, it will not be a substantial alteration of business, but just a readjustment of the business which had been drawn up; otherwise, the business will be as announced before the Adjournment.
Ordered,
"That no Notices of Amendments on going into Committee of Supply be handed in before Thursday next, and that the Ballot for precedence of such Amendments be taken on that day immediately after Questions."—[The Prime Minister.]

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
Major GEORGE DAVIES: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Before you proceed with the Ballot for Notices of Motion, I would like to put a matter before you for your guidance. I am aware that this is a matter on which there have been many precedents. The normal procedure has been to take the ballot on one day, say for three weeks ahead. Under those conditions, every Member who puts down his name has an equal chance in the ballot of being the lucky or unlucky winner by getting a place for a Motion. But when, as is the case to-day, we draw at once for four opportunities it would appear to follow that, if the lucky drawer of the first has his name read out, he has no chance for any of the other three Motions. His opportunities therefore, are mathematically lessened by grouping. This is a point, I submit, which materially affects every Member of the House. Whether it is one that can be mathematically solved by, for example, the reinsertion of the lucky ticket so that the particular Member has an equal chance in respect of the other three days, it is not for me to suggest. I wish to submit the matter to you, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me that in this grouping of four different days in one drawing of the ballot each Member loses a certain proportion of his chances of being enabled to bring forward a Motion for discussion.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see any greater disadvantage to hon. Members under this existing ballot than under a ballot for each particular day, because in the case of one particular day we should draw four names and in the case of four days we should draw sixteen names, so that really the chance of hon. Members is not lessened.
Major DAVIES: Further on that point, Mr. Speaker. I think you misunderstood me. If we draw for one day, any individual Member has a chance of being one of the four successful in Ballot. If we then the next week draw for the three weeks following, he has an equal chance and might conceivably be fortunate in securing the first place in the ballot on each of four days. [Interruption.] I am speaking in the interests of the House as a whole and the rights and privileges of
36
every private Member, regardless of the part of the House in which he sits. I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that mathematically it must be so, that if you take one day at a time every Member has a chance of drawing the ballot for that day, but, if we take the ballot in groups of four, his chances are quartered. It is a matter which requires consideration.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how the hon. and gallant Member can expect to have more chances. After all, four fours are sixteen.

EMPIRE FREE TRADE.
Mr. REMER: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow week, I shall call attention to the necessity of Empire Free Trade, and move a Resolution.
TRADE WITH RUSSIA.
Miss WILKINSON: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow fortnight, I shall call attention to the necessity of improving our Trade with Russia, and move a Resolution.
RATING, STREET PAVING CHARGES, AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow three weeks, I shall call attention to the effect of the present rating system and street paving charges upon housing development, and move a Resolution.
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. McELWEE: I beg to move that, to-morrow, I shall call attention to the question of the Sittings of the House, and move a Resolution.
POSTAL AND TELEPHONE SERVICES.
Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow three weeks, I shall call attention to the condition of Postal, Telegraphic and Telephone Services, and move a Resolution.
UNIVERSITY REPRESENTATION.
Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow three weeks, I shall call attention to the Representation of Universities in the House of Commons, and move a Resolution.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS).
Mr. GRUNDY: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow week, I shall call atten-

37
tion to the question of the extension of Unemployment Insurance to Agricultural Workers, and move a Resolution.

DEPRESSED HEAVY INDUSTRIES (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
Major COLVILLE: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow fortnight, I shall call attention to the failure of His Majesty's Government to form a policy to help the Depressed Heavy Industries of this country, and move a Resolution.
ROYAL NAVY (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCES).
Sir BERTRAM FALLE: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow, I shall call attention to certain anomalies in the Royal Navy, more particularly in regard to Marriage Allowances, and move a Resolution.
STANDING JOINT COMMITTEES.
Mr. VAUGHAN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of the Constitution and Powers of Standing Joint Committees, and move a Resolution.
GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. MATHERS: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow week, I shall call attention to the question of the Government of Scotland, and move a Resolution.
SOCIAL REFORM (ABUSE).
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow, I shall call attention to the abuse of Social Reform, and move a Resolution.
PENSIONS AT SIXTY YEARS OF AGE.
Mr. TINKER: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow three weeks, I shall call attention to the payment of Pensions at Sixty, and move a Resolution.
LINEN TRADE.
Mr. SOMERSET: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow fortnight, I shall call attention to the Linen Trade of this country, and move a Resolution.
INCIDENCE OF RATING.
Mr. MILNER: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow week, I shall call attention to the Incidence of Rating, and move a Resolution.
FAMILY ALLOWANCES.
Miss LEE: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of Family Allowances, and move a Resolution.

PRIVATE BILLS.
The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 79, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following List should originate in the House of Lords, namely:

Ascot District Gas and Electricity.

Barnsley and District Traction.

Birkenhead Corporation.

Bootle Corporation.

Boston Corporation.

Brixham Gas and Electricity.

Bromborough Dock.

Clacton-on-Sea Pier.

Darlington Corporation.

East Kent District Water.

Epsom Rural District Council.

Falmouth Corporation Water.

Falmouth Water.

Faversham Oyster Fishery Company.

Guildford Rural District Council.

Hastings Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles and Omnibuses).

Herne Bay Urban District Council.

Lancaster Corporation.

Leicester Corporation.

Llanelly District Traction.

Liverpool Exchange Company.

London County Council (General Powers).

London United Tramways.

Malvern Hills.

Middlesex County Council.

Mid Kent Water.

Milford Docks.

Portsmouth Corporation.

Portsmouth Water.

Prestwich Urban District Council.

Redcross Street Burial Ground (Bristol).

Royal Exchange Assurance.

Selsey Water.

Shakespeare Birthplace, etc., Trust (Amendment).

Shoreham Harbour.

39

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power.

Sidmouth Electricity.

Southampton County Council (Bursledon Bridge).

Southport Corporation.

Sutton Coldfield Corporation.

United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution.

Wakefield Corporation.

Walsall Corporation.

Wednesday Corporation.

West Bromwich Corporation.

Private Bills [Lords],—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely:

Ascot District Gas and Electricity.

Barnsley and District Traction.

Birkenhead Corporation.

Bootle Corporation.

Boston Corporation.

Brixham Gas and Electricity.

Bromborough Dock.

Clacton-on-Sea Pier.

Darlington Corporation.

East Kent District Water.

Epsom Rural District Council.

Falmouth Corporation Water.

Falmouth Water.

Faversham Oyster Fishery Company.

Guildford Rural District Council.

Hastings Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles and Omnibuses).

Lancaster Corporation.

Leicester Corporation.

Llanelly District Traction.

Liverpool Exchange Company.

London County Council (General Powers).

London United Tramways.

Malvern Hills.

Middlesex County Council.

Mid Kent Water.

Milford Docks.

Portsmouth Corporation.

Portsmouth Water.

Redcross Street Burial Ground (Bristol).

Royal Exchange Assurance.

Selsey Water.

Shakespeare Birthplace, etc., Trust (Amendment).

40

Shoreham Harbour.

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power.

Sidmouth Electricity.

Southampton County Council (Bursledon Bridge).

Southport Corporation.

Sutton Coldfield Corporation.

United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution.

Wakefield Corporation.

Walsall Corporation.

Wednesbury Corporation.

West Bromwich Corporation.

Private Bills contributing to Relief of Unemployment (Bills certified as a Whole),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Certificates of the Lord Privy Seal, pursuant to the Order of the House on the 11th day of December last, that it appeared to him that the following Bills contain provisions relating to works, the execution of which would substantially contribute to the early relief of unemployment, namely:—

Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Company (Bridge) Bill,

Chester Water Bill,

Clacton-on-Sea Pier Bill,

Dartford and Purfleet (Thames) Tunnel Bill,

Derby Corporation Bill,

East Kent District Water Bill,

Falmouth Water Bill,

Great Western Railway Bill,

Kingsbridge and Salcombe Water Board Bill,

London and North Eastern Railway (Hull Level Crossings) Bill,

London Electric, Metropolitan, District, Central London, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill,

Mid Kent Water Bill,

Milford Haven Urban District Council (Water) Bill,

North Cheshire Sewerage Board Bill,

Portsmouth Water Bill,

Shoreham Harbour Bill,

Tees (Newport) Bridge Bill,

Tees Valley Water Bill.

Private Bills contributing to Relief of Unemployment (Bills certified in Part),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Certificates of the Lord Privy Seal, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 11th day of December last, that it appeared to him that the Bills set out in the following Schedule contain provisions

41
relating to works the execution of which would substantially contribute to the early relief of unemployment, and also contain other provisions distinct there

SCHEDULE.

Name of Bill.

Clauses relating exclusively to Works.

Clauses common to Works and other matters.

Bristol Corporation Bill

Part II and Clauses 14 and 102.

The Preamble, Part I, Clauses 15 to 34, inclusive, 113 to 116, inclusive, 136, 137, 143 and 145 to 148, inclusive, the Second Schedule, and Part 1 of the Third Schedule.

Coventry Corporation Bill.

Parts II and III

The Preamble, Part I, and Clauses 17, 18, 19 and 33.

Croydon Corporation Bill.

Parts II and III, Clauses 15 to 21, inclusive.

The Preamble, Part I, and Clauses 35, 38 and 39.

Liverpool Corporation Bill.

Clauses 5, 6, 7 to 17, inclusive, Part IV, and Clauses 46 to 52, inclusive, and 54.

The Preamble, Part I, and Clauses 69, 72 and 79.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Company Bill

Clauses 3 to 29, inclusive, and 34 to 38, inclusive.

The Preamble and Clauses 1, 2 and 39.

London and North Eastern Railway Company Bill.

Clauses 3 to 34, inclusive, 36, 37, 39, 47, 48 and 49.

The Preamble and Clauses 1, 2, 50, 53, 54 and 55.

Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill.

Clauses 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Part IV, and the Second Schedule.

The Preamble, and Clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 22, 23, 63, 65, 77, 79 and 80.

Metropolitan Railway Bill.

Part II, Clauses 20 to 26, inclusive, 29 and 31 to 40, inclusive, and the Schedule.

The Preamble, Pact I, and Clauses 27, 28, 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49 and 50.

Newport Corporation Bill.

Parts II and IV, and Clauses 39 to 53, inclusive, and 82.

The Preamble, Part I, and Clauses 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 54, 55, 81, 83 to 89, inclusive, and 100 to 103, inclusive.

Nottingham Corporation Bill.

Clauses 4 to 9, inclusive

The Preamble, Clauses 1, 3, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

Portsmouth Corporation Bill.

Clauses 3, and 5 to 12, inclusive, and Part III.

The Preamble and Clauses 1, 2, 4, 56, 67, 73, 76 and 77.

Reading Corporation Bill.

Clauses 18,20, 21 and 22

The Preamble and Clauses 1, 3, 4, 60, 61, 80 and 81.

Rochdale Corporation Bill.

Part II

The Preamble and Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, 47, 48 and 50 to 53, inclusive.

Sheffield Corporation Bill.

Parts II and III

The Preamble, Part I, and Cla ses 26, 28, 32 and 33.

Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill.

Clauses 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 26 and 27, and Part III.

The Preamble and Clauses 1 to 12, inclusive, 15, 16, 17, 20, 52, 53, 75, 77 and 79.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES),

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Cape; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Herbert Gibson.
  Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members
  from, and that he had certified the provisions of those Bills set out in the second and third columns of the Schedule as provisions relating to such works.
  to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Albery, Mr. Barnes, Bear-Admiral Beamish, Mr. Koothby, Major Dudgeon, Mr. Egan, Mr. David Grenfell, Sir George Hamilton, Mr. William Hirst, Mr. Llewellyn-Jones, Mr. Lees, Mr. Longden, Mr. Gordon Macdonald, Mr. Maitland, Mr. William Morrison, Mr. Perry, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Mr. Ramsbotham, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel and Mr. Womersley.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill): Lord Balneil, Mr. Cameron, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Mr. Lindley, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, Mr. Hugh Morrison, Mr. Philip Oliver, Major Pole, and Mr. West Russell.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929).
Revised Estimate presented, of a further Sum required in the year ending 31st March, 1930, for Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to he printed.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 28th February, read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ARBITRATION (FOREIGN AWARDS) BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  4.0 p.m.
  Sir HERBERT NIELD: I do not rise for the purpose of offering any objection to this Bill, which is long overdue, and which, I hope, will put right many of the injustices which subjects of this country have suffered with regard to arbitration; but I do want to ask the learned Solicitor-General, who, I assume, is in charge of the Bill, whether he can tell the House what is the reason why a subject of just as much importance as this in relation to arbitration has not been dealt with by the Government. I would call his attention to the Report of the Committee set up by the Lord Chancellor, and which reported to this House in March, 1927, upon the law of arbitration in relation to this question, and if my hon. and learned Friend will be kind enough to look at this Report and its recommendations, I am perfectly sure he will see the force of the question I am putting to him. If he would prefer that I should put a question on the Order Paper, say, in a week's time, I would be quite content to pursue that course, but I am very anxious that this opportunity should not be lost of calling attention to a most valuable proposal, unanimously come to by the Committee, for the amendment of the law and practice of arbitration in this country. This Report points out the very great difficulty that exists by reason of the law not being sufficiently expansive to enable matters to be dealt with. I repeat again, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman prefers that I should ask him in a week or a fortnight's time what the Government propose to do on the subject of this Report, I shall be perfectly satisfied.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir James Melville): I should prefer my right hon. and learned Friend to raise the question in about a fortnight's time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929.
      CLASS V.

        MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,150,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Exchequer Contribution to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Education Authorities, and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Transference of Workpeople and their Families within Great Britain and Oversea; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): The Estimate which the Committee is asked to consider to-day is for a contribution of £4,000,000 from the Exchequer towards the Unemployment Fund, an additional sum of £300,000 for salaries, wages and allowances at out-stations and £100,000 for the training of young unemployed men. This makes a total of £4,400,000, from which has to be deducted appropriations-in-aid, £250,000. I think, before explaining the details of this Estimate, it might be well to make clear its relation to the Estimate of £3,500,000 which was passed just before the Recess last year. The Committee will remember that there seemed to be some confusion towards the end of last Session in respect to this £3,500,000, which was given from the Exchequer to make what is known as the equal-third contribution from the Exchequer to the Fund. The Exchequer now pays into the Fund half of the total contributions paid by the workmen and by the employer. That £3,500,000 was granted to make the

        59
        principle of equal-thirds, which was recommended by the Blanesburgh Committee, effective, and, in the nature of things, in order to give effect to that principle no more could have been voted at that particular time. I think it is well to draw attention to that fact, because the contention at the end of last year was that there had been an underestimate in regard to that particular amount, but it was made clear at that time that, while £3,500,000 was asked for in order to make effective the principle of equal-thirds, at the same time it was estimated that that would last only to the end of the year, and that the Minister would have to came at the turn of the year for another Supplementary Estimate. The further proposals which we made were laid down in the Bill which is now in another place and which, of course, cannot be discussed to-day. I will only add that, in order that this further contribution from the Exchequer contemplated by the Bill may be made available as soon as that Bill is passed, the Committee is asked to consider this Estimate now.
        The main item of this Estimate is the sum of £4,000,000, which, under the Bill, will be granted for the purpose of the Exchequer accepting the responsibility in respect of claimants under the transitional conditions. The Committee will recollect that for a year or two now, all that has happened in reference to the transition men is that when we came to the end of the period there has been an extension, the cost of which was borne by the Fund itself. Under the Bill which has passed this House this "transitional benefit" will be accepted by the Exchequer as a direct charge. I do not think it is necessary to discuss that particular principle, as it has been discussed rather fully during the passage of the Bill, except to say that the people who are the chief beneficiaries under that Bill, and to which this Supplementary Estimate is to give effect, are perhaps amongst the saddest portion of our population to-day. They are in the main, I think, in what are known as the depressed areas, and, what is worse, they are in the main in single industry areas. Only those who live in single industry areas know the tragedy of those parts. The mining areas which are depressed are bad enough, but
        60
        in some cases they have two and three industries. Where they have only a single industry only those in such an area know what the position is. May I say, in passing, that I myself have seen during the last few months some of these men who have been out for long periods working at some of the schemes now in operation—not relief schemes, but schemes of public utility, and one of the encouraging things was to see not only the return to the ordinary working community of these people, but their sense of pride in again contributing their portion towards the ordinary industrial and commercial activities of our country. In that sense I should like to say that the schemes which employ such men cannot by any means be called relief schemes. That is altogether a misnomer. They are not only doing useful work, but are restoring a sense of usefulness and self-respect to large numbers of these men.
        There are two other large items of expenditure in this Estimate, namely, for £300,000 for salaries, wages and allowances and £100,000 in respect of the training of young unemployed men. Rather more than half of the sum required for salaries, wages and allowances, that is, £176,000, is due partly to an under-estimate for the provision made for the staff in the Exchanges in the original estimate, and partly through the extra work being done in the placing of unemployed persons and the recruitment of men for training. I shall return to the increase of placing and the increase of staff for that purpose later on. There is also a sum of £15,000 needed for strengthening the staff dealing with juvenile work at the Exchanges in accordance with the policy repeatedly referred to during the discussion of the Bill. I know that there are Members in the House who will be pleased to note that part of the increased cost is due to the fact that the rates of pay of clerks of branch offices have been brought more into line with those obtaining in respect of clerks in the direct employment of the department. A small additional sum is also needed in consequence of the decision to pay the cost of living bonus at the figure of 70 instead of 67½ for the year. I have pointed out that part of this increase is due to the improvements of the placing facilities at the Employment Exchanges. I think it will impress the Committee to know exactly the ex-

        61
        tent to which that improvement is taking place. The number of persons placed in employment during the period from April to December, 1929, was 1,166,254. That compares with 966,079 in the corresponding period of 1928. That is an increase of some 200,000 in 1929 as compared with 1928.
        Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Has the hon. Gentleman got the figures for 1927?
        Mr. LAWSON: I am sorry I have not, but I will be pleased to give the right hon. Gentleman those figures later on. That, of course, is also due to the knowledge that is spreading among employers of labour of the facilities there are at the Exchanges for the placing of men and women in employment. The percentage of vacancies notified which were filled during the first nine months of the current financial year was 87, a tribute to the work of the Employment Exchanges. There is, I think, considerable ignorance—I hope the word will not be misinterpreted—among employers as to the facts concerning the placing of men when they notify vacancies to the Exchanges. Anyone who has had anything to do with local employment committees, or has come into contact with employers who have been members of these committees, will know that the employers themselves have been most enthusiastic for an extension of the facilities for placing men in employment.
        Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the hon. Member allow me? Does his remark mean that there is a larger acceptance of the principle of notification? Is his argument based on the fact that there has been an extension on the part of employers in the use of these facilities?
        Mr. LAWSON: That is the case. A knowledge of the actual work being done is growing among employers generally.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should like to make it clear to the Committee that it is not really fair to compare 1929 with 1928. As everyone knows, the number of places was less in 1928 than in 1927 and the two previous years, and it is obviously not fair to compare 1929 with the one year preceding. The Hon. Member should give the Committee the
        62
        number of vacancies which were filled in the year 1927 and previously as compared with 1929.
        Mr. LAWSON: I am sorry if I have conveyed the impression that I was trying to make a debating point. I was really doing nothing of the kind, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for which he asks. I was merely emphasising the fact that the growth of the knowledge among employers of the work which is being done by the Exchanges leads inevitably to an extension of notification. The Minister of Labour has stated more than once that emphasis will be laid more and (more upon the placing side of the work of the Exchanges and to that end part of this Estimate will be used to strengthen the staff generally from that point of view. May I just put this further point to the Committee. One does know employers, some-times those who sit on employment committees, who do not place notifications with the Exchanges. Indeed, in some cases they will go from one part of a district to another in order to get their employés, when actually in their own area there are old employés of their own who are unemployed and have been so for some time. The Ministry has received deputations on this matter. It is the regular thing throughout industry to take age as the criterion of economic fitness, but anyone who knows anything about modern industry knows that age is not the only criterion and is not always the best criterion of industrial fitness. Men have been brought from other areas into the depressed areas thereby prejudicing the people in those areas in their chances of finding work.
        With regard to the £100,000 for the training of young unemployed men: This is required for the training of these young men as handymen or for settlement overseas and for preparing them for transference. About £60,000 of this sum is required for additional capital expenditure on the provision of two new non-residential centres for training handy men and for adapting and improving existing centres. Here again I do not wish to make any comparison with the previous administration, but it is the case that three new centres were opened last year for the purpose of training handy-men; one in May, one in

        63
        June, and one in November. Each of these centres has a capacity of 400 places and the three centres together will enable nearly 3,000 additional men to be trained annually. There are now eight nonresidential training centres and, in addition, places for a small number of handymen are available at the three residential overseas training centres, at Brandon, Claydon and Carstairs. The total number of places available for such trainees is now 3,300. It is proposed to open two further centres, each to take 400 at a time, or approximately 1,000 annually, and these extensions will bring the total annual output of the centres up to between 9,000 and 10,000 men. One thing which has marked the discussions in this Parliament has been the fact that, whatever may be the condition of unemployment generally, it has been agreed that in the case of those who are able to take training and reconditioning it would be better for them to do this than simply do nothing at all. These training centres are developing up and down the country. Whether I have sat on this side of the House or on the other I have said that while recognising training to be a matter of experiment, it has always seemed to me that some of the most useful work the Ministry of Labour could do was to keep the fingers and eyes and the spirit of the man alive until such time as he would be able to take regular employment, and the Ministry welcomes investigation into the working of these centres and the very fine work that is being done to keep all the faculties of these men alive.
        Another thing which the Committee should know is the present position with regard to the allowances for these men. The man himself usually knows it; and the Department knows it; but I do not think hon. Members fully realise the position in regard to this matter. The arrangements for admission to training centres and transfer instructional centres did not originally permit of the admission of married men, who in the absence of allowances for the maintenance of their families and dependants were unable to take advantage of these facilities except in a few cases where they resided within a short distance of the centres and could attend daily. Special allowances are now paid to married trainees, and these allow-
        64
        ances enable each man to send home at least 16s. per week for his wife and 2s. for each child. A similar allowance is paid in the cases of men who have adult dependants in respect of whom they are in receipt of dependants' benefit. I want the Committee to mark this new extension of these training facilities for married men, who originally found it difficult to get any training at all and were excluded. Arrangements have now been made so that their wives and families can receive the necessary financial support while they themselves are in training. Arrangements have also been made whereby single men trainees, who have hitherto been unable to take training because they have been making a substantial contribution out of their unemployment benefit to the support of their family, are now able to enter a training centre because a remittance of 9s. per week is sent to his family while he is away from home.
        Experience has taught the Department that it is not only the young men who need attention in the matter of training. Recently arrangements have been made for including some of the older men, and particularly the older single men, in the opportunities for receiving training. One of the saddest sights I know is that of a single man of advanced age in one of our depressed areas. The younger men can very often look after themselves and take the chance of getting out, and the married man has his family and relations, but the middle-aged single man in an industrial depressed area presents a great problem for the Ministry and for those who have to deal with the possibility of his transference. Arrangements have been made to take such men up to the age of 45. I have seen a new light come into a man's eyes, and a new spirit take possession of him, when he knew that there was a chance of getting training and the necessary support with the possibility of finding work somewhere else. I have also seen men who have been transferred to other areas, and in one or two cases within my own experience they have proved to be very valuable experiments.
        One of the heartening things about this very depressing problem of unemployment is that in the depressed areas there is very great concern on the part of those who are connected with the workers' organisations, and on the part of all who have the well-being of the unemployed at

        65
        heart, to give their services and help. I have had before me trade union secretaries who have expressed themselves as being considerably alarmed particularly regarding the case of young men who have been idle for a considerable length of time That willingness to help is being shown up and down the country. The men's organisations and representatives clearly recognise the lamentable fact that deterioration takes place when men are unemployed, and in so far as they can aid or advise or influence those concerned, so that they may get training or reconditioning, they give their services freely. Quite recently the Minister received a very large deputation representative of the whole of the organised churches of the country, without limit as to sect or creed, and the members of that deputation asked that the churches might be allowed to keep contact in every part of the country with those who move, as they do nowadays from one end of the country to the other, so that the churches' influence, moral and social, could be added to that of the Ministry in dealing with this great problem.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Parliamentary Secretary has made some very interesting remarks, hut could he tell us what proportion, or how many, of the places in the overseas training centres are now filled? That is the real test of how they are going ahead.
        Mr. LAWSON: For the moment, I could not give an answer except to say that for overseas purposes the places are not all occupied. At Brandon, which has been open since 24th February, 1926, there are 250 places. Cranwich Heath was reopened on 8th November, 1929, and has 200 places.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: How many places?
        Mr. LAWSON: I cannot answer for the moment, West Tofts, reopened on 22nd November, has 200; High Lodge to be reopened on 22nd January will have 200; and Carstairs has 120.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Are those places that are available or are the men there?
        Mr. LAWSON: As I have said, all the places are not occupied for the moment. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties—it is not advisable to stress this
        66
        point too much—about the Dominions' acceptance of these men overseas. The fact is that there are 1,220 places available and that there are 607 in training. As I have said the figures vary from time to time, and in proportion to the demand from overseas for men the Department has to keep a certain margin of places available, and what this margin may be depends, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, on the policy of the Dominions in the matter.
        Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what proportion of these vacancies is being kept for Government purposes and what proportion of places is vacant because the places cannot be filled? I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to answer that question immediately.
        Mr. LAWSON: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Australia's position has changed somewhat quite recently. The position varies, too, in Canada. The Department has to keep a certain margin available to meet demands from these and other sources. There is not any real difficulty in filling the places. Perhaps the difficulty will be all the less as the Department develops its scheme. In the matter of age there was a limitation of 19 to 25 years. Now the age for single men has been raised to 35 years. In proportion as that policy is developed it will be easier to fill the places, but there will still have to be a margin kept in view of the possibility of overseas development.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I and every Member on this side of the Committee have always felt great personal interest in these training centres, both for home work and for overseas settlement. What I would like to have from the Government, though not at this moment, is a statement showing the real state of affairs at these training centres. We want figures relating both to home and overseas. We want to know how the work of training men for overseas settlement in particular is getting on. We would like to know the number of places available in all the training centres, how-far they have been filled, or what likelihood there is of filling them, and whether there are difficulties either in regard to the Dominions or in getting entrants in this country.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: The Parliamentary Secretary stated that three new centres had been opened recently and that two further new centres were to be opened within a short time. Would he state where are the three new centres already opened and the two new centres that are to be opened?
        Mr. LAWSON: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister will give him later all the information that is necessary. The three new centres which have been opened last year, two of them since the present Government took office, are Park Royal, Slough, and Watford.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: Where are the two new centres that are to be opened?
        Mr. LAWSON: I do not think it is quite settled at the moment where they will be.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Have they been decided on?
        Mr. LAWSON: They have been decided on, but the sites are not settled at the moment. That is all I have to say in explanation of this request for £4,150,000. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate the fact that it has not been possible to ask for this Estimate at an earlier stage. I would emphasise that point. This Estimate is not the result of underestimating last year. It was necessary at that time to make it clear that, in view of the unemployment position, we would need to come before Parliament early this year for more money. Moreover, when we took office the Unemployment Fund was certainly in a very bad state; it was very near the point of exhaustion. Then from year to year there has been an extension of the need for dealing with the transition stage. The bulk of this amount will be expended under the provisions of a Bill which is now in another place.
        Major ELLIOT: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
        I am sure that we have all listened with interest to the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of this Estimate. Of course it was necessary for him to account for the very considerable sum for which he is asking. I was not at all surprised to hear him say that this Estimate could not have been brought forward any sooner. As a matter of fact the Government are bring-
        68
        ing forward this Estimate at a very premature stage as it is, and for a very good reason—the reason of approaching bankruptcy of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. They are bringing forward this Estimate to deal with a Bill hat has not yet passed all its stages in either House of Parliament. Is not that rather an astonishing thing in the case of a Ministry which prides itself on purism, carried to a fanatical degree, in finance? The Government are bringing forward the proposal because the rise in the unemployment figures, the rise over last year, the rise compared with the corresponding period when a so-called reactionary Conservative Government was in power, is so great, that they have to send out an S.O.S. call and bring men hurrying up with barrels of money to be poured into the Exchanges in case the fund should be bankrupt before their Bill takes its normal course through both Houses.
        It is a most extraordinary position. The Government passes from stagger to stagger in this Bill. Before the House adjourned the Government were driven to the extraordinary position of asking for the Third Reading of a Bill which had not been printed or circulated and was not available to Members of this House. Then they took what seemed to me the most extraordinary course of introducing the Bill in another place. We could get a copy only by going along to the other place and, as suppliants, asking for a copy of this Measure, this great charter of the unemployed, on which so much fire and fury had been expended in this House. There was not a copy available for hon. Members except as pensioners on the bounty of the other place.
        Meanwhile, in another place, the Committee stage of this Bill is commencing, and Amendments may be made in it. If the Government decide to accept those Amendments, they will inevitably result in very considerable alterations in the finances of the Bill. We have already had, I think, two, or two and a-half, reports upon the finances of this Bill. The last report from the Government Actuary pointed out that on a figure of 1,200,000 this Bill would put the Unemployment Insurance Fund into a deficit of £2,000,000. But what is the figure before us now? Does the number of unemployed look like coming down to 1,200,000? The number is fluctuating well above the

        69
        figure of 1,400,000 men and women unemployed in this country. The Government say that they could not have brought forward this Estimate any sooner, or, no doubt, they would have done so, but what do these figures show? The figures show that, in spite of all that we are told is being done for the unemployed, a mountainous rise took place after the Christmas holidays. A formidable rise after the Christmas holidays is a familiar feature in our unemployment statistics, but this particular rise was preceded by no fall. The news papers and others have pointed out—the Ministry's own report pointed out—that there was not on this occasion the pre- Christmas fall in unemployment which usually takes place owing to the Christmas shopping boom, when a number of people have to be taken on to handle the greater amount of business. A considerable increase in the spending power of the working class usually takes place about that time—
        Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear! We want it all the year round.
        Major ELLIOT: That may be so, but evidently with the present Government in power, the people do not even get it at Christmas time. That normally was the festival time at which the working classes of this country had money in their pockets and enjoyed additional spending power, and the time at which, in past years, they actually did succeed in making a considerable reduction in the unemployment figures by hiring their own less fortunate brethren to carry out work which was of use to them. What the Parliamentary Secretary has been describing is good work, valuable work, interesting work. He speaks about the light of hope coming back into men's eyes. When? When they get a chance of transferring to another district; when they are asked to separate themselves from their wives and families and from all the associations among which they have been brought up. What a commentary upon the work not of the Ministry of Labour—because it is not the Ministry of Labour which is on trial to-day—but on the work of the Lord Privy Seal and the Lord Privy Seal's Department and the Lord Privy Seal's admirable and indefatigable lieutenants, if I may so call them—his staff officers, the chief of whom
        70
        we are glad to see present at this discussion. But let us take the course of unemployment as shown in the weekly figures. We find, in the first place, that the usual pre-Christmas fall in unemployment did not take place. Secondly, we find, in spite of that fact, that the New Year post-Christmas rise in the unemployment figures did take place and take place to a tremendous extent.
        Furthermore, we find that the rise is maintained. The figures for 6th January show 20,000 persons unemployed above the figure of the previous year, when the reactionary Conservative Government were in power. And what are the new figures going to show? Is there any sign of a rise in trade or of any improvement owing to the steps which the Lord Privy Seal is taking? The Lord Privy Seal to-day put up a smoke screen. He jumbled up a number of questions all in one, and said that he had been admitted to the secrecy of the councils of the banks and, of course—[HON. MEMERS: "The City."] The right hon. Gentleman said the City, and added that it would take him too long to explain what "The City" was, but in his speech ho made it quite clear that he meant the banks. He would not tell the House of Commons anything to-day because it might annoy the banks. He thought it would be a great pity to reveal what he was doing because his plans were so great and wide and far-sweeping that if anybody heard about them they would come crashing to the ground and the last state of the unemployed would be worse than the first. And so we have to work on these figures showing a rise of 200,000 odd unemployed after Christmas. We have to work on the fact that there is a surplus of 20,000 unemployed above the figure which was shown under the Tory Government last year. And we have to look forward to the figure which, no doubt, will be published in the Press to-morrow and will be available for the further stages of this Vote. That figure will show the result of the returns for the last fortnight, and I make bold to prophesy that it, too, will still be above the figure—if you like the monstrously too high figure—of unemployment which existed while the reactionary Conservative Government were in power and were being bombarded with the utmost fury by hon. Members opposite, by the

        71
        very Members on the Opposition Benches who are now asked to go into the Lobby in support of this Vote. They will be asked to support this Vote because there is at present 20,000 more, and in a week it may easily prove to be the case, that there are 40,000 more unemployed than there were when we were—
        Mr. BUCHANAN: On what does the hon. and gallant Member base his prophecy that the number is going to be increased?
        Major ELLIOT: I am going to show the Committee why I think the number is bound to increase. I base that opinion on the extraordinary uncertainty and vagueness which we find not only from the Lord Privy Seal but from other members of the Government when they are asked to indicate their commercial policy, their industrial policy, or their agricultural policy. We question the Minister of Agriculture in vain for any information about a policy for agriculture. We question the Chancellor of the Exchequer in vain for any suggestion of what he is going to do in the case of the McKenna and Safeguarding Duties.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member knows that I have no wish to rule too rigidly on these matters, but I would point out to him that the question now before the Committee is not the provision of money for unemployment schemes or Ministerial salaries but of money for the payment of benefit, and while questions such as he is dealing with may perhaps be raised incidentally I cannot allow a general discussion on these subjects.
        Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: May I ask your guidance, Sir. Does not this Supplementary Estimate arise because a larger amount of money is required owing to the increase in unemployment, and does it not therefore cover the whole question of the number of unemployed and what that number is likely to be in the immediate future?
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The money asked for in this Vote is to provide for a number of persons who otherwise would be debarred by Statute from receiving benefit over a transitional period and the actual question before the Committee is whether that money ought to
        72
        be granted or not. Questions regarding the provision of work are incidental and cannot form the main subject of discussion.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask your consideration, Sir, for these points? The first item in this Vote concerns increased expenditure owing to the need for additional staff, that need being due entirely to the increase in unemployment. Surely, therefore, we are entitled to go into the question of unemployment. As regards the other big item of £4,000,000, the amount required would not be so great were it not for she increase of unemployment, and its effect on the Exchequer contribution.
        Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I also put these considerations? First, it was evidently understood by the Government that the whole question of unemployment could be discussed, because at Question Time the Lord Privy Seal lumped together a number of questions on this subject and said that he hoped to be here at this Debate and to hear the speeches from this side about his part in relation to the problem and to reply to those speeches. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman said if he was not here himself he would see that some representative of his Department was here and the hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is here. Furthermore, the first item in this Vote concerns the expansion of the staff of the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour has to be the whipping-boy in reference to these unemployment questions though it has no power to initiate schemes yet. The custom has always been, I understand, that when we discussed the salaries of the Ministry of Labour we discussed possible schemes of work designed to diminish the number of unemployed for whom the Ministry was responsible and I respectfully submit that it would be a bad precedent if the Debate were limited on this occasion in view of the urgency of the question.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: While it may be quite correct to rule that the question of whether the unemployment figure is 1,000,000 or 1,250,000 is not a subject for discussion on this occasion yet I submit that a particular increase in the number of unemployed and the cause of that increase must be covered by this Estimate.

