House of Commons
Thursday, July 11, 1929
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Kilmarnock Water Provisional Order Bill,
Order [10th July] for committal read, and discharged.
Bill ordered (under Sections 9 and 16 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), to be considered To-morrow.
Message from the King
reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.
National Debt
Return ordered,
"showing for the financial years commencing the 1st day of April, 1880, the 1st day of April, 1890, the 1st day of April, 1900, and for each financial year thereafter—
Oral Answers to Questions
Naval and Military Pensions and Grants
Seven Years' Limit
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received any deputations from any organisations asking him to consider the abolition of the seven years' time limit for service pensions; and whether he can state the decision of the Government in this matter?
I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Members for Middlesbrough West (Mr. Griffith) and Bristol East (Mr. Baker) on the 9th of this month, of which I am sending him a copy.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to let us have an answer to this question?
No, I am sorry it is not possible to-day.
Dependants' Pensions
asked the Minister of Pensions whether instructions have been or will be issued to the dependants' branch that, in cases where notification is received of the death of a parent in receipt of a dependants' pension in respect of a son killed in the War, the surviving parent shall be informed that the pension is transferable on application?
It is not practicable to give notice precisely in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend, as my Department does not necessarily know whether there is a surviving parent in any individual case. I have, however, arranged for an intimation of the provisions of the Warrant on this matter to be conveyed to all pensioners individually of the classes affected. At the same time a notice on the subject will be exhibited in Area Offices and the matter is being brought to the attention of War Pensions Committees.
Tuberculosis Patients, Efford
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the desirability of stabilising the pensions of the patients suffering from tuberculosis in the Devon and Cornwall ex-service men's colony at Efford, near Plymouth?
It would not be in the best interests of the men concerned to make final awards as a matter of course to any particular group of men suffering from tuberculosis. Final awards are, however, made in any cases found to be suitable, and in other cases awards are made for prolonged periods, wherever possible, so that the pensioners may be spared the necessity of frequent examination.
Sub-Office, Abertillery
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is prepared, in view of the disadvantage at which the ex- service men are placed in having their matters efficiently and expeditiously dealt with, immediately to reopen the local pension office at Abertillery for at least one day in each week?
The part-time sub-office at Abertillery was closed with the concurrence of the Monmouthshire War Pensions Committee as the number of interviews had become negligible and did not justify the expense involved. I have no information that hardship or inconvenience has been caused to ex-service men.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, since the local office has been closed, ex-service men, in order to obtain the advice they require have to travel a distance of from 30 to 35 miles?
I am stating the information as given to me. If my hon. Friend can give me additional information on the point which has been raised, I will certainly look into it.
Ex-Ranker Officers
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he intends to re-examine the case of the ex-ranker officers' pensions?
I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on the 9th instant to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha).
Low-Scale Awards
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he intends to alter the pension scheme as it affects pensioners granted under 20 per cent, final award?
I am not quite clear what the hon. Member has in view. I may say, however, that the particular grade of beneficiary referred to enjoys, equally with beneficiaries more severely disabled, the safeguards afforded both by the Assessment Appeal Tribunals and by the Ministry's own arrangements for the correction of errors of final award.
Police
Women Police
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what are his intentions as regards the compulsory appointment of women police?
I think the employment of women police by local police authorities may properly be encouraged where there is scope for them, but it is not, in my opinion, a matter for compulsion.
Police Federation (Branch Board Meetings)
asked the Home Secretary whether the regulations made under the Police Act, 1919, permit of the quarterly meetings of the branch board of the Police Federation being held at any time during the quarter to suit the convenience of the branch board, but subject to the exigencies of the service?
Yes: subject to the exigencies of the service and to the provision that the annual meeting, at which delegates to the Central Conferences are selected, must be held before the 7th November.
Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire why facilities for such meetings are refused the Portsmouth City Police?
I should require to have notice of any supplementary question of that kind.
Employment Agencies (Girls)
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the Report of the departmental committee nominated by his predecessor to investigate the welfare of girls in London, he is prepared to consider the introduction of legislation in England and Wales which will bring all employment agencies under the control of public authorities?
The recommendation of the Committee referred to was concerned specifically with domestic servants registries. Some measure of control over these registries is already provided for in Section 85 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, which can be adopted by any local authority. The effect of the recommendation would be to convert this into a system of licensing. I cannot give any promise of bringing in legislation for the time being, but the Government would view sympathetically any Bill that may be introduced to give effect to the recommendation.
Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from the London County Council or other councils asking that facilities should be given for legislation?
I have no information on that point.
Football Players (Transfer Fees)
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the introduction of legislation to prohibit the practice of the payment of sums of money on the transfer of professional football players from one club to another?
The answer is in the negative.
While appreciating that the Government do not want to interfere with the transfer of talent, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is in a position to inform the House of the transfer fee, if any, in the case of the Attorney-General?
Petroleum Filling Stations
asked the Home Secretary what action he proposes to take on the Report of the Petroleum Filling Stations Committee; and whether he has approached any local authorities regarding the Committee's recommendations?
As soon as I have received the supplementary Report which the Committee is preparing, and which I hope will be available in a few days, I propose to issue a circular to all by-law making authorities bringing the Report to their notice and inviting them to proceed to an examination of the needs of their area with a view to the adoption of bylaws.
Public Health
Dangerous Drugs (Thefts)
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the number of thefts of drugs from motor cars belonging to doctors; and whether, in view of the in creasing number of this class of theft and the consequent dangers arising therefrom, he proposes to take any steps to prevent medical practitioners leaving dangerous drugs unattended or in other than some reasonably safe place?
Yes, Sir. There have been a certain number of such thefts, but I am informed by the police that they are satisfied that these thefts are ordinary cases of petty larceny and have no connection with any form of traffic in dangerous drugs. It is a little difficult to see what action I could usefully take in the matter, but it is desirable that medical practitioners and others who have these drugs in their possession should be particularly careful to avoid any risk of their being lost or stolen, and I hope the publicity which has been given to the matter will lead to greater care being taken.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 29 cases of this description have taken place during the last 12 months; that yesterday, in Bolton, drugs of a similar character were stolen, and that it is stated in the Press to be more than likely that a quantity sufficient to kill 20 people has found its way into the hands of children?
I am not aware of any occurrence of that kind, but I think the publicity now given to the subject is likely to reduce the number.
Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the medical fraternity that, if cases of this kind increase, or continue at the same rate, some method will have to be adopted of enforcing penalties; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that criminal negligence on the part of miners or railwaymen is invariably punished with imprisonment?
I can only add that, if the terms of my answer are not effective, further steps might be taken.
Maternity and Child Welfare
asked the Minister of Health whether a greater allowance is to be made for milk at maternity centres than was granted by the late Government?
asked the Minister of Health if and when he intends resuming the full grant of milk to necessitous expectant and nursing mothers, which was reduced by £12,000 a year under the late Conservative administration?
The maximum expenditure by each local authority on the supply of milk for mothers and babies during the current financial year which will be recognised for grant by my Department was fixed in March last, but any case in which application is made for approval of additional expenditure proposed to be incurred for this purpose would, of course, be considered by me on its merits.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will give very great dissatisfaction to a large number of people who helped to put the Government into power? [HON. MEMBERS: " Why? "] On the ground of the base accusations which were made against the late Government.
May we not take it that my right hon. Friend will give estimates of expenditure upon milk which are submitted to him much more generous and humane consideration than has been given to them in the past?
rose —
These aftermaths of the election are not suitable for Question Time.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the feeling among those interested in maternity and child-welfare work that the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, will hamper the development of this work; and does he propose to take the necessary steps to prevent this by restoring the percentage grant for these services?
I am aware that in certain quarters there is an apprehension of this kind, but I could not undertake at the present stage to introduce legislation for the continuance of percentage grants for maternity and child-welfare work. The effect of the new system of grants on the development of the public health services will be carefully watched.
Is there anything to prevent the Treasury altering the system of grants without changing the law?
I think that question had better be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
National Radium Fund
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the desirability, in connection with the National Radium Fund, of allowing local hospital authorities to send earmarked contributions to the fund so that these may be doubled by the State grant, as was the case in connection with the Miners' Distress Relief Fund?
I have been asked to reply. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to adopt the hon. Baronet's suggestion, since, as was stated in the House on the 16th April, the contribution from public funds towards the purchase of further supplies of radium is subject to a maximum limit of £100,000, and the equivalent of this sum has already been raised by private subscription.
In view of the fact that £100,000 has been or will be contributed to this fund by the general taxpayers, does not the right hon. Gen- tleman think that provincial hospitals have a very strong claim to receive some assistance from the central fund?
That matter is now being dealt with, and a statement will shortly be made public as to the manner in which the radium supply is to be allocated.
Blind Persons' Pensions
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government contemplates, in the case of civilian blind, the lowering of the pensionable age from 50 years, at which it now stands, to 40 years?
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is proposed to carry through the promise of the late Government to give pensions to the blind at the age of 40 instead of, as now, at 50?
I have been asked to reply. This matter is under consideration.
Small-Pox and Vaccination
asked the Minister of Health the number of deaths that have occurred during the last 12 months from small-pox and from the after effects of vaccination, respectively?
During the 12 months ended the 31st May last, 39 deaths occurred in which small-pox appeared in the coroner's certificate or the medical certificate as the cause or one of the causes of death. In the same period there were 29 deaths which were returned as having been associated with vaccination.
Thorpe Mental Hospital (Attendants' Hours)
asked the Minister of Health the number of hours worked weekly by the attendants at the Thorpe Mental Hospital; and whether he has received any reports from his inspectors regarding this matter?
The weekly hours of duty amount to 59¾ hours actual working time spread over five days. The attendants, however, are allowed two whole days consecutively off duty each week, and also 21 days leave each year. These arrangements are in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Conciliation Committee of the Mental Hospitals Association and the National Asylum Workers' Union. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
Deaf and Dumb Persons
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations as to the desirability of making some provision for the deaf and dumb on the lines of the legislation which has been passed for the benefit of blind persons; and whether, in order that exact information may be available, he will cause inquiries to be made as to the number of persons in destitute circumstances because of this affliction and the probable cost of making adequate provision for them?
Yes, Sir. The representations which I have received on this subject will be carefully considered by me. As at present advised, however, I am not satisfied that it is desirable to undertake such an inquiry as my hon. Friend suggests.
M. Trotsky
asked the Home Secretary whether M. Trotsky will be permitted to come to England?
asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been arrived at in regard to the application made by M. Trotsky to come to live in this country?
The Government, having carefully considered all the circumstances of the case, have decided against the grant of facilities to enable M. Trotsky to visit this country.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the past Kossuth, Garibaldi, Mazzini, Orsini, Karl Marx and others have been permitted to come to this country?
The question which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has on the Paper is very definite and the answer was very definite, and there does not seem to be anything more to be said about it.
On a point of Order. Is it not a tradition of this House that the right of asylum is the most sacred thing in this country, and are we not to be permitted to cross-examine Ministers on a decision of this kind whether they are right or wrong?
No point of Order arises.
On a point of Order. May I ask whether we are prohibited from asking any questions as to the reasons which have led the Government to commit this act of " safety first"?
There are 147 questions on the Paper, and supplementary questions must be governed by some rule and have some definite bearing either on the original question or on the answer that is given.
Parliamentary Elections (Plural Voters)
asked the Home Secretary the number of persons entitled to vote more than once, such as university voters and voters for business premises, in Parliamentary elections in Scotland, England, and Wales, respectively?
The numbers of electors registered for university constituencies are:
Will the right hon. Gentleman get the figures?
On a question being put down, I will do my best.
Probation Officers
asked the Home Secretary if any and, if so, how many benches of magistrates have failed to appoint probation officers as required by the Criminal Justice Act, 1925; and whether he intends to take any steps to enforce the law?
Apart from one combined area where arrangements are in progress but are not completed, only 12 out of 1,028 Petty Sessional Divisions were returned as being without probation officers at the end of last year: and this figure includes casual vacancies. Before the Criminal Justice Act of 1925, 137 Courts were without probation officers. A great deal has been done in recent years to improve the organisation of the probation service with encouraging results, and I do not think there are any other steps which my Department should take at present.
Habitual Criminals (Preventive Detention)
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Justice Horridge, at the Sussex Assizes, in which the learned Judge deplored the fact that under the Habitual Criminal Act it is only possible to pass sentence of preventive detention upon a prisoner whose crime justifies a sentence of penal servitude; and if he proposes to take steps to amend this?
I have read with great interest the learned Judge's remarks, but I am not yet in a position to formulate views or to make any statement as to my intentions.
Poor Prisoners (Legal Aid)
asked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903, providing that committing justices may assign legal aid to poor prisoners reserving their defence?
I am afraid I cannot hold out any expectation of immediate legislation, but the whole question of the defence of poor prisoners is one to which I intend to give my most sympathetic consideration.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of the present Act is either that a prisoner has to take the first vital step in his own defence without legal aid, or, if he is unable or unwilling to do that, he is deprived of legal aid altogether?
That supplementary question summarises the reasons for the closing words of my answer.
Is it not a fact that the present practice under the Statute does not create the difficulty suggested by the question, but that the committing justices have full power to grant legal aid in all cases where the need so requires?
I regard that supplementary question as containing too many points of argument for me to answer now.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the maximum fee of £5 allowed to solicitors by the Statutory Rules and Orders, 1903, No. 1,150, made under Section 1 (2) of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act is in complicated cases inadequate for the purpose of preparing poor prisoners' defences; and whether the Government will take steps to amend the above rule so that the scale of fees under the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act may in such cases be increased?
The Regulations to which the hon. Member refers were revised two years ago, and the maximum sum allowable is now £6 13s. 4d., in addition of course to out-of-pocket expenses.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think the sum of £6 13s. 4d., or whatever he said, is sufficient to pay for a complicated case for a poor prisoner?
The Minister's opinion on that question is not the point at issue.
Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps?
I cannot at present add to the answer I have already given.
Criminal Cases Act
asked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce legislation to amend the costs in the Criminal Cases Act, 1908, so as to provide for the payment to all acquitted prisoners of the taxed costs of their defence?
The answer is in the negative.
Two-Shift System
asked the Home Secretary the number of orders granted under Section 2 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act, 1920, for the operation of the two-shift system, and the number granted during the last three months?
Up to the end of June, 852 Orders had been granted; 26 were granted during the months April, May and June.
Can we be furnished with a list of the Orders granted during the last three months?
A list, I believe, can be found in the Library.
Education
Supplementary Teachers
asked the President of the Board of Education how many supplementary teachers have been approved individually for the first time for employment in public elementary schools in England and Wales in each of the years ended 31st March, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929?
I am afraid that the figures for which my hon. Friend asks could not be obtained without special inquiry; but the total number of supplementary teachers actually employed on the 31st March, 1926, was 8,969; on the 31st March, 1927, was 8,725; and on the 31st March, 1928, was 8,303. Figures for 1929 are not yet available.
Will my right hon. Friend consider fixing a date on which the recruitment of this type of teachers will cease?
I am considering the question.
Part Iii Authorities (Relinquishment of Powers)
asked the President of the Board of Education how many non-county boroughs and urban districts which were constituted local education authorities for Part III of the Education Act, 1902, have since relinquished their powers; and how many non-county boroughs and urban districts which have become Part III authorities since the passing of the Education Act, 1902, have similarly relinquished their powers?
Six of the non-county borough and urban district councils which were constituted Part III authorities under the Act of 1902, relinquished their powers immediately after the Act came into operation, and five more at later dates. Four authorities which became Part III authorities since the passing of the 1902 Act have also relinquished their powers.
Children Over 14
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children who are attending primary and central schools after the term in which they attain the age of 14?
The number of children on the registers of public elementary schools maintained by the local education authorities who were aged 14 years 3 months and over was, on the 31st March, 1928, 54,227.
Blind and Crippled Children
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of blind and crippled children in England and Wales for whom no educational provision is being made?
According to the returns furnished by local education authorities there were, on 31st December, 1928, 602 blind and 5,336 crippled children not attending any school, though it must not be inferred that in all these cases some provision has not been made for their education.
Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to seek to make some provision for these unfortunate children, so that they need not be deprived of education?
I am considering that.
Deaf Children
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of deaf children of school age in England and Wales and the number of these who are being taught in special schools or special classes for the deaf?
Returns furnished by local education authorities show that on the 31st December, 1928, there were 3,935 totally deaf children of school age in England and Wales and that of these 3,464 were being taught in special schools.
Local Authorities' Programmes
asked the President of the Board of Education if he intends to issue any instructions or observations to local education authorities with respect to the programmes now being prepared for the period from 1st April, 1930, to 31st March, 1933?
In Circular 1397, dated 18th May, 1928, the Board communicated to the local education authorities their views with regard to the programmes for the years 1930–33; and I do not propose to issue further instructions with regard to these programmes at present.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Circular 1397 postpones the raising of the school leaving age till after the 31st March, 1933, and is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to continue the policy that is laid down in that circular?
I have no statement to make at present.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that local authorities have their building programmes and their organisations for the training of teachers and that if no decision is to be arrived at by the Government it will be impossible to raise the school age in three years' time?
Will the right hon. Gentleman remember his promises in the election to raise the school age, with maintenance grants, at once?
The Noble Lady may rest assured that it is the intention of the Government to fulfil all their election promises.
Do the Government intend to carry out any of the promises that they made during the election?
On a point of Order—
Answer!
I think you have in the past ruled, Sir. that where a question on the Order Paper has not been reached, questions bearing on it should not be put as supplementary questions by other Members. May I draw attention to No. 31 standing in my name, and ask if the Minister may be allowed to give his answer to that?
If hon. Members in supplementary questions confined themselves to what is contained in the actual question and answer, it would be much better.
Policy
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the broad lines of his future policy in the schools before the Adjournment for the autumn Recess?
asked the President of the Board of Education if, in view of the reorganisation of public elementary schools now taking place in the country and also of the general review of educational facilities already published in Educational Pamphlet No. 60, he will indicate when he proposes to issue the further general review of the educational facilities to be provided for older children; and if in that review he will indicate his policy with regard to maintenance allowances in public elementary schools and the raising of the age of compulsory attendance at school?
The broad lines of the educational policy of the Labour party are well known, and my hon. Friends can rest assured that I am actively exploring the methods for putting our policy into operation. I cannot yet say whether any further statement on the subject will be made during this part of the Session.
Without desiring to press the right hon. Gentleman in any way, may I ask if he will be so good as to inform me in due course when I can ask him again on the matter, and, particularly, if he will inform me whether he is prepared to make a statement before we rise for the Autumn Recess?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his party stated consistently at the Election that, if returned to power, they would proceed immediately to the raising of the school age, and that they would give maintenance allowance? I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman here and now, in order that the country may be aware of the fact, is he or is he not intending to carry out the pledge?
I have not the slightest doubt that the Government are going to fulfil all their promises.
Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the promise also about nursery schools?
There is a Question about that later on the Paper.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise from all his experience that it is for the local authorities to carry out the administration of the Education Acts, that they are dependent en their programmes being approved by the Minister, and that, if he does not give them a lead, it is impossible for the school-leaving age to be raised, or provision to be made for the children?
I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I understand that perfectly.
Non-Provided Schools
asked the President of the Board of Education how many Roman Catholic non-provided elementary schools have been built, rebuilt, or reconditioned since 1918; and if he can state the approximate cost of this work which has fallen on the Catholic community?
The number of Roman Catholic elementary schools built, rebuilt or reconditioned since 1918 is 395. I regret that I have no information as to the cost of this work which has fallen on the Catholic community.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable amount of this expenditure is incurred on account of the compulsory movement of pupils, because of the adoption of housing and slum clearance schemes, and will he take that into consideration when he further considers the matter of non-provided schools?
I am aware of what my hon. Friend says.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to call a conference of all the parties interested in the non-provided elementary schools, with a view to reaching an agreement on the existing difficulties?
His Majesty's Government have not yet been approached by the representatives of the non-provided schools with a view to the summoning of such a conference.
If the Government are approached, will they consider the suggestion?
I cannot give an answer to a hypothetical question.
May we take the reply as an invitation from the right hon. Gentleman?
Teachers' Certificate Examination
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will reconsider the decision, contained in the Administrative Memorandum No. 64, that students who are referred in a single subject in their examination for teachers' certificate are to be classed as uncertificated teachers?
Students who fail in one subject only of the Board's final examination do not fail in the examination as a whole unless that subject is Teaching or English. These subjects are clearly of first importance to all teachers, and it does not seem to me to be unreasonable that failure in either of these two subjects should involve failure in the examination as a whole.
Nursery Schools
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will, at an early date, give effective help for the establishment of nursery schools and regard these schools as an integral part of his educational policy?
I am anxious to see an expansion in the supply of nursery schools, and I am considering what steps I can most effectively take to encourage their provision?
In view of the unanimous support for this movement on all sides of the House, support which was declared by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, will this matter have the right hon. Gentleman's immediate attention?
It is having my immediate attention, and I am quite aware of the support which is so general.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of nursery schools in Lancashire, and the number in England and Wales?
The number of nursery schools in Lancashire is four and in England and Wales 28. In addition the Board have approved proposals for eight new nursery schools, one of which is in Lancashire, and proposals for at least five other schools, including two in Lancashire, are in contemplation.
Will the right hon. Gentleman always bear in mind the model school, which is the Rachel Macmillan school, in drawing up his plans?
School Classes, Somerset
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of classes in excess of teachers, and how many teachers are in charge of two or more classes, in the administrative County of Somerset?
I understand that the hon. Member's question refers to the grouping of children of varying attainments in such numbers and in such a way as to produce occasional or regular large classes. The Board's records do not cover every aspect of this question, but they show that, on the 31st March, 1928, there were 1,619 classes in the public elementary schools for which the Somerset County Council is the local education authority, and that 107 of these classes had between 40 and 50 children on the rolls, 17 had over 50, and two had over 60. The figures for the 31st March, 1929, are not yet available.
Distressed Areas (Lord Mayor's Fund)
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can give to the House a Report on the work of the Lord Mayor's Fund for Distressed Miners, including the amount which has been distributed and the areas of distribution, the principles under which the areas for distribution have been chosen, the amount of the funds now remaining, and its adequacy to meet present distress?
I understand that a Report will shortly be published covering the various points to which the hon. Member refers.
Is there any way in which hon. Members may at present get information, especially with regard to the areas concerned, since at the present time, some men working in the same pits are treated as within, and some of them without distressed areas?
If the right hon. Gentleman does publish anything like this, will he take care to publish a list of subscriptions, seeing that some of us in our constituency have been accused by the hon. Lady opposite of having done nothing for the Welsh miners?
I cannot say what the Report will contain. The Government have nothing to do with the Report or its contents, but it is expected
asked the Minister of Health whether he will con- that it will be published before the end of the month.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also see that the Spencer Union is treated as fairly as the Miners' Federation? [Interruption.]
I have passed on to the next question. Commander Kenworthy.
On a point of Order. Is not the House entitled to a reply to the very proper question as to getting fair play for the miners in different unions? May we have a reply?
The supplementary question had nothing to do with the original question on the Paper or the answer.
Contributory Pensions Act
asked the Minister of Health the total amount of the employers' contributions in respect of Health Insurance and Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act for the last available accounting period?
As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The precise amount of employers' contributions in respect of National Health and Pensions Insurance cannot be stated, but an estimate of the approximate amount for the year ended 31st March, 1929, so far as concerns England and Wales, is given in the following statement:
sider the provision of contributory pensions for widowers who are permanently incapacitated at the date of their wife's death and have been dependent upon her earnings in some insurable occupation?
All relevant questions are being considered in connection with the amending Bill of which I have given notice, but if the suggestion in the question is that a widower should derive a pension from his wife's insurance, I would remind the hon. Member that the contributions paid in respect of a woman are half those paid in respect of a man.
Housing
Rents
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the hardship caused to tenants through the high rents charged in many cases when houses are decontrolled owing to a change of tenancy; and whether he will prevent this by extending the Rent Restriction Act to apply to such houses?
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government intends to renew the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restriction Act; and, if so, whether they will introduce an amending Bill at an early date to remove some of the hardships involved in it, and particularly to enable owners of single small houses to obtain possession of them for their own occupation?
asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce legislation by which it will be made illegal to charge high fees, now so common, as key-money, and other such premiums for houses becoming decontrolled under the Rent Restrictions Act; and that the increase of rent for such houses be limited to 10 per cent, above the increases allowed by the Rent Restrictions Act?
asked the Minister of Health if, when proceeding with his new housing policy, he will include the establishment of local rent courts at which the rents charged to tenants of decontrolled landlords, and sub-tenants, may be reviewed?
The future of the Rent Restrictions Acts is one of the matters which is engaging my attention. I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every time a family wants to move out of a slum house to a better house that better house loses the protection of the Act, and, therefore, there is very great hindrance to slum clearance, and will he give this matter his very early attention?
No one can be more fully aware of that fact than I am, but it does not mean that I can make up my mind on all these multifarious problems at one moment.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are numerous poor people all over the country who have purchased houses with their economies and savings, and who for years have been unable to get possession of them, and does he not think that something more definite might be stated by his Government as to their intentions?
That question might have been put at any time during the last five years.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give him notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment on Monday.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he thinks he will be in a position to give us a statement not only regarding the Rent Restrictions Act, but on the reduction of rents in general, as that is also of vital importance?
The House will understand how difficult it is for me to give a precise date, but there shall be no unnecessary delay.
asked the Minister of Health whether, when considering amendments to the Housing Acts, as foreshadowed in the King's Speech, he will make provision by which the rent anomalies arising from houses built under the 1923 and 1924 Acts, respectively, may be removed by bringing the financial obligations of the 1923 Act into conformity with the 1924 Act where found necessary and desirable?
I am not sure what anomalies my hon. Friend has in mind. It would not be practicable, at this date, to assimilate the financial bases of the two Acts, in relation to houses on which subsidies are already being paid. Subsidies will not, after the end of September, be available for new houses under the Act of 1923.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the Act of 1934 it is possible to have lower rentals than under the Act of 1923, and that these anomalies are giving rise to much disturbance in towns that have adopted both Acts?
I am aware of that fact, but my answer was that I do not think that at this date it is practicable to assimilate the two. After the end of September this year, there will be no more subsidies paid under the 1923 Act.
Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to shed any light on this matter before the Recess?
Construction (Employment)
asked the Minister of Health how many additional workers it is hoped to employ in building working- class houses during the next few months?
It is impossible at this stage to make such a forecast as the hon. Member desires.
Ribbon Development
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that ribbon-building is destroying the amenities and reducing the effective width of many main roads in rural areas; and if he is prepared to empower local authorities to charge a frontage fee on new rateable property along existing roads, to be used for the development of front ages on other roads approved by housing committees, or to deal with the difficulty by some other method?
