To call attention, on Wednesday, 21st May, to the reform of the Diplomatic and Consular Services, and to move a Resolution.

Demobilisation—One-Man Business Men

To call attention, on Wednesday, 21st May, to the necessity for further discrimination during demobilisation in favour of one-man-business men and other compassionate classes and to move a Resolution.

Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic)

To call attention on Wednesday, 21st May, to the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), and to move a Resolution.

The Estimates of the Ministry of Labour, which are now laid before the Committee, are very greatly in excess of any previous Estimate of the expenditure for that Department, but I venture to put it to the Committee that these Estimates are entirely justified by the new duties and responsibilities which have been put upon that Ministry. Up to the time of the Armistice there were two other great Labour Departments—one in the Ministry of Munitions and the other in the Admiralty—which between them had jurisdiction over a considerable section of the industrial life of this country. When the Armistice came, the functions of those Departments very properly came to be exercised by the Ministry of Labour. That circumstance, in itself, has considerably added to our task, but it forms only a very small portion of our added responsibilities. The work connected with the civil side of demobilisation was assigned to the Ministry of Labour, and with it came the administration and distribution of the unemployment donation. Then there was added to our task that of dealing with the training of officers and others of like educational status upon demobilisation, together with the necessity of training such as desired training. Then followed the duty of setting up training schemes for apprentices whose apprenticeship had been broken by the necessity of enlisting in the Army. Further training schemes were demanded for the women of the country who had been at work in the course of the War in the production of war material. Very soon afterwards a decision of the Cabinet transferred from the Ministry of Pensions to the Ministry of Labour the duty of providing the training schemes for disabled soldiers. On the top of all these things, at the end, there has been added to the responsibilities of the Ministry of Labour that of dealing with the distribution of the Civil Liabilities Fund—a task which we have taken over from the Local Government Board.

The Committee will readily understand that this enormous expansion of duties has taxed the strength of the officials of the Ministry to the utmost, and if some things have not been carried through as rapidly as one would have wished, it has been because the day, after all, contains only twenty-four hours. The Estimates which are now before the Committee are for the large sum of £38,000,000. They mainly consist of large capital sums which are required in connection with these various schemes to which I have referred. The largest of all these sums is that of £25,000,000, which is devoted to the distribution of benefit to those in the country who are unemployed. In respect of that I know that every hon. Member takes, naturally, a very active and keen interest in this subject, and I propose to deal with it at once. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I venture to recall at the outset the conditions under which this unemployment benefit was set up. So far back as the end of 1915 the Government of that day announced that, as regards members of His Majesty's Forces, upon demobilisation they would be entitled, in addition to the other allowances, to an insurance policy for a year against unemployment. Accordingly the State has been under an obligation ever since then to provide the members of His Majesty's Forces with unemployment donation within the year which elapses after the period of their demobilisation. On the other hand, with regard to the civilian population, the matter did not arise until the Armistice became imminent. Then the Government was faced with the immediate prospect of great masses of workpeople being thrown upon the streets without any means of livelihood. No one with any feelings of humanity, least of all the Government, which was responsible at such a time for the safety and the security of the country, could afford to neglect that great fact. There were only two alternative. One was to let them fend for themselves. The other was to continue the making of useless munitions. A good deal has been said about the demoralisation which is effected by the payment of unemployment donation, but I cannot imagine anything more demoralising than paying men to do what they know to be useless work and only with the results of wasting material. Accordingly, the Government chose the plan of setting up a system of payment of unemployment donation, not only to the sailors and soldiers who were demobilised, but also to the civilian workers of this country who upon the cessation of hostilities found themselves without employment.

There was not any time to make elaborate arrangements. It was laid down that the unemployment donation to civilians should last only for twenty-six weeks, and that no more than thirteen weeks' donation, during that period should be paid. It might be suggested that some discrimination should have been made between those who were engaged upon what is commonly known as war work and those who were engaged upon the ordinary civil work of peace time. But the task of making that discrimination was impossible. Almost everyone who had experience of what was going on in the industrial life of this country during the War would acknowledge that by the end of the War practically every person in this country was engaged in some form, directly or indirectly, in war work. At any rate, the task of discriminating in the setting up of a thing of this kind in a hurry, as it had to be, was impossible, and the Government of the day did, I think, wisely in deciding that everyone who had been at work over a certain period should be entitled, upon showing that he was out of employment, was prepared to work but could not find it, to draw unemployment benefit. The rules which were set up were those applicable to the National Insurance scheme, and everyone at the time was agreed that the main object to be achieved was to avoid distress in the country. I do not think there would be anyone in this House who would disagree with what the Government at that time did. These schemes were enunciated before the General Election, in the month of November. They were before the country. I read a good many election addresses, but I have not yet been able to find one in which any aspirant to membership of this House declared himself against the setting up of unemployment donation in the terms which the Government then enunciated.

Was any candidate at the Election aware of the fact that this unemployment donation was to go to those who had not been engaged in war work?

The terms upon which unemployment donation could be received were quite clearly explained by an Instruction which was issued from the Ministry of Labour on 26th November.

I come to the next stage of this question. In February of this year it became perfectly plain that a large number of people in this country had failed to find any employment and that at the same time they had drawn thirteen weeks of unemployment donation. The situation was very critical. I would ask hon. Members to cast their minds back to that period. The whole world was in a state of disturbance. In any case, apart altogether from the views one might take of the general situation, the fact was that a large number of people who ordinarily would have been in employment still were without it and were without the ordinary means of livelihood. It was plain also by that time that the figures of the previous donation were such as had induced a certain number of people rather to remain idle than to look with great assiduity for work and the Government had to make up its mind as to what it would do in these circumstances. They resolved to reduce the donation, to make the rate of payment for men out of employment. 20s. a week instead of 29s. and the rate of payment for women 15s. instead of 25s. That, of course, may be regarded in some sense as a compromise but at least we believed that it would have this result that in the one case the figures on which the donation had been drawn would no longer give anyone any temptation to idle rather than work, if work was available, and on the other hand that it would provide, if not a very large sum, at least a certain sum in the case of those enduring real hardship which would prevent them being without any means of subsistence at all. I think the result we arrived at was the right one. I remember on 22nd February announcing the result at which we had arrived to the Industrial Conference which had just been called at that time. I did not see any very critical attitude displayed after that announcement. I think, so far as I can remember, there was only one daily paper which adopted any critical attitude and if criticism was shown at all it was due not to the fact that we were continuing the donation but to the fact that it was reduced and it was said that only a very inexperienced politician would have made such an announcement to an Industrial Conference whose aid he was going to ask in attempting to allay industrial unrest. The whole public mind at that time was occupied by very disturbing factors in the industrial situation and they were fearing far worse events than anything that could happen as the result of continuing unemployment benefit. The result of the decision to which we have come is that after 24th May nobody will draw unemployment donation at any higher rate than the reduced scale, except of course soldiers and sailors who, under the original arrangement, were entitled to twenty-six weeks on the high scale during the year following demobilisation. But though a man or woman starts upon the high scale, even in the week preceding 24th May, it immediately becomes reduced to the low scale with the arrival of that date.

I do not know that whether any hon. Member will really, when he thinks over it, disagree with the result at which we arrived. What is the situation to-day? Out of the million people who at present are drawing unemployment donation 350,000 are members of His Majesty's forces, who would have been entitled to it under any circumstances. If you look at the remainder you will find cases of large masses of people without any sort of employment to-day, for whose cases you must provide something in some way or other. Take for example the engineering trade. There are to-day, apart from the members of His Majesty's forces, 108,000 people in the engineering trades who are out of work and drawing an unemployment donation. These are the people who at the call of the country were abstracted from ordinary peaceful employment and sent into factories for the production of war materials. The people of this country have united in praising the efforts of the people who made munitions during the War. [An HON. MEMBER: "Now they want to down them."] Are you going to say now when you are sure that the work is not there for them, as indeed it is not, "You served us well during the War, but now we do not think the country needs to trouble any more about you."

Does that figure include women?

Yes; there are, roughly, 40,000 women. Let me give another instance showing a mass of unemployment. There are to-day about 100,000 people in the cotton trade unemployed, and drawing unemployment benefit. Why are they unemployed? It is not because of any of the ordinary vicissitudes of their trade. The main reason why these people are unemployed is because of the deliberate policy which the country has adopted in keeping up the blockade. Is the country going to say that because it is necessary in order to achieve the full fruits of victory to keep up the blockade, and these masses of people who are quite innocent are injured by it, they are to have no redress whatever, and are to be left to fend for themselves. I put it to the Committee that when these matters are understood you could not have come to any different conclusion from that at which the Government arrived in February this year I can quite understand somebody saying, "We agree that it was quite right to have this unemployment donation, but what we object to is the way in which the affair has been administered. What we disagree with is the fact that so many people get it who are not entitled to it. What we do not like is that the country is being demoralised." I agree with people who think that, and I am as much perturbed as any man in this Committee by the abuses, and I have been struggling my best since I came into my present office to get rid of these difficulties and abuses; but I ought to tell the Committee that the amount of abuse is very greatly exaggerated.

I have constantly asked in this House for weeks that Members should send me specific instances of abuse, and I would take up those instances and have them probed. Up to to-day I have not received more than ten, and at least half of them are complaining not that the unemployment is continued, but that their constituents are not getting it. I know that that in no way shields me from responsibility. It is not the business of Members to find out abuses; it is my job to find them out and cure them. I will give an instance to show why I do not think the amount of abuse exists which people think exists. There is no doubt unwarranted talk in the matter, and I would like to give an example, which came to me through a Member of this House who received it from a partner in a very important firm. The representative of this firm said he could take on a very large number of women in his particular industry but that he could not get them, and he proceeded to give the reason. He said, "It is not because there are not thousands of skilled workers in the town who could do admirably what we want, but simply because they will not work for the time being, preferring to continue their period of Government pay. That has been going on for six months." That sounds much like the thing I have heard from some hon. Members and from members of the public outside. This firm says, ''We want something like 5,000 people to take into our employment." Let the Committee note that here was a responsible man, and the name is very well known. I have probed this instance. It seemed to me that if the statements were true the machinery of the Ministry of Labour is rotten to the core. What I have found did not justify a single word of criticism, and I believe that if you do a bit of probing you will find that half the rumours you hear in the country to-day have just as little foundation. This is what I found: I found that this firm required and could take only very highly skilled people. There was no demand for anything like the thousands which the partner of the firm had stated. A representative of his firm had visited the Exchange in order to get the labour they required. The Exchange officer specially selected the best and most skilled women he could find, knowing the highly skilled work this firm did. He selected fifty of the best. The representative of the firm came to interview the lot of them, and he engaged fourteen out of the fifty. He stated that the remainder were not up to the standard of skill that he required. It turned out that the majority had worked in munition factories and had lost a good deal of their proficiency; therefore, he could not take them. That is the whole story of these thousands of people whom they could take if only the unemployment donation were stopped. The firm only took fourteen out of fifty when they were offered. After that date repeated offers were made of these highly skilled women, and several of them have got employment. I am perfectly certain that the man who wrote that letter did not intend to mislead anybody, but he was acting upon rumour, which has been very prevalent upon this matter, and is believed to be entirely without foundation.

4.0 P.M.

I wish to say a few words in regard to the Employment Exchanges. They have been very severely criticised upon their work throughout the whole of this controversy, as indeed they have been severely criticised in days before the War. I would beg the Committee to remember that the officers of the Employment Exchanges had a very difficult task put into their hands with great suddenness. They had only three days' notice that they were to deal with all the unemployment in the country by way of dispensing unemployment donations to those out of work. They could not get earlier notice because of the conditions under which the work had to be done, and the result was that all the machinery for the purpose had to be improvised. The staff, which numbered 6,100 at the date of the Armistice, had to be increased to 20,700 to carry out this great undertaking. Members of the Committee will recognise readily that with an improvised, temporary staff of that kind all your operations cannot be perfect, and a very great deal of abuse is undoubtedly possible; but they have been working with great zeal and enthusiasm, to my certain knowledge, and I think they are deserving not of strictures, but of thanks, for the work they have done. They do not work entirely on their own judgment. There are set up in connection with these Exchanges courts of referees, who are the arbiters in dealing with the reliability of the claims put forward. The courts of referees have up to the 17th April performed a very difficult task. I am sure the figures I am about to give will convince the Committee that they have not been indifferent in regard to discrimination as to the right to the unemployment donation. The referees have dealt with over 100,000 eases, and they have disallowed 66,768, and allowed 25,876. The others are still in suspense. The number of disallowances which I have quoted will, I think, prove that the work of discriminating between proper use and abuse of unemployment donation has really been performed, and that it is not through any neglect of duty if it happens that, with such a large number of people to deal with, an inevitable amount of abuse creeps in.

There are two main criticisms that I have frequently heard. One is that people leave employment and go and take unemployment donation, and the other is that the people for whom employment is available are left to go idle, and nevertheless obtain unemployment donation. I want to say a word on these two points to the Employers of this country, because, indeed, they have not helped the State. The only way in which it is possible for the Employment Exchange to discover whether a man has left his employment from just causes or not is to write to the employer when the man puts in his claim for unemployment donation, and to ask, Why did this man leave? In the great bulk of cases we get no answer whatever. I think that we are entitled to expect the employers of the country to aid the State in a matter of this kind, or at least, if they do not, that they should not complain to the public that the men get unemployment donation who ought not to get it.