        73
        This Estimate is for the purpose of providing for staff and additional administrative expenses at the Exchanges, and while the larger issues of unemployment may not be in order, the number of unemployed now added to the total and the considerations which may arise from that additional number, ought to be the subject of debate.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In the first place, I think it only right to say that the Lord Privy Seal is not the Chairman of this Committee and, therefore, I cannot take responsibility for any remarks which he may have made. In the second place, the first item in this Vote deals with the salaries of the staffs of the Exchanges in view of the additional work which those staffs have to undertake and that matter can be discussed but the larger issues concerning the provision of employment do not arise here. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) can discuss the rise in the unemployment figure but he cannot go on to discuss in detail schemes for providing employment.
        Mr. E. BROWN: With all respect, Sir, may I put a concrete case. I was told at Question Time to-day that Leith at present has more unemployed than it had this time last year. Definite concrete schemes have been submitted from Leith and if these had been accepted by the Government the number of unemployed would have been lessened. If we extend that throughout the whole of the Kingdom surely it is evident that it is because of the lack of these constructive schemes that the figure is higher now than it was 12 months ago; and surely we ought not to be tied down to a mere discussion on the actual rise in the figures.
        The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Sir Oswald Mosley): Regarding the reference to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal at Question Time, I understand that my right hon. Friend said that the Government would shortly lay a White Paper dealing with the subject matter of the particular questions which appeared on the Order Paper to-day. In saying that, the Lord Privy Seal very clearly had in mind the fact that neither he nor I nor any other representative of his Department would be in order on an Estimate like this, in detailing the plans for the provision of work on which
        74
        we were engaged. If I attempted to reply to the question just raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) as to the provision of work and the supply of money for the provision of work you, Sir, I understand, would promptly rule me out of order. For that reason my right hon. Friend said this afternoon that the Government would shortly lay a White Paper and that on an appropriate occasion, when it would be in order to do so as, for instance, on the Lord Privy Seal's salary, he would be very happy to answer all these questions.
        5.0 p.m.
        Mr. E. BROWN: While all that the hon. Gentleman says is true about one side of the Lord Privy Seal's statement, it is not true of the other. He failed to listen to, or was absent from, the other statement, when the Lord Privy Seal specifically dealt with what he hoped would be the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and said he regretted he could not be here but that a representative of his Department would be.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is perfectly obvious, I think, from the speech of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) that if questions of that kind are to be raised, as to the provision or lack of provision of schemes of employment in particular localities, the Committee would be entitled to discuss the provision of money for such schemes, and obviously that could not be allowed on this Vote. Discussion must be confined to unemployment benefits, and the money voted to meet that need.
        Major ELLIOT: I am sure we shall be able, within the limits of your final sentence, to raise all the points which we desire to raise, because we are discussing a Supplementary Estimate, of which the purpose is to implement the provisions of a Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
        "In 1930–31 the revenue will cover expenditure if the number of persons on the live register on the average for the year does not exceed 1,200,000. If the live register is on the average 100,000 above or below this figure, the expenditure of the Fund will be increased or reduced by about £4,700,000 per annum."
        It is clear that the number of persons on the live register intimately affects the finance of this Bill which we are now

        75
        discussing. Therefore, while no doubt it would be out of order to go in any great detail into unemployment schemes and the failure of the Department to provide them, yet some review of the unemployment position in the country is inevitable if the Estimate is to be discussed intelligently at all.
        The essential point about the present position is this, that the Bill as introduced balanced at 1,200,000, but the Bill as it left this House did not balance at 1,200,000. No permanent steps have been taken by the Government to deal with the additional burden which was laid upon both the Fund and the Exchequer by the Amendments which were accepted as the Bill passed through this House, and it is vital for us to consider how the unemployed can be brought below 1,200,000 or else the whole finance of the Bill will be out of order. As I say, the difficulty in which the Committee is placed is considerable, in that it is dealing with a Measure which has not been printed for its benefit, a Measure which was introduced for the first time in the other place, a Measure which was defended there by arguments quite different from those by which it has been defended here, a Measure which was defended in the other place because it was a Bill for the relief of rates. It was suggested there that the unemployed were being provided for anyhow—but that in this Bill they were being provided for off the Unemployment Insurance Fund instead of off the rates. They are very interesting arguments, and they may be sound, but certainly the arguments put forward by hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway were not that the unemployed were being provided for anyhow, and that it was merely a change of source from which the provision would come, but that the unemployed were actually not being provided for but were suffering hardships and were in great distress.
        These considerations will no doubt arise on consideration of the Lords Amendments when the Measure returns from another place, but we here have the opportunity and must exercise the right which the House of Commons possesses of ventilating grievances before voting Supply. We are now being asked to vote Supply, and in no small sum. We have
        76
        to-day and on Thursday an opportunity for reviewing the administration of the Government which makes it necessary to demand these huge sums of Supply, and it will be not merely desirable but incumbent upon the Opposition and upon all Members of the Committee to review the position which has produced this necessity.
        The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a few genial words, if any words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be called genial, wished the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer a merry Christmas and put the whole thing down to a raid of the last Chancellor upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He went on to say that the ex-Chancellor had robbed the Fund of a revenue of £10,000,000 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I hear that echoed by hon. Members opposite, so that it is apparently necessary to clear up an error which is not merely the error of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The ex-Chancellor pointed out that what he had done was to reduce not merely the Exchequer contributions but the contributions of both employer and employed, and that the lowering of the levy on wages was called by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a robbing of the Fund. That is a very queer use of the word "robbing," and if that extreme Treasury view of the word "robbery" is to be taken, it is robbery whenever taxation is reduced on anybody or any levy in any way lowered which comes under the review of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
        The ex-Chancellor tried to correct the present Chancellor on that subject, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, taking refuge in hard words, which is his very frequent refuge, said that the right hon. Gentleman's observations showed his abysmal ignorance of this question. It is true that abysmal ignorance was shown on that occasion, but that abysmal ignorance was shown by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, not by his right hon. predecessor. The suggestion that the reduction in contributions made by employer and employed is a robbing of the Fund is a suggestion which would only come from one who was abysmally ignorant of the principles under discussion.
        The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been abroad organising unemployment

        77
        by succeeding in gaining greater and greater sums on reparations for this country, which only a short time ago he and his right hon. Friend denounced as the most certain way of producing unemployment in this country, has swallowed his opinions on that subject, and no doubt will swallow his opinions on a great many other subjects before he finishes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Say that when he comes in!"] If the Chancellor of the Exchequer or even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury were to grace our Debates by their presence when we are spending £4,000,000 of public money, there would be no need for hon. Members opposite to defend them.
        I am glad to find now that we have the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with us, and I will repeat what I was saying, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Debate before the House adjourned for Christmas, accused us on this side of having robbed the Unemployment Insurance Fund of £10,000,000 a year, which was due to the reduction not merely of the Treasury contribution, but of the employers' and employed contributions; and I was putting it, as I now put it to him, whether that suggestion that the Fund was robbed by lowering amongst others the workmen's contributions is a just one. If it is a just one, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to remedy it by increasing the workmen's contributions again? I will leave, that question with him.
        The points at issue are not merely the narrow point of the position in which the fund finds itself at present, not merely the drafts which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having to make on the public purse to fill this almost bottomless pit; they are the position of many of the great industries of this country in relation to the Government and its present policy. Let me deal more particularly with one of those industries, one which I am sure will be of great interest to the "right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). Let me deal more particularly with the housing industry, with which he dealt when introducing this Measure in the last Parliament. We were told from these benches, when the Labour party sat in Opposition, that the Government was not pressing on with sufficient vigour in the matter of housing, that it
        78
        was not employing enough people on housing, that the reductions which were being made in the housing subsidy were calculated to cut down housing and throw people out of work. The present position is extremely interesting, but rather from the point of view of the Conservative party than from that of the Labour party.
        In November, 1928, there were under construction in England and Wales, under the Chamberlain Act, 3,387 houses, and under the Wheatley Act 28,279 houses. In November of this year there were under construction no houses by local authorities under the Chamberlain Act, and 25,900 [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman does not need to be so vigorous in his interruptions. I am pointing out to the right hon. Member for Shettleston and his colleagues, who take a great interest in the provision of municipal houses, of houses to let, that of houses to let, either municipal houses under the Chamberlain Act or municipal houses under the Wheatley Act, there was a total of 31,666 under construction in England and Wales in 1928, when the reactionary Conservative Government was in power, and that there are under construction only 25,963 such houses to-day, when the progressive Labour Government is in power, a drop of 5,700 houses. What does that represent in a lack of employment?
        The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asked me a little while ago why I thought the figures of employment were likely to go down. Does not he see that these key men, if ever there were key men, being thrown on the dole is bound to mean the throwing of furniture makers and linoleum makers and others of the ancillary trades up and down the land, quite apart from the difficulties with regard to health which these proposals inevitably bring about? The Labour Government in England and Wales has to-day 5,700 houses less under construction than there were in November, 1928, when the Conservative Government was in power. But I will come more closely home to the right hon. Member for Shettleston. What does he think the figure" for Scotland are? The housing position in Scotland is not one on which any Government can be allowed to go to sleep. In November a year ago the figures were 16,000 houses. What were they in November of last year? They had fallen to less than 10,000 houses; there were 9,000 odd houses under

        79
        construction in the whole of Scotland—municipal houses, State-aided houses. Instead of 15,000 under our Government, they had fallen to 9,000 odd.
        What does that mean in the way of a fall in employment? It inevitably means a certain fall of some 5,000 men who, under our Administration, were building in Scotland, were laying bricks, nailing on slates, and carrying out the thousand and one activities which the building of houses necessitates. Five thousand of these men are drawing this new, reinforced unemployment benefit to-day, and we are being asked to vote £4,000,000 more to keep walking about the streets men who, under our Administration, were building houses. Is that a thing of which the Government can be proud? Is it not worth while asking them why the figures have fallen from 16,228 houses in November, 1928, to 9,613 in November, 1929? Is it not worth while asking them why the unemployment figures for the building trade which showed a rise between June and December, 1928, of 42,000 men, showed a rise between June and December, 1929, of 68,000 men, and why the percentage of builders unemployed, which had increased 5.3 per cent. between June and December, when the Tory Government were in power, had increased 8.4 per cent. when this Government of all the talents came into operation and began to promulgate their great schemes for absorbing the unemployed?
        There are many things of which this Government might be ashamed and about which they might hang their heads. The Government have said so much and provided so little where a vital need of the people is concerned; that is a thing for which the people of this country will not readily forgive them. We have to deal with the position as we find it. We are told that the Government are going to bring in great schemes for dealing with slum clearance. We shall believe in those great schemes when we see them. There are 9,000 houses under construction in Scotland to-day, and, whatever their schemes, they will be unable materially to increase that number before the end of this year. As anyone knows who has had to do with housing, you have to bring in your Bill and negotiate with the local authorities, and carry through the thousand and one
        80
        negotiations which are necessary before it passes from the stage of discussion on the Floor of this House. Then you are only really beginning your task, and I shall be greatly surprised if much more than 10,000 houses are constructed in Scotland in the present year. Cannot hon. Members opposite see what a whip the Government are weaving for their own backs? We shall have no difficulty when we go to the constituencies, to the places where people are crowded together in making our case at the next election. Let the Government have the election soon, because every month that passes strengthens the case against them. We are not afraid; they can stay in power, or they can go out of power.
        The right hon. Gentleman he Member for Shettleston knows very well how closely housing is bound up with the ideals of the people whom he claims to represent. Does he think that the Government who have betrayed the working class in that way, will be in a happy position when they go to face them? Hon. and right hon. Members flatter themselves if they think that they can go to the country with safety on a programme like that. The progress of housing is sagging. It is one of the things which the Government claim that they hold specially in regard, but it is sagging dismally in the country. We are discussing to-day a Vote of £4,000,000 for payments to men who go idle, yet the Minister of Agriculture wraps himself in a mantle and says he cannot give any agricultural policy, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer wraps himself twice in his mantle and says that he will give no indication of his policy towards the great staple industries which have done so much to absorb the unemployed, and the Minister for Housing continues to delay the pronouncement which would let local authorities know where they were in regard to the housing position. And all the time the figures sag; men are thrown out of employment, and people are walking the streets who, under the previous Administration, were drawing money for work instead of money from the Employment Exchanges. A correspondent of a paper wrote recently:
        "The Unemployment Insurance Bill with its vast expenditure upon unconstructive ends—its cynical recognition of unemployability as a vested interest—its abject surrender to the difficulties of the status quo—

        81
        form a more eloquent commentary upon Mr. Thomas's failure than do any of his or his colleagues speeches."
        Where were these words printed? They were not printed in any of the journals of the "Right" or in any journals which give support to the Conservative or Unionist parties. They are the words of the "Nation," which was certainly never a supporter of the Tory party or of any of its work. A justifiable denunciation like that is one of the most damning things that can be said about the whole policy of the present Government. We have a Vote before us which is no doubt necessary, but we are moving to reduce it as a protest against the action of the Government in their handling of the question of unemployment; and we shall have no hesitation in carrying this to a Division, and registering our disapproval of the way in which the problem is being handled. We ask for the support, not merely of the Conservative party, but of those who in all quarters of the House feel that a great opportunity is being lost and muddled away by the incompetence of His Majesty's present advisers.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: Every Member of the Committee, no matter in what part he may sit, must recognise the tremendous importance of the subject which we are now discussing. I want to raise one or two points which, I think, come within the ambit of this Vote. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) said that he forecast an increase in the figures of the unemployed. He is not the only person who forecast that unemployment would not become less. The Lord Privy Seal, in answer to a question to-day, stated that he was actively pursuing a policy of helping on rationalisation, and he stated further that that rationalisation must cause unemployment to follow in its trail. Therefore, we find the Front Benches united in the view that unemployment is not likely to diminish to any serious extent in the succeeding months. We are therefore faced with a serious situation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman forgot, when he was dealing with the Government, that his successor delivered a speech last Sunday, in which he threw out an alternative for dealing with the unemployment problem. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking in Glasgow,
        82
        pointed out one way which might diminish the unemployment figures, and I want quite seriously to ask the Lord Privy Seal, or his representative, or the Minister of Labour, whore we stand? The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, from his point of view, was rightly indicting the Government for not having reduced the numbers, and he quite rightly asked what schemes of work were they adopting, and what methods they were taking to reduce that number.
        The Under-Secretary, when speaking in Glasgow, said that the numbers were appalling, and that the magnitude of the problem was great; and he suggested that, in order to save the numbers from increasing, and to save us voting such large sums of money, 30s. a week ought to be paid to every man or woman over 60 in industry, and that they should be asked to retire voluntarily.
        The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): That would require legislation.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: We are dealing here with the problem of the increase in unemployment. The Under-Secretary of State was dealing with that problem, and he stated that his alternative was a grant of 30s. a week to each person over 60.
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that we cannot discuss on this Estimate statements of a Minister which would require legislation.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to cross swords with you here, Mr. Young. I know that you made a speech outside attacking us, and I do not want to cross swords with you to-day, but I am entitled, even with your Ruling, to ask this question of the Lord Privy Seal. Does he intend, in order to save us granting large sums of money like this, to legislate in future on these lines? Surely that is in order. Does the Lord Privy Seal intend, in collaboration with other Departments, in order to save us from voting further large sums of money for unemployment, to ask for powers from Parliament to operate the plan of the Under-Secretary for Scotland? I ask that question for this reason. I represent, with others, great masses of poverty, and 30s. a week would be a godsend to these people. It would mean the difference between a fearful struggle and—
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman can ask a question, but there can be no discussion as to the merits of the question.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: I am asking if we can get legislation on these lines, because there is no use holding out hopes in a speech on a Sunday night, and no use talking about 30s. a week, unless we know exactly what is in the minds of the Government. I, therefore, ask the Lord Privy Seal if it is the serious intention of the Government, and if this utterance of the Under-Secretary for Scotland has some foundation of fact, or was really a propaganda speech without any real meaning in it. I am anxious to know, and I hope the Lord Privy Seal's representative will tell us exactly what is in the Government's mind in relation to this point.
        I turn from that to another point. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour dealt at great length with the Estimate for training. He said we were increasing by several thousands the number of persons in training, that we had established three new centres in different parts of the country and were proposing to establish two further centres. Then a question was asked as to what was being done in regard to sending men overseas to take up vacancies in the Dominions. I want to know for what work overseas we are training these men. I am getting letters daily or at least weekly—and there may be other Members in my position—asking if I cannot obtain money with which to bring men home from overseas. They say they are suffering such acute poverty in Canada that, bad as Britain may be, they want to come back, because here they would at least get unemployment benefit. I am constantly receiving letters from people resident in Canada telling me about the hardships and the difficulties of securing work. When the Minister of Labour is replying, will she tell me what openings there are for men and women in Canada or in Australia?
        Then I want to know for what occupations at home men and women are being trained. Axe they being trained for engineering, for house building, for furniture making, or for women's tailoring? I wish to know this, because I do not know of a job for which there are not trained men already available. In every occupa-
        84
        tion of which I know anything there is already a superabundance of men. The lack of the country is not trained men; already too many men are applying for every vacant place. May I remind the Minister of Labour of a phrase in a report which was signed by her in which it was stated that evidence had been submitted showing that in certain trades there was a lack of properly trained persons? I have repeatedly asked what are the trades in which there is this lack of trained people. In the cotton, engineering, shipbuilding, house building and electrical trades, are there not already trained men wasting for want of work which cannot be found for them? That being the case, for what are these other people being trained? When I visited one of the training centres in Glasgow I found men being trained to make furniture. Then I went to the Employment Exchange, and there I met trained men looking for work in the furnishing trade. I have seen men being taught to be hairdressers at the training centres and again at the Employment Exchanges I found hairdressers looking for work and unable to get it. When we are asked to vote large sums of money for an enterprise which we are told holds out some hope for the common people, I must ask what new jobs are being created. Are we finding work for larger numbers of people? I would ask the Minister of Labour to reflect seriously on the point that training people for work affords no guarantee that they will get work when they are trained.
        The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that whereas under the previous administration no married man could take advantage of this training, married men were now being asked to go to the training centres, and that each married man is allowed to send home 16s. per week for his wife and 2s. for each child. Putting it plainly, that means that if a man has three children, which is something like the average family, he will be allowed to send home 22s. I put it to the Minister of Labour that it is a shocking thing to ask a family to live on that sum—22s. for three children and an adult. And that we are told is a concession! That is a step in advance! That is something new! I would ask tin-Minister of Labour if the 22s. cannot be increased. If a man must change his calling and must go to one of these

        85
        centres for training, surely his family should be given an adequate income on which to live. Could not the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) use his influence, which I understand is great, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to get the amount increased? [Laughter.] I am putting this to him terribly seriously. This is a terribly serious problem. Let me repeat the figures—16s. for a wife and 2s. for each child. Before he became a Minister the hon. Member for Smethwick used to plead for high pensions for the people. I remember listening to a very fine speech from him in which he advocated large pensions for the poorer section of the community. I would ask him and the Minister of Labour seriously to consider the position in which a married man who is offered training is placed. If the man says, "I am not going to be trained," he is put into the category of the workshy, is said to be a man who does not want work; and if he does take up training, all that he can send home to his wife and family is this terribly miserable sum.
        The sum granted for the working of the boards of assessors is another point arising on this Estimate. Before the Adjournment the Minister of Labour urged that the boards of assessors had gone some way towards lessening the number of men and women who were cut off benefit as being persons not genuinely seeking work, and I accepted what she said; I think her figures went to prove it. But I felt that they still left serious cause for complaint, and I now want to know if the boards of assessors are now properly functioning. I have recently had some experience of the boards of assessors, and in some cases they do help the unemployed man, but that is not always the case. Only last week I met a representative from the Shettleston Division of Glasgow who looks after the unemployed from the mines outside, who told me that he had deliberately come to the conclusion that he would do much better without these boards of assessors. He said that whereas beforehand he could take a case to a court of referees and get a decision overturned that now, when the boards of assessors had met, if was almost impossible to get a favourable decision from a court of referees. I would ask the
        86
        Minister of Labour whether she thinks that these boards of assessors, which functioned well in the early months, are now functioning half so well as they did? My own view is that they are now badly attended; certainly, there is rarely a full quorum present.
        Next I would like to deal with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove as to housing. He said that only 10,000 houses were being built in Scotland as compared with 15,000 under the Tory administration. He said that instead of employing people to build more houses the Government were now asking for more money in this Estimate in order to give them unemployment benefit. I think this reply can be made to him. He must not forget that at the time when he held office in the last administration every local authority, largely composed of Conservative-minded people, was anxious to assist the Government, because it was a Government of their own particular colour. Let me point out one case. The county council of Renfrewshire, who are anti-Labour almost to a man, have now decided not to proceed with any more houses, although there is a clamour for houses in Renfrewshire. That is what the Government are faced with.
        Major ELLIOT: Surely it is a somewhat strong order to suggest that the local authorities in Scotland built houses and raised the rates in their areas on account of their affection for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) and the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). Anyone who remembers the campaign which the two of us had to carry on in Scotland, the speeches we made and the conferences that were called, and sees that there is nothing of that kind now from the present Under-Secretary—nothing except attacks on the memory of Robert Bruce—will not wonder that more houses were built when we were talking about houses than when he is talking about Robert Bruce.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not an authority on Bruce. My New Year was not spent in discussing Bruce, but in discussing parish council relief and unemployment benefit. We are told that the Government are being hampered by reactionary authorities who refuse to help

        87
        them. That is the point I was making. Is that the defence, and it is the only defence I know of, that they put forward? From the point of view of the need of the country there is no justification for this amazing drop in house building. The need to-day is greater than it was 10 years ago. We have been told that we ought to organise for peace as well as we organised for war, and if the local authorities are standing in the way I say, why do not the Under-Secretary for Scotland and the Minister of Labour form a Department of their own to start building houses by direct labour? They have powers under present legislation. Remember even this: a predecessor of the present Prime Minister built 2,000 steel houses, without legislation. He formed a company called the Scottish National Company for the purpose, and gave them money grants, which passed through the House of Commons, for the purpose. If local authorities are holding up matters, there is the excellent precedent of the previous Prime Minister to work upon: form a company with Government money, start them building, not steel houses, but ordinary dwellings for the people. If local authorities are refusing to do their duty, follow the last Prime Minister's example. He did it within a short period. Follow him, and inaugurate a new company, with Government money and Government control, and get them to build houses. I think by those means we ought to be able to help matters on.
        The last observation I have to make is this. Everybody knew that this sum of £4,500,000 would have to be asked for. Even in July last all of us knew that that sum would be demanded from the Government. This £4,500,000 is, I think, absolutely necessary. I told the Government months ago that they ought to ask for a considerably larger sum, but they have not asked for more. Far from reducing this sum, I think the sum ought to be increased, because even in the next six weeks men and women are going to be cut off from benefit who ought not to be cut off from benefit, and I should like to see the sum increased, so that in the ensuing six weeks nobody justly entitled to benefit would be deprived of it. I shall vote against the reduction of the sum, because I believe that the sum should be increased. I ask the Minister
        88
        of Labour, instead of wasting her time on schemes of training in which, there is no scope for the great masses of the people, to turn her attention to the two other sides of it, first of all increasing the purchasing power of the common people of this country, and, secondly, trying to reduce the hours of labour. I am convinced that instead of creating new work, we ought to be sharing out the work among the people. After all, we rationed food during the War. There is only a certain amount of work to be done; why should we not start rationing the work? Instead of having 1,500,000 unemployed and other people working too long at work which is too hard—men in mines working 48 hours a week—we ought to ration the work, bring in the men who are able to work, give them their chance to work, and shorten the hours of labour, and so make unemployment less, instead of increasing the poverty of the people, and instead of going after a will-o'-the-wisp called training. Instead of making wives the drudges of the age, get women to come in and lessen the toil of the other women and shorten their hours of work.
        Let the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is representing the Lord Privy Seal here, turn to his pre-election speeches, and to the prophecies which he used to make—and he was right—when he was out to increase the purchasing power of all those who are unemployed, and to lessen labour. That is what the hon. Member for Smethwick then said, and he was right. Let him keep to his Socialist pledges; do not let him follow the will-o'-the-wisp of training men who are already trained. You do not want to follow that. You do not want to pack men off to Canada in order to make the lives of the Canadians even more miserable than they are. I ask the hon. Member for Smethwick to return to his Socialism and to his Labour pledges, for along that way lies a saner path than following the stupidities and follies of rationalisation and modern capitalism.
        Mr. E. BROWN: I have been very much interested in the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and I have been contrasting its tone with the tone of the speech which he delivered on another Financial Resolution in the month of July. Upon that Resolution, which was a Resolution for a smaller amount of money, the

        89
        hon. Member for Gorbals asked the Minister of Labour to withdraw her Resolution, to take it back and bring in another; and he made a very vivid and angry attack upon the Minister of Labour and upon the Government for their failure to seize the opportunity which they had of dealing properly with unemployment. It seems that the doctrine of graduality and moderation is spreading to the mountains of Scotland. I think the House will take notice of it, and I hope the country will take notice of it, too, because in this matter there is no question whatever that every Member of this House has been anxious not to face again, as we have to face to-day, the implications of a demand for more Supplementary Estimates dealing with only two sections of operations against unemployment, namely, maintenance on the one hand and training on the other.
        There are three possible lines of operation: maintenance, training, and work. While I do not want to transgress the ruling of your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Young, I am entitled to ask a question, at any rate, about one item, namely, with regard to the provision of work. If hon. Members will look at the Supplementary Estimate on page 5 in Part A under "Salaries, Wages and Allowances," they will find this extremely interesting sentence:
        "Additional provision for work at Unemployment Exchanges in connection with the administration of Unemployment Insurance, including work relating to the Boards of Assessors;"
        and this is the fragment of the sentence to which I want to call the attention of the Committee:
        "increased activity in placing men in employment."
        We were not told by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think we are entitled to be told, what is meant by that part of that sentence. What is this increase of activity in placing men in employment? What areas are affected by it, and what bodies of men? Is it on a large scale? How many men does it affect? And is the Lord Privy Seal's Department co-operating with the Minister of Labour and her Departmental officials in this increased activity in placing men in employment. This is a matter of very great moment to the country and to the unemployed. I have on the Paper to-day a question addressed to the Minister of Labour asking,
        90
        "if she will state the number of unemployed persons registered at the Exchanges in Scotland on 15th January, 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively."
        What is the answer that I get? It is this:
        "The number of persons on the registers of Unemployment Exchanges in Scotland at 6th January, 1930, was 193,238, as compared with 187,305 at 7th January, 1929, and 146,675 at 9th January, 1928,"
        so that in Scotland there were a fortnight ago nearly 50,000 more unemployed persons registered than there were two years ago. I would like to know from the Minister whether any of this increased activity in placing men in employment has taken place in Scotland, and if so, where and in what directions? Because we ought not to be told in a Supplementary Estimate of this kind that there is this increased activity unless we are given details about it, so that we may be able to face our constituents with a clear conscience in the matter.
        Speaking personally, I do not want precipitately to judge the Government in this matter. I am perfectly willing to give them every opportunity to make good their claims at the General Election. I am perfectly willing to take, for instance, this point of view, which was the point of view of the "Daily Herald" on 7th June last:
        "Labour in office will ho judged by what it can do in solid constructive work to decrease the volume of unemployment. Given a proper chance to apply its own remedies, the situation should grow progressively better as the months go on."
        It is not easy for those hon. Members who sit for these distressful areas to face Motions to reduce Estimates of this kind, such as that moved by the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), and to support the Government or otherwise to abstain from the division, unless we are given to understand that there is some prospect of increased activity in placing men in employment in the months ahead, that those plans are now in the minds of the Government, and that within a short time the details will be given to the House.
        Take my own case. I asked the Minister of Labour to-day what was the case in my own constituency of Leith in January, 1928, January, 1929, and January, 1930. I am happy to say that things are a little better there this month than

        91
        they were last January. There were on 6th January this year 4,886 unemployed; and that is out of a total of 25,000 insured persons, so that nearly 20 per cent. of the total insured population of Leith is registered this very month. If we speak rather warmly about this matter, the Committee must understand that it is because we have to meet these unemployed people regularly as we spend our time in our constituencies week end by week end, and if we can exercise patience, I can assure the Committee that they are in no mood whatever to exercise patience, either with this or with any Government which, when out of office, has talked about increasing work, and in office brings in Estimates of this kind which, on the figures, find no justification. Let me continue with the figures, after having given that explanation about the 25,000 insured persons. On 6th January this year, there were 4,886 unemployed; on 7th January last year, which is the comparable date, there were 5,193, and in January of the year before the number was 3,889; so that I have to face the position that I shall have to explain either voting for the Government, abstaining from the division, or voting against the Government, on Estimates of this kind, in face of the fact that there are at this moment in Leith 1,000 more unemployed than there were two years ago. I think the Committee ought to face these facts, not merely as to my own constituency but as to every constituency in the country which has these large masses of unemployed; and we ought to be told what are these steps which are being actively taken to place men in employment.
        I have personally no complaint to make about the courtesy of the Lord Privy Seal, nor about the investigations made by the Lord Privy Seal. When I get my opportunity, I am going to press the Lord Privy Seal, and the Government, on a matter of policy, and to tell them that if they are to be held up by Treasury Minutes such as this futile Treasury Minute which makes a distinction between revenue-producing and non-revenue-producing undertakings in the case of docks and harbours, then these figures are not likely to come down this year. I will not pursue that subject any further, but I wish to call the attention of the Chan-
        92
        cellor of the Exchequer to the fact, because I believe much might be done right round the coast in the way of developing docks, harbours, and piers, it the Lord Privy Seal and his Department would stand up to the Treasury officials and tell them that they mean actively to take steps to place men in employment.
        I want to say one other thing before I sit down, and it is this: In regard to the actual grant of £4,000,000, I think the hon. Member for Gorbals might on this occasion have used all his influence with regard to this Amendment, because in his speech on 11th July last year he used these words:
        "Let her take this Resolution back. There is nothing lost in admitting that you have not done the right thing. Let her come back three weeks hence, and ask the House to meet. Let her introduce a proper Financial Resolution that will allow her to bring in a Bill under which she can administer the Fund as every Member of this party and herself desire. When last this question was discussed, hon. Members on these benches were agreed that £10,000,000 of borrowed money was not sufficient. One hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), suggested that we ought to double the amount, and he was right. This Resolution is a miserable makeshift. Let it be withdrawn, and another take its place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1929; col. 1136, Vol. 229.]
        6.0 p.m.
        We did not hear a repetition of that point of view from the hon. Member for Gorbals this afternoon, and I note it for the purpose of future debate. Whether or not the Debates referred to took place about Robert Bruce and the spider or about black sheep and little white lambs from Lanarkshire, is not a matter for this Committee this afternoon, but it may be that there are reactions from those Debates, and from the vote which took place, so that in the months ahead the hon. Member is not going to be as easy in standing up to the unemployed and using those impassioned terms of his as he was in the month of July last. We all realise that this money must be found. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see!"] There are some people who cannot wait and, if they do wait, cannot see. Our trouble is that we are waiting and we are not seeing. What we desire the Government to do is to face the problem so that they may never have to come again with a Financial Resolution of this kind because the numbers are actually being reduced.
        Sir O. MOSLEY: For many years, in the happy land of Opposition, I tried to raise a general unemployment debate on occasions such as this and I have invariably been ruled out of order. I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) on having enjoyed a slightly greater measure of success than I ever did, although the conflicts with the ruling of the Chair have debarred me altogether from making the kind of statement he desired me to make. I am unable, on this Estimate for the provision of money for a totally different purpose, to describe a single measure adopted by the Government which would provide work as opposed to benefits, and which would require other Estimates for that purpose. See, therefore, the happy position of the Opposition. They can point to every Department in turn. They can point to the Ministry of Health and say nothing is being done for housing, knowing perfectly well that the Minister would be miles out of order if he attempted to describe what he intended to do. They can point to the Minister of Agriculture and ask what he is doing about land drainage and the rest, knowing perfectly well that he cannot possibly describe the measures he has in contemplation. There are two reasons for a Minister not being able to describe what he has in contemplation. The first is the reason which debars my right hon. Friends, that they would be out of order, and the second is the reason that debarred the late Government, that they had not the slightest conception of what they had in contemplation. Those are two very different reasons for imposing a certain silence upon Ministers. But it is well known, and it has already been announced, that the Government have a big slum clearance measure available for presentation and it is only the Parliamentary time table which has prevented them from making progress with it. They know also that the Ministry of Agriculture had a land drainage measure for presentation, and in due course these matters will come under the consideration of the House. But both measures, of course, involve legislation and are completely outside the ambit of this discussion. Therefore I felicitate the hon. Member opposite on the very great skill with which he has suggested
        94
        inactivity in these Departments, knowing perfectly well that the Ministers were unable on this occasion to make any reply.
        Major ELLIOT: Surely the hon. Baronet knows as well as I do, as a vigorous administrator, that by vigour in administration a great deal can be done to further the measures a Minister has in view, and certainly a Minister would be quite entitled to show the active steps he had taken, the circulars he had sent out, the meetings he had addressed, extracts from the speeches he had made in the country to show that he was in fact pursuing in the country the discussion he was precluded from engaging in in the town. The Financial Secretary laughs at that idea. He is pretending an innocence which he does not really share. Everyone knows that there are ways of ventilating in the country a line of policy that a Minister intends to take if he has any such policy. The reason they do not ventilate the policy is that they have no policy to ventilate.
        Sir O. MOSLEY: Then it comes to this, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that a useful purpose might have been served by those Ministers saying that in the ordinary course of their Departmental work they have had a few talks with their advisers as to the Measures they were going to introduce, without being able to describe in any way the results of those talks or the Measures that were likely to be introduced. That is the kind of thing to which we were accustomed under the late Government. Vague and windy platitudes were supplied to the House in every discussion of this kind for a period of four and a-half years, but we now have a beneficial change of method. The present Government wait until they can approach the real and the concrete before they come to the House with any claims as to their proposals, and surely it is nothing less than a waste of time for Ministers to stand at this Box talking about the preliminary Measures that are usually taken when they are about to bring a Bill forward. In any case this is not the Vote of their Department but that of the Ministry of Labour, and I very much doubt whether they would be in order even in describing their administrative activities.

        95
        Then the hon. Gentleman turned to the Department of the Lord Privy Seal and wanted a general review of the unemployment situation. That expression "general review" is one that I rather distrust. How many did we have from the late Prime Minister—those general reviews which always saw a trade revival with the coming of the new year, a general review based on vague speculation. I do not know if any such general re view would be in order in this discussion. I am certainly not going to make one. I do not believe in a general review. Governments in the end are justified by facts and by achievements, and by those facts and those achievements I and the Government in the end are prepared to be judged. But at the end of this period of time we certainly are not prepared to be judged by facts or by achievements, and I will challenge anyone in the Committee to state any occasion on which anyone on these benches ever claimed that within this period of time we would have solved, or materially affected, the unemployment problem. No one in the House on any bench has ever claimed for himself, or for the party, that within the period of time in which this Government has been in office any Measure that it adopted would seriously have reduced the unemployment figures.
        Mr. E. BROWN: Has the hon. Baronet overlooked the speech of the Lord Privy Seal in which he said that by February he hoped to have made a heavy impression upon unemployment?
        Sir O. MOSLEY: I will come to the month of February in due course. What I believe my right hon. Friend said was that in some such period as that he believed the unemployment figures would show a favourable comparison with those prevailing under the late Government-last year. I have not the extract with me, but, unless I am very much mistaken, that is what he said. We must wait and see before we come to any rash conclusion.
        I do not think anyone would suggest that any measures taken by the present Government are affecting the unemployment situation materially one way or the other, either beneficially or adversely. I never claimed, in speeches inside or outside the House, that within this period
        96
        of time the unemployment figures would be affected by any measure that the Government could undertake. At this-stage we cannot be judged by our achievements one way or the other. We can be judged on the appropriate occasion by the likelihood of success which resides in the Measures we present to the House. It is always open to hon. Members opposite on appropriate occasions to say, as they do, the measures we are taking are obviously inherently inadequate to meet the situation. That is a criticism that they are perfectly entitled to make, and it is then for the Government spokesmen to try to show that those measures are adequate. That is the real field of debate as this stage of our proceedings. No one has ever suggested that within this space of time the measures of the Government would have affected the unemployment figures, and no one in his inner conscience and mind has ever thought for a moment that any measure taken by any Government within this period of time could have affected the situation. With the actual rise in the unemployment figures which always takes place at this season of the year, and with the peculiarities of the present year, the Minister of Labour will deal when she comes to speak. I was interested to see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove committed himself to a very definite prophecy—always a danger in politics—that the unemployment figures would steadily increase during the next few weeks and months.
        Major ELLIOT: I did not go further than the next figure, which we shall see before the Report stage of the Vote. The figures then will be higher than the figures upon which we are asked to judge in the Committee stage.
        Sir O. MOSLEY: Do I understand now that the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks the unemployment figures are going down during the next few weeks, or does he think they are going steadily to rise? I should be very happy to make that a test of his political sagacity, and about Whitsuntide to remind him of the prophecy he has now made. I understand now he does not so far commit himself as he appeared to do in his general denunciation of the Government. It is perfectly clear that, with certain unusual factors, the recent increase in the figures

        97
        is of the usual seasonal character, and I, for my part, do not either claim success for the Government in mitigating that usual increase, or recognise a failure of the Government in that customary increase in the unemployment figures. I do not, in fact, at this stage, either claim success or admit failure. It is far too early, by any standard that we have ever set up for ourselves or that any reasonable man has ever adopted, to judge this Government by the actual facts of the situation.
        Mr. HAMMERSLEY: How long do you want?
        Sir O. MOSLEY: We have always rigorously avoided, and especially during the Election, any time-table whatsoever for the culmination of the Government's efforts in success. It was precisely that point which divided us at the Election from the Liberal party. The Liberal party pledged themselves within one year to reduce the unemployment figures to normal. In every constituency in Great Britain Labour candidates were faced with that phrase, and we were asked in public meetings—I myself was asked on many occasions—to say whether we also pledged ourselves within a year to reduce unemployment to the normal figure. In the published statements of our leaders, supported by every candidate in his individual answers, we said specifically that we would give no such pledge, and in the very first speech, a week or two after we took office, that I made in this House on the subject, I denounced that pledge, which I thought was impossible of achievement, and I said why I thought it was impossible of achievement. I said that to say that, within a definite period of time, we could overcome the unemployment problem, seemed to me to be as unreasonable as it would have been to say at the beginning of the Great War that, at a date in the future to be definitely fixed, our leaders in that War would be successful and would bring the War to a triumphant conclusion. Any man making such a prophecy at the beginning of the Great War would have been ludicrously falsified by events, and it seemed to me, as I said at the very outset of this controversy, that it would be equally foolish to make any prophecy as to the successful outcome of our unemployment Measures.
        98
        That is not the nature of the problem. It is not a problem which you can say dogmatically will come to its appointed end on an appointed day. It is a problem which, by its fundamental nature, requires the whole resources and energies of the State, mobilised, very much as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) mobilised the resources of the State during the Great War, and employed in a continuous struggle over a long and possibly indefinite period of time, until, by a variety of measures, we arrive at a victorious conclusion. In all probability we shall find, during the course of that struggle, as we have found in similar struggles, that many of the efforts which we make are frustrated, and many avenues to success which we believed to be closed are in fact open to energetic action. But these measures which the Government are employing at the present time must take longer for their fruition than can be judged in any such short period as that for which we have now been in office. If anything dominates the present situation, if any measures are having any practical effect on this situation, they are the measures of the last Government.
        During the last Debate I quoted, from speeches made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, claims that a magic change would come over the whole situation on 1st October last, when the great De-rating Bill was to come into operation, the unemployment figures were to come crashing down, and at last the fruits of that great Measure were to be reaped; and asking, were they to be reaped by a Labour Government? We have reaped the fruits of that Measure during the last few months. It is precisely this period of time in which the party opposite, just prior to the General Election, claimed great results for those Measures. No one on this side has ever suggested that in this period of time our own measures would have the slightest effect one way or the other. If hon. Gentlemen will read our appeal to the nation at the time of the General Election, couched in language of peculiar moderation—I am not sure that it was not a little too moderate—they will certainly find no claim whatsoever that unemployment or the national situation would be seriously affected in this period of time. If I remember rightly, the language was

        99
        to the effect that, if we had a majority, in the course of the full Parliamentary period of five years some beneficial effects might be brought to trade and industry. [Interruption.] That was our election language. I should be prepared to use stronger language now, and to make more confident claims than that document made at the time of the General Election; but certainly, if we are taunted on the ground that our election pledges are not being fulfilled, we can point to an election literature of such studied moderation of pledge, in contradistinction to that of some of my hon. Friends on the Liberal benches, that it is possible, after these few months, for Government spokesmen to make stronger and more confident claims at the present time.
        It is difficult to try to conduct a Debate on unemployment under conditions which forbid our approaching either the precise or the concrete, as is the case this afternoon, but on the appropriate occasion the Lord Privy Seal will be more than ready to defend his policy. A White Paper, which at present is in course of preparation, will be laid, bringing the progress of these measures up to date, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be agreeably surprised by the progress of these schemes. After all, a patriotic thrill always goes through the hearts of an Opposition at the success of a Government, and on this occasion I hope that they will be even more, agreeably surprised than they were on the last.
        There are one or two specific questions which were asked of me by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and to which I will do my best to reply. He asked, first of all, about certain references by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to the question of retirement pensions. As has already been announced to the House, a Committee of Ministers and civil servants was set up some months ago to inquire into the whole of that question. That Committee has completed its work and has reported, and it will be for the Cabinet in due course to make any pronouncement—
        Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether the speech of the Under-Secretary for
        100
        Scotland might be termed au intelligent anticipation of what the Committee had reported?
        Sir O. MOSLEY: I understand that my hon. Friend was making certain observations upon the general possibilities of that sphere of action. Certainly neither I nor any other Minister could make any pronouncement on Government policy until the Cabinet had considered the matter.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: A large number of the poorer people thought that the Under-Secretary for Scotland was speaking for the Government, and that this was the Committee's Report—that 30s. a week was to be given at 60 years of age.
        Sir O. MOSLEY: My hon. Friend has just informed me that he specifically said on that occasion that he was not announcing the Government's policy—he made that quite clear.
        Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Did the Committee report before that speech was made in Scotland?
        The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise.
        Sir O. MOSLEY: My hon. Friend was speaking on the general subject of retirement pensions, and was reviewing some of the possibilities in that regard. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals, I can say that the Committee has reported, and that in due course he will be in a position to ask the Cabinet what their decision is on the matter. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals raised some very interesting points on the general question of the rationalisation of industry. He appeared to think that there was some conflict between rationalisation and the general doctrines of Socialism. I cannot for the life of me see why. After all, rationalisation is merely the modernisation by technical processes of British industry. It is bringing British industry up to date. It is the big merger the pooling of resources, the lowering of costs of production—
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is now going outside the Vote.
        Sir O. MOSLEY: I will not go deeply into this profoundly interesting subject, but will pass on to my hon. Friend's argument that rationalisation will in-