I am aware of the disadvantages of ribbon development. They may be reduced, though by no means always prevented, by town planning, especially by negotiation with owners. Schemes may provide for frontage charges in certain cases where a road has been made under the scheme. I hope to consider at an opportune time whether more can be done.
Building By-Laws
asked the Minister of Health how many rural district councils have, and how many have not, made by-laws under the Public Health Acts giving them power to control the erection of buildings within their areas?
The figures for which the hon. Member asks are 516 and 130 respectively.
East London
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, in spite of the decrease in the population in the East End of London, the number of persons living in overcrowded conditions remains static; and whether he will consider promoting legislation to prevent the conversion of dwelling-houses into factories and workshops so long as the shortage of houses remains serious?
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the increase of overcrowding in the East End of London caused by the diversion of dwelling-houses to industrial purposes; and whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what action to prevent such diversion in the future?
I am aware of the results of the diversion of dwelling-houses to industrial purposes and in considering the further proposals on housing which I hope to be able to submit to the House, will bear this matter in mind.
Is the Minister of Health aware that that reply will be read with great satisfaction in the East End of London?
Slum Clearance
asked the-Minister of Health the number of slum clearance schemes approved and actually carried out, respectively, for the years 1924 to 1929?
Since 1st January, 1924, 86 slum clearance schemes have been confirmed by my Department. Up to the 1st April last, the latest date to which information is at present available, 14 of these schemes had been fully completed, and 66 were in course of execution.
Would the right hon. Gentleman have a copy of that reply of his sent to his hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), who stated in this House on Friday last that the last Government had done nothing to clear the slums?
Reparations Conference
asked the Prime Minister whether any negotiations are taking place between the Government of Great Britain, France, Germany and Belgium, for the purpose of arranging a meeting to discuss the question of the convocation of a political conference later on in the ensuing year?
I have been asked to reply. I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the projected Reparations Conference. Negotiations regarding the meeting of this Conference are in progress between the Governments mentioned by my hon. Friend and the Italian and Japanese Governments. As regards the date, I hope the Conference will begin early next month.
London Squares (Preservation)
asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the Royal Commission on London's squares and enclosures; and when he will introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report for the preservation of London squares?
I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 9th instant to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr).
Russia (Diplomatic Relations)
asked the Prime Minister whether the House will have an opportunity of debating the question of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government of Russia before decisive action is taken; whether he will publish, in the form of a White Paper, the communication addressed by the Government to the Governments of the Dominions, together with their replies; and, if so, will he publish this White Paper a reason able time before any such debate?
No doubt a suitable opportunity will arrive for debating the question of the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government, but I cannot give an undertaking to postpone all action until such a debate has taken place. The question of publishing the correspondence which has passed or may pass on the subject will be considered, but the matter has not yet reached a stage at which it would be desirable to lay any papers. The hon. Member will realise that in any case His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom could not publish the correspondence without previously consulting His Majesty's other Governments.
Will the Prime Minister consider whether he can inform the House at least which of the Dominions agree with the resumption of diplomatic relations and which do not agree?
Will the Government renew relations even though the Dominions do not agree?
As regards the first supplementary question, the point is really involved in the answer I have given to the second part of the question on the Paper. Regarding the other supplementary question, I cannot make any statement on that at the present moment.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely this opportunity for discussion will be afforded to the House before we separate for the Summer Recess, or afterwards?
That is impossible to say. The right hon. Gentleman knows that negotiations are not finished in a week, and the pace is not always set by us, although we might like to do it, either in the matter before us now or in other matters.
Cannot we possibly be given a day before October to discuss this question?
There will be the ordinary opportunities, but apart from those, if negotiations have gone so far, or circumstances arise, then the House can, of course, make a request in the ordinary way, and we shall follow in this respect exactly the rules and practices of the House.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the House will have an opportunity of considering whether the replies which may be made by the Soviet Government to the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down for the resumption of diplomatic relations are satisfactory or not before relations are resumed?
No, I really cannot agree to that. The Government will take everything into consideration—its statements made in this House, the replies made by the Soviet Government, and the general run of the negotiations—and in that respect will just follow the procedure that the right hon. Gentleman himself has followed with regard to other matters.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he and his colleagues constantly complained that I gave the House insufficient opportunities, and said that they themselves would not follow that example?
That is perfectly true in some respects, and, in making up our minds regarding the hand ling of this matter, we will remember our old views expressed from that side of the House.
Are we then to understand that, unless a Debate is given before the end of the present Session, the matter may be decided and settled before we come back?
So far as the Government can, yes, but even then it will remain in the power of the House to discuss the matter and to come to a decision upon it.
With regard to the first question asked by the hon. Gentleman behind me, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that opportunity will be given before a decision is taken?
No, that was not the question that was raised. The question was whether there would be a debate before any decisive action was taken, and I replied that I cannot give any undertaking to postpone all action before such a debate has taken place.
I do not mean all action. Of course, negotiations must take place, but, as to the final decision, will the House have an opportunity of discussing the matter before the final decision is taken?
Before the Prime Minister replies, may I ask him to bear in mind that there is a very considerable majority in this House pledged to an immediate resumption of relations with Russia?
Are we to take it that it is the deliberate intention of the Prime Minister to take decisive action in this matter without first consulting the House?
It is my decision, and it is the opinion of the Government, that these negotiations should go on, and that everything should be taken into consideration while conducting them, and that the issue shall follow the usual rules and practices of this House.
rose —
We have had a large number of supplementary questions.
Ministry of Transport (Parliamentary Secretary)
asked the Prime Minister whether the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of 0Transport will carry with it an official salary; and, if so, the amount of such salary?
Yes, Sir. The salary of this post is £1,200 a year.
May I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to present the necessary Supplementary Estimate to this House before the Summer Recess?
No, not before the Summer Recess, but the usual method will be adopted, and it will require a Supplementary Estimate.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is merely the start of a colossal Socialist expenditure?
Spiritualist Churches
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a large number of persons grouped into bodies known as spiritualist churches, allege serious disabilities; and if he is prepared to set up a committee of inquiry into the question of their grievances?
My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I have not received representations from any large number of persons, and I have not had time to consider fully the papers that have accumulated in the past, but from what I have seen so far, I am not convinced that there is any disability calling for the setting up of an official inquiry. The matter would seem to be one which might well be ventilated in discussion upon a Private Member's Bill.
Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive representations from the responsible bodies?
Certainly.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that certain persons exercising what they believe to be spiritual functions are now being charged as rogues and vagabonds, and does he not think that that is a matter which he ought to take into consideration?
I am aware of that.
Unemployment
Necessitous Areas
asked the Minister of Health what is the total amount of the indebtedness of the local authorities in areas which are termed necessitous due to the relief of poverty arising from unemployment; and whether, as such poverty arises from national causes, he is prepared to assume national responsibility for such indebtedness in order to bring relief to the general body of ratepayers of such areas?
I am not aware of any definition of necessitous areas which would enable me to give the information desired, and it is not possible to say what part of the indebtedness of local authorities is attributable to the relief of poverty arising from unemployment. The outstanding debt of boards of guardians in respect of sums raised to meet their current expenditure was on 31st March last £6,837,296. Provision is made in Section 114 of the Local Government Act, 1929, for the mitigation of the burden of this debt.
Is it not a fact that during the last Parliament hon. Members opposite insisted that unemployment was the root of the problem?
Benefit (Aged Workers)
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the hardship caused to persons who have had unemployment benefits stopped on the ground that they have become 65 years of age, but who have been denied old age pension because proof of age is not available; and whether he intends to take action at an early date to remedy the matter?
I am aware that hardship may arise in the circumstances indicated in the question, and the matter is under consideration in connection with the amending Bill which is being prepared.
Poor Law
Belmont Institution
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has received any complaint from any boards of guardians as to the conditions prevailing at the Poor Law Institution at Belmont; and, if so, the nature of such complaints, the date when the same were received, and the action taken, or proposed to be taken, in connection therewith?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a previous question put by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) of which I am sending him a copy. The complaint mentioned in that reply was received on the 30th May last.
Outdoor Relief
asked the Minister of Health what instructions restricting the discretion of boards of guardians with regard to the granting of outdoor relief are now in force?
The existing Regulations are contained in the Relief Regulation Order, 1911, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
Rating (Factories)
asked the Minister, of Health, whether he is aware that the action of certain valuation officers in different parts of the country in refusing to place factory premises on the draft special list under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, on the grounds that the Act does not apply to factories the product of which is disposed of in retail shops, is inflicting considerable hardship on traders in that they are compelled to engage legal assistance in order that the intention of Parliament may be explained to the Assessment Committees; and whether he will cause a schedule of decisions under the Act to be circulated to valuation officers?
I have received a communication alleging that in one area the rating authority have interpreted the Act in the way suggested by the hon. Member, but the ultimate decision rests with the Assessment Committee or, in the case of appeal, with the Court of Quarter Sessions. I do not consider that it would be practicable to adopt the suggestion made in the latter part of the question.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that small private traders and co-operative societies should be put to this trouble and expense simply because a gentleman named Konstam has written a book on the subject, upon which certain decisions have been based?
I am afraid I cannot interpret the law; that is a matter for the Courts.
Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any statement to make with regard to the funds of the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund as affected by the Economy Act, 1926?
A recent valuation of the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund shows that there was a surplus in the fund sufficient to enable the additional benefits provided for the members to be still further increased from the beginning of the present month.
Does the right hon. Gentleman now realise that the statement made by his friends during the General Election with regard to my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer robbing these funds was entirely without foundation?
I realise no such thing, because it is quite clear that, if the amount that went into the fund had been larger, there would have been more benefits.
Is it not a fact that under this Act no beneficiary suffered any disability whatever?
That is not the point. The point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question was directed to the effect of the Economy Act. It is perfectly obvious that, had that Act not been passed, the surplus would have been larger than it is.
May I ask whether, if the Economy Act had not been passed, any beneficiary would have been entitled to any part of the money in the fund at all? Was it not under the Economy Act that the extra benefits were given?
Answer!
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any statement to make with regard to the funds of the approved societies as affected by the Economy Act of 1926?
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to increase the grants to approved societies which were reduced under the Economy Act?
With the hon. Members' permission, I will answer together Question No. 71 and Question No. 90, to which I have been asked to reply. Pending the results of the general survey which the Government is making of the National Insurance and Pensions. Schemes, I am not in a position to make any statement on the matters referred to in the questions.
Are we, again, to understand that the Government are following the policy adopted by the late Conservative Government?
May I ask what else the Government can do if the money has been spent?
Questions to Ministers
{by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the re-arrangement of the order of the days on which Ministers' questions are taken, and the importance of an early place being found on one or other day for questions to the Minister of Labour; and if he will inform the House as to what the new arrangements are?
Yes, Sir. Since the matter was raised by my hon. Friend yesterday it has been under very careful consideration, and I hope it will be possible at an early date to announce arrangements which will be generally satisfactory.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless it is done at once, it means that, until the House adjourns, the Minister of Labour will be practically outwith the reach of questions in this House?
I think we shall reach an early arrangement.
How did the order come to be altered without the House knowing anything of the alteration?
Is it not due to the fact that we now have a new Minister, the Lord Privy Seal, answering questions one day a week?
That partly accounts for the change. The order of the days on which questions are taken is subject to mutual arrangement between the Ministry concerned and the House generally.
May I express the hope that the hon. Gentleman has not got it in contemplation to make any change in the arrangements which have prevailed as regards Foreign Office questions, and ask whether the Foreign Secretary will be able, in the usual way, on Mondays and Wednesdays, to answer them?
No such change has been asked for.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the human affairs of the people at home are at least as important as foreign affairs, and are entitled to one day a week?
In view of this proposed alteration, can the printed order of Questions on the Paper, which hangs in the Lobby, be made available to Members?
I will see whether that can be done.
Member Sworn
Peter Drummond Macdonald, esquire, for County of Isle of Wight.
Business of the House
Will the Prime Minister tell us what will be the business for next week?
On Monday: Housing Bill, Money Resolution, Committee stage; Unemployment Insurance Bill, Second Reading; Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill, Second Reading; Colonial Development Fund Bill, Money Resolution, Report.
Tuesday: Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill, Money Resolution, Committee stage; Unemployment Insurance Bill, Committee; Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill, Committee; Housing Bill, Money Resolution, Report.
Wednesday: Colonial Development Fund Bill, Second Reading; later stages of the Unemployment Insurance Bill and the Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill; Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill, Money Resolution, Report.
Thursday: Colonial Development Fund Bill, Committee; Housing Bill, Second Reading; Local Government (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill, Second Reading, if, as I announced yesterday, there is a wish to proceed with it.
Friday: Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill, Second Reading; Housing Bill, Committee; Colonial Development Bill, later stages.
It is hoped to present the Bill to suspend the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, so far as relates to education authorities, on Monday, and the Bill will, I hope, be in the hands of hon. Members by Tuesday, so that there will be a day free for an exchange of opinion regarding it.
I hope it will be possible to have available to-morrow the White Paper on the Money Resolution for the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill.
I might add that on any day, if time permits, other Orders will be taken.
There was one phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman which is new in this House—" if there is a wish to proceed with it." Could he tell us the exact degree of ardour which would move the Government, and whether the ardour must be epidemic, or only sporadic?
I am always ready to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman, but we have not yet, for this purpose, devised a suitable yard-stick. I can, however, assure him that we shall do our best to find whether the House, in the ordinary way in which we talk about the House, desires that the Bill should be proceeded with.
Orders of the Day
Unemployment Insurance [Money]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
" That it is expedient to authorise as from the 1st day of April, 1929, the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of a contribution under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1929, at a rate equal to one-half of the aggregate amount of the contributions paid in respect of employed persons by themselves and their employers or, in the case of exempt persons, paid by their employers, under the said Acts."— (King's Recommendation signified.) — [Miss Bond-field.}
Before we proceed to the discussion, may I ask, Sir, if you will state for our guidance what is your Ruling with regard to the scope of the discussion to-day. Will the Debate be limited strictly to the financial Resolution on the Paper, or will it be open to Members to raise general questions of administration?
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for asking the question at this stage. The discussion on the Money Resolution will be confined to the expenditure to be increased as an Exchequer grant for the purpose of the Unemployed Insurance Fund. That will not deter the Minister of Labour from giving the Committee an idea of the scope of the examination which is proposed under the Money Resolution.
I should like to know if that Ruling will allow us to discuss the effect of the Blanesburgh Report. In the White Paper on this Financial Resolution, there is a reference to the adoption of the recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee. May we take it that your Ruling means that we shall be able to take a general survey of those recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee in so far as they affect the general expenditure?
No. The Money Resolution is expressly for the purpose of giving effect to the proposals of the Blanesburgh Committee in relation to the money that is to be paid. The question of the adequacy of it will he in order and the proposals of the Government for making an examination will be in order, but no general discussion will be in order.
Will the transference of miners be in order, since some of the money is spent on that purpose?
The amount of money will not alter the direction in which the money at present is being expended. It is only an increase of the Exchequer grant.
May we discuss the effect of this grant of money on the other contributions and on the benefits received, because it must have some effect in both cases?
I understand that it has nothing to do with an increase or decrease of benefit. In so far as the Money Resolution is concerned, we cannot go outside the amount stated in the Money Resolution.
Has it not always been the case that when there is a general feeling in favour of a wide discussion, the Chairman has exercised a certain amount of discretion, and, as it is obvious that there is a general wish on the part of the House, and there is a very small amount of time before the House rises, is it not imperative that we should get a more general discussion?
Is it not a fact that there will he a rather wider opportunity on the Second Reading of the Bill?
If there is a general desire for a wide discussion, hon. Members had better wait till they see the Bill.
4.0 p.m.
The last time the Bill was discussed, the Minister in charge said the general wish of the House was that all aspects of unemployment insurance should be discussed on the Second Reading. That was a definite undertaking. Will that precedent apply again, and, if this is allowed to go to Second Reading, shall we be able to take a wider aspect?
When it comes to the Second Reading it may be that Mr. Speaker will be in the Chair, and the matter will be before the House and he will give a decision.
rose —
I have given my Ruling in relation to the Money Resolution before the Committee. If there is any desire for a wider discussion on the Motion, hon. Members had better wait until the Second Reading.
My point of Order is that in your Ruling you hinted that on the Bill it might be possible to have a wider discussion than on the Resolution. How can it be possible on the Bill to have a wider discussion once we have parted with this Financial Resolution?? I should like your guidance on that point.
If my recollection is correct, on the last occasion it was a question of an increase of £10,000,000 to the Fund, and the point was taken that there could be a wider discussion on the Second Reading. I do not know of any difference between that occasion and this.
On that occasion there was a Resolution providing for a definite increase of £10,000,000. This Resolution does nothing of the kind. It only asks for a change in meeting the liability, and, therefore, there is no increase. In view of the general feeling as to the importance of this, the distinction might be made clear now that there is not a precedent, because in the one case there was an increase, and this is a mere question of whether you will tax or whether you will borrow.
Am I not right in saying that on the previous occasion there was no wider discussion on the Second Reading, and that the Bill was before the House before the Money Resolution came before the Committee, whereas in this case the procedure has been reversed? Am I not also right in thinking that if the Committee takes the Money Resolution first, the discussion necessarily on the Second Reading of the Bill will be accordingly curtailed?
I am in the same predicament as the hon. Member. I have not seen the Bill. While I am of opinion that the Money Resolution before the Committee is explicit in its purpose, namely, an increase of Exchequer grant towards the Unemployment Fund, the adequacy or the inadequacy of that amount can be discussed, and also any statement by the Minister of Labour. I cannot go beyond that, and that is my ruling.
A serious issue is raised. [Interruption.]
We are not going to leave this question until the unemployed are dealt with. [Interruption.]
I have no desire to burke any discussion. I have given the ruling, and before giving it I have considered the matter. I have come to the conclusion which I have indicated, and given the decision, and I do not know any reason why I should alter that decision.
In other words you are worse than a red hot Tory.
On a point of Order.
A new point?
I think it is a new point of Order. I want to draw your attention to the Memorandum on the Money Resolution. There is a sentence which says:
" The present proposal, in the absence of some unforeseen circumstances, will be sufficient to enable the Fund to discharge its liabilities until the early part of next year."
I want to put it to you that as this increased sum is being granted by the Exchequer, and this Committee is being asked to vote that increased sum, to enable the fund to discharge its liabilities, this Committee has a perfect right to discuss the liabilities that this particular increase is expected to discharge. Those liabilities are the rates of unemployment benefit at present being paid, and, consequently, if we are to be permitted, as you yourself have admitted, to discuss the adequacy or inadequacy of the total sum that is laid down as the increase to be granted, we are equally entitled—and I am submitting it to you for your consideration—to discuss the adequacy or inadequacy of the benefit which this particular increase is to help to discharge.
I cannot accept the proposition of the hon. Member in rela- tion to the matter of benefits paid. It has nothing to do with this Money Resolution.
I am taking the wording of the Memorandum on it.
The point I have to bring before the Committee is a very small matter, and I would like to begin at once by assuring the Committee that this is nothing more than a stop-gap Motion to enable us to tide over the present emergency in regard to the financial position of the Fund. The terms of the Motion clearly show that the Fund is in a state of bankruptcy. The contributory basis of the Fund has been hitherto that all contributions are of a tripartite nature—contributions from employers, workers, and the State. The present proposal is to increase the proportion paid by the Exchequer to the Fund, and I hope before I sit down to show that it is not merely a reasonable proposal, but that it is one that ought to have been carried out a very long time ago. The rate of the Exchequer contribution has varied. For example, under the 1911 Act the proportion of the aggregate amount of employers' and workers' contributions represented by the Exchequer in respect of men was one-third. Under the Act of 1920 it became one-fourth. In 1922 the Exchequer contribution represented, as to part, something like one-half of the total contribution, but a separate Act of Parliament subsequently incorporated, dealing with dependants' benefits, while maintaining an Exchequer contribution of one-quarter, resulted in a total Exchequer contribution amounting, broadly speaking, to a one-third contribution.
In 1924, the Labour Government introduced the principle by which it was provided that, at the end of the deficiency period, the proportion paid by the Treasury should be one-half of the combined contribution by employers and workmen. In the 1925 Act there were other proposals made, but they were never operative. By the Economy Act, 1926, the Exchequer contribution was fixed at two-fifths of the joint contribution of employers and employed from 5th April, 1926, to the end of the deficiency period, and that is, broadly speaking, the proportion to-day, namely, the Treasury contribution to the Fund since April, 1926, has been only two-fifths of the joint contribution. The actual total revenue of the Fund, of course, depends upon the relative numbers of each class of contributor in employment. When the number of unemployed is 1,200,000 under the present rate of contribution, the income of the Fund" is about £43,000,000 of which £31,000,000 is provided by the employers and employed together, and only £12,000,000 by the Exchequer. The result of the increase we are proposing in the Exchequer contribution will mean an additional revenue to the Fund of about £3,500,000 a year, making the total Exchequer contribution up to £15,500,000 a year, or one-third of the joint contribution of workers and employers.
The present critical position of the Fund can be quite clearly traced to the policy adopted by the Conservative Government since 1925. In the summer of 1925 the debt was just over £8,000,000. In July, 1925, the income of the Fund was £50,000,000, with a live register of about 1,200,000 unemployed. Since 1925 the late Government reduced the contribution to the Fund, and with a live register of 1,200,000 persons there is only an income of about £42,000,000 a year. Although the live register has remained the same, the income of the Fund has dropped from about £50,000,000 to £42,000,000 a year. Allowing for the normal growth in the insured population, I estimate the total amount of loss of income in the last 3½ years in consequence of the definite action of hon. Members opposite, and for no other reason, at about £32,000,000, of which £15,500,000 is directly due to the Economy Act. Allowing for interest which we have to pay on the borrowed money, the last Government deprived the Fund of contributions amounting to £32,500,000.
We are, therefore, faced with the fact that the present position is one of extreme gravity, and requires an emergency measure to carry us through the months ahead. At present the Fund has a debt of £36,500,000. The Committee will remember that the late Minister of Labour came to the House to get borrowing powers for an extra £10,000,000, not so many months ago. We have only a very small amount of that borrowing power remaining to us. The statutory limit is £40,000,000, and the debt is £36,500,000. It is perfectly clear that it would be entirely unwise to risk the possibility of that amount of money being enough to carry us through the months until a further amending Bill could be brought in.
Realising, as we do, that the Fund is in a condition of bankruptcy; being a position in which we are paying £2,000,000 interest on borrowed money out of the Insurance Fund, I came to the conclusion, quite definitely, that, as far as I could avoid it, I would not come to this House for further borrowing powers, and that we shall find some alternative method which, I hoped, would be a step in the right direction in putting that fund ultimately upon a more reasonable and more satisfactory basis. The obvious objection to borrowing is that it is merely adding loads to the Insurance Fund and increasing the amount of interest which the Fund has to pay to the Treasury. I therefore dismiss the alternative of coming for further borrowing powers. The second alternative was to face the possibility of increasing the rates of contributions from employers and workpeople. I think that in the present condition of affairs you have only to state that alternative to dismiss it at once. I do not think that there is anybody on any side of the House who would seriously propose an increase in the rate of contributions either of employer or of employed at this time. Therefore, there only remains the third source of the Treasury. We believe that in recommending this course we are adopting the wisest of any possible alternatives that could be brought before this House. I have pointed out in a brief historical survey that it has already been accepted as a principle, on more than one occasion under the legislation affecting insurance, that the Treasury ought to pay as a minimum one-third of the contributions into the pool. It is, therefore, entirely equitable.
I should like, if I may be permitted to do so, to refer to the Amendment on the Paper. I have a very great respect for the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford's (Captain Bourne) knowledge of constitutional procedure. I do not profess to have penetrated his mind as to the exact meaning of this Amendment, but I want to point out that it would be perfectly impossible for this House to allow the income to be derived from contributions to be limited in this way. An increase in the amount of contributions might be derived in two ways. It might be derived from increasing the contributions from any or all of the three sources, but an increase might also be derived from an increase in the insured population, resulting in an automatic increase in the income of the Fund. I think that it would be a very improper line to take up in view of the past history of the Fund, to say that we should accept the principle of equal thirds but limit the Treasury's third to £15,500,000. I therefore feel that it would not he at all possible to accept a limiting measure of that kind to the present Resolution.
I have no desire to detain the Committee or to trespass outside the ruling of the Chair. I would only like to express the hope that it may be found possible, under the discussions that will take place next week, to broaden the discussion, and that the Ministry may be able to have criticism and helpful examination from all sides of the House with regard to this immense problem with which we are faced. I feel that the present limited proposals which I have to bring before the House are only justifiable by the in heritance with which I was faced in connection with the Fund. I hope that I may be permitted without trespassing to say that this is the very first step in a program that has to be pursued with energy and vigour until we have removed the difficulties of which a great many people quite properly complain. I am personally reviewing not merely the whole system in the light of criticisms, which I am happy to receive from all sides of the House, but I am most carefully reviewing what can be done with regard to any alterations which may be made without legislation by administrative action. I am also arranging for the relations between the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme and the Public Assistance Authorities to be diligently examined inter-departmentally. All these things, obviously, take time, and I ask the House to recognise that it would have been impossible to have—
I am loath to interrupt the right hon. Lady, but I would like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Young. Are we to be permitted to follow the right hon. Lady in the discussion by way of reply?
I thought that the Minister was going to give some indication of an examination proposed by the Government.
I am sorry. I apologise to the Committee that my slight experience of the limits of a Money Resolution has led me into an error of this kind. I merely wish to say, in conclusion, that in asking the House to pass this Motion I cannot close without recognising the extreme difficulty under which our staffs are working at the present time and to pay my tribute to the energy and to the desire on their part to try and get these criticisms met in a human and in a proper spirit.
After your ruling, Mr. Young, which limits the scope of this discussion, very strictly, there is very little that I desire to say. In the first place, I associate myself at once with what the right hon. Lady says as to the necessity of a Resolution.
On a point of Order. I think that you have omitted to put the Question, Mr. Young. Surely, there is no Question before the House. You must put it from the Chair.
The Motion was read before the Minister of Labour began her speech. If it is a mistake, I apologise to the House. I will read the Motion again. I read it at the beginning, and I thought that that was sufficient.