Again, in connection with employers available, I have to say that there also we are not helped by the employers of the country. I sat next to a very large employer at a dinner the other night. He complained to me that he wanted a large number of people and that he could not get them, although many men were walking the streets and drawing unemployment donation. I said to him, "Have you ever notified your vacancies at the Employment Exchanges? He said, "No, we have never had anything to do with the Exchanges.'' If an employer takes up that attitude, can you expect the men on the Unemployment Exchanges to know what vacancies there are to fill? The only way in which the Employment Exchanges can act when a man claims the unemployment donation is to be able to offer him some employment, and obviously he cannot do that unless the employers have notified what are the vacancies available in their town. I had a very clear example of what I was talking about only the other day. There was a large firm in the vicinity of London which wanted a certan number of workers. We only heard about it incidentally because it chanced that one of the officers was present and overheard a conversation, in which it transpired that this firm could not get the people they wanted. The representative of the Ministry of Labour said, "I will get you these men," and for the moment he was laughed to scorn. I hope the Committee will forgive me telling this matter, because it gives a list of people about whom many questions have been asked recently. The firm wanted fifty carpenters, fifty navvies, twenty-five plasterers, ten masons, four plumbers, four mates, and ten other men. The representative of the Ministry of Labour said, "I will get you these men," and within a day and a half he got not only all they wanted, but got them twelve more carpenters than they wanted, But that firm had never approached the Exchanges, and never thought about approaching them, and I have not the slightest doubt that their representative was going about saying, "We cannot get labour, and there are lots of people drawing unemployment donation."

Are there any advertisements?

I have repeatedly drawn attention in the Press to these matters. I have done everything in the way of publicity that I can do, but in some respects the public seems incorrigible.

Will you pay for your advertisements?

I cannot answer that question.

What I meant was, if he will excuse me, is that when you wanted men for the Army you had advertisements ad lib all over the country. Do you have advertisements saying what men are wanted for these various jobs? I have not seen them.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I am not quite certain that I can give a complete reply now, but I shall do so in the course of the Debate. I am very much obliged for any suggestions that I can get.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before the War the Employment Exchanges had a bad reputation as being rather useless, and does not that reputation still stick to them?

I am perfectly well aware of the reputation before the War, but—

I am sorry to interrupt; may I just say this—

The hon. Member had better wait till the speech is finished.

I do not wish to labour this question, but I have other examples of a similar kind. I do not complain of interruptions, but I hope that people will be induced to help to prevent abuses of this kind. There is a certain amount of misapprehension. It is thought that when you have a certain number of people of a certain named trade registered as available on the books of the Exchanges that necessarily they must be ready to take up any employment with any employers who want labour. But when you come to work the thing out in practice you find that there is a great gap between the number you have got in the register of those willing to take a job, and the number that are being applied for who want employment. For this reason you have a certain floating class of people who are always changing their job, and these you cannot get readily into the position which seems at the moment to be available. Again, and this affects the question of agriculture, about which something was said this afternoon, the difficulty of housing presents an enormous obstruction and impediment at the present time to the mobility of labour. You have men in one district but you cannot get them a job because there is no housing accommodation to put them into. That occurs all over the country. There is to-day one district in England where we could employ 3,000 people who are out of employment, if only there were houses to put them into. Again you find that certain classes of skill are required, and although you have got people who are named of that grade, they do not fit the class of skill when they are tendered to the employer. Incidentally may I say that there is no body with such a strong tendency to reject the labour offered to them as the farmer. Although be cries out for labour he is the most discriminating person when it comes to employing you can find in the country. But I would not refer further to agriculture. Sometimes, I am sorry to say, the wages offered are not such as are justified in the circumstances. Let me give this illustration. Not long ago there was a firm which wanted 200 tailoresses, and the matter was immediately dealt with. People were offered the vacancy, but as soon as the question was gone into, it was found that the wages were only 14s. a week.

Can you say what was the nationality of the employer?

I wish to say this quite definitely to the Committee that whatever may be the abuses of the unemployment donation there is one way in which we can never consent to use it, and that is to reduce the level of proper wages.

I turn to one class of labour which, I believe, has caused more of the trouble we have experienced than any other; I mean that of domestic service. I believe that if it had not been for the difficulty about domestic service we should never have heard so much about the unemployment donation. This matter has been very difficult indeed, and it is very far from solution now; but I should like to remind the Committee of this, that before the beginning of the War the supply of domestic servants was already becoming short, and that during the War girls who would naturally have gone into domestic service have gone into munition work, and many who were in domestic service came out and went to work in the munition works. That has created the abnormal shortage we now have. Very many of these girls who have previously been in domestic service are unwilling to go back, and many threw up their unemployment donation rather than go back. Whether for good reasons or not is not for me to say, but I am going to venture to lay down another principle. It is this, that people who are drawing the bounty of the State in this matter are not entitled to discrimnate as to what kind of work they are going to do. It is not going to be the choice open to anyone to refuse work if they like. They cannot refuse suitable work because they do not like it, and then come on to the State to keep them. I am afraid that a very great many of these domestic servant girls have been taking up that attitude. I believe that is why we have had a considerable amount written in the newspapers on this question. But the Ministry of Labour has not been supine in this matter. We have taken every means in our power to stop the abuses that have been complained of. We have suspended 22,000 girls from unemployment donation who had refused domestic service, and our decision was upheld by the court of referees in 17,000 of these cases. Again, the Committee ought to know we have placed in domestic service, or hotel or charwoman service, 66,230 since the Armistice. That, after all, is not a record that we need blush for.

We have been tightening up our machinery by every possible means in our power. Since the continuation of the unemployment benefit began in the month of February we have used the local advisory committees to veto, if I may use the ex- pression, all the applications for continuation of benefit. The result has been that not more than 50 per cent. of the people who were drawing the original benefit applied for the continuation. They gave up their applications rather than appear before the local advisory committees, and, of the 50 per cent. that applied, 20 per cent. of the applications have been rejected. We are entitled to believe now that the local advisory committees are performing a very useful function in this matter, and we propose to extend that usefulness through the whole sphere of people who are at present drawing the original benefit. Of course, they can only do a certain amount of work, and it is much more important that they should deal with those who are applying for continuation first, but we propose to use them throughout the whole machine for the purpose of testing the reliability of the applications made. In addition, we have appointed a large number of new investigators. I propose to make special tests in special districts which will not be named beforehand, and in every case in which I find abuse going on, fraud being perpetrated on the State, I mean to prosecute relentlessly. I cannot think at the present time, in our present conditions, of any crime that is meaner than the attempt to obtain fraudulently the State's money in this way. Another thing which we propose to do is to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole administration of unemployment benefit. I had hoped to announce the names to this Committee to-day, but I am still waiting for a reply from one of the proposed members. But the Committee will consist of a chairman from the other House, of four Members of the House of Commons, two representatives of the Treasury, who naturally are critics in this matter, and two representatives of the Ministry of Labour, and I hope that, as a result of their deliberations, we shall be able to devise every possible means of checking the abuses that have been so much complained of.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the Committee?

I have just said that I am sorry I am not in a position to do so. I am still waiting for an answer from one of the proposed members, but I think that the Committee will be entirely agreeable to my right hon. Friend.

You have said that there will be four Members of this House. Will the Labour party be included?

Yes, there is a Member of the Labour party. One out of four is, I think, as proper a proportion as I could possibly arrive at. I should not like the Committee to take too gloomy a view of this problem of unemployment. It is quite true that it is not a matter about which we can be complacent. It is far too serious. It is a matter of grave importance that there should be 1,000,000 people-to-day out of employment. But we should not view it out of proper perspective. There have been demobilised altogether from His Majesty's Forces, and from civil employment, 4,000,000 people. That means that since the month of November we have reabsorbed in industry 3,000,000. These figures are remarkable when you come to think of the position in which the country stands. If you cast your minds back to the beginning of the War you will remember that great distress occurred in connection with the outbreak of war. Distress committees were set up The Prince of Wales' Fund was inaugurated in order to relieve distress and it took us years to get from the ordinary peace work of the country to the work which we had to do in connection, with the War. Now we have got to reverse that process and to reverse it in more difficult circumstances, because while, at the beginning of the War the labour market was being constantly depleted by men being taken away for the forces the opposite process is going on now and men are being thrown into the labour market as demobilisation continues. Therefore, I do not think that for the present we need express any great disappointment at the figures for unemployment today looking to the condition in which we find ourselves.

We ought to remember, in conjunction with other circumstances, the fact that the world's markets, to a large extent, are still shut. The Central Empires and Russia, which used to take at least one-fourth of our exports, are closed to us to-day, and Australia, New Zealand, China and Japan, which used to take another one-fourth are practically shut off from us to-day by reason of the lack of ships, and if we are able to reabsorb men coming back to industries to the extent which I have described, I think, at any rate, that the Committee need not take any despairing view about the country in this matter. In connection with these figures of re- absorption, the proportion of the men in His Majesty's Forces who have been demobilised and reabsorbed is 80 per cent., which is a very remarkable figure. For civilian men the proportion is 55 per cent., and for women it is 45 per cent.

I am afraid that I have occupied the attention of the Committee at very great length upon this matter, but before I sit down I would like to say a word or two with regard to some of the functions of the other sections of the Ministry of Labour. I would like to refer to what is known as the Appointments Department. This Department has had to confront some criticism which I think is due very largely to a certain amount of misapprehension. Its activities are chiefly concerned with finding occupation for demobilised officers and men of like educational status, and finding opportunities for training. It is perfectly true that up to the present time no very large number of appointments has been found. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many?"] Something approaching 5,000. But the Committee will keep this in mind, that the salaries which are being offered at the present time are not such as to attract many of the officers returning from service. I could give innumerable examples, but I will give the Committee only two for the moment. Here is an urban district council requiring an assistant clerk to the council—accountancy, and legal, government, and administrative experience required; salary offered £156. Here is another. Auctioneer and estate agent office in the North requires head clerk and right-hand man, well educated, quick at figures, experienced in furniture and town properties, and qualified with common sense; salary offered, £125 to start with. That is the kind of offer which comes to the Appointments Department from many business firms in this country, and it would surprise the Committee when I tell them that 50 per cent. of the vacancies offered are at £250 per annum. When you recall that the lads who are becoming available, and are looking for appointments, have been drawing more in pay and allowances than these sums, and many of them have married during the interval, you can appreciate how great the difficulty is in finding suitable appointments to which to send them. I notice that there is a tendency to estimate the value of the services of the Appointments Department by asking, "What is the cost you have incurred to place so many men?" That is a rough way of arriving at the value of the Department, but I think that no insurance company would be willing to let you measure their activities by taking the number of premiums they happen to get in any particular year and the cost of getting the initial premiums. Similarly this Department is carrying out the duties of finding training opportunities for these men.

Has the Department any scheme in view under which hopes may be held out to these men, who are writing from all over the place to every Member of this House, in the hope that the country will do something for them, having regard to what they did for the country?

I can say this. We have been struggling hard for months in correspondence with various firms to endeavour to get them to raise the salaries they offer, pointing out that we are no longer in pre-war conditions, and that the salaries which were then prevalent are no longer sufficient to justify the employment of these men who are returning from the War. In addition to that, we have recently set up Selection Committees throughout the whole kingdom. They have appointed ninety-two boards who will interview both the man seeking work and the firm who possibly may have work to offer. In that way we are trying to get together the firm and the man, and trying to initiate negotiations which may have the result of giving the man suitable employment. In addition to that, we are offering a training, and the committees to which I have already referred have obtained 5,000 vacancies in various parts of the country where the firm is willing to give opportunities of training to men who require them. We hope that that scheme will develop favourably. Meantime, of course, training is being given in agriculture and in the universities through the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education.

May I ask is the right hon. Gentleman aware that demobilised officers complain that the officials of the Appointments Department treat them with the utmost callousness, and are absolutely indifferent to their applications?

I am very sorry to hear that criticism, and I will, of course, take note of it with a view to remedying it. I ought to say, perhaps, that a number of the people have been officers who have not been at work in the Department, but have got a certain amount of training. But from whatever cause this matter has arisen, I shall certainly do my best to remedy any grievance that there is.

May I ask would the Department be prepared to assist some of the young officers who have never been in business before going into the Army, and to give them some assistance to one or two years while they are being taken on in some commercial business?

We already do that. We have a regular grant system, which I explained at length some weeks ago, under which everybody who wants to be trained in a business will get a grant for training of £50 a year and allowance for subsistence up to £200 a year. That scheme is in operation. Everybody who desires to have training, either through the Board of Agriculture or through the Board of Education at a university, or through the mechanism of the Appointments Department for business or commercial life of any sort or description, is available for these grants, once the qualifications of the applicants are tested and approved.

Will the grants be made to all young officers who are taking appointments at what may be called inadequate salaries, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider those cases? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

No, I am afraid we cannot give grants in order to add to salaries, To do that would be only tempting employers to give less than they ought to give, and that would have a very bad effect.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say up to what rank those grants will be given?

My impression is that there is no limitation of rank, but simply one as to suitable educational qualifications. I would remind the Committee that similar facilities are now being set up in connection with the Department in relation to disabled soldiers under the training section of the Ministry of Labour. Up till a few weeks ago the Ministry of Pensions was in charge of this matter, but from the 1st of May the Ministry of Labour is taking over from the Ministry of Pensions the whole training system of disabled soldiers, and in the last few months we have been busy setting up a training organisation for the purpose of giving that training. I am glad to say that the Cabinet has given the training section prior claims over all the national factories for the purpose of setting up training schools on behalf of disabled soldiers. Similarly with regard to apprentices whose apprenticeship has been broken by enlistment during the War. Certain schools are also being started for the purpose of training women in domestic services and also in vocational duties connected with those trades which are specially suitable for women. I had intended to say something with regard to the other work of this Department, and I should just like to refer in a sentence or two to what we are doing. I have no doubt that many members of the Committee are interested in the setting up of trade boards, and I should like to say to what extent we have been progressing in the last few mouths. As the Committee will understand, the chief function of the trade boards is to fix minimum wages in the less organised industries. It is one of the most necessary functions which could be performed and it is one which has led, I am glad to say, to highly beneficial results in the way of preventing labour unrest. In October last there were in existence thirteen trade boards, covering 500,000 workpeople, and to-day eleven more have been formed covering 375,000 people, and conferences are now going on which affect a number of others. Similarly in connection with the formation of industrial councils. I am sure that the Committee recognise that the most hopeful feature of industrial life to-day is the coming together of employers and employed round a common counciltable, taking a common interest in the things which appertain to the industries in which they are both concerned. The Whitley Committee issued a most valuable Report Of this matter, and ever since that Report was issued the Ministry of Labour have been very active in setting up as many of those joint councils as possible. There are now thirty-one councils in existence, covering 2,000,000 workpeople, and at the present time drafting committees are at work in twenty-two other committees covering another million people. The workpeople are getting a knowledge, a real knowledge, of the industries in which they are concerned, and I am glad to think that the employers on their side are also learning somewhat more intimately of the precise aspirations of the workmen whom they employ. I cannot imagine anything better than real knowledge for the purpose of defeating all the machinations of those who would rather have trouble in industry than quietness. Ignorance always breeds suspicion and suspicion is the greatest possible source of discontent, and the more we can bring light into industrial matters and the more we can let the workmen understand that they are being made fully acquainted with what is happening in their industry, the more chance we have of getting through these labour troubles without the danger of open dispute or strike.