        101
        volve some displacement of labour, and consequently an increase in the number of people unemployed. That, of course, is perfectly true. Nobody can deny for one moment that, when you introduce the new machinery and the more up-to-date methods of better organisation, when you "Fordise" your industries, work which was formerly done by a large number of men can be done by a limited and smaller number of men, and that is one of the great problems with which all Governments dealing with unemployment are faced. To the extent that we are successful in the real economic problem of making Britain up to date, of modernising our machinery and introducing new processes, to that very extent we are aggravating our immediate problem of unemployment. [Interruption.] That is perfectly true, but I think we can all agree that it was an essential process because, after all, in any State, Socialist or Capitalist, you have to be up to date; Socialism is not a device for the maintenance of obsolescent plant. My hon. Friend and I will agree, I am sure, upon that. In any State you have to go through the process of bringing Britain up to date, of scrapping dud machinery and out-of-date organisation, and during that process you are going pro tanto to displace labour. That process, which is the long-term reorganisation of Great Britain, must occupy a considerable period of time, and it is precisely because, by applying the real remedy, the permanent remedy, we are aggravating the temporary difficulty, that we have such a paramount necessity for a short-term programme as opposed to a long-term programme, in order to bridge the gulf between the present situation and our long-term programme. We have to separate these problems in our minds. There is nothing more dangerous than confusing the long-term reconstruction of Britain with the short-term immediate unemployment problem. Under any system—
        Mr. COVE: Under capitalism.
        Sir O. MOSLEY: Under any system you have exactly the same problem. It is a technical process, whether in a Capitalist or Socialist society. There are other differences, but this is merely a matter of mechanical and technical details. It is essential that we should divide in our minds the long-term programme from the
        102
        short-term programme. The long-term programme, known as rationalisation, must involve in the first instance an aggravation of unemployment, and that provides the great necessity for a short-term programme of constructive and useful works, which themselves add to the economic equipment of the country and bridge the gulf between our present situation and the permanent reconstruction of our country at which we all aim. I think it can be shown that the Measures which the Government have in contemplation at any rate make a real attempt in both these directions. I do not claim that we have produced our last Measure or have said our last word. This is a long and continuous struggle. But I do say that, within the short space of time that we have had, we have at least made—and it can be supported by statistics—a far bigger effort than any other Government has yet made to meet this problem. That is not a reason for slackening our activities; it is a reason for going on to far greater attempts and far more comprehensive schemes, both in the long-term and in the short-term sphere, than we have yet made; but for my part I am more than ever confident that, not within any narrowly confined space of time, but in the full operation of the Measures of a Government given a reasonable chance, we can not only reconstruct the industries of this country and make them once again the foremost industries of the world, but that in the period which must elapse before we reap the fruits of those Measures, we also can devise plans and schemes which will afford earlier relief to those who suffer from unemployment to-day. And to these two great purposes of the reconstruction of Britain and the relief of unemployment by immediate and useful schemes this Government will press forward, and on appropriate occasions will not be afraid to submit them for detailed consideration.
        Mr. BUCHAN: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate for I had hoped that the Government would take up a different line from that taken in the original Bill which was under discussion before Christmas. My hope was increased by the sight of the hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Duchy in his place. But I cannot say that the remarkable and illuminating speech of the hon. Baronet has really removed the troubles from my

        103
        mind. I do not think that the hon. Baronet quite appreciated the kind of difficulty which is in the mind of many of us on this side of the House. We do not ask him or the Government to make any premature disclosure of their plans for unemployment—that would be absurd—and we do not ask from him frequent general reviews of the situation. I agree with him that general reviews are of very little use. But he must remember that the party which he adorns came into power attended by very large expectations—expectations which they themselves had created. They professed to have a real policy which would go to the heart of unemployment—not a cut-and-dried plan; no one could ask that from them, but a policy which really went to the root of the matter. So far we have had no indication of any policy of the kind. It is no use for the Chancellor of the Duchy to mention rationalisation. That is not a sufficiently differentiated policy from that of any other party. It is no good to refer to Socialism. That is a faith, not a policy. No doubt he and his party believe that in the long run it will cure all our evils, but for a policy we want something more short-range and practical. Before Christmas the Government on this very question committed themselves to a great deal of financial expenditure, and in doing so gave no hint of any serious or considered policy on the subject. They made no attempt at the much overdue revision of the whole insurance system. They gave us no suggestion of any reasoned and comprehensive policy on the question of unemployment. Their attitude really was one of hopelessness and impotence. They said: "Here we are committed to a particular line of country. We must go on with it. We have not the time or vitality to consider whether this course is the best possible." This afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has come down to the House and asked for further Estimates on the subject of unemployment, and his attitude has been very much the same. With a great deal of what he said I agree. The objects for which this money are required are, no doubt, admirable. No doubt the whole thing is an extension of an organisation to which we are already committed. I quite agree with the old pro-
        104
        verb that it is no good swallowing the cow and choking at the tail. What I want to know is, to what is this wholesale diet of cattle going to lead.
        Members on this side of the House want to know when this series of emergency commitments of the Government is really going to end. We have had one to-day. We had several before Christmas. We are promised a large number more in the future, all more or less related to the unemployment question. My first difficulty in this matter is that, though it may be possible to defend any one piece of expenditure by itself, you cannot really judge it fairly unless you are given some idea of the total commitments and the policy to which they belong. Even if any particular item is perfectly justifiable, the justification may fall to the ground if the total policy which includes all the items is not justifiable. It may be answered: "Of course, that involves the Chancellor of the Exchequer prematurely disclosing his Budget." I appreciate that point, but I would most seriously press upon the Government the danger of slipping into this habit of undirected, piece-meal and unrelated expenditure. Let me take a case which, I think, is a fair parallel. A business man, a manufacturer, may have a certain sum for replacement and betterment to which he is strictly limited. He makes a schedule of various items of betterment each of which can be absolutely defended by itself, but the justification for each one falls to the ground if the total exceeds the total which he cannot go beyond. I submit that that is a fair parallel unless hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to argue that, unlike the total of my manufacturer, our national wealth is inexhaustible. That is why the attitude of the Government fills me with so much anxiety. The nation is entitled, when asked to decide upon any one commitment, to have, at any rate, some indication of what the total scheme of commitments is, otherwise it cannot judge fairly on any one of them.
        When the Government came into power they professed to have a bold policy on the subject of unemployment.
        The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is rather a general question which the hon. Member is discussing. The amount of

        105
        money which is being asked for is a commitment arising out of legislation, and does not deal with the general question.
        Major ELLIOT: The point is that legislation has not even yet been passed. The commitments may be extended or diminished before the Statute finds the Statute Book.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would also point out that the first item in that Vote does not depend on legislation; it is for administration. Everyone who is connected with the question knows that the number of officials and the amount to be spent on salaries go up in a more or less constant proportion to the amount of unemployment, and to that extent the expenditure which we are asked to sanction to-day depends very largely on the increase or decrease of unemployment generally.
        The CHAIRMAN: It is a general and well recognised rule that in discussing these Estimates we are confined to administration which arises within the power of the Minister.
        Mr. BUCHAN: I have no desire whatever to disregard your ruling, Mr. Young. There are two points which I want to make which really fall naturally under this discussion. The first I have already put. I do not think the Committee can be asked for a pronouncement on any one item of expenditure such as this without being given some idea of the total figure involved. My second point is that I do not think that we should be asked to vote further money for this subject unless the vote is affiliated to some policy for unemployment in general which the Government have always promised us. As I have said, they came in with this promise of a large policy on unemployment. They were contemptuous, and rightly contemptuous, of those who imagined that the evil could be cured merely by the spending of money. All the irresponsible Members have been most clear and most eloquent on that subject. They promised to act boldly, but first of all to think, a process, which they implied, was almost unknown to their opponents. What has been the result of this session of sweet, silent thought? They have now been in office for eight months, and a great deal can be done in eight months in the way of hard thinking.
        106
        We have so far no sign of any real policy unless it be the Lord Privy Seal's recent suggestion that credit should be extended only to those industries which were prepared to be scientifically reorganised. What we have had has been a large number of suggested schemes. I am sure that the Lord Privy Seal and the hon. Baronet have done their best, but I do not think that they believe for one moment that these schemes, or even twice as many, go further than the margin of the subject or that they are more than stop-gap measures. I cannot help feeling that we are in danger of slipping back into what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has frequently reprobated, the rut of unintelligent sporadic expenditure. No doubt the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour this afternoon will get the money for which she is asking, but all this brings us not one step nearer to any real solution of the problem. Are we not handicapping and stultifying ourselves for any real solution by dribbling away our none too ample resources upon not very well considered emergency expedients?
        We are now in the middle of a hard winter. I do not know whether unemployment is going to increase further or not. It has certainly increased compared with last year. As far as I can judge from going about the country and talking to a great many types of business men, I think there is a real danger that it may get worse still. It seems to me that this one question has ousted every other question from the mind of the ordinary man. You cannot interest the ordinary man in any other problem. You cannot interest him in foreign policy or large schemes of international peace, excepting in so far as you relate them to this urgent question of his own. On that subject he will listen hungrily. If you can give him any hope, or even talk about the matter fairly with him he will listen till any hour. It is hope he wants—some chance of escaping from the blind alley in which he finds himself. There was a time when he had a pathetic belief that this Government now in office were really going to offer him an intelligible and intelligent policy. I would ask how much of that belief is remaining to-day.
        I foresee in a situation like that one very grave danger. We may sicken the ordinary man of politics altogether. He

        107
        is very suspicious of them already. We can very soon turn that suspicion into disgust. Now mark what will happen. Human nature will never sit down in mute despair; it will turn for help to unauthorised practitioners and what may be dangerous remedies. Let me give an example. The papers to-day are full of what is called a "Crusade for Empire Free Trade." Behind it there is a man of great ability, who is most deeply in earnest, and who commands unexampled resources. I pass no judgment upon its merits, but I would impress upon hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that, whether right or wrong, whether sound or unsound, every day the Government spend in these maiden meditations, which produce nothing but a few more cuts off the old joint, increases the chance of that movement's success.
        The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is getting wide of the subject before the Committee.
        Mr. BUCHAN: I bow to your Ruling, and I have no desire to go further on that point. I am, however, anxious to say that as one who is an old-fashioned believer in Parliamentary government. I do not wish to see the centre of gravity move away from this House. I am old fashioned enough to believe that this country should be led by the Government in office, whatever its party complexion may be. I am perhaps old fashioned and optimistic enough to believe that this problem of unemployment can be solved if we resolutely turn our attention not to palliatives but to cures. I do not know whether I am in order, but I should like to urge most strongly upon the Chancellor of the Duchy that he might in this matter follow the precedent of the Great War. I believe that if we could produce anything like the corporate effort of productive industry that we produced then we should solve our problems. After all, the challenge of unemployment is every bit as big a challenge as the challenge of a war. I do not think—the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party will bear me out—that we shall ever do that if we confine ourselves to consultations.
        The Prime Minister has luncheon parties with economists; very good, but not enough. The Lord Privy Seal sees every kind of business men: very good,
        108
        but not enough. We want to go beyond consultations. We want to be able to bring the best expert talent actively into administrative tasks, so that its reputation and credit are put at stake. In the difficult and intricate conditions under which we live, I believe that it will be necessary in the near future to broaden our executive basis and to bring to an unexampled extent into actual administrative work the right kind of private citizen; but it is not for me to press that matter at this moment. What I would press upon hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that to come down to this House and ask for further money for what is no more than a palliative, without at the same time affiliating it to some larger, more hopeful and more comprehensive policy, is neither fair to the Members of this House nor to the electorate behind them.
        Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not want to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, but I must make a few observations upon the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy. I had not intended to speak until I heard him. It was a most extraordinary speech. He appeared in a most unaccustomed role. Ho was pleading with the Committee. He was very humble because he was, quite obviously, not in the business from the first word that he spoke. He was ashamed of his policy or, rather, the lack of it, and well he might be. He said that he made no claim whatsoever to have had any measure of success in his policy up-to-date. The furthest length to which he permitted himself to go was that he would not at this stage admit defeat. That was a formidable admission for one of the hon. Gentleman's character to make. He then went on to say that we had no right to judge the Government by the results that had been obtained up-to-date. I do not know why we have no such right. They have been eight months in office. The programme of the Liberal party would have been three parts through by this.
        He seemed to think that we had no right to complain that the figures of unemployment have been steadily mounting for the last three or four months. He said we might have a right to complain that the policy which the Government have brought forward or the Measures which they have produced were not cal-

        109
        culated to decrease the numbers of unemployed. He was on the verge of saying that such a criticism would be quite justified, and then he checked himself and said that that criticism was one that we might be justified in making. In his own mind it was quite clear that he thinks that that criticism is justified. It is justified. We go much further than that. We on this side of the House do not merely say that the Measures that the Government are introducing are in no way calculated to decrease the number of unemployed, but we say that they are aggravating the problem at every stage and in every possible way. At the end of his remarks the Chancellor of the Duchy made reference to a constructive policy, and spoke about a long-term programme and a short-term programme. He was very careful not to mention anything about the long-term programme or the short-term programme, which is not surprising, because there is not one; there is not a long-term programme or a short-term programme. Therefore, it is no use even asking what it is.
        He then went on to discuss the subject of rationalisation. That is a question which ought to have been tackled in the very first days of the present Government taking office. We are years behind in our industrial reorganisation. We are years behind Germany and the United States, our most formidable rivals. The Government are frightened of tackling this subject, and they are frightened because of the attitude of certain hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who think that the policy of rationalisation would involve the displacement of labour, in its first stages. That is true; no one would deny it, but would the Government propose that industry should be held up indefinitely, to quote the hon. Member himself, in a state of wholesale continuing obsolescence, simply because the bringing of it up to date and its equipment into line with modern requirement would involve for the time being a certain displacement of labour, and nothing more? If he studies the condition of Germany, he will find that although the rationalisation that they have carried out did involve a certain initial displacement of labour, the speed at which that labour was re-absorbed, due to increased production and efficiency and the lower costs of production which
        110
        followed the process of rationalisation, was equally rapid. It cannot be said that rationalisation in Germany, which has been carried out on a scale not attempted in any other country, has within the last four or five years involved an increase in the number of unemployed. It has been the reverse. It has led to a certain amount of displacement in the initial stages, but to an increased total volume of employment in the short space of three or four years.
        We say that the Government, by the policy they are adopting at the present time, are holding up the process of rationalisation. The weight of taxation upon industry in this country is very nearly unbearable. There is no confidence in industry, and industry finds the greatest difficulty in obtaining the necessary financial accommodation to carry out any schemes of reorganisation or reconstruction. Is the present policy of the Government, which is simply to slop out for an indefinite period more pensions and more doles, likely to increase the confidence of investors or of the banks in the stability of the future of British industry? One of the greatest troubles in this country at the moment is—you have only to ask any stockbroker to confirm the statement—that you cannot persuade anyone to invest their money in British industry, because they have no confidence. I claim that the Government are more responsible for that than any other institution in the country.
        Sir O. MOSLEY: Has not the hon. Member been asking for a dole for the fishing industry?
        Mr. BOOTHBY: I have not been asking for that. On the contrary, I have spent the last fortnight in my constituency denouncing the present Government for giving a dole to the herring fishing industry, with the rapturous approval of the fishermen in the North of Scotland.
        The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. Johnston): May I ask if the hon. Member has not specifically, in public, asked for large loans of money, free of interest? Is not that a dole?
        Mr. BOOTHBY: I made the suggestion that the proper way to deal with an industrial problem of that character was not just to slop out money, especially when it meant an appeal to private charity,

        111
        but to make a loan to the industry. I am not against making loans to industry for the purpose of industrial re-organisation. I would make loans of money to industry. I note the inherent inability of hon. Members opposite to distinguish between productive and unproductive expenditure. We must get at that in this country. If you spend wisely and productively and you raise a loan for the purpose of improving the capital equipment of this country and to develop the health of industry—
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting wide of the subject.
        Mr. BOOTHBY: I bow to your Ruling, but I would point out that it has been transgressed by other speakers. Other speeches may have been more interesting than mine, but they have been equally off the point. There is no evidence of any coherent or constructive business so far as the Government's policy towards economic problems is concerned. They do not seem to be driving towards a proper goal. They seem to have contented themselves by doling out public money. They cannot possibly expect to get any return upon that expenditure. You do not get any return upon doles and pensions. If you are going to tackle the roots of this unemployment problem, you must try to improve the general trade and prosperity of the country. The Lord Privy Seal is never tired of saying that. How are you going to do it? There are only three ways in which it can be done—by reductions in the cost of production, by an improvement of the capital equipment of this country and by developing our markets overseas. These are the only three methods, so far as I can see, to reduce, in the long run, unemployment in this country. I would ask hon. Members opposite to point to a single Measure or a single proposal that they have brought forward which is designed to carry out any one of those three objectives. There is not one. On the contrary, this policy of slop and dole, which has been the best thing that they have been able to produce up to date, is calculated to hang up and to hold up these three desirable things.
        They know as well as we know that the limits of taxation in this country have been practically reached. You cannot go on with the present process indefinitely.
        112
        We are already more heavily taxed than any other country, and industry in this country is more heavily taxed than industry in any country. Even if the limits had not been reached, is it very desirable that in the next 10 or 15 years we should have half the population living on doles or pensions at the expense of the other half, and our basic industries, upon which we must ultimately depend if we are to revive, reduced to a state of shambles? It is not more doles and mote pensions that this country wants, but more employment and more wages, and until the Government recognise that fact and legislate accordingly, I do not think there is much hope for this country.
        7.0 p.m.
        Major NATHAN: The Liberal party, by long tradition and practice, is the protaganist of improvements in social condition. It is also, by tradition and practice, the guardian of the public purse. As I look at this Supplementary Estimate, I observe that the sum of £12,500,000 has in a relatively short space of time being increased by successive Supplementary votes to £19,000,000, an increase of 50 per cent. on the original Estimate, without any satisfactory explanation from the Treasury as to how this large expenditure stands in relation to the national balance-sheet taken as a whole. The Committee is entitled to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his view is as to the effect upon our national finances of these successive burdens. It is to be observed that, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently took the Labour party into his confidence at a party meeting in the course of the Debates on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, no official information to enable the House to Commons to form its own judgment as to the state of the finances and the relation to them of this expenditure has been vouchsafed to the House of Commons. It must be remembered that this item does not stand alone. Week by week we have been adding to our expenditure, and more millions of expenditure are envisaged. We have in view the acquisition of the mining royalties; there are already specific pledges for increasing the school-leaving age and for the payment of maintenance grants; bills for slum clearance are proposed, and presumably there will be very heavy financial

        113
        obligations attached to these Measures. With some of them and perhaps with all of them I find myself in agreement.
        The dictates of human kindness make it difficult for any man to speak or vote against these increases in expenditure, but really we ought, when considering these various items, to consider the state of our bank-book. I suppose that many of us have had the temptation at our tailor's of adding under the persuasive charm of the shop assistant very considerably to our original order, and for the purchase of each new suit there have always been quite unassailable reasons. What often augments the temptation is the fact that we know it will be several months before we have to pay for them. There is a danger that the House of Commons may indulge in very similar kinds of extravagance. For each new obligation we undertake there are ample and indeed overwhelming arguments to be adduced, but the bill will be sent in next April, which is close upon us. The House of Commons will not be able to burke it then, because across the Bill will be written the words "please remit at once." Have we the money to meet these new liabilities? We do not know.
        The CHAIRMAN: In this Debate, we are confined to these Estimates, and I must call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the fact that he going rather wide.
        Major NATHAN: I speak with the lack of experience which is inevitable in a new Member, but I would submit, with great respect, that we are discussing here the voting of a very considerable sum of money in respect of a Bill which is not already law. It may very well be that our vote, if it should be an adverse vote, would affect the fate of that Bill. I would therefore ask your Ruling whether a discussion as to whether the expenditure is such that the House of Commons could legitimately endorse is a suitable matter to discuss in the Debate on which we are now engaged.
        The CHAIRMAN: On all Estimates the Committee is confined to the administration of the Department which is being criticised or commended at the moment. Anything requiring legislation is barred. In everybody's mind there is a desire for a wider discussion than usual, but the
        114
        Ruling laid down at the beginning is that we must stick to the Estimate, and the Estimate is for salaries, wages and allowances, contribution to the Unemployment Fund, and training of young unemployed men.
        Major NATHAN: I bow to your Ruling, and I think I have made my point, which is, shortly, that the resources of the country are likely to diminish, and what guarantee have we that the unemployment figures will not grow larger? The right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to have any great faith in a trade revival when they budget for an average unemployment figure of 1,200,000 or more. That is the Party which in June, 1923, had a specific remedy for unemployment, but now contemplates without alarm unemployment stabilised at a higher figure even than that touched under the Conservative Government. The last Unemployment Bill contemplated 1,000,000 unemployed, but the present Government contemplated unemployment increased by a quarter of a million, and it has, in fact, increased by half a million. It is not so very long ago that hon. Members opposite were sneering at those who conceived unemployment stabilised at 700,000, 800,000 less than the present figure. May I ask those who represent the Ministry of Labour and the Lord Privy Seal's Department whether they put any limits to the extent to which they expect the unemployment figures to rise under their stewardship? We ought to have a statement.
        We are asked for a very large sum of money. How do we know that we shall not be asked for half as much again in six months' time? It is understood that the Prime Minister has promised that this is only a beginning of the handling of unemployment. The Committee would like to know what the Treasury have to say about that. Is the Treasury prepared to find more and more money for more and more unemployment, because that is the prospect that is opened up before us? I am sure, if the Treasury is prepared to do it, the country is not. The mere fact that this Supplementary Estimate has to be placed before the Committee is in itself a melancholy confession of failure. The country look to the Government for prosperity. This Estimate shows that all that it has got is a further endowment of

        115
        destitution. The Lord Privy Seal, in the course of his election compaign, said, at Oldham, on 24th May of last year, "We shall solve unemployment by spending money." The electors thought it would be money to re-equip the nation, money spent in the manner that has been advocated by so many Members of this House. They never imagined that this great further expenditure was going to be in coping with heavier unemployment figures. The Committee is being asked to support a relief fund for the victims of a disaster. It is a tragedy that this Government should have to ask us to subscribe for that purpose.
        The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I rise only to deal with two questions which were definitely put to me in the course of this Debate. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) asked me a point as to the intentions of the Government towards reversing the action of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. His question was really a rhetorical question more than one in search of information, because the information which he required is really forthcoming in the actual Unemployment Insurance Bill which is now in another place. He reminded the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had criticised the late holder of that office for the way in which he had raided the Unemployment Insurance Fund, so as to make it insolvent. My right hon. Friend had pointed out that had that raid not taken place, the fund would have been solvent at the present time. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove asked me whether it was the intention of the Government to reverse in all particulars the action which had been taken by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The answer to that is contained in the Bill, namely, that it is only in certain ways that that reversal is to take place. The other question was put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), who has just addressed the Committee. He asked me whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to explain exactly how the money was going to be found if this particular Estimate was passed to-day. The answer, of course, is that this is not
        116
        the occasion on which the methods, the ways and means, by which money has to be found, are discussed.
        Major NATHAN: Perhaps I did not put my question as clearly as I might have done. My criticism was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, might have been expected by the Committee to make a statement which would enable the Committee not to judge how the money should be found, but the amount involved in relation to the expenditure of the nation as a whole, so as to debate the question whether we could afford it, and not the question how the money should be raised.
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Member will find that that point has been answered. It turns on two questions. First of all, what are the total commitments of which this is one? The hon. and gallant Member forgets that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a definite announcement on that point. If he will turn to the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 19th November and 24th December, he will find the additional commitments of the Government under various heads, including the one with which we are dealing, carefully set out both with regard to 1929–30, and with regard to 1930–31. The second one is the 24th December, and that covers the changes effected in the Unemployment Insurance Bill at the very end of the Session.
        Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: It does not give any estimate.
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It gives the effect on the Estimates of the new change in the law. That is the latest we can go by. It is premature and quite impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to estimate the revenue. When it comes to the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will indicate to the House how he proposes to meet the specific expenditure which is referred to in the figures to which I have called attention. We are in a very peculiar position this year; quite a different position from that in which Parliament usually finds itself. That is due to the action of the late Government in choosing the month immediately following the Budget for the General Election. Whatever may have been the intention of the late Government, the effect is that the

        117
        financial provisions cannot be made for nearly 12 months after tine Session has begun. That is a totally different position to what we have ever seen before. Usually the Budget has been introduced within a month or two of the King's Speech, and even when commencing a Session in the autumn the Budget has been available within four or five months of the King's Speech. But the late Government dissolved Parliament in May, and the financial provision does not become available for 11 or 12 months after the Session has begun. In these circumstances the difficulty referred to by the Member for North-East Bethnal Green necessarily arises. In so far as the Government requires additional financial expenditure the actual provision for it cannot take place until several months after the Session has begun.
        Captain EDEN: It is rather a melancholy reflection that on the first occasion after our brief Christmas Recess we should be back again in the somewhat gloomy atmosphere which this Vote inevitably arouses. I confess to grave disappointment with the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this afternoon. It was not so much what he said as what he left unsaid that depresses me. He analysed the problem, which we in this Vote have to relieve, very fairly. He said there was the immediate problem, which is the concern of this Vote. That is no doubt true. He said that there was the more distant but more far-reaching problem of the reorganisation of industry; but that this second problem was out of order at the moment. As to the immediate problem, which is what we are most concerned about and which was what we imagined the Government had in mind when they told us that their schemes had been before the country for years, the Government have shown a strange failure to bring forward any schemes or plans; and what we are now discussing in this Estimate, which is the price of the rising tide of unemployment, is the price of the Government's failure to fulfil any one of its gay promises which they held out to the electors as recently as last May.
        But that is not all. We have to find this money; but so far from improving the situation the figures with which we are now confronted will, I fear, grow worse in the weeks immediately ahead.
        118
        The position now is worse than it was a year ago and I can see nothing within the horizon to lead us to expect that it will be any better in the next year than it is now. On the contrary, the uncertainty which the Government has held over industry and their failure to announce any policy in relation to agriculture or the motor car industry must further injure these figures and increase the sums which we shall be called upon to find during the coming year. The Government cannot escape from the serious reflections which will certainly be held in the country as the outcome of this Debate.
        I want to deal with one particular item in this Vote, and that is with the training for young unemployed men. The Parliamentary Secretary gave us some information this afternoon which I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, when she replies, to supplement. His explanation as to the number of men now in training centres for work overseas, the percentage at present in training, seemed to me a little involved, and I should like to clarify it. I should like to ask, what percentage of the younger men who come on to the labour market in the depressed areas are now being absorbed into these training centres? I have always felt that we have not gone as fast as we should in this direction. We fully appreciate the great difficulties which confronted the late Minister of Labour in his work, and considerable progress, quick progress, has been made in the last two or three years, but I want to ask, what stage has that progress now reached? What percentage of the younger men, when they come on to the labour market, can hope to be absorbed into these training centres?
        Mr. LAWSON: Does the hon. and gallant Member limit that to the depressed areas?
        Captain EDEN: If the hon. Member can give me the figures for the country as a whole I should be glad to have them. I want to ask whether there is room in the present training centres for the young men who want to get this training? Can they find places if they desire to do so; and, if they cannot, what percentage are debarred by lack of accommodation from doing so? Then, having passed through the training centres, what percentage find permanent employment? These questions cover those who are in training

        119
        centres for absorption here and for absorption overseas. I would like to ask a few specific questions about those who are to be absorbed overseas. The hon. Member gave us information which shows that at the present time the available places in these training centres are not being fully used, or anything like fully used. Only about 50 per cent. of the places are being used, in some districts the figure is even lower. In fact, it would not be over-stressing the position to say that we are not making half the use we should of these training centres for overseas.
        I want to ask how far this failure to use the capacity we have is due to the reluctance of the Dominions to take these men; or how far it is due to the inability to find men to go to these centres? I think we should have that information. If this figure is to remain for a long time at under half capacity, if these places are to be wasted, when there is a demand for greater space for training men for our own industries, I think they should be filled up for this purpose. I hope we shall get an answer from the Minister on these points. If the Government believe that the failure to use these training centres for overseas even up to half their capacity is due to the inability of the Dominions to co-operate in absorbing the men once they are trained, I suggest that there would be a remedy if there were closer co-operation between the training centres and the Dominions. Anyone who knows the conditions in the Dominions will agree that it would be possible by closer co-operation to improve largely on the work done in the past. It is deplorable to find that these training centres are not being used even to half their capacity. There is something lacking, and I hope the Government will not be content to leave the position as it is to-day.
        I share with all hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate a sense of anxiety at the position into which we are drifting. We are being asked for yet another estimate; and an estimate neither directly nor indirectly related to the Government's policy to deal with this problem. It is that which makes the country, as well as this House, anxious. We cannot see through this mass of figures one ray of hope that they have any ultimate purpose other than a hand-
        120
        to-mouth time-saving policy. That is what makes the country and this House anxious for the future. I have no doubt that the Minister of Labour will get this Vote to-night, but I hope she will not be content and think that she has done her share to meet the problem of unemployment. When she has this money she will have done nothing at all to meet the problem, except to make it rather more difficult still for trade and industry which has to find the money. Perhaps the worst feature of the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy was the extreme self-satisfied complacency with which he viewed the immediate future of this problem. If that is the attitude of mind of the Government, if they really believe that is the position, and never hope to do any better than they are doing, then, indeed, the outlook for the nation and for the Government is bad, and the complacency of the Chancellor of the Duchy will, I believe, receive a jolt which it richly deserves.
        Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Everyone who has listened to this Debate must have been impressed with the desire on the part of Members in all parts of the House, a desire, I believe, shared by the Chair, to widen the discussion rather further than is usual under a Vote of this kind. It is a desire which everybody who is interested in unemployment—and who is not—must have felt was natural and perhaps quite in keeping with what is essentially the duty of the House of Commons at this particular time. To me this Vote, as it stands on the Paper, brings first and foremost to my mind the question not as to whether the amount of money is large—of course it is—but whether it is large enough to be of any use. Is it not the fact that the Minister of Labour is going to come to the House within the next few months, perhaps the next few weeks, and ask for a further sum. The House of Commons, at any rate, when it is asked to vote a sum of £4,000,000 for Ministry of Labour charges, is entitled to have some idea as to what is expected of I in the near future. I do not suggest that the Government should give us an exact estimate of the money which is going to be required for any long period ahead, but when they ask us to vote £4,000,000 to-day, with no knowledge of what the future has in store in the way of further

        121
        commitments, they put the House of Commons in an extremely awkward and unfair position.
        I was very interested in looking through the figures given in the Report of the Industrial Transference Board as to the nature of the unemployment problem in this country only a few months ago. The figures given are for March and April last year, and the unemployment in the principal trades was then as follows: Unemployed in the coal trade, 134,000; engineering and shipbuilding, 48,000; textiles, 30,000; metal trades, 50,000; building trades, 135,000; and transport trade, 115,000. Is it not perfectly clear to everyone who studies the problem that under the present policy of the Government the figures are bound to increase? I do not wish to be in any way unfair, but at present it is well known to everyone engaged in industry not only that there is no confidence as to the policy of the Government in the future, but that those who are usually occupied in seeking opportunities for new enterprises, for making money if you like, are in fact going out of industry, and that the attitude of the Government at the present time, the attitude of the country if you like—I do not care whether we put it on the Government or on the country—is to give no support or encouragement whatever to productive industry, with the result that there will be, almost inevitably, an increase in the number of unemployed in the great staple trades. I suggest that it is useless for the Government to bring forward a proposal that the Committee should pass this Vote of £4,000,000 without some statement as to the future requirements. I do not doubt that the Minister will get her Vote. It is probably necessary that she should, though personally I am glad that the party with which I am associated has moved a reduction as a protest against the way in which the matter has been brought forward.
        Notice taken that 40 Members were not present: House counted; and 40 Members being present—
        Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: I was drawing attention to the fact that it is almost a certainty that before many weeks have passed further money will be required by the Government, and that a further Vote will be brought forward in exactly the
        122
        same way as this Vote has been brought forward. It is grossly unfair for the Government not to give us some idea of what they visualise the future of unemployment to be. I can see no reason to expect any decrease in the number of unemployed in the near future. If we look at the period of 2½ years from October, 1923, to April, 1926, quoted in the Government publications we find that out of 11,500,000 people insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act, at that time nearly 8,000,000 drew no unemployment benefit at all, and that of the remaining 3,500,000 no fewer than 2,500,000 in no case exceeded 100 days in unemployment. What is the position to-day? Every one hears more and more of the number of employers who are forced by want of confidence, by lack of knowledge of what the Government intend to do in future, to withdraw to some extent from industry, to draw in their horns, to refuse to expand; and the fact is that we are destroying any idea of enterprise altogether. What is happening is that the men who used to be most active in any walk of life, whether they were big employers or small employers, the men who were most active in seeking avenues for enrichment by means of new enterprise, now say that with the ever increasing burdens of taxation, with the Government always as a sleeping partner, with the Government taking 20 per cent. of the profits and taking no share in the losses, it is not worth while going on.
        Unemployment is bound to go on increasing unless those who are engaged in industry can be told definitely what it is that the Government intend to do. It is of no use bringing forward schemes of relief work and thinking that they will deal with the problem. Readers of history can tell you that in 1845 there was a serious financial crisis, caused largely by the building of vast railway schemes There was a great boom in railways at that time, and money was put into them to such an extent as to cause great dislocation of ordinary commercial credit and indeed finally to bring about a financial crisis. It is not the least use thinking that unemployment can be dealt with by mere schemes of relief. Industry, with a fair field, can put its house in order perfectly well without the Government, if the Government will let it alone—[HON. MEMBERS: "No tariffs?