As I was saying, I fully agree with the right hon. Lady that it was necessary for her in the position in which she found herself to make some provision to meet the obligations of this Fund. I gather that what she proposes to do is to raise the Treasury contribution so as to increase the revenue by about £3,500,000 a year. In addition, she has an unexhausted balance in the Fund of £3,380,000. So that, in effect, she says that at the end of six months from now this sum of £5,130,000, in all, will be exhausted. This is made up by the balance which she is entitled to draw upon, namely, £3,380,000, together with half the annual sum of £3,500,000. On what is her estimate based that this sum of £5,130,000 will be exhausted at the end of six months? What is the average size of the register between now and six months hence on which she bases those calculations? I do not wish to add anything more at this stage than to say that I was very loath to raise any note of controversy in this discussion at all, and I should not have done so had it not been for the challenge which the right hon. Lady threw out in the course of what I gathered was to be a perfectly impartial statement. As she stated that the position of the Fund is entirely due to the policy of the late Conservative Government, I feel bound to point out that this debt rose from the sum of £7,178,000 on 31st March, 1926, to £22,640,000 on the 31st December, 1926. That was an increase of 215 per cent, in nine months. The figures which I have just given, together with the interest, amount to a sum of not less than £20,000,000. Therefore, when the right hon. Lady says that the sum of £15,500,000 was taken away from the Fund owing to the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, I feel bound to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that a very much larger amount was added to the debt during the year 1926.
I recognise that under your ruling, Mr. Young, there cannot be a wide discussion on this matter. Speaking for myself, and two or three other hon. Gentlemen with whom I am associated, we deeply regret your Ruling and think that on this occasion a much wider discussion might have been allowed. I want to raise a question in connection with this Financial Resolution. In the first place, there is a mistaken conception among certain Members of the House that this added £3,600,000 will mean some increase or some betterment in the future for the unemployed persons. In other words, it is argued by certain people that this money which is being granted to the Insurance Fund will mean greater generosity in the future than has been shown in the past. May I point out, that, as far as this sum is concerned, it means nothing of the kind.
I will deal with the financial situation as I see it. In the middle of November of last year this fund was in debt to the extent of £29,500,000, or a little less. On the 24th June this year that debt had risen from £29,500,000 to £36,500,000. There has been an increase in that debt of over £7,000,000 since the middle of November—£1,000,000 per month. Now the Government come along and make this financial proposition to add an annual contribution from State sources of £3,600,000. Imagine the stupidity of such a Financial Resolution! All that it will do will be to keep us going for the next three and a-half months, that is assuming that the Tory method of dealing with the unemployed is continued, that all the harsh and stringent conditions continue, and that the cruel persecution of the unemployed—described by the present occupant of the Home Office as legal persecution—is continued. If that continues, the depriving of men and women of their benefit, the taking of money from the poorest of the poor, it will mean that before this House meets again after we adjourn, three and a half months hence, the Fund will be in the same state of debt in which it stands today.
What would have happened had the recommendations of the Blanesburgh Report been adopted? Certain people would be better not to mention Blanesburgh. The Blanesburgh recommendation is accepted as the standard, namely, that the ratio should be the same. The recommendation was that the ratio should remain at one-third each. The White Paper does not tell us that if the Blanesburgh financial recommendations had been carried out the debt on the Fund, which to-day stands at £36,000,000, would have been twice £36,000,000. We are not told that the recommendation was for a lower contribution from the employers and the workmen, and that the contribution from the State last year would have been £3,000,000 less. The result would have been that, instead of the position being easier, the Fund would have been much more in debt. This House still clings to the idea that we should follow the recommendations of the maddest committee that was ever appointed.
The Leader of the Liberal party is present. He knows full well that in connection with any Measure that is brought into this House, whether it relates to agriculture, labour, education or anything else, the fundamental consideration is finance. You cannot proceed unless your finance is built on sure foundations. My charge against the late Government and the late Minister of Labour and against the present Minister of Labour is that, as in the past so to-day, they seek to build on a Report the financial basis of which is unsound. The persons who made that Report must have had no knowledge of the finance of the Ministry of Labour. Whether we consider the finance of the Act which was passed last November or the finance of the Bill which is to be based upon the present Financial Resolution, the whole thing rests on sinking sand. I am not discussing for a moment the question of "genuinely seeking work"; but I was struck by the compliment paid by the Minister of Labour to the officials of the Ministry—officials who for months have been drawing fine salaries themselves and at the same time have been cruelly crushing the unemployed. It is hypocrisy to compliment them. Hounding from public life would he the thing for them. I leave them aside. I leave aside the persecution of people who are being treated in the most shocking and barbarous fashion. I will meet the Minister of Labour solely on the financial ground, and I say that this Resolution is a financial makeshift, a proposition that ought not to be placed before us.
The Prime Minister spoke the other day in Durham. I do not make this reference for the purpose of trying to get round the ruling of the Chair. I have decided to accept that ruling. While I am in this House I will do my fighting openly and above board and not resort to any subterfuge. The Prime Minister said that he regretted that the House could not proceed with pensions for widows and orphans, because of certain difficulties. He also said that it would be necessary to introduce a financial measure in order to clear away certain things. I forget the exact words that he used and not being a master of the King's English I cannot at the moment substitute words, but the effect of his statement was that the Fund had become financially hopeless, and that before anything further could be done for the unemployed it ought to be put on a sound financial basis. Will this Financial Resolution affect that purpose? We are accumulating debt, despite all the persecution that takes place in regard to de- priving people of benefit. I am hopeful—I am never without hope, that is why I remain a Socialist—that the Minister of Labour will stop the persecution. The Fund is accumulating debt at the rate of £1,000,000 a month. The additional State contribution will be £3,500,000 as from the 24th June. Nearly a month has elapsed and nearly £1,000,000 of that contribution has been spent, leaving us from the end of this month only £2,500,000. At the end of 10 weeks from the 24th July, before the House meets in the autumn, the Fund will have started once more to accumulate a debt of a million pounds a month. And they call that facing up to the financial position!
I am supposed to come from the poorest of the poor, and I admit it. I represent the down-trodden. I was born amongst them, I live amongst them and my relatives are amongst them. I do not belong to the intelligentsia, but I know sufficient of finance to know that this is not a sound financial proposition. It is a disgrace to say that it is a sound financial proposition. Let the House face the question from the purely business point of view. Before we can proceed on sound business lines the finance upon which we build must be right. The Minister of Labour is not really tackling the position when she brings forward this Financial Resolution. In nine or 10 weeks from the Adjournment of the House our debt will have started once more to accumulate at the rate of £1,000,000 a month. We are simply making an additional contribution for 3½ months and we shall be leaving 8½months in which the debt can accumulate. To call that a tackling of the problem does not show either knowledge or statesmanship.
There is this to be said to the credit of the Government, that they have gone some way in the direction of finding schemes for the unemployed. I do not deprecate that; I welcome it. I know what unemployment is, not merely in the personal but in the communal sense. It may be said that our schemes will reduce unemployment. Everyone in this House, bar a knave, would be happy if he could see the numbers of the unemployed decreased by the numbers who are not receiving benefit. I should be the happiest man in the House if tomorrow or next week the numbers of the unemployed could be reduced by the numbers who are not receiving benefit. The Government has had the courage to tackle unemployment, but even if the amount of unemployment can be reduced, the net result of this Financial Resolution will be that the expenditure on unemployment insurance, under a Labour Government, will remain almost the same, and the £1,000,000 of debt per month will still accumulate. Is that the sort of proposition that we ought to accept? I heard the statement of the Lord Privy Seal. It might have been much better if he had delayed making his statement. If the scheme now outlined by the Minister of Labour is the best that she can propound, and if this is her idea of putting unemployment insurance finance on a sound basis, it would have been better had she waited. She might have allowed the debt to accumulate. She might have waited a week, a fortnight, or a month and then have come to the House with a proper Resolution that would have put the matter on a sound financial basis. This Resolution does not meet the case; it does not face up to the situation.
The last Government handled the business shockingly. They have no criticism to make of the present proposals, because their position was worse and the State contributed less than is now proposed. The Minister of Labour and the House would be well advised to agree to the withdrawal of this Resolution and to the bringing in at an early date of a Financial Resolution which would enable her to introduce a Bill that would be satisfactory. Let her take this Resolution back. There is nothing lost in admitting that you have not done the right thing. Let her come back three weeks hence, and ask the House to meet. Let her introduce a proper Financial Resolution that will allow her to bring in a Bill under which she can administer the Fund as every Member of this party and herself desires. When last this question was discussed, hon. Members on these benches were agreed that £10,000,000 of borrowed money was not sufficient. One hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), suggested that we ought to double the amount, and he was right. This Resolution is a miserable makeshift. Let it be withdrawn, and another take its place.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has appealed to the Minister in charge of this Financial Resolution to withdraw it. As far as I am personally concerned, I do not feel it to be within my province to back him up in that particular request. He has also said that, as far as he is concerned, he is prepared to sit for a considerable time after the next fortnight or three weeks if it would in any way help the unemployed, and I believe that hon. Members in all parts of the House would unanimously agree to sit on if anything could be done to get better conditions for these unfortunate people. It should be known that hon. Members of every section in the House view this matter in that way. This is an emergency Resolution in support of an emergency Measure. The margin of debt which the Fund is allowed to accumulate is £40,000,000, and the present debt is some £4,000,000 under that figure. That is a narrow margin, and realising that a larger scheme for dealing with the Fund cannot be brought forward for some time the Government bring forward this Financial Resolution. It is rather unsatisfactory to many of us who are interested in this matter from the purely financial point of view that there is not a representative of the Treasury on the Front Bench at the moment. Having regard to the financial position of the country and the fact that the position of trade and employment is inevitably bound up with this financial question we should have had some explanation from a representative of the Treasury on the financial position.
The Minister in charge has said that the State contribution under this Resolution is to be one-third. That is the whole basis of the position. She also said that it would not be possible or right, I am not quite certain which, as she lingered between possible and right, to have a limited amount. I am debarred from speaking on the matter of limitation, but that is one of the reasons why a representative of the Treasury should be present. When you are dealing with emergency finance it is well to know how far the emergency is going to take contributions from the taxpayer, and some of us would like to have some limitation in this particular matter. May I deal with another point which arises directly out of the contribution of one-third by the State. The effect of that will be to raise the income of the Fund, to make it more satisfactory and put it on a sounder financial basis. The more contributions you get from different parties to a fund such as this, the greater borrowing powers it has and you strengthen it in many other ways. You have to-day a definite further liability being placed on the State itself. I have listened to many unemployment debates in this House during the course of the last 10 or 12 years and I have heard hon. Members in all parts of the House lay it down that the ideal insurance scheme is that each industry shall be responsible for its own insurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Hon. Members opposite may say " no," but I have heard that principle laid down repeatedly in this House. It may be that when a certain transfer takes place people are liable to forget the views which they formerly held.
The point I am making, however, is that under this Resolution you are getting farther away from that ideal—I do not say that I agree with it, I am not sure that I do—and you are increasing the State liability and taking a step which, although it improves the position of the Fund, makes a contribution which we as representatives of the taxpayers as a whole will be making to this particular Fund. In this matter of insurance we shall, sooner or later, whether we are dealing with these contributions or not, have to make up our minds exactly where we stand in the matter. I have never liked the policy in which the State contribution is sometimes one-third, sometimes one-fourth and sometimes one-fifth. I would like to have some general agreement so that we can get real continuity in the State contribution, because that is the soundest and best policy from the national point of view.
I am sorry the Government is afraid to give an opportunity to the House to discuss the question of unemployment insurance. I do not want to go counter to the ruling of the Chair man, but it is signficant that a change was made in the Order Paper so that we could not get questions on unemployment insurance considered—
On a point of Order. I really must protest against the statement of the hon. Member that the change was made in order to burke questions submitted to the Ministry of Labour. The change was made in order that fuller consideration could be given to the question, and it was not the fault of the Department that we were not given the first place on the Order Paper.
I understood the right hon. Lady was raising a point of Order, but it is the most curious point of Order that I have ever heard in this House. I accept the assurance of the right hon. Lady that there was no attempt to burke discussion in regard to unemployment insurance, but it is certain that the change which was made in the Order Paper had that effect. The Chairman, however, has given his ruling and I accept it, but there was an obvious desire in the House to discuss—
The hon. Member knows perfectly well that he is not in order in criticising the rulings of the Chair.
5.0 p.m.
If you listen carefully, Mr. Chairman, you will find that I am not now criticising the ruling you have given, but simply making a statement of fact, that the Minister on previous occasions has generally joined in suggesting that there should be a wider discussion. Let me deal with the Financial Resolution. It is a very unfortunate Resolution so far as the unemployed are concerned. There is not one word of hope for them in it. It is simply a matter of book keeping, and will have no effect whatever so far as benefits are concerned. It will have this effect, that the debt on the Fund will not be increased as much as it would have been. The Minister in charge has stated that the Economy Act meant that the debt is greater by £15,500,000. That burden of debt has now been placed on the Fund. Now that the debt has reached the figure of £36,000,000 it is quite evident that the whole financial arrangements of unemployment insurance will have to be recast. In 1920, when the principal Act was passed, over £20,000,000 was contributed by the working people of this country. It was coolly taken by the State and appropriated; and if a Coalition Government is prepared to deal in that way with money contributed by working people a Socialist Government should have no great qualms in dealing with a money debt like this when it is other people who are concerned. The simpler way of dealing with this matter would have been to have gone on borrowing. This Financial Resolution, put forward as a proposal to undo what was done by the Economy Act, as if it was an attempt to put right one of the great crimes committed by the last Government, is only eye wash. It is of no real importance as far as the unemployed are concerned, as far as the contributors to unemployment insurance are concerned and as far as the trade unions and other insured persons are concerned, because it is evident that the whole financial scheme will have to be reconsidered. I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour. In the last part of paragraph 4 of the White Paper there appears the following:
" The present proposal, in the absence of some unforeseen circumstances, will be sufficient to enable the Fund to discharge its liabilities until the early part of next year."
Does the Minister contemplate that these liabilities are to be increased liabilities because of the step that she will be taking to stop the administrative persecution that has characterised the Department? There is no doubt that there was a tremendous amount of feeling in the Debate on 24th April, 1929, with regard to this widespread administrative persecution of the Department. I take it that that persecution is to be stopped? It is not going to be stopped by the Bill, but by administrative action, for it is administrative persecution. Consequently I take it that a responsible person in the Government is going to correct what a responsible person of the Opposition described as administrative persecution. I cannot see that it could be otherwise. It is true that the Government have not had very much time, but in a month I have not had any evidence that there has been any attempt made, and so far as my people are concerned it is going on just the same as before. I take it that that may be due to the fact that the Minister is going to stop it thoroughly and is going to perfect her plans so as to do it thoroughly. I want to know what estimate she can give us with regard to this administrative action, and how many people probably will be receiving benefit who are not now receiving benefit under the system of administrative persecution under which we are living.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with that passage now. The meaning of the phrase quoted from paragraph 4 is simply that the balancing point of the fund, the income of which is now £43,000,000, is just a little over 1,000,000. The liability will increase just in the ratio that that balancing point is exceeded. There is nothing beyond that in this phrase. The liability referred to here is the liability due to a live register in excess of the balancing point.
I believe I am correct in saying that with the contribution of the Government, that is two-fifths, the balancing in point was 1,050,000? Would the Minister indicate whether that is so? Would that balance in point rise automatically?
If you notice the curve of unemployment you will find that the figures have risen, and the total live register is sticking round about 1,200,000, although it goes up and down.
I do not understand. Would the Minister answer the point that I put? On what estimate of unemployment is the Minister basing her supposition that the money for which she is now asking will be exhausted in six months?
An average live register in excess of the balancing point between now and January.
Between now and the end of the year?
Yes.
Some hon. Members seem to have got quite clearly from the Minister what is contained here. I must state, however, that I am not as quick in understanding it.
The hon. Member's point remains unanswered, as to what addition would be made by a new administrative system.
The paragraph has nothing to do with this. It would appear that the Government are contemplating going on from now to the end of the year with the administration as it has been under the Conservative Government.
indicated dissent.
The Minister shakes her head at that assumption. I would very gladly give way to her if she could point out to me anything to the contrary and clear that matter up for us. It would possibly allow me to finish my speech right away.
I can say quite definitely, and the hon. Member knows quite definitely, that as a matter of fact that assumption is not correct.
In the course of this discussion or the discussion on the Bill are we to have an administrative decision as to what is "genuinely seeking work"?
I am sure that there are other Members of the Committee who are in the same position as myself and are beginning to get more and more befogged as to what really is going to happen in connection with this Unemployment Insurance. The Minister says that I know perfectly well. This White Paper goes on the basis that the system is to continue until the end of the year: we have to make provision until the end of the year on the present basis. But I am concerned about the fulfilment of the pledges of the Labour party to the electors, and about the circumstances of our people, and I read that paragraph as being a paragraph of hope. I am now told that there is no hope there. Therefore, I cannot very well see where the hope is to come in. I am still asking the Minister for information. She says that I know quite well that, administratively, the thing is to be done that will improve the condition of the unemployed. I ask her to give us an estimate with regard to what the administrative changes are to be that are to be covered by this financial resolution.
Going back I find, for example, that towards the end of 1928 the weekly average of rejections on the "not genuinely seeking work" basis was 7,620. The average weekly rejections on the "not reasonable amount of employment in the preceding two years " was 18,053. I am not saying here that one is con- templating any legislation with regard to an alteration in that respect, but it is notorious that there has been administrative persecution. That is the official view of this party as expressed by one of the most responsible leaders of the party. I want to know what figure it is necessary to estimate. It seems to me that this Unemployment Insurance has been carried on in a shocking fashion in the past, that there has been far too great a tendency to say that there are various people, civil servants, who administer it, that we have given them an independent status, and that we cannot interfere with them. But that is all nonsense. If our people are being persecuted administratively these individuals have got to bear their responsibility in connection with it.
The hon. Member is travelling outside the scope of the Resolution.
I am sorry. I would not for the world interfere at all with the occupants of the Chair in this Parliament. Their impartiality is so obvious to us all and their desire to let us get the business through as quickly as possible. So I would not, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, trespass on your ruling in the least. But I am taking it that this financial resolution is going to provide for administrative changes that will prevent your constituents and mine from being administratively persecuted. For example, a branch of the A.E.U., the Chairman's Union, sends a communication to me on this matter, and I am anxious, with his assistance or in spite of it, to try to protect it. I am trying to get information from the Minister, and I think I am entitled to it. If one refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT and reads the corresponding Resolution when the last Government dealt with the same thing we find that the Government did it by loan instead of simply altering the amount that the State would pay. The Minister of Labour in the former Labour Government said that we should get those things for which I am asking now including an estimate of what is going to happen. I remember how from our benches we pressed the Minister of Labour in the last Government and urged that he surely must have some idea, or his Department must be able to give him some idea, as to what was going to happen. He did give us his ideas which were all wrong, and which showed his hopeless incapacity and incompetence. I hope the Minister of Labour is not always going to be the most incompetent Minister in the Government and I invite the right hon. Lady to take the opportunity to-day of giving our people in the country some hope. We have now waited a month for something that would bring hope to those people who have been persecuted.
You would have changed it all in a week.
It is said that I would have changed it all in a week. I am glad that my hon. Friend has so much confidence in me. I certainly would, after the first week, have taken steps to stop persecution, and I hope the hon. Member who interrupted me would be willing to do the same, because his constituents as well as mine are being persecuted. I want to know what figure the Minister places upon this persecution of which we made so great a feature in the Debate on 24th April. What is the figure, what is the estimate, of that persecution? The Minister we take it will stop it, and therefore it is one of the charges that has to be met, and we have to consider it in reference to this part of the rate paid by the employers and workpeople. I think that within the limits which are being placed on this Debate, and within the opportunities that have been given to Members to express themselves, I have brought forward all the points I can. I would like to have made some suggestions to the Minister of things which she could do and how she could hurry in doing those things. That is all ruled out. We have no opportunity of doing so, but, certainly, I am going to see while I am in this House, that my people in Camlachie are going to get better treatment than they got in the past, and I am not taking from a Labour Government, any more than I would from a Tory Government, the persecution to which these people have been subjected so long.
The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has raised points which were, I think, of interest to us all, and he has in particular raised one matter on which a number of us desire further information. I refer to the words which the right hon. Lady quoted just now in her reply:
I do not wish to deal with the possibilities of other developments, because we are not allowed to do so, but one would like to have some information as to what is the estimate of the right hon. Lady, or her Ministry at this moment regarding the future of unemployment, within the limits of this Unemployment Insurance Act, and for the period which this extra money is to cover. I do not say it in any spirit of controversy, but it has already been pointed out that in one year alone—1926—owing to what may be described as unforeseen circumstances, an immense charge came upon the Fund. I would like to know definitely if the Government's figures are based upon the continuance, more or less, of unemployment as it is at present, or whether allowance has been made for exceptional circumstances, such for instance as trouble in the cotton trade or elsewhere. If such a terrible and hopeless event should take place, there would be a large increase of unemployment and these calculations would be thrown out altogether. I therefore suggest that the right hon. Lady should if possible give us some idea of the Ministry's forecast of unemployment in the next eight months. The information would be of great benefit to the Committee.
I imagine that few hon. Members have ever risen to speak here for the first time feeling sadder than I do at this moment. If there was one thing which we had a right to look for from the Labour Government it was an immediate improvement in the condition of the unemployed, and the one thing absolutely clear is that, in the absence of adequate financial provision, no such improvement can take place. That is a matter on which there can be no argument, and the point which hurts me more than anything else is that as far as I can see, the decision to be arrived at on this matter means that we are now stating to our own people throughout the country that, as far as the Labour Government is concerned, the condition of the unemployed is to show no change for another 12 months. The Memorandum refers to the early part of next year. Obviously that means that the amount which is now to be voted is to suffice until the next Budget is introduced, and that means until at least 31st March next year. I can imagine no more deliberate betrayal of election pledges than is committed by this Resolution, and I defy any Member of the Government from top to bottom to square this Resolution with the public demand for work or maintenance. This Fund, with the addition that is now to be made, will not provide maintenance for the unemployed, and in so far as we agree to this Resolution, we are betraying the very people to whom we gave our pledges only a few weeks ago.
It may be that there are objections; it may be that there are difficulties, but surely it is no part of the duty or the function of a Labour Government to retreat in the face of difficulties or haul down their flag in the face of opposition. The right of all the unemployed to full maintenance was guaranteed publicly by the Labour party during the Election. Now, the unemployed are going to be in- formed, just as officially and emphatically, that after the Election it is a different matter entirely. [HON. MEMBERS: " No, no ! "] Hon. Members say, " No, no! " but I ask any hon. or right hon. Member by what possible method they are going to extract from the limited amount of money that we are asked to vote this afternoon, maintenance for the unemployed. How by any conceivable operation is that to be done? I dare say quite a lot can be said from the Front Bench, but as far as I am concerned I want this question answered, and it is the only question about which I am worrying. Are the unemployed to be fed or not? If they are to be fed, is the provision which we are now asked to make sufficient for the need? One has only to to ask that question to realise that there can be only one answer, and that answer is "No."
A number of interesting things follow on the information which has already been vouchsafed to us. For instance, it is perfectly clear that the Fund at the present moment is bankrupt, or if not bankrupt, perilously near it. Further, it seems fairly clear that as the normal course which would enable the Fund to steer an even keel is represented by an unemployed figure of 1,000,000, and the present figure exceeds that number by 117,800. The capital for the next 36 weeks would carry us to the end of March, which means that the additional £3,500,000 is going to be absorbed in the existing number of unemployed, under the existing conditions of granting and refusing benefit. In other words, there will be no change whatever as far as the unemployed are concerned, nor can there be any change of importance as regards the persecution referred to this afternoon. It does not matter who denies benefit to the unemployed person, the result to the unemployed is the same. It does not matter what the intention may be of those who deprive the unemployed of their benefit, or for what reason it may be done, the result to the unemployed is the same. That ought to be borne in mind by the Government in coming here this afternoon to ask for further supply.
If the pledges given in the Election, if the programme of our party has any meaning at all, if there is any justification for our existence, then the Resolution brought forward to-day should have been for such an amount as would enable us to carry out; the pledges we have so publicly given. I myself as a member of this party gave those pledges publicly, and I meant them, and I mean them now. I am not prepared to go away for eight or nine weeks' holiday leaving these people in the condition which they are in at this moment. I hope every Member of this House who goes away, without having seen to it that the unemployed shall at least be fed until we come back, will feel heartily ashamed of himself. The position is much more serious than I think is judged by many. The financial basis of this Fund is going to be increased on the generous side by the Government. They are going to increase the amount we shall give to the Fund annually by £3,500,000. I suppose one must admit that that is a step forward, but let us not imagine that that is going to put this Fund now or in the future on a satisfactory basis. These are the days of rationalisation, and that is operating day and night, and one of its results is a steady increase in the number of unemployed.
While it is true that the Lord Privy Seal hopes some time to reduce the number of unemployed, I have yet to learn that there is any hope, from the schemes that he proposes to bring forward and get started sometime in the future, that they may do any more at their happiest moment than balance the number who are going to be thrown into unemployment by the extension of rationalisation. What is to be the hope held out to the victims of the present system, unless we are going to be in a position, not only to guarantee to them adequate maintenance, but to have in existence at the same time a fund which will be increasing in strength and in resources, so that a3 time goes on, as the income of this nation increases, as it does increase, those who are unemployed shall be enabled to share in that increased prosperity?
What is going to happen is this: Rationalisation, as we know, if there is any success in it, is going to enable the industrialists to employ fewer people, which means that the employers will be making smaller contributions to this Insurance Fund in the future, and that the workers themselves will be making smaller contributions, because there will be fewer of them; and it is that Fund, a permanently shrinking fund for a long time to come, that is to be augmented by this percentage from the Government. In other words, we are facing a period when what we must anticipate is a steady increase in the number of unemployed and a steady shrinkage in the Unemployment Insurance Fund; that is to say, a larger need for an Unemployment Insurance Fund and a smaller fund to meet that need.
I suggest to the Government that this proposal cannot, under any circumstances, be considered satisfactory to us, and that it is not going to feed the unemployed, who have as much, right to be fed as we ourselves have. They have always had that right morally, but they have never had it physically, and it is time that we, on these benches, asserted ourselves and put forward, for those who are unable to put forward their own claim, the right to live. I, the backest of these back benchers, want to appeal to the Government now, while there is yet time, to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and take this back. Let us have further discussion; let us decide for ourselves what it is the unemployed are entitled to, however long they may be unemployed; let us decide what that will cost, and then let us come here and ask this House to make that provision. If we are not prepared to do that, I say again that we are deliberately and in cold blood betraying the brothers and sisters who sent us here, and we have no right to hold up our heads and dare to face them any more.
We promised, as a party, work or maintenance. We have provided so far no work, and at the present time we are telling the whole world and the unemployed that we are not going to provide the maintenance either. I defy any member of the Government to show the unemployed army as it exists to-day— even those on the live register, and we know how many more there are who are not on the live register—what standard of feeding is going to be possible for the women and children who are the dependants of those on the live register.