The Government, as the Committee knows, recently carried the theory of the Whitley Committee to a concrete conclusion by calling the Industrial Conference. That Conference contained representatives of the employers and of the employed from all the great industries of the country. It is perfectly true that the coal miners and the transport workers took no part in the conference. But the discussions which took place were most fruitful. A committee was appointed by the conference and reported upon a joint scheme drawn up by employers and employed for the settlement of our present industrial differences, and that report was confirmed by a subsequent conference. The Government is to give its reply upon it upon Thursday of this week. What has emerged from the Industrial Conference in addition to that report is a sense of goodwill and of mutual understanding which I am perfectly certain will prove most valuable in the future. We have been passing through critical times, and he would be unduly sanguine who would assume that those critical times are over, or that the clouds have passed, but I think all our experience goes to show that we may with confidence trust to the commonsense, good feeling and fair spirit of the British people. It was the steadiness of the British soldiers which time after time saved the Allies from disaster, and I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that upon some occasions in recent months the steadiness of the British people alone stood between Europe and catastrophe. I should like to refer to one other point which in the past has fatally retarded the progress in industrial life, and that is the fact that we had competitors in other parts of the world whose conditions were not so advanced as our own, and many people were unwilling to embark upon progressive labour legislation because of the fact that in some other country competing with us they were able to get either longer hours of work or cheaper labour. I am glad to say that one of the results of the Peace Conference has been to set up a permanent International Labour Bureau, which will bring all the chief industrial people of the world together, and will tend in a great degree to co-ordinate their policy. There will be a Conference once a year, which meets for the first time at Washington in October of this year, and the two first items on the agenda are a forty-eight hours week and schemes for the prevention of unemployment. These are indications which we may welcome as signs of hope. In dealing with these industrial problems I claim for the Ministry of Labour, whose actions are under discussion to-day, that we have faced them all without prejudice or prepossession, without favour to one class or another, and we have been actuated by one desire, and one desire only, to achieve the best results we could for the country, and to create as fair conditions as possible for every section of its citizens.

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

We have just listened to a most able and interesting disquisition on the policy of the Ministry of Labour. For the last few months the Ministry has had to deal with most difficult and complicated problems, and a great effort has been made to grapple with those problems. The main reason why this Vote was put down for consideration to-day was to consider particularly the out-of-work donations at present being paid, and it is for that purpose I move the reduction. The right hon. gentleman has explained to the House that committees are being set up throughout the country to investigate claims for out-of-work pay, and that in many thousands of cases these claims have been disallowed. I am sure the Committee will be glad to learn that this action is to be carried further, but we have no information as to the main outlines of the question. The impression made upon me by the speech to which we have just listened is that all that is now being done is an effort to stop some of the leaks, while a huge amount of money is still pouring out of the Ministry day after day and week after week and no effort is being made to check or finally to stop. Everyone will admit that it was inevitable that on the demobilisation of the Army a guarantee should be given that the demobilised men should be found work, or, in the absence of work, the means of living, and a pledge was given accordingly, which everyone supports, that for twelve months they should be guaranteed unemployment pay. Everyone would willingly face the dangers and abuses of such a scheme, but the matter has gone a very great deal further, and the guarantee has been hastily extended to practically everyone who finds himself out of work, so long as he does not refuse suitable employment. That is a tremendous undertaking, and it is no wonder that the expenditure amounts to over £1,000,000 a week. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the basis of the weekly payments had been reduced from 29s. to 20s. by a decision come to in February, but I should like to ask him when that decision will come into effect, because in the early days of April men out of work were drawing 29s. a week and allowances for various other matters in addition. The right hon. Gentleman told us that upwards of a million persons were drawing out-of-work pay, but he did not tell us how many of those persons are in England, Wales, Scotland, or Ireland. Those figures must be available, and I desire to press the Minister to tell the House how many people are receiving out-of-work pay, men and women respectively, in England, in Scotland, in Wales, and in Ireland. In regard to the question about Ireland, we all know, from experience of old age pensions and other occasions, that the Irish people have been very apt to find out any weakness in the administration or distribution of pay or doles or benefits of any kind, and we hear from Ireland constantly week after week that the proportion of persons there drawing out-of-work pay is very great indeed.

I complain that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House when these payments will cease. They were intended first of all to last thirteen weeks as regards persons out of work through the demobilisation of the Army, but that period has been extended now, we understand, until November. Is there any need to keep paying this vast sum of money till November? The root cause of the difficulty is that there is no economic policy of the Government of this country upon which industry can be re-established with confidence, and there will be no general relief of the industrial problem until the Government has expounded and explained what is to be its economic policy, and upon what basis or principle the industries of the country are to be rebuilt after the War. The suggestion has been made that the Government should find work for the men out of employment in Government factories, but that will not avail, and Government factories would be in the same difficulty as private factories in disposing of their products unless there is an economic policy decided upon for this country and established to enable them to market the goods which are produced in those factories. These Government workshops have often been tried before, but they have always been a lamentable failure and have led to unending abuses, and they have always failed in their object and had to be abandoned. Until the Government find a solution for their economic problem they will not find a solution for unemployment in this country. They appear to have made another great mistake—I think, perhaps, an inevitable mistake—in relying on the Labour Exchanges as their means of dealing with this question of unemployment and the distribution of the doles. The Labour Exchanges are known throughout the country as one of the greatest failures that have ever been experienced. We have, all of us—employers and workpeople alike—endeavoured to use these Labour Exchanges, but we have always failed to obtain satisfaction from them. The employer who has been to a Labour Exchange to find men finds that the Exchanges know little or nothing about the men they recommend. They do not know their qualifications or whether they are competent to do the particular work required of them, and the men engaged through the Labour Exchange, as a rule, give anything but satisfaction to the employer. In the same way the workman who is out of work and wants employment, in the past, has always had a value which was known very well to himself and the employers, and according to that value he has had little or no difficulty in finding employment in the class of work which he is competent to perform; and it is only those who have little to recommend them who in the past have gone to the Labour Exchanges as a last resource to find employment.

5.0 p.m.

That has been the experience. The officials, many of them, no doubt, are very competent men, but many of them have known nothing about the conditions of industry with which they were called upon to deal, and for some reason or other the persons appointed have known very little of the industrial conditions in the different local districts in the past, and that kind of thing has pursued us even during the War. As an instance of what I mean, I will mention a case which came before me not very long ago. When men were asked to send in their names to the Labour Exchanges for employment on the land a particular man, a gardener, who had been working on the land all his life, was called up and immediately told off as a bricklayer's labourer, and the land thus lost the services of a very useful man. So long as the Government work the Exchanges as they have worked them in the past and are working them now they will not succeed in grappling with the industrial problem. There is no doubt that a great deal of the difficulty about unemployment in this country arises owing to the reckless methods employed by the Government themselves. They have moved "workpeople from one part of the country to the other in very large numbers, and they have put men to do skilled work who were anything but skilled men. These men have done the work—or not done it—and have been extravagantly paid, and those men now send their names to the Labour Exchanges saying that they have done this kind of skilled work and been paid very high wages. They class themselves as skilled men, but they are not skilled, and the attempt to place men of that category in skilled employment only leads to the dissatisfaction of the employer and to the disorganisation of employment. I move the reduction of the Vote by £100 because the Government have not, in the speech made this afternoon by the Minister, given any indication that they are seriously endeavouring to bring to an end the payment of these vast sums to civilians who are out of employment. They have not given any indication to the House that they have thought out and are prepared to carry through a sound and definite economic policy which will put the industry of the country on a sound footing, and for these reasons, and for many others, I think the Government should be pressed further on this matter. We all sympathise with people who are out of work, but on the other hand, it is cruel to them and unfitting them to resume employment to be allowed to receive these doles indefinitely. We are in this difficulty, that we are starting down the slope and it is most difficult to pull up. These payments have been promised, and we have to go on with them. Because, therefore, the Government has not announced any serious policy which is going to bring these payments to an end I desire to move the Motion standing in my name.

I do not like to use the word "sympathy" in connection with the office or duties of the right hon. Gentleman at the Ministry of Labour. Short of that, however, I should like to say that I think he and his Department are entitled to a share of the good will of the Members of this House, and the good will that can also be given by the Labour organisations of the country in his carrying out of the exceptionally heavy duties which have confronted the Ministry, especially during the course, of this year. I think that the Minister of Labour has this afternoon too modestly dealt with some aspects of the work which his Ministry has had to undertake. He might have said more to the House in order that the country should be a little more fully informed of what the Ministry has been doing for some time past in regard to the establishment of Whitley Councils, Industrial Councils, and the various boards and bodies which all, we hope, will tend to the development of a more conciliatory and commonsense spirit amongst both employers and employed in the country. Particularly he might have told the House something of the good work which has been done through his Ministry to apply more effectively the machinery for guaranteeing a better minimum rate of wage to the less organised and non-organised sections of the industry of the country. There are millions of workers of this class who seldom come into the public gaze. They are not well organised. They cannot alarm the country nor arrest national attention by any threat of a strike. They are men and women employed in very many necessary occupations: the economic position can only be improved by the assistance of the Ministry of Labour.

I congratulate the Ministry of Labour upon the work which under these two heads it has already done, and is, I believe, destined to do. I would also express my own personal pleasure at the manner in which the Minister of Labour has dealt with many of the extremely difficult industrial questions which have taken new shape and have presented themselves in even a more dangerous form in the country since the end of the War. The Minister of Labour will be able to recall the fact that his presence at the conferences which have already been held, representative of the employers and employed of the country, has already done great good in tending to produce a body, which, I hope, will have a permanent existence, and which will be a quite impartial and helpful body, which will retain the confidence of both sides to these controversies and in due course act as a valuable adviser to the Ministry of Labour itself as to how best to deal with many of these questions.

On the main theme, however, of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot avoid some criticisms. It is true that in 1915 the country gave a general assurance to those who joined the Army that assistance would be given when they returned again to civil life. But that was a different thing from what the Government did towards the close of last year in dealing with the civilian population or in dealing with the men who had returned from the war to fit themselves into civil and industrial life again—altogether apart from what was promised to them because of the indebtedness of the country to them due to their military services. Had Labour been consulted more on both what should be done and how it should be done towards the end of 1918, it is possible that the Government would not now be faced either with the same degree of cost to the country, or to the same extent with the complaints which are now apparent in regard to the administration of these sums week by week. I believe there were a few deputations which went to certain Ministers during the autumn of last year to draw attention to what was certain to be the industrial situation at the end of the War. Though, happily in many respects, the War was suddenly terminated last year, there is the fact that the end of the War was anticipated for some considerable time before the end came. Committees, bodies, as I understand, were considering on behalf of the Government what should be done in order skilfully, scientifically, and economically to change the War pursuits of our population to ordinary peaceful employment. The result has shown that the job has not been done well. The confessions made to the House this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman prove that bad as was the position, six months ago when first these great difficulties had to be handled it is worse now. After six months' experience we are not only no better off but we are worse off, and so far as I can see the tendency is still further to increase the number of claimants who present themselves week by week for unemployment benefit.

So far as I can gather the grant of money is not objected to, on principle, by any part of the House, even by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the reduction. Everyone admits that in the circumstances, as a temporary measure, it was necessary to afford some exceptional assistance to persons who could not earn their daily bread after the close of the War. [An HON. MEMBER: "But not to everybody!"] This grant, however, has shed its temporary character It is tending to become a sort of permanent feature and a lasting monetary charge upon the Government. No complaint, I gather, is made from any quarter of the House at the workers receiving what is necessary for them to maintain themselves week by week—oven from their own funds. Of course, we do not complain of the State benefit which the workers of the country in their state of idleness are receiving. In the absence of a man's right to work there is a man's right to live. He cannot live without means. If private enterprise does not enable him to earn his daily bread then private enterprise has fallen short of fulfilling its functions, and in that case the State must come in and find the willing worker employment so that he may get his wage, or they must provide him with other means of sustenance by a weekly grant of money. Our complaint is that the Government has limited itself, in its policy, to merely paying out the State benefit. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, so far as I heard, did not mention a single-instance where the Government have taken any steps to find out what the worker required, namely, work. The-workers' first claim is for work. The claim for State money comes second, following the State's inability to find work for the man.

The strongest point the Minister of Labour might have made, I think, in support of his policy of paying State money is a point which he did not mention. It is, that bad as this policy of the Government is, had the money not been paid the condition of things in this country would have been more than dangerous. has ensured a certain degree of industrial peace which would not have been enjoyed otherwise, but it will be impossible for the Government, even with its great financial resources, continually to purchase a state of industrial peace at the price which is now being paid. It is not good for the workers, nor for any section of the community, that this situation should be continued unduly long. I therefore regret that the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon has not even hinted at any alternative policy to the one which involves this exceptionally heavy weekly burden of something more than £1,000,000. This burden is shared not merely by the public and by the Government. It is shared by the trade unions. Those who in this House—if there be such—who may think that we look without concern and with complacency upon the payment of this money are very much mistaken indeed. Apart from its effects in the directions already indicated—in respect of the heavy rate and in respect to the moral of the industrial population—apart altogether from the effect of paying money in this manner—as we believe, a better course could have been taken—the pay-of money, through a condition of unemployment, is a very heavy burden upon the trade unions.