        123
        No Derating?"]—if the Government will say definitely that it is prepared to give British industry at any rate a fair chance in the world—nothing more. Industry does not want the Government to go on spending money on relief works, but it does want to know that it is to have a fair chance in competition with the competing industries of the world. At this moment it does not have that chance. It would be out of order if I were to begin a Debate on the question of Protection or Free Trade, as I should much like to do, but perhaps I shall be within the Rules if I say merely that a fair chance to produce and sell our goods in competition with other industries in other parts of the world is what is wanted. At present British industry has no such chance at all, and it is that which makes it impossible for new enterprise to absorb our unemployed. The sooner this country gets down to the fact that it is productive industry and that alone which matters, and productive industry only which produces every penny to be spent in the relief of unemployment or in any other way, the better it will be for the country.
        I want to finish on this note: I would suggest to the Minister that she should reply to questions put to her earlier regarding the training centres. We are most anxious to know what really is the attitude of the Dominions. I know that it is a delicate subject, and one which perhaps the Minister does not wish to speak upon too freely in case it should give any offence: but I do not think anyone in the Dominions would be offended by a clear statement as to what the position is. I think we are entitled to know whether the difficulty is entirely on the Dominions' side, or whether there is a difficulty in getting candidates to fill the vacancies at the centres. Is there any chance of the emigration side of the problem being assisted? But whether the schemes to assist emigration be successful or not, there is not the smallest doubt that there is only one real remedy for unemployment, and that is to get our productive industries in this country back to prosperity. That cannot he done by voting more and more money in the shape of unemployment benefit, which no one who can get work wants to take and which in the end only adds to the burdens which are reaching, if they
        124
        have not already reached, the point at which they break the back of the very willing camel which has borne these burdens for so many years.
        The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): It has been a very interesting Debate, and Members have exercised great ingenuity in finding some field for criticism. That seems to be an indication that the policy of the Government is really very sound, particularly in relation to this particular Estimate. There are certain points that I think it exceedingly important should be made clear. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) raised one or two specific points with which I will deal first. There was the question of housing in relation to the increase of the number of persons unemployed. The hon. and gallant Member omitted entirely to take into account factors which have influenced the situation. There was first of all the fact of the expiration of the subsidy under the 1923 Act, which caused a cessation of the compilation of statistics; we no longer get reports as to the extent of private building Then in regard to the 1924 Act there was that change of policy in the reduction of the subsidy, which completely upset the programmes of the local authorities. There has been that overlapping which is due to change of policy, and it has prevented a rapid recovery. The hon. and gallant Member was correct in his figures about the numbers of houses under construction in 1929. They do show diminution. What he did not quote was the group of figures which show that the turn of the tide has already begun as a result of the policy of the present Government. In October, 1929, the number of authorisations was steadily rising The figures are: October, 1929, 5,453 authorisations; November, 1929, 4,381; December, 1929, 8,934. That number in December is greater than in any previous month of 1929. The greatest number of authorisations reached previously had been 6,727 in March.
        Major ELLIOT: Of course, those figures do not apply in any way to Scotland.
        Miss BONDFIELD: No they are for England and Wales, but they are indicative of the turn of the tide in local government administration, and of the prospect that next year we shall see rapid

        125
        progress in connection with housing. It is only fair to point out these facts in view of the very caustic remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member. The next point raised by him was as to the constitutional position. I am very glad that the point was raised. It is extremely fortunate that every Department of the Ministry should be aware of the fact that the House of Commons is watchful regarding constitutional propriety. But in connection with this Estimate I am glad to know that we are not merely acting constitutionally, although it is perhaps on rare occasions that this particular course has been followed, hut that we are following precedents set by the previous Government.
        There are three precedents to which I draw attention. One is in connection with a Supplementary Estimate in 1924 in relation to old age pensions. In that case both the Bill and the Appropriation Bill in which the Estimate was incorporated received the Royal Assent on the 7th August. That is to say, the Supplementary Estimate was dealt with in this House at the same time as the Bill was being dealt with in another place. That was under the Labour Government. The next precedent is the British Sugar Subsidy Measure in 1925. In that case the Ministry of Agriculture brought in a Supplementary Estimate when the Bill was awaiting its Third Beading in the House of Commons and both the Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill were finally passed on 22nd March. The next precedent is in connection with grants to rating authorities in Scotland, and this Estimate provided for anticipated expenditure under the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. The Estimate was voted in Committee of Supply on 7th May and reported on 8th May, and the Bill received the Royal Assent on 10th May, as did the Appropriation Bill incorporating the Estimate. Both these precedents were under the late Government.
        Of the three precedents quoted, that which arose under the Labour Government related to what was definitely a Money Bill, but the other two Measures were not defined as Money Bills, and, therefore, we have in that case and in the other two cases, a complete precedent for the action now being taken. I would like to take the matter a step further. I do not want to depend upon precedents alone, but upon eommon-
        126
        sense. Here is a case in which it was well known to the House of Commons that the money provided under the 1928–1929 Estimate was not sufficient to meet the liabilities of the fund. We had in July to pass hurriedly an emergency Measure in order that the Estimates which covered the period of 1929—the 12 months to the end of the year—should be supplemented. We had had £12,000,000 voted, and I raised that sum to £15,500,000 under the July Measure by adding the one-third Exchequer contribution. As a matter of fact, the £12,000,000 originally estimated for had been spent in nine months. It had only covered nine months instead of 12, and, therefore, there was urgent need to make provision for the payment of benefits up to the last day of December. When I introduced the Bill in July I pointed out that it was simply intended as a carry over while we were searching for other methods by which the fund could be saved, and I made it abundantly clear that the new method of financing the fund, or rather the new method by which the fund was going to be relieved, necessitated a further Supplementary Estimate which we hoped to get before Christmas. It was the exigencies of the Debate on the Bill which made the time so short that it was impossible to get that Supplementary Estimate before Christmas.
        During the Debate to-day it has been rather assumed that I have suddenly plunged the Committee into a new demand for a Supplementary Estimate of which they never heard anything before. Of course such a suggestion is absurd. It was implicit in the Measure which was sanctioned before Christmas that this Estimate was essential and was part of the proposals then discussed. It was purely a matter of dates which prevented us from getting this Estimate before Christmas. The contents of the Estimate were clearly displayed to the House of Commons and it is now again a question of facing the position of the Fund and of enabling us to carry on until a new Estimate becomes due. I was very careful to point out to the House of Commons that this would arise and I based my estimate upon last year's figures, on the assumption that we should probably have the same if not a greater figure this year. I will come presently to the reason why I believe that the figure may be greater. We were under

        127
        no illusion about the possibility of an immediate reduction in the figures on the live register and the Committee cannot accuse me, at any rate, of disguising the situation as I saw it during the time of the Debate on the Bill.
        Therefore, when we were estimating what would arise as a result of the Bill which has passed through this House and has been sent on its journey in another place, it was clearly understood that it necessitated a further Estimate to carry us on to the end of the financial year and the Bill provides for the relief of the Fund during the next 12 months by the removal of the cost of the "under 30 stamps" claimants into a fund which is to be provided wholly by the Treasury. The situation may become very much worse. I am not a prophet and I think nobody in the present state of British industry would be well advised to make any prediction about what the position of unemployment is going to be at the end of the next three or four months but I have assumed that there will be no great decrease in the figures in fixing my annual average of the amount that requires to be met.
        The other point raised in connection with these figures is, I think, rather important. It has been said that I should explain the words of the explanatory note in the actuarial report and I think the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) was rather sarcastic about that point. He said: "Here is a figure of 1,400,000 on the register and the balancing point in the actuarial report is placed at 1,200,000, subsequently corrected by the Bill to 1,160,000." But does the hon. and gallant Member forget that under his own Government when the figure on the register was 1,500,000, the balancing point was only 1,000,000. That was December, 1928, and however much one may wish to have a perfect system of financing the Fund, I, at least, can claim that I am 160,000 on the right side as compared with the position of the late Government in December, 1928.
        The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and other Members dealt quite appropriately with the sum of £300,000 in the Vote for Exchange salaries. The hon. Member for Leith wanted to know
        128
        whether the words in the Estimate indicated any form of development in the work of the Exchanges. I wish to assure him that it is purely an administrative statement. What we are trying to do is to increase placing facilities, as a matter of developing the Exchange machinery—developing the personnel which will specialise on the work-finding side of the Employment Exchange machinery. In that respect I have already taken rather vigorous administrative action in order to release certain officers from dual or divided duty and enable them to concentrate upon the work-finding side of the machine. It is very difficult to forecast the number of persons who will be employed, because that will have to vary with the number on the register. The number of Exchange personnel goes up and down in relation to the number on the register, and what I am doing is to re-allocate duties apart from the ordinary up and down flow. It may be necessary in certain areas—and if it is necessary I shall not hesitate to do it—to increase the number of persons in connection with an Exchange, even if there is no increase in the number on the register, because it will be a question of dealing with under-staffing.
        I have found that placing work in certain areas has been definitely crippled by the fact that the Exchange was working at such pressure and, therefore, part of this £300,000 represents an endeavour to ease the situation in those areas where under-staffing was proved to be the cause of less effective work in this respect than otherwise might have been done. Part of it is also definitely and directly due to the increased work which I desire to pursue in relation to juvenile unemployment centres, with which the whole Committee is, I am sure, in sympathy and which hon. Members would desire to see carried out in the most efficient manner possible. Other factors of a minor character have caused slight increases, but I hope I may be in a position to say that the changes which will take place under the new Bill—changes in the nature of the work of the Exchanges by the abolition of "not genuinely seeking work "—may have the result of releasing certain staff, now largely occupied with appeal cases and things of that kind, and enabling them to be devoted to

        129
        the more constructive side of the work. I believe that may be possible but not immediately.
        I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) will endorse my statement in this respect from his own experience. When there is a change which involves new directions to the officers at the Exchanges or any great differentiation in administrative practice it takes a long time for the machine—if I may use the expression—to unwind and then to wind up again under the new conditions. In the case of the 1927 Act, for example, it took nine months to re-establish the Exchanges working at full speed under the administrative changes then introduced. I do not anticipate that in this case that it will take nine months. I think I can manage to improve on that very much, but I take this opportunity of warning the Committee that there is bound to be a certain amount of dislocation in connection with the change-over from the old style to the new style of administration. There may be, and undoubtedly will be, as in 1927, Exchanges where everything will not run smoothly at first, and I am going to ask for the sympathy and cooperation of hon. Members in their own constituencies. I ask them to help us to get the change-over made as smoothly and easily as possible. If unemployed persons go to them with grievances let them be helpful and let them also give the Exchanges a chance to put the machinery into proper working order before they start to proclaim that the Exchange machinery is no good. Let us try to help and encourage the staffs of the Exchanges who are performing a most difficult task under very difficult conditions. Let us make them feel that the House of Commons at least understands their difficulties and will help them in every possible way.
        8.0 p.m.
        In coming to the next point, which refers to the question of training, I should like to give the Committee some very clear figures. They have a right to ask for those figures, and I am very happy to explain to them what the position is. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) and others asked for a clear statement as to the exact position. There are three groups of training centres. There is the group known as handymen centres, and there they have a
        130
        total number of 3,300 places. The total admissions to these training centres, some of which were opened as early as 1925 and 1926, and some in 1928 and 1929—the last two, of which, Slough and Watford, were opened, one on the 20th June and the other on the 28th November—was 16,118 persons. The number of men at the end of the year in those training centres was 2,689; 3,300 places, 2,689 actually in training. That shows vacant places there numbering about 600, but I want the Committee to remember that any figures taken on a given date may be falsified within a week or a fortnight of that time, because it may be that at the moment when the census was taken a certain number of men had finished their training and gone out, and other men had not come in to take their training, so that the Committee must not assume that there are 600 places that cannot be filled. That would not be a correct assumption. In the middle of January we may have every one of those places filled, but that was the position when those figures were taken.
        With regard to the group for overseas training, we have at Brandon, Carstairs and Claydon places totalling 1,220, and we have passed through these centres 9,785 persons. At the present moment we have 731 in those places—a very low number compared with the number of places available. We admitted for training to go to Australia 2,830 applicants, and the number who emigrated amounted to 2,366. For Canada we admitted 6,810, and those who emigrated totalled 4,893.
        I was asked to be frank about the situation with regard to the Dominions. I do not think there is any secret about it, though it is a somewhat delicate matter to discuss, because it is one in which the policy of the Dominions is bound to be brought in, but it is common knowledge that the policy with regard to Canada received a sudden check. One morning we had a telegram cancelling the sailing of a number of men who had finished their course and who had actually got their tickets for embarkation, and everything ready, but at the last moment it was discovered that owing to the failure of the harvest and several other reasons Canada found it was most unwise to let them start. In

        131
        that case we were very fortunate to be able to secure their admission to Australia, but, of course, it had a very definite effect on the number of candidates who even asked to train for Canada after that experience.
        The Australian situation is also well known. They have quite definitely announced that for the moment they are not accepting further immigration. That again has its effect on the number of men who are willing to come forward for training for migration to Australia. In regard to the general policy of migration and whether it is to be regarded as one of the contributory causes reducing the unemployment figures, I think we must not be discouraged by setbacks of this kind. I think we must realise that this question of the movement of population from this country to the Dominions is one to be spread over a very long period of time, and that in all probability next year the situation may be reversed. It may be that the Dominions will be prepared to take men in larger numbers than they are prepared to now. At the present moment the position is that more men are prepared to go than the Dominions are prepared to take.
        The next group of training centres is what is known as the transfer instructional centres. We have had a very great deal of activity in that connection. Blackpool was opened on the 2nd May, 1929, Carshalton on the 26th August, 1929. Fermyn Woods on the 31st May, 1929, Presteign on the 20th June, and Poole on the 1st October. We have in addition to that a very interesting experiment which we hope will be successful in connection with the Zoological Society's new area at Whipsnade. We have there an understanding with them that they are prepared to take about 150 men at a time on road and excavation work under ordinary industrial conditions, and for the first time we have an interesting arrangement by which the Ministry of Labour is to be responsible for the finding of the labour required by the Zoological Society. That will be a very real help in connection with our transfer schemes, and we are looking forward to a development of that kind of special work that can be earmarked for men from the distressed areas. The total
        132
        number of places in this group of training centres is 1,200, and though they have only been opened for a short time, we have admitted to those centres 3,468 trainees, and in training at the end of the year there were 929 persons. In addition to that, those who have completed their training, found work before completion or transferred to an ordinary training centre amount to 1,950.
        The Committee may ask what is the attitude of the unemployed men with regard to these training centres. It is very varied. In some areas we have a large number of people who have expressed their desire to go into training centres, but the experience and the knowledge of the Exchange officials compel them to recommend that the men are not suitable for training, either that they are too old, or that there are local circumstances which make it almost impossible to move them; and, therefore, there are a certain number of applicants who want to go into training for whom training is not considered to be the best kind of help. There are other groups of men who are not only suitable for training but anxious to go into training, and it is from that group that these training centres have been fed up till now. We have to face the problem—and I am taking the Committee into my confidence—of a group of men who are entirely suitable for training but who do not want to go and in regard to whom we have to use such persuasion as we can to try and enable them to benefit by the opportunities which we can now offer them.
        There are cases in which men are entirely suitable for transfer and who want to be transferred, but the difficulty has been that they did not see how they could even consider it unless there was some further help given in connection with the family that would have to wait until they got settled. That is quite true, and we have been able to do a little towards helping a few. It is only a small percentage of the total, but a few of these people have been helped to get into an area in which both they and their families have a chance of settling into something like a decent life. The housing difficulty, of course, is very great, and confines most of the questions of transfer to those areas in which housing accommodation is possible. It means, of course, also that to a very great extent it confines transfer to single men who can go into lodgings.

        133
        On the general question of transfer, the opposition, perfectly understandable and with which everybody sympathises, has, I am glad to say, been steadily diminishing, and many authorities, particularly the London County Council, which was so very much opposed even to considering it, have been able to come into line with the new proposals made and are now helping us in the matter of arranging for a certain proportion of transferred men to go into works within the boundary of their administration. The same applies to a number of borough councils in the more favourably situated areas, where their own unemployment is something under 5 per cent., or thereabouts. The situation, therefore, from that point of view is distinctly improving and encouraging.
        At the same time, there is no doubt about it—and again I am putting the Committee fully in possession of the situation—that the industries of this country, and particularly certain heavy industries, are in a very bad way in regard to organisation and efficiency of plant; and surely no one will say that employers must not take their share of blame for the neglect. No one, I am sure, will say that employers could not have done more than they have done to foresee events and to look a little further ahead than for the next few months, living from hand to mouth.
        The position in which we find ourselves is that the cumulative neglect and shortsightedness of those who have had the control of the heavy industries of this country have now brought us to a crisis in which they have either got to rationalise or go under, and it is all coming at once. It is coming in the woollen industry, the textile industry, the iron and steel industry, all at once, and it is bound to have an effect upon the register. Nobody wants to put off the rationalising process or to put off the time when we can look upon our industries as efficiently equipped with proper machinery when we have to face—and I hope it will not be regarded as a party question—the consequences of past neglect and we find that this thing is piled up upon us in an intensified degree week by week and month by month.
        It is not within the scope of this Estimate to deal further than with the administrative side of the constructive
        134
        measures that we are taking, but I hope I have said enough to show that the Ministry of Labour is fully seized of the gravity of the situation and realises that the situation is such that it does need clear understanding that we are going through probably two, three, or four months more when the figures may be high. They may very easily go up, but, in spite of what I feel it my duty to do to put the position as it were in the clearest way before the Committee, I contemplate that there is a movement in industry, as is shown by the number of persons employed, that shows a certain expansion and development in certain other directions. Nobody will profess that it is possible to reorganise coal, cotton, wool, iron and steel in the space of two or three months, but until that process of reorganisation is completed there will be, as previous speakers have said, a necessity for making provision for it may be an increasing number of unemployed.
        This Estimate is strictly confined to the Bill which was passed through this House, and I want to assure hon. Members that if there are any Amendments in the Lords which are likely to increase the amount of money distributed under the Bill, in a circumstance like that it might be possible that I shall have to come back to the House towards the end of the financial year, if those increases were really considerable, but I do not anticipate increases. Hon. Members may say that the chances are the other way. Very well, assuming that the chances are the other way, what is the constitutional provision? It may be urged that I might have money in excess of my needs under this Estimate. All I can say to hon. and right hon. Members in this House is that I can give you my word that if such an event occurs, I will undertake not to spend a penny more than that which is allowed by the Bill which this House passed. I hope, therefore, they will give me my Supplementary Estimate and that they will realise that we do understand the gravity of the position in which we are placed, and that, as far as the administration of the Department is concerned, we are leaving no effort untried and no opportunity unused to strengthen the work, to increase the opportunities and the desire for training on the part of the unemployed, and to administer the Unemployment Fund in

        135
        the best interest of the nation, which is in itself the best interest of the unemployed persons themselves.
        The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asked what we are training people for. We are not training them to be carpenters or engineers or to take their places in skilled trades as skilled workers. I am convinced that young men and women—and middle-aged men and women too—who have been subjected to compulsory idleness week after week, month after month without any hope, lose their powers, they deteriorate in the quality of their minds and the skill of hand which was theirs. The centres are established for the specific purpose, not of training them for a particular job, but of keeping them alive, of giving them something to think about, and of making them feel that they have capacity and that at some time or other the nation will badly need them; and we have to keep them fit and well and sane in body and mind. It is that which is the primary purpose of the training centres.
        Captain BOURNE: The Committee will agree with the last few sentences of the right hon. Lady, and we have all listened with great interest and some relief to her statement that, although things are black at the moment, she sees some chance of the clouds passing in the near future. She is the head of a Department which is one of the best and one of the most able of the Government departments to judge the future in the matter of unemployment, and we all welcome her expression of hope, and sincerely trust that it will not be disappointed. I do not altogether agree with the right hon. Lady's explanation of the constitutional position. Most hon. Members realised that when the Bill, which we were discussing just before the Recess, finally became law, a new Supplementary Estimate to deal with what was Clause 12 would be required. I do not think, however, that any of us expected that that Supplementary Estimate would come quite so soon, but that it would not corns until the Bill had passed the Committee stage in another place, or, preferably, until it had passed through another place altogether.
        I do not think that the precedent which the right hon. Lady quoted was quite a
        136
        good one. In point of fact, a sum of £1,750,000 was voted by this House for a purpose for which it could not be used, and it had to be voted at a later date. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not find herself in the same position. I should have thought that, after that experience, no Government Department would willingly ask this House for an Estimate until they were certain of the final form in which the Bill would reach the Statute Book. If she had looked, she might have found a better precedent for her action. That was an action taken by the Liberal party about 1906 in respect of education.
        When does the right hon. Lady intend to ask the Treasury for the money? She will probably get her Estimate to-night, and I do not doubt that she will get the Report stage this week, but that does not authorise an expenditure of money. When does she hope to get the Consolidated Fund Bill? Is it the intention of the Government to introduce another Consolidated Fund Bill before the 31st March, so that there will have been three, or four, Consolidated Fund Bills this Session? Will that be introduced before we have had an opportunity of considering any amendments which another place may make? That is clearly a point of constitutional importance, and it is one that ought to be answered.
        The right hon. Lady said that, supposing the Amendments made in another place, which the Government might feet constrained to accept, reduced the total amount of money required, she promised the House that she would not spend a penny more. For one thing, the Comptroller and Auditor-General would take care that she did not, but that does not meet the situation. If the money has been voted by this House, put in a Consolidated Fund Bill, and agreed to by both Houses, and is subsequently not required, it goes automatically to the Sinking Fund at the end of the Session. The taxpayer, who has to find the money, has in that case to find more money than is needed for carrying on the Government of the country. He has burdens enough already, and, largely owing to the heavy burdens which he now carries, this heavy figure of unemployment continues.
        The bulk of this Estimate, really is for £4,000,000, which is required under what was Clause 12 of the Bill. The appro-

        137
        priations-in-aid nearly cover the additional expenditure, and therefore, I presume, the total amount of new money asked for under the other three heads is about £150,000, of which £100,000 is asked for training. I want to know something about the £4,000,000, because I have heard very little about it, except that it is to remove the liability on the fund for those who have not had the requisite number of stamps, and to place it direct on to the Treasury. When the Bill was first introduced, it was accompanied by a Financial Memorandum showing that, so far as could then be estimated, the total amount likely to be required under Clause 12 by 3lst March, 1931, was £8,000,000. I do not know whether that estimate still holds good, nor do I know from what date the Treasury takes over this liability, but it is obvious that, if the original estimate holds good, we are being asked for half of the total amount which was estimated, and presumably, the right hon. Lady expects that another £4,000,000 will carry the total liability in respect of these people for a period of 12 months. I should like to know how many people it is estimated that this £4,000,000 will take from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We have had little information on that point. After all, this sum of £4,000,000 is by far the greater amount which is being asked for in this Estimate.
        Then I should like to ask whether, if the changes which were made in the Unemployment Bill during its passage in this House, remain when it receives the Royal Assent, they have increased the estimate of the liability on the Exchequer in respect of the people who come under the original Clause 12, namely, those who have not paid sufficient contributions to enable them to draw from the fund, and to whom the payments are now being made direct from the Exchequer. Lastly, in Clause 12, there was, to the best of my recollection, a provision that the cost of administration of this part of the Act should be borne by the Treasury and not by the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I would like to know whether any portion of that expenditure comes under the £300,000 under Part A or comes out of the £4,000,000, because if nothing has yet been asked for on that account, presumably a further Supplementary Estimate will be required in order to deal with it.
        Miss BONDFIELD: May I be permitted to deal with that point without
        138
        delay? I should have explained it in the first instance. May I say, first of all, that the £4,000,000 is needed because we shall have to begin to use the money very shortly, very soon after the 31st January. It may be a little after that, but that is the latest date that we can regard as safe. It will then run on probably through the spring if not the summer, but by that time we shall have had the Estimates for the next financial year. In regard to the Royal Assent, undoubtedly there will have to be a Consolidated Fund Bill. We need the money to carry on until March, and therefore we not only need the Supplementary Estimate but we must have the Consolidated Fund Bill; but the time table is so arranged that the Royal Assent will be given to the Unemployment Insurance Bill before it is given to the Consolidated Fund Bill. With regard to the cost of administration, the number of persons calculated to come within the "under 30-contributkm stamps" provision will, of course, vary. We have made arrangements to keep a very close check upon those numbers, and we shall from time to time be able to give exact figures to the House. Broadly speaking, I think 120,000 is the number immediately coming in—by degrees, of course—as the year expires; but we shall have a very definite account kept showing in one category the persons who have paid contributions to the fund and in another those who have not paid contributions, and the administrative charges will be allocated accordingly. The figure of 120,000 is estimated to be the number to come on to the Treasury grant.
        Captain BOURNE: The only point which the right hon. Lady did not answer was my question as to whether the alterations made in the Bill during its passage through this House affected the Estimate.
        Miss BONDFIELD: Yes; as I pointed out on the Third Reading the balancing point was shifted by the alteration of the Bill from 1,200,000 to 1,160,000. The calculations have been made on a balancing point of 1,160,000.
        Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The unemployment situation is so serious that when we are asked to vote yet another large sum in relief the opportunity should not be lost of inquiring how steadfastly

        139
        the Government are getting on with what is, after all, the primary task, namely, that of trying to reorganise the insurance system, in so far as that can be done, to alleviate instead of aggravating unemployment. There is a widespread impression, which I share, that every time the Minister comes to this House to ask for more money for the relief of unemployment we are in fact doing something to aggravate unemployment. The vital connection between this increasing and heavy taxation and the insecurity of work from which our people suffer cannot be too often or too heavily stressed. We ought to remember when we are asked to vote money for the relief of unemployment that we are being asked, in effect, to withdraw from industry the sinews of industry, thus preventing industry from recovering the position which we all hope to see it enjoy and in which it will be able to provide security of employment and good wages for the workers.
        It is with those points in view that I wish to return to the very hopeful statement which the right hon. Lady made on the Money Resolution of the original Bill. In explaining that for the first time the Treasury were accepting the liability for paying the whole cost of what I may call the incurably unemployed, the right hon. Lady indicated that a great change was made in the whole system of unemployment insurance. With that statement, with that departure, unemployment insurance has ceased to be what it has at least always pretended to be, namely, a system of insurance, and has become in large measure a device for distributing public money in relief quite independently of the position of the insured person in the fund. On that occasion the right hon. Lady told us that she was asking for these powers for 12 months, so that she might await the Report of a Committee which was being set up to reconsider the whole question of unemployment insurance. No one can doubt that such a reorganisation of the whole system is long overdue, because it may be, as I suggested earlier, that by this chaotic, unorganised system of unemployment insurance we are aggravating the unemployment situation. The need for the system to be reorganised so that it may aid the productive energies of the country instead of being a drain upon them becomes more and more apparent with every rise
        140
        in the figures which the newspapers so dolefully and so repeatedly present to our gaze.
        I would ask the right hon. Lady if she could give us some sort of interim Report on how that Committee is getting on. I do not press her to tell us to-night, but on the Report stage, or at some other convenient opportunity, I hope she will be able to give us reassuring news that the Committee are grappling with the important task of reorganising the whole system and have made some progress. Unless we grapple with that important problem and unless the Committee have really got down to the essentials of it, then all these recurrent demands upon the public purse for additional expenditure are merely putting off the inevitable day of disaster, because the problem will be getting worse and no better. In two points in particular we should be very glad to know what is being done by the Committee. Under the Unemployment Insurance Bill and the financial arrangements embodied in the last Bill, we have money going directly out of the Treasury to the relief of what are called the chronically unemployed, and at the same time we have another large and expensive machinery for relieving destitution out of the rates; and there is not the least doubt that there is great overlapping between these two forms of relief. The step taken to separate the incurably unemployed from those who merely come on and off the register should enable the problem to be envisaged more clearly, and allow the two forms of relief, namely, relief out of the rates under the Poor Law and relief—because it is, relief—under the Unemployment Insurance system to be co-ordinated and to be improved.
        I was greatly interested in a speech, of which I read a report in the "Scotsman" newspaper, by the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. W. M. Watson), in which he drew attention to how these two system of relief may overlap. He gave figures with regard to the particular area where he bad taken the trouble to find out the position. I will read this Report, if the Committee will permit me, to illustrate his point, because I could not illustrate it better than by reading what that hon. Gentleman, who is a supporter of the present Government, said. This is the report:
        "Recently he had been favoured with particulars as to the expenditure by parish

        141
        councils in Midlothian, "West Lothian and Fife on able-bodied relief during the years 1923–24 to 1928–29. In that period the expenditure in Midlothian, including the city of Edinburgh, was £892,000 odd, in West Lothian, £96,000 odd, and in Fife, £267,000 odd, a total of £1,255,761. In the same period the amounts spent in unemployment were: In Midlothian, £2,353,000 odd, West Lothian, £365,000 odd, and in Fife, £1,293,000 odd, a total of £4,000,000 odd. There had thus been expended in those counties in the period mentioned upon able-bodied parish relief and unemployment benefit a grand total of over £5,250,000. That was a sum of money which would have been sufficient to build a Forth Road Bridge in the time during which that money had been paid out,"
        I do wish earnestly to impress upon the right hon. Lady and upon the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of War, who is now taking her place for the moment, the absolute necessity, if we are ever to get out of this vicious circle of higher taxation, unemployment, unemployment relief, and still higher taxation to pay for it, of proceeding in the first place, and before we do anything else, with some sort of examination of the whole problem of relief, and how it is paid out in different ways in this country, and of trying as far as we can to use the money which can be saved by economies and by preventing overlapping to give work and not relief to the people who are the main sufferers at the present moment. That is one measure which I commend most earnestly to the Government, and I hope to hear from the right hon. Lady on the Report stage, or at some other time, that the Committee has that matter in view, and that it has made some, progress towards its coordination and solution.
        The only other matter to which I would like to draw attention to-night is an aspect of the present unemployment system to which we are asked to vote a subvention. In my humble opinion we very often concentrate too much upon the recipient of unemployment relief and too little upon the person who pays it. It is true that in these hard times through which our country is passing unemployment is a relief, and a substantial relief, to great numbers of people in this country; but we ought not to lose sight of the fact that it is also a drain, and a heavy drain, upon the limited resources of many wage-earners who are the chief contributors to the Fund, and for that reason I
        142
        think we ought, if we can, to approach the problem with some consideration for' the man who pays into the Fund as well as for the person who draws out of it. My suggestion, in brief, is this: that one great criticism which can be levelled at the present moment against the Unemployment Insurance Fund is that it actually pays a man to be out of work—in one sense only; I do not wish the Committee to misunderstand me. You get a man who is in steady employment, paying in year after year and never drawing anything out of it. It is a tax upon such a man; he gets no benefit at all from it. I should like to see, either through the agency of the Committee which the right hon. Lady has promised us, or by the Government acting upon their own volition, the system so reorganised that there will be an incentive to a man to pay into the Fund and not to draw out of it. At the present moment, a man who does not draw out of the Fund is in some cases in danger of being considered a fool. He pays in year after year, and he may be asked: "Why do you not take a holiday on it for a few days or for a fortnight?" If the system could be so rearranged that a man who paid in regularly and did not draw out would have a substantial incentive for maintaining his position in the Fund, either by getting a much bigger withdrawal out of the Fund than he can get at the present moment, or by being able to hand on to his children the unexhausted benefit of his own insurance, I do believe that it would be a great step forward in making the Fund attractive to those who are in work, and insuring that a man would work hard to keep in work and to pay into the Fund; and you would at the same time raise the Fund to the dignity of some family provision, instead of it being, as it is at the moment, a mere device for scattering the nation's money among those who are unfortunate enough to be in need of it.
        I hope that the right hon. Lady will at some time tell us what the Committee is doing, and for my part I would like to hear what it is doing with reference to those two points. What is it doing in co-ordinating relief? Because it is relief which the Treasury is paying out to-day, although the present Government always pretended that it was insurance. That pretence has gone to-day. It is relief just as surely as poor relief is. It is raised from the taxpayer instead of from

        143
        the rates, and that is all the difference. So I ask: What is the Committee doing to co-ordinate relief; and, secondly, what is it doing so to remodel the system that a man who stays in work gets something out of it, that a man has an incentive to keep his contributions in the Fund intact, either by giving him the option of a bigger withdrawal or by enabling him to hand on to those who come after him as a heritage, as something for which he has worked, and something which he has denied himself to obtain for his children, the unexhausted benefit of his own insurance fund?
        It will be said, no doubt, that these matters present grave financial difficulties. I believe they do, but when we are being asked to vote £4,000,000 for this Fund, when we are being asked, as we are being asked continually in this House, to devote money to entirely unproductive eleemosynary purposes, surely it would be the soundest economy to take some of that money and use it in some manner such as I have suggested, so as to make the Fund a stronger and a nobler institution than it is at the present moment.
        Sir JOHN POWER: I desire to make a few remarks in support of the Motion. In the first place, I feel that it is hardly dignified to proceed to vote money for the purposes of legislation which is not yet through all its stages. Again, it appears that we are piling up, by small sums, a burden of taxation which is becoming quite intolerable to the industry of this country. There seems to be no appreciation of the fact that every tax which is imposed in any way in this country has to be paid by productive industry. The more taxes go on, the higher the prices become at which we are able to sell our goods. If our markets were entirely confined to this country, there might he some wisdom in that, but we have to compete for our livelihood in the markets of the world, and our success depends upon the price at which we can sell our goods in competition with foreigners. How do we stand with regard to most of our competitors in the markets of the world? We are the most heavily taxed nation on earth to-day. We have to bear the burden of this taxation, send our goods overseas, and still be able to undersell our competitors. If
        144
        we fail to undersell our competitors, we are unable to pay our way in the world. I believe it has been estimated by competent authorities that the annual income of this country is somewhere in the the region of £4,200,000,000, and, since our Budget amounts to some £800,000,000 per annum, we are spending roughly 4s. in the £ of our income in taxation. That is a factor which has to be borne in mind in connection with the export trade of this country.
        We are hampered in many ways by our advanced ideas in regard to the provision of safeguards for the workers in our factories, and in regard to the cost of buildings. There is no country in the world where the regulations are so stringent as in this country. All these luxuries have to be paid for, and, before you can pay for them, you have to get them on to the price of your goods. It seems to me that the continual putting on of fresh taxation, as the present Government have done since the day they came into office, is merely making matters worse. It would seem that there are two kinds of personality at work in the Government to-day. The one seems to hamper the efforts of our manufacturers to produce goods at a reasonable price in competition with our competitors in the world, while the other preaches the doctrine of the expansion of trade. On the one hand, you have every obstacle put in the way of the expansion of trade, and, on the other hand, you hear speeches from prominent Members, particularly from the Lord Privy Seal, saying that the only way to cure unemployment is by an expansion of trade. You cannot have it both ways; you must make up your mind what you are going to do. You are either going to throttle industry by fresh taxation, or you are going to try to give industry a chance to recover.
        A great deal has been said to-night by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about rationalisation. How can you expect the average manufacturer to be able to raise money to re-equip his factory with new machinery in place of that which has become n ore or less obsolete, owing largely to the effects of the Great War, when at the same time you make it impossible for him to sell the products of his industry in competition with the other nations of the world

        145
        by the excessively heavy taxation that he has to bear? All these taxes have to go on to the price of goods at some time or another. [Interruption.] The City is a business concern like any other City, and it can only lend money where it can earn its fair and reasonable hire. In order really to help industry, it is necessary to reduce and not to increase taxation. A great deal is said about the inefficiency of our industries. That may or may not be true, but there is no getting away from the fact that a huge proportion of the profits made in industry goes in taxation—far more in this country than in any other country in the world; and yet we are more dependent upon our export trade than any other country. If we fail in our export trade we starve, because it is with the money that we get for the goods we manufacture that we buy our food. These are truisms which are known to everyone, but they seem to be absent from the consideration of this House.
        The Bill of which this Vote is really a part was passed through this House in an orgy of emotion, in which hardly a business statement was made. Hardly a word was said about the working-man contributor who has to pay into the fund year in and year out; the whole attention of Back Benchers on the Government side was directed to the unemployed, who, after all, are a small proportion. The more taxation there is, the greater will be the number of unemployed. On the one hand you have the Lord Privy Seal preaching the expansion of trade, and on the other hand you have the Chancellor of the Exchequer threatening something like 600,000 workpeople with the possible loss of their employment by the abolition of the McKenna Duties. Such threats simply unsettle industry, and in my own experience certain industries are practically unable to sell their products. Some people, certainly, are waiting in the hope that these duties may be removed and prices become cheaper, in order that, disregarding the welfare of their fellow-countrymen, they may snatch some temporary benefit.
        With regard to training centres, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), speaking from personal experience, pointed out that, at the training centre in Glasgow, men were being trained as furniture makers, while at the local Em-
        146
        ployment Exchange he found a number of furniture makers seeking work. Others were to be trained as hairdressers, while in that case, again, the hon. Member found at the local Employment Exchange that hairdressers were out of work. I accept his statement as correct. It seems to me that the Government are tackling the question of unemployment at the wrong end. What they should do is to create work, and not to build up inducements for people who may or not be desirous of finding jobs. No one can get away from the fundamental fact that every tax must eventually find its' way on to productive industry, and it seems to me that the Government are going on building up taxation until it reaches a point at which the nation will not be able to bear it. According to the figures, which I believe are correct, we are spending something like 20 per cent. of the national income in taxation to-day, and I do not believe that any country, especially an exporting country like ours, which has to live on its ability to undersell other parts of the world, can successfully maintain its position if some halt be not called to this extraordinary volume of taxation, which seems to be put on without the slightest consideration.
        Mr. WOMERSLEY: I desire to make a few remarks on the item:

        "Additional provision for training of young unemployed men as handymen or for settlement oversea, and of preparing men for transfer

        £100,000."