Before coming here, I spent a fair amount of time as a member of a local authority, both on an education com- mittee and as deputy chairman of a public health committee, and one of the factors that hurt me throughout the whole of that work, and before it, was the enormous number of children in our schools who are systematically underfed. I brought that up on the housing committee of my local authority and found that there were applicants for houses, unemployed, huddled in one room, with families around them suffering in health and in physique, and doomed to that suffering because their parents were utterly unable to pay the rent of a decent house and to feed those children properly; and my Government now ask me to vote for that to be made permanent at least for another nine months. On the health committee side, we were spending large sums of money, with a most able staff of medical men and nurses, trying to fight the tuberculosis that was caused by the very conditions that were caused by their unemployment pay, even when they were receiving benefit; and we are asked now to make that permanent for another nine months.
I appeal to the Government to find some way of postponing a decision on this question and to take back this Resolution. I appeal to them in the name, not only of the 1,117,000 who are now in receipt of unemployment benefit, but of the other hundreds of thousands who have been deprived of the benefit to which they were rightly entitled. I want the Government to understand that, unless the whole of the unemployed are amply provided for, a very large section of the whole of our child life is being starved and deprived of the opportunity of developing physically and is being made utterly unable to take advantage of whatever schooling may be provided. In agreeing to this Resolution we are going to make ourselves individually and collectively responsible for that state of affairs. I object. I object on my own part, I object in the name of my constituents, and I object in the name of every individual who is unemployed. I want from my Government maintenance for the unemployed, failing work. That is not provided here, and while we may be fobbed off with that wonderful sounding suggestion that there will be ample scope for discussion on the Second Reading, meanwhile we shall have closed the door. We shall be able to do only what this money allows us to do, and I object to the closing of a door that would enable us to do something worthwhile.
The question arises, I know, as to the measure of benefit that can be bestowed on the unemployed as a result of the passing of this Measure. May I ask the Government to consider this point, that the additional money for which they are asking to-day would not, if granted, enable them to relieve from the grip of the Poor Law Guardians the unemployed who at present are receiving benefit from them? The recipients of unemployed outdoor relief are at this moment receiving from the guardians more than the £3,500,000, and as this is not to apply to them, obviously their condition remains unchanged. This whole thing that is put before us is a mistake. Whatever may have been the motive behind it, it ought to be clear to everyone on these benches that it will not do, that we want something far better, far bolder, and far more just than that. We want something to enable us to hold up our head and look our fellows in the face when we meet them in our constituencies, and I appeal to the Government to take this Resolution back and to let us have something worthy of our name, worthy of our party, and worthy of the faith that we say is in us.
I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to add the words: moving. I would like to point out to her that one of the reasons why this Amendment has been put in this form on the Order Paper is that His Majesty's Government have chosen to follow a form of procedure which, to say the least of it, is somewhat unusual in dealing with the unemployment insurance question. I have looked up the precedents, and, so far as I can ascertain, there is only one precedent for founding a Bill of this sort on a Money Resolution. That was the case last Autumn when the late Labour Minister extended the power to borrow. The Bills are ordinarily introduced first, and the Financial Resolutions are merely ancillary to them. That, at least, has the great advantage that Members of the House know what the text of the Bill is before they are asked to discuss it.
We have not the text of this Bill, and so far as I listened to the speech of the right hon. Lady, I am not clear exactly what the Bill is going to do. I understand that it proposes to make a contribution from the Exchequer to the Employment Fund which equals a half of the joint contribution of the employer and employed, and that by that method the right hon. Lady hopes to obtain another £3,500,000 per annum. The Fund, according to the White Paper, is at present overdrawn by £36,600,000, and if this Motion is passed in Committee and agreed to by the House, and if the Bill which is founded on it is subsequently agreed to, the total contributions from the Exchequer will rise from £12,000,000 to £15,500,000. I am not clear what is the exact figure on which the right hon. Lady is calculating that sum. It is one of the principles of unemployment finance that the contribution is paid by the Exchequer in respect of each employed person who himself contributes to the Fund and, therefore, the higher the number of unemployed the smaller becomes the Exchequer contribution; the converse is equally true. If the rate of unemployment fall, as we all hope it may, and if the scheme which was foreshadowed last week by the Lord Privy Seal has the effect which he anticipates and which we all hope, obviously the number of persons who come into insurable employment will rise. With that would rise the income of the Fund from the men and the employers, and also from the Exchequer.
I am not clear at what point this Fund produces a surplus which, I presume, the right hon. Lady hopes will at least prevent the debt from increasing. That is one of the points about which the Committee is entitled to information. The real point which I am making is very simple. If the Government's proposed scheme for dealing with unemployment produces even a small portion of the results which are hoped, it is obvious that the contribution from the Exchequer will rise above the estimate put down in the White Paper—for instance, supposing the number of unemployed drop to 800,000—the contributions from the employed and the employers will rise also, and the income of the Fund instead of standing at £43,000,000 or £46,500,000— which, I understand, is what the right hon. Lady is budgeting for in these proposals—might rise to something well over £50,000,000. If that should be the case, it is obvious that the Unemployment Insurance Fund will become more rapidly solvent than it is becoming at present.
I only put the Amendment down to emphasise what I think is a very fair rule of this House, and an important matter in our constitutional procedure, namely, that if any serious alteration take place in the financial condition of this Fund, the Minister of Labour, from whichever party he may be drawn, should come down to the House and ask us to reconsider the position. I put the limit at £15,500,000 in my Amendment, because that is the figure which the right hon. Lady has put down in the White Paper. I have not the information or the knowledge on which to find a better figure. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady will be able to give the Committee an assurance that, if the financial situation should materially alter in the next few months, or even in the next few years, she will come to the House and explain how the financial position is, and enable the House to reconsider the whole thing and say what the contributions of all parties should be. I am afraid that, if this Motion goes through without any limitation placed upon it, it may perhaps remain for a very long time on the Statute Book, and the House will have parted to a large extent with their control of the finances of unemployment insurance. We have had perhaps more Acts dealing with this question than any other in recent years. They are mostly very unintelligible, but at least the House of Commons has a right to a certain control over the financial procedure, and my only object is to ensure that the House shall not part with it on this occasion.
During the Election, one of the most prominent things which I had in my address was that either employment or maintenance should be provided. That was one of the planks in the platform of all members in the party, and during the Election the question was often put, Where is the money coming from? I have always set my face against borrowing; I am bitterly opposed to it, and I suggest that, when the Government consider the problem of unemployment and provision for the unemployed, they should not give any consideration to borrowing. It only perpetuates the system which all Members of the Government are against, and I do not think that it is compatible with decent housekeeping. I consider that when coming to this House I am only taking a step higher from the position I have had as a domestic economist. It is the duty of the wise father and mother to see that the inmates of their house are properly clothed, fed, and housed. In national economy, it is the duty of the national housekeeper, the duty of every Member of this House, to see that people in the nation's household are properly fed, clothed, and educated. I would ask hon. Members to look at this question from that standpoint, and to realise, as housekeepers that we have no right to allow any member of the household to go in want of any of the essentials of existence. I would ask the Ministry of Labour to look at a problem like this on broad lines, and I ask every hon. Member to give the Ministry every encouragement to look at it from that standpoint.
At one end of the national table to-day people are sitting with empty plates and practically naked; and at the other end are people decked out in most glorious and gorgeous attire with plates containing more than they can eat. It is our duty to see that that is altered, and that the people who have empty plates should have them filled. Is there a Member opposite who is opposed to that idea and who would allow anyone in their households to go underfed and underclothed, while other members of the family are overfed and overclothed? What would they do in a case like that? They would go to those with the fullest plates and say, " Give your brother or your sister something to be going on with." I ask the Government to take courage in both hands and to say nothing about borrowing, for nobody in his sound senses ever dreams of borrowing money. Only economic pressure compels anyone to borrow. We have to extend the idea of wise housekeeping to national housekeeping. My own son has been unemployed for 2½ years out of five, and in that 2½ years I have known that lad, who is now over 30 years of age, to be sent home when he was 27, and told that his father was working and was able to keep him. I do not see any reason why any part of a father's income should be confiscated to keep a boy of that age.
Put something on his plate!
I have brought the boy up and put a trade into his hands, and, when he goes to find work, he is told there is no employment for him, and that I am supposed to be his house keeper. Surely, there is some limitation on a father's responsibility. I understand that I am responsible for him until the age of 21, but when he becomes a married man and has a house of his own—
The hon. Member must not trespass outside the scope of the Motion.
6.0 p.m.
The point I am making is that the money for the Fund should not be borrowed, and that the people should not be saddled with interest. The Treasury should take upon themselves the finding of the money, and when it comes to paying for the money, let the Treasury go to those people who have their plates overfull—earmark those people who have more than they can consume, and pay for it in that manner. I said that at my election. I am all for taxation in that manner, instead of borrowing money. Consequently I say to the Government, " Take your courage in both hands and go forward." Whatever money they want, let them carry on; let there be no limitation as far as funds are concerned. If there is money to be found for this Fund, provision should be made for it by taxation imposed in the Budget, and that taxation ought to be placed upon those who can best afford to pay. There is no reason why the Government should hesitate about a thing like this. The last Government took a far greater measure of wealth from people who were needing money. The present Government ought to have no hesitation in going forward. I am positive working people would be behind the Government, and I do not know that there are any people opposite who would be against that proposal, seeing that it is a question of wise housekeeping. The needs are there, and they can be met. There is a full purse with which to meet them. Surely the nation is not in the position of having to say that under economic pressure it is compelled to borrow money? Economic pressure is the only reason in housekeeping affairs why people borrow money. No wise man borrows money. I would not vote against the Government, I do not intend to vote against the Government, but I will certainly give this word of encouragement to the Government: that they should have no hesitation about putting on taxation in the proper quarter in order to get this money, because I am sure the community will be behind them.
I wish to ask whether I am right in supposing that we are still discussing the main question and not the Amendment? If we are discussing the Amendment, I should wish to postpone my observations until it is cleared out of the way.
The Amendment is now before the Committee.
On a point of Order. Are not both the Amendment and the Motion equally discussable?
I think I must rule that the Amendment only is before the Committee.
The point raised by the Amendment was whether or not the House could be assured that we should have the opportunity for reconsidering the whole position in the event of changed circumstances rendering a new financial adjustment necessary. I can give that assurance at once. Not only that, but it must be obvious that the in- tention of this Money Resolution is merely to make safe the interregnum before any considered Measure is brought in. Hon. Members opposite must be perfectly well aware of the truth of what I am saying when I say that we do not think that the margin left to us in the borrowing powers is sufficiently large to entitle us to allow the House to adjourn in July without making provision for a further sum, and we think this method of providing the sum is one which contains a principle which we hope to see perpetuated. In the event of the perpetuation of the principle, the degree to which the Treasury contribution would be increased would, to a large extent, depend upon the size of the insured area, that is, the increased number of insured persons, and it would increase with the increased sums from employers and workpeople. Under those circumstances, I do not think anyone would consider that it would be unfair to make the Treasury make the same contribution. Assuming that side by side with the increase of the insured population there was a decrease in the number of persons unemployed, which all most profoundly hope to see, the finest thing that could happen would be that we should bring the Fund back to solvency. Then we would come to the House with a proposal to reduce contributions all round, and we could bring the Fund down to the point where insured persons would really be getting value for their money.
Do I understand from the right hon. Lady's last statement that this Bill is merely a temporary Measure to meet the possibility of the Fund being overdrawn?
Yes.
That was not clear from the Financial Resolution, and as we have not the text of the Bill this seemed the only way of elucidating the information; but in view of the explanation, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say that I presume there will have to be a Supplementary Estimate for this amount.
This is the Money Resolution.
Can the right hon. Lady say what is the amount that comes within the present financial year?
I think the figure is £3,500,000. The hon. Member will find it in the White Paper. As from the 1st April the money the Treasury is to be asked to pay will be one-third. In the whole year it will be £3,500,000.
Do I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) wishes to withdraw his Amendment?
Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I think we ought to have a very clear statement from the Treasury, which is now represented on the Treasury Bench. We ought to be definitely assured that the financial position is absolutely sound and safe.
Would it not be more convenient if this statement on the financial position from the representative of the Treasury, which I quite agree is very desirable, were made when the discussion on the general question is resumed?
Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to say that I do not yet understand where we are in regard to the financial situation. I understand that when the figure of the unemployed is 1,050,000 the Fund is at balancing point, that is, with the Government contribution, two-fifths of the contributions of employers and employed taken together. I wish to know what the balancing point will be if the Committee agree to this Resolution? Will it be some higher figure—the figure of 1,200,000 which the right hon. Lady spoke of in a later part of her statement? We are being asked to make provision so that no more debt shall be accumulated, and that the Fund shall pay its way during the interval in which the Government are considering the situation with a view to producing another measure. Are we going to succeed in bridging this difficulty and avoid the payment of interest on more debt? No one wants to accumulate debt if it can be reasonably avoided, and I trust a Member on the Treasury Bench may be able to tell us what the balancing point will be under this new Resolution, and, if the number of the unemployed increases, at what figure we shall begin to accumulate debt again. A great deal must depend, of course, on the number of insured persons paying into the Fund, and that must necessarily be an estimate, but I imagine that an estimate can be given which will be very near the mark.
With the original scheme, the datum line was 1,050,000. When the numbers on the live register exceeded 1,050,000, then the Fund automatically got into debt. When the numbers on the live register fell below 1,050,000, then the Fund automatically paid off debt. As an alteration has been made in the contribution from the Exchequer during this emergency, that will mean an alteration in the datum line of the live register, and it will be of great interest if the right hon. Lady will say at what figure the new datum line will be fixed.
I am sorry if I did not make my point clear. The present balancing point is 1,000,000. With the present income of £43,000,000, the Fund will carry 1,000,000 unemployed. The balancing point when this Bill is passed will be 1,090,000. That is what was wanted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
Now that we have returned to the discussion of the Motion, there are one or two matters which I would like to put before the Committee. First, I wish to utter a word of warning upon what is apparently to be the future procedure in the introduction of Bills accompanied by a Financial Resolution. Unless I misunderstood the Prime Minister in his statement of business today, what we are experiencing at the moment is only a prelude of the new procedure. Apparently, we are to have-our Financial Resolutions first, and afterwards the Bills will be presented for Second Reading. I cannot imagine a procedure less likely to enlighten the House about the business before it. I most sincerely hope that no desire to burke general discussion will induce the Government to continue such a procedure. It is obvious, from our experience this afternoon, that it is a most clumsy and unsatisfactory procedure, and I trust that the right hon. Lady who, I am sure, must herself have realised the disadvantages of the procedure, will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that the order of business shall be rearranged next week, so that in future we may have the Bills before the Financial Resolutions. It is quite clear that it is the intention of the Government by this new procedure to burke discussion—it is clear from the speeches which have been made, from both sides of the House; and I would like to say that, personally, I thought the two maiden speeches to which we have listened were admirable. It is quite clear that there is considerable advantage from the point of view of the Government in the arrangement which has been come to.
The hon. Member is now discussing procedure, he is only entitled to discuss the Resolution which is before the House.
I apologise, but in any case I am afraid I have made clear to the Committee the point which I wish to put before them, and I return to the very substantial points which arise in connection with this subject. This is a Financial Resolution asking the Committee to grant a sum of money in order that the Unemployment Fund should remain solvent for probably the next mine months. That is the object of the Resolution. One would have supposed that when the Committee was being asked to grant such a sum the Ministry of Labour would have taken the trouble to make accurate and clear calculations in order to show clearly the foundation upon which their Resolution was based. That has not been done, and it has not (been done in regard to vital particulars. The first vital particular is that referred to by several of my hon. Friends, namely, that no estimate has been made of the effect on the number of unemployed persons of the administrative changes which were promised by the Labour party during the last election. I spoke in the last Parliament in favour of some of these commitments, and I merely say, with regard to some of these administrative changes, that I spoke in favour of them, because I have had some experience of the disadvantage of their absence. I think such changes are necessary.
That, however, is not the point which I desire to raise. My point is that if there are going to be administrative changes in the next period of time they will be sure to have some effect upon the live register. The figure that is taken as the basis of calculation for this Resolution is the state of the live register on the 24th June. Surely, it is the duty of the Ministry of Labour, when asking us to grant this money, to give us some indication, however hypothetical, as to the course which she thinks unemployment will take during the months for which she is budgeting. It is all very well to refer to the unemployment figures on the 24th of June, but even this week the total number of unemployed has increased by 24,000. Therefore, the basis of calculation which has been taken is now erroneous to the extent of 24,000. In my judgment, this is not the correct way to present an estimate, and, although the Minister of Labour may regard £4,000,000 as something trivial, we on this side of the House do not so regard it. It is very improper that there has not been a more accurate basis of calculation, and some more definite attempt made to indicate the course which the Government contemplate that unemployment is about to take in the next few months.
I should have thought that the right hon. Lady would have availed herself of her first opportunity within the rules of Order of giving us some indication as to what she thought on the unemployment question. Instead of doing that the right hon. Lady's speech took a very different course, and it turned out to be an historical account of the state of the Unemployment Fund. The main feature of that historical account was an accusation that the present deficit of £36,000,000 was largely due to the working of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1926. If the right hon. Lady was anxious to earn the confidence of this House in feeling that her statements are going to be full and accurate, she ought to have added the statement that the balance of the debt was due, not to legislative action, but to certain political and industrial events in the year 1926. The Members of the party opposite, when the Conservative Government was in power, were accustomed to make fun of the late Minister of Labour, whose most striking quality was that he always gave the House full and complete information, and all the information at his command. I cannot imagine the right hon. Lady's predecessor adopting for the purpose of obtaining a cheap party score giving such an incomplete historical review as the one which she has given to the Committee. In view of the fact that in regard to this question we are entirely at the mercy of the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary, I urge upon the right hon. Lady in future statements not to try to make some cheap party score but to give the Committee and the House a full and impartial statement.
I am sure that every Member of this House realises the tremendous task which the Minister of Labour has undertaken, and no one, especially on these benches wishes to indulge in merely destructive criticism of anything suggested by her. I feel certain that given several years she will, in conjunction with the Lord Privy Seal, be successful in providing work for the unemployed and making adequate provision where work cannot be found. I feel sure that in the end the efforts of the Minister of Labour and the Lord Privy Seal will reflect great credit upon themselves and upon the Labour party. But the point of vital interest which I wish to raise is that the present financial measure which has been presented by the Minister of Labour confronts us with the prospect of seeing the unemployed in this country probably until the end of this year subjected to some at least of the same persecution which we were accustomed to see when hon. Members opposite were in power. We do not expect miracles and cannot expect much to be done before the House rises at the end of this month, but we, do want a guarantee that at least regular maintenance will be provided for every worker in this country who is fit to work and who is unable to find employment.
Our great criticism of the present Financial Measure is that we cannot possibly see in it a basis for wiping at the present injustice and giving our people more security. The administrative difficulties may be very great, but our task is to overcome them. I was very pleased indeed to hear an hon. Member opposite declare that he did not want to leave this House until he could leave it with the sure knowledge that we had begun some real relief of unemployment by having had an announcement that some substantial financial guarantee would be forthcoming to form the basis of a maintenance grant to every person who was unemployed. We have heard a good deal about considering this House as a Council of State, but I would like to remind hon. Members that by millions of poor people in this country the present House of Commons is regarded as a final court of justice, to which they turn after being buffeted about by insurance officers, boards of referees, and umpires. There are millions of despairing people in this country who are not now merely looking with hope and confidence to the Labour and Socialist Government to give them some vague promise that perhaps in a year's time something will be done to lighten their distress, but who wish to know whether we are going to fulfil the pledges which we gave at the Election to do something immediately. I do not think that I am talking too strongly when I say that if we cannot get this done, if we cannot devise measures to meet human needs, if we cannot so modify or adapt the business of this House in order to secure that ordinary elementary human wants are attended to before we rise, not only is the honour of the Labour party in peril, but the very existence of this Chamber is in danger. The generation to which I belong is not going to respect a mediæval institution unless that institution brings itself into line with the needs of a modern world by showing sufficient adaptability to be made a useful, adequate, and speedy instrument for redressing social wrongs.
I was very greatly impressed with the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), in which he said that he would be ashamed to think that any body of men would raise themselves to power and position on the shoulders of the unemployed and then do nothing for them. In asking for immediate action, I am pleading, not only for the unemployed workers, but for almost every Member sitting on these benches, because on this question we must have a certain amount of peace of mind before we can apply ourselves to the study and work necessary in carrying out our responsibilities. We cannot have that peace of mind when we find that every post is bringing in inumerable letters from our constituencies showing that the persecution of the poor is still going on, and people are being told that they are "not genuinely seeking work." In justice to our own sense of honour and integrity, and for the credit of this party, we must co-operate with each other and devise some means of so adapting our institutions that something can be done without delay, even if we have no holidays at all.
If this country goes to war, as it has done in the past—I hope it will never do so again in the future—at the outset of the war we do not meet here in council to decide how much we shall spend, but we regard the position as an emergency situation, and we use all our national resources to carry out the war successfully. I think we should regard the present as an emergency situation, and concentrate all our abilities 'and resources in improving it. It is not merely a small financial Bill that is needed, such as the Minister explained to us; it is an emergency Measure that we need, which will give us peace of mind as well as do an elementary justice to our constituents throughout this country, my making it certain that, before this House rises, something will be done to carry out the pledges which we on these benches have given to the unemployed, to see that every single one of them—and let us remember they have behind them homes dependent on them—shall be guaranteed at least a regular measure of maintenance. We can then proceed to the greater work that lies ahead of us from that foundation.
I think that this question of administrative persecution might be taken a little further, I do not often agree with what is said by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but I listened to his speech with the very greatest interest, and I think that his point is one which deserves an answer from the Government. As far as I understood it, his point was that at the present minute many people are kept off the live register who ought to be on it, and, since it is the whole case of the Government that the balancing point depends upon the number of people on the live register, it does seem to me that the hon. Member's question deserves an answer. He asked, What change is there going to be owing to the Socialist party having now crossed the Floor of the House? What is the reflection going to be on the live register of the fact that this so-called administrative persecution is no longer going to take place? After hearing the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) refer to the Debate which took place on the 24th April, I was curious enough to refresh my memory, having listened to that Debate, as to what actually was said. In that Debate the present Home Secretary, who is not in the Chamber now, though he was here a moment ago, then used some very hard words of us Conservatives who were then sitting on the other side of the House. He talked about our haying robbed men of their savings by administrative persecution which had made it impossible for men to remain on the list—that is to say, the live register; and, when the then Minister of Labour remonstrated with him, he went on to say:
" I do not think the term is too strong. Men have been deprived of benefit because they have been pursued by processes of investigation and finally they have been told that they are not ' genuinely seeking work '"—
which, I may say in parenthesis, was, I think—
I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member was in the Chamber when I gave my Ruling that questions of administration could not be discussed on this Resolution.
Of course, I bow to your Ruling at once. I tried to point out at the beginning of my remarks that the relevance of the point I am making is that the balancing point upon which the right hon. Lady has based the whole of her case depends on the number on the live register, and the number who can be on the live register depends very much, and, indeed, entirely upon administration. I am not going to deal with administration as a whole, but was only going to ask three simple questions of the Minister, if you will allow me just to finish that argument. On the other hand, if you rule me out of order, of course I will give way. I was quoting the words of the present Home Secretary when he sat on this side of the House. He went on to say:
" In these circumstances, and considering the distress of the family and what it means to men who have to remain out of work against their will, I say the term ' persecution ' is not too strong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1929; col. 907, Vol. 227.]
Neither is it.
I am glad to have the hon. Member's support, and I hope that those who support me now will also support me in my demand for an answer to three simple questions.
You did not support it then.
I do not want to enter into an argument, because I am going to be very brief. The three questions are these: Does the right hon. Lady now agree with the words of the present Home Secretary which I have read out, now that she and he have crossed the Floor of the House, to the effect that there is this administrative persecution? What steps are the Government, and herself in particular, going to take to stop the persecution? My third question—and this is the most important point—is, how many people, men and women, will in her opinion be added to the live register because the persecution is going to stop?
Perhaps, with the leave of the Committee, I may reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's questions. In the first place, I really do not think I am called upon to answer for the Home Secretary. He will answer for himself. I merely wish to say to the Committee that no one has ever heard me say, on either side of the House, that I believed that there was any body of persecution in the sense that has been stated to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear! "] I venture also to say, though perhaps it may not be regarded as a strict point of debate, that I have listened with a great deal of pain to attacks made this afternoon upon officials who cannot defend themselves. I think that the term " persecution " could have been used with justification in this sense, that there is a category of cases which, under the Ruling of the Chair, I am not permitted to particularise, but with which we are all familiar, in which the onus of proof has been so far thrown upon the man as a matter of policy. I believe that policy to be wrong; I believe that it has resulted in injustice and hardship; and I believe, therefore, that it is my duty to do my level best to reverse that policy whenever I find it to exist. With regard to the final question, as to what is going to be the result upon the number of unemployed people, the hon. and gallant Member will know perfectly well that I could not even guess the figure, because I have still to investigate the extent of the problem.
I wish to deal with this point as one who has come directly from the Dartford workhouse this morning, and I want to take up the question as it has been left by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir G. Bowyer), because I think it is a question that needs to be ventilated in this House. We have in the Dartford Division cases of skilled men, unskilled men, skilled women and unskilled women, who have applied for work—
The hon. Member also is transgressing my Ruling that we cannot discuss questions of administration on this Resolution.
I apologise, Sir, if I am transgressing your Ruling. I was not in the Chamber when the Ruling was given, but I have gathered with astonishment that the Debate has been limited as it has, and I also gather that a coach-and-four has been driven through that in your absence. If, however, I am to be found guilty, my remarks will have to be drawn to a close, but I should like to say that in my opinion the financial provisions that are at present before the Committee are hopelessly inadequate, and I hope that the Government, within the limits of time that are available to them in the Recess, will be able to bring before us something that will at least add to this sum, because I am afraid that the wording of the provision will bring very little hope to those who are unemployed at the moment. There are many questions in connection with the administration of Employment Exchanges, and the fact that able-bodied men are working in workhouses on task work for five days of the week and then refused benefit because they are not deemed to be genuinely seeking work, when they are imprisoned in workhouses, which I hope to raise when the scope of the Debate enables Members to do so.