I have no figures at present showing the total charge which the trade unions quarter by quarter have to meet, but I will give the case of the trade unions with which I am personally associated—figures illustrating how serious this burden is even upon the unions which cater for the less-skilled, or the unskilled sections of working men and working women. Taking the payments for one quarter by the National Union of General Workers, the total amounts to more than £15,000. This union, at only the rate of 3s. per member per week, has paid a total of £15,000 in the period of three months. The reason for that sum of 3s. being fixed is that, when, some time ago, unemployment benefit was arranged from the State, the sum was fixed at 7s. This particular trade union, like others, agreed to make it up to 10s. In that way 3s. per week was paid out of the funds of the trade union. Fifteen thousand pounds per quarter for a union like this is an indication of how very heavy the financial burden is to the various unions of skilled workers, who, of course, pay out very much larger benefits week by week.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that Labour is grievously disappointed at the Government's failure to propound a policy that would confine unemployment, and would put to their various uses the great resources which, at least for the temporary purpose of relief, could be more effectively and profitably used. There are factories, there are workshops, there are great stores, there are tools and implements, and there are many material means available that could be brought into close touch with the labour which is willing, if the Government would overcome what, I understand, to be their stated objection to any kind of organised effort to provide work instead of providing unemployment benefit That objection is that it would interfere with private enterprise. That is the only objection, together with the blockade point, to which I am coming, that I have heard so far as the Government's explanation for the non-use of the resources, which were used for war purposes, and which, we think, at least to some extent, and as a temporary measure, could be used for the purpose of the peaceful production of wealth. It may be thought that if certain of these factories, or workshops or machines were used, they would not produce absolutely economic results, as judged by the ordinary competitive standards. But it would pay the Government, even to have production at a loss, in order that such production should provide something rather than that this money should be paid out week by week absolutely for providing nothing. Not only does this money provide nothing, but it brings in its train certain other disadvantages harmful to the State and detrimental to the interests of the individuals in receipt of it. So that if we could not, perhaps, use all the resources in the hands or the control of the Government in economic manufacture or in processes of economic production, I say that, as a temporary after-war measure, and until ordinary industry is established, under normal conditions again it would have been better as an act of policy for the Government to have used those resources than to have thrown itself back solely on the payment of these weekly doles.

I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman was able to give figures to the House disproving the imputations used in many quarters against the workers as to malingering being very common and cases of deception and misrepresentation being also very common amongst those who have been in receipt of this benefit. On the whole, it is seen that no very large number of workers are receiving this help without, at any rate, such right as conditions for the time being have secured for them. I have myself some figures here which go to corroborate the points submitted by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and I say that, allowing for the temptations which have not at all been absent in the case of every other section of the community during the course of the War, allowing for the fact that some degree of profiteering has become almost a habit in the case of many sections of the community, in addition to, or apart from, the working classes, it is not surprising that some few instances of malingering can be produced in this case. I would like to offer a complaint as to the composition of the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman has announced is going to be set up for purposes of investigation. I have not seen the terms of reference of this Committee. I do not know from what quarter the Government is going to draw advice on general questions of industrial policy in relation to unemployment. If the Committee is to be limited merely to technical questions of how to prevent deceit, or duplicity, or malingering, then I doubt whether its labours will really be worth while. The larger question is not met in any way whatever by a Committee of this kind, limited in its functions, as I understand it to be. Surely in a matter which is at least half labour, if not wholly labour, it is not enough to place upon that Committee only one Labour representative as a Member of this House. I am sure that larger Labour representation is something for which the Government would not suffer, and on the whole I am certain that my right hon. Friend would admit that the representative of Labour in this country—those who have been put into any position of responsibility in respect of industrial difficulties—have, on the whole, shown themselves to be willing to help the Government in meeting the exceptional industrial difficulties which after-war conditions have produced, so that we might well ask to share more fully responsibility and service of this kind, in addition to being called upon now and then to give advice and guidance when troubles are actually upon us. If the light hon. Gentleman can further consider this point, I am certain he will not lose by giving some of my Friends on this side, or some of the representatives of Labour in the country, a fuller opportunity of serving than has been indicated by the announcement he has made.

The main argument given to the Committee this afternoon is that, as a necessary war measure, the blockade has to be maintained. That is a statement wholly unsupported so far by explanations of policy, conditions, or circumstances which the Government has yet seen fit to give. It is a mere statement which itself is destroyed, I think, by the counter-statements of the absolute helplessness of the enemy and the utter inability of the enemy peoples to rise, as it were, from their defeated state, and in any way endanger the full fruits of the military victory which this country has achieved. If it is impossible, as we are told, for Germany to raise an Army, or to establish anything like a composed condition either of trade or Government, and if the other enemy countries are, in like condition, so torn—as we know them to be—and so distracted with internal difficulties, what need is there to keep the blockade for any useful military purpose? If there is a need, it should be capable of explanation, and merely to repeat, either in this House or in the country, that the blockade is a necessary military measure is something which the mass of the people do not understand. If the Government prefers to have itself misunderstood than to give an explanation of the real need of this line of policy, I think they are not entitled to any sympathy whatever under that head from any quarter of this House. The blockade is a blockade of ourselves. It is harmful to industry. It is a check upon effort. It is preventing enterprise, which, I am sure, would be willing if there were greater free-play and liberty for the purpose of restoring peaceful conditions of business and industry in the country. The right hon. Gentleman referred especially to the effects of the blockade in Lancashire. That great industrial county is suffering severely from the effects of the blockade, and from the other conditions of trade restrictions which are doing no harm to the enemy and doing no good to ourselves. If this blockade and the trade restrictions had any evil effect as an act of punishment or any necessary check on enemy countries, I could understand it; but I repeat that the blockade and the trade restrictions are only harmful to ourselves and have not yet been made the subject of intelligent explanation to those who are suffering from them in the country. The country submitted readily, month by month and year by year, during the War, to all the restrictions on freedom and trade which war made necessary, but surely it may be said the War has been long enough over now to justify men in trade and business asking for the restoration of the trade and personal freedom which they enjoyed before the War. War measures in war time are one thing, but war measures in time of peace, after war has long been ended, is surely another thing, and it is not likely that business men or the masses of the unemployed workers will tolerate it for long in the country.

I would like here to utter the satisfaction with which this side of the House heard the references from the right hon. Gentleman to what is proposed as international measures to give to labour in many parts of the world some sense of security against evil forms of competition. It is well known that labour is not by any means completely satisfied with what has been done, and in one respect I would like to point out, in regard to one class of workers—namely, women—that, from anything I have read, no provision whatever appears to have been made in these international arrangements for the representation of women's interests by women in connection with what is now proposed. As the working conditions of millions of workers in this country and in other countries will be affected by the new international steps which are to be taken, they surely are entitled to a place being freely offered to them, instead of having to agitate for it, as, no doubt, they will when once these plans are expounded. I quite agree with the conclusions of the right hon. Gentleman as to the need for these international methods. They are necessary, if only as a protection for ourselves. The tendency in this country, rightly and properly, on behalf of labour, is to get a higher standard of existence, better housing, better wages, more leisure, better educatonal opportunities, greater security for themselves and their families. We can have no certainty of enjoying these things even if for the moment by force of unity one section enjoys them, because there is no security for their continuance if in other lands there are conditions of sweating, overwork and low pay, and all those evils which have made production unfair as between this and other countries in bygone times. Therefore this higher level by international action is one which we warmly welcome, particularly because same of us a quarter of a century ago did some little to set forth similar plans whereby the workers of the world would have an opportunity, partly through their government and their own organised associations, of establishing better conditions for the workers in all lands.

I would not like to accept without great reserve indeed the complaint expressed by the hon. and gallant Member who moved this reduction with reference to Labour Exchanges. Like all other parts of the great machine of government they have their defects, but I think on the whole it, can be proved that the personnel of the Labour Exchanges is quite capable of understanding fairly well the local labour and industrial conditions. I believe it is perfectly true that some of the men associated with the management of the Labour Exchanges are not men who have served in the workshop or in other ways have been identified with industrial service, but I know the test is very severe, and they are not admitted simply for the asking. Those who become managers and superintendents of these Labour Exchanges have to prove their qualification very satisfactorily before they are appointed. I am speaking of a number of instances in my own personal experience, and I can say that on the whole the men at the head of these Exchanges are fully fitted for the positions they occupy. Here I would say that these men, as compared with men doing similar administrative work in private service, and especially those occupying the position of manager, superintendents, and chiefs of these Labour Exchanges, are very much underpaid for the important State services which they render. I agree that the Government might have found some better way of administering unemployment benefit than the one which they have devised. Labour Exchanges are admirable instruments for dealing with labour difficulties in normal times. They were the growth of experience in other countries, and they were established out of our own needs here, and in normal times I am sure they performed a very useful function before the War. Even during the War they have afforded to the Government a ready means of carrying out very important industrial work which could not have been undertaken and discharged so well if the Labour Exchanges had not existed. The Government for the purposes of this temporary benefit, and this exceptional piece of service which the State has now to discharge to the unemployed, could have used the employers and the trade unions much more than they have done. Both these would, I am sure, for this temporary purpose have shown themselves quite willing to have served the State had they been asked to do so instead of this exceptional burden being thrown on the shoulders of the Labour Exchanges.

Let me say a word or two in regard to the Appointments branch of the Ministry of Labour. Here, again, I speak with some little personal experience, and I agree that the value of this grant of the Ministry's service ought not to be measured by the mere number of appointments that so far have been secured. What would have been said by the country and the critics in this House and by demobilised officers if the Government had made no attempt to find them positions and place them in some appropriate post after their return from the War? This is work in which anyone may fail, but in which everyone should try. I am sure that the men and officers who have been demobilised and injured officers who are working in connection with the Appointments branch have done very valuable service in securing positions for men who would not otherwise have obtained them. I think my right hon. Friend is entitled to complain of the bad example set by certain local authorities and public bodies in connection with the wages or salary they offer for the positions which they desire competent men to fill. Urban councils and municipal authorities ought to be the last to depart from that model employment of which they are always talking whenever they are asking somebody else to do anything I do not think £3 a week is too much for very important administrative positions requiring legal knowledge combined with com- monsense, and posts requiring all these attributes should secure for those who fill them a very much larger salary than the meagre pittance which some of these public bodies offer.

In the case of these men who are returning from the War many public bodies and employers seem to have forgotten what they promised in the first few months and the first year of the War, when many employers showed themselves worthy of the emotions which stirred the country, by giving grants and making promises of security to those who had gone to the War, and a very great expense was incurred in this way by many employers of labour. But now we find that men who have served their country and who have been injured and who have suffered from war disease, fevers and ailments of all sorts, are coming back and are finding no places ready for them. Labour unrest is not limited to those who were in ordinary industrial occupations. There is a great deal of discontent in the case of those who have served as officers in many theatres of War. I would like to point out where some of these officers, so far as I have gathered, are making a mistake—I am speaking of certain cases of officers who have approached me personally. Some of these officers are rather making the mistake of looking at civilian work from war standards, and they can make that mistake and carry it too far. The fact that a man has been a captain, or a major, or a man of some high rank or authority in war service should not blind him to the necessities of industrial and civilian occupations. Many interesting comparisons could be cited, but it is impossible to guarantee to all these officers the same measure of authority over men or the same salary or position they had while serving their country in khaki. When a man comes back to business life he must accept the conditions of business and take whatever is the best going under the circumstances, and if officers would look at the matter from that standpoint perhaps even the Appointments branch would meet with a larger measure of success in its work than it has done. I think this is a branch of the Ministry which is entitled to praise at any rate for trying to do its best, and for having succeeded in finding useful positions for thousands of men.

A considerable number of the sons of working men have attained position of rank as officers in the Army, such as lieutenants, captains, and so on. I know from a little personal experience again how very difficult it has been for working-class fathers to give to their sons who have come back from the Army any of those facilities to which the right hon. Gentleman referred when he spoke of the educational opportunities that had been arranged, say, at Cambridge, Oxford, or elsewhere. These young officers cannot go down to these seats of learning unless their pockets are well filled with money. I have had some personal experience in regard to a number of cases I know in which it has been impossible for the sons of working men, who have distinguished themselves in the field, and have come back with disease or injuries as a result of their service, and it has been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to take advantage of those educational opportunities which the sons of the more-favoured sections of the community can enjoy as a matter of course. I would, therefore, like the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of making things equal between the well-to-do and the poorer classes, to do something more under that head to secure equality.

I hope the Ministry of Labour may be enabled during the summer and autumn to get round these difficulties either by granting public money or by schemes or plans of some sort. I am afraid that unless something is done in this direction long before the winter is reached, if the unemployment problem is not solved, we shall have a winter of difficulties which even so accomplished a Minister, if I may say so, as the one who now fills this office, cannot possibly overcome. I am sure it is in the thought of all of us that the right hon. Gentleman has handed these questions with great resource and great sympathy. He has tackled some very difficult problems and he is entitled to our assistance. But there is a limit even to that, and I am afraid it will be reached unless the difficulties of the winter of this year are dispelled by the Government by a wise handling of this question of unemployment. We all wish to have trade restored to its normal state, but this can only be done when confidence is restored and the restrictions are taken off, and if the righthon. Gentleman can hasten that end by these changes during the autumn and summer, he will have lessened the difficul- ties of the winter, and which, when they arrive, we shall show ourselves willing to assist in overcoming.