        I was very much interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on this question of training, because I myself have had considerable experience of men who have been trained and have come back to their own towns and then been unable to find employment. I was particularly interested also in the speech of the Minister on this question. The right hon. Lady told us that men were being trained as handymen, and others were being trained for emigration overseas—but she stated that this latter class is now a very small one—and also that men are being trained for transference to other districts. My experience has been more particularly in connection with men trained by the Ministry of Pensions under their scheme, and, as that is similar to the present scheme, I should like just to quote my experience with men under that scheme,

        147
        as I think it will show the weakness of the scheme for which we are asked to vote this money, that weakness being the fact that, as the right hon. Lady herself said, her Department could not guarantee to find work for the men after they were trained. That is the great weakness not only of this scheme but of all the schemes of which I have had experience in connection with the Ministry of Pensions. Two men visited me in my constituency last week. One was being trained as a saddler and had passed out from the Loughborough Technical College of the Ministry of Pensions with very good credentials as to his craftsmanship and his character as a worker. He has been tramping about for months and cannot get a job as a saddler. I quite agree with the right hon. Lady, that the fact of the men being trained for something is helpful inasmuch as it keeps them active and prevents them getting depressed, but you get a reaction of more depression still when a man has been given some hope from the fact that he has had this training and then finds he cannot get a job. If we are having, as I am told we are, committees of inquiry into the whole question of unemployment pay and administration, surely this point ought to be taken into very grave consideration and some report given us upon it, because we ought not to be satisfied merely by saying we have trained these men. We ought to do something more than that and make special efforts to place them, at any rate for a time, till they are able to carry on on their own initiative after they have been trained.
        9.0 p.m.
        Then you have the question of the handyman. I suppose the idea at the back of the minds of those who formulated this scheme was that, if you trained a man as a handyman, he could go about, not working for an employer but getting odd jobs here and there. That was the idea, at any rate, at the back of the mind of those who formulated the scheme for the Ministry of Pensions. I have another man in my mind who at this moment is vainly endeavouring to get some sort of employment in this direction. He was trained at Leeds and Leicester and came away with first-class testimonials, but he has not been able to earn anything like a living. This is a matter that is worthy of consideration by the right hon.
        148
        Lady to pass on to these committees of inquiry, because it seems to be a waste of good money to train a man for an occupation and not be in a position to give him a reasonable chance to carry on in the work in which he has been trained. The Employment Exchanges are so busy in dealing with claims and paying out that they have not too much time to find jobs for the men, but they were set up in the first place to find work, to do something to give reasonable directions to men seeking work as to where they could find it. On the question of training men for transference work, we are up against a different problem. Under the present scheme, as under that of the late Government, the work that is being found is not so much for trained as for unskilled men. The majority of the Lord Privy Seal's list of schemes which have been approved so fax are for public works, for roads, docks and harbours and work of that kind, and the bulk of the labour employed is unskilled. It is not so much a question of training. It is a question of the man being physically fit to undertake the work. The greatest problem we have to face is not so much that of finding a job for a man who is able-bodied and physically fit to do hard work. In my experience as a member of a local employment committee, the great problem is dealing with men who are not physically fit or those who, having been out of work for a considerable time, have lost a great deal of their energy and initiative. Therefore, I do not see that training for transference is going to help very much, bearing in mind the class of scheme the Lord Privy Seal is bringing forward. I do not want the country to waste money on any particular side of the work of the Employment Exchanges if we are not getting something in the way of a reasonable return.
        I have also been very much interested in speeches which have dealt with what ought to be the one thing on which our minds should be set. That is the question of finding employment for men so that they will not be such a severe drain upon the funds of the Department and, therefore, these Supplementary Estimates would not be necessary. We have to face the fact that the Fund is something like £38,000,000 in debt. It may be termed a debt, but I do not think there is a

        149
        Member who is not of the opinion that some day the State will have to wipe off that debt, and it will become a charge upon the national funds because, according to the way things are going, there does not seem much chance for many years to come of the debt being reduced. Rather would it be likely to increase. Rationalisation is a blessed word. It covers a multitude of things and enables people who do not understand it to get away with an argument. It used to be nationalisation. Now it is all rationalisation. Even to-day the Lord Privy Seal admitted quite freely that the process of rationalisation would indeed cause a good deal of unemployment for some time. My experience in one industry is that it has resulted not in closing down that were told, the inefficient sections of an industry, but in closing down those that are a nuisance to the larger sections of the industry. The Government may say they would not sanction anything of that kind, but those who are responsible for the rationalisation of industry will not be looking at the question of rationalising altogether for efficiency but rationalising so that the industry can be made to pay a little more in the way of a return on the money invested in it. We have at the moment a typical instance in Yorkshire where in one district alone huge works have closed down, which means absolute ruin for the district.
        Bearing in mind that, even on the admission of the Lord Privy Seal, you are bound to have more unemployment the more rationalisation you get, the prospect is not too bright. Therefore, the House and the Department ought to pay far more attention to the question of finding work rather than what we are going to pay in the shape of unemployment benefits. I heard the Member for Gorbals discussing the question of increased pay and complaining that the Government were not carrying out the promise made at the last election about the increasing of pay. I know the working man through and through. The average British working man prefers work to drawing unemployment pay. Whatever sum you might make it, it would not in my opinion be an inducement to a man to refrain from taking a job if the job was really worth while. There is a temptation for many of these trained men whom I have mentioned as being started as handymen,
        150
        after a few weeks' experience trying to find jobs for themselves and earning only a few shillings to say, "Well, I should be better off on unemployment pay." Who can blame a man for taking this view. After all is said and done, he has to live. If a man can get a little more in a certain direction, you cannot blame him.
        If we could carry out what has been suggested and reiterated time and time again by Members on this side and on that side, namely, form a Council of State of the best brains of all parties in this House to try and solve the unemployment problem, I think that we should not have to come here and ask for these Supplementary Estimates. We have far too much of party politics in this unemployment question. We do not want merely to talk about goodwill in this matter, but to get down to business. I am certain, if the Government come out clearly and boldly and say, "We are prepared to form a committee to deal with this question and to invite the Conservative party and the Liberal party to send their best men who understand this problem," that both the Conservative party and the Liberal party will accept the invitation. We should then be able to get down to something which is really worth while. Although this suggestion has been talked about on platforms outside, I do not know of any invitation having been given by the Government of the day. I would suggest to the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour that this suggestion is worth taking to her colleagues in the Cabinet. I am satisfied that she would get the full support of all parties in this House if she adopted that course.
        Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to back up my colleague, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) in his claim for a non-party conference on the question of unemployment. I can assure the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour that the suggestion is put forward in a true spirit. She would find a very ready response from the Conservative party. I would like also to say a word or two about unemployment in rural areas. It is a very sad fact that since the present Government came into office there has been a distinct increase of unemployment in the villages, and certainly in Lincolnshire. I want to ask

        151
        her—and if the Minister of Agriculture had been here, I would have liked to have asked him—to pay special attention to the difficulties of the rural workers in relation to unemployment. I am perfectly well aware that the rural worker at the present time does not come under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, but a large number of men who pass in and out of agriculture are in the Unemployment Insurance Scheme. I submit that under the present Government these men are not having a fair deal. I know of a case of a man who came to me not long ago. He worked on the roads and therefore came under the unemployment scheme. When he was not working on the roads he turned his attention to agriculture. His son, I understand, had a small cottage-holding of about three acres. There are a good many men like him who have a share in agriculture, and, if it is ruled by the present Government that because they work in agriculture and their sons or relations may have small holdings and are expected to support them, they should not get unemployment insurance benefit, it will be most unfair.
        The Government really will be discouraging men from taking up any work whatever. A man will say, "I cannot keep a pig, because it would be regarded as a means of sustenance, and I should not get unemployment insurance benefit," or "I cannot accept a day's work of threshing on a farm as I should then be supposed to be in work and I should not get unemployment insurance benefit." The Government are discouraging men from seeking work. Things have come to such a bad state in some of the villages that for the first time farmers, when they want men for threshing work, can get unemployed men in their own villages, whereas before they had to send to the towns for them. The Government have a very heavy responsibility for discouraging agriculture in this case. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was very ill-advised in trying to defend his party's pledges. I should like to lay before the Committee these pledges with regard to unemployment. Listening to the hon. Baronet, one might imagine that this Government not only promised nothing, but gave a distinct undertaking that they would promise nothing upon unemployment.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that the question of the provision of work is not covered by this Vote. The question before the Committee is whether money shall be voted for the purposes named or not. I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Member to discuss schemes of organisation for the provision of work.
        Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I understand the position, but I submit that when the Chancellor of the Duchy wastes a great deal of time both in explaining what his pledges were and the way that his party were not committed to particular pledges, we are entitled to give quotations to show what the Members of the Government and of his own party wrote during the Election, and said in the House of Commons. I will read what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, He stated:
        "In our first Session we shall deal with unemployment and give relief and hope to the workers of the land. We will not disappoint those who have shown a belief in us."
        Mark you—"In our first Session!" So far as I can see, there is no real hope in the rural areas of any employment being brought about by the present Government. As I see the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in his place, I should like to quote what he said with reference to Unemployment Insurance Benefit and other things which are dealt with in this Supplementary Estimate. After all, he and his friends are as good judges of the Government's pledges as any Members in this House. At Cardross on 7th September the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said that if he asked the unemployed men and women who might get the sack on Saturday if they felt any better because "Labour" was in power, he was sure they would reply, "Not one bit." Our contention is that the unemployed man is very much worse off now that the Labour party are in office. In an article, the hon. Member wrote:
        "The unhappy unemployed at the Labour Exchange know no difference as the result of a change of Government."
        We would put it very much stronger than that. He also stated:
        "The condition of the unemployed man or woman is as bad now as it was when Baldwin was in control, and it is a disgrace and a sham and a libel on the great

        153
        Labour party, because it is pledged with all the pledges that man can give to stand by the unemployed."
        That is a Socialist opinion of what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says, namely, that his party has given no pledges whatever. Again, at Treharris, on 23rd November, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said that the Government was not doing the things that it was elected to do. I should be willing to quote the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and other hon. Members on the same subject. I wish definitely to enter a protest, on behalf of hon. Members who represent rural constituencies, with regard to the lack of attention to unemployment in aural areas. It is a shame and a die-grace. I wish hon. Members opposite knew the numbers of letters that are received by myself and other hon. Members of the Conservative party, asking if any thing can be done to get a move on with this Labour Government. Our offices are inundated with requests for work in rural areas. I beg the Front Bench to do their best to deal with unemployment. If we cannot have a Council of State, let us have a Government that can get on with the work.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Anyone who has listened to this Debate from beginning to end may say that it has not been of a very exciting character, but there has been one feature which has been extraordinarily remarkable, and that is the change of tone on the part of the three Members of the Front Bench opposite who have spoken on behalf of the Government policy to-day. A year ago one listened to them thundering from this side of the House, full of indignation, full of what they would do to deal with the problem, very sure that if they came to power they could apply nostrums which would cure this problem. What a change we see to-day! The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is like the month of March. He started in Opposition like a lion, and he is now bleating like a lamb. He was apologetic in all that he put forward on behalf of what he and his Department are doing. Then we had the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I remember hearing him speak in Opposition. He was extraordinarily caustic then because the Government did not get on quicker with the work. He was immensely cocksure then that his
        154
        theories as to a more free use of credit and other expedients of that kind, would gradually effect an improvement. To-day, so far as credit in these matters are concerned, he is now strictly correct in his behaviour. The whole tone of his utterance this afternoon was extremely apologetic for what he and the Lord Privy Seal have done, or have promised to do and have not yet produced.
        Lastly, there was the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour. A year ago she was fairly strong in her language. Today, compared with her two colleagues she displayed a sort of very temperate optimism, but her optimism would not carry her far if she had to face a meeting of shareholders, with as little performance as that which the Government can claim during the time they have been in office. It is even more remarkable to note what has happened on the back benches opposite, particularly amongst those who constantly directed a steady drip of invective upon the Government of the day a year ago. I heard the right hon. Lady talk about training centres, and I agree with the enthusiasm with which she spoke of them. She spoke of them almost with the love of a parent or, rather, of a foster mother, but I would point out that they are not the product of her party of new ideas, but were a legacy which she received from the preceding Government. "What about the rest of the party opposite. Where are they to-day? In the old days they inveighed against training centres. They complained that they taught men a trade and took the bread out of the mouths of other tradesmen. They asked me why I instituted such abominations. To-day, those hon. Members are sitting opposite, like good little boys saying nothing, or like still better little boys, going out of the House, and coming in to vote when there is a count, to make sure that the Government are not going to lose the provision that they want for the training centres which they abused a year ago.
        I heard the right hon. Lady speak about transference and how she was overcoming the opposition that there was to it. How has she overcome it? What is the position of her hon. Friends on the back benches? I remember well that they said I was taking the bread out of the mouths of their constituents in London by transferring people from distressed

        155
        areas. I remember the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day), who was most constant in his anxiety for the safety of the employment of his constituents in Southwark.
        Mr. E. BROWN: Day in and day out.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Day in and day out. He never left me alone on the subject. Where is he now? He is away, doing something or other, but careful not to be here in order to voice opinions like those which made the work of transference rather difficult over a year ago. I also carry my mind back to another item in the plan for dealing with the unemployed—the scheme for training the boys of minors. I remember that subject well in the election time. It was a libel about it which cost me my seat. I have no cause to complain, because now I sit for another constituency where, perhaps, I need not have so much anxiety about the future whilst I am engaged busily elsewhere. What about other colleagues of the right hon. Lady, the Socialist Members for Birmingham, who were so painfully alluded to by the Prime Minister a little time ago? Perhaps I ought not to repeat what the Prime Minister said as to what he thought was the product of Birmingham. To-day, they are quiet. They are not pursuing their objections. What a change we see! Does it not show both to this Committee and to the country—is humbug a Parliamentary expression?—what an appalling amount of humbug we must have listened to a year ago from benches opposite, or what an appalling amount of silent humbug we see to-day when there is a count, and those hon. Members hurry hack into the House in order to ensure that the Government get their Vote.
        I have said that the Chancellor of the Duchy was apologetic. Let me deal with what he said. The situation does, indeed, warrant an apologetic tone. There are 1,480,000 unemployed. I have small doubt but that the figure is likely to go down in the near future. It nearly always does go down. I would not prophesy that there will be an increase in the figures in the next month or two, because spring always does bring an alleviation. The Chancellor of the Duchy was apologetic, and rightly apologetic. When they came into office the unemploy-
        156
        ment figure, in June of last year, was 60,000 less than it was the year before. After they have been in office for eight months, there are 20,000 more men out of work than there were at the same time a year ago. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had to deal with this situation he makes the usual sort of debating reply. He says: "Your side made great promises about what would happen with the Derating Bill. My side made no promises at all." Unfortunately, the Chancellor was a little unhappy and a little slipshod either in memory or methods. He did not point to anything that any Conservative had said about the results of the Derating Bill, but when he tells us that no promises were made and no undertakings were given to the electors as to a rapid reduction being possible if a Socialist Government came into power, he forgets the words of his own Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said:
        "A Labour Government is the only Government which will deal with the problem of unemployment with courageous determination."
        Courageous determination, indeed! I would ask hon. Members from the Clyde, especially, to rejoice in approving the courageous determination of the Government. I notice when there is a count that some hon. Members from the Clyde come in to save the Government all the same.
        Mr. KIRKWOOD: You want us to save you.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is a species of reasoning from the hon. Member which I appreciate greatly. Then the quotation went on:
        "They will deal with it with courageous determination. Labour has a programme, and it only needs the power."
        —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I should have thought that Scottish Members on the other side would have been a little more cautious than to rise to that fly. If they had a real programme that would have provided a cure, we would all have supported them. If that was the case, why have they never produced a programme? It is something like their agricultural programme. They had a programme which they could produce, but when they are asked for it they cannot produce it. That is the reason for the

        157
        right hon. Gentleman being apologetic. Again, let me refer to what the right hon. Lady has said. She is now very cautious. She said that, of course, they could not cure the unemployment problem quickly, and, what was more, there might be no sign of a cure for another two, three or four months yet. That means a year from the start of the Government. Then let me turn to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when he was trying to get votes at the Election. He said:
        "I can promise you that a Labour Government will start at once with determination and, what is more, with knowledge of the nature of the remedies that have to be Applied, and in 12 months' time I am confident that we can make a great impression on the magnitude of that problem."
        To-day, when the right hon. Lady was speaking with the experience she has gained, she says we must not look for anything much before another four months, or a year from the time that the Labour Government came into office. I am bound to say that the Government have one great advantage. The Conservative party made a great mistake at the Election. They had the assets but they did not have them on their prospectus. There is one thing about the party opposite—though they have no assets, they are wonders at writing a prospectus. It it a sort of Hatry Government in the prospectus it puts out. They had a triumvirate which they said would get to work at once. There was the Lord Privy Seal like Moses, with the other two Ministers like Aaron and Hur, on each side holding up his hands in order to get on with the work. Yet to-day what have we got? There is an amount of mistrust and doubt in the actual business world as regards the future which is one of the great causes why unemployment is so extremely intractable at this moment. There is one feature in it to-day which has never existed before. We all knew there would be a jump up just after Christmas and the New Year which would gradually get better as the spring went on. Never before, however, has Christmas trade been so bad, or has there been a regular rise in the unemployment figure right up to Christmas and the New Year, with just as big a jump after it. We are really entitled to say we have a right to know what the Lord Privy Seal and his colleagues are doing. I am not asking about any particular schemes, but as to
        158
        what lines they are really going on. We have been put off time and time again. First of all, it was steel sleepers for the railways, which would cure the steel trade. We have heard very little about that. I remember reading whole columns in the Press about it.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman knows my ruling. Even if the Lord Privy Seal were here, I should not allow him to give details.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I certainly do not want him to give details about any schemes. I pass over that point, and over Canada, which it is best to pass over as quickly as possible, as nothing resulted from it. We do not ask for any particular schemes, but we have a right to know rather more than we have been told to day, in general, by the Chancellor of the Duchy as to what it is they are so oracular about—the City and the Banks. What is really going to be done? We have been twice bitten already by the Lord Privy Seal, and everybody has a right to be shy of him a third time. Supposing the Lord Privy Seal—and I quite accept it—is perfectly genuine in his efforts—
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must please obey my Ruling. We cannot discuss either the schemes of the Lord Privy Seal or the lack of schemes. The question before the Committee is a Supplementary Vote, and the schemes of the Lord Privy Seal have nothing to do with the question before the Committee.
        Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman has been put down twice, and that if you put him down again he will have to resume his seat?
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Now that I understand exactly what the Ruling of the Chair is, I shall endeavour to conform to it, but I sincerely trust on future occasions the right hon. Gentleman opposite will do the same and so render unnecessary any of the little incidents of the past. Let me pass from the Banks, and what the Lord Privy Seal has done, to what is the immediate cause of this expenditure which we are asked to vote to-night on the transitory provision. What have his colleagues been doing? It is all very well for the Lord Privy Seal to act as a decoy

        159
        duck for the general public and to say how reasonable he is, but what are his colleagues doing? Here we have an expenditure of £2,000,000 a year for the one substituted Clause in the Unemployment Bill which we were discussing before Christmas, a sum which capitalised is equivalent to £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 on the National Debt. We have a Bill coming on in regard to coal, which will add to the expenditure. Can we be expected to support the Lord Privy Seal and his policy of rationalism, which as the Chancellor of the Duchy told us is intended to decrease costs, enable us to get employment, and diminish our expenditure by regaining our foreign trade, when all the time by the general distrust created, by the burden of this £2,000,000
        under this particular Bill and by future burdens under the Coal Bill, far more costs are going to be put on industry than will be saved by any immediate scheme of rationalisation. Therefore, while I have no wish to stop the passage of an ordinary Supplementary Estimate I say that the kind of defence we have had this afternoon shows that while the Government promised much their performances are nothing, and they have shown a complete incapacity to deal with the problem of unemployment on which they tried to win the election last year.
        Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,149,000, be granted for the said Service."
        The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 242.

        Division No. 114.]

        AYES.

        [9.39 p.m.

        Atholl, Duchess of

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

        Reid, David D. (County Down)

        Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

        Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

        Remer, John R.

        Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

        Greene, W. P. Crawford

        Reynolds, Col. Sir James

        Balfour, George (Hampstead)

        Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

        Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

        Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

        Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

        Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

        Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

        Bird, Ernest Roy

        Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

        Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

        Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

        Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry

        Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

        Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

        Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

        Boyce, H. L.

        Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

        Skelton, A. N.

        Bracken, B.

        Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

        Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

        Braithwaite, Major A. N.

        Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

        Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

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

        Somerset, Thomas

        Buchan, John

        Hurd, Percy A.

        Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

        Butler, R. A.

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

        Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

        Carver, Major W. H.

        Kindersley, Major G. M.

        Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

        Cautley, Sir Henry S.

        King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

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

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

        Lamb, Sir J. Q.

        Thomson, Sir F.

        Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

        Leighton, Major B. E. P.

        Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

        Colville, Major D. J.

        Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

        Todd, Capt. A. J.

        Conway, Sir W. Martin

        Llewellin, Major J. J.

        Train, J.

        Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

        Lymington, Viscount

        Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

        Croom-Johnson, R. P.

        Makins, Brigadier-General E.

        Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

        Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

        Marjoribanks, E. C.

        Warrender, Sir Victor

        Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

        Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

        Wayland, Sir William A.

        Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

        Wells, Sydney R.

        Dawson, Sir Philip

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

        Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

        Dixey, A. C.

        Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

        Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

        Edmondson, Major A. J.

        Muirhead, A. J.

        Withers, Sir John James

        Elliot, Major Walter E.

        Oman, Sir Charles William C.

        Womersley, W. J.

        Ferguson, Sir John

        Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

        Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

        Fison, F. G. Clavering

        Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

        Young, Rt. Hon. S r Hilton

        Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

        Power, Sir John Cecil

        Ganzoni, Sir John

        Purbrick, R.

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

        Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

        Ramsbotham, H.

        Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.

        NOES.

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

        Benson, G.

        Cameron, A. G.

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

        Bentham, Dr. Ethel

        Cape, Thomas

        Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

        Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

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

        Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

        Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

        Charleton, H. C.

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

        Bowen, J. W.

        Chater, Daniel

        Alpass, J. H.

        Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

        Church, Major A. G.

        Angell, Norman

        Broad, Francis Alfred

        Cluse, W. S.

        Arnott, John

        Brooke, W.

        Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

        Aske, Sir Robert

        Brothers, M.

        Cocks, Frederick Seymour

        Attlee, Clement Richard

        Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

        Daggar, George

        Ayles, Walter

        Brown, Ernest (Leith)

        Dallas, George

        Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

        Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

        Dalton, Hugh

        Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

        Buchanan, G.

        Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

        Barnes, Alfred John

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

        Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

        Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

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

        Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

        Caine, Derwent Hall

        Devlin, Joseph

        Dickson, T.

        Lawson, John James

        Romeril, H. G.

        Dudgeon, Major C. R.

        Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

        Rosbotham, D. S. T.

        Dukes, C.

        Leach, W.

        Rowson, Guy

        Duncan, Charles

        Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

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

        Ede, James Chuter

        Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

        Sanders, W. S.

        Edge, Sir William

        Lees, J.

        Sandham, E.

        Edmunds, J. E.

        Lewis, T. (Southampton)

        Sawyer, G. F.

        Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

        Lloyd, C. Ellis

        Scrymgeour, E.

        Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

        Logan, David Gilbert

        Scurr, John

        Egan, W. H.

        Longbottom, A. W.

        Sexton, James

        Elmley, Viscount

        Longden, F.

        Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

        England, Colonel A.

        Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

        Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

        Foot, Isaac

        Lowth, Thomas

        Sherwood, G. H.

        Forgan, Dr. Robert

        Lunn, William

        Shield, George William

        Freeman, Peter

        Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

        Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

        Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

        Shillaker, J. F.

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

        McElwee, A.

        Shinwell, E.

        George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

        McKinlay, A.

        Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

        Gibbins, Joseph

        MacLaren, Andrew

        Simmons, C. J.

        Gill, T. H.

        Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

        Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

        Gillett, George M.

        McShane, John James

        Sinkinson, George

        Glassey, A. E.

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

        Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

        Gossling, A. G.

        Mander, Geoffrey le M.

        Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

        Gould, F.

        Mansfield, W.

        Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

        Graham, D. M, (Lanark, Hamilton)

        March, S.

        Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

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

        Marcus, M.

        Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

        Gray, Milner

        Marlay, J.

        Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

        Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

        Mathers, George

        Snell, Harry

        Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

        Matters, L. W.

        Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

        Grundy, Thomas W.

        Maxton, James

        Stamford, Thomas W.

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

        Melville, Sir James

        Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

        Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

        Middleton, G.

        Sullivan, J.

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

        Milner, J.

        Sutton, J. E.

        Hardie, George D.

        Montague, Frederick

        Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

        Harris, Percy A.

        Morgan Dr. H. B.

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

        Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

        Morley, Ralph

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

        Hastings, Dr. Somerville

        Mort, D. L.

        Tillett, Ben

        Haycock, A. W.

        Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

        Tinker, John Joseph

        Hayday, Arthur

        Muff, G.

        Tout, W. J.

        Hayes, John Henry

        Muggeridge, H. T.

        Townend, A. E.

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

        Murnin, Hugh

        Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

        Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

        Nathan, Major H. L.

        Turner, B.

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

        Naylor, T. E.

        Vaughan, D. J.

        Herriotts, J.

        Noel Baker, P. J.

        Viant, S. P.

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

        Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

        Walker, J.

        Hoffman, P. C.

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

        Wallhead, Richard C.

        Isaacs, George

        Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

        Watkins, F. C.

        Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

        Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

        Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

        John, William (Rhondda, West)

        Palin, John Henry

        Welsh, James (Paisley)

        Johnston, Thomas

        Paling, Wilfrid

        Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

        Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

        Palmer, E. T.

        Westwood, Joseph

        Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

        Perry, S. F.

        White, H. G.

        Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

        Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

        Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

        Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

        Phillips, Dr. Marion

        Williams, David (Swansea, East)

        Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

        Picton-Turbervill, Edith

        Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

        Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

        Pole, Major D. G.

        Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

        Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

        Quibell, D. J. K.

        Wilson, J. (Oldham)

        Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

        Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

        Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

        Kelly, W. T.

        Rathbone, Eleanor

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

        Kennedy, Thomas

        Raynes, W. R.

        Wise, E. F.

        Kirkwood, D.

        Richards, R.

        Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

        Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

        Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

        Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

        Lathan, G.

        Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

        Law, Albert (Bolton)

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

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

        Law, A. (Rossendale)

        Ritson, J.

        Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.

        Lawrence, Susan

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

        Original Question put, and agreed to.

        Resolution to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  COLLECTING CHARITIES (REGULATION) BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th October], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. E. BROWN: This is a Bill which I regret to stop at this time of the evening. Its range is so wide, its scope so unexpected and the powers given to the Department under Clause 3 are so extraordinary, that it ought to be the first Order of the day if the Government are serious in their desire to pass it into law. I have very grave doubts as to whether I ought not to move that it be read a Second time upon this day six months,

  163
  and for this reason: I am in no doubt whatever that Clause 3, if unamended, ought not to be passed. My views as to Clauses 1 and 2 are not the same. They are much milder and east in a very different form, which has the backing of a Report of a Home Office Departmental Committee on Charities in 1927—Command Paper 2823. In October last we had a Debate of about 45 minutes, in which three short speeches were completed, and I then began a speech which I hope to complete before eleven o'clock to-night. The Home Secretary then, in his usual tactful way, made a very delightful and plausible speech in favour of the Bill, but, unfortunately, he did not give the House enough detail to enable it to make up its mind as to the merits of the Bill. Therefore, I hope the House will permit me briefly to recite what the Bill attempts to do.
  This is a Bill to provide for the investigation and regulation of charities that appeal to the public for support. The Bill falls into three main parts. Clause 1 gives power to the Charity Commissioners to inquire into the affairs of collecting charities. Clause 2 gives power to the Charity Commissioners to regulate collecting charities. Clause 3, which requires to be turned inside out, is a wonderful illustration [Interruption.] I would point out to members of trade unions opposite that this particular Clause may very easily gravely injure them in certain operations of trade unionism. I would advise hon. Members opposite, before they give their vote for the Second Reading, to turn to the Debate on the Accrington Corporation Bill of last year, and to read the speech then delivered by the present Secretary of State for War, in which he warned the House of the danger of giving to a local authority the precise powers that the Home Secretary is asking for in this Bill.
  The illustration that the right hon. Gentleman gave was this: Suppose, he said, that a trade union or any other organisation desired to make a collection from door to door in its own area for a distressed fund for miners. It would have to go for a licence; its collectors would have to be licensed before they could collect for the charity. It does not require much imagination to understand that a licence might not be granted
  164
  in certain circumstances if particular people had the power of giving or withholding the licence.
  Therefore, although the hour is late, it is not my fault that the Bill has been brought up at this time, and my public duty compels me to bring to the notice of hon. Members the scope of the powers for which the Home Secretary is asking in Clause 3. I desire to put certain questions to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department since the Home Secretary has exhausted his right to speak in this Debate. Clause 3 provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations—unspecified and unstated—enabling him to do three things: (a) He may permit persons to make or cause to be made visits from house to house for the purpose of making appeals for support for any collecting charity. (b) Persons may be permitted to make or cause to be made in places of public entertainment or public refreshment, collections for any collecting charity. (c) Any collecting charity may cause collecting boxes to be exhibited in any shop for the purpose of making appeals for support for the charity. Those are the three things which may be secured if the House passes the Bill in its present form by giving the Home Office the power to make regulations which are not specified.
  10.0 p.m.
  The Home Secretary informed the House that some of the objections to the Clause in the Accrington Bill had been removed. He said he had received a deputation of the larger collecting charities, including, I presume, such organisations as the Salvation Army, the British Legion, organisations for the blind and other charities of that kind. I understand he made an arrangement with them. What the arrangement is I do not know. Whether or not he is going to give them some kind of committee on which they may be represented was not disclosed, but before the Bill gets a Second Reading, we are entitled to know what organisations were received, and what promise was made to them to abate the stringent opposition which they put up against this proposal when it was made in a local Corporation Bill in Lancashire. My attention was called to the Accrington Bill by the Salvation Army. When the Salvation Army was being persecuted in Torquay 40 years ago, my father, although not a member of the organisation, went out and carried

  165
  a banner for them, and I have always been interested in the work of the Salvation Army and I suppose that was why they approached me. The Salvation Army have had their objections partly or mainly removed, but what is the position of the smaller charities who were not represented on the deputation? What will be the position of organisations which may be formed for perfectly good causes after the Bill becomes law? If this Bill had been law 40 years ago the Salvation Army would never have been regulated to collect from door to door and from house to house, because it would not then have been one of the big collecting charities, such as those which have had the advantage of putting their case to the Home Secretary as highly organised national bodies with powerful followings. These are weighty considerations and ought to receive attention from private Members in all parts of the House. I put to the Under-Secretary the questions which have arisen in my own mind and I do so without comment. Before I vote for the Second Beading of the Bill I want satisfaction on these points.
  (1) Is it possible for the Secretary of State to inform the House as to the composition of the deputation of the great charities who consulted him and with whom he appears to have made an arrangement? If this information is not confidential it ought to be given to the House and the names of the organisations represented ought to be frankly stated so that we may know who has been consulted and who has not. The Departmental Report estimates that the number of charities in this country is 80,000 and obviously 80,000 organisations could not have been heard by the Home Secretary.
  (2) If this cannot be done and the information is confidential, were any of the smaller charities consulted or how many of the 80,000 can fairly claim to have been represented at the conference which allowed the main objection to the proposal to be withdrawn?
  (3) What type of regulations is in the mind of the Home Office?
  (4) Who is to be responsible for their administration and operation?
  (5) Is there to be any machinery for consultation with unorganised charities?
  166
  (6) How will the views of new organisations or of the competing claims of national and local benevolent societies be met?
  (7) Is it contemplated that regulations may be made that no charity shall be able to collect from house to house without the approval of a local authority?
  (8) Is the licence given to a committee or organisation to cover all individual collectors, or is each individual collector to get a personal licence? As the Clause is drafted I am quite in the dark on this point.
  (9) What has the Secretary of State in mind with regard to the danger of strangling new endeavours? For instance, some 40 years ago the Salvation Army which is now one of the great charities was a struggling and persecuted organisation and any other new and worthy organisation may have to battle for its life. How is a similar organisation to be heard under the new proposals?
  (10) Are the great missionary societies of all churches included in the list of societies consulted? As far as these great organisations are concerned the great part of their collecting is done by children from door to door organised through the Sunday schools of churches of every denomination.
  (11) Is any special regulation designed with regard to collections or concerts or local whist drives, the selling of tickets for such things, or for local infirmary collections, or have the organisations concerned in those things been consulted among the other bodies?
  (12) Were the trade unions consulted with regard to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) when a similar proposal was made in Clause 180 of the Accrington Bill, which was rejected partly owing to the right hon. Gentleman's powerful appeal?
  The last question is this: Is there to be any right of appeal—and I apply this question not merely to Clause 3, but to the other parts of the Bill also—and, if so, to what authority? I think those are very reasonable questions and questions which the House will agree demand an answer before, at five minutes past ten, after an hour and a half's debate, a Bill of the scope of this Bill gets its Second Reading. May I be allowed to quote

  167
  from the Report of the Departmental Committee about this matter, because while it is fairly closely followed in some respects in Clauses 1 and 2, it is not by any means followed in Clause 3? Paragraph 121 of the Report says:
  "The simplest method of supervising door-to-door-collections appears to be by framing regulations similar to those for street collections; but in order to secure uniformity—the need for which is clearly much greater—we suggest that the regulations should be made, not by the police authority, but by the Secretary of State, and should apply throughout the country."
  That is a very significant paragraph. Why not the police? Surely if a fraud takes place the police should be the competent authority to decide as to who are the persons to have the licence, if we desire to save subscribers from fraud, and if the police are not in favour of the proposal, can it be that they do not wish to work such a proposal? If it is not to be the police authority, and the Secretary of State is to make regulations, this House ought to be told, in answer to the question which I put, among others, precisely what form of authority is contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman for the application of these extraordinary powers. Paragraph 122 of the Report says:
  "The essential point of the supervision should, in our opinion, be control by way of licensing an individual to make collections in a specific police area for a specific charity on the application of that charity. The police have told us that they cannot undertake to investigate the character of every street collector owing to their very large numbers. We imagine that the number of door-to-door collectors in the aggregate would be very much less if licences were made compulsory, but if the issuing, or at least the viséing, of a licence in each area is considered impracticable, the grant of licences should be safeguarded by providing that applications are made to the police authority either where the headquarters of the charity are situated or where the collector usually resides."
  That is the Report. As I understand the Bill, the Home Office contemplate making their regulations effective through the police authority, despite the Report, which says that the police authorities do not desire to take this onerous and difficult task. Our people in the past have respected the law because the law was usually passed after adequate debate and with a fair amount of general consent. Our people have had a very canny way
  168
  of finding a great capacity for breaking laws that do not carry such consent behind them and have not had such debate. More than that, the people are getting a much lower regard for law since we had the third kind of law, not law made in this House, not law made in the Courts, but law made by Regulations and by Orders through Government Departments.
  To give one illustration of that, I would refer to the speed limit. That is a law of the land that is daily broken, not merely by citizens outside this House, but by those inside the House, who drive ears. There is another very ordinary illustration, and that is street betting. If an ordinary citizen passes along by a corner and sees a "bookie" giving his slips, and spots a policeman coming, to use the workmen's phrase, he is not adverse to giving him the tip that the "cops" are coming. The reason is very simple. He thinks that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor, and he has no respect for that law, and there is no general consent behind it. Clauses 1 and 2 have a great deal to be said for them, but unless we can get assurances about the form of Clause 3, this House should hesitate to give a Second Reading to the Bill, because I regard Clause 3 as so vague in its drafting that it is one of the worst samples of legislation by reference that this House has ever been asked to pass.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who has just spoken, has made one of his usual powerful statements, but I am rather sorry he began his speech by making an apology. There is no need for the hon. Member to apologise when he opposes a Bill introduced by the Home Secretary. Surely the new regulations which have been laid down by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) do not mean that hon. Members on the Lioeral Benches need apologise when dealing with the merits of a Bill of a purely non-political character. I do not think this Bill would really affect votes in many ways, and I think the hon. Member might take his courage in his hands and need make no apology for his very powerful speech. This is an occasion, surely, when we can all exercise that independent co-operation indicated by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs.

  169
  This is an important Bill, affecting the great charitable institutions of the country, and I think I can say that, in common with most Members of the House, I have been approached from, time to time with regard to its provisions. When it is realised that under this Bill, at any rate as presented to the House, the Charity Commissioners could absolutely close down a charity in this country without any right of appeal, I think it will be agreed that it calls for scrutiny from every hon. Member in the House. It is true to say that the Home Secretary, after he had introduced the Bill and in response to a suggestion which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), said that there would be some provision made with regard to the right of appeal. What that appeal may be, what he had in his mind, he did not indicate, and the first question that I want to put to the Under-Secretary of State is this: What exactly is the appeal which is to be allowed to the charities of this country, which may, under various Clauses of the Bill, after an inquiry has been made into their affairs, be practically wound up?
  It would be useful, I think, if I amplified what the hon. Member for Leith has just said with regard to the very drastic provisions of the Bill affecting charities both large and small. A number of charities which call themselves national charities, which have been in communication with the Home Secretary at various conferences, have made certain objections to these provisions, and he has made some suggestions to them by way of meeting their difficulties. Every hon. Member will agree that we have to protect not only the national charities, but the many small charities operating in particular localities, banding together perhaps only a small number of workers but who are vastly interested in the work that they are doing. The House might very well direct their attention to their interests and rights. Let me remind the House that under this particular provision the Charity Commissioners are in the first place given the right to inquire into the affairs of any collecting society. A very curious provision is inserted in this first Clause, because it says,
  "If upon the representation of the council of any county or county borough or of a chief officer of police it appears to the Charity Commissioners.… that there is
  170
  reasonable cause to believe that any collecting charity ought to be regulated under this Act,"
  various powers are given them. That is very vague phraseology. It is difficult to define what should be brought within that particular representation. Many hon. Members will have experience of legal decisions in matters of that kind, and they may say that this follows a particular precedent, but I do not recognise it. What it really amounts to, apparently, is that if any council of any county or county borough like to make representations to the Charity Commissioners, not on any specific grounds, but because they have some sort of objection or complaint as regards a specific charity, they can appeal to the Charity Commissioners, who, in their turn, without—at any rate for the moment—any specific right of appeal to any court of law, can put into operation the very drastic powers which are contained in this Bill. They can, for instance, order any bank which happens to have the money of the charity to withhold payment to the people who actually invested their funds there, and they can order this particular charity to be wound up.
  That is a very drastic power to give. I am confirmed in that in some respects by the Report of the Departmental Committee. I could understand it if the Departmental Committee who inquired into the charities of the country had said that fraud was rampant, that the great majority of charities were being used for bogus purposes, that a large number of people were living on these charities, and that they ought to be stopped; but that was not the report of the Departmental Committee. I am glad to say, from the point of view of the charities of the country and of the good credit of the nation, that they found that out of 80,000 charities, only about 100 could be said to be preying upon the public. That hardly justifies the drastic provisions of this Bill. I do not think many people would say that you are entitled to impose stringent conditions upon the great body of charities in this country, national and small, and that because 100 rogues are preying on the public you ought to be able to bring in a Bill of this very drastic character. Clause 3 is certainly a very drastic power indeed. Perhaps

  171
  the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply will refresh his memory by looking at Clause 3. There it says that the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the conditions under which persons may be permitted
  "to make or cause to be made visits from house to house for the purposes of making appeals for support for any collecting charity."
  Does that mean that before any charity, any missionary society or trade union benevolent fund—[Interruption]—if there are such things—or any society in connection with the great Roman Catholic Church or the great Protestant churches of the country is allowed to make visits from house to house it has to get a permit from the Home Secretary? That is a very extraordinary idea. [Interruption.] If, as the hon. Member who interrupts in those dulcet tones suggests, they cannot do it now, then surely there is very little necessity for this Clause 3. I invite the Under-Secretary to make a note of this for the purpose of his reply. Is it suggested that the Home Secretary is to make special regulations for every individual charity, or are they to be regulations which apply to all charities up and down the country? If he tells me the Home Secretary is going to make regulations for particular charities, I think it will lead to a very difficult state of affairs both from the point of view of Home Office administration and from the point of view of the charity itself. If, on the other hand, he tells me the Home Office is going to make general regulations, then I suggest that regulations which will be applicable to a great national charity such as Dr. Barnardo's Homes or the National Children's Homes may work very hardly in the case of a small society. Before the House passes this Bill we want to know what the Home Secretary has in mind.
  I also want to put this point to the Home Secretary. I have been requested to do so by the London County Council, who have administered previous Acts with considerable efficiency. I think they have already put certain questions dealing with the repeal of certain Acts before the right hon. Gentleman. They state that a Memorandum was submitted to the Departmental Committee in accordance with the resolution of the council in July, 1925, and evidence was given, and that—this is
  172
  a proposal of the council which I think is well worth consideration:
  "Stated shortly, the proposals of the council subject to certain important provisos, were that all charities should be dealt with on the same lines by means of a consolidation Act and that all collecting charities which had to be regulated should be dealt with generally on the lines of the War Charities Act, 1916, and the Blind Persons Act, 1920, that is, by a system of registration, but with certain modifications of the provisions of the Acts mentioned."
  What the London County Council say is, "If there is any question about the administration of charities, let them all satisfy a competent authority and become registered." I do not think many charities would object to that mode of procedure. When the Salvation Army, for instance, or any other charity, was registered it would know that it had satisfied the licensing authority and that it would be free to carry out its beneficent work, and it would not be subject, as at the present time, to some body coming down upon it at a moment's notice without its knowing, from anything laid down in an Act of Parliament, what it was that was required of it. What they suggest is that there should be a system of registration. They say:
  "The Bill, if it becomes law, will presumably apply to war charities and charities for the blind, but no proposal is contained in the Bill for the repeal of the two Acts under which these charities are at present dealt with. Thus there will be an overlapping of functions. The question arises whether, if the provisions of the intended Act are regarded as adequate for dealing with charities generally, there is any reason for continuing the Act of 1916 and the registration provisions of the Act of 1920."
  The Under-Secretary of State will, I know, readily appreciate this point raised by the London County Council. With his knowledge as a member of the upper branch of the legal profession, he will no doubt see the necessity of the repeal of the two Acts or Parliament which have been referred to by the London County Council. Those are the points which they have asked me to put before the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State far the Home Department.
  In conclusion, I would say that I do feel that we shall have to give further consideration to this Measure after it has gone through Committee, and when we know what the right hon. Gentleman proposes with regard to the right of appeal,

  173
  and how he proposes to deal with charities, that is to say, whether he is going to deal with them individually or whether he is going to make general Regulations. I also say that any Regulations which he makes and which are not provided for in this Bill ought, before they become law, to receive the confirmation of this House. I think that is only fair to the great charities and to the small charities of the country. Trusted as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is in certain quarters, I think he will be the first to agree that in matters of this kind, in which so very many people give very valuable service and do a great deal of good, he should not take powers in this particular direction without them at any rate receiving the confirmation and affirmation of this House. Therefore, speaking only for myself on this matter and on this occasion, I do say that we shall have to examine this Bill very carefully indeed in Committee. I do not propose to divide the House on this matter, but I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that we must be fair to the great institutions up and down the country, and to the small ones as well, which have done very good work. Simply because there have been some 70 or 80 rogues who have lived by this particular method of attracting money from the public by bogus means, we must not be led into harming the genuine institutions which have done so much good. I think we should guard very carefully the provisions contained in this Bill, so that we do not do any undue harm to, or put vexatious Regulations or restrictions upon, the great number of institutions which are doing such excellent work.
  I know that it is sometimes a bit of a nuisance to be stopped by a collecting box or to be worried to give a contribution to some charily; but, after all, none of us is blind, and we all are well aware of the great amount of good work which has been done by institutions of that kind, of all the various religious beliefs and denominations, and coming from all sections of the community. Nobody helps those charities more than the working men and working women of the country. Many of those charities are manned by working men and working women; many of them represent the lifework of a very large number of people in what are called, for want of a better description, humble walks of life: and I should be very sorry
  174
  indeed if through a Bill of this kind we stopped in any way their beneficent activities, or interfered with the good work which they are doing.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will have regard, not perhaps to what I have said, but certainly to what has been said by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) in much better terms than I have used. I hope he will have regard to the natural apprehensions which many of us feel as to the possible effects of the provisions of this Bill, and that he will see that nothing is done to interfere with the beneficent work of the very large number of small and big institutions up and down the country.
  Mr. HANNON: I will not detain the House for very long, because I want the hon. Gentleman to have the fullest opportunity to reply, but I would like to associate myself with what has been so well said by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). This Bill, in Clause 3, is introducing into the legislation of this country more drastic procedure than, possibly, has been presented to this House for a long period in any Measure suggested for its consideration. The charitable work performed by voluntary bodies of various kinds in this country is one of the outstanding features of our social life, and it would be a monstrous thing to set up this inquisitorial system at the instance of the Secretary of State in order to examine every sort of proposal which people are carrying out in order to give effect to the dictates of charity in this country.
  Let me say that the charities with which I am particularly concerned are those great charities that are carried on in season and out of season, frequently in circumstances of great difficulty, by the Catholic Church of this country. There is, for example, the magnificent work which is being done by the Sisters of Nazareth. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is going to set up a sort of inquisition for examining into the motives and purposes and policy of these splendid workers in the cause of charity, who go from house to house and receive subscriptions to enable them to minister to the needs of the poor, and who minister frequently to the needs of poor people who have no possible means of being helped from any other source.