The Debate to which we have listened this afternoon has been one of very great interest, because we have heard from hon. Members on the back benches opposite a complete recapitulation of the promises which they made at the last General Election; and, if I may be allowed to say so, it has been made abundantly clear that there is the widest difference between those who have so spoken and the right hon. Lady who occupies the position of Minister of Labour. The right hon. Lady, unlike those who have spoken from the back benches, has had office on a previous occasion, and is now a member of the Cabinet, and she knows, from her experience of administration, that the promises which have been made by so many who have spoken to-day from the back benches, and probably by many who have not spoken, are utterly incapable of being carried out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] I am afraid that if I went into details I should be called to order. It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but I find myself in almost complete agreement with the words that he used this afternoon, though I do not know whether I am in agreement with what was really at the back of his mind. He pointed out several times the necessity that this Fund should be on a sound financial basis. I am entirely in favour of that, and one doubt which I have in my mind as to the giving of larger sums from the Treasury to the Unemployment Insurance Fund is as to where that is going to stop. I want to see this Fund become financially solvent, but I am afraid that, under pressure from the back benches, schemes may be brought forward which would be very bad for the country. I am not going to express my opinion on individual cases, but the effect would be to postpone the date when the Fund becomes solvent, and when the employers will pay less, the employés will pay less,, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will contribute less.
It seems to me that the greatest necessity at the present time as to arrive at solvency for this Fund, and it is increasingly obvious to anyone who has studied the Memorandum on this Financial Resolution which has been issued as a White Paper that it is going to be a very long time indeed before that state of solvency can be reached. We heard from the right hon. Lady early this afternoon that the figure stated is based on a live register of 1,000,000 people. But that figure is to go on increasing when the live register shows more than 1,000,000 people. That, to my mind, is a very serious statement, because even the White Paper shows an unemployment figure of 21,000 more than that mentioned as the basis, while up to the present moment it has been still further increased by another 24,000, so that in round figures there are 50,000 more people out of work than this Fund is calculated to deal with. That indicates that there will be an increasing deficit even with this increased contribution from the Treasury. There are one or two questions that I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he is going to reply later. In the first place, does this Fund pay interest to the Treasury? If it carries interest, I should like to know at what rate?
In the Report of the Ministry of Labour, on page 57, we find some rather extraordinary figures, as to which I should like some explanation. We are told that from 1st April, 1927, to 31st March, 1928, the contributions by employers were £16,470,000, from employés £14,420,000 and from the Exchequer £12,000,000. In the year 1928, from. 1st April till 31st December, those contributions have gone down to £12,210,000 for the employers, £10,680,000 for the employés, and £8,930,000 for the Exchequer. I should be obliged if someone would explain why there is that very large reduction in the contributions. On page 73 of the same handbook we find that the administration of this Department, which is borne, I presume, by the Fund, has gone up by £300,000. I should like some explanation as to why it has gone up, and why this increased expenditure is brought forward. As far as I know, the cost of the administration of this Fund is not brought forward in any of the Estimates of the year and it is only on such a financial Resolution as this that we can obtain it. I hope this will be the last proposal from the Front Bench to increase the contributions of anyone. This is a very serious charge on the Ex- chequer, on the employés and on the employers. If you take a large engineering works and find the amount that has to be paid every week, it is a great charge on the cost of production. Similarly, the amount paid by the Exchequer has to be found by the taxpayers, and I hope the Chancellor will see to it that no further raids are made upon them. I hope any Bill that may see the light of day will be a concluding Bill. The Bill of which this Resolution is the basis must be at least the twentieth that has been brought in since I have been in the House. They are most complicated and difficult to understand, because they are all legislation by reference. Though we know there must be one further Bill, we hope it will be the final and concluding Bill.
May I ask, on a point of Order, if we are not going to have any reply?
I am always amused at the many calls made by hon. Members opposite, even when they were sitting on this side, for facts and more facts, like stage brigands calling for wine and more wine, in relation to the Estimates that the Ministry are making when considering how much money is required for this purpose. It is impossible to estimate unemployment from one part of the year to another, therefore any Estimate of what any proposed change is going to cost the Exchequer must be more or less a matter of personal opinion based upon a limited experience on the part of any Member who expresses that opinion. There are so many factors at work that cause employment to fluctuate from time to time. Some play has been made of the fact that 24,000 have been added to the live register since the right hon. Lady made her first announcement on this question. It is possible that during the next two or three weeks some thousands will be added to the number of unemployed through certain economic factors with which hon. Members are perfectly familiar. But we are hoping that, as a result of certain administrative changes, certain injustices which have been inflicted upon men and women under the last administration will add to the numbers on the live register, and I share my hon. Friend's anxiety as to whether or not the Ministry is making sufficient provision to enable those acts of injustice to be made good. While it may be that the right hon. Lady is only making this a preliminary adjustment for the purpose, we expect that, whatever policy is developed by the Government, it will not be limited by any consideration as to what the changes involved may cost the Exchequer. While, perhaps, we are bound to support the Financial Resolution, because we believe it is necessary to make this adjustment, even though it may not be complete, we still feel that the Ministry will have to take a bold course if it is to deal effectively with the many injustices of which complaint is made day after day to every Member in the House. Therefore, while we are prepared to support the Resolution, we are looking for something on a more generous scale, which we feel to be inevitable if the question is to be dealt with in a sound and thorough manner, to be placed before the House in order that we may be sure that the assurances that we gave to our constitutents at the General Election are going to be carried out by those who are leading us. I trust these considerations will weigh with the Minister and that there will be no hesitation in that case on the part of certain Members on those benches in supporting the most generous policy that the Ministry can put forward.
I should not have intervened in the Debate had it not been for the extraordinary change that I felt had taken place in the geography, though not the mentality, of this House during the past few months. In the last House of Commons, if we had had the support that we have had to-day from hon. Members opposite, the administrative persecution of which the Home Secretary has spoken, and which I was not surprised to hear the Minister of Labour deny, would have been ended a very long time ago. Now we find ourselves in the extraordinary position of shaking hands with those recalcitrants who have seen the light with their change of position; but still bringing pressure to bear upon the Government to do the decent thing for the unemployed. While, like my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I shall certainly vote for the Resolution—I should vote for it if it were 3½d. or £36,500,000 in order to try to get something done for the unemployed—I feel it is one of the most unsatisfactory things that could have been brought forward. According to the figures, there are just on 8,000 people who, if the right hon. Lady does her duty, will be drawing the unemployment allowance next week who were not drawing it last week.
I remember at a similar time in the history of the last Parliament I put down a question for the Minister of Labour asking how many circulars he had sent out giving instructions to the Employment Exchanges. I think the right hon. Gentleman said he had sent out nine different sets of instructions in the first four weeks he was in office. I have a similar Question on the Paper for next Tuesday. I am afraid the number will not be so prolific, because while a month was sufficient to tighten up the whole of the regulations and inflict serious administrative persecution on the men and women who sent us to the House of Commons, I have yet to hear of one of my unfortunate unemployed constituents who is any better off for it. I think I shall remain on the side of Order, though perhaps only just, if I say that administrative persecution consists of telling men that they are not genuinely seeking work when you know jolly well that you have not a job to offer them. The columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT will prove that in the 4½ years of the last Parliament I asked the Minister of Labour 23 times whether he could give me a definition of what " genuinely seeking work " was.
The hon. Member is just over the line.
7.0 p.m.
I leave it by merely saying that you cannot tell whether people are seeking work or not unless you offer them a job and they do not take it. If they do not take it, no Member would allow them any grant from public funds. I find it very difficult to understand the paragraph which says: I do not believe that that is so, but it is most unfortunate that a niggardly and inadequate proposal of this sort, with no suggestion that further powers to increase the Fund should be granted, should be accompanied by a Financial Memorandum which seems to regard it as an entirely unforeseen circumstance that more generosity should be shown to the unemployed. I quite understand that, if the plans of the Lord Privy Seal mature, as we all devoutly hope they will, if his railway schemes come quickly into operation, that men will be removed from the register and the Fund will be spared to that extent.
But we are facing a great emergency and we are sent here particularly to face this great emergency. We did not go to the country and say that we could put all the unemployed into a job in no time. We gave no promise that we would immediately find work for the unemployed, but I gave a promise, the official Labour party manifesto gave a promise, and I believe every Member on these benches gave a promise during the Election, not that we would find work at once for everybody, but that we would see that deserving people were either found work or allowed, not existence, but proper maintenance. I regret very much the kind of split that we have seen during the last hour and that the wise words of the Home Secretary in the last Parliament should have been practically repudiated. That kind of thing lays us justly open to the charge in the country that in Opposition we preach one thing and in office another. We do not want to be like the two old parties and do that. We want the light that hon. Members opposite have shown this afternoon to be shown when they are in office as well and, if we expect them to have the courage to criticise their Government when it goes wrong—which they did not do when in office—then we should do the same thing ourselves. There is nothing wrong in these proposals, but they are insufficient, they are disappointing and there is no suggestion, in the way they have been put in front of us, that they are going to be accompanied by a big, broad executive and administrative generosity such as we thought we had every right to expect from the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday.
I hope that this Financial Resolution will go through and that this Debate upon it will have the effect of letting our leaders know that they cannot go too far on this question and lose the support of their followers on account of it. For every step we on the back benches would urge them to take, their supporters in the country would urge them to take half-a-dozen steps. I hope the Motion will not be regarded as a solution of the question, or as anything but an ordinary administrative Act which would probably have been brought in whether we were in office or not. I hope that we shall both administratively and—in spite of the difficulties which the Prime Minister put forward yesterday—legislatively go forward on this problem. The last Government fell on this problem. They did not fall on Tariff Reform or Free Trade; the country does not care a hang about either of them. They fell because they believed in " Safety First." This problem was also very largely the reason for the downfall of the right hon. Member who sits below the Gangway opposite. " Safety First " is the thing that has killed two Governments, and I pray that it will not kill this Government.
I am very glad that this Debate has produced one good result in the statement made by the Minister of Labour that there was no administrative persecution under the Acts put into force by the Conservative Government. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that the Clause to which they object most strongly, namely, the Clause referring to men genuinely seeking work, was brought in by the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of War and was then Minister of Labour. It was on the responsibility of the Labour Government in 1924 that it was done.
It was not in that Act that those words were introduced. It was in the Act of 1922.
It was in 1924 that that Act was passed.
It was first introduced in 1924, as regards ordinary benefit, but in 1921 it was introduced with regard to uncovenanted benefit.
I now turn to another point. The Government have produced this proposal to increase the Exchequer contribution. The Lord Privy Seal has put forward proposals which, he stated, would provide work for the unemployed, and he emphasised that he was only selecting proposals which would give immediate work. If those proposals are seriously put forward by the Government and they genuinely believe that they will reduce unemployment, why does the right hon. Lady bring forward this proposal to increase the amount of the State contribution? If these proposals are workable, the number of unemployed will be reduced and you will also have under this Motion £3,500,000 to cover your debts. The Government say that this provision will carry them on until next year. But, if there are less on the live register, then the amount paid in will increase according to the more men there are at work. My feeling is that the Government hope that the pool will increase and this will enable them in time to pay out increased benefits to the unemployed. I have no objection to the unemployed receiving the full benefit to which they are entitled, but I strongly object to the State having to pay an increased contribution which it ought not to do if the number of unemployed is decreasing.
At present the employer has got to pay eightpence, the employé sevenpence and the State sixpence. We are now asked to saddle the State with an amount equivalent to half the total contribution of the employer and the employé. To my mind the whole of this is piling up additional taxation on the State. What we are asked to accept to-day is an extra contribution of £3,500,000. In view of promises, which have been emphasised from the Government's Back Benches to-day, that they will pay increased benefits, what hope has the country that this £3,500,000 will be remitted? This £3,500,000 will have to be found by the State and by a class least able to pay it. Take the one-man business, the small shop keeper. He knows he will have to pay taxes with the rest of the community in order to pay this £3,500,000 a year. What benefit will he get out of it? It is the same with all other middle-class families.
Will not the small trader benefit by the increased purchasing power of the unemployed?
Will he be able to benefit to an equivalent extent? We on this side of the Committee complain that taxation is being increased, and that we are threatened with great increases of taxation if the Socialist Government have their way. Taxation is the thing that to-day is killing business more than anything else. I object to this Motion being passed on three grounds, first, because I do not think it is required if the scheme of the Lord Privy Seal for finding work is justified. The Lord Privy Seal emphasised in his speech that he was disregarding schemes which might come into force next year, and that he had made a special selection of schemes which could be put in hand at once and give employment to these men. I think that we should wait for a time before passing this Motion in order to see the value of these schemes. If they are satisfactory, this additional money, this £3,500,000, will not be asked from the State, and taxation will be lightened for the whole community, and so benefit the unemployed very much more than taxing industry and the community.
I was somewhat struck by some of the arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville), and I am sure he will forgive me if I endeavour to criticise them a little. The hon. Gentleman and I are old protagonists, and I hope, old friends. I have had the pleasure of differing from him under less congenial circumstances than the atmosphere of this House, and I am perfectly sure that we understand each other and have very great mutual respect. He is rather under-rating the position when he uses as an illustration that the one-man business may suffer by increasing the revenue of the Unemployment Insurance Fund by further contributions from the National Exchequer The hon. Gentleman and myself have very close knowledge of a town which has suffered very greatly from unemployment since the close of the late disastrous War, and we know of crashing businesses, of bankruptcies, of the absolute going out of one-man businesses because of the spending power of the workers being either reduced or taken away altogether, and of the terrible burden inflicted upon them by local rates due to the Governments of the past adopting a policy of pushing the cost of unemployment on to the local rates. I submit to the hon. Gentleman that that argument rather cuts against the case he was endeavouring to make than against the case which is put forward from this side of the House for increasing the Exchequer contribution to this Fund. He also said that he hoped that unemployment would be reduced to normal. He wants to know how long this increase was going to continue.
I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman, or anyone who speaks next from the opposite side of the Committee, what is meant by reducing unemployment to normal. " Normal unemployment " in a civilised community should be nil, both at the top and at the bottom. There should neither be honest, skilled, hardworking men and women asking for employment at one end of the scale, nor should there be idlers living on the strength of their long descent from the Conqueror, or from some of his cooks and scullions. I always get a little irritated when I hear of unemployment at its normal. " Normal unemployment," viewed from this side of the House, should absolutely be nil. If there is temporary unemployment caused by the fluctuation of national production, then, as has already been indicated, there should be a just, and, if not a generous, at least a Christian maintenance for those whom the nation is unable to employ.
I would like to refer to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), who, I regret, has been compelled to quit the Chamber. He rather criticises us for asking for an increase. It grieved him a great deal, but I would like to remind the Committee that we are suffering from the legacy of the late Tory Government. Nearly five years ago, when they were contesting the General Election of 1924, they were going to solve the unemployment problem. They had an infallible remedy. That is what they said to the public. [HON. MEMBERS: " No ! "] A " positive " remedy if the adjective matters. I think that that was the word used in the late Prime Minister's election address —" A positive remedy for unemployment." I realise that the occupants of the Front Bench opposite are getting a little agitated over this. They are suffer- ing for their past deeds; their chickens are coming home to roost.
As the hon. Gentleman is paying so much attention, to this side of the House, perhaps he will pay a little attention to the occupants of his own Front Bench. Will he be good enough to say on what occasion this statement was made?
If the Noble Lord will be kind enough to allow me to get into my stride, I have some further attacks to make. I can assure him that I am not so easily persuaded to make unnecessary attacks on the leaders of my party just for the delight or pleasure of the Noble Lord or of anyone else on the opposite side of the Chamber.
The hon. Member made a positive assertion. I am asking for information when this alleged statement was made; on what occasion?
The Noble Lord is endeavouring to pin me to something. The Noble Lord suggests that I do not like it. I am delighted, because when conscience pricks our opponents we shall begin to come into our own. It was quite publicly stated in a document issued by the Central Office of the Conservative party during the General Election of 1924 that they had a positive remedy for unemployment.
Did not the hon. Gentleman a minute ago say that this was in the Prime Minister's election address? He is now saying something which is quite different.
May I, as the first victim of your Ruling, Mr. Young, ask if it is strictly in order to discuss the late Prime Minister's statement on unemployment?
The hon. Member is indicating that if that promise in regard to unemployment had been carried out there would have been no need for the Resolution before the House.
Is it in Order for the Noble Lord to ask for such information?
I think that the Noble Lord was quite in order in asking the hon. Member when that statement was made.
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley), whether he has not taken something from the context of the statement to which he referred and left out the important part, which said that that remedy was to provide employment by encouraging industry in this country and by attempting to get industrial peace in this country. That is the policy which the late Prime Minister did carry out.
That is really delightful, and it is also a revelation. I am delighted that the conscience of hon. Members opposite is pricking them, and I am learning a little also that it is possible to make them realise their misdeeds of the past. That is very pleasant, because I had almost given up hope of them ever doing so. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) is very vociferous in interrupting when an hon. Member is putting his case. If he would favour the House more frequently with his abilities to put his own case, I am sure he would be much more helpful. I was making a reference to the fact that the party opposite officially, and in several other ways—I understand I shall be infringing the rules of Order if I enumerate them, much as I should delight to enlighten the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton)—did give those pledges. For four years and a-half they did nothing but drift and talk, and shuffle the responsibility from the National Exchequer on to the local rates, thus destroying businesses and ruining shopkeepers and the working-class community in many of our industries. The present Government who have just come into office—their seats can hardly be warm yet—are faced with this legacy of drift, mismanagement, and 1 would almost say but for hurting the exceedingly tender feelings of the Gentleman opposite, fraud, of the recent Government in not doing their duty to the unemployed people. The new Government found that such is the state of misery and unemployment in this country that the income from contributions in respect of the employed people is only sufficient to provide for a normal unemployed register of 1,000,000 people. Necessarily and naturally our Government have to provide for the emergency.
I rather regret that the enthusiasm of some of my colleagues on these benches has led them into what I must designate, with all respect, as rather captious criticism of the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour, and the financial representative on the Front Bench. I can appreciate the point of view of those who have faced unemployment and know what it actually means. It has a tremendous effect right through the very fibre of their being. I have seen the highest skilled men in this country hawk their bodies about the streets for three or four years because no one could make a profit out of their employment. I have seen apprentices newly flushed with the pride of having a trade in their hands who have never had an opportunity of working at that trade because of the capitalist system which exists in this and in other parts of the so-called civilised world. It has moved me deeply. I would appeal to my colleagues, with all their bitterness of heart and their desire to see justice done to suffering humanity, and in spite of the promises that were made—and we will keep them if we have an opportunity of doing so—to assist the problem of unemployment, not to tack on to a Financial Resolution of this character, which asks for finances to be provided to cover a certain period, a charge against the Government of not presenting a full administrative policy to deal with this problem. I suggest that it is too early.
We should be well advised to give our Cabinet and our Ministers an opportunity of getting into their stride. It cannot be expected, I think, that immediately, in a vote like this to cover a given period and to provide an opportunity of carrying out a measure of justice to these people, a call should be made for the greater schemes. I do not think that it would be quite right. In my opinion it is a mistake to focus criticism on a policy which is not before us. I really rose to say that. I was compelled, and I was rather delighted in being compelled by " the very tender plants which grow in the garden opposite," to deal with some other problems. I assure the House, especially hon. Members on the opposite benches that their misdeeds, of so long standing, are a legacy which will be cleared away. A little patience is wanted by the people we represent, who are suffering. We, in our anxiety to put things right, are liable to step over our own intellectual traces in getting to business. But it will have to be tackled, and it will be tackled. [Laughter], Hon. and right hon. Members opposite seem delighted. Just to cool down their delight, I would warn them not to be misled when they see something which is strange to them, something which they have not experienced, and which their mentality does not grasp, and that is, the courage of back-benchers on this side of the House who challenge even their own Ministers if they think that sufficient progress is not being made. That is a revelation to hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but they can take scant comfort from it. If they imagine that for one brief, fleeting moment—Well, I will leave that, and say that if they imagine, in their lack of grasp of the essentials of the great spirit that dominates the methods and inspires the Labour party, that they are going to get some advantage out of what they have seen to-day, I can assure them that they are in for a cold ride and a bitter disillusionment.
I do not want to participate in the party pleasantries which have been so exhilarating on both sides of the House, but simply to say, in a very few sentences, that I welcome this Resolution for what it is, namely, a stopgap which will enable the peculiar questions underlying the subject of our discussion to be thought out properly and put upon a permanent basis. I welcome it because it takes us back to the Act of 1924, which recognised that the State should bear a proper proportion of the national cost of maintaining the unemployed. I welcome it, also, because it cancels out one of the very unfortunate depredations of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was effected in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
I disagree very strongly with some of the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House against the increasing of the State contribution. The existing contributions paid by employers and employed are a very serious tax upon industry and upon the employed. The deficit he of £36,000,000 on the Fund constitutes a very heavy potential tax upon the resources of productive industry in this country. Do not let us forget that this deficit is going to be paid by many of those who are unemployed at the present time, and whose resources have been brought down by continuous unemployment to the very lowest possible human ebb. For these reasons, I welcome this proposal, small as it is. I would, of course, like hon. Members opposite, with some of whose arguments I am in sympathy wish to have seen some suggestion made whereby the Fund might be used to provide greater elasticity in the administration of our unemployment insurance benefits.
There has been a lot of talk to-day about persecution. I am not here to quarrel with that, because I know that many of those who are disqualified from the receipt of benefit on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking employment have no possible means of substantiating their claim other than standing in the ranks with thousands of their fellow men on the stands outside works when, on any given day in the year, it is 500 or 1,000 chances to one that they will have DO chance of obtaining work. In these circumstances, the statutory condition with respect to genuinely seeking employment is a farce. I hope, however, that hon. Members opposite, who have been very free in the use of the word "persecution," do not intend to cast any reflection upon that large body of men and women who are performing behind the counters of the Employment Exchanges of this country a very valuable service. Let us remember that they are acting upon Regulations which are laid down for them by the Ministry in London. If the Fund and the money which is to be provided by this Resolution could be used in any way to increase the efficiency of the Employment Exchanges so that the human touch might not be shut out of them, it would indeed be put to a very useful purpose.
The staffing of the Employment Exchanges, to which this money will be devoted, is fixed on the basis of the complete machine. So far as I can understand it, the whole staffing is arranged on the basis of passing through so many units per hour. But the people they are dealing with are not units; they are all different. I do hope that some portion of this money may be devoted to enabling those who are administering the work in the Employment Exchanges to introduce the human touch into their operations.
I have listened to many of the Debates which have taken place in this House on this subject, and if there is any one point upon which there is unanimity in all quarters of the House it is that preventive unemployment should be put an end to. Until that happy day arrives, I hope there will be complete unanimity on the point that the anxiety and hardship of the unemployed should be mitigated 'as much as possible. When the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) was moving the Motion on the Address, there was nothing which evoked a more ready response than the few sentences in which he referred to his own personal agonies and moral depression when he was walking the streets and looking for employment. Therefore, I hope that we may have complete unanimity upon the point as to dealing with preventible unemployment, and until that day arrives I hope there will be complete agreement that the agonies of the unemployed shall not be aggravated by an inefficient machine, or a machine which is less human than we can make it by any Votes of this House.
I thank the two last speakers for bringing back the discussion to the channel in which it should mainly have run. We have had a very illuminating Debate, and its illumination has been particularly directed to giving to this new House an understanding of the mentality and the psychology of the larger party that sits on the opposite benches in this House. Before I deal with the main matters of Financial Resolution, I should like to say a few words in regard to some of the criticisms which have been put forward from some of the back benchers on the Opposition side, who thought that they had found very serious defects in our proposal. One of the criticisms made was that we had departed from the normal procedure of this House; that the proper and right method of dealing with the matter was to bring in a Bill, and that when the Bill had been printed we should bring in the Financial Resolution. The hon. Members who attempted to criticise us on those grounds, simply displayed their ignorance. The fact is, that the procedure adopted depends upon the character of the Bill that is being produced. If it is a Bill on a general question and, incidentally one of the Clauses deals with finance, the method which hon. Members opposite have suggested would have been the right one to have adopted in the present instance, but if it is a Bill dealing mainly and substantially with the question of finance, the right method is to bring in the Financial Resolution first. That is the right and normal methods and had we departed from it we should have been guilty of an error in understanding the procedure of the House.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) read out some figures and attempted to suggest that there was a very grave discrepancy. He gave figures for 1927 and 1928, and called our attention to the fact that in the figures which he had read out there was a very great reduction. He seems not to have realised that the figures he gave for 1927 were figures for the whole year, whereas the figures for 1928 were for nine months. It is perfectly obvious that if you are giving figures for nine months they will be less than the figures for a whole year. The hon. Member further attempted to criticise us by saying that the charge for administration was not borne by any Vote. How he could have imagined that it is difficult to conceive. The fact is, that the cost is borne on the Labour Vote, just as any other cost of administration.
Are we to understand that the cost of administration is borne on the Vote whether it is paid for out of the Fund or not? As I understand it, the cost of administering the Unemployment Insurance Fund is paid for out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Am I to understand that whether it is paid for out of the Unemployment Fund or out of the ordinary Estimates of the year, that in both cases it is brought forward in the Estimates?
The criticism which the hon. Member made, or attempted to make, was that there is no place where this amount is voted. It is borne, as I stated perfectly correctly, on the Vote of the Labour Ministry. I have verified that statement. On the general question, if I had never before seen the Conservative party in opposition, I should have been amazed at the effrontery that they have exhibited in this Debate, but having experienced in an earlier Parliament their opposition, it does not surprise me. Hon. Members behind me have suggested that hon. Members opposite have seen the light. Not at all. They have been trying to confuse the issue. They have been trying to pretend that their hearts are yearning to do very much more for the unemployed than we are doing. They had 4½ years to carry out those yearnings, but they did not carry them out. They are merely using this Debate as an attempt to criticise the much more generous administration of the present Government.
The criticism did not come from us.
I am going to deal with my hon. Friend's party presently. Perhaps they can afford to wait. The hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) gave the position away. He explained that what he really cared about was that this Vote was giving too much. He did not want to see the country committed to such a large amount as the increase in the State contribution to unemployment, and we would have preferred to have seen the amount kept as it was or, if it had to be increased, that it should be increased by a smaller amount than we propose. That is really, in effect, the attitude of hon. Members opposite.
May I intervene for a moment. The point I made was not that the State should not make an increased contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, but that we should wait to see what effect the proposals of the Lord Privy Seal had upon unemployment.
It is true the hon. Member said that at one point in his speech, but the whole gist of his argument was that at this stage it is undesirable we should give so much to the Unemployment Fund. The hon. Member for Macclesfield argued that we ought to have a reliable estimate of the amount of unemployment. He said, I think, that we ought to have finality. That comes very well from a Member of the party opposite which destroyed the financial stability of the Fund by the action they took when they were in office. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Government had not completely altered the whole basis of contribution to this Fund it might have been solvent to-day; at any rate, it would have been much nearer solvency that it is now. The fact is that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was always out for raiding one fund or another, took this particular Unemployment Fund as one of the main sources from which he could get money and pretend that he had a stable Budget, which he never had.