I must ask the indulgence of the House in rising to make this, my maiden speech, because I am only a business man, and I have not the Parliamentary skill of many of those around me. I have listened with careful attention to what the Minister of Labour has said this afternoon with regard to unemployment, and I cannot help feeling that he is burdened with a very difficult task. He has presented his side of the case admirably, and I regret that he has not under him a staff of equal efficiency. If he had, I am certain that a man of his calibre would be able to solve this unemployment problem quite easily. His real difficulty is in finding work for the soldiers and sailors and those who have served their country in munition factories during the War. The ordinary methods of Governments in finding employment for workpeople will not do to-day. During the War the Government invariably failed in finding men and women for the various activities of the State, and in the raising of Kitchener's Army it was necessary to call in outside methods. Again, in obtaining women for the W.A.A.C.'s and the W.R.E.N.'s outside methods had to be called in. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that his Department not so long ago was asked to find men for the shipyards. The Admiralty were informed that there were no men available for the purpose. The matter was presented to those who understand the art of advertising, and in some five days so many men were secured for the shipyards that many of thorn had to be, sent back home again until housing accommodation could be found for them. The Labour Department, again, were asked to obtain women as manageresses in the Army and Navy Canteen Department. The Ministry informed that Department that there were no such women to be got, but in twenty-Four hours some 700 women were secured and fifty were taken on as manageresses. I therefore suggest that the Ministry of Labour have not exhausted all the means at their disposal to secure work for the soldiers and sailors and those discharged from the munition factories. I know that it is not quite proper for a man who understands publicity to rise in this House and discuss a matter with which he is familiar, but I have been daring enough this after- noon to do it, because I feel that one of the most necessary tasks before the Government is that they should immediately get the employés in touch with the employers. I believe it can be done, but not through the Labour Exchanges.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of a great many business firms and employés, these Ministry bureaux all over the country are a failure. I do not think that they have ever adequately dealt with any except the lower forms of labour. The type of man now wanting employment is not the type that goes to the Labour Exchanges, and asks for work; and, further, employers of labour who want that class of man do not go to the Labour Exchanges for them, and they will not do so. How can you get in touch with them? You have to arrive at a much more effective method. You have to inform the employer of the type of man who wants the employment that you have got, and you have to get the employés in such shape that you can send them where they are needed. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Clynes) approve of these Labour Exchanges. I feel that he was speaking for the trade union man who might, though I do not see any reason why he should, go to an Employment Exchange to find work.

If the Government many months ago had prepared the way for the rapid demobilisation of the Army, and had found out—it is something which they never seem to attempt to do—what was really going on in the country, if they had had a proper Information Bureau to gather facts for them and for every Department of the State exactly as the Intelligence Department found out facts with regard to the enemy, we should not need half the present Government staffs, and we should be able to get on with our work very much better. Soldiers and sailors have no right to be pauperised, and we have no right to pay them doles when they do not want doles. I believe that the man who fought for the country wants to work for the country, and I believe it is untrue that employers have not work for the vast number of the unemployed. I believe it is only essential to adopt the same methods that were adopted in getting men for the shipyards and women for the canteens to solve this question. I am fully aware that many people will say that a publicity man thinks that publicity is the beginning and the end of all things, but I believe it is the be- ginning of the solution of this unemployment problem, and because I feel that I respectfully submit it to the Minister of Labour for his consideration.

There is one aspect of the unemployment problem to-day which has not been touched and which appears to me to be one of its most serious aspects. There are men who have work offered to them, and who are willing and able to work, but who are prevented from working by their fellow workmen. Unfortunately, a very large number of firms who want men cannot get them. Why? Simply because the men who are available are not allowed to work because they have not served there gulation apprenticeship, or for some similar reason. I submit that the Government should disclose its policy towards the unions or the sections of workmen who are wittingly preventing soldiers and sailors who are willing to work and who can obtain work from undertaking that work. It is one of the most serious points against certain sections of labour, and I am sure the unions and those Members representing Labour here would not support such a policy. I hope the Minister will state to the Committee what the Government policy is to be when they find that firms cannot engage men because their present employés will go out on strike if they do so.

The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour in his opening remarks stated that during the election he never heard any objection to out-of-work benefit being paid. My recollection is that we were told that certain out-of-work payments would be made to ex-soldiers and sailors and those people who had been working for the Government and who would be demobilised, and that the donation would not continue for more than thirteen weeks for the civil people or more than twenty-six weeks for the soldiers and sailors. I do not think anyone can find fault with the payment to the soldiers or sailors provided that it does not extend over too long a period, but the payment to the civil workers is quite another thing. These people have been employed at very high wages and they must have known that the employment could not go on for ever. They ought, therefore, to have made some provision out of the high wages which they have received for temporary unemployment. No one for a moment contemplated, however, that people who have neither fought for the State nor worked for it in a civil capacity would receive out-of-work donation. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon stated that there was some statement to the effect that everybody, whoever he was and whatever he had done, would receive the unemployment donation. Some official announcement of that sort may possibly have been made, but I personally never saw it, and I do not think that I am exceptionally backward in looking out things or in reading the newspapers. It was quite news to me—I did not know it till I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman—that people who had never done any work of any kind for the State were to receive this cut-of-work donation. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary by what authority the Government are making these payments. It is a new payment. It may be right or it may be wrong, but I want to know by what authority this new payment is being made. My right hon. Friend said the newspapers did not object to it. We are coming to a pretty state of things when the Government are inclined to do things because the newspapers approve or do not object it is the House of Commons that ought to be asked whether it approves or objects, and that has never been done.

I have always understood that for a new service of this description an Act of Parliament was required. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman to that effect, and his answer was that the payment had been authorised by the Vote on Account for the Civil Service and that it would be legalised later by the Appropriation Act. That is not enough. I can only remember one precedent and that is a very bad precedent. There was no Act passed in order to enable Members of Parliament to be paid, but there was a Resolution. The Government of that day did not go so far as the Government of this day. They did not come down and pass a Vote in rather a camouflaged mariner, because there was no one in the House when the Vote for the Civil Service was taken who knew that this donation was to continue on this scale for so long. They did have a Resolution. We have not even had a Resolution. If we had had one, we should have had an opportunity of expressing our opinion whether or not this particular Grant was right. I therefore suggest that the Government have done wrong, because no one, whatever his opinion may be upon the subject, can deny that when they were going to spend £60,000,000 a year on a new service the least they could have done would have been to have come down and to have said, "Do you or do you not approve of what we are going to do?" I venture to say that five years ago this sort of dole would never have been sanctioned by the House of Commons, but in these days I am afraid that the Government have been treated by an indulgent House of Commons in such a way that they think they can do just as they please and as long as the newspapers do not object there is nothing further to be said.

6.0 P.M.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for one of the Divisions of Manchester (Mr. Clynes) made a very excellent speech with which to a great extent I agreed. But I think he was mistaken in his idea that there should be Government work given instead of these doles, as even if Government work were not remunerative it would bring something in return, whereas there was no return for the doles. That, so far, is true, but I would like to recall to the right hon. Gentleman's memory circumstances which occurred in Paris in 1848 when municipal workshops were started. At that time pretty much the same thing was said as now: that it was not right to give doles to people out of employment, but that municipal workshops should be established. They were, and the result was so bad that within three months they had to be closed down. The same thing will happen here if we try the experiment. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Labour Exchanges were doing the best they could, and no doubt they are doing so under very difficult circumstances. But he also seemed to think that the majority of people who are receiving these doles are really unable to get work. I venture to traverse that view. I believe the vast majority of these people could get work if they chose, although I do not know that it would be work they like. But they could get work

I sent a letter to the right hon. Gentleman from a constituent of my own, enclosing one written to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour. It gave names and addresses, and the complaint was that after women had been employed for a week or two they went away in order to obtain the unemployment donation so that no answer has been returned. I also brought before the right hon. Gentleman the case of a farmer in my county, but, as he eventually took the man on, although the facts as stated in the letter were correct at the time it was written, they have now ceased to exist, and there is no need to press the matter further. Everyone knows that in the agricultural districts there are a large number of people who want labourers and there are also a large number of farm labourers out of work who do not choose to take work. The difficulty in regard to domestic servants also is a matter of notoriety, and I need not dwell upon it. But how long is this thing going on? I venture to think that practically everybody in this House if they were placed in the position these men occupy would do exactly as they are doing. They are offered 29s. a week with an additional allowance for each child, and it is naturally a temptation to them to remain in receipt of the unemployment benefit. The vast majority of people do not like work; they would rather be without it, and human nature being what it is it is quite evident that as long as people can get enough to live upon they will take it in the form of unemployment benefit rather than do work. The figures show that this payment is increasing. I think I am correct in stating that it has reached its highest point at the present moment. I put aside the question of establishing municipal workshops or Government works. What is required is an announcement that these donations, excepting in the case of the soldiers who were given a definite promise—that these out-of-work donations will cease at the end of next month. If such an announcement is made and given effect to there are large numbers of people who will find work immediately, and the industries of the country upon the fruits of which do we depend to pay our way in the world will soon be re-established.

I have taken the trouble to find out what the unclassified services cost under the Vote for Civil Demobilisation. The results of my inquiry are really very startling. I find that not only are we paying large sums of money to these people who are out of work, but we are also paying an enormous sum to the people who are distributing these doles. The total for the Unemployment Department is £29,627,463. The out-of-work donation amounts to £25,000,000. There is a contribution to the unemployment fund of £1,100,000, to be added to the £25,000,000. You thus have £3,500,000 for salaries, wages, travelling, expenses, etc. Then coming to the Appointments Department, I find it has spent £359,180 on salaries and wages and £10,000 on travelling expenses. Incidentally, I do not know what they want to travel for. They simply crowd the trains, and make it uncomfortable for other travellers. There is an item of £5,000 for incidental expenses, and in all nearly £4,000,000 is spent on these officials. No wonder we are going to have a bad day to-morrow. If we are to spend £4,000,000 on the officials whose duty it is to pay out £25,000,000, it is not surprising there will be some difficulty with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Apparently that difficulty is shared by the whole of the Government, for at the present moment I see on the Front Bench no one but the Under-Secretary and an hon. and gallant Friend of mine (Lieutenant-Colonel Sanders), who I hope is learning something. But this does certainly open up a very serious state of things, and whether the newspapers approve or disapprove, I sincerely hope that the House of Commons will show, by voting for the reduction of the Vote which has been moved, that it disapproves of this system altogether. If it does that, it may possibly have some influence with the Government. But unless we show the Government that we really mean business, we shall be unable to convince them that the idea of giving to ordinary civilians an out-of-work donation in this way is demoralising to them, and ruinous to the country, and must end in serious financial disaster unless it is met in the way I have suggested.

I am profoundly conscious of the oratorial abilities possessed by this House and therefore I throw myself on the kindly consideration of hon. Members of greater experience. It appears to me that the matter we have been discussing this afternoon, has not been dealt with in that concise manner which so important a question demands, although, of course, many angles of it have been touched upon. On one hand it is considered Chat employment may be provided by the institution of municipal or national workshops. On the other hand, it is considered that a system of doles is a sufficient panacea for dealing with so important a question. But I suggest that the wideness and greatness of the question of unemployment is such that not only one section but all the great sections of the Government are concerned and must be consulted. For example, the Board of Trade, the Treasury, the Overseas Trade Department, and other Departments, are concerned in carrying this through. History shows that at no time has it been proven that unemployment can be cured, and it is up to us now to show that it can. It is necessary for us, in considering the question, to bear in mind the efforts made by the soldiers and sailors of this Empire, and to see that the uttermost is done to ensure that those who have fought for us shall have due opportunities when they return to civil occupations. I asked a question some few weeks ago as to how far the equipoise of trade had been re-established. The answer was not entirely satisfactory, but I venture to assert that when the great restriction on neutral markets are further eliminated we shall have further possibilities of absorbing much of the labour at present unemployed. But even that is not sufficient. There is such a thing as equipoise of taxation; probably that will be dealt with to-morrow, but we ought to have from the Treasury this afternoon some indication that employers will be afforded opportunities of utilising their capital in such a manner as to give them a state of trade solidity and a proper outlook which will enable them to enter into certain enterprises that will absorb some of this returned labour. In my opinion, there is not sufficient of the commercial element amongst those members of the Government who are dealing with this matter of employment. I make my bow with all sincerity to the Civil Service, which has done splendid work, but there is not in its ranks sufficient of the commercial-trained, economic, and scientific elements to enable it to deal with the trade of this country on international lines. If the Ministry of Labour is to be efficient in this matter, if it is to be able to cope adequately with unemployment, it must acquiesce in suggestions which may be made by other sections of the Government. I say this in the hope that the Ministry may obtain such help and assistance in dealing with the larger problems of finance and taxation, and the equipoise of trade, so that when trade is re-established low-priced labour in other lands may not prostitute the right of proper labour in this country.

The right hon. Gentleman, in his apology to the House this afternoon, laid a great deal of stress on the fact that he and his colleagues and those who preceded him had had no time in which to prepare their plans for absorbing that army of unemployed which everybody knew was coming into existence when the Armistice was signed. That is a very serious criticism of the Ministry of Reconstruction which has been working in this country for the last two years, and it is really an admission that they have not provided machinery to absorbe this unemployed labour which all people knew would unfortunately come. Nobody could possibly have cavilled at the policy of the Government with regard to the payment of unemployment benefit to those engaged in real war work, and for demobilised soldiers and sailors, provided that a time limit was fixed. On this occasion I want to associate myself with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), although in nine cases out of ten I disagree with him, in his criticism that this great measure of pauperisation—because that word will not be taken exception to by the Labour party—has been undertaken without the sanction of Parliament. Nothing of this kind has ever been attempted before in this country. It is undermining the authority of Parliament, and, as a private Member, I want to say that unless we make our protest now we have no conception of what the Government will do next with regard to the policy of socialisation. This vicious form of doles was not understood at the election. I, like the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, had not the slightest idea that this unemployment donation was to be given to any man who was blacking boots during the War and who chose to end his business. I do not believe that anyone who stood for Parliament at the last election had any conception that this donation was to extend all round.

The result of this policy is that while in many sections of the community unemployment is rife, at the same time we find that labour is unobtainable That is an impossible situation. As long as it exists the Government will have to watch very carefully indeed the policy of giving this unemployed donation. These payments are all eventually made at the expense of the taxpayers. I understand that we are going to have a shock to-morrow, but if ever there was a time when we should rally round that fine old Liberal word "retrenchment," it is the present moment, when we find that we are living on our capital and increasing our burdens. I know that the Prime Minister has a solution for all these things. If there is industrial unrest and criticism of this or of that, he always says, "Let us find the money." But the taxpayers of the country have to pay and there is a limit to that kind of policy. At present we have a colossal debt confronting us and no real attempt can be made to reduce that debt if you hand out some £170,000,000 extra in wages to the miners, £50,000,000 to the railways, and £25,000,000 in unemployment donations, in addition to the subsidy on bread and all the other great matters of expenditure. The total of these donations and these increases in wages comes to an alarming figure. It all comes back eventually on industry, and therefore on the taxpayers of this country. [Laughter.] I know that unfortunately hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway have not understood this question, but they are coming on. If the right hon. Gentleman for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Clynes) were here he would not laugh, like his followers behind him, if I suggested to him that the money—which is what the hon. Members want if their great social schemes, in nine out of ten of which I am in sympathy with them, are going to be accomplished—comes out of Revenue and that Revenue is principally affected by the accumulation of those burdens upon industry to which I am referring.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that the increase of wages comes from the taxpayers?