  175
  I can say without any qualification that the great charitable societies of this country working in association with the Catholic Church have nothing whatever with which to reproach themselves throughout their whole record as having ever done anything to violate the great principles which should govern charities of this kind. But, under a Measure like this, with such provisions as are contained in Clause 3, some twopenny-halfpenny official is going to exercise positive control over the directive faculty of these charitable orders, and to prevent them from carrying on the valuable work which they have done for so long. I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman does not contemplate anything of that kind, and I hope he will respond to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Leith and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich as to modifying the drastic provisions of this Clause in order to safeguard the great, helpful and uplifting work that is being done by these particular organisations for charitable purposes associated with the Catholic Church.
  I would like also to ask the Under-Secretary what this Measure is going to cost the country in additional cost of administration. How much will have to be provided by the Charity Commissioners for the personnel that must be attached to their present Department in order to carry on the work contemplated by this Measure? We ought to know in this House how much all these new projects for State control of every kind of voluntary effort in this country is going to cost the taxpayer. The Under-Secretary of State, of course, is not particularly concerned about the taxpayer so long as he is tending to establish universal Government control over the activities of the nation. This is an instance in which, above all others, charitable people ought not to be stifled, in which voluntary work in the great cause of helping the poor ought not to be circumscribed and limited, and in many instances destroyed, by legislation by reference of the kind contemplated in this Bill.
  The hon. Member for Leith very properly referred to the continuous trend in this House towards legislation by reference. Almost every single Measure that is introduced gives power to a Secre-
  176
  tary of State or the head of some Department to make secondary legislation for the direction of the activities of the people of this country. Here is a case to which objection can be taken on the strongest possible grounds. The efforts of charity in helping the poor, in bringing into contact with the beaevolent intentions of the people those who need charity, is to be limited, restricted, cabined and confined at the instance of a Government official. I associate myself with the hon. Member for Leith, who has done great service by the expenditure of time and thought that he has given to the examination of this Measure. I hope we shall have the benefit of his help in Committee in recasting this project in a form which ultimately, while serving the purposes of the great charities, will prevent any kind of fraud upon the benevolent, and will at the same time secure that the great cause of charity in this country shall not be stultified.
  Mr. BOWEN: I conceive that the Bill is drafted to deal with some recognised evil. If that be the case, I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us what that evil is. If it can be tackled adequately without a Bill, which may arouse a good deal of controversy and opposition, I think we shall be better able to deal effectively with it. I have been looking at Clause 3, and I beg the hon. Gentleman to tell us if it is anticipated that some modification of the Clause will be made. There is no time for me to examine it in detail, even if I felt competent to do so, after the speeches that we have heard. I do not look upon this as a party question at all. I ask my hon. Friend to tell us in what respect some protection can be given to the tremendous work done by our hospitals in seeking support. I gather from some people who object to the Measure that they regard with considerable apprehension the possibility that they may be treated as pedlars before they can appeal to the public for funds for a public institution. There is another small point. As I read the Clause, there is the possibility of estopping any spontaneous opportunity which may present itself for the gathering of money for charities. I was present at a meeting last night and someone spontaneously suggested a collection for a charity that is conducted in the neighbourhood, and a fair sum was

  177
  collected. As I read the Clause, it will not be possible to do that kind of thing in future. I beg the hon. Gentleman to give us his assistance in that regard.
  Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: We must all be very grateful to the hon. Member for his most interesting intervention in the Debate, because the points which he has brought before the House are very gravely exercising the minds of a large number of people who are concerned with some of our most important charities. This Measure was considered, especially Clause 3, by the Northern Association of Hospital Secretaries in October last year when it was first before the House. They are a very responsible body, and the meeting that considered the Measure was the largest attended meeting that it has held. The secretaries and superintendents of no fewer than 30 of our hospitals were there from towns like Manchester, Liverpool, Warrington, Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, Hull, Chester, Stockport and Oldham. The secretaries of all the great infirmaries and hospitals of these towns were very much perturbed indeed as to the effect of Clause 3 on their finances. The hon. Member has stated the cause of their perturbance, which is the effect that the Measure may have upon their voluntary collections.
  Let me point out what the effect will be. A big hospital will almost certainly have what is called a workpeople's fund committee. There are committees in connection with our hospitals staffed by working people who spend their spare evenings sometimes in making a mass attack upon some particular districts. They go round from door to door. There are other hospitals which have beds or cots supplied by particular districts. The person responsible is somebody who lives in the district. It may be the parson's wife, or it may be some widow or some person in small circumstances. Under this Measure the regulation must
  "provide that no such visits or collections shall be so made or caused to be made.… as aforesaid, except by persons licensed for the purpose by such officer of the police as may be designated for the purpose."
  When this Bill was printed, the first thing I did was to go to the secretary of one of our big Manchester hospitals and ask him what the effect of that would be upon those voluntary collectors. The first thing he said was, that they would refuse
  178
  to go to the police at all. Why should voluntary collectors, giving up their spare moments after a hard day's work, go to the police to be licensed? There is absolutely no justification for it. Another gentleman who is the secretary of a big body which will be known to the Home Secretary—the Manchester and Salford Medical Charities Fund—says the effect of this Measure will be that the sensitive-minded collectors will throw up the job, whereas the people who will keep on are the sort of pushing and forcible people, who, though they may be good collectors, are not always of the best reputation. These things are very gravely perplexing the minds of those responsible for our big hospitals.
  I am quite sure that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House realise that those of us who have spent a good deal of time in the administration of hospitals think a good deal about them, just as they think a good deal about the administration of their trade unions, and that we should object as much to the licensing of our collectors as they would to the licensing of their trade unions. There is absolutely no reason, where you get a perfectly well-established institution or charity, why these Voluntary collectors should be licensed. There is a way out without this licensing, and it was the way pointed out by the Home Secretary on the 29th October, when this Measure was introduced. In introducing the Measure he described it as:
  "a Bill designed to investigate and regulate collecting charities where and when, on the submission of a local authority, such a course is deemed to be advisable."
  Then he referred to the existing legislation already mentioned, the War Charities Act, 1915, which sets up a full system for the regulation of charities—legislation which has worked so well that it was adopted in the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and extended to certain post-War charities. The Home Secretary went on to say:
  "these provisions are working satisfactorily and are achieving their purpose. The existence of these provisions for the supervision of charities would naturally call attention to the desirability of applying some similar kind of control to the large number of collecting charities which are outside the Acts to which I have referred."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1929; cols. 143–4, Vol. 231.]

  179
  I agree; everyone connected with charities would agree. Why does not the Home Secretary, instead of producing this Bill, with supervision extend the existing legislation to charities which are not yet controlled by that legislation? The War Charities Act prohibits appeals by any charity unless that charity is registered, and it is registered usually with the local authority. No charity is allowed to be registered unless it has a responsible committee of not less than three persons, and unless it keeps proper books of account, and unless those proper books of account are open to inspection. That was a perfectly rational system of control and publicity of accounts, which was tried when numerous charities were springing up during the War. Why does not the Home Secretary simply extend the provisions of that Measure to all other charities, instead of introducing this police supervision? Police supervision is very objectionable. Not only is it objectionable, but it will cast a very heavy burden upon the police themselves. I have already referred to the Manchester and Salford medical charities. There is one collecting charity which has 2,000 voluntary workers. Every one of those voluntary workers would have to he licensed by the police, under this Measure. If the licence is to be of any use, inquiries will have to be made into the character and antecedents of all those volountary workers. That will place an enormous burden upon the police, and all because it is said that there are a few rogues. What does the Report of the Departmental Committee say on the subject?
  "We see no ground for doubting that the great majority of charities are managed not only honestly but with reasonable prudence, and that such dishonesty as does exist is due mainly to the recurring operations of a few people, either known or suspected to be fraudulent, whose gains, in all probability, amount only to a very small part of the vast sums which are given for charity."
  If those rogues are known, as they are known, by the police, why bring in an elaborate Measure of this kind, in order to fetter and in some cases to curtail the revenue of well-established charities? I hope that the Secretary of State when he further considers this matter will come to the conclusion that everything that he desires can be obtained by extending
  180
  the operations of legislation already upon the Statute Book to those charities which are not yet within the War Charities' Act.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill he indicated that its provisions were based upon the recommendations of a Departmental Committee. That Departmental Committee was appointed by his predecessor, now Lord Brentford, as the result of representations made to him by the charitable societies which have awakened, and quite rightly awakened, so much interest in this Debate. My right hon. Friend is seeking to promote this Measure, which would have been introduced, I presume, by his predecessor had he remained in office. The speech of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) implied that the Home Office are seeking to impose this Bill upon the House. We are doing nothing of the kind. We are seeking to meet the demand put forward not only by the charitable organisations themselves but supported by the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.
  What are the objects of the Bill. We seek to provide a means by which investigation can be made into the affairs of a collecting charity which is suspected of fraud, or of being grossly mismanaged. The Departmental Committee was satisfied that there was a certain measure of fraud, and they recommend that more stringent steps should be taken with a view to preventing that fraud.
  We propose, in Clause 3, which has given rise to a large amount of criticism, to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations governing house-to-house collections, collections made in places of public entertainment or public refreshment, and the exhibition of collecting boxes in shops and similar places. That seems to me to be somewhat different from the suggestion made in some of the speeches. Let me say at once that my right hon. Friend recognises, of course, that Clause 3 is by no means perfect. It rightly gives rise to anxiety and to questions founded upon a proper anxiety to see that the interests of these great charitable organisations are properly pro-

  181
  tected. Consequently, my right hon. Friend will be prepared, in Committee, to make, shall I say, drastic Amendments to meet the views of the House as expressed in all quarters, and thereby secure, if possible, unanimity when the Bill passes through the Committee stage. We propose so to amend the Bill as to permit an appeal to be made to the High Court against an order of the Charity Commissioners for the regulation of a charity under Clause 2. We propose to permit an appeal to the Quarter Sessions against a refusal to licence any collector on the ground of bad character, and to permit an appeal to the Charity Commissioners against refusal to licence on the ground of fraud or mal-administration of the charity itself. An amendment will be necessary to effect the first and second provision, but the third, to which I have referred, will be accomplished by means of regulations. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the representing authority in Clause 1 could make representation without any good ground at all, but what does Clause 1 say? It says:
  "If …. there is reasonable cause to believe that any collecting charity ought to be regulated."
  I think those words are sufficient to indicate that the representing authority must have grounds to submit before they can hope to avail themselves of the provisions referred to.
  The regulations will apply to all charities, but the war charities which are now governed by various Acts of Parliament will be exempted, as provision will be made by amendment. With regard to the point put to me about the deputation, let me say it included the British Legion, the Church Army, the Church of England Society for Waifs and Strays, Dr. Barnardo's Homes, the National Children's Homes, the National Institute for the Blind, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, St. Dunstan's Blinded Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen, and the Salvation Army. The hon. Member also asked the type of regulations we had in mind. They will be based, in principle, on the recommendations of the Departmental Committee and in form on the Home Office model regulations for
  182
  street collections under the Police, Factories (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916.
  All charities, national or local, will be subject to these regulations. So far as the refusal of licences is concerned we do not desire to cripple new enterprises, and we hope to prevent an arbitrary refusal of licences and to ensure that they are not refused on arbitrary grounds. To prevent any discrimination against new enterprises, licensing officers will be required to grant a licence unless the person in respect of whom the application is made is under the age of 21 years, or is of bad character or otherwise not a fit and proper person to be a collector, or where the charity is not being carried on in good faith for charitable purposes, or is not being properly administered or is not keeping proper accounts of receipts and expenditure. My right hon. Friend in framing these regulations is most anxious that they should be drawn in a broad and generous spirit, that nothing in them shall be calculated to cripple charities, national or local, which are above suspicion and where there is no suggestion of fraud. The regulations will be drawn in such a way as not to interfere with the creation of new charities. Indeed, we shall seek the cooperation of the great societies I have mentioned; we shall welcome the advice and assistance of all charities, no matter whether they are large or small, and in this way safeguard the interests of the contributing public and the interests of all charities concerned. The regulations will be published, and as a result of our experience they can be amended from time to time in order to meet the ever-changing needs of the community.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I quite agree with hon. Members who have spoken from all parts of the House that this Bill is of so important a character, touching as it does so many of the philanthropic interests of the community, that it is worthy of more discussion. I have listened most carefully to the Debate, and the House ought to be grateful to the hon. Member who initiated it. But from every part of the House there has been a strong and well reasoned hostility to this proposal. The Under-Secretary of State has made a most extraordinary plea for the acceptance of this Bill by hon. Members like myself. He said that it was conceived

  183
  in the mind of the late Home Secretary. Even at this hour of the night I am not prepared to vote for a bad Measure be cause it was fathered by Sir "William Joynson-Hicks. He also told us that it was drafted by a departmental committee appointed by the late Home Secretary—
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

  ESTIMATES.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies, consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates, may be effected therein.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twenty-eight Members.
  Mr. Oliver Baldwin, Mr. Bird, Captain Bourne, Mr. Charleton, Mr. Cocks, Mr. Ede, Mr. Foot, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Matters, Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, Mr. Mond, Mr. Palmer, Sir Philip Pilditch, Mr. Potts, Sir Gervais Rentoul, Mr. Romeril, Mr. R. J. Russell, Mr. Arthur
  184
  Michael Samuel, Mr. Scott, Mr. Sitch, Mr. Rennie Smith, Lieutenant-Colonel Spender-Clay, Mr. Townend, Sir Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan, and Mr. Womersley nominated members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That Seven be the quorum.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to appoint one or more Sub-Committees, and in that event to apportion the subjects referred to the Committee between the Sub-Committees, any of which shall have the full powers of the undivided Committee; and that Four shall be the quorum of any of the Sub-Committees.
  Ordered, That the Committee do report any evidence taken by the Committee or by any of the Sub-Committees to the House.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.
  FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.
  FOOD DUTIES.
  FOOD DUTIES.
  BRITISH-INDIAN SUBJECTS' ARREST, ITALY.
  BRITISH-INDIAN SUBJECTS' ARREST, ITALY.
  COMPANY BANKRUPTCIES AND LIQUIDATIONS.
  COMPANY BANKRUPTCIES AND LIQUIDATIONS.
  CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.
  CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  FEEDING-STUFFS AND FEETILISERS (IMPORTS).
  FEEDING-STUFFS AND FEETILISERS (IMPORTS).
  HAY AND STRAW (IMPORTS).
  HAY AND STRAW (IMPORTS).
  WAR GRAVES, TSINGTAO.
  WAR GRAVES, TSINGTAO.
  HOUSING (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL ESTATES).
  HOUSING (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL ESTATES).
  RESIDENTIAL SURGEON, CAITHNESS.
  RESIDENTIAL SURGEON, CAITHNESS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  WOOLWICH.
  WOOLWICH.
  LIVE REGISTER.
  LIVE REGISTER.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  MIDLOTHIAN.
  MIDLOTHIAN.
  KENT.
  KENT.
  PURFLEET-DARTFORD TUNNEL.
  PURFLEET-DARTFORD TUNNEL.
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY WORKERS' EARNINGS.
  RAILWAY WORKERS' EARNINGS.
  ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY.
  ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY.
  IRAQ (BRITISH RAILWAY OFFICIALS).
  IRAQ (BRITISH RAILWAY OFFICIALS).
  SOLOMON ISLANDS (INTER-ISLAND COMMUNICATIONS).
  SOLOMON ISLANDS (INTER-ISLAND COMMUNICATIONS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (CLOSED MINES).
  COAL INDUSTRY (CLOSED MINES).
INDIA.
  CURRENCY.
  CURRENCY.
  AVIATION (LANDING GROUNDS).
  AVIATION (LANDING GROUNDS).
  AIR PILOT'S LICENCES.
  AIR PILOT'S LICENCES.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (COST).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (COST).

Preamble
Reassembling after the Recess, the House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Harewood—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I would venture to ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House whether he can give your Lordships any information as to the course of public business during the next few days or weeks, or whatever period he chooses to select.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD) PARMOOR): My Lords, I think I can give the noble Marquess and the House the information which he would desire, although I cannot give him information extending over any long period. The noble Marquess knows that to-day we are taking the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill. He will know better than I do, but it seemed to us that we should probably get through the Committee stage of that Bill to-day. But, in the event of our not doing so, I should to-morrow move
2
the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name, in order that we might go on continuously with that Bill until the Committee stage is finished. It is very desirable, I am told, that that Bill should be dealt with as quickly as may be convenient to this House, because of certain financial arrangements. If the Committee stage is finished to-day I do not think there would be any objection to taking the Report stage on Thursday, and then we could take the Third Reading early next week.
So far as the Road Traffic Bill is concerned, there are two things I should like to mention. One is that we do not intend to raise again in this House the question of Part V, on which we discussed the question of what is called municipal trading; but I want to make it clear that it will be raised in another place. I think it would be contrary to the traditions of your Lordships' House, when a matter has been fully discussed, to raise the same question again here. Therefore we do not propose to raise it again in this House. I have read through all the Amendments to the Road Traffic Bill that are on the Paper. Several of them, undoubtedly, raise questions which have been thoroughly discussed already; a good many, I think, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who, of course, will exercise his own discretion in such a matter; but I think the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill ought to be finished by a reasonable time on Thursday, if we can finish the Unemployment Insurance Bill

3
Committee stage to-day. If we could finish it within that time, I should not want to make any Motion to your Lordships for extended opportunities.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Did the noble and learned Lord say that the Road Traffic Bill was to be taken tomorrow or on Thursday?
LORD PARMOOR: To-morrow, and if the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill is finished to-day, it will be the first order to-morrow. The noble Viscount, Lord Templetown, on the suggestion I made to him, very kindly put his Question about Palestine off for another week, because we desire to finish these Bills as soon as possible. I acknowledge at once his great courtesy in doing that.
THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: In that case, when would the noble and learned Lord take the Road Traffic Bill?
LORD PARMOOR: To-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But supposing to-morrow is not available?
LORD PARMOOR: We should go straight on. In those circumstances, it might be necessary to ask your Lordships to sit late on Thursday or to meet on Friday; but I do not want to make suggestions of that kind prematurely. I hope we shall manage without doing that. The next matter which will come before your Lordships is, I think, the Railway Rating Reform Bill. That is a matter upon which a very large number of members of your Lordships' House have considerable knowledge and are authorities. Beyond that, I can make no further statement. The Bill is not quite ready for introduction. I hope it will be ready very soon, and when it is ready it will be introduced in the first instance in your Lordships' House. I have tried to do what I can to be of assistance to your Lordships in furthering business. I think there is no doubt that the fact that the Bills we have had under discussion were first introduced here will be of great advantage and assistance to the House of Commons, where undoubtedly business is much congested and there is considerable pressure. I cannot add to this statement at the moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With the permission of your Lordships, I would
4
only say as regards the Road Traffic Bill that I have no reason to question the propriety of taking that Bill to-morrow if to-morrow is available or on Thursday if Thursday is available; but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not suggest taking the Third Reading stage of that Bill too soon after the Report stage.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear !
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As he knows, the Bill is an exceedingly complicated one and it is really very proper that it should be looked through very carefully in order that Amendments, if necessary, should be put in on the Third Reading. That can only be done if a little time is allowed.
LORD PARMOOR: I certainly agree with the noble Marquess. I think it is one of the merits of having a Bill of that kind introduced into this House that it can be thoroughly considered not only in principle but in detail. I think that the Bill has been very thoroughly considered, and if after the Report stage any further day or two are wanted I shall certainly agree if the noble Marquess expresses such a desire.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORL in the Chair.]
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved that the consideration of Clauses 1 to 19 be postponed until after the consideration of Clause 20. The noble Marquess said: In taking the course which I have ventured to indicate in respect of the Committee stage of this Bill, I may be allowed to say that such a course is not without precedent. On the contrary, it is a quite well known part of the procedure of your Lordships' House that if good reason can be shown clauses should be postponed in order that a clause late in the Bill may be taken before the others. I have ventured to call in aid that procedure on the present occasion

5
because, from the attention which I have been able to pay to the history of this Bill in both Houses of Parliament, and its character, I think we are left with a feeling of insecurity as to exactly what the Bill intends to effect, and also what are the real convictions of His Majesty's Government in respect of it. How far in those circumstances, being in that condition of doubt, shall we be justified in committing the country to a permanent Act? It is a very serious thing to do. Your Lordships are every day engaged in passing permanent laws in this country, but when—as I shall venture to elaborate in a few moments if your Lordships' will allow me—there is considerable doubt as to the real nature of the Bill, and the real opinions of its sponsors, then I think your Lordships will probably agree with me—I hope so at any rate—that the Bill should be made, not a permanent Bill but a temporary Bill, so that the country will only be committed to a limited extent to its operations.
I do not want to dwell upon the well-worn theme of the brevity of the time which your Lordships have been afforded to consider the Bill. I merely note that we were very hurried over the Second Reading, and, though there has been a considerable interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, yet that interval has not been available for much consultation between members of your Lordships' House as to what the future procedure should be. I merely note it as a special difficulty that, notwithstanding the history of this Bill and its complication's, the Government have not been willing to afford us very much time, and, indeed, only a few minutes ago, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Parmoor) said he was very anxious that this Bill should be got through within a very limited period. How do we stand about this Bill? We agreed to the Second Reading. No one can say that your Lordships showed anything in the nature of a factious opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. It was discussed, not at undue length but I hope adequately, and it was agreed to, and now we come to the Committee stage.
Though we agreed to the Second Reading, it must be admitted that we were considerably startled by several of the provisions which the Bill contained. There was the fact that for the first
6
time young children are introduced to this terrible rôle which leads onward to the "dole" with its demoralising influences. I do not say the Bill as it stands enacts the "dole" for children—that is to say, the giving of a benefit without insurance—but we know the history of these things, and when once you begin with insurance on the old footing, it seems to lead inevitably to the "dole" finally; that is to say, you give the benefit even without any insurance. It is a very startling thing that we for the first time introduce children to this rôle and we do it without any apparent reason. There is no serious difficulty about unemployment with children. On the contrary, the probability is, if I may use a colloquial vulgarism, that the boot will be on the other leg—the difficulty will be in many parts of the country to get a sufficient number of children to do the work. Therefore, that is a very doubtful proposal.
I am not going to discuss the clauses elaborately, but I must go through them to the extent of showing your Lordships that it is necessary to make this a temporary instead of a permanent Bill. Then we come to the changes introduced by Clause 4—in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House the clause in which the onus is changed as to who is to be responsible for finding work for the unemployed man. For the first time the onus is changed. The noble and learned Lord told us so. Up to now it has been necessary for the unemployed man to make an effort on his own behalf, and, of course, in nine cases out of ten—indeed a much larger proportion than that—the workman does of his own motion make an effort. I am glad to say that is the character and temperament of our people. But there is a minority about whom that is not true, and in respect of that minority, for the first time, according to the interpretation which the noble and learned Lord puts upon the Bill the onus is changed, and there is no obligation upon them to make any effort whatever to find work.
These are startling proposals. But are the Government quite convinced that they are right? It is the most remarkable point in reference to this Bill that we have no assurance that the sponsors of it, some of whom sit on that Bench, are really in earnest in being in favour

7
of it. Consider for a moment the children's clause. That is not going to come into operation immediately. It is a sort of hypothetical proposal. If and when the school age is raised, then this provision is to come into operation, but we have no assurance that the age will be raised, and even if it is raised hereafter, we do not know what conditions there may be attached to the raising of the age. Is it serious legislation to ask us to remain so absolutely in the dark, and to attach these great provisions of insurance to a state of things which does not at present exist, and in regard to which we do not know the conditions in which the proposals will have effect? That does not appear to correspond to any solid foundation upon which to legislate.
Further, this provision of benefit for the children is intimately associated, so it is contended, with providing instruction for the children when they are out of work. That is so contended in your Lordships' House, but that was not in the original Bill. So uncertain is the course which the Government recommend to Parliament and the country that they made no such provision for instruction in the case of unemployment of children in the original Bill. That was an after-thought, or rather it was put in, I have no doubt—although I do not pretend to know—under pressure in another place. But that instruction is held to be essential. The right rev. Prelate whom I see opposite and who, if I may say so, made such a considerable contribution to the debate on the Second Reading, said that when he saw the original Bill he was filled with consternation—I think that was the phrase—because no provision was made for such instruction, the idea being that if children are out of work and receiving the "dole" they are likely to get into very bad courses unless some provision is made for them to receive instruction as suggested. And in the debate on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said that this instruction, which was not provided for in the original Bill, which was forced upon the Government by independent members, was an essential point. That was the phrase, that it was an essential point.
Then, I would ask, has the instruction been provided? Instruction is not provided. This essential point is not to be found in the Bill. I have done my best
8
to acquaint myself with all the literature attached to the Bill and with the various Reports, or at any rate some of them, of the Committees and Commissions concerned, and I find that as late as 1928 there was provision of instruction for less than 10 per cent. of juveniles unemployed at any one time, so that except for a very small minority there is no provision for this instruction which we are told is essential. Yet we are asked to pass a permanent Act in which there is no provision for what is said to be essential and in which there are no means suggested to Parliament by which it will be provided. I suggest that that is a very strong reason for not allowing this to be a permanent Act.
Next I come to Clause 4, that is the clause which abolishes the genuinely-seeking-work provisions of the existing law. Is there any solid conviction in the Government about that? It is notorious that they first introduced a clause of a totally different character in another place. It is notorious that their representative, the Attorney-General, nailed his colours to the mast against any deviation from the onus being placed upon the unemployed man. Well, that has been thrown over at the last moment in another place and a new provision has been introduced. I do not in the least know what the attitude of mind of the Attorney-General is now. He is a man who has a great capacity for change. Let me put it in that way. I dare say he has accepted it. But that does not correspond, may I venture very respectfully to say, to any solid foundation of conviction upon which the Government work. Even now, even when the Bill is in your Lordships' House, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House show any conviction in regard to this clause? Not at all. He says it may be difficult to carry out. He says it may be in want of further consideration and adjustment. That is an optimistic attitude of mind for His Majesty's Government when promoting an important Bill in Parliament. It is quite clear that the noble and learned Lord, who has a great legal reputation, does not want to commit himself too far in favour of this eleventh-hour proposal of the Government for dealing with the genuinely-seeking-work difficulty. Surely in the face of this consideration it is almost

9
absurd to ask your Lordships to pass a permanent Act of Parliament.
Then, lastly, there is the point on which every speaker (I think I am right in saying) is substantially agreed—that the mixing up of the two matters of insurance and relief in one Fund is a condition of the law which is very much to be deprecated and which ought not to be permanently established. That again is an overwhelming reason for not passing a permanent Act of Parliament. In the face of what I have ventured to suggest to your Lordships some of my hearers may say: "Well, why in the world did you not reject the Bill?" Some of us were tempted to favour the rejection of the Bill, but we were convinced that such a course would not be wise for many reasons, amongst others that the finance of the insurance law is in such a condition that some change is necessary in order to put the Fund once more in a condition of solvency. Therefore we accepted the Second Reading. But it was certainly a very difficult decision to make and we feel great difficulty in the situation as it has resulted. What issue is to be found? I always look for guidance in these matters to His Majesty's Government. I have studied the speeches of the representatives of the Government with some care and I find that the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill, the Paymaster-General, said on Second Reading that this was only to be passed in order to prolong the transitional period for twelve months, that the Bill was an experimental Bill and that it was not a permanent Bill. If the noble Lord challenges me I shall at once venture to refresh his memory. This is the phrase. He said:—
"This is not a permanent Bill lout one to meet a special state of things."
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): If the noble Marquess will permit me, may I say I think it is perfectly clear that that referred to what I had been detailing at considerable length—namely, the transitional provisions. It is perfectly clear from the context.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is difficult to explain away that phrase "This is not a permanent Bill," even with the dexterity of the noble Lord for which I have a great respect. I think he will have to get up very early in the morning to get rid of that phrase. But
10
if there is any doubt about it, it only strengthens my argument. Let us make certain that this is not a permanent Bill. That is the reason for the course which I am now asking your Lordships to pursue. I am asking you to postpone the earlier clauses of this Bill until we have settled this question as to whether it is to be a permanent or a temporary Bill. If your Lordships are good enough, as I hope may possibly be the case, to agree to this postponement, I shall venture to propose to you the insertion of an Amendment in Clause 20 which will have the effect of making this a temporary Bill. Then the uncertainties of the phraseology of the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, may be definitely resolved. We are not prepared to make this a permanent introduction of children to the "dole," we are not prepared to shift the onus permanently from the unemployed man to the State, we are not prepared to accept the muddle of the mixture of insurance and relief, and we ask your Lordships with some confidence to consent to limit the operation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the consideration of Clauses 1 to 19 be postponed until after the consideration of Clause 20.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD ARNOLD: Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the Government must resist this Motion. Before discussing in detail some of the points which the noble Marquess has raised, I think we ought to consider the principle that is at stake in this matter and the precedent which would be established. It is true, as the noble Marquess said, that a Motion of this kind cannot be ruled out under the Standing Orders. In the Companion to the Standing Orders, 1909 (p. 45), it is stated, I believe, that it is allowable that the Committee should upon Motion postpone clauses and that they should be taken up later on. But the question is: What are the clauses that are going to be dealt with in this way? I think that there is good ground for the contention that a proposal of the nature of that which is involved in the Motion of the noble Marquess is, as a matter of fact, contrary to the custom of Parliament. I do not say that there is no precedent for it, but I have been unable to find one. It would certainly be out of order in another place

11
to postpone clauses of importance, as this Motion proposes, until the discussion of subsidiary clauses has taken place.
Of course, your Lordships are not bound by the rules of another place. I am quite aware of that. In your Lordships' House the determination of points of order rests in the main with the House as a body. But in coming to conclusions in these matters your Lordships are frequently guided by precedent and by the circumstances of the case. I might quote Sir Erskine May. It may be said that Erskine May deals mainly with matters in another place, but it does happen—and I think this is worth bringing forward—that in Erskine May's book, on page 409, it is laid down that the proposal to postpone the only effective clause of a Bill until the subordinate clauses have been considered has been ruled out of order, and, though it is not quite certain, it is pretty clear, I think, from the context that, so far as Erskine May is concerned, he considers that this dictum applies to Parliament as a whole.
My contention is that the point depends upon the nature of the clause. In 1919, for instance, upon the Enabling Bill, a proposal was put upon the Paper in the name of the late Viscount Haldane to postpone the consideration of Clause 1 As a matter of fact, this was not done. The reason for that proposal, I think, was that Clause 1 was not quite in its right place. They had put the definition clause first. The Enabling Bill was not drafted by a Government draftsman. Then again, in 1927, the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Carson, moved an Amendment on the Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant Bill to postpone Parts I and II of the Bill until after the consideration of Part III. That Motion stood at the head of the Marshalled List of Amendments and was passed almost without debate. It was a matter of general agreement. The reason was that the Second Reading debate had been very largely occupied with the question of the tribunal, and the noble and learned Lord moved, as a matter of convenience, that Part III of the Bill, which dealt with the tribunal, should be taken first. But there is nothing of the kind in question here. The position is totally different. I do not think that there can be any kind of argument about that. There was another case, not quite the same, that I
12
have been able to find in my researches. It occurred during debates in your Lordships' House upon the Representation of the People Bill in 1918, when there was a proposal while a clause was actually under discussion to postpone the consideration of it for some little time. Matters had got into some confusion. As a matter of fact this was not done, but it was proposed, and there seemed to be some doubt as to whether the consideration of a clause could be postponed when it had actually begun.
But quite apart from these considerations—though I suggest that they ought to be replied to, that they are germane considerations, that we are here on a very important Parliamentary point indeed, since you are seeking to establish a precedent which might have very far-reaching consequences—apart from that. it is surely setting a somewhat questionable precedent, without very much stronger reasons than those which the noble Marquess has brought forward, to put a time limit to a Bill—I am speaking of Bills in general and discussing it as a matter of principle—before it' is known how that Bill is likely finally to emerge, or until at any rate it has been either through Committee or largely through Committee. I think that there is an important question of principle there. I do not think the noble Marquess made it clear that the main operative part of this Bill—that is the part which deals with the transitional period—the main financial part of the Bill is temporary, under Clause 16 of the Bill as it stands. That part comes to an end, and must come up for review, practically at the same date as that which the noble Marquess has suggested. There must be some review of that matter by Parliament and some legislation will be necessary before April 18, 1931.
The noble Marquess told us that I had said that this was an experimental Bill. I was replying to him at the end of the debate, and I think it is perfectly clear that I was dealing with the point that he had made that this was the first time that there was permanent provision for the transitional period. I said that this was not so, and that the Minister of Health had stated that this part was experimental. As a matter of fact, I think it only right to point out to the noble Marquess that this particular

13
method of carrying on what is called the transitional period did not begin with the present Government but with the late Government. The late Government began it in 1927. We are only doing what they did, but we are doing it in a very much sounder way—I do not think there can be any dispute about that—because we are paying money out of current revenue whereas the late Government continued the transitional period and the liability mounted up and only added to the debt of the Fund. There really is, if I may be allowed to say so, no original sin on the part of the present Government in this matter. They are only following what was done by the late Government, but in this matter, as in many other matters, they are improving upon the method followed by the late Government. Therefore, as regards the main financial provision of the Bill, the position is that it must come up for review, and there is no need whatever for the Amendment of the noble Marquess, because Clause 16 covers his point as regards this very important part of the Bill. But it really does not in the least follow that the remainder of the Bill should come up for review and have a time limit placed upon it.
This Bill has been most fully discussed in another place, and I maintain that ample time has been allowed and is being allowed in this House for its discussion. Upon the Second Reading the noble Marquess protested in a, contrary sense, but really, if I may say so with respect, no such contention can be sustained. Far more time is being given to this Bill by the Government than has frequently been allowed by the noble Marquess himself for Bills of much greater importance. This Bill was introduced in another place on November 21, and it is hoped to get it through Parliament by the end of January. If it is judged that that is not sufficient time for a Bill of this character, Parliamentary business will become almost impossible.
The noble Marquess says that you must be in this position: It may be that the transitional period has to come up for review, but all the clauses, he says, must be open for reconsideration and decision in both Houses of Parliament. So far as His Majesty's Government are con-
14
cerned, I have to say that we are unable to assent to any such proposal. The late Government never put time limits in their Bills of this character. It is an entirely new doctrine that the whole of a Bill of this kind must come up for review, and I think your Lordships will agree that if an Amendment of this sort had been put down by noble Lords now sitting on this Bench when they were sitting on the Opposition Benches opposite, it would have received very short shrift at your Lordships' hands. I have a suspicion that this Amendment, especially taken in conjunction with what happened on the Widows' Pensions Bill, means that the Parliamentary situation is being transformed, if it has not already been transformed, and that we are again going to have two-chamber government. We really have not had that for some years, because of course the Conservative Government could always get whatever it wanted passed through this House without any difficulty. I am inclined to think that now there is going to be a change, and that we are going to have two-chamber government.
Take the Amendment upon which the noble Marquess really is basing his case. I wonder if he has worked out in detail what it would mean if the House followed his advice. I wonder whether he has gone into the chaos which this Amendment of his would produce. The effect would not be simply to bring the scheme to a standstill on March 31, 1931. The unemployment scheme will exist in an emasculated and very one-sided form. The Bill as it stands repeals certain provisions. Those repeals would remain after March, 1931. On the other hand, the new provisions contained in the Bill, several of which take the place of existing provisions, would come to an end after March, 1931. For instance, the genuinely-seeking-work provision would disappear by repeal, while the provision in Clause 4 which would take its place would come to an end. Then again the old adjudicating machinery would have been repealed and the new machinery set up by this Bill would come to an end. Consequently, there would be no legislation directing the method of determining claims for benefit. The result might well he that the collection of contributions would continue, but some benefits would not be paid. That would be a position

15
of misfortune, and I cannot imagine that the noble Marquess really seeks to bring about a state of things like that. When I turn to some of the particular points which he made I really do not think that he was on good ground in regard to what he called the "dole" for children. On the Second Reading the complaint was really that the children were being defrauded, because in all £600,000—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The difficulty is that both are true.
LORD ARNOLD: Both cannot be true at the same time, and I would like to know which horse he is riding—he cannot ride both horses at the same time—and then we can deal with him. As I pointed out upon the Second Reading, this proposal merely changes the date for beginning the entry into insurance. The age has been 16 for a number of years, but when we propose 15, and also propose as soon as practicable to raise the school age, we are treated as if we were proposing something heinous. One of the many advantages of this proposal will be that the insurance scheme will begin immediately the child leaves school. The gap at present existing will be bridged over, and you will begin by impressing upon the minds of the young persons the necessity of making some provision right from the start. I should have thought that that would be something which would have commended itself to noble Lords opposite, who are constantly telling us of the vital necessity of inculcating the virtue of thrift. The noble Marquess says that there is very little unemployment at these ages. That may be, but it is the custom of most insurance schemes to begin at an earlier age than that at which the assured may expect to draw benefits. The noble Marquess also says that no provision is made for the instruction of these young people, but Clause 15 says that the Minister, after consultation with the Board of Education, may make provision for approved courses of instruction for persons under 18. Therefore, as far as practicable—you cannot do a thing like this all at once—training will be commenced with as little delay as possible.
The noble Marquess next passed to Clause 4. I am not complaining, and I do not propose to detain your Lordships
16
at any great length, but if I may be allowed to say so, it really will not do for the noble Marquess to charge His Majesty's Government with inconsistency in the way he did. Admittedly we have been dealing here with a matter which required discussion, and the Minister made it quite clear, I think, from the start when the original Clause 4 was put forward that it was for discussion, and that Amendments would be accepted, and she asked subsequently for the collective wisdom of the House upon the matter. That collective wisdom was not, as somebody suggested on the last occasion when this Bill was being considered in your Lordships' House, a surrender to the Left Wing. Nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, procedure like the new procedure was pressed upon the Government by Sir Herbert Samuel and practically the whole of the Liberal Party, and it was supported by Mr. Allen, one of the Conservative Members for Belfast, who, speaking from his own experience as a large employer of labour, made a very telling statement about the injustice which the old procedure had inflicted upon large numbers of men who ought not to have had that injustice put upon them. Not only did he speak in favour of what the Government were doing, but he voted in favour of what the Government were doing.
Really, if we are going into that question of consistency, the record of the Conservative Party in this matter, if I may be allowed to say so, is one which it is interesting to examine. When the Bill came up for Second Reading they opposed our first Clause 4. Then, when the Committee stage was reached and (in the discussion on Mr. Hayday's Amendment) the Minister asked for the collective wisdom of all Parties, what did the Conservative Party do? They did not say anything at all, and they did nothing except that one speech was made by a Conservative Member, and that was in favour of Mr. Hayday's Amendment. When the Report stage came, what happened? Why, a complete turn round of the Conservative Party. They attacked the formula which they had previously let go by default, and asked for Clause 4 in its original form, though on the Second Reading they denounced it in its original form. Now

17
can you beat that for inconsistency? That is a simple record of the facts.
Really, it gives colour to the view—I do not say this was so—that the Opposition throughout have merely been opposing the Government at any and every stage without any coherent line of their own. The late Minister of Labour himself has, in effect, condemned the notgenuinely-seeking-work procedure, and Major Elliot, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench in another place, on two occasions, or at any rate in two statements, distinctly implied that even the present Clause 4 was too strict, because he said under an insurance scheme you ought not to have any test, not even the test of whether a man is seeking a job or not. Later on he argued that there should be no work test of any kind, that all that a man should have to do was to show that he was unemployed. As regards nearly nine-tenths of the unemployed, they are covered by what Mr. Elliot said. Those in the transitional period only amount to one-eighth or one-tenth of the whole. So that, according to the official spokesman of the Opposition, what we are now proposing is too strict. Can you beat that for inconsistency? I contend that the Government has been very careful in this matter. It has taken every precaution to see that in the end the best workable scheme which could be evolved is incorporated in the Bill. A great deal more might be
said about this clause, but I think it has become plain, as the result of the accumulated experience of those who have knowledge of these things and of the working in the last few years of the not-genuinely-seeking-work procedure, that it has got to go, that you must now have an objective test, and that all other tests cannot properly and fairly be applied, and the attempt to apply them leads to great harshness upon large numbers of men who have done nothing to deserve such treatment.
Those are some of the reasons why I contend that this Bill should be allowed to proceed through Committee in the ordinary way, when Amendments can be discussed in the ordinary way. As regards the main operative part of the Bill, the financial part of the Bill, which deals with the transitional period and all those very important matters, the Amendment of the noble Marquess is already met in the Bill itself, and I would certainly ask your Lordships to consider very carefully whether it is wise to pass an Amendment of this character, which will undoubtedly establish a precedent against which, I think, there are serious Parliamentary objections.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Midleton, E.