I do not think the hon. Member is quite fair in his statement. May I point out that the main cause of the difficulties of this Fund at the present time is the fact that no less than £20,000,000 of debt occurred during the year 1926.
I knew quite well that we should not get away from King Charles' Head. Whenever the late Government are criticised they always contend that the general strike was the source of all their troubles. The fact is that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer destroyed the stability of this Fund by altering the basis of contribution. He altered the basis of contribution all round and altered the proportion of contributions offered by the State. It it because of the false finance of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Fund is in the position it now is.
Now let me say a word to hon. Members on this side of the House. I have a great deal of sympathy and a large measure of agreement with the intention behind the speeches of hon. Members on these benches. Unlike hon. Members opposite we on this side of the House really care for the unemployed and really desire to do something better for them than was done by hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members on this side of the House quite rightly, instead of wanting a smaller amount as hon. Members opposite desire, want a larger amount. They say that this Resolution merely proposes to add something which is estimated at £3,500,000 per year, and that if unemployment is going to stand at its present figure it will not do anything to meet a fraction of the things which they want to see done. I agree with them there, but I should like to point out that if they imagine that that is a criticism of this proposal then they are really confusing the issue. This proposal is not the first and last word of the Labour Government on the matter of unemployment. It does not pretend to be anything of the kind.
When can we expect the next one?
This Financial Resolution is to deal with one particular difficulty which confronts us at the present time. Owing to the way in which the late Government handled the finance this Fund is practically bankrupt, and we have to look round and see what can be done. One of the first things is the failure in the proportion of contributions and this particular Measure is designed solely to deal with that particular evil.
That is our complaint.
The hon. Member complains that we are taking one difficulty at a time and are dealing with it on its merits. It is the policy of the Government to deal with each particular difficulty by a remedy suitable to the difficulty.
Will the hon. Member allow me. I am sure he does not want to misrepresent the attitude of hon. Members on the back benches. We agree that this should be taken bit by bit, but why take the mere balance sheet consideration rather than the human consideration as the first point?
We are confronted at the present moment with a financial difficulty and until that difficulty has been dealt with we cannot deal with the human problems which my hon. Friends quite properly desire should foe dealt with.
This is very important to us on these back benches; and we want to get the maximum of harmonious working with hon. Members on the Front Bench in their difficult task. What we want to know is this: since this is essential to the humanising step will that humanising step be taken before this House adjourns for the Autumn Recess?
The humanising step, as my hon. Friend calls it, is going on all the time. The Minister of Labour is responsible for the administration of the Fund and will take such steps as may foe necessary to carry out the humanising which my hon. Friend desires. That is not the question before the House at the present time. The question is the substitution of the old unsatisfactory share of contributions which existed under the scheme as produced by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and a reversion to a sound proportion, such as is proposed in this Financial Resolution. I hope, now that that point has been made clear, that we shall be able to get rid of the difficulties and misunderstandings and carry this Financial Resolution through this House in order that there may be no further delay in the matter.
If it were not that unemployment is one of the saddest of human tragedies one would be almost inclined to try and make a little party capital out of the various speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite. I do not want to do that, but the hon. Member, in his distress at the thought that his Government were being attacked from behind made the best defence he could; and, knowing that the best defence is attack, he thought he would throw a few stones over on this side of the House. I do not think the Front Bench opposite can be held responsible for all the rash hopes and all the rash promises which were given by their supporters. No Government could exist if they were to be held responsible for all a back bencher may choose to say. It may be very disappointing to the back benchers. I believe I read in some of the speeches of the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) that she said that all poverty was to be abolished by the present Government.
She never said that.
I saw something very like that in some of her speeches, and she seemed to hold a threat to this House that unless her election promises were forthwith fulfilled by the Government this institution of Parliament would be abolished. That is practically what she said. I expected to see her descend through the Gangway and order the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Clydebank (Mr. Kirkwood) to take away that bauble. She seemed to have lost complete trust in Parliament because she did not find her election promises in the process of being fulfilled. Another hon. Member said that all want was to be abolished. The lesson is never to make rash promises when you are electioneering. I never made a promise as a Parliamentary candidate. I never said anything but this, that I would do the best I possibly could, and I generally found that my constituents were satisfied with that. But to make these wild promises: you might as well promise to abolish sickness and death. We are all born in suffering and in suffering we shall go on, and as far as I can see nobody is suffering more than the present Government, not at our hands but at the hands of some of their supporters. This is a necessary Resolution and I believe it would have been moved even if the country had not been blessed with the present Government.
8.0 p.m.
The Unemployment Fund has gone out of shape. I do not make any apology for mentioning the events of 1926, and while we are still suffering as a consequence of the war it is the fact that this insurance fund lost £20,000,000 owing to the events of 1926; and that is why it is in its present position. Hon. Members opposite were not responsible for them. They could not control them; they never can control their followers at any time. I say that this Resolution is necessary. It just shows the viciousness there is in the whole system of unemployment benefit. I am sorry that Mr. Connolly, who was in the last Parliament, was not re-elected. Although I differed from him politically I had a great regard for him, and I would mention now that in one of the distressed towns in my constituency he was of great assistance. I heard him state that he and other trade unionists protested against the proposals of this Unemployment Insurance scheme. It was never asked for by the trade unions, and I do not believe it was ever asked for by the working classes. It was put forward by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in order to get over a temporary difficulty and it became a permanent institution. It will never be properly administered under the present arrangement and there will always be complaints. There is the difficulty about the proof of a man "genuinely seeking work," and it will always be a difficulty. Difficulties such as that which we are now discussing, relating to the deficiency, will always occur.
The proper people to administer unemployment benefit were the working men themselves in their own trade unions. They should have had charge of the whole business and it should never have been governed officially. No one expects from a Government official the human touch of which we hear so much. The very fact that they are Government officials divorces them from common humanity. The working men themselves ought to have administered the Act. The principle of Magna Charta was that a man should be judged by his peers. Until some principle of that kind is adopted in regard to unemployment benefit, until working men themselves administer the Act, an improvement will not take place. I have had numberless cases put to me in my own constituency. How can anyone tell whether a man is " genuinely seeking work," except those who have worked along side of him and know him. The Government has so many good trade unionists at its back, and so many men capable of giving advice, that I suggest they might try to work out a scheme for using the great institutions of the trade unions in connection with the administering of this Act, instead of using the unions really as the battleground of party politics. The trade union leaders have the capacity and the intimate personal knowledge to enable them to carry out the administration in a thrifty and genuine way, but that will never be done by any body of Government officials.
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman entrust to trade unions the right to judge as a majority in this matter, seeing that that right was denied to them by him in the matter of the political levy?
There is a great difference between the two things. Politics is often a man's religion. No one has a right to coerce or direct a man either in politics or religion. Under the old political levy men were coerced.
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in the coalfields anyone has a right to dismiss men merely because they disagree with him? That is happening in Derbyshire to-day.
I have been particularly concerned with the very earnest and the warning appeals addressed to the Government from this side of the Committee, regarding the human aspect of this question. Those appeals have not been affectively met. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury expressed his sympathy, but did not deal with the question whether or not the human aspect was to be dealt with by the Government before we adjourned for the Recess. His answer was merely to the effect that the Minister of Labour would give every consideration to the administration of the Act. The particular history of the Minister of Labour is not just that which would give warrant for absolute confidence as to what is going to happen under that particular administration. The central point to us on this side is the fact that the unemployed, for whom we pleaded so earnestly with a Tory Government for five years, are now finding in the Labour Government a timidity that can only be explained as due to the power of officialism behind the Government. We must get over that difficulty.
I am strongly of opinion that, not only on this question, but on other questions, the " power behind the throne," the official power, is more effective than that of any individual or of the personnel of any particular Government. The question is one for every individual Member of every party. When a person seeking benefit says that he has been " genuinely seeking work " but has failed to obtain it, the only test to which that person should be subjected is the offer of work, and if work is not available all the financial resources of the State must be commandeered to meet the demands of human necessity. We have the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. They are not, thank Heaven, now employed in the work of bloodshed and deadly attack for which they are appointed. They are a standing host of unemployed in three sections, and the resources of the State have to be used to provide them with food, clothing and housing. There is also the industrial army, many of its mem- bers not employed, for whom the resources of the State should be made available.
To-day, we have been told, " We will deal first with the balance sheet; one thing at a time." I am not asking for one thing at a time, but am pleading for the man and the woman at the Employment Exchange who are demanding another kind of home defence from the Government. We are not getting it. It is a great reflection on, as it is a great credit to, the Labour party that there are those who can stand up and fairly and effectively criticise their own Front Bench. It should be an excellent stimulus to those on the other side who are beginning to take a leaf out of the Labour party's book and are on the road to attacking their own leaders. I quite understand that our leaders have a difficulty with the official powers. In a town council, if the convener is a very weak type, the official gets the better of him. If there were a strong type of Minister—I would hope that there are some on the Government Front Bench—something could be done. I am told that the Front Bench seats are not exactly warm yet. Whether warm or not, substantial thousands of pounds in salaries have begun to be paid.
I am pleading for the unemployed men and women whose case has been to some degree exploited on the political hustings. We were told by the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) that it would be an absolute disgrace for any political party to come into power on the exploitation of labour. The answer that ought to be given to us here and now is that there will be a reconsideration of the point under discussion, instead of this miserable attempt to deal with the appalling conditions of those people who come to our homes and say, " What are we to do? We are in desperation. There is no work for us." We are not talking here for the sake of talking. Each of us have a personal responsibility. We have gained votes by saying that we were deeply concerned about the unemployed, and we have, so far as we could, tried to give practical proof of our concern. But here is an opportunity to carry our pleas still further. I am not concerned about any of the attacks on the Tory party. We should hold off that sort of thing now. It is for them to make attacks upon us. It is for us, if we feel that our obligations are not being met, to persist in our appeals. We want the matter to be dealt with here and now. We do not want to go upon holidays or to meet people who are experiencing the agony of not being able to get sufficient to eat. We say to the Government, therefore, " For God's sake, get the thing reconsidered, and let us have the feeling that we have tried to meet in a substantial way the clamant demands of those who are in agony all over the country."
Rising for the first time to speak in the House of Commons, were I not dealing with a subject with which I am familiar from experience and personal contact, I might be nervous but there is no feeling of nervousness on my part because I represent the Division of the City of Birmingham which was represented by the Minister of Labour in the last Government and the people of Birmingham in that Division dealt one of the most striking blows to the Conservative Government on the question of unemployment which that Government received in the last Election. The question of unemployment in my estimation is the most important that the House of Commons has to deal with in any capacity, whether as a Committee or in any other way. It is the problem on which the General Election campaign was fought and, as a new Member, I have been somewhat mystified by some of the things which have happened since I came into this Assembly. The question of the use of military aeroplanes seems to be of more importance than the question of whether people are to have full stomachs and little pettifogging questions of etiquette are regarded as more important than saving human beings.
I want to utter a protest against these things. An hon. Member on the other side of the House—I think it was the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer)—referring to these financial provisions asked whether they were to involve a burden on the employers of labour—whether they were to be a burden upon industry or a burden upon the State—but there was not a single word from that hon. Member as to whether we are going to help to fill the hungry stomachs of the little children in the distressed areas of our mine-fields and the industrial cities of this country. All that some hon. Members are concerned about is the question of money, but we on these benches axe concerned about human life. We are concerned about human values, and we are not much concerned about fine points of order or etiquette where human values are concerned. I do not pretend to understand all about this financial proposal, but I do understand that it makes some provision for unemployment and that provision appears to me to be absolutely and totally inadequate for dealing with the question in any fundamental manner. Are we to make good the promises made by every one of us who stood on the Socialist platform in the last Election? Are we to make good the promises which we gave to people who have endured unemployment in some cases for two and three and four years, to people who have been living with hunger in their households, to people who see their children gradually wasting away to shadows—and how many of us have not seen children dying of a sort of malnutrition caused by unemployment?
If we are going to implement the promises which we gave to those people, a very much larger sum of money is required than the sum mentioned in the Resolution. I feel that those promises ought to be implemented at the earliest possible moment. Like many other Members I live among the people whom I represent, and I have an intimate and first-hand knowledge of their sufferings. When one has that knowledge, any bitterness which may creep into one's remarks may be excused because it comes from a full realisation of the suffering and the want which these people undergo. I suggest that we ought immediately to make such provision as will enable the withdrawal of all those circulars which were sent out under the regime of Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland and which have borne so heavily on the unemployed in our great industrial areas—those secret circulars which have been sent to chair men of Courts of Referees and which have been acted upon —
The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss administration. He is only entitled to discuss the terms of the Resolution before the House.
I will try to confine myself to that, although it is rather difficult to draw an exact line between what this money is going to be spent on, and what my colleagues and I think it ought to be spent on. I suppose we can criticise the amount mentioned in the Resolution and give reasons for our criticisms of that amount and why we consider it too much or too little. I suggest that it is too little, because it will not allow of the withdrawal of certain circulars and the placing of more people on the live register of our Employment Exchanges, thus making them eligible for benefit. I am not concerned as to whether the figures of the live register go up or not. I want to see the figures of the live register increase, because then I shall know that people who have been denied benefit are getting benefit. Hon. Members opposite may use the fact on the political platform, but I think the existence of better conditions in the homes of those people who will receive benefit because the figures have gone up, will be a very good answer to any criticism of that kind from the other side.
I was intensely amused at the speeches from the other side of the House. Those who for four and a half years were supposed to be governing this country, and supposed to be dealing with the unemployment problem, and who, during that period made no impression on the unemployment problem and no impression whatever on the poverty problem, have had the brazen audacity to fling gibes across the Floor at people who have only been on the Front Bench for three weeks. While I express my surprise at that attitude, it does not modify my desire to act as a spur to those on my own Front Bench. Had the rank and file, the back benchers of the late Conservative Government, had the guts that the back benchers of our party have, perhaps something might have been done for the unemployed in this country. They got something done for the Irish landlords. They got things done for the wealthy, but they could not get things done to deal with poverty. The supine spineless crowd behind the last Government were mainly responsible for the failure of that Government in tackling the problem. But it is no supine or spineless crowd which is behind this Government, because many of us have been in contact with the problems of unemployment and poverty. I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), who made a misrepresentation of a remark by the hon. Member for Northern Lanark (Miss Lee). He said she advocated the abolition of the Parliamentary system, or something to that effect. No such suggestion was made, but a warning was given—a warning which I am going to repeat—that you cannot trifle with the poverty of the people for ever. You cannot expect them for ever to stand what they have stood for the past 4½ years. We on these benches want to solve this problem by Parliamentary and constitutional methods, but it will not be clone by a grant of a few million pounds. It will only be done when we apply Socialism to the problem.
As a new Member, I must not trespass too long on the patience of the Committee, but before I resume my seat I would like to say that I entered the House of Commons after meeting in various parts of my constituency crowds of working men and women, many of them with a desire for work and for whom no work was available. The vision of those crowds remains in my mind's eye, the wan faces of the little children suffering from malnutrition, the lined faces of the mothers trying to make ends meet on paltry incomes, the anguish of strong and willing men anxious for work and denied the opportunity—those faces are indelibly impressed upon my mind; and if I have to-night exhibited in my remarks any traces of bitterness, my excuse must be my sacred duty to those people, who worked their fingers to the bone, who wore the soles off their shoes, to secure the triumph of Socialism in the division which I represent. Before we separate from this House and go back into the country for our holidays—my holidays will be spent among my own people, doing what I can through the departments of my own city council to relieve some measure of their distress—we want to plead with and urge our Front Bench to give us a distinct message of hope to those people whom we are going to meet again. Let us go back to them and say that the condition about " genuinely seeking work " and all the other administrative persecutions from which they have suffered are going to be swept away for ever by the Minister of Labour in a Labour Government.
I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. Simmons) on his maiden speech, and I do it, not in the conventional way, but sincerely, because I realise its deep earnestness of purpose. I wish to inform him and the Committee that I, too, have had some actual experience of what unemployment means to my own people, so that I can quite understand how he feels about this matter, but I want to remind him that sympathy with the unemployed is not confined to one party in this House, but that there are Members on all sides of the House who realise the difficulties of those who are genuinely seeking work and cannot obtain it. During the last Parliament, time and time again speeches were made, both by myself and by other Members of this party, urging our own Ministry to do all they possibly could to help relieve unemployment, and when the statement is made that we back benchers on this side did not speak on behalf of those who were suffering from unemployment, it is not a truthful statement.
It was stated also by hon. Members who were then occupying this side of the House that this question ought to be dealt with as a non-party question. I agree, and I believe that, as regards this Financial Resolution at any rate, it will be regarded as a non-party question tonight. If there is a division upon it, I shall vote with the Government, to see that they do get the money that is necessary to carry on. But when we hear of difficulties of administration, I should like to emphasise the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), that the most difficult Regulation of all, the condition that a man must be " genuinely seeking work," was not placed upon the Statute Book by a Conservative Government. It was placed there in 1924, and those of us who were working on local employment committees sought a definition of the word " genuinely " and sent up to the Depart-part in London for that definition. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman who was then Minister of Labour in the Labour Government was responsible for that definition, which came back as " continuously seeking work." There is the absurd position of a man having to walk to the same factory and ask the foreman to sign his paper—
The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss anything outside the terms of the Resolution.
I would point out, Mr. Dunnico, that these statements were made in speeches during this Debate, and I submit that I have a right to reply, because I was challenged by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) on this very point. He also challenged me by saying I had not made my voice heard very much in this House, but I will offer to wager him any amount he likes that I have made more speeches on unemployment in this House than he has himself. I submit that when these points are put to us in Debate we have a right to reply. I have now made my reply, but I want to impress upon the new Members of the Socialist party that many of these administrative difficulties were placed there, not by Conservative Ministers, but during the time when their own Socialist Government was in office. Those who are attempting to administer this very difficult Fund—I am sure the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour will agree with me that she has the most difficult position of any member of the Cabinet—know that time and time again in this House the Minister of Labour has been the whipping boy of any Government that happened to be in power, and I hope the right hon. Lady will not become the whipping girl.
If we could regard this matter more as a human problem and less as 'a political one, something would be done on behalf of the unemployed. I agree with what an hon. Member opposite said, that it was made a means whereby many Members received election to the House, and that is the shame of the whole thing, but do not let us carry that animosity into our discussions here. I want to see this problem of unemployment solved, and that is why last week, when I heard the Lord Privy Seal outline the schemes he intended to bring forward, I welcomed them. There are Members on this side of the House who are prepared to help in the work which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do on behalf of the un- employed, and I submit that the real difficulty that the right hon. Lady the present Minister of Labour has to face is not from this Bide at all, but from those who occupy back benches on her own side, those who made foolish and lavish promises, not knowing nor realising the difficulties of the problem, and who" now have to go back to the people and face them and say: "What we told you was not true, and we cannot do it."
As a new Member, but as one who has made these promises for the last 30 years, I was surprised when I entered this House. I lave read Parliamentary Debates for many years past, and I have copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT in my own house for over 30 years. As one who has been in the political movement all this while, I want to say that it is very different addressing meetings in the country from coming into this House and trying to persuade other people who are not of the class to which one belongs. During the Election I made unemployment one of the first planks in my programme, but I never said the Labour party could solve it unless they had a majority to carry our whole policy into operation. I can go back to my district this week and say that it is not my constituents' fault, but, at any rate, if we go on at the speed at which we are going, the prophecies we have been making for 30 years will eventuate in our own lifetime.
There are two cardinal things in this country that a Government is bound to recognise. The Government of a country is responsible for the welfare of the people of that country. In the Law Courts we lay it down that it is a criminal offence to take life, and that implies that it is the duty of a Government to save life. Looking at it even from a business point of view, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) made the point that we keep the Army, the Navy and the Air Force in a state of efficiency, but that we forget to keep in a state of efficiency the people who create the wealth of the nation. We keep in a state of efficiency the three armed Forces of the Crown to safeguard our property and our Dominions, and we even go to the extent of financing their deeds in the last few years by a million pounds a day in in- terest, but when the Ministry ask for £3,500,000 to save human life, they are warned from, the benches opposite that that is the maximum that they are going to get. A right hon. Member on the other side laid it down definitely that we should not get a farthing more than £40,000,000, but that will not solve this problem. You cannot solve unemployment without finding work, and until you do find work for the people, you have to do like hon. Gentlemen on the other side do with their racehorses, keep them fit until the race has to be run. If human beings are not kept fit while they are not working, we shall have a C3 nation. Hon. Members opposite have said that this is a tax which injures industry, but it does not injure industry so much as many taxes that one could mention, and on some future occasion we will deal with this if the Front Bench introduce the Measures which we expect. The Liberal Benches dare not vote against some of the things which we want.
It is a dangerous thing to dare anybody.
For 30 years the Liberals have had the opportunity of doing these things, but they have not done them.
On a point of personal explanation. [HON. MEMBERS: " Maiden speech! "] I have no desire to interrupt, but, if a maiden speech is to have the ordinary courtesies of debate, it must maintain those courtesies.
As I have said, I admit that it is a far different thing to address this House than to address meetings at street corners as we have been doing for 30 years. When we have been in the House as long as the Liberal party, we shall have learned the art. The point I was making was that the amount of money which the Government is providing in the unemployment scheme is not ruining industry half as much as certain injustices in the laws of our country, which the party to which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) belongs have had in their programme to remedy for over 30 years, and they are sure to support the remedy when it is introduced from these benches. We live in a world where there is more wealth than money. Is there a shop in the country short of goods? Every business house in this and other countries spend thousands of pounds in advertising in order to find customers. There would be a chance of saying that people were not genuinely looking for work if employers were complaining that they could not find workers for their factories. I want to see the time when a man who is out of work will just register at an Employment Exchange so that when a boss wants him, let him ask at the Exchange; and until an employer can prove that a man has refused a job, the man has a right to a living. The world which is full of wealth, is also filled with poverty, and the poverty is only among the class of people who create the wealth. There is unemployment among the classes who are not of our class, but they cannot be charged with not genuinely seeking work, because they engage a factor to receive their interest, rent and profit, and all they have to do is to fill in cheques and spend the wealth which the workers have created, while the workers are the only people who are out of work and starving.
I hope that hon. Members opposite, when we propose schemes to solve this human problem, will be with us. I have been in this House only three weeks, but I have already heard it said that the moment we go over the line and introduce Socialistic measures, we shall be finished. It is unfortunate that people who say that they will support us if we can produce a scheme to solve this problem, say in the next voice, " Unless the solution to the problems does not interfere with our right to dominate with the wealth of the world, out you go." I am not going to warn the Committee, but I want to remind hon. Members of one thing. The Labour party have never come back with less than they went out with; we are growing. When I joined the movement 30 years ago, it was a trickling force, and I am confident the day will come when greater issues will be decided on the Floor of the House than a mere Motion for a paltry £3,500,000 of money to solve this problem. I thank the House for their courtesy, and promise them that I shall examine every question that is brought into this House, and if I think that I can contribute to the world's happiness, I believe that it is my duty to make that contribution.
We shall be delighted to hear the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Arthur Law) taking part in our Debates in the future. His speech tonight was not only full of sincerity and of knowledge of the subject with which he was dealing, but of a determination to grapple with the problem with which the country is faced at this time. I would not have risen but for the challenge that was thrown out by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), who reminded the House that hon. Members on this side made promises during the election which they find it difficult to carry into effect. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear! "] Those cheers are such that we used to hear from some hon. Members in the last Parliament during the 4½ years when the party opposite were neglecting the interests of the country. Every time they touch the unemployment problem it was only to take away from the unemployed or to worsen the position. I can assure the hon. Member that the promises were not only made with sincerity, but with determination to carry them into effect, and to endeavour to find work for those who are without, for those men and women who are genuinely seeking work despite the persecution that goes on by the Court of Referees and insurance offices throughout the country. Men and women who are genuinely seeking work ought either to be found work or to be given what is necessary for the maintenance of a decent life. Those promises are going to be kept. They were made with the determination that they should be kept.
The point I am concerned with is the amount of money specified in this Motion. I am very doubtful whether £3,500,000 is adequate to meet the situation with which we are faced. The votes cast during the election showed that the people of this country are determined to have a more humane administration of unemployment insurance, and many people who are now denied benefit will secure benefit in the future. In that case the numbers who are in receipt of benefit will be increased. Is this £3,500,000 sufficient to save the Fund from getting further into debt? It is because I believe that it is not adequate that I feel it to be my duty to ask those responsible for the Ministry of Labour to get on quickly with their proposals for dealing with this problem in a big way. I hope we may have the opportunity of dealing with them even before the holidays begin. How can people go on their holidays knowing of the sufferings of the unemployed? I am convinced that it is our duty to deal with this matter in a larger way than is being attempted by this particular proposal.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Grahame-White) referred in a speech, to which I can pay a tribute, to the enormous debt imposed upon industry. I realise that, and I realise also the demands which were made by the party of which he is a member, demands which amount to something like £750,000 a year out of the engineering industry and to more than that out of the cotton industry. I realise what those burdens mean, and I would have no hesitation in asking the country to be sensible enough and humane enough to wipe off the whole debt which is now imposed upon the Insurance Fund. That is a reasonable proposal, and I hope it will not be lost sight of in the consideration of this problem. We got no suggestion from the hon. Member for Birkenhead for dealing with the problem and relieving the burden on industry to which he referred. I wish to urge that this whole question should be dealt with in a determined manner. Men and women in the engineering trade, men in the shipbuilding trades and men in the textile trades, with whom I am concerned, are being deprived of their benefits by the persecuting rules and persecuting methods of the Ministry at this time, which have been handed on to us from the last Government. They are methods of which everyone ought to be ashamed, and for the sake of the men and women who are now suffering I hope we shall deal with the problem adequately and immediately.
I approach this question from the angle of what is happening in Liverpool and its immediate vicinity. When I contested the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool I wondered whether there was any truth in many of the statements made in that Division that there was no hope for the working classes from Parliamentary action. It was stated that the angle from which working class interests were approached in this House was totally wrong and could never be helpful. I said that in the past politics may have been a game played by the orthodox political parties with marked cards and loaded dice, and that if that were so there was all the more reason for people like myself to go to the House of Commons to attempt to humanise politics and to get a different conception of them developed there. I have had a fair business experience, I spent the major portion of my life in business, and my conclusion in regard to business is that it is immoral. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member believes that it is not immoral, and can point out to me a standard of morality in business, I will listen for the next hour to his point of view. The unemployment problem is not the outcome of the attitude of mind of the working classes, it is the effect of your capitalist system of society. It does not pay the commercial and industrial magnates of this country to attempt, in a practical form, to dispense with the unemployed. The unemployed are one of the most valuable assets of the industrial magnates of this country. [Interruption.] Yes, I ask the hon. Member, if he knows anything about industry, which is the more favourable position for an employer—to have three men at his door for one job or to have one man at the door for three jobs? That is the situation to which we have to face up.