I do, certainly, and I should be very glad to make that clear to the hon. Gentleman. If you add—I am not disputing whether it is right or wrong—a million to the wages paid in the mines and on the railways, that inevitably does one or two things; it either reduces your profits and thereby reduces the Revenue, or else it increases the cost of coal and travelling. The consequence is that the taxpayers are inevitably hit both ways. Let me take another case. I would ask the hon. Member to consider the case of building. The reason why the Government has had to come down to this House in a panic with their proposals for housing is that the housing industry is not going forward. The reason for that is the cost of building houses. Strangely enough, the very people who more than any other section of the community are crying out for houses, and for whom this House must by hook or crook find houses, are the very people who are making the building of houses very difficult. At the present time it is a fact that the British worker is only doing work in the building trade equal to something like one-fourth or one-half of what is being done on the other side of the Atlantic. [An Hon. Member: "Why?"] I am speaking of pre-war experience. When I went to Canada I had the opportunity of meeting three men whom I had helped to go there, who all told me that they were engaged in the building trade and that they were laying three times as many bricks as they did in this country. They told me that as a result of that they were going to set up in business for themselves, and they expressed a hope that there might be a change in this country. All these great schemes upon which we are engaged, which may be necessary for the moment, necessarily re-act upon the Revenue of the country; consequently we are moving in a vicious circle, and ultimately we shall find that, if we have increased prosperity, all prices will rise as we raise the cost of production.

The Government's policy in connection with unemployment donations appears to be one of endeavouring to stop industrial unrest and unsettlement by paying out this money. What the Committee has reason to complain of is that this has been done without any forethought, without any real scheme, and without any system. [Interruption.] Probably the election was not absent from the Prime Minister's mind at the time, but most will agree that something has to be done in this way. But we never had explained to us this wild-cat system of doing this thing, and we complain that no steps were taken to protect the community. The result is that we are drying up sources of revenue and making it very much more difficult to bring about the recovery we desire. I know it is very easy to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him whether the present system is not a haphazard one—whether it is not possible and desirable and if it is not our duty in this House to insist that everyone who receives unemployment donation, when he attends a Labour Exchange or is offered work where he resides or elsewhere, should have that fact—I do not know whether it is being done at the Labour Exchanges, but it is being done by private firms—entered upon a card, so that we may know where he is, and that if he is offered some kind of work for which he is fitted, is not the House entitled to demand that the payment to him of unemployment donation shall cease? So far as I can make out, that is not done. [Interruption.] I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway doing everything in his power to keep up the standard of wages, which is the policy of trade unionism, but that is a very different thing from getting the sanction of Parliament to paying out unemployment benefit when a higher wage has been offered to the man. It is not the duty of the Government to do that. Yet that is precisely what is happening. Ultimately, it is going to affect labour in this country, because it is holding up the restarting of industry, and is preventing employment of many who would otherwise be employed as a result of industries being started. If the right hon. Gentleman would do something of that kind, it would put a different complexion on the whole matter. He has asked hon. Members to send him instances. I am sorry I have not done so. I can send him four or five, three or four from my own business. I had a case of a man who came back from the front to whom I immediately offered employment in that business. The men find that they can have a good long rest. I do not blame them, but it is the duty of the Government to see that everybody who is offered employment at a reasonable wage—there may be differences of opinion about that—should have that fact entered upon a card, and from that moment the taxpayers, including those whom hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway represent, should no longer be asked to pay out doles through the Exchanges in the shape of unemployment benefit. I believe there are thousands of cases in which that is going on. There is no incentive to a man to try to seek work, if it is not offered to him in one place, say at a distance of six or seven miles. Obviously no one likes leaving his own locality, but they may have to do so, and the time may come when it will be imperative. What incentive is there to any man to leave the place where he used to be employed in order to see if there is work ten miles off, and to which he may possibly have to move, so long as he is receiving the unemployment donation?

With regard to the number of unemployed in this country, we want to ask the Government what their policy is? I have not the figures by me, but I believe the right hon. Gentleman was quite right when he suggested that there was no cause for despair. We are not really in such a position as we might have imagined we should be. If we can get industrial unity and get rid of the restrictions on industry, the future is most rosy. The fact remains that at the present time unemployment in this country is not very high. I do not say that we should not do everything in our power to get rid of it, but if the right hon. Gentleman were to compare the present male unemployment with that which existed on the average for the ten years before the War he would see that the present figure is very little higher. The country is to be congratulated on the fact that it has been able to absorb something like 3,000,000 men in this very short time, and that at the present moment there are only some 500,000 unemployed in this country. I remember that the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman used to say some years ago that 30,000,000 were on the verge of starvation. It is necessary to protect the people of this country against the abuse of this unemployment donation. I do not believe that the majority of the men receiving the benefit are guilty of such abuse, but undoubtedly it does exist. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance on the matter, something which will decide whether I shall vote for the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, which I sincerely hope will not be necessary. We are also told that there are some 400,000 women out of employment in this country at the present time who are receiving this donation. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether those are women who were in employment before the War?

Some of them were in employment before the War, but not all.

There was an enormous number of women who came into industry for the first time during the War. Is this House deliberately deciding now, without any thought, on the policy that these women, who were never employed at all before the War, are in future to be kept by the State? It seems to me to be a very dangerous course to take.

Under the present scheme no person who was not normally in employment at the beginning of the war is entitled to unemployment donation.

That is certainly a very reassuring statement. May I ask if this is a fact, that a wife who is accustomed to occasional employment, whatever her husband's wages may be, can at this moment receive unemployment donation? It is being done in several instances. I saw a letter just now stating an actual case where it has happened. That seems to me to be monstrous. The right hon. Gentleman himself, quite rightly, stigmatised those who are taking advantage of the situation of the country at present in terms which were most severe. But could anything be worse than the fact that when a man is in receipt of very good wages, his wife who occasionally had some employment, should draw unemployment benefit? I hope he will remedy that abuse and it will be perfectly easy under a card system such as I have suggested. It is notorious that there are something like 250,000 women wanted at present in domestic service. I do not think the figure is an exaggerated one. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants evidence, if he were to write a letter to the ''Daily Mail"—I am not sure whether that would be permitted in the present strained relations, but if he would write to some other newspaper—I prefer that it should not be one of those in the recent Honours List, which was a newspaper Honours List with a vengeance—he would get instances. All of us have had experience of cases. The servant girl of a relative of mine deliberately went out of employment and has had the unemployed donation.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman's relative must have received a communication asking for what reason the servant had left the house, and if he answered truly, the unemployed donation would never have been granted

That shows that there must be something wrong, and these are the things we want to have cleared up. There is another case of a gentleman who kept a temperance hotel and had been gallantly fighting in the War. He came back, and has gone back to the hotel, but is still drawing unemployed benefit. These are cases which I shall now certainly look into and let the right hon. Gentleman know what is happening I should like also to know whether any action can be taken in a case like this. A man came to me not long ago. He was not a satisfactory worker. As a matter of fact, he was among the least satisfactory workers in a certain business in which I am interested I was going to take him on for no other reason than that he had been serving his country. The wage I offered him was not a big one. He did not accept it. I do not blame him, but I have every reason to believe he is drawing unemployed benefit. It seems to me there is something wrong there. These are things which we know are going on and which we want to see stopped. Is not the whole of this policy really altogether wrong? Is not there a halfway course between that adopted by the Government and that indicated by hon. Members representing the Labour party? Ought we not to be creating work? I do not mean State trading, which is absolutely fatal, and I do not mean municipal trading, which is nearly always fatal, and I do not mean control of the railways. But ought not the Government, working through all the Departments, to be stirring up productive work immediately? I do not know if it is being done, but it seems an amazing thing that whilst we are paying these vast sums of the taxpayer's money the roads are not being tackled to any great extent, and you can get bumped to pieces if you go along any road in the country and the streets in nearly every town are out of order. Ought not the municipalities to be encouraged to start at once to do that kind of work? Ought not they to be encouraged to get on with all their big municipal schemes? Ought not the Minister of Labour to try to get the other Departments, like the Colonial Office, instead of allowing contracts for locomotives in the Malay States to go to America to look ahead and see if they cannot go well in advance to firms in this country? That kind of work is more necessary than anything else. There are several big railway schemes contemplated in the great Colonies and Protectorates. Is not the real way to solve this question to give orders now for rolling stock, rails and all other impedimenta for these schemes at once in order to get productive industry working? We are not going to recover by increasing the burden upon this country. We are not going to get over our difficulties by merely putting up the prices of everything and increasing the debt of the country. The way to get round the corner is to stimulate our production, and it is far more advisable that the money which is being spent in unemployed donation should be lent at cheap rates to municipalities to start them on this kind of work than that we should do something which is undermining the character of our workers and which our workers themselves detest and loathe. No doubt many hon. Members have had letters from workers saying the last thing they want is the unemployed donation. Surely it is a better policy, even if we have to be a little imaginative, and have to look ahead five or six years and get in front of our our programme, to stimulate the kind of production I have indicated rather than continue a policy which can only in the end react very seriously against the industry of the country.

I have listened with regret to some of the speeches which have been delivered. It seems to me that the essential point has been entirely missed. The critics of the Minister of Labour seem to ignore the fact that we are in a transition period, that we are departing from war conditions to peace conditions. The regrettable thing to me is that whilst we could unite and unify our forces for the purpose of prosecuting the War, immediately the War is over there is a display of strife and of class interest which ought not to exist. To argue that the men and women who have worked so arduously during the War for the purpose of prosecuting it to a successful issue should be deprived of sustenance until such time as we can get on terra firma is an indication that the sentiment which has been expressed so forcibly, namely, that equality of sacrifice was going to be a factor, is something that we are hearing about but not seeing so much of. The suggestion of some of the Government's critics is that they are lavishly throwing money away, and that they are totally indifferent as to how they spend their money, and when the right hon. Gentleman declared that 66 per cent. of the cases that went before the Courts of Referees were rejected, it met with the appreciation and approval of the Mover of the reduction. Let us examine some of the cases which have been rejected. I have here the case of a woman aged twenty-five, offered daily domestic work in Newcastle at 6s. a week. She refused on the ground that she could not pay for her lodgings on the wage. Suspension of donation was upheld by the Court of Referees on 4th March. The case was finally allowed by the Umpire on 15th April. Take another case. Three young women, of an average age of seventeen, were offered work in an Irish toy factory at rates yielding a wage of 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. per week. Donation disallowed by Court of Referees on 4th March. Allowed by the Umpire on 15th April. You have the reverse side to the critcism that has been levelled against the Minister of Labour. In my Constituency of Clitheroe the out-of-work pay of some weavers was suspended because they refused to go fourteen or fifteen miles to Bacup. At the same time in Bacup there were weavers out of work. The Minister of Labour has been very severe, in my opinion, and has not been impartial in these cases that come before the Court of Referees. Take another point. Men desiring to submit a claim for out-of-work donation in the Clitheroe area have to go to the Court of Referees held at Blackburn. The railway fare comes to 2s. 7d., and in many cases out-of-work donation is disallowed on the ground of non-appearance. I commend this to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman with the hope that he will fix a Court nearer to Clitheroe, or otherwise provide money for the return fares of those who have to appear there.

I think the Minister of Labour hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head when he pointed out that the restriction of exports and restrictions on trade have considerably to do with this great mass of unemployment. Two or three weeks ago I went with a deputation of Lancashire Members to the Board of Trade to suggest the desirability of removing the embargo on trade with Scandinavia. I am glad to see that the embargo has been removed and that trade is now flowing more freely with that country. I want to point out, as has been pointed out more clearly than I can do it, that we cannot strike a blow which cuts off the trade relationship between us and 300,000,000 of people in Russia and Central Europe without feeling the recoil of that blow. We have there coil of that blow by our million of unemployed people, and I suggest that if we are going to deal effectively with this question of unemployment we shall have to extend another principle to the Central Powers, and Russia, at the earliest possible convenience, so that the flow of trade can operate between those vast populations and the people of these islands. It is all very well for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to suggest that we should derive what I call the legendary twenty thousand millions from Germany for the purpose of meeting the expenses of this country. It reminds one very much of the fable about grasping at the shadow and losing the substance. The fact that we are paying these large unemployment benefits is traceable in a very large degree to the fact that we have cut off these trade relations between the vast populations in Russia and Central Europe, and I say that the policy of the Government should be to expedite and facilitate the raising of the blockade. The question as to whether we can solve the problem of unemployment when we have recourse to international trade is purely a matter of opinion.

I have heard criticisms this afternoon as to the utility or otherwise of municipal and public undertakings. It has been suggested that if we could go back to the policy of Louis Blanc in the French Revolution, we should find examples where these wonderful experiments have failed lamentably. That may be so, but I would point out that whilst there may be an argument against the State management of factories at the present time, there can be no argument against the State utilising to the full the resources of the nation for the purpose of creating a greater amount of work. It seems a remarkable thing to me that the men and women who are receiving the 29s. a week out-of-work pay should become demoralised if they are receiving that money for any lengthy period, whilst on the other hand we have, as we all know, men in this country who have not been confined to the necessities of life as their means of subsistence, but who are taking year after year millions upon millions of pounds in the form of unearned increment, and yet they do not become demoralised. It is all very well to come down and challenge the working man who, through no fault of his own, but owing to the exigencies of the War, is driven into a tight corner, and to trounce him, and say if he accepts this dole he will become demoralised, and that the country will not reach anything like stability again; but I would ask the people who criticise so adversely the workers of this country to realise that there are in their own ranks men who toil not, neither do they spin, and who receive a very, great deal more than they are entitled to receive. We all hope that the time is not far distant when we shall be able to get back to something like stable conditions, and to work harmoniously together. If I were in the least anxious to sow the seeds of revolution in this country, I should accept the advice of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), when he suggested that on the expiration of a month we should suspend all out-of-work donation. If I wanted to develop in this country a spirit of riot and revolution I should accept his advice; but I think this House will have a greater regard for the workers who have done so well during the War, and who have worked for the purpose of enabling us to get over our difficulties. I hope we shall get over this difficulty without being at loggerheads with each other.