Armstrong, L.

Northumberland, D.

Morton, E.

Ashfield, L.

Wellington, D.

Onslow, E.

Askwith, L.

Plymouth, E.

Auckland, L.

Camden, M.

Sandwich, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Stanhope, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Salisbury, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Winchester, M.

Biddulph, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Byron, L.

Airlie, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Beatty, E.

Burnham, V.

Birkenhead, E.

Chaplin, V.

Clinton, L.

Bradford, E.

Churchill, V.

Conyers, L.

Clarendon, E.

Falkland, V.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Falmouth, V.

Cranworth, L.

Denbigh, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Cushendun, L.

Eldon, E.

Hambleden, V.

Danesfort, L,

Fortescue, E.

Hood, V.

Darling, L.

Halsbury, E.

Knutsford, V.

de Mauley, L.

Harewood, E.

Leverhulme, V.

Desborough, L.

Howe, E.

Novar, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Jellicoe, E.

Sumner, V.

Dynevor, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Addington, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Alvineham, L.

Faringdon, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Ampthill, L.

Forster, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Annesley, L. (V Valentia.)

Gainford, L.

Hampton, L.

Kylsant, L.

Remnant, L.

Hanworth, L.

Lamington, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Harris, L.

Lawrence, L.

St. Levan, L.

Hayter, L.

Leigh, L.

Saltoun, L.

Heneage, L.

Lloyd, L.

Sherborne, L.

Hindlip, L.

Lovat, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Luke, L.

Sudeley, L.

Invernairn, L.

Monkswell, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Jessel, L.

Oxenfoord,, L. (E. Stair.)

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Raglan, L.

Tennyson, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Devonport, V.

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Passfield, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Stanley of Alderlev, L. (L. Sheffield.)

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Arnold, L.

Swaythling, L.

Allendale, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Thomson, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 20:
Interpretation, repeal, application, short title and commencement.
(2) The expression "insurance officer" in the Unemployment Insurance Acts and this Act means an insurance officer appointed under Section twelve of the principal Act.
(5) This Act may be cited as the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1929, and shall be construed as one with the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and this Act shall he included among the Acts which may be cited together as the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1929.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved to insert at the end of subsection (2) "to examine claims for unemployment benefit." The noble Lord said: The definition of "insurance officer" in the form in which it is left by the somewhat complicated references to other Acts is, I think, worthless. An insurance officer was defined in Section 11 of the principal Act. That section has now been repealed and with it has gone the definition of insurance officer. It is true that this clause purports to give a definition, but its reference to Section 12 of the principal Act merely empowers the Minister to appoint insurance officers without any statement as to their duties. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 28, after ("Act") insert ("to examine claims for unemployment benefit").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD ARNOLD: After going into the matter and taking advice upon it, I do not consider that this Amendment should be accepted. Section 12 does not in fact say that insurance officers are to be appointed to examine claims for unemployment benefit. I really do not think there is any need to add anything to the definition of "insurance officer" as it stands in the Bill, and I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "this Act shall be included among the Acts which" and to insert "those Acts and this Act." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is required simply in order to substitute the year 1930 for the year 1929. The phraseology of the Bill suggests as it stands at present, that there were two previous Unemployment Acts in the year 1929. It is not appropriate, therefore, to the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1930. It is only a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 1, leave out from ("and") to ("may") in line 2 and insert ("those Acts and this Act").—(Lord Arnold.) On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, at the end of the clause, to insert as a new subsection:—
"(8) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one and no longer."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment follows upon the Motion I was successful in persuading your Lordships

21
to accept just now. I would say in reference to something which fell from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, that if it be necessary to make certain changes in the Schedule consequential upon this Amendment I shall take care that the matter shall be considered between now and the next stage in order that they may be put down. The great object of this Amendment is to secure that this Bill shall be reconsidered—thoroughly re-considered—at the end of twelve months.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD ARNOLD: I will not again discuss the main question, for I think that was covered in the speeches which took place at the beginning. I would only submit to the noble Marquess that I believe alterations in the Schedule would not by any means be sufficient, and that other things will be required, or there will be chaos.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will look into that.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Rates of benefit.
2.—(1) In the case of persons who have not attained the age of twenty-one years and are not by virtue of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, entitled to benefit at the same rate as persons who have attained that age, benefit shall be at the weekly rates set out in the First Schedule to this Act, instead of at the rates set out in the Third Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927.
(2) The enactments providing that the weekly rate of benefit shall be increased in respect of certain dependants, shall be amended as follows:—

(a) The increase in respect of dependants other than children shall be nine shillings instead of seven shillings:

(b) Where a person entitled to benefit (not being a person entitled to an increase of the weekly rate otherwise than in respect of dependent children) has previously to becoming unemployed had in his employment and thereafter continues to employ at a rate of remuneration not less than nine shillings per week, some female person who is not residing with him to assist in the care of his dependent children, the weekly rate shall be increased by nine shillings:

22

(c) Where a person entitled to benefit (not being a person entitled to an increase of the weekly rate otherwise than in respect of dependent children) has residing with him and is wholly or mainly maintaining a father or stepfather who is unable, by reason of physical or mental infirmity, to support himself, the weekly rate shall be increased by nine shillings:

(d) A person entitled to benefit shall be entitled to a weekly increase of two shillings in respect of any dependent child of his who, having attained the age of fourteen but being under the age of sixteen, is unable, by reason of physical or mental infirmity, to receive full time instruction in a day school:

(e) The enactments aforesaid shall have effect as if references therein to the dependent children of a person entitled to benefit included references to the younger brothers, half-brothers and step-brothers, and the younger sisters, half-sisters, and step-sisters of such a person:

(f) For the purpose of the enactments aforesaid, an insured person shall not he deemed to be wholly or mainly maintaining any other person unless the insured person when unemployed, contributes towards the maintenance of that other person an amount not less than the amount of the increase of benefit received in respect of that other person, and when in employment (except in a case where the dependency did not arise until after the date on which the insured person became unemployed) contributed more than one-half of the actual cost of the maintenance of that other person:

Provided that the requirement in paragraph (b) of this subsection as to the employment of the female person previously to the insured person becoming unemployed shall not apply in any case where the necessity for employing such a female person did not arise until after the date on which the insured person became unemployed:
(g) In the proviso to subsection (1) of Section one of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922, the expression "regular wage-earning employment" shall rot include employment where the amount of wage earned is less than the increase in the weekly rate of benefit, and the expression "occupation ordinarily carried on for profit" shall not include the provision of board and accommodation for not more than one lodger as a member of the family.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to leave out the proviso after paragraph (f) in subsection (2) in order to insert it at the end of the clause. The noble Lord said: This is required merely to ensure that the proviso in question should be in the anost appropriate position. The proviso

23
relates to one of the requirements of paragraph (b) and is not directly appropriate to paragraph (f) in which it is at present. We are informed that the best place is at the end of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, leave out lines 11 to 18.—(Lord Arnold.)
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved in paragraph (g) of subsection (2), after "include," to insert "the performance of work for payment which is less in amount than the increase in the weekly rate of benefit or." The noble Lord said: This deals with a point of some little substance. The position is that under the present Acts the weekly dependant's allowance of 9s. cannot be paid for a wife or for a female dependant who is engaged in an occupation ordinarily carried on for profit, and a number of cases have come to the notice of the Government in which it has been decided by the umpire and other statutory authorities that a wife or other dependent must be held to be carrying on such an occupation although in fact the profit derived is little or nothing. For instance, the allowance of 9s. per week has been withheld in the case of a wife who provided a few cups of tea once a week to stallholders in a market and at most obtained a profit of a few pence weekly. The effect of this Amendment would be to allow 9s. weekly to be paid provided the work performed by the wife brought in a payment of less than 9s. a week. It is clearly unfair that the allowance should be with held where only small sums less than the allowance are obtained by the wife or other dependants.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, after ("include") insert ("the performance of work for payment which is less in amount than the increase in the weekly rate of benefit or").(Lord Arnold.)
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, insert the proviso from paragraph (f).—(Lord Arnold.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Lord said: The object of this clause is to increase the benefits which are already
24
given by previous Acts of Parliament to people who are out of work. To my mind there are two very strong reasons why this should not be done. The first reason is that it has not been shown, as far as I know, that the existing benefits are not sufficient to maintain people who are out of employment in a proper state of health; and, secondly, that if you increase the rates of benefit to such an extent that the person receiving them is just as well off, or nearly as well off, doing nothing as he would be if he was working, human nature being what it is, you give a great incentive to people not to look for work but to depend upon the State, which after all is merely the taxpayer—to depend upon the taxpayer to provide him with a comfortable and pleasant living. That is one reason why I think that it is a very great mistake to make the unemployment receipts—I will not call them a "dole" but money received by the unemployed from the Insurance Fund—too attractive, because, human nature being what it is, it leads people to say: "Well, if I can get so much a week for doing nothing, I prefer to get that sum rather than a little more by working for so many days or so many hours during the week."
The next reason is that this money will have to be found by the State I have observed in the Press lately that there have been many letters from all sorts of people of every Party, with the exception of the Socialist Party, pointing out that we are now spending money at such a rate that unless we can economise we shall shortly be on the road to bankruptcy; yet, though everybody says that—or everybody except the Socialists—people rarely take the opportunity of putting what they believe to be the right method into execution. Here is an opportunity by which you can show that you have a regard for the future of the country, that you are aware that the financial position of the country is bad, that instead of being, as we were before the War, a rich country we are now a poor country, that however right the system of insurance was the fact remains, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury says, that a small proportion of the working class are not anxious to look for work. I am rather inclined to think it is a larger proportion than the noble Marquess stated, but, whatever the propor-

25
tion is, there is no doubt that a certain number of the working class, and many of the young men, are being brought up to think that instead of depending upon their own exertions for their livelihood, as was the custom thirty or forty years ago, all they have to do is to say: "We do not like the particular work which is offered us; we are not going to trouble about it," and some beneficent person will give them sufficient to live upon without their making any personal exertion themselves.
For those reasons I earnestly hope that your Lordships will set an example and show the country that in this House at any rate we are aware of the situation in which the country is at the present moment. If I am not mistaken Lord Grey has stated that the present custom of all Parties, and I include some of the Conservative members in another House, is to endeavour with the taxpayers' money to buy votes, and not to do anything which is unpopular and which will prevent any one from receiving something for nothing. I hope we shall revert to the old principles of political economy which made this country what it was. If I can get anybody to tell with me I shall certainly divide on this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD ARNOLD: The position taken up by the noble Lord is really quite unsustainable. He says these rates of benefits are too high and that they ought to be left out. Let me put before your Lordships the position. Under the old rates a young woman received 8s. a week. Is that enough to keep a young woman of eighteen? Is that the position taken up by the noble Lord and by the Conservative Party?
LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM: My position is that people should work for themselves and not look to the taxpayer to provide thorn with an income and a living for nothing.
LORD ARNOLD: People are perfectly willing to work if they can get work. The noble Lord talks as if it was a simple alternative of working or receiving benefit. If there is suitable work they must work and if they do not they
26
will not get benefit. I say that 8s. a week is far too low. It is now proposed that a young woman should receive the munificent sum of 12 s. and the noble Lord complains as if some outrage were being committed. Take the other figures, the dependant's allowance, which means in nearly every case the unemployed man's wife. Take the case of an unemployed man with a wife and three children. Hitherto he has been getting 30 s. a week. Now the dependants' allowance is to be increased by 2s.—that is an increase of 2s. for the unemployed man's wife in nearly every case—so that a family will receive 32 s. The right rev. Prelate, who made a very telling speech on Second Reading, pointed out that it has been proved statistically that 35 s. a week is the sum required for food, fuel, clothing, insurance and household expenses, apart from rent or any amenities, for a family of that size in most of our great towns and certainly in London. How can it be said that too much is being paid? As a matter of fact I believe that economically if we could afford it some of these benefits should be higher because it is not in the interest of the State that children should not have proper food and proper upbringing. We want to make them in time economic units who will be a help to the State when they are able to work. We cannot do that if they are brought up under conditions which must necessarily mean malnutrition. I say that on economic grounds this proposal of the Government can very well be defended.
As regards increased benefits to young people, in the vast majority of cases, as is well known, the children of the working classes leave school at fourteen and go out to work and by the time they are eighteen they are for all practical purposes adults. In a great many cases they are then receiving full wages or very nearly full wages. Benefits have not been what they ought to have been having regard to the facts. If I went into the figures, although they do not come out quite in the same proportion in respect of the ages fifteen to sixteen, it would be seen that as a matter of fact the Unemployment Insurance Fund—as is proper in an insurance fund in the early stages—is paying out less than the total premiums received in respect of these young people. The noble Lord

27
seems to overlook the fact that nearly all of them have paid for insurance. It is the essence of the scheme that they have paid and that is why they object, and rightly object, to the use of the word "dole." It is a tripartite scheme. Even with the modest increases proposed in the Bill for these young people the benefits they are entitled to will be less than they were getting over two years ago under the late Bill. The total cost as regards young people is £370,000 a year and the increased dependants' allowance will cost £1,750,000 making together a little over £2,000,000. The matter was very fully explained in another place, together with the various alternatives which might have been adopted for the use of this money. In the circumstances I think that good use of it has been made, and that the proposal is in the best interests of the State. We shall certainly resist this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am not sure that the noble Lord who has opposed the Amendment moved— by my noble friend made out a very good case. The noble Lord who sits behind me has taken up a very difficult position because there is nothing easier than to appeal to everybody's sympathy; but, having regard to the facts, I think your Lordships will realise that some one must pay some attention to the finances of the country, although if we followed our own inclinations we should be only too anxious to relieve sufferings and assist in every way we could. The noble Lord who sits behind me has made a speech referring to the necessity of considering economics. A time when the country is in the economic position in which it finds itself now is hardly the time to increase benefits.
I know there is substance in what the noble Lord has said, and he has referred to other speakers in your Lordships' House in reference to these benefits, but one matter which impresses me very profoundly is that the Blanesburgh Commission Report laid down very clearly what the members of that Commission thought the benefits should be. I am inclined to think that if a Commission composed as that Commission was of men of the world and people who had an opportunity of going deeply into these matters did not consider it necessary that these benefits should be increased—
28
in 1927 I think it was—there is no real justification for the Government at this particular time, when the finances of the country are not in the condition in which we should like to see them, to increase benefits. My noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury has succeeded in carrying an Amendment to limit the operation of this measure when it becomes an Act. Therefore as the measure will only be in operation for a limited time I would suggest to my noble friend that he should not press this Amendment, but leave the Bill to be carried into effect for that limited time as proposed by the authors of the measure. I would suggest to him that he should not press the matter to a Division.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I always regard anything which falls from my noble friend who has just spoken with great consideration, but I am afraid that on this occasion I cannot refrain from dividing if I can find any one who will tell with me, because I think it is a vital question. It is a matter of the greatest importance. My noble friend says the operation of this Bill will be limited to one year. But just think of the position. Suppose it is put in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and I see no reason why that should not be done, is anyone going to get up and have the courage to say that while during the last year we have given these increased benefits to certain people we are now going to reduce them? It is difficult, but it is possible, to refuse to grant certain sums; but when you have granted those sums it is still more difficult to take them away. Therefore, I think if we are going to act in this matter we should do it now.
The noble Lord opposite says—I think I am correct—that the two items of increase amount together to about £2,000,000. Two millions of money! That is a very considerable sum. Not so many years ago when I was in the House of Commons with Mr. Gladstone, if anybody had proposed to increase the expenditure of the country by £2,000,000—and I would commend this to Liberal Peers and noble Lords who sit below the gangway—Mr. Gladstone would almost have had a fit. Two million pounds was an enormous sum, but now, when we are financially in about as bad a position as we possibly can be, not only should £2,000,000 not be

29
spent, but every effort should be made to decrease expenditure. The noble Lord opposite said this was not a "dole," that it was something for which people had paid. Does not the noble Lord see that people pay a certain sum per week for certain definite benefits? He is now going to increase those benefits without increasing the insurance. Is the insurance going to be increased?
LORD ARNOLD: If the noble Lord will permit me, he really cannot make a point of that kind and sustain it, because the position is that these benefits were higher three years ago than those proposed in this Bill. They were reduced by the Conservative Government in 1927 and they are now being put up again. I do not say that there is an exact statistical relation between the premium and the benefits. These things vary and, as a matter of fact, several matters have to be taken into consideration. I ought not to interrupt at length, but the noble Lord knows that is a deal
Resolved in the affirmative Clause 2, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
more to be said about the findings of the Blanesburgh Committee on this matter than he has said.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then what I said is correct. The benefits are to be increased while the insurance money is not to be increased. That is what I said. As a matter of fact, to call it an insurance is really a misnomer, because the money that is due under the insurance expired long ago, and the only reason for the Fund being intact is that the Government have paid out of the pockets of the taxpayers money which they have never agreed to pay and which it was not intended that they should pay under the insurance scheme. I certainly hope that I shall be able to get somebody to tell with me in this Division.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Hampton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Hemphill, L.

Bristol, L. Bp.

Invernairn, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Bradford, E.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Luke, L.

Clarendon, E.

Marks, L.[Teller.]

Cranbrook, E.

Alvingham, L.

Passfield, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

St. Levan, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Arnold, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Allendale, V.

Clinton, L.

Devonport, V.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Swaythling, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Thomson, L.

Leverhulme, V.

Gainford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Knutsford, V.

Greenway, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Camden, M.

Ampthill, L.

Jessel, L.

Winchester, M.

Armstrong, L.

Lamington, L.

Auckland, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airlie, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Leigh, L.

Albemarle, E.

Lloyd, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Biddulph, L.

Monkswell, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Conyers, L.

Raglan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

de Mauley, L.

Sherborne, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Burnham, V.

Forster, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Amendments as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit.
4.—(1) If on a claim for benefit it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant, after a situation in any employment which is suitable in his case has been notified to him by an employ-

31
ment exchange or other recognised agency, or by or on behalf of an employer as vacant or about to become vacant, has without good cause refused or failed to apply for such situation, or refused to accept such situation when offered to him, or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that a claimant has without good cause refused or failed to carry out any written directions given to him by an officer of an employment exchange with a view to assisting him to find suitable employment (being directions which were reasonable having regard both to the circumstances of the claimant and to the means of obtaining that employment usually adopted in the district in which the claimant resides) he shall be disqualified for receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may he.
(2) For the purposes of this section employment shall not be deemed to he suitable employment in relation to any claimant if it is either—

(a) employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute; or

(b) employment in his usual occupation in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those which he might reasonably have expected to obtain, having regard to those which he habitually obtained in his usual occupation in that district or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed; or

(c) employment in his usual occupation in any other district at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those generally observed in that district by agreement between associations of employers and of employees, or failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in that district by good employers.

LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that," where those words first occur. The noble Lord said: When I saw the Marshalled List of Amendments, I confess that I felt somewhat alarmed at finding myself in such a small company, but I can assure your Lordships that the Amendments that I have ventured to put down are not aimed at the destruction of the Bill, but are an attempt to elucidate a complicated measure. I am not one of those who object to what I understand to be the general intention of Clause 4. As a member of a court of referees since the Act started in 1911, and as chairman of a local employment committee for some years past, I have had plenty of opportunities of appreciat-
32
ing the very unsatisfactory way in which the present requirements as to genuinely seeking work operate. The bulk of the claimants to unemployment benefit have always made, and I hope will always continue to make, genuine efforts to get work, at any rate until they have lost heart after repeated failures and then have perhaps, in desperation, adopted the farcical procedure of producing a list of firms that they have visited, taking care to have several names down for each day, no matter if it be common knowledge that with a great many of those firms there was not a ghost of a chance of obtaining employment. Habitual claimants soon get to realise that there is a wide difference between efforts calculated to establish a claim to benefit and efforts likely to get work. Clause 4 to my mind outlines considerable improvement. Instead of requiring a claimant, who may perhaps be at his wit's end to get work, to compile a long list of useless calls, he will only have to comply with definite directions of the employment exchange, and if it be reasonably administered I do not regard this clause in itself as being likely to reduce real efforts to find work.
The words which my Amendment proposes to omit seem to me to be either objectionable or quite unnecessary. If they are intended to mean that only the evidence of a person vaguely described as "an officer of the Ministry of Labour" can be considered, the words are certainly objectionable. Who is an officer of the Ministry of Labour, as distinct from "an officer of an employment exchange," which appears lower down in the same clause, or a person called "an insurance officer" in Clause 8, who is to examine all claims? Is he a different individual? Why limit the evidence in this way to that of this one vague person? Proved to the satisfaction of this individual is not enough. It has to be proved by him. I am inclined to think that these words have got into the clause by accident, or perhaps because someone at one of the conferences which evolved the revised form thought those words emphasised that the onus of proof had been taken off the claimant. Whatever be their origin, I submit that the clause would be much better with the words omitted, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD ARNOLD: I am afraid that the acceptance of this Amendment would have consequences of a far-reaching character. I am very glad to hear from the noble Lord that in the main, as I understood him, he agrees with the new procedure under Clause 4, but I am afraid that the deletion of these words would as a matter of fact remove the onus of proof from the Ministry and place it on the claimant. If that is done it would be entirely contrary to the policy of the Government, whose intention it is that the onus of proof shall be on the authorities administering the Acts, who must be required to show that the individual claimant has without good cause refused or failed to apply for a situation available for him, or to accept one when offered to him.
Apart from the question of merit, on which the Government cannot concede what the noble Lord desires, there is considerable doubt whether even if the Amendment were made it would have the effect which the noble Lord at any rate indicates. The umpire has held in a number of cases that the onus of showing that a particular disqualification applies to the claim of a given individual rests upon the administration. A distinction is drawn between the fulfilment of the conditions and the application of disqualifications. The claimant must show that he fulfils the conditions; that particular onus rests upon him. But if it is suggested that a claimant is disqualified for benefit because of something which he has done—for instance, left his employment voluntarily or committed misconduct which has justified his employer in dismissing him—the onus of proof rests with the administration. Again, the onus of showing that a claimant has incurred the disqualification imposed by Clause 4 will rest on the authorities. The words which it is proposed to delete make it clear beyond question where the onus rests, and we hold that it is very undesirable that they should be removed and thus possibly give rise to doubt.
The noble Lord criticised the actual phraseology, and asked what is meant by "an officer of the Ministry of Labour."
34
I do not think there is any practical difficulty there, because I believe that those are the very words which have been used in Unemployment Insurance Acts since 1911, and they have not led to any difficulty. What is meant, as I take it, is the person appointed for this purpose by the Ministry. At any rate there has been no trouble about those words so far, and there seems no reason to change them. In all these circumstances I certainly could not accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), before "rate," to insert "a." and to omit all words after "wage." The noble Viscount said: I have put down the two Amendments which appear in my name owing to conversations which I have had with a high legal authority. I ask leaveoto deal first with the second Amendment because if it be passed by your Lordships the first Amendment becomes merely a drafting one. The point is who is to decide about the conditions. There is no means for doing so in the Bill, and I was told by the legal authority in question that the clause would be unworkable because the conditions might have changed for various reasons. The words which by my second Amendment I propose to delete are quite unnecessary and I therefore beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, after ("a") insert ("lower").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
Loan ARNOLD: If we were to accept this Amendment the position really would be this, in effect: it would mean that employment would be unsuitable for the claimant if it were at a lower rate of wage than that at which he had formerly been employed. That is a thing with which one might have a good deal of sympathy, but it is open to objection because the general rate of wages may vary up and down from time to time, and it is important to retain the present words, which fix the rate of wage for which the claimant is entitled to hold out as being that which he might reasonably be expected to obtain, having regard to what he habitually obtained in his usual occupation in that district.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Who is to decide?
LORD ARNOLD: The question is one of fact—whether the wage is lower or not. I think the point is sufficiently covered by the present phrase. Then again, take the other point. The noble Viscount's Amendment would omit all references to the conditions of employment. That is wrong, because it is essential that the suitability of employment should be considered, not only from the point of view of wages, but also from the point of view of other conditions of employment, such as hours of work, meal times, and so forth. I am afraid I cannot accept either of the Amendments.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That covers the next Amendment in the name of Lord Bertie.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 4. The noble Lord said: This clause, I think, is even worse than Clause 2. What does it do? I cannot summarise it better than by using the words of the learned Attorney-General, who was reported in the Press as having said in another place that the result of this clause would be that a man could sit in his house, smoking his pipe, and receiving money from the taxpayer which enabled him to live, while he himself need do nothing in order to obtain work. In other words he might sit in his house until somebody came round and said: "Will you please accept work on the same conditions as the last work you had, and at the same wage?" And, unless he can be offered that, he can sit still, and smoke his pipe, and enjoy himself, and do nothing. Remembering what human nature is, is it likely that a certain portion of the population in these circumstances will do anything to endeavour to find work?
The first part of the clause is bad, because it puts a premium upon idleness. If I were to go to a man who, I knew, had taken no trouble whatever to find work-, and I were to say to him: "Now you are sitting here taking no trouble to find work; do you think that is what you ought to do?" he would say to me: "But there is an Act of Parliament, which says I may sit here until somebody comes and offers me work which I like." When you come to the second part of the clause, if a man is offered work in another district and at a lower wage than the trade union rate he is
36
still entitled to the "dole." Another attempt on the part of the trade unions to keep up wages and make conditions difficult! At the present moment when we are competing with foreign countries the populations of which work harder, for longer hours, and at lower wages than we do, we put in a clause of this sort, which will do everything to discourage men from obtaining work and to make the conditions under which we live more difficult. I think the clause is so clear that it is unnecessary for me to discuss it at any greater length, but I hope your Lordships will support me in rejecting this clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 4.—(Lord Banbury of, Southam.)
LORD ARNOLD: I need scarcely say that I must oppose this Amendment. I am glad it gives me an opportunity to clear up something which has been stated again and again in various quarters. It is really a misunderstanding, I think, as to the words which were used by the Attorney-General and the precise way in which he used them. The noble Lord said that this clause carried out the state of things indicated in a rhetorical question put by the Attorney-General. As a matter of fact, it does nothing of the sort. How could the Attorney-General be referring to the clause? The Attorney-General's rhetorical question was asked in a debate on December 5. He said:—
"There are a large number of unemployed, and this is the problem as I see it. Are we to legislate on the lines that these people should think that they need do nothing themselves, that they should wait at home, sit down, smoke their pipes, and wait until an offer comes to them?"
Yes, but the clause does not do that. That was on December 5, before the new clause had been drafted at all. The Attorney-General was not speaking about the new clause. He was asking a rhetorical question in the course of the debate.
As a matter of fact, there are several conditions in this new clause which entirely destroy the kind of impression which the noble Lord opposite has been seeking to create. First of all, it is a condition for the receipt of benefit that a person must prove that he is continuously employed. That is under the 1920 Act. Then, under Section 35 (1) (b) of the 1920 Act there is power to require

37
the attendance of insured contributors at such offices and places and at such times as may be required for the purpose of proving the fulfilment of conditions and the absence of disqualification for benefits. As a matter of fact, unemployed persons will have to go frequently to the unemployment exchanges. I believe that in quite a number of cases they have to go every day. That has led in certain places to congestion, and it has been cut down to two or three times a week. They have to go and see if there is any work, and the clause itself, I think, shows quite clearly that an unemployed person has to do what he is told by the officials with regard to obtaining work if there is work to be had. He may be notified of a specific vacancy, or of certain vacancies which he may go after. In the second place, there is the provision about finding suitable employment with the assistance of the officers of an employment exchange. Written instructions would be given indicating what should be done in that regard. Therefore, so far from the unemployed person sitting down at home and simply smoking his pipe, he has to be up and doing if there is any probability of getting work at all.
The evil of the whole system has been that thousands and thousands of men have been parading round again and again, purporting to be finding work, and trying to find work, but knowing all the time that there is no work available. It is clear that in the last two or three years the administration of this not-genuinely-seeking-work procedure has been very much tightened up, and has been administered very much more strictly. Harsh terms have been used about it. It has inflicted very great hardships on decent people who are quite willing to get work if there is work. I argued this point at great length on the Second Reading, and I do not propose to weary your Lordships again with the general case. But the underlying assumption of so much of the criticism of a clause like this is that there are a great number of vacancies available and a great number of men available, and they will not go to the jobs; they prefer to have the unemployment pay. That is absolutely untrue. Your Lordships will surely agree that there are very few vacancies in the country anywhere, and as soon as there
38
is a vacancy in the vast majority of cases it is filled, and filled instantly.
This clause will not stop shirking, which seems to be the objection of the noble Lord and those who think with him. As a matter of fact in my view statements about shirking are enormously exaggerated. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said not long ago, probably 99 per cent. of the workers desire to get work if it can be got. This clause would not stop shirking. All it would mean in a certain number of cases is this. When there was a vacancy it might conceivably mean that the keener man got it and the other man did not. If the other man was out to shirk, he could shirk anyhow, because in certain cases he could go on the rates and in other cases he could often be kept by relatives and friends. When it is analysed, it is perfectly clear that as a matter of tact the idea that you are going to stop by legislation such little shirking as there may be is something that cannot be carried out. The simple truth is that the attempt to catch one or two shirkers has led to great injustice and great hardship to hundreds and hundreds of decent men who are only too willing to work. They have not been given the benefit to which they were really entitled. This procedure has now been developed. Every other test has been tried. The matter has been discussed ad nauseam. It is all very well to put words into an Act of Parliament, but to apply them in practice is a different thing. These subjective tests have proved to be unworkable in practice, and have been proved to cause great unfairness and great hardship.
The whole matter has been seriously discussed and carefully gone into and the Government have now set up an objective test which, I think myself, is the best thing to do. All reasonable necessities are fully safeguarded. In moving the omission of this clause and going back, as apparently the noble Lord wishes to do, to the old not-genuinely-seeking-work procedure, he is going back further than the Party to which he belongs wishes to go. Certainly, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, the late Minister of Labour, has indicated that in his opinion the procedure has not been satisfactory. I also ventured on the occasion of the first Motion moved by the noble Marquess to show

39
the various changes of front which the Conservative Party has made upon this matter. A great deal more could be said, but I will not say any more now. The Government must really stand firm for Clause 4.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I am rather surprised at the speech of the noble Lord. I had hoped that, on a matter of this kind which reverses the whole practice of the Unemployment Insurance Acts ever since they started, he would have favoured your Lordships with something beyond his rhetorical flourishes and general statements that nothing whatever was to be done except what we all most desire—that the genuine unemployed should receive what Parliament intended them to get. The noble Lord did not deal with one of the damaging figures put forward in the course of the discussions in another place. Let me ask him whether the estimate which at the beginning of November stood at £3,250,000 in another place, had not advanced by the time the Bill reached your Lordships' House to over £7,000,000? The Government had not the slightest idea of what they were doing. Take the figure which I believe they admit of 160,000 men who did not receive unemployment benefit before because they were not held to be genuinely seeking work, and who are going to be admitted under the Government actuary's latest view, which I will undertake to say will not come within many hundreds of thousands of pounds of being the correct figure as to cost.
What are the facts with regard to the appeals which you have now abolished? Remember that it is for the first time that we are going to say to men in this country: "You need not genuinely prove that you are seeking work; somebody else has to prove that you are not." If the Government are in earnest, if they really believe in their own case, why do they not fall back upon any one of the formulas used by the trade unions? Why do they not depend on the trade union view that a man must be genuinely seeking work according to the rules which the best of the trade unions have enforced? I ask the noble Lord to tell me of any trade union which will disburse its funds under the conditions of this clause. This case has been put to the Government. My noble friend Lord
40
Askwith asked for the rules of the trade unions on this point more than a month ago. The Government have done very well not to inform themselves in regard to them because they would have to confess that they are asking the country to do what the trade unions have all along refused to do—namely, to allow the habitual loafer to get the same benefits as the honest man.
They have abolished all the safeguards. How did those safeguards act? Last year 1,300,000 cases were referred to the court of referees. The court of referees rejected only 196,000 of them, a number which bears a very curious and close resemblance to the 160,000 who are to be added by the Bill. Of those 196,000, 188,000, who had the opportunity of appealing, did not appeal because their cases were not good enough. Is not that a convincing proof that the court of referees dealt out justice which seemed to be impartial to those who were chiefly concerned? Then, out of 865,000 cases referred to the insurance officer, he rejected 600,000, 400,000 of whom never appealed. That proves what we all know—that although, as the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition says, the majority of men are honest and industrious and wish to stand by their bargains, there is a large residuum, and we object to that considerable residuum being the recipients of benefit under the Bill.
I ask your Lordships to consider what a fraud this is on the honest man. Supposing this were an insurance company and not an Insurance Fund, and you put into it every man employed in certain trades and forced every employer to contribute, the Fund would depend upon its being properly able to meet its engagements. But time after time inroads have been made upon this Fund. The Fund is bankrupt. It is being supported solely by the contributions of the Exchequer. While it is in this bankrupt condition the Government, entirely forgetful of the honest insurer who has a right to know that the Fund is being preserved intact, is putting upon it a burden so great that every business man in the House will tell you that it frightens the employers and is almost certain to increase unemployment. I object to this particular clause not because I want to see a single man left out who genuinely has the right to

41
come under it, but because I believe that it is a purely political attempt to adapt the Insurance Fund to Poor Law relief, and I believe that this attempt at adaptation is neither politic nor statesmanlike.
Then there have been continual relaxations in regard to this clause. There has been the introduction of different parties of dependants. There has been a considerable reduction of the number of payments it is necessary to make in order to secure inclusion. But the one thing which through all the vicissitudes of the last ten years has been kept intact and inviolate, and as in the trade union rules, was the fact of genuinely seeking work. I do not think that this clause as it stands will be allowed to operate for twelve months or two years without causing so very serious a revulsion of feeling as will make the Government of to-day wish they had stood by the Bill as it originally came into the House. Nothing will reconcile me to this clause except the fact that we have just carried an Amendment to limit the Bill to one year. If, however, my noble friend goes to a Division I feel so strongly that we are taking a retrograde step and one which we shall deeply regret that I personally could not refuse to vote for him, but, under the limitations which my noble friend has imposed on the Bill, and which I earnestly hope this House will stand to in all circumstances and conditions—namely, that the Bill shall be reconsidered within a year—I am convinced that this amongst other provisions will undoubtedly have to be rectified.
LORD ASKWITH: The noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, said a great deal about procedure and that the kind of procedure that is laid down by this Bill was the best the Government could invent. As my noble friend Lord Midleton remarked, it is many weeks ago that I asked the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House whether he would furnish the rules of trade unions as to the conditions that they make for their members about seeking work, and after some putting off he gave me a reply that this information would be prepared and laid as a White Paper before the House. We have not that before us in order, by means of comparison, to enable us to come to any conclusion as to whether the procedure that has been put down—invented, I presume, by the Government—
42
in this Bill is the best procedure to follow. I do not know whether it is taken from the rules of any trade union or whether it is pure speculation upon the part of some official in the Ministry. The rules for which I asked would have given us some chance of being able to ascertain whether any trade union allows its members who are seeking benefit to sit at home and smoke their pipes, as my noble friend Lord Banbury remarked, or whether they impose conditions as onerous as those of the genuinely-seeking-work provision.
I may remark in passing that Lord Banbury did not propose to put back the words "genuinely seeking work," but, if any clause was to be put in, he wanted some modification of the system suggested here rather than leaving it upon an unfortunate official of the Ministry of Labour, sitting behind a counter, who has no opportunity whatever of going out and of finding whether a man is seeking work or not, and who nevertheless would have to come to a conclusion and perhaps be rapped over the knuckles for making a complaint about a man who said he had been seeking work and that the official was turning him down. That would be a hard position in which to put any civil servant, and especially the officials of the Ministry of Labour in these labour offices where crowds of people come and where the circumstances are such that it is difficult indeed for him to come to any judgment upon the point. In those circumstances, not having the information to enable me to see whether this clause is a good one and within the rules of trade unions generally laid down, such as those of the Engineering Union, and within the rules which the Minister of Labour said in another place they had in the Ministry of Labour at the time when she was speaking, I shall vote, if my noble friend goes to a Division, in favour of the deletion of the clause.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to say one word in answer to what the noble Lord has said. I do not intend to deal with the general question, my noble friend Lord Arnold having done that. The noble Lord will recollect that I informed him that in order that the cases might be obtained in reference to which he sought information a request would have to be made to the Registrar-General's office, and that it would take