It appals me to see men of the working class, many of whom live in the constituency of Kirkdale, standing at the dock gates in hundreds, demoralised physically and mentally as a consequence of your alleged system of industry, picked out for the work needful to be done at the docks, and I am appalled at the patience of these people for having stood this kind of thing for years. I have been wondering since I entered this House how soon there would be an alteration in the atmosphere, which has not impressed me. I believe we could do more of a practical nature in a city council in a day than we can do here in a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If hon. Members admit that, what does it mean? We are told that this question presents many difficulties to the House, but I will remind them that difficulties were made to be overcome, and a Government which has been returned with a mandate to deal with this question ought not to be satisfied by simply asking for £3,500,000 when we all know full well that that sum will not cover any long period, and it will be swamped in a very short time by our Employment Exchanges.
9.0 p.m.
I have tried to make it clear to the electorate of Kirkdale that unemployment cannot be cured under a system of capitalism. I have also made it clear that you cannot abolish poverty under capitalism. I conducted what may be termed a straight Socialist fight in Kirkdale, and consequently I am as free as any hon. Member to state that point of view, conscious that it has been persistently mentioned in the Kirkdale area. I want to put in a plea for those unemployed people who are not on the live register. I know full well what that means, because when I am back in my home I cannot detach myself even if I have the desire to do so from these people, and I have always done all I can to help to get the unemployed on to the live register. I have made a point of showing them how to accomplish that object. In dealing with this question I hope we shall not conclude with the mere political humbug which has been given expression to from the benches opposite, although I know that many hon. Members have a real desire to help the unemployed. If that be so, and if that is the desire on both sides of the House of the difficulties are not insurmountable to those who now occupy the Treasury Bench. If there should be anything standing in the way I am sure it could be removed if the Government had the willpower to do it. I trust that the Front Bench will realise to the full the extensive pressure that is being brought to bear upon them from the Back Benches. I hope I shall not be driven by the Government to take the kind of action which Plimsoll was compelled to take in this House. Liverpool has a river, and I am reminded by the attitude of the Government of the action which Plimsoll was compelled to take in this House to draw the attention of the public to what was a great scandal. Plimsoll by his action got pretty well all he wanted. I hope that we shall get from our Front Bench by our restraint what we want, although it may not be an absolute cure for the disease we are treating. We realise that there can be no feeling except that of brotherhood between us, in dealing with the unemployment problem, and we shall keep pegging away on behalf of the unemployed and in their interests. I do not forget that in the House of Commons we open our proceedings each day with prayer. I have been present during prayers on more than one occasion, and I have been reminded of that statement of Christ:
I ask the indulgence of the House whilst I address it for the first time. I do this with more confidence because I realise with what graciousness and generosity that indulgence has been given during the last fortnight. I realise that it is one thing to be thoroughly well trained for the business and profession of public speaking and quite another thing to address this assembly. The Minister of Labour, in closing her speech, thanked those engaged in the Department of the Ministry of Labour for the work they have done in connection with this question. I am afraid that remark was misunderstood by one or two hon. Members who spoke later in the Debate. I believe that in this country apart from the unemployed themselves there are no people who more thoroughly welcome the change of Government than those people who have been called upon to administer the Unemployment Act.
I hope that the same spirit of humanity which characterises the Front Bench and the Government's side of this House will be allowed to express itself in the case of the officials of the Employment Exchanges. I believe that from the Minister of Labour to the humblest official who is engaged in the administration of the Act the spirit which was expressed during the Election and which was accepted and endorsed by the Electorate will be manifested. It is quite true that the Resolution does not deal with a very large sum of money, but at the same time I think we feel confident in the Government itself. We have had the greatest faith in the Government on these benches throughout all the discussions which have taken place on this question. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) referring to unemployment and to the election campaign astounded us by a moving description of the unemployed problem in which he made one of the most extraordinary charges ever made against the Labour party, for he stated that we had deliberately exploited the position of the unemployed man. Our position is well known among our people and it is understood by them without any second-hand information at all. It would be a monstrous thing if anyone in any quarter of the House were to use the misery and the hopelessness of a single unemployed man, or the dependant of a single unemployed person, for party political gain, and I do not believe that any Member, whether on this side or on that, would do it. However genuinely mistaken we may feel each other's views to be, I still think that in all quarters of the House there is a genuine desire to get down to this problem and to end it, and I hope that the spirit for which the Prime Minister asked is the spirit which will ultimately manifest itself.
I shall not ask the Committee to listen any further to me on this occasion. I realise that my contribution to the discussion is not one of any very great importance, but I wanted to endorse what has been said by the right hon. Lady by way of thanks to those people who are working with her, and to say that, although the House of Commons will go into Recess, we hope and know that the Ministries will not go into Recess, but that the Ministry of Labour, with the other Ministries, will be working still, and perhaps we shall be able to support them by our patience and our confidence as much as by our speeches here. I am very grateful to you, Mr. Young, and to the Committee for listening to me so kindly.
This is my first attempt to speak in this House, and I may as well confess that I have already broken a pledge that I myself had to make. Two months before the election, having had a very serious illness, I went to be examined by a specialist. After very carefully examining me for an hour, he said, " Mr. Lees, you are going to be a candidate for Parliament?" I said that I was, and he replied, " Well, I will give you some advice. If you are returned to Parliament, do exactly the same as the present Cabinet are doing." I asked, " What is that?" And he said, "Lie asleep on a bench in the House of Commons for five years, and you will live a hundred years longer." I find now that that is not going to be allowed to happen.
I should like everyone to understand where I stood in the election. I stand definitely for the policy that, if work is not provided for individuals who want work, then an allowance must be given to them that will allow them to live in decency until work is provided for them. 1 know that when I arrive home in the Belper Division of Derbyshire to-morrow night scores of individuals there will be wanting to know what is going to happen to them from the point of view of unemployment benefit. I hear someone say, "Hear, hear!" But the point to be borne in mind is this: I do not agree with the last speaker that on the other side of the Committee there is a real desire to solve the unemployment problem. I have never held the opinion that the party opposite have every desire to deal with the unemployment question, because they have held power for generation after generation, and while, year after year, unemployment has been increasing, those Gentlemen are now asking why this Government do not deal with the question of unemployment after they have been in office for five weeks. I want to know why the party opposite did not deal with it, having been in power for a period unequalled in the history of this country.
I should also like to point out that in my native county of Durham, in Northumberland, and elsewhere, the late Government have been to a large degree responsible for the starvation of men, women and children. Day in and day out men have tramped the whole county of Durham to find work in the mines, but there is none for them. My point of view is that, where there is no work, these people should not be compelled to tramp to town after town, to colliery after colliery, but that an unemployment allowance on the scale now granted should be granted to all those who are out of work at the present time. Congratula- tions may be given to the Employment Exchanges, but I am not prepared to do that. I know that in the County of Nottingham, if a man dared to stand up at a political meeting and say anything against a colliery company in that area, he would be dismissed, and no other colliery in the county would employ him to produce coal that is supposed to be required at the present time. That being so, he ought to be allowed unemployment benefit, rather than be compelled to tramp the country in order to seek work.
I am not opposing the Resolution that has been moved, but I want our Labour Government to know that my policy is this: He that will not work, neither shall he be allowed to eat. I wish I could bring the unemployed men and women in my Division on to the Terrace of this House during the afternoon. There they would see no signs of poverty, but, on the contrary, would find wealth, and, while there is wealth, there ought to be no poverty in the country. In my own Division, where poverty and unemployment are so bad, people will soon be going out to shoot grouse. I would suggest to our Prime Minister and Front Bench that they should call the House together during the whole of this summer and during the grouse-shooting season, because then the Government would find so little opposition from the other side of the House that everything that we wanted could be carried through. I hope that before the next three weeks are over I shall be able to go back to my Division and tell the people there that the things for which I stood are going to be carried out, that the principle of work or maintenance is going to be followed, that where there is no work maintenance shall be given.
As a new Member, I claim the indulgence of the House, and I anticipate that it will be granted to me as it has been to so many others. The kindness with which the speeches of new Members have been received has been a lesson to me, and it has been a lesson to me to see a Government in office being tackled so vigorously by its own friends. Our back benchers have been the candid friends of their own party, and, although that may be regrettable in some ways, in other ways it is to be commended, because it shows the earnestness with which questions like that of unemployment are viewed by members of the Labour party. I think that a good deal of misunderstanding could have been avoided had our Front Bench told us a little more. It is all right to be in office and to take up the attitude that the House will hear in due course what the Government are going to do. Some of us have been fighting in the Labour movement for a long time, and have been saying that, if only a Labour Government were put in office and in power, we should see things done. The back benchers want things done. We want them done without putting our Front Bench into difficulties. What has taken place to-day is only due to our earnestness on the question of unemployment. I take no notice of that section on the Opposition side, because we naturally expect them to do all the pin-pricking they are doing. It is part of their business, and I am delighted that they are doing it and are doing it extremely well. I hope they will be doing it for the next 4½ years—I hope we shall be in office long enough.
I want our Front Bench people not to be afraid of the other side. If we are going to live on tenterhooks all the time for fear of being turned out, it is not worth being here. I would rather be on the other side if that is the position we are going to be in all the time we are in office. I want to see things done. We make pledges and promises of work or maintenance, and by maintenance we mean a decent standard of maintenance. I quite agree that the Resolution is absolutely correct. It is the first thing to do. It is the proper machinery, and a case has been made out for the passing of the Measure. All the talk on the other side has been, from my point of view, high faluting nonsense which you expect when a party is in opposition. I do not want our people to be afraid of the other side, because, while we have no mandate, perhaps, to transform society and to bring about a state of Socialism, we have a mandate upon the questions of unemployment, education and housing, and not only are we pledged to that, but some of our Friends on the other side are pledged just as much as we are ourselves, especially on the question of unemployment. They promised to do even more than we did. At least, if they did not promise more they promised to do it in a shorter time. They did it, I suppose, for the purpose of trying to get a majority. We need not be afraid of them. Therefore, I say to our people, " Take your courage in your hands." It would have been far better if, accompanying this Resolution, we could have had indicated to us some outline—I only ask for an outline—of the things which we are going to do. It is no use saying things when in opposition if we change round when we are in office.
Furthermore, we know what officialdom means, I hope to goodness our leaders are not going to be dominated by the Departments. Some of us know from experience what officialdom means, even in local affairs. I want our chief officers to dominate the Departments and not allow the Departments to dominate them. We all know the official attitude. We have had experience of it when we have been approaching Ministries. We know that when we ask questions we get stereotyped replies, and it does not much matter whether you are asking a Minister of a Labour, a Liberal or a Conservative Government. I had a Question on the Paper to-day, and I got the same old stereotyped official reply, exactly as would have happened 12 months or two years ago. I hope our Government will take a different line with the officials and demand that we get the right kind of reply, and something quite different from what we have had in the last few years.
I thank the Committee for giving me this kindly hearing. I hope the right hon. Lady and the other Ministers will not resent the criticism that has been made to-day. I ask them not to be afraid. The Conservative party dare not turn the Government out. They dare not go to the poll. They do not want an election for some little time—at least 18 months or two years. I know they have made threats. They have said, " If you dare to go beyond what we want, if you dare to do anything that threatens our existence as a capitalist class, we shall down you. We will get the Liberals to join with us and we will down you." I believe there is a sufficient number of Members of the Liberal party who want our programme of social reform carried out, and I believe we are going to get their assistance. Therefore, our Labour Government can go forward with confidence, knowing that the Conservatives dare not turn us out and that the Liberals are pledged up to the hilt to many of the reforms that we want.
I do not want sarcastic applause from Members on the opposite side of the Committee. I am sure, as far as our party is concerned, we must feel in much better condition now. A sort of Kruschen feeling must have been developed during the last four hours. I agree with much that has been said from our back benches, and I profoundly disagree with much that has been said, but there is a difference between this movement and the party represented by hon. Members opposite. When Mr. Watson Rutherford invited the late Conservative Prime Minister to come down from the Olympian heights of philosophy and golf and to give the party a lead on the then fiscal policy, he was excommunicated. This party of ours is a democratic organisation, and we are permitted to express our opinions freely and frankly. I am disappointed. I think the Government have not asked for enough. I believe there is sufficient pressure on this side of the House to compel them to ask for much more in the near future. My heart goes out to the late Minister of Labour. I hope he is not suffering at the moment from a too rigid application of not genuinely seeking employment. I should like to appeal to the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, not as a party politician at all but as a Member of the building trade, now that he has time to renew his bricklaying operations, to give the late Minister of Labour an opportunity of carrying a hod, and relieve him of the stigma of not genuinely seeking employment. I believe that the time has arrived when this discussion should cease. Had it not been for Members on this side, it would have fizzled out hours ago. Consequently, I appeal to speakers on both sidles, now that I have had my bait in, to let the discussion drop. I want to be quite frank about it. The Government will get what they are asking, and no amount of criticism from the back benches or from the benches opposite will alter their decision, and, consequently, we can get down to much more important business if we dispose of this here and now.
It is the usual procedure in this House to congratulate a new Member on a maiden speech. I am quite sure that my comrade who has just sat down will appreciate my few remarks about his speech. The House will always listen to him with pleasure. At the same time, I disagree with what he said in his concluding remarks, and that is that all the amount of pressure that can he brought to bear on the Front Bench by Back Benchers will be of no avail, and that we should cease this pressure so that we may get on to something more important. What is the "something," I would like to know, that is more important than the subject under discussion?
I do not wish to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. It is as to the money that is being asked for. It will make no difference. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any problem more urgent than that of unemployment.
This problem of unemployment has brought down several Governments in this country, and it will bring down every Government that the country chooses to elect unless they face this problem as it is not being faced at this moment. We on the back benches have not been pressing our Front Bench just for the mere matter of being opposite to them and trying to be offensive. Those whom we are pressing understand perfectly well that there is nothing personal meant as far as we are concerned regarding the Minister of Labour. There is no Member in the House who would defend her more than the present back benchers who are standing by the unemployed at the present juncture. What is it we are concerned about? It is because within a week or two we are going back from this House and we have to face our folk whom we live amongst and who will be asking, " What have you been doing, and what is the result? " In my own constituency, and particularly in Clydebank, there are three times more men and women and boys and girls being cut off from the Employment Exchange since Labour came into power than in any other three weeks. These are the facts. They are not, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said the other day, merely rumours which had been rumours and had become facts.
" Facts are chiels that winna ding, And daurna be disputed."
That is exactly what Jacob did at the brook of Jabbok. He wrestled with the angels, and said: "I will not let you go until you bless me." We are not going to let the Minister of Labour go until she gives us a guarantee that we will be able to go back to our folk and inform them that there is a more humane dispensation in control of this country than when the Tories were in power. I assured my folk about this business before I left Glasgow in the presence of the last speaker. We assured our folk that Labour, being in control, would be very opposite to the Tories being in control—we have no evidence at the moment—the reason being that those who were in control now were men and women who had mothers in the truest sense of the term, as we of the working class recognise mothers, and who knew what a mother's love was. Those who ruled before Labour were largely composed of men and women who did not understand what a mother's love was, because they never had mothers in the sense of the term as the working classes recognise it.
:I am afraid the hon. Member is getting very wide of the subject before the Committee.
I have no desire to trespass on your good nature or the indulgence that you may give to a comrade, Mr. Dunnico, but I want to remind those who are controlling at the moment and who are responsible. I do not wish to say that they are simply messenger boys of the permanent officials. I do not wish to say anything that we might be sorry that we had said of our comrades. I wish to do all I possibly can to let them understand that we are supporting them all the way, but we are saying as they know just as well as anyone on these benches knows, that this is the most gigantic problem with which any Government ever was faced—the problem of unemployment. In the face of that, and knowing that, to come and ask for such a paltry sum as £3,500,000 is, to me, absolutely ridiculous. Why do they not take a leaf out of the book of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who with all his force was audacious? I wish that our Front Bench would take a leaf out of his book and be audacious. He talked about it requiring £250,000,000. Yet we, who are the representatives of the working classes and of those who produce all the wealth of the country, come forward and ask timidly—for that is what it means—though we are in the very flush of youth, enthusiastic with victory, and sent down here by tens of thousands of men and women who cheered us as victors. When we come to present ourselves to the enemy—there sits the enemy of my class—those who are our leaders and the generals in charge of this great working-class army, present a meek front.
From the Prime Minister right down to the most humble member of this Government, we were sent here to tackle this problem. The 28,000 majority which the Prime Minister received was got on the distinct understanding that the absolutely hellish conditions that prevailed in Britain should be altered. Those people believed that the time had arrived and that the individual was before them to lead them out of the house of bondage into the land of plenty, their native land. Now that the opportunity is presented to us to put forward all those high ideals for which we have stood all our lives, for which men and women have sacrificed their all in order that we might have the glorious privilege of standing here and defending them against all the might of England that can be arrayed against us, the Labour Government come forward and ask for a paltry £3,500,000. We have told them time after time that what we demanded was the lot. It is ours.
When we left Glasgow we said that we had not got a mandate for Socialism. But we have got a mandate. The country has given a mandate to the Labour party emphatic enough to enable that party, if they have the courage—they have the power and the ability—to stand up against the city that is dominating this House in no uncertain fashion. Those who are in charge of us, those who are on our Front Bench, do not require any instructions from the City. We do not require any support from hon. Gentlemen on those benches, and we do not want their support. I have been sent here not to make friends with them but to fight them. We have been sent to do this job, and we are going to carry it out and do all that we possibly can to see that the Minister of Labour performs her part here. I do not want her to be afraid. She has nothing of which to be afraid. The might of England is with her. It is not over there. Democracy is with the present Minister of Labour. Democracy is in power for the first time in the history of this country. Democracy will be in power immediately the Minister of Labour cares to believe that democracy is in power. I know that there are great influences at work against us, and that there are great difficulties to be overcome. But what have we been saying all our lives? We have been propounding to the people of this country that we are the men, the men who have been up and down the country propagating the idea of Socialism, not the individuals who have been five minutes in our party. Do hon. Members think that we who have starved, who have risked our jobs, who have gone to gaol for our opinions, are going to sit calmly by and then go back to our folk and say that we can do nothing, that the difficulties are too great?
Those who are in control in the Government at the moment knew what was expected of them before they took on the job. If the difficulties are too great for them, they had no right to take on the job. I hold that the difficulties are not too great. I want the Government to have confidence, and confidence in the people who have elected them and sent them here to do something definite and something that has never been done before. There has never previously been a Socialist Government in control. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) was the Minister of Labour in 1924, but he had not the support in the country that Labour has to-day. Before I sit down, I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Labour to give us an assurance with regard to the question of " genuinely seeking work." As far as administration is concerned, let it be known to those in control of the Employment Exchanges that the right hon. Lady wishes a change to be put into practice. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston promised to carry out a similar idea when we appealed to him. On that occasion we of the back benches held up the situation, and were then told that this idea would be sympathetically demonstrated. What did that mean"? It meant that my class, viewing the thing from their point of view, would be more generously treated. We believed that it would not be such a harsh and hellish affair as far as the poor down-trodden working classes were concerned. Next came a Tory Government, and the question was always judged from the point of view of the cost; how to save money irrespective of those who were being destroyed and who were the finest type of manhood that the sun ever shone upon. We do not want to see that mistake made here. We want the Minister of Labour to rise to-night and say that she is abolishing this business.
Let it known throughout the land that Labour will not stand for this. It is all right for those of us who are well fed, well clad and well housed, but I would ask the Minister of Labour to think what it means to the unemployed. She knows what it is to be right up against the world without a friend. If she had not practical experience, it would be of no avail to plead with her; but I still have implicit faith in the Minister of Labour, and I believe that she will yield to us, not to me—I do not care a damn for myself. [HON. MEMBERS: " Shocking ! "] Of course, it is shocking, but it is not half so shocking as the treatment that has been meted out to tens of thousands of men and women. I ask the Minister of Labour to remember the women, thousands of them, who are sitting in their homes, breaking their hearts at this moment because they are cut away from the Employment Exchange, without a friend in the world. You know perfectly well, Minister of Labour, that thousands of these women are looking to you; you know that thousands of men and women have prayed on your behalf to God Almighty that when you had the change you would relieve them of this terrible nightmare that eternally hangs over them. Let it be said that you exercised the great, high and honourable position that Labour has placed you in. Make yourself worthy of that high honour by letting those who depend upon you know that they have not spent their lives in service to the Labour movement in vain because you did nothing.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) [Money]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
" That it is expedient to confirm and give effect to an Agreement dated the twenty-seventh day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, and made between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State, for interpreting and supplementing Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland to which the force of law was given by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and by the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) Act, 1922, and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums payable in pursuance of the said Agreement by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State."— (King's Recommendation signified.) — [Miss Bondfield.]
This is a small Measure, on which there will be complete agreement. The Irish Free State (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill was prepared by the last Government and we found it ready for us when we took office. Had it not been for the General Election it would have been introduced and passed before now. The course adopted by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in the last Government commended itself to my noble Friend, the present Secretary of State, and as concurrent legislation has been introduced into the Parliament of the Irish Free State I am bringing in this Financial Resolution at the earliest possible moment, in order that the compensation that is to be awarded to civil servants transferred from the service of the British Government to that of the Irish Free State and retired from the service of that Government, and the whole machinery for assessing the compensation, can be finally and satisfactorily settled. The late Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who has a very close knowledge of and connection with this question, will neither expect nor wish me to enter into the whole details of all that has been done, but perhaps I had better explain the circumstances briefly, for the general information of the Committee.
In consequence of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in December last, the basis of compensation to be awarded to the retired and discharged civil servants was so interpreted as to involve an additional charge upon the Irish Free State Government. We therefore agreed with that Government that the Irish Free State should pay the transferred civil servants who before the 1st March last had either been awarded compensation under the provision of Article 10 of the Treaty of Agreement, or had given notice of intention to retire under the provisions of that Article, on the basis laid down in Article 10, as interpreted by the decision of the Judicial Committee, and that His Majesty's Government should recoup to the Free State Government the difference between the amount so paid and the amount that would have been paid out for the decision of the Judicial Committee. As that agreement involves a modification of Article 10 of the original Treaty of Agreement, it will be modified in precise terms, to which statutory effect will be given by legislation, and the details will form an annexe to the Bill. Agreement was also reached between the representatives of the transferred officers before the corresponding legislation had been introduced in the Irish Free State Parliament. As there has been agreement between the representatives of the transferred officers and the Irish Free State Government, agreement between the Irish Free State Government and the late Government of the United Kingdom, and as there is also agreement between His Majesty's present Government and the late Government, I think this can be regarded as an agreed Measure.
The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs has summarised very fairly the substance of the agreement between the late Government and the Irish Free State, which finally concluded a complex and difficult situation. The interest of this House in that question was very simple; it was to see that those who had been the servants of this country were fairly treated. The arrangement arrived at secures that those who either left the service or declared their intention of leaving the Irish Free State service before the 1st March last should get not only the terms which are given by the Treasury to those who retire from our service here, but that additional amount of compensation which the Privy Council in its second finding regarded as suitable to the peculiar circumstances of the case. Those who retire after get the Treasury terms and the protection of a statutory tribunal, to which they attach great importance 'and upon which they have come to complete agreement with the Irish Free State. It seems to me that as far as this House is concerned our consciences can be perfectly clear and we can without further hesitation agree to Report this Financial Resolution.
There is one question I should like to 'ask the Under-Secretary of State. When I brought up this matter in March last it was to ask the sanction of the House for an Estimate of £31,000 to cover the expenditure required up to the end of the financial year. From an answer I gave not long afterwards, I think it is clear that practically all cases have been paid out, but I should like to know the amount of payment still due which is responsible for the fact that this matter comes forward in a Financial Resolution.
Obviously, this is not a party issue as there is complete agreement between the leaders of the two parties. The Under-Secretary of State has told us that it is an agreed matter. I do not rise to question the agreement. I have far too much sympathy with these deserving servants of the public and desire to make sure that they shall get all to which they are entitled without delay. But if it is not paid to them by those who ought to pay, it is finally the liability of the English taxpayer and, as careful guardians of the public purse, we ought to know exactly what it is that is being done on this occasion. I understand that these admirable public servants have rendered their services to the inhabitants of Southern Ireland. I understand also that there is a decision of the highest Court in the land that they are entitled to this compensation, and that on a legal basis they are entitled to it from the Irish Exchequer. Further, I understand that there is now an agreement between ourselves and the Irish Free State that the payments will be made not by the Irish Exchequer but by the British Exchequer. It is, in fact, a case in which the British taxpayer once more has to find the money. I do not question that it is well worth doing, but I think we ought to know that these are cases in which an additional and unexpected burden is thrown upon the British taxpayer and express the hope that in the future there will be an end to these fresh claims from the Irish Free State.
10.0 p.m.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) is making a rather careful examination of this Motion in order to see that no unnecessary money provided by the British taxpayer is being given away, but it is remarkable that during the years of the last Government there was a continual barrage of questions and motions from their own supporters demanding that this very thing should be done. Now that it is done by a Labour Government the right hon. and gallant Member should be a little more generous in his attitude. It was his friends who asked for this compensation to these faithful servants, and the Labour Government might at least have the credit for it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on having come to a statesmanlike agreement. It will do justice to a very deserving class of people and at the same time remove a possible cause of friction between ourselves and our friends in the Irish Free State.
I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It was the Conservative Government which made this agreement now being carried by the present Gov- ernment, and whatever credit is due it is due to the late Secretary of State for the Dominions.
Why obstruct it?
We are not obstructing it. It is carrying out the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. At one time there was a danger of this judgment being flouted; and, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Hilton Young) has said, we have, as usual, to carry the financial baby in order to enable the Irish Free State to carry out the judgment of the Privy Council. These unfortunate British Civil servants were officers of the Irish Free State and for six years have been presenting their claims. They won their case on an appeal to the Privy Council but for various reasons neither this Government nor the Government of the Irish Free State would accept that judgment, and these unfortunate people for the second time had to put their claims before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. On the second occasion it was given in their favour again. This is to carry out the award of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I should like to ask whether these unfortunate people have yet been paid. If so, how many have been paid and when? Then can he state what is the total amount that is due? I understand that there is a certain amount which is a liability in the future, for in the White Paper it says that in the event of an increase in the cost of living, there may be certain recurring payments. Ireland, which is a purely agricultural country, has become lately a very Protective country, and that is sending up the cost of living. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear hear."] Hon. Members cheer, but of course Ireland is an agricultural country while England is not, and the two countries are in a very different position. Ireland does not manufacture articles, and everything has to be imported from overseas. This country, on the other hand, is a great manufacturing country and there is sufficient competition to keep prices down.