I must ask the indulgence of the House in addressing it for the first tme. It does seem to me a little curious that one whose work for the last four and a half years has been in a task altogether separate from the question of Labour should rise for the first time in this House to make a few observations on the subject of Labour. I want to make it quite clear that there is on our side of the House very strong sympathy with Labour, and that there is strong agreement with the closing words of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I deprecate these accusations of demoralisation against the workers. I do not believe that these so-called doles, unless they fall to unworthy people, have the effect of demoralising the workers. I believe, on the contrary, that it was the duty, the paramount duty, of this country to see that those who had necessarily to be put to disadvantage owing to the stress of war should, when the War ceased, be brought back into industry with the greatest possible consideration for their work and for themselves. I think that the soldier and sailor are entitled to this out-of-work pay, and I think that those who have worked in the industries of this country are also fully entitled to it. I agree with the Minister of Labour that during the past four years there must have been but a very infinitesimal minority of people in this country who have not done some work for their country to help to finish the Warand to secure victory.

I rise more especially to touch on one aspect of this question which has not been dealt with by other speakers, and that is the interesting announcement as to the creation of a permanent International Labour Bureau by the Peace Conference. I welcome that announcement very much. There were many of us, in the past ten years, who have been seeking by every means in our power to secure some protection for those who labour in this country from goods imported which have been produced under lower conditions of manufacture. I welcome the announcement that an agreement has been reached on the basis of a forty-eight hours week, and I welcome the announcement of schemes for the prevention of unemployment. The more minds are devoted to this question, the better for this country and every other country. I fear very much that the effect upon unfair competition of the forty-eight hours week and the other measures proposed will not be very greatly appreciated in the first instance. I think you will have to fix some minimum wage level, some international wage level, and you will have to take measures to exclude from this country, or to tax very heavily, the goods that have been made in countries where that wage level is not accepted, I think there is another protection that will have to be adopted, and that is the prevention of immigration into this country of alien labour which falls below a certain industrial level of efficiency. I do not think that we can afford in this country to absorb ill-trained inefficient labour imported from abroad.

7.0 P.M.

Stress has been laid on the impropriety of the sanctioning of large expenditure without coming to this House. It seems to me that that is becoming rather a practice. You have these industrial councils I think these industrial councils are admirable institutions, but it seems to me that they will trench upon the functions of this House if they tend to exceed the limits to which I think they ought to be confined. Industrial councils are set up in order to settle the conditions of labour in any industry, in order to smooth over difficulties between employer and employed. I think they may well make suggestions on any matter affecting industry, but it seems to me that they go beyond their province when they suggest large schemes necessitating expenditure, and when they suggest to the Government of the day that these schemes must be accepted before the Governmnt has been to this House and made a proposal for the necessary expenditure. It is not only the industrial councils which are in danger of trenching upon the functions of this House. We have sitting at the present moment the Coal Commission. The effect of the first Report of that Commission, as was well pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Christehurch (Brigadier-General Page-Croft), has been to put upon the revenues of this country a sum of something like £30,000,000, which will have to be raised out of taxation in order to supplement the wages of the miners. I cannot but think that that step is one which this House should take in the first instance. It seems to me that you have in this Report of the Coal Commission a new practice which is strange in this country I do not wish to go into the constitution of the Commission; there may be other opportunities of doing that. I do not wish to lay stress upon the obvious disadvantage of having litigants in a case acting as judge and jury and then becoming at another moment witnesses. The fact is that, in accepting the Report of that Commission, vast taxation is being thrown on the country. It seems to me that in this departure we are in danger of attaching too great an importance to the question of money—wages. We are getting into a vicious circle.

In the first place I should like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down upon his very comprehensive and thoughtful speech, which was in thorough sympathy with those who have to work for their living. May I, with the permission of the Committee, switch the Debate for a very few moments from the main topic of the unemployment donation to another topic namely, the withdrawal of labour from a vitally important industry like agriculture? Before labour is so withdrawn I think the Government should take steps to replace it. I hope the House will acquit me of any wish to advocate for one moment the interest of any particular industry. I shall make this appeal to the Government from the sole point of view of increasng the food supplies of the country and of not letting them run into any danger next winter. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour spoke about the pledges given at the General Election. There is, at any rate, one thing that was not pledged at the General Election in any agricultural constituency, and farmers to-day are greatly puzzled about it. It is that, although the Armistice was signed on the 11th November, now, six months afterwards, men are to be called up from that industry. That was not mentioned at the election by any member of the Government or any Member of this House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will be sympathetic in this matter, and I want him to realise the difficult position in which agriculturists are placed at the present moment, partly by reason of the very unpropitious season. I left Devonshire yesterday under six inches of snow, and that has put agricultural work backward to a very unusual degree. There is the question of the spring tilling, the putting in of oats and barley, and, more than that, there is the cultivation of roots, which must be attended to during the coming few weeks, and it cannot be attended to without labour. It is one of the fallacies that seem to permeate this House that anybody can be an agricultural labourer or anybody can be a farmer. It is really one of the most skilled industries of all, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is withdrawing something like 10,000 of the most skilled agriculturists in the country at this present moment, when they are especially needed for the cultivation of the land. I am not thinking so much about corn. Corn can be imported from abroad, but there is the question of growing roots and hay, which will be absolutely necessary for the feeding of the cows next winter. The milk question is going to be a very serious one, and unless food is grown for these animals you will not be able to get the supply of milk which is absolutely essential for our population. I put that in no spirit of criticism of the right hon. Gentleman or the Government, but simply and solely from my experience as an agriculturist. I do know that the milk problem will be a very serious one in the coming winter, and it will be far more serious if we cannot retain our labour on the land. I do not quite know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour is charged with this duty of replacing agricultural labour that is withdrawn by the Army authorities, but at any rate the Board of Agriculture have made representations to my right hon. Friend the Secre- tary of State for War. I read a letter only yesterday in the Press from Lord Ernle. He said:

"I have asked Mr. Churchill to allow a proportion of the men, such as farmers, skilled horsemen, tractor drivers, etc., to remain for a further two months."

And then—and this is what strikes me—he said:

"I am most fully alive to the differences farmers have to face, and I have again written to Mr. Churchill."

I do not understand that. Are not these Ministers on speaking terms? The Minister for Agriculture wrote once to my right hon. Friend who, I know, is most courteous and always answers his correspondents; but he has again to write to him, according to his letter, and press upon, him this immediate demand of agriculture, for the labour which it is proposed shall be withdrawn. What is incomprehensible to us in the country is the latest Return furnished to the Press by the Minister for Labour. It says that up to the 11th May there were 348,812—nearly 350,000—ex-members of His Majesty's forces who had been demobilised, but who were in receipt of out-of-work donation; yet for all that my right hon. Friend is actually going to withdraw 10,000 men who are now earning their own living and are engaged in cultivating the land to produce food for others. Surely that is not an economical transaction, to demobilise 350,000 men who have no employment and then say to the agriculturists that 10,000 of their most skilled men must be taken away at a time when they are most specially required. It is not business. I should have thought that in any private capacity we should have called it monumental inefficiency Of course, my right hon. Friend has to regard the soldiers as a whole. Some men have not been to the fighting front, and if we were at war I would not for one moment press the matter, because every man must take his fair share in fighting for the defence of his country. But we are not at war to-day—or at least I hope not, though one hardly knows what to think about it. I would therefore ask my right hon. Friend whether he cannot utilise this pool of unemployed soldiers now in receipt of out-of-work donation in order to supply the men he needs, and leave the men at home who are actually engaged in this vital work of food production. I have had, and every other Member of this House has had, letter after letter from our constituents, complaining that they cannot get labour. Certainly since the General Election Members of Parliament, if they have done their duty to their constituents, are not eligible for an unemployment donation. I have never had so many letters in ten years as I have had during the last three months. Therefore for me it is a most amazing thing that, whilst we have 350,000 ex-soldiers and sailors drawing out-of-work donation, everybody is crying out for labour. May I suggest that my right hon. Friend should re-read the very excellent speech which he made about three years ago on the subject of economy in the use of man-power in the Army. I would ask him whether, before withdrawing these men from, agriculture, he cannot effect at any rate some economy in the use of men in the Army. We get masters asking for men home from the Army who say that they are simply killing time—doing really nothing. Cannot my right hon. Friend avert that?

I should be going beyond my duty if I allowed a Debate on demobilisation in connection with the Labour Ministry Vote. The matter is only relevant to-day so far as it relates to labour on the land.

I, of course, accept your ruling, and will conclude at once by asking my right hon. Friend if he will be good enough to reconsider the decision he has come to, and not call up the men who are now vitally necessary for the cultivation of the land in the coming seeding season.

It is a very ungracious task, imposed upon me so often, to have to say "no" to requests which are put forward so reasonably and so courteously by hon. and light hon. Members of this House, and to resist the enormous number of really hard cases in regard to the retention of men in the Army. If I were not myself under the lash of imperious necessity, I should certainly not have been able to adhere to the general scheme of Army demobilisation which I have now so often explained to the House. May I remind the Committee that that scheme supersedes pivotalism, which had brought the Army to a state of general demoralisation and disorganisation. Of course I quite agree that pivotalism is better from the point of view of restarting industry. But it was impossible to make the man left behind content with the spectacle of lots of men who had come out only a few months, and were comparative young, going home and resuming the good jobs, who were enjoying life up to so late a period of the War, while others who had borne the heat and burden of the struggle were left behind.

The claim was insistently put forward to try to bring home these men, of whom I am sorry to say there are more than 200,000, who are non-retainable under the terms of our own order, who ought to be brought home, whom we are trying to bring home, and whom, for one reason or another, we have not been able to relieve up to the present. I have had hundreds of letters from persons in every class of society urging that these men who are not in the retain able classes should be released and brought home, and I understood that it was the general wish of the House that we were to do our very best to try to discharge these men at the earliest possible moment, and to relieve them by units which we are now forming. That is what we are engaged in doing. We are engaged in forming units which can be sent out in drafts to bring home these men from the stations where they are at present. Hard as is the case of the agricultural labourer, to which my right hon. Friend referred, it ranks after the case of these men who have been out all these years and are entitled under the definite promise which has been made, to immediate release from military duties. Many of these other men have been engaged in their peaceful avocations that are congenial to them, in the neighbourhood of their homes, during long periods when others have been far from their families and their native land, and enduring all the hard, cruel experiences of the shattering War through which we have passed, and it must be remembered on this question that one man's meat is another man's poison. If a certain number of men are needed to carry on the main work of the State and sustain its interest during the present period to release one class is to condemn another class who forego the relief which is promised.

I have given directions for the compassionate cases to be extended in accordance with a broader scale of general principles, and I hope, in the course of the next few days, to make an announcement which will have the effect of releasing a good many thousand men who otherwise would be retained. I am very much afraid of opening pivotalism. It seems to me that if you start releasing men from the Army because they are skilled in agriculture, you cannot refuse to release men who are required for all sorts of important business, and industrial concerns. Just as good a case can be made in regard to men who are not engaged in agriculture as in regard to men who are so engaged. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have had an enormous number of these cases before me. I have been shown the cases of men who are so singularly skilled in the particular work which they are doing in connection with cotton weaving or various engineering works, sometimes indispensable men in regard to business, and in case after case I am perfectly certain we could match three or four times over every one of these 10,000 men. who are now concerned with agriculture. And, remember, once you have conceded the principle in regard to agriculture you will no longer have that broad, rough and ready line on which we can stand, which the Army has accepted, and the enforcement of which has been marked by a revival of discipline and contentment in the Army that is an extraordinary contrast with the situation in January of the present year. Hard though it is, yet it appeals to the broad tense of justice of the serving soldier and the fighting man.

It is said now, "You are still keeping men who ought not to be retained." I admit it. I have had telegrams from General Allen by and General Milne stating that a large proportion of their forces in Egypt and India consisted of men who ought to be home or were on their way. In Egypt the other day, a great number of these men were gathered at a station to go home when they heard that there was a violent upheaval in the country, that their countrymen were in danger, that the British flag had been insulted and their comrades killed, and they put aside their right to come home. In India there were 16,000 men gathered together in the camps for embarkation, who were just to slip through before the hot weather began. They were men who should come home, many of them of a weak class. Immediately the trouble cropped up in India all these men refused to take advantage of their rights and volunteered to stay on for the period of need. But, of course, the moment things begin to settle down, as I hope and trust they will soon, these men will revive their claim, and I am bound—doubly bound, in view of what they have done—to bring them home at the earliest possible moment. I do not think that the case of the 10,000 agriculturists is comparable with those cases which I have mentioned.

I will now say a word on agriculture and the Army as a whole. We have demobilised altogether since the 11th November 81,422 officers and 2,445,000 men, or a total of 2,527,000 persons. I think that that is a very tremendous fact. This great and mighty mass of men, the strongest men we have in this country, have come back, and they are in our midst. They are reviving the life of the country again. But, so far as agriculture is concerned, up to 23rd April I am informed that 280,000 officers and men have been demobilised, from all arms of the Service, who this time last year were serving away from the country, to come to the aid of the agricultural industry. So if we call up from agriculture 10,000 men, who are in the retainable classes, we have, during the period of demobilisation, liberated more than 200,000 men of the non-retainable classes

You took away the National Service men.