43
some time to obtain it. I communicated with him that I had the information that only in about 100 cases was more than £1,000 paid out in the course of a year under the rules of unemployment, and that we would analyse those 100 cases in detail. I promised that that would be done as soon as the information could be obtained. I regret very much it has not been obtained. I had hoped that it would have been by this time. I assure the noble Lord we have made every effort to obtain the information. The Registrar-General's is not of course a Government Department. I regret personally that the information has not yet been supplied to the noble Lord, but I know there has been no negligence. It has been the difficulty of the subject. I do not know whether that affects much his attitude one way or the other, but it is the fact that everything has been done to obtain the information and I had hoped it would have been available before this day.
LORD GAINFORD: As to the objection generally taken to the onus being placed upon the workman, whilst many desire that the workman should make some effort to try to secure employment for himself, we are not satisfied altogether with the present system. What I rise to ask is what really is the alternative which the Government are proposing in the present Bill? They have indicated that officers are to be appointed by the Ministry of Labour whose duty is to be to ascertain whether there is suitable employment, and, apparently, they are then to communicate with the individual who is out of work. I desire to know what really the Government have in mind. Are they proposing that at every labour exchange where there is a large number of unemployed on the list, a special officer should be appointed who shall get into touch with the employers in the district in a way that the present staff in exchanges do not get into touch with them, with a view of trying to place individuals in work, or is the duty going to be placed upon the existing staff who at present are overworked on account of the very large number of men unemployed throughout the country? We want to have a little more information as to what the Government have in view in connection with the procedure they have in mind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think that the Government showed
44
any great forwardness in giving an explanation of the meaning of this very remarkable clause. I must call the attention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to a speech to which reference has been made very often in these debates—namely, the speech of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. The Government had not very many supporters upon the Second Reading, and they can hardly afford to ignore the observations of one of the few that they had. The right rev. Prelate made an extremely able speech, but he was not satisfied with Clause 4. May I remind the noble and learned Lord opposite what the right rev. Prelate said. I was waiting because I rather hoped the right rev. Prelate himself would have reminded the Government of what he said on the Second Reading. He said:—
"Nevertheless I am not at all sure about the meaning of the clause. Does it mean that a man out of work will be entitled to wait until work is sent to him? I am perfectly certain that in practice the great majority of men will be seeking for work, but will a small minority he entitled, under this clause, to wait until work comes to them, or is the burden and responsibility of finding work thrown on the exchanges? If so"—
I want the members of the Government to note these words—
"the exchanges, as at present manned, are quite incapable of dealing with this duty."
Well now, why have not the Government explained Clause 4? The question has been put to them and they have made no answer. It is quite true that the noble Lord said at the end of the debate that when we got to the Committee stage he would answer everybody.
LORD ARNOLD: Hear, hear !
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But he has not done so.
LORD ARNOLD: The point has not been raised.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: These points were put before the Government.
LORD ARNOLD: May I say—it is quite customary in Committee to make more than one speech—that I have dealt with what Lord Banbury said. I am perfectly willing to deal with all these points at the proper time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then perhaps I may press the noble Lord a

45
little further? The right rev. Prelate went on to ask, and I will repeat his question—
"And what is meant by these words?— '… a claimant has without good cause refused or failed to carry out any written directions given to him by an officer of an employment exchange with a view to assisting him to find suitable employment.'"
We have all been very much mystified by the meaning of these words "written directions," which are to be given or may possibly be given by an officer of an employment exchange. What kind of directions are the Government contemplating? No explanation on that point was given, I think, in the House of Commons. It is left perfectly vague as to what these written directions are going to be. Are they going to be written directions which will have the effect of repeating the genuinely-seeking-work provisions of the present state of affairs or what kind of directions are they to be? What is contemplated? The right rev. Prelate will know that I am only repeating what he himself has said. We want to know what the Government have in mind.
What are these directions? I have no doubt that this hardworking Government have occupied the whole of the Christmas Recess in drafting these directions and I have no doubt they are ready to produce them. We want to know the kind of things they have in mind. Are they going to be vital directions, important directions, or are they going to be merely trivial matters of form? That is what we want to know. We want to know how the Government intend this eleventh-hour-drafted clause actually to work. We are profoundly dissatisfied with this clause and I agree, I will not say with every word, but with a great deal of what my noble friend behind me has said with reference to this clause. We think it is very difficult to define. It was largely for that reason that I ventured to suggest, and to suggest successfully, to your Lordships that the whole of this matter should be reconsidered within twelve months. It really is impossible upon the information which the Government have given us to accept this as a permanent arrangement. My hesitation about the Amendment—and I admit I have hesitation—is that my noble friend Lord Banbury has not made an alternative proposal. He pro-
46
poses to strike out the clause but he has not made an alternative proposal.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am not a member of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Nor am I. That is just the difficulty. I do not suggest that I want to be a member of a Government again immediately, but that is the difficulty. It is very difficult for independent members, members of the Opposition, without proper assistance from the official advisers of the Government adequately to draft an alternative to this clause and we have not done so. But it does remain an unsatisfactory thing to strike out a clause without producing something to put in its place. Therefore I cannot pretend that I am very enthusiastic about the proposal which the noble Lord behind me has made. If he goes to a Division I shall vote with him because personally I am wholly dissatisfied with the clause in the Bill, but I shall look upon that as a gesture. I cannot pretend that I think that striking out a clause like this and leaving a blank is likely to be the final form in which the Bill will pass.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It will give them a chance of putting in a good one.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Give the Government a chance of putting in a good one! Well, if they are capable of doing it they may try. If my noble friend is content with that gesture, then if he goes to a Division I shall vote with him because I could not be found in the Lobby in support of a clause which is open to so many objections as have been made to this clause even by the friends of the Government, even by the friends of the Bill, and on which they have not given any explanation whatever.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: If I may intervene for a moment on my noble friend's remark that no counter-proposal has been made, I think that is a most fair criticism. We none of us desire to strike out the clause if a counter-proposal cannot be found. Why should not your Lordships put in the Bill the regulations made by the Labour Government themselves in their Act of 1924 and leave it to the Government to introduce any modification which they

47
may think proper on the Report stage? The words in that Act are very brief. I will read them. They are—
"that he is making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacities and is willing to accept such employment."
The whole thing turns on the word "reasonable." None of us wish a man to go stumping the streets unreasonably. If the Government think the word "reasonable" is capable of further interpretation, then if your Lordships would care to put that clause in I should be very glad to move it and should be only too glad to consider any proposal which the Government may think necessary in order to improve it.
LORD ARNOLD: I am very glad to have the opportunity of dealing with this matter in detail. As far as I understand the procedure in your Lordships' House it would have been rather extraordinary if after the somewhat short speech of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, I had gone into all kinds of questions which he did not touch upon. We have nothing to conceal, and if your Lordships will bear with me I will deal as fully as any noble Lord wishes with the whole of the matters raised by the Amendment. I will deal first with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton. He seemed to indicate that 160,000 fresh persons would be brought into the insurance scheme as a result of this clause. As a matter of statistics I think if he will look at paragraph 7 of the Memorandum on the Financial Effect of Certain Amendments he will see that that is not so. The figure in paragraph 7 cuts it down to about 80,000 or 90,000, which is a very different figure. So much for that point.
Then he spoke, and Lord Askwith also spoke, about the question of trade union rules and of how much more strictly, as they seem to think, those rules would be applied than this clause would he applied. As to the White Paper not being here, I am sorry it is not ready but it is not our fault. I asked most particularly about it and I was told it would be here not later than to-day. I will make further inquiries but, as noble Lords with experience in these matters know, these things are sometimes a day or two later than expected. I do not know that these regulations will support
48
very much the views put forward. As I ventured to say on Second Reading, and I have made very close inquiries, it is not a question of particular words but of how rules are administered in practice. I am informed by those who ought to know that in practice trade union regulations will not be and are not administered more strictly than, and in many cases not as strictly as, this Clause 4 will be administered. It is not a question of trade union regulations but of what they do in practice. That really is the reply on that point.
The noble Earl, Lord Midleton, spoke to some extent about procedure. When the Labour Government came in and there were questions of claims and so forth and courts of referees, they did what they thought was the proper thing. They set up a Committee known as the Morris Committee, to go into these matters and make recommendations, and in the main they have carried out those recommendations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not on this clause.
LORD ARNOLD: In the main they are carrying them out and that will be the procedure in future on disputed claims. Then I come to what was said by Lord Gainford. Perhaps I might deal with this question in the general statement that I shall make about the manner in which Clause 4 will be worked. I understand that to be the point at issue. The noble Marquess quoted certain words which had been used by the right rev. Prelate in the debate on the Second Reading. I have no real difficulty regarding those words. The first question was whether the clause meant that a man out of work would be entitled to wait until work was sent to him. No, it does not. I think I made that quite clear. Men will have to go to the employment exchanges very frequently, sometimes every day, and if there is any possibility of work—
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: May I ask the noble Lord where this is contained in the Bill? Would the noble Lord say what provision there is in the Bill forcing a man to do this?
LORD ARNOLD: This is not the only Unemployment Insurance Bill. If the noble Earl opposite will go back to the

49
Act of 1920, which is the governing Act, I think he will find there, in a clause to which I have referred, the powers that require a man to go to the exchange in this connection. That is the basis for my statement. Everything is not to be found in this Bill, which is the twentieth Unemployment Insurance Bill that has been introduced since 1920. The right rev. Prelate said that he was sure that a majority of the men would be seeking work but, with regard to a small minority, would they be entitled under this clause to wait until work was sent to them? They will not. As I say, they will have to go to the exchanges and, if there is any possibility of their getting work, they will have to get that work. Then the point was raised regarding written directions. I am not trying to evade anything, but I put it to your Lordships as a reasonable position that it is very difficult to give specific instances of the exact wording of written directions. Let me take one case. There are frequently a number of vacancies at the docks. The number is not specified and nobody knows exactly how many vacancies there are. Certain men who are suitable will be told to go and stand about and be at the docks when there are vacancies and try to obtain work. I give that as one instance.
I will now read your Lordships a statement as to the manner in which this clause will be worked, in view of some of the criticisms that have been made of this part of the Bill. The noble Marquess is not very far wrong, if I may be allowed to say so, in suggesting that during the Recess noble Lords in the Government have not been entirely idle about this matter. We have been doing our best to meet all reasonable points, I hope in a reasonable way. For my part I can certainly claim that I have not been idle. Let me read the statement:—
"Specific vacancies will come to the notice of the Department as they do at present, and the registers of unemployed persons at the exchanges will be examined for persons suitable for the vacancies. The exchange will make an appropriate selection of one or more unemployed persons, industrial suitability being the governing consideration in the selection. The persons selected will receive from the exchange introduction cards which they will be expected to present to the employer. No doubt usually they would do so, and the employer would make a selection if he found the men suitable. He, or the men, would return the introduction card suitably noted.
50
If a person selected as suitable by the exchange refuses to apply for the vacancy, or if he did not refuse but in fact failed to apply for it, or again if, when he presented himself to the employer, he was offered the vacancy and refused it, knowledge of this would normally come to the notice of the exchange, and if the exchange, on examining the full circumstances in the light of the employer's report and after an interview with the claimant, consider that the claimant had not good cause for his action, the claim would be prepared and referred to the court of referees, who would decide whether or not the claimant should be disqualified for benefit."
I attach great importance to the next paragraph of my statement, which does something to meet the very proper points raised by Lord Gainford:—
"It is the policy of the Government to develop the work-finding activities of the exchanges to the utmost. With this end in view there has been added to the Bill Clause 5, which requires the Minister to make arrangements, as far as practicable, with employers for the notification of vacancies to the exchanges and for the consultation of associations of employers and employees in that connection. Further, in some cases employers who have offered vacancies to claimants for benefit but have not submitted the vacancies to the employment exchange will, if the claimant unreasonably refuses to accept the vacancy, inform the exchange to that effect, in which case the claimant will be interviewed and his case considered. If it is thought that he has not good cause for the refusal the claim will be brought before the court of referees. Again, in some cases trade unions which have received notification of vacancies from employers will inform the exchange if a member of the union has in their view unreasonably refused to accept a job. In this case also the case would be taken up at the exchange and, if necessary, referred to the court of referees.
Under Clause 4 also reasonable directions may be given in writing to a claimant by an employment exchange with a view to assisting the claimant to find suitable employment. To a considerable extent the employment exchange will become aware of the existence of vacancies, although those vacancies have not been notified by the employer to the exchange. Knowledge of such vacancies may come to the exchange by the fact that persons are going off the register to such employers, by information received from other claimants and, in many cases, by direct local knowledge. In such cases the exchange may make a selection of claimants apparently suitable for the vacancies and give such claimants directions in writing to apply to the employer or employers in question. Employers have it in their own hands—
this is a very important point—
to be of great assistance to the employment exchanges, both in notifying as many vacancies as possible to the exchange

51
and also by informing the exchange whenever vacancies offered by them to unemployed persons (whether such vacancies have been notified to the exchange or not) are, in their view, unreasonably refused by such persons. Whenever such information is received from an employer appropriate action will be taken at the employment exchanges.
As part of the development of the work-finding activities of the exchange, they will, to an increasing extent, make it their duty to become fully acquainted with the industrial history and qualifications of the persons on the registers and the opportunities for employment occurring in the neighbourhood and, to some extent, elsewhere. In the light of such knowledge they will give what they consider appropriate directions to claimants in order to assist them to obtain suitable employment, and will observe closely the results of their efforts upon the individuals affected.
In the course of this work cases will doubtless come to light in which particular claimants have failed to obtain employment in their usual occupation for what is apparently an unreasonably long time, having regard to the state of employment in that occupation. The exchange will have to consider what is the best course to adopt for such claimants, and obviously in some cases they may decide that the only reasonable chance of such persons regaining a footing in industry is for them to seek employment in some other occupation. If employment in another occupation is offered to a person and he declines it, and the exchange considers that his refusal is unreasonable, the claim would be brought before the court of referees. In the last resort the principles which should guide the Department in offering vacancies to persons outside their usual occupation and in giving them directions to seek employment outside their usual occupation will be laid down by the umpire."
LORD ASKWITH: May I ask the noble Lord whether this long document has been published?
LORD ARNOLD: It is a statement that I asked to be prepared for me in anticipation of the debate. I think that was a perfectly proper thing to do. I think your Lordships would wish to know how cases will be determined. That is why I have gone into so much detail. There is no objection whatever to the statement being published, otherwise I should not have read it.
LORD ASKWITH: I have no objection, but it is so long and so difficult to follow that I dare say that it will be best studied in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
LORD ARNOLD: That may be so. My position is really very difficult. First we
52
are accused of not saying anything, and when we say a lot we are told that we say too much. I do not think that my position is one that it is very easy to fill, but I have gone into as much detail as I think necessary at the moment. I will only say further that the question was raised whether this would not place further work upon the exchanges. Of course it will. It is asked whether there will be sufficient officials. I think the right rev. Prelate raised that point. I dare say there will have to be more officials, but I think that this is fully covered by the financial provisions. We are trying to make the exchanges in a greater degree what they were originally intended to be—employment exchanges for finding work for men. That is part of our policy, and that is why we have put Clause 5 into the Bill and are taking other steps. I think I have dealt with the principal points that were raised, but if there are any further questions I will do my best to answer them.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: May I ask the noble Lord how he squares the procedure laid down in the earlier part of his statement with Clause 9? I understood him to say that a person who unreasonably refused written directions would be referred to the court of referees. I think he omitted to point out that the claimant would in the meantime receive benefit.
LORD ABNOLD: I think, if I may say so, that it would be rather better to deal with that when we come to Clause 9, on which the noble Lord has an Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: I only wish to intervene for one moment in this debate. I entirely agree with all the criticisms which have been passed upon the present procedure for testing whether a man is genuinely seeking work. I think that procedure has resulted in great hardships, and caused the widest possible resentment among genuinely hard-working men who for a time found themselves out of work. On the other hand, I cannot but feel that the present clause, even after the full and careful explanation given by the noble Lord, is a thoroughly ambiguous clause, which may mean a return to the old conditions, or may mean next to nothing. Like other noble Lords, however, I find myself in a

53
great difficulty. What will happen if we reject this clause and accept the Amendment which has been moved? Will it mean then that there will be practically no conditions for testing the man who is out of work and desires insurance payment? Shall we not be in a worse position than ever if this clause is entirely thrown out? I wish very much that during the Recess someone really conversant with the matter had drawn up a full and reasoned Amendment, and that we had
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Examination and determination of claims.
8.—(1) All claims for benefit, and all questions arising in connection with such claim, shall be submitted forthwith for examination to one of the insurance officers.
had it before us and not merely a negative. As it is I find myself in an extremely difficult position, in which I do not doubt other noble Lords who think like me are equally involved. I am unable to vote for the direct throwing out of this clause, and on the other hand I am unable to vote for it as it now stands.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 94.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Hemphill, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Amulree, L.

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Arnold, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Clwyd, L.

Thomson, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Bridgeman, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Wellington, D.

Burnham, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Chaplin, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Camden, M.

Churchill, V.

Faringdon, L.

Exeter, M.

Falmouth, V.

Forster, L.

Linlithgow, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Salisbury, M.

Hood, V.

Green way, L.

Winchester, M.

Knutsford, V.

Hampton, L.

Leverhulme, V.

Hanworth, L.

Airlie, E.

Novar, V.

Harris, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ullswater, V.

Heneage, L.

Bradford, E.

Hindlip, L.

Clarendon, E.

Addington, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Alvingham, L.

Jessel, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lamington, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Lawrence, L.

Grey, E.

Armstrong, L.

Leigh, L.

Howe, E.

Askwith, L.

Lovat, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Auckland, L.

Monkswell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Lucan, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Raglan, L. [Teller.]

Macclesfield, E.

Biddulph, L.

Redesdale, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Remnant, L.

Midleton, E.

Riddell, L.

Morton, E.

Clinton, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Onslow, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

St. Levan, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cranworth, L.

Saltoun, L.

Sandwich, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Sherborne, L.

Stanhope, E.

Danesfort, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Daryngton, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Ypres, E.

de Mauley, L.

Templemore, L.

Dulverton, L.

Tennyson, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

(3) If, in the case of any claim, the insurance officer is not satisfied that the claim ought to be allowed, he shall, so far as practicable, within fourteen days after the date on which the claim was submitted to him for examination, refer the matter to the court of referees for their decision:
Provided that the insurance officer may, instead of referring the matter to the court of referees, himself disallow any claim for benefit if he is of opinion that the person claiming benefit is disqualified for receiving

55
benefit by reason of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section eight of the principal Act.
(5) Subject as hereinafter provided, an appeal shall lie to the umpire from any decision of the court of referees as follows:—
(b) at the instance of an association of employed persons of which the claimant is a member, in any case;
Provided that in any case in which a decision of a court of referees disallowing a claim is not unanimous, notice in writing of the fact shall be given by the court to the claimant within three days of the decision and an appeal under this subsection must be brought within six months of the date of the decision of the court of referees or such longer period as the umpire may in any case for special reasons allow.
(9) Where a claim for benefit is allowed by a court of referees, benefit shall be payable in accordance with the decision of the court notwithstanding that an appeal to the umpire is pending, unless the appeal has been brought on the ground that the claimant ought to be disqualified under the provisions of subsection (1) of Section eight of the principal Act and within twenty-one days of the date on which the decision of the court of referees was given, and any benefit paid in pursuance of the provisions of this subsection or of the next following section of this Act or under an interim determination of the insurance officer shall be treated, notwithstanding that the final determination of the question is adverse to the claim, as having been duly paid and shall not be recoverable from the insured contributor under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts or otherwise.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "insurance" and after "officers" to insert "appointed to examine claims in this Act and in the principal Act referred to as insurance officers." The noble Lord said: This Amendment really deals with much the same point that I raised upon an earlier clause, and perhaps the noble Lord will give me an assurance that before the Report stage he will try to make clearer who are these various officials of the Ministry mentioned in the different clauses. We have this officer of the Ministry in Clause 4, the officer of the employment exchange in the same clause, and then one of the insurance officers in this clause, and the definition of the insurance officer does not exist now that
56
Clause 11 of the principal Act has been repealed.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("insurance") and after ("officers") insert the said words.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD ARNOLD: The difficulty about this is that it is contrary to the scheme of adjudication proposed by the Bill, under which an insurance officer will have no power to disallow a claim under Clause 4. The Bill proposes that any claim which an insurance officer is not prepared to allow under Clause 4 must be referred to the court of referees. As regards the actual terminology, I will undertake to do this for the noble Lord, though I really have no doubt about it, because these particular words have been in Acts for a great many years, and no real difficulty has arisen about them, and if that is so, if they have worked without embarrassment or ambiguity, I suggest that it is not really necessary to make any change now. But between now and the Report stage I will certainly look into the point, though I am pretty sure that the reply I shall get is that these various definitions have not led to any complication.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: My point is that the definition of the insurance officer under which you have been acting is repealed by the Third Schedule of this Bill.
LORD ARNOLD: Quite so, but I do not think that really alters what I have been saying. But I will look into the point to satisfy the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved to add to subsection (3) "or of Section four of this Act." The noble Lord said: Under the Bill as it stands, except in the case of new claimants, a man's benefit cannot be suspended, however flagrant his breach may be of the very limited requirements of Clause 4 as to genuinely seeking work. My Amendment would place the continuation case on exactly the same footing as a new claimant, that is, where the insurance officer finds that the claimant has not carried out the reasonable written directions of the employment exchange as to seeking work the insurance officer might refuse benefit. Clause 4 has really so narrowed the grounds of disqualifica-

57
tion for genuinely seeking work that there can be no reasonable objection to disqualification by the insurance officer. A claimant can appeal to the court of referees under the following subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, after ("Act") insert ("or Section four of this Act").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD ARNOLD: I have to some extent dealt with this under the last Amendment, but it really is contrary to the scheme of adjudication proposed by the Bill. The Bill proposes that any of the claims that an insurance officer is not prepared to allow under Clause 4 must be referred to the court of referees. That proposal gives effect to the recommendation of the Morris Committee, and in the circumstances I think we must adhere to the Bill as it stands.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (5), to leave out "an" and to insert "a recognised." The noble Lord said: I think this is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, leave out ("an") and insert ("a recognised").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD ARNOLD: It is not, I think, very clear what the effect of the Amendment would be, as it does not indicate by whom or by what the association would have to be recognised. The language of the Bill is practically identical with that of the existing Act in this matter, and no particular difficulty has arisen. If the noble Lord wants to limit the right of appeal to registered associations that would be much too narrow, as large numbers of trade unions are not registered. I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: The only object is to get over the difficulty that any small body of persons can apparently, under the Bill, call itself an association of employed persons. They are then entitled to appeal to the umpire, and until the umpire has decided their case they draw benefit, however bad their claim.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord opposite has not really ex-
58
plained to your Lordships why the Government refuses this reasonable Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: The point is that the Amendment in our judgment is unnecessary. The language of the Bill is practically identical with that of the existing Act on this point, and no particular difficulty has arisen, but if the noble Marquess desires it I am quite willing to look into the matter between now and Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, in the proviso to subsection (5), to substitute "one month" for "six months." The noble Lord said: Surely one month is a sufficient period to allow for appeals, especially as the umpire has power to extend the time in certain cases. I see no reason why six months should be allowed for an appeal to be brought. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, leave out ("six") and insert ("one").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD ARNOLD: I am informed that this Amendment would fix the time within which appeals should be brought at one month. At present there is no time limit for such appeals and the Bill proposes to fix six months. The time limit of one month would be altogether too short for the purpose of enabling an appeal to be brought to the highest tribunal dealing with unemployment benefit cases. There is often congestion in these matters, and I am informed that the insertion of this Amendment would lead to very great difficulties. I think that we must adhere to the Bill as it stands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (9), to leave out "or under an interim determination of the insurance officer." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a somewhat technical point, but I do not think there will be any very great controversy about it. It is largely a drafting Amendment. Under the provisions of the Acts as they stand at present, when a claimant has received benefit for three months out of four his case is automatically reviewed by a court of referees, even although the insurance officer is satisfied that the claimant should continue to receive benefit. No question

59
of the validity of the claim is raised by the insurance officer. The court of referees look at it and, if they think fit, see the claimant, in order to satisfy themselves that it is right that the payment of benefit should continue. It does happen that, owing to pressure of work or other causes, there is delay in getting cases before the court of referees for review. In such cases the insurance officer has power under the existing Acts to give an interim determination on the claim to continue the payment of benefit pending the review by the court of referees. By this means any prejudice to the claimant is avoided, and he continues in receipt of benefit.
The procedure of reviewing claims where benefit has been received for three months out of four is repealed by the Third Schedule of the present Bill under the general repeal of Section 11 of the Act of 1920. The review of claims by courts of referees was substantially part of the condition requiring claimants to be genuinely seeking work. As that provision disappears—I do not quite know where the Bill stands now and I can only deal with it as if it were a workable Bill; in our opinion it was a workable Bill—and is replaced by Clause 4 of the present Bill, the process of review which was consequent on the genuinely-seekingwork condition disappears also. Therefore this Amendment is proposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 24 and 25, leave out ("or under an interim determination of the insurance officer").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord, Lord Cozens-Hardy, has an Amendment on the Paper affecting the word "an interim." I do not know whether he proposes to move it.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: No.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Provision as to payment of benefit.
9.—(1) If in any case where a claim for benefit is made by a person in respect of a benefit period immediately following a benefit period in respect of any day of which he was entitled to or received benefit, a question is raised whether the claimant has not ceased to be entitled to receive benefit either because by reason of the provisions of Section four of this Act he is disqualified
60
for the receipt of benefit or because he has failed to satisfy the condition imposed by paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, the claimant shall, unless and until it is decided by the court of referees that the claim should not be allowed and if he is otherwise entitled to benefit, be treated as being entitled to receive benefit, and benefit shall be payable accordingly.
(2) In this section the expression "benefit period" means the period of six working days in a week in respect of which benefit is payable.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved to leave out Clause 9. The noble Lord said: I attach considerable importance to this Amendment. Let me take an imaginary case. A man goes to the exchange regarding work. The exchange says: "You are exactly the man that John Smith has asked for." If the man deliberately refuses to go to that job the consequences to him depend entirely on whether be happens to be a new claimant or a continuation claimant. If he is a man who generally keeps in employment by his own efforts and is now making his first call on the employment exchange, benefit can be refused, and his case will go to the court of referees. If, on the other hand, he is a man whose first thought when out of work is to establish a claim for benefit, and to register, and who, consequently, is already on benefit, he gets better treatment than the new claimant. Benefit to that man must continue to be paid under this clause and paid to him irrecoverably until the court of referees has dealt with his case. I should have no great objection to the clause in the Bill as it stands had it been confined to the second class of case mentioned in it—namely, where the disqualification is on the ground that the man is not normally engaged in insurable employment. That is a point which is often arguable and arises far less frequently than the cases under Clause 4. I cannot conceive of any justification for giving a person who is a continuation claimant the right to receive benefit pending the decision of the court of referees, whereas the new claimant has no such right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 9.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD ARNOLD: This clause really carries out the views of the Morris Committee. The noble Lord who moved the

61
Amendment stated the position to some extent. This question of the suspension of benefit in cases where a doubt arises as to the validity of the claim while the claimant is actually drawing benefit was dealt with by the Morris Committee in paragraph 72 of their Report. I will not read the paragraph because it is too long. They also referred to the matter in paragraph 83, in which they say:—
"We recommend that when once a claim has been admitted there should be no suspension of benefit until a decision by a court of referees and that where benefit is stopped by a court of referees it shall be from the date of the decision."
There are, as the noble Lord said, two classes of case; but both questions are matters which will have to be referred to the court of referees for decision, if a question is raised by the employment exchange whether the claimant satisfies the conditions. Some days may necessarily elapse before the necessary steps can be taken to bring the question before the court and obtain a decision.
The view of the Morris Committee, which has been accepted by the Government, was that the old practice of stopping or suspending the benefit of a claimant who had been in receipt of it inflicted undue hardship in many cases. It has to be remembered that the clause deals with cases where, after scrutiny of the claims, benefit has been allowed. The individuals concerned are actually attending at the exchanges and are paid their benefit once a week because it has been held that their claims were good. The view is taken that it would be wrong in a case where that decision to allow benefit has been reached, to stop the payment of that benefit because later a question of doubt has arisen on both matters—not merely on the one which I think the noble Lord said he would not object to, but the view is taken on both matters which are dealt with by the clause. Normally no considerable time will elapse between the raising of the question and the obtaining of a decision by the court of referees; but it is the view of the Government, and this was accepted by the House of Commons, that it would be a hardship to deprive the claimant of benefit for the period which must necessarily elapse between the raising of the doubt and the taking of the decision. The point is this, that it has to be remembered that in a
62
number of cases where questions arise the decision will be that benefit should continue. If, therefore, the practice were to stop benefit on a question being raised, wrong would be done to the claimant by depriving him of benefit which was subsequently held to be due to him. I think that on the balance the argument is strongly in favour of the clause as it stands.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: Might I remind the noble Lord that the reference to the Morris Report is not a very good one because that Report was made without knowledge of the change of onus brought about by Clause 4?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Crediting of contributions in respect of persons continuing education.
14.(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, provision may be made by regulations for crediting with contributions any persons who, having attained the minimum age for entry into insurance, are attending schools, courses of instruction or day continuation schools recognised by the Board of Education as efficient, or junior instruction centres or classes:
Provided that contributions credited under this section shall not be taken into account for the purposes of a claim for benefit made by a person who has attained the age of eighteen years.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, in subsection (1), after "classes," to insert "so recognised". The noble Lord said: I do not think this requires any explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 32, after ("classes") to insert ("so recognised").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD ARNOLD: The reply to this Amendment is that the classes are not any concern of the Board of Education, and are not, therefore, ordinarily recognised by them either as efficient or inefficient. The junior instruction school classes are set up by the Ministry of Labour, and it inspects them regularly. I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: Would a "play centre" be a centre of instruction?
LORD ARNOLD: I should like to have notice of that question, but I should have thought not, because it is for younger people in most cases.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: Would a centre where games are taught be a course of instruction?
Loan ARNOLD: In my view that would be stretching language beyond a point at which it would be sustainable in a court of law if it came to argument there.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Transitory provisions]:
LORD ARNOLD: The Amendments in my name are little more than drafting. I am prepared to explain them if your Lordships desire, but there is no point of substance in them, and I merely move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("five and").—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 2 after ("six") insert ("and eight and nine")
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("sixteen").—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule:
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Weekly Rates of Unemployment Benefit in Case of Persons under the Age of Twenty-one Years.

1. Persons who have attained the age of eighteen years:

s.

d.

Young men

14

0

Young women

12

0

2. Persons who have attained the age of seventeen years but are under the age of eighteen years:

Boys

9

0

Girls

7

6

3. Persons who are under the age of seventeen years:

Boys

6

0

Girls

5

0

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to leave out the provisions of the First Schedule and insert:
64

s.

d.

"1. Persons who have attained the age of eighteen years

13

0

2. Persons who have attained the age of seventeen years but are under the age of eighteen years

8

3

3. Persons who are under the age of seventeen years

5

6

The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment because I do not understand the reason why this differentiation is made between the rates of benefit. I am not speaking on the desirability of bringing these children into benefit, some of whom are brought in for the first time. Your Lordships have decided to do that. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has made it quite clear to us that the basis of the rates of benefit has nothing to do-with wages, that it is not on a wage basis. He pointed out that a man with a wife and three children was to get 32 s., which I think he said was the least that would keep body and soul together. That is where the man concerned is supposed to have dependants. These children cannot have any dependants and I would like to know whether he has consulted physiologists, or what authority has been consulted who has told the Government that the sum of money required to keep together the body and soul of a boy of 15 is 1s. greater than that required to keep together the body and soul of a girl of the same age. I think it is undesirable to inculcate in these children from the start that a girl ipso facto is economically of less value to the State than a boy. I think it introduces a wrong atmosphere and produces a lamentable effect on the status of women in industry. Therefore I move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, leave out lines 5 to 17 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD ARNOLD: The effect of this Amendment would be to average the benefit rates for boys and girls and for young men and women so that the same rate of benefit would be paid to the members of either sex at a given age. Despite the pleading of the noble Lord there are other things to be taken into consideration. There are other differences besides those of sex which bear upon this matter. The rates of contribution are lower in the case of young women—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I agree the rate of contribution would have to be altered. I think that would be only right.
LORD ARNOLD: I was dealing with things as they are now. The rates of contribution are lower in the case of young women and girls than in the case of young men and boys. Similarly they are lower for women of 20 and upwards than for men of 21 and over. The rates of contribution from employer and employed for young men and young women are respectively is. 1d. and 11 d., while for boys and girls they are 7½d. and 6½d., and for men and women 1s. 3d. and 1s. 1d. respectively. Again the rates of wages vary. Speaking generally the rates of wages for young women and girls are lower than for young men and boys. The same applies to wage rates for adult men and women. I am not arguing the point now, I am merely stating the position. It would be inconsistent to make this change for young women and girls and not to make any change at all in respect of adult women. If the question is to be dealt with it should be dealt with as a whole and not piece-meal. I think that is a reply which should be made to the noble Lord, though I do not expect it will satisfy him. We really could not have imported into the scheme at this stage something which is quite different to that which has hitherto obtained.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I point out that in the earlier stages the noble Lord told us definitely that these benefits have nothing to do with the wage basis, but he has now founded the largest part of the case for refusing my Amendment on the fact that wages are greater for men than for women.
LORD ARNOLD: As a matter of accuracy I must correct the noble Lord. I did not say they had nothing to do with the wage basis. I said there was no statistical relation between contributions and benefits, which was a very different thing.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Minor Amendments.

Enactments to be amended.

Amendment.

The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920:

Section 5

Subsection (5) shall so far as it relates to persons of the age of sixty-five years or upwards, be deemed to have been repealed as from the second day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.

The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922;

Section 14

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON had given Notice to move, in the reference to Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, to leave out all words after "be" and to insert "repeal." The noble Lord said: As one or two noble Lords who were going to speak on this Amendment have had to leave owing to the lateness of the hour I desire to state that I will not move this Amendment now, but will do so on the Report stage.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to include in the reference to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922:—

"Section 1

In the proviso to subsection (1) after the word 'having' there shall be inserted the words or assisting in'"

The noble Lord said: This is consequential to the provisions of Clause 2, which enables the dependants' allowance of 9s. to be paid to a new class, non-resident housekeepers. The present Bill proposes to add a new class of non-resident housekeepers. In this connection it is necessary to make the proviso fit the case of such non-resident housekeepers. There is really no controversy.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD ARNOLD: I have a drafting Amendment to this Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 21, in the first column, leave out ("30") and insert ("15").(Lord Arnold.)
LORD COZENS-HARDY: I have looked up the reference as corrected and I find there are no such words as "or the fourth," as stated in the third column. I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to try again.
LORD ARNOLD: I will promise the noble Lord that I will look into this between now and Report stage. I have just glanced at it and I do not think anything is necessary to be done, but I will look into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask when the Government propose to take the Report stage of this Bill?
LORD PARMOOR: We are putting it down for Thursday. It is very important. Of course if the noble Marquess has any objection to that we will consider it, but it is important that we should go on with the Bill for financial reasons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble and learned Lord puts it to me, I am not going to resist it although the time is very short. We will do the best we can.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (FYLDE WATER BOARD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA TION (SHEPPEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

East Surrey Water,

Barnsley and District Traction,

Shakespeare Birthplace, &c., Trust (Amendment),

Great Western Railway,

Newport Corporation,

Borough Market (Southwark),

Shoreham Harbour,

United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution,

London Midland and Scottish Railway,

Malvern Hills,

Sutton Coldfield Corporation,

Hastings Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles and Omnibuses),

Selsey Water,

Boston Corporation,

Metropolitan Railway,

Bristol Corporation,

Bristol Cattle Market,

Southampton County Council (Bursledon Bridge),

Brixham Gas and Electricity,

West Bromwich Corporation,

Milford Docks,

Bromborough Dock,

Leicester Corporation,

Liverpool Exchange Company,

South Yorkshire and Derbyshire Gas,

Stockport Corporation,

70

Darlington Corporation,

East Kent District Water,

Mid Kent Water,

Faversham Oyster Fishery Company,

Stoke-on-Trent Extension,

Tees (Newport) Bridge,

Llanelly District Traction,

London County Council (Charing Cross Bridge),

London County Council (General Powers),

Bootle Corporation,

Bournemouth Corporation,

Burnley Corporation,

Clacton-on-Sea Pier,

Coventry Corporation,

Croydon Corporation,

Derby Corporation,

Falmouth Corporation Water,

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation,

Lancaster Corporation,

Manchester Corporation (General Powers),

Manchester Extension,

Middlesex County Council,

Nottingham Corporation,

Reading Corporation,

Redcross Street Burial Ground (Bristol),

Rotherham Corporation,

Southend-on-Sea Corporation,

Southport Corporation,

Stockton-on-Tees Corporation,

Wakefield Corporation,

Walsall Corporation,

Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Company (Bridge),

London Electric, Metropolitan District, Central London, and City and South London Railway Companies,

Falmouth Water,

Cardiff Corporation,

London United Tramways,

Brighton and Have Gas,

Chester Water,

North Cheshire Sewerage Board,

Royal Exchange Assurance,

Sidmouth Electricty,

South Staffordshire Mond Gas,

Portsmouth Water,

Tees Valley Water,

Southern Railway,

Milford Haven Urban District Council (Water),

London and North Eastern Railway, London and North Eastern Railway (Hull Level Crossings),

Birkenhead Corporation,

Liverpool Corporation,

Portsmouth Corporation,

71

Rochdale Corporation,

Sheffield Corporation,

Shropshire Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power,

Dartford and Purfleet (Thames) Tunnel,

Epsom Rural District Council,

Guildford Rural District Council,

Wednesbury Corporation,

Kingsbridge and Salcombe Water Board,

Ascot District Gas and Electricity.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BARRY GAS ORDER, 1930.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Barry Urban District Council:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SPALDING GAS ORDER, 1930.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Spalding Urban District Council:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

PONTARDAWE RURAL DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Pontardawe, in the County of Glamorgan:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Loddon and Clavering, in the County of Norfolk:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HORNSEA AND SKIRLAUGH DIS TRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Hornsea and part of the rural district of Skirlaugh, in the East Riding of the County of York:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

TORQUAY ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION, ETC.) ORDER, 1929.
Special Order in respect of the urban districts of Ashburton and Buckfastleigh and parts of the rural districts of Newton Abbot and Totnes, all in the County of Devon, and for other purposes:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.