I am speaking of the demobilisation from the Army. The military personnel employed on agriculture is of two kinds at the present time. First of all, there is the Agricultural Corps. In the second place, there are 9,000 men on leave who were allowed to go last year to help in getting in the harvest and have been, for very excellent individual reasons in each case, retained from month to month. Of the first class there were 70,000 in those companies at the time of the Armistice. There are 20,000 to-day. They have been released from control: presumably they will continue in agriculture although no longer under military control. There are 9,000 of these men on leave, and it is these men on leave—who, for the most part were released from the Cavalry and Artillery, which were units that we have the greatest difficulty in supplying now, and which are, of course, extremely important for the efficiency of our Army—whose withdrawal is causing the complaint which is made at this juncture. I do not feel that I should be justified in making any change in principle in the manner in which we are handling this question, and I would warn the House of the very great danger that might easily follow from any such step to the discipline of the Army as a whole; but I will see whether the withdrawal of portion of these 9,000 men who are on leave cannot be delayed as much as possible to mitigate the hardship and inconvenience which are caused; and if my right hon. Friend will, in the course of two or three days, put me a question on the subject, I will give him a specific statement as to what we can do in the nature of mitigating the withdrawal of these men.

Will the matter be hung up meanwhile?

I will see what action may be taken in the course of the next twenty-four hours, and will announce to my right hon. Friend or any other hon. Member in the course of the next few days what I have found it possible to do. But I must not be led to suggest that we shall be able to meet all the wishes that have been expressed. Still, if we can in some way mitigate or delay this withdrawal without prejudice to the general principle I will do my very best.

I would not like to sit down without saying one more word on this matter. I have been repeatedly accused of keeping more men than are necessary for the discharge of our responsibilities at the present time. Every day the evidence accumulates that if anything we have got too few. The situation in India, in Egypt and in Ireland all make drains upon us. The Army of the Rhine must be kept at its strength and efficiency during the most critical period of all, during these negotiations. It would be absolutely courting disaster if we were to weaken it at this stage. One of the most solemn and pathetic duties which fall to the War Office at the present time is the care of the graves of our soldiers in France. There are no fewer than 160,000 isolated graves and it is necessary that all these should be collected reverently but speedily, as speedily as possible, and gathered together into the cemeteries which exist, and that those cemeteries should be kept in good order. I am told that 15,000 men are needed to conclude and carry out this very urgent and solemn work and I know that one of the reasons why we are trying to draw men from many sources to France and Flanders is to secure from those men so gathered a sufficient number of volunteers at special remuneration to enable us to discharge this duty. I only mention that as one of the causes. I have been very much distressed to have some of these demands made for men which one feels absolutely must be made, and yet to look around and not have the facilities to meet them. Therefore I must ask the House to be tolerant with me and the War Office in these matters. Then, as the House knows, we have several hundred million pounds worth of stores in France to guard. There are very few men engaged in guarding and watching them and considerable leakages have been occurring where the guards have been reduced. Even carts have been seen bearing down upon these storing places and removing the property, which is of very great value.

We must look after all these different things for the next few months, and I do beg the House to believe that if we are drawing upon the resources of our men within the retainable classes it is only because we are confronted by the grimmest forms of necessity. I can only say, of course, if my right hon. Friend's suggestion were adopted of remobilising some of the men who have been already set free it would relieve the difficulty, but it would be a very formidable step to take. Those men who have been demobilised are men who went out before 1916 and have fought all through the struggle, and they understood when they left the demobilisation station that nothing short of a world-wide catastrophe would call them from their homes. It is quite true that there are 350,000 of them now drawing unemployment benefit. But still they were promised a certain period of unemployment benefit after leaving the Service, if they could not find employment. It does seem to me it would be a very grave decision to take to say that any soldier who, having been demobilised, drew unemployment benefit for so many weeks, would ipso facto be recalled. It would be a very serious decision to take. It is not one which I think should be entirely excluded, but certainly it seems to be a more important decision than any involved in the treatment of the agricultural problem so far as we are concerned with it. Another source which my right hon. Friend has not mentioned which would enable me to liberate great numbers of skilled men and great numbers of men who are fathers of families and have been a long time out at the front, would be the calling up of young boys of eighteen who, so far, have not had any sacrifices demanded of them in the course of this great struggle. If relief were obtained from that source, it ought to be possible, as soon as those youths were trained, to make very considerable relaxation in regard to all the conditions under which men are retained in the Colours. I am not suggesting for a moment on these matters that that is the policy of the Government, but I do throw these matters out for the careful consideration of the House and those many Members of the House who devote so much time and thought to military subjects at present.

I trust that no one will think that those of us who are anxious to retain the 9,000 men in agriculture have any desire to hurt any soldier who is serving his country in these days. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that patriotic instinct is to be found in agriculture as well as anywhere else. If I am correctly informed there are at present something like 29,000 soldiers engaged in agriculture, and 9,000 of those men who are considered in agriculture to be pivotal men are being called up for to-morrow, whilst the remaining 20,000, who are not skilled and could be far more easily spared, are being left to a later period. We respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he would take first of all the non-skilled men and leave the skilled men he would help very much to solve the problem. The position so far as Scotland is concerned is this, that never, or very seldom in the history of the country, has the season been so late as at present and never possibly have there been so many acres out of cultivation. The ploughing of that land was done by the men obtained from the Army, and with the soil ready and the furrows turned over and much valuable work done, there will be no skilled men to do the seeding, which is the essential matter. If some relief is not afforded agriculture will be left in a far worse position than it was in pre-war days. I think the House has come to an agreement that whatever is going to happen we are not going to allow agriculture to go back to its old position. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that 208,000 men formerly in agriculture had been demobilised, and he presumed, I suppose, that those men had gone back to agriculture. I think every agriculturist in the House who knows anything about the position will say that those 208,000 men have not gone back to that industry. A great many of those men found appointments elsewhere and have gone elsewhere, and at the present moment agriculture is very much understaffed. I had a telegram from a. Scottish farmer, saying that if the order was carried out and if the men must go to-morrow he has only one man left where there are six horses working, and all the other labour incidental to a farm of that size. That is not, I am sorry to say, an isolated case. If we got the calling-up notices of these 9,000 men recalled it would only be from 12 to 40 per cent. of the total number of soldiers engaged in agriculture at present, and surely there is the possibility of taking the less skilled men and leaving us the more skilled men.

There is an idea abroad in some quarters that the reason agriculturists wish to retain soldiers in employment is because they get them at a lower rate of wages. I am perfectly certain, speaking for my own particular part of the country, no such thing holds. We are paying our soldier labour far in excess of the minimum wage fixed, and in many cases the men are receiving wages equal to 60s. per week, and we do not grudge them the money, because we find them the very best men, well able to earn that sum. Lord Kitchener, who certainly must be acknowledged as a great authority, said in the early days when war broke out, "Please do not call any man to the Colours who is essential to agriculture." If that held in Lord Kitchener's time, when we were in such a period of crisis, surely it must hold to-day. In the event of the right hon. Gentleman not being able to cancel the calling-up notices, surely we can ask him to postpone the calling-up notices. If he can do without 20,000 unskilled men engaged in agriculture until the 28th May, surely he can leave the 9,000 skilled men. At any rate I plead with those representing the War Office, that we have no desire to do anything that would hinder any man who is entitled to be returned, but we know perfectly well that if you take away these men you will leave the farmers in Scotland at least, in this position, that a very large acreage that ought to be providing the very best foodstuffs for the nation will be left derelict. Take the question, for instance, of potatoes which is a question I know thoroughly. You have at the present moment practically no potatoes sown in Scotland. In the counties of Perthshire, Forfarshire and Fifeshire, 680 men are being called up to-morrow, and the farms there will have no one to put the seed in the seed beds. The result of that will be that next season the English grower will not obtain his Scottish seed as he did on former occasions, and very serious individual loss will come to us. I think that all that could be avoided by a little rearrangement of the men who are to be brought up. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman has the interests of agriculture at heart as well as the interests of the Army. We are all united in the common wish that the nation should prosper and that we should have every fruit that victory entitled us to procure, by having as many men as possible at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman, but we plead with him to leave with us the men who are absolutely essential.

As an agriculturist, and I can claim to be so as I have worked at it all my life, may I say that we are deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for having so kindly gone into this question, which I may assure him is very much upsetting the whole of agriculture in this country. In the last two days I have received over fifty resolutions besides innumerable letters which I have not had time to read, asking for support of the action of the Member for Devonshire in the matter he has brought up to-night in order that some clear statement should be made by the Minister for War. We have heard that the right hon. Gentleman is going to give us a statement in a day or two regarding this matter, but may I ask him if he cannot say something more than that to-night, because I believe I am right in saying that all these men are being called up for the 1st of May.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me. I recognise the difficulty in which the House is put tonight by the very short time which intervenes, and of course I am only endeavouring in all these matters to give effect to the general wish and desire of the House. While I am examining to see what can be done, if anything can be done—and I am not making any definite pledge—I agree it would be necessary that there should be a postponement, and I will therefore give directions for a postponement of a fortnight, during which time we may make a more detailed examination of this matter; and I do that without prejudice in any way to the final decision.

The very thing which the right hon. Gentleman has now promised us was exactly what I was going to ask him to do, because we felt he should have time for a due consideration of this matter. I will not detain the House longer now, because I feel if he will do this, and if he will only let the authorities know definitely that this postponement is for a fortunight, so that the farmers shall have the benefit of that time, I believe I am right in saying that the agricultural community will accept it with many thanks.

I wish to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend, who, I think, convinced the House that there were very great difficulties in front of the War Office at the present moment, and I am sure the agricultural industry will quite recognise that and will give due weight to what he said. But he suggested that he would to some extent substitute or, at any rate, consider compassionate grounds where a strong case could be made out. Hitherto compassionate grounds have dealt only with the case of the man himself, but in agriculture, although my right hon. Friend said that agriculture was in no different case from other industries, I think he will admit that it is in a different case in this particular. In other industries if this man or that man is taken away it does not greatly matter, but in agriculture the taking away of a particular man might very well absolutely ruin the small farmer with whom he is employed, and I beg of the right hon. Gentleman, when he is taking into account compassionate grounds, to include the case of the employer as well as the case of the employed, and, where it is proved to him that the taking away of a particular man will mean ruin and disaster to the farmer from whom that man is taken, to allow such a case to come under compassionate grounds. The righthon. Gentleman said that there is an enormous number of men already demobilised, and that agriculture ought to find some among them, but there, again, there is a difference between agriculture and other employments. Other employments are carried on mainly in industrial centres, where housing accommodation is available, but in the rural areas housing accommodation is not available except for the men actually employed on the farms. Particularly in the case of these men who have been given leave to go back to their work, in almost every case they have gone back to their own house on a particular farm, where their families are occupying those houses, and no other houses are available. If those men are taken away, there may be any number of men available in other districts, but they cannot be brought to work there because there is no housing accommodation for them. I do hope my right hon. Friend will take that practical consideration into account. He has given a valuable concession that the calling up of the men will be postponed for a fortnight—

The leave men.

The leave men, but I would ask him to remember that the agricultural industry is being very highly tried at the present time in many directions, not only by the weather but for other reasons as well, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to treat it as tenderly as he can, and to realise that the practical side of this question is only really known to the farmer who is on the land. Judging by the number of letters that are received and the general feeling on this question in particular districts, I am sure we can hardly put the case too high, and we can only leave it to my right hon. Friend to weigh against the side which he has put to the House. I admit that his horizon is wider than ours, and that he knows both sides of the question, but I do not think we can put our side too high, and I hope he will make the utmost concession which is possible under the circumstances.

I rise for the first time in this House because I feel that, as a representative of a very thickly-populated industrial Division, I ought not to allow the agricultural Members to have the whole say in this matter, which involves such vital principles. The whole attack has been made on the War Office, when, as a matter of fact, the Department principally concerned is the Ministry of Labour, with whose Vote we are dealing in this Debate. A few weeks ago we were told by the Minister of Labour that some 9,000 agricultural labourers were drawing out-of-work donation, and one cannot help comparing that with the statement just made that some 10,000 agricultural labourers are involved in this question of rejoining the Colours. I think we ought to know what steps the Ministry of Labour is taking to place these 9,000 labourers, or more, if there are more now, on farms to relieve these men who are to take their place again in the Army, and also how many girls who were employed on theland—Land Army girls—are now drawing out-of-work donation, and how many of them could be returned to farm work to relieve some more of these men. I think the industrial community must really support the view that has been taken by the Minister for War on this question. To reintroduce the question of "pivotals," which has caused so much trouble, is the very last thing that some of us wish to suggest. In regard to the Ministry of Labour, there is another point on which I want to ask one or two questions, and that is in regard to the Appointments Board. We were told when it was first formed that it was to provide officers and men who had reached a certain standard of education with appointments in civil life, and numbers of leaflets were doled out in the Army and at home all giving certain officers and men the impression that suitable jobs would be found for them when they came home. What is the result? Many men whom I know of have filled in form after form, have waited hours, and have heard nothing of a job. An answer was given shortly before the Easter recess that roughly 113,000 officers had applied for appointments, and I think less than 1,500 were known to have got civilian billets. The Minister for Labour stated to-day that some 5,000 men have been found jobs, and I take it that that number includes those who have found jobs in Government departments, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary how many vacancies have been notified by employers. We were told that only 50 per cent. of the vacancies that had been notified offered salaries over £250 a year, and I would like to ask whether the whole of the 50 per cent. of the vacancies have been filled from the ranks of those 113,000 men. Then what is the cost of this department? In the estimate it appears at about half a million—I think it is £445,000—but that only accounts for salaries, wages, and allowances, and we have to add to that the cost of buildings, the St. Ermin's Hotel, of unenviable fame, Horrex's Hotel, and expensive premises all over the country. I suppose that will come under the Office of Works Vote. Then there are many military officers employed in the department. Is their pay included in this Vote or in the War Office Vote? Altogether it is quite reasonable to assume that over a million a year is being paid away in this Officers' Appointments Department, which at present has only succeeded in placing some 5,000 men, of whom apparently the majority have been given jobs in Government departments. I just mention these few points because I think many hon. Members would like to have some information upon them, and I thank the Committee for the indulgence it has shown me.