There is a further question as to those that remain in the Civil Service after 1st March. What is to happen to them? Is their position to be safeguarded by the statutory Committee, and are they to be represented on it? With regard to the Lytton entrants into the Irish Free State service, what is their position to be? They applied to the late Secretary of State for the Dominions and he turned down their claim. Are they to get anything under this agreement? We welcome this settlement. It has saved the face of both countries, and, as usual, we are finding the money in order to make the solution acceptable all round.
I suggest that before we enter into any competition as to the respective shares of credit that ought to be taken by either side of this Committee, we might have some little regard for the history of this case. For something like seven years this small body of men and women has been striving to get, not justice, but legal rights, at the hands of the Irish Free State Government and the British Government. These men and women have had to fight a legal case which has gone right up to the Privy Council. They have had to spend large sums of money in the prosecution of that case, and now, at the end of it, they are given not more, and it may be in many cases somewhat lets, than their legal rights under the terms of the Irish Free State Treaty. With great respect to hon. Members on both sides of this Committee, I say that we ought collectively in be ashamed of ourselves and to pass this resolution without any attempt to take credit for what has been a very discreditable episode on both sides of the Irish Sea. With regard to the position of the Lytton entrants, it will be remembered that in 1923 the Government was beaten in this House on the question of the commencing salary of ex-service temporary clerks. I regret to say that the increases in pay for those men, which were won as the result of the Government's defeat and the appointment of the Salisbury Committee, are still being withheld from those Lytton entrants who were unfortunate enough to serve on the other side of the Irish Sea. I believe it is the case that the Lytton entrants in the Irish Free State service have memorialised the Secretary of State for the Colonies on this matter. I hope that lie will crown the work of implementing the agreement about pensions in the Irish Free State service by indicating to the Irish Government that we are prepared to do our part with the Free State in remedying the conditions of the Lytton entrants in the Free State service.
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is not a question of asking for credit on one side or other of this Committee. It is simply the carrying out of an engagement that has already been made with another Government, and it was necessary to see that that was done at the earliest possible moment. In reply to a question that was put, it will be seen that the sum involved is not likely to exceed £15,000, and I think that that is an outside figure. It has been said that we ought to keep a careful eye on a matter of this sort, and the Government certainly intend to do so. This was a matter in which both sides put a different interpretation on the articles from that given in the final decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The late Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Free State Government interpreted the articles in the same way. Both made their calculations on a basis which was altered by the decision of the Privy Council, and it would have been wrong of us if we had not helped the Free State Government to meet the extra charge which was thrown upon them. The cases affected are being dealt with rapidly. There were something like 500 outstanding, but that figure is being continually reduced. As to the Lytton entrants, that is a matter which I can assure the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) will be entertained sympathetically, but it has not so far been brought before the Secretary of State.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Government of India (Aden) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
I beg to move, " That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is designed to regularise an arrangement which has been in existence for some time in Aden, and to remove certain inconveniences in the local ad- ministration. By the Government of India Act, the civil and military control of Aden is vested in the Government of India. Two years ago, by a decision of the Cabinet, the military control was taken over by the Home Government and is presently exercised through the Royal Air Force. When this was done, the necessary amendment of the Government of India Act was omitted and this Bill will repair that omission. Considerable inconvenience has also been caused by having to refer to India certain matters which have, from there, to be referred home, thus causing a good deal of delay and difficulty. No change will be made by this Bill in the civil control of Aden, which remains in the hands of the Government of India. This Bill was drafted by the late Government who approved of it. It is also approved by the Government of India and by the other authorities concerned. In view of that general agreement, and of the need for terminating the present unsatisfactory administrative position in Aden, I hope the House will see their way to give me the Second Reading of the Bill.
As the Under-Secretary of State for India—whom I take this opportunity of congratulating on his new office—has just told us, this Bill is intended to remove an administrative inconvenience and is, I hope, the last chapter of a long series of events which have been necessary in order to alter the somewhat anomalous position in which Aden stood. As far as my hon. Friends on this side of the House are concerned, I think they would be well advised to give the Bill a Second Reading.
May I ask why this has to be done by Order in Council and why it cannot be done by legislation alone? I was hoping that the Under-Secretary of State would have explained why this method was being adopted rather than having straight legislation upon the whole matter, so that we could have had in the Bill what had got to be done.
The Under-Secretary of State said that this change was carried out by arrangement between the Government of India and the Home Government, and that this Bill was, therefore, necessary after the lapse of two years in order to put the matter right. Am I to understand that for the last 2½ years, since this arrangement was come to, things in Aden have been carried on illegally? In other words, have the conditions in that part of the world been carried on without the sanction of an Act of Parliament, and, if so, who is responsible for this illegal action? I understand that the Governor of Aden was paid from Indian sources; that is to say, that the Governorship, its payment and its upkeep, was entirely a charge against the Government of India. Since this arrangement was come to, have those payments for the Governor and all that they mean still continued to be a charge on the Indian Government, or has the charge been transferred to the British Government, and, if the latter, has there been any legal sanction for it, and does this Bill propose to regularise that position? We are constantly told in other matters how difficult it is to do anything illegally, that we must be constitutional and correct, but, so far as I can see, for two yeans there has been an illegal position in this part of the world, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to answer my questions.
With regard to the method of procedure by Order-in-Council, I think it is obvious that that is convenient in the case of any alteration in the detail of military administration. For instance, at present control is exercised by the Royal Air Force, and it might be necessary to modify that, and procedure by Order-in-Council affords a convenient method of doing that when it is necessary. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I should like to say that there has been nothing illegal. The Votes for the military expenditure have come before this House and have been voted in the ordinary way, and all that has happened has been an irregularity, in the sense that the Government of India Act was not modified at the time the change was made. There has been no change in the financial arrangements, and this Bill imposes no new financial charge.
Have we been sanctioning, by Votes in this House, money which has not been sanctioned by Parliament beforehand? I know we have passed the Votes, but before money can be voted for a thing, an Act of Parliament must previously have been sanctioned for the particular purpose for which the money is voted. What I am asking is, Where is the Act of Parliament which sanctioned those Votes being passed for that purpose?
In the two Appropriation Acts for the past two years, the word " Aden " was specifically mentioned, so that the House has definitely passed the money necessary, and there has been nothing illegal of any kind.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is an increase in the amount now that the military control has been transferred from India to the Home Government? Does that mean that an extra expenditure falls on the Home Government?
No, the expenditure has always been a joint expenditure and remains exactly the same.
I want to know what is the reason for this alteration in the Government of the Rock of Aden. Have the natives and the Arabs round the Rock been considered? Who is responsible for this change? Is it anything to do with the fact that the Indians are clamouring for self-government in India, and that we are now going to curtail that part of the Government which affects Aden, which is the Gibraltar of the Indian Ocean?
The hon. Member is going a long way beyond this Bill.
I am asking the reason for this change. Here is an Order in Council, and that is a very serious matter to this House. I do not wish to worry the Government unnecessarily, but here we are giving power of a very serious character and bringing in an Order in Council. We have something very serious that affects us here at home; shall we get an Order in Council as readily as in this business? Why has this drastic means to be taken and rushed through in the same way as when the Government took the right of property owners in Britain to increase rents during the War? A lot of things can be done by Order in Council, and I want to know why this change is proposed? The Indians are more in touch with the people in the Rock of Aden than we are here. The Government of India understands their aspirations. It is all very fine for hon. Members to look at it from a British point of view, but there are more than soldiers in the Rock of Aden.
The hon. Member must understand that this is merely an Amendment to an Act of Parliament. The only question at issue is that Amendment which this Bill seeks to carry out.
I am entirely in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and I will not pursue it further. I do not wish to worry the Government, but I do not care a button who the Government are; they are not going to do what they like unless what they like is what we like also. It is your business, Mr. Speaker, to see that the dignity of this House is maintained, and that I have my rights, and I will guard them. It is my right to ask the Government what is the reason for making this change, and what is the reason for doing it by Order in Council.
I feel that we here are entitled to something more than has already been vouchsafed to us by the spokesman for the India Office. We were informed that this anomaly has existed for some two and a half years. Well, another six months of anomaly would not do us any harm. We have a very short Session before the Adjournment, and many of us on these benches have been told that there is no time for certain matters about which we feel strongly, and yet we are asked to spend a certain proportion of our time over a Measure which, if I apprehend it correctly, is aimed at the more efficient militarisation of our Indian Army. I regret very much that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend should have to bring into this House as their First Measure one which deals with the more efficient organisation of our military machine. What is the reason for the rush? I do not say that I could not be persuaded to allow the Measure to pass this and subsequent stages without further criticism, but I would like to hear why it is necessary to bring forward this Measure at this time. I think the Under-Secretary said that the reason for an Order in Council was so that they could change the control in five minutes. It seems to me it is treating Aden with scant courtesy if we are going to change the higher command in Aden in five minutes without regard to the wishes of the people of Aden. It seems, also, to be a very bad start for the new era of Indian self-government which I understand my right hon. Friend and his hon. colleagues propose to introduce at a very early date. If the hon. Member will just explain to us the reason for the haste I think it will allay a great deal of suspicion which undoubtedly exists on these benches just now.
rose —
The hon. Member has already spoken in the Debate.
May I have the permission of the House to speak again? I would like to say, in the first place, that I appreciate the sympathetic attitude of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in his desire not to worry the Government, though that desire is not unconditional. I can assure him there is no question concerning Indians or any other inhabitants of Aden in connection with this Bill. It deals purely with an administrative matter in connection with military control out there, and the civil government and the civil control of Aden remain, as before, in the hands of the Government of India.
It has been stated that we are rushing this matter through, but I would remind those who make that charge that I have already stated that this Bill was in draft under the late Government, and it only deals with a matter of improved administration. We want to be able to show that the Labour Government is an efficient business Government, and I can assure hon. Members that this Measure will not make the least difference in the people of Aden. I am sure the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) would be the last person to desire that the Labour Government should be behind the late Government in doing what is necessary for a more complete discharge of the public service.
I do not think that the House should part with this Measure without hearing the views of the Secretary of State for India. We all remember the right hon. Gentleman's speech the other night, and the whole House was so delighted with it that I do not think it would be fair if we did not have the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman explain one or two matters in connection with this proposal. This Measure is intended to promote efficiency in our military organisation. I would like to know if we shall be able to save a certain amount of money by this policy of efficiency. A minute or two ago we had an excellent exposition of the position under this Measure, but it was not quite clear enough for some of us to understand. I should like to know if we are still carrying the same proportion of expense between the home Government and the Indian Government as in the past. I would like to have a clear and definite assurance on that point.
"Answer!" and "Divide!"
I think this is a proposal which strikes at the root of the British constitution, and I do not see any reason why we should be deprived of the views of the Secretary of State for India on this question. I am also of the opinion that on a legal matter of this nature we are entitled to have the views of the Attorney-General, who has not yet had an opportunity of addressing the House. We are all patiently waiting to hear him, and I think it will be showing scant courtesy to the House if he refrains from giving us his views.
I should like to ask a question on an important matter of principle. Why, in carrying out this, perhaps, desirable purpose, is the procedure of Orders in Council to be followed? I was a devoted follower of questions of procedure as affecting the interests of this House for many years, and I cannot help remembering that, when the right hon. Gentleman was sitting on this side, there was no one more fierce in denouncing Orders in Council in proceedings of this character. I think we are entitled to enlightenment from him, for no one understands questions of procedure better than he does.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has given special study to this Measure, and I am sure the House will agree that he explained very clearly the position with regard to Orders in Council. There is, in such a matter as this, a great deal of complicated detail which is not suitable for an Act of Parliament, and I think that even the sternest of critics would agree that an Order in Council is, in such circumstances, the appropriate way of dealing with complicated matters of this kind. With regard to the question of expense, there has always been a division of military expenditure—we are talking now of the town settlement of Aden, and not of the Protectorate—between Indian and Home revenue. The arrangement now is that, by 1930, the Government of India will be paying £150,000 a year, or one-third of the expense, whichever is the less, and the Home Government will pay the rest. I hope that this information is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired.
What I was asking was whether the position will be improved so far as we are concerned.
It is very difficult to say, but I think the arrangement is a fair one on both sides. Previously we paid a subvention of £72,000, but everything is now altered, and I think that generally there is an improvement.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.— [Dr. Shiels. ]
Isle of Man Customs Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I beg to move, to leave out the word " now," and, at the end of the Question to add the words, " upon this day six months."
I did not expect that the Government would be taking this Bill at this late hour, but the point that I want to raise is a very important constitutional point. Here we have a small island in the Irish Sea, which, as every one knows, is much visited by people from all over the United Kingdom, and yet this very small island is allowed to have a separate Customs tariff from this country.
Why not?
Clause 2 of this Bill reads as follows:
" On and from the sixth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, in lieu of the duty theretofore payable on sweets, there shall, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty, be payable on sweets removed or imported into the Isle of Man a duty of Customs at the rate of one shilling for every gallon."
It then goes on to deal with the fermentation of sweets. As far as I can see, the language is different from that of our own Budget, and, at any rate, it seems to me that different rules apply in this country and in the Isle of Man. In Clause 3 we again find differentiation on the question of hops, while the Schedule includes exactly the same import duties as ours, with the exception that, while in this country there is a duty on wrapping paper, in the case of the Isle of Man Schedule wrapping paper is altogether omitted. I contend that, if this condition of affairs be allowed to continue, it will lead to great inconvenience to many visitors to the Isle of Man, because it can have only one result, and that is that there must be a Customs barrier where the luggage of all passengers from the Isle of Man to Liverpool, Fleetwood and other ports on the North-West Coast will be examined to see that it contains no dutiable articles. For that reason I submit that the Bill should be postponed and that the hon. Gentleman in charge of it should communicate with the Manx authorities to see if they cannot bring their Customs Tariff exactly into line with ours. The Income Tax in this island is only 10d. in the £. They have many advantages over this country and they ought to meet us and to bring their duties into line with those in the United Kingdom.
I beg to second the Amendment.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions. I understand that the Tynwald is quite independent of the House. It passes its own Measures and we cannot review their details. [Interruption.} I am glad to hear that is not so, but before the Bill comes to this House it has to be passed by Resolution in the Tynwald. My first question to the hon. Gentleman is whether he communicates the Schedule of the Customs of this country to the Tynwald and directs them to pass these duties by Resolution? Otherwise how comes it that you have the remarkable coincidence that they impose the same duties as this Parliament imposes? It is very remarkable, unless there is a direction from the Treasury, as to what they are to do. If there is such a direction upon the Treasury, what happens to the independence of the Parliament of the Isle of Man? There is another point I want to put. I find that the Isle of Man was bought from the Duke of Atholl under an old Statute of 1765 and the sum paid for it was £70,000. [An HON. MEMBER: Where did the Duke get it from?] I do not know, but there is another Statute of George III which stipulates that an annuity equal to one-fourth part of the revenue of the Customs should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the heirs general of the Earl of Derby. I want to know whether one-fourth of the Customs provided under this Bill are still being paid to the heirs general of the Earl of Derby, and, if not, what has happened to the provisions of this Statute of George III.
Looking 'after the interests of my namesakes, I had intended asking why it was that we were having imposed on them even greater burdens than operate in this country, and why it was that the duties on sweets there dates from 6th June as against that operating in this country? With regard to the statement made by the Seconder of the Amendment, one is rather surprised, after many discussions in this House on this Isle of Man Bill, that there should be the statement made by so well-informed a Member that the island is able to pass its own Measures independently of this country. The island has little reason to be thankful to the last Home Secretary or to the Government who have just gone out, for they prevented the island from having a better old age and widows' pension scheme than that operating in this country. I am only saying that in an illustration of the fact, for the Government refused to allow the Royal Assent to be given, because the Bill which the House of Keys had passed was a much better Bill than we have in this country.
The reason I said it was that I do not know what the constitu- tional position is. I was merely asking, in view of the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Treasury at the time, that no directions were given by the Treasury.
I am concerned with the same point. I want to know whether or not the two Houses, the House of Keys or the Tynwald, have an opportunity of discussing and passing this Measure, and of saying that they approve of what we are doing in this House before we are asked to give assent to it here.
I was rather surprised that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not give some explanation of this Bill on its introduction. There is one point upon which I want a reply. I believe quite recently the House of Keys declined to impose a duty on petrol of fourpence per gallon. It is not for us to criticise the action of the House of Keys. The House of Keys is an independent legislature, and therefore quite entitled to impose or to withhold what taxes they think fit, but under the Act of 1887 any Customs Duty which the Tynwald or the House of Keys imposed must be confirmed by this House within six months of its imposition unless—and I do not know whether this is ever put into practice—the Treasury certify that in their opinion the proposed duties have no chance of passing through this Parliament. The question I want to put is this: I understand that there is no petrol distillery in the Isle of Man, and, consequently, that any petrol which reaches that island must be exported out of bond either from this country or from the island itself. The point is, what arrangement is the hon. Gentleman making to ensure that this petrol which is exported out of bond from England, and is duty-free petrol, is not smuggled back to England? There is also the duty on sweets imposed by the House of Keys which we are confirming in this Bill and which is somewhat different, because it is different from the rate of duty imposed by the Finance Bill in this country. Is the hon. Gentleman watching to see that we do not get competition from wines made from sweets which are bought free of duty in the Isle of Man and which are brought back to this country? I think the House is entitled to this information before we give a Second Reading to the Bill, and I trust the hon. Gentleman will be able to give it.
The points raised are very interesting and important, and it is quite possible to give a simple explanation to all of them. In the first place, with regard to the share of the duties which at one time was paid to the Duke of Atholl, that ceased to operate at least a century ago. With regard to the other point, it is perfectly clear that it is understood both by the Isle of Man and by this country that in the main the Scheduled Duties should be the same in the Isle of Man as they are here. The Duties which are imposed by this Parliament are, of course, known to the Tynwald at the time they consider what duties they will impose in their island. It is their custom, no doubt for convenience, to impose practically the same duties.
There are, as the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has pointed out, certain exceptions. The hon. Gentleman who has moved the postponement for six months mentioned sweets. There are also differences in several of the other duties. I do not think that the House would like me to go into the details of all of them. I am informed that there is no difficulty whatever in those cases with regard to our losing duty. The actual method that we adopt is that while the Insular traders are by Act forbidden to export at all, that refusal is always removed on condition that they pay the difference between the two duties. Therefore, no difficulty arises under those heads —the duty on alcohol, sweets or any of the matters upon which an issue has been raised. With regard to the constitutional question, the constitutional position is that the island has a right to pass such duties as it thinks desirable, and then the matter comes before this House. It would be quite unprecedented for this House to reject any proposals; which the Isle of Man proposes to carry out. With that explanation, which I think has dealt with all the points which have been raised, I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill.
I have no desire to delay the Second Beading of this Bill, but I wish to put one question of interest. In Clause 4 all Safeguarding and other duties which apply in this country also apply in the Isle of Man. I do not think that there is any button factory over there, but the button duty is imposed, as are all other Safeguarding Duties. There is one difference. It seems that the question, which has not been answered in this House in this Parliament, is answered in this Bill, because I notice that duties on buttons, sweets, and a long list of other articles are only to last from 1st August, 1929, until 1st August, 1930. Does that mean that we may hope for the repeal of the whole lot by 1st August, 1930?
I think the hon. Member will have to wait and see what the Tynwald do in the following year.
May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury an important question? The Act of 1805 provides for proceedings being taken for the recovery of these Customs Duties. That Act has not been repealed, and I should like to know whether steps are to be taken under this Act in order to recover the Customs Duties from the Treasury?
The whole question of the import duties is arranged so that the money received is apportioned generally on a population basis.
Question, " That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.— [Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Consolidation Bills
Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [9th July] as communicates the Resolution, namely:
" That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed for the present Session to consider all Public and Private Bills which have for their exclusive purpose the consolidation of the provisions of existing Acts of Parliament; that all Petitions against any such Private Bill shall stand referred to the Joint Committee, and that the Committee shall not take into consideration any Petition against any such Bill if the Petitioners seek to alter the existing law," be now considered.— [Mr. Kennedy.}
So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
Resolved, " That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution."— [Mr. Kennedy.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Fighting Services (British Meat)
Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Kennedy.]
11.0 p.m.
In accordance with the notice that I gave the other day, I desire to raise the question of the purchase of British meat for the Forces for the remainder of the year. I gave notice that I intended to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess, but as the question is of very considerable importance, and we have had the most scanty information from the Government as to the reason which has led them to reverse the decision of the late Government, I thought it better to raise it on this occasion. Having had so much experience of matters being raised on the Adjournment while I was a Minister, and knowing how important it is for the Minister to be allowed sufficient time to make his answer, I propose to sit down after making only a few remarks, mainly of an interrogatory kind, in order to give the Minister of Agriculture a chance to reply. I do so on the honourable understanding, which I am sure' the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to enter into, that opportunity will be given to my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Guinness), who is somewhat aggrieved, to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: " No!] Then I shall take up more time than I had intended. [Interruption.] I am not addressing the Secretary of State for War. I am addressing the Minister of Agriculture.
Address the Chair.
I am addressing the Minister of Agriculture, through the Chair. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Secretary of State for War will show courtesy.
Perhaps the Noble Lord will do so himself.
I have done so. I have done nothing out of order. I was making a suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture of a perfectly reasonable kind, which I believed he was willing to enter into. If he assures me that he does not accept that suggestion and does not wish my right hon. Friend to speak, I shall curtail my remarks less than I otherwise should have done.
If the suggestion is, that after the right hon. Gentleman, the late Minister of Agriculture, has had his say, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War may have his say, certainly I agree.
On a point of Order. Is it not usual that the responsible Minister for any matter raised on the Adjournment has the right of reply when he has heard all the arguments, and when all other hon. Members have spoken?
I am anxious to treat the right hon. Gentleman with absolute courtesy. I was about to say, when the Secretary of State for War interrupted me, that my right hon. Friend desired to take up a few minutes, at the end, to correct what he considered to be a misstatement of his position, but my right hon. Friend now assures me that he will take some other opportunity of making the statement that he had intended to make. I have no doubt that there will be many other opportunities before this Parliament comes to an end to raise matters pertaining to the Ministry of Agriculture.
Five years.
I shall be even longer if hon. Members interrupt me. This is an important matter which the House should discuss. In a question that I put to the right hon. Gentleman on Monday last I asked if he could explain more fully the reasons which have led the Government to abandon the proposal which the previous Government had in mind of purchasing British meat for the Forces for a portion of the year and the right hon. Gentleman in his reply said: {Interruption}. I will leave that point and come to the astounding pronouncement of the right hon. Gentleman, which has not escaped notice outside this House, that he cannot purchase British meat, an important British product, with the taxpayers' money for the Defence Forces of this country because of its probable effect on prices to the public. For the first time in the 25 years of my experience of this House it has gone forth that a British Government is not prepared to buy an important British product because it fears that in so doing it will cause a rise in prices to the consumer. I can hardly conceive anything more likely to discourage every British producer.
The argument used by hon. Members opposite and below the Gangway is that it is immoral, wicked and corrupt, to help the British producer by putting a Duty on foreign goods entering this country but it has been left to the Minister of Agriculture to go far in advance of these perfervid friends of the Foreigner— [Interruption] —and to say that it is even wrong to buy British goods because by so doing you may prejudicially affect the interests of the consumer. Hon. Members who represent urban constituencies may think it a subject for laughter, that it is very funny, very amusing for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is not prepared to buy British meat for the forces because of its effect upon prices, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, not his noisy supporters behind him, whether this new policy is to be applied to all contracts. Is it to be applied to oats; foreign oats are cheaper than British oats? Is it to be applied to hay? If not, why not? What is the difference between that and the case under review? Is it to be applied to other requirements in the way of food—to vegetables? Is it to be applied to coal? Are hon. Members opposite in favour of buying foreign coal because it is cheaper? They do not mind what happens to my constituents as long as their own constituents prosper. Can anyone wonder that there is hardly a single genuine agricultural constituency that will look at a Socialist candidate! The right hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to explain what are the reasons for this astonishing statement of his. We all know that experts in the trade, men of no party, have prophesied that in a few years time, as a result of world reduction in the production of beef, there is likely to be a shortage in this country, and that it is exceedingly important that the production of the best classes of beef in this country should be stimulated. We all know that there has been a very serious reduction in recent years in the breeding of beef cattle in this country, due to the increase in dairying and other causes. Those who sit for agricultural constituencies know that the greatest of these causes are the low prices and the uncertain market which the beef producer has had in recent years.
There is no doubt that, if the British beef producers of this country could be assured, for a portion of the year, of a reasonably good market, which would be afforded by the purchase of British beef for the Forces, they would tie encouraged to meet the prophesied shortage by greater production. Therefore, the blow which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt to them, and which is treated as such a frivolous and unimportant matter by hon. Gentlemen behind him, has had a very deleterious effect, and a very bad psychological effect, on the farming industry of this country. One other question. Only the other day we had a speech from the Lord Privy Seal which appeared to many of us on this side to show, on the part of that right hon. Gentleman, a regard for the British producer which is strangely absent from the speeches of his right hon. and hon. colleagues. The speech was heard with delight by those on this side of the House. It is always noticeable that when there are the glimmerings of patriotism in a Socialist speech all the cheers come from the Tory party. One has a great regard for the Lord Privy Seal, and I felt really sorry for the right hon. Gentleman at his obvious embarrassment because it was only from this side that cheers were forthcoming when he spoke of giving assistance to British production.
In the course of that speech the right hon. Gentleman, with all the empressement that he can bring forward on such occasions, thumped the box and said rhetorically to the House as a whole, " Why should we import from abroad what we can produce at home? Two days later the right hon. Gentleman, the guardian of British agriculture, says that where the British farmer is concerned he cannot risk purchasing the meat which the British farmer produces, and which gives employment to a considerable number of people, because it might possibly have a deleterious effect on the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman has a very considerable case to answer. My last words to him are these. Nothing could be more helpful to those who sit on this side of the House than the treatment of agricultural questions of this kind by hon. Members opposite as being of a petty or frivolous character. They know perfectly well, and their own leaders have told them so, that they will never be in power in this House with a majority until they can make an impression on the agricultural constituencies. The more they come down here, laughing—[HON. MEMBERS: " At you."] —and sneering—[HON. MEMBERS: " No."] —and treating it as a matter of no moment whether goods are purchased abroad or at home, the more they will be regarded, as they are regarded by my constituents, as people who care nothing for the interests of the country and represent only town interests— [Interruption].
I must ask hon. Members to refrain from these interruptions, or the Debate cannot be carried on in the way that a Debate ought to be carried on.
Let me give quite plainly the reasons which actuated the Government in this decision. It goes without saying that the Government approached this question with every desire to benefit agriculture. It is laughable to hear the claim made on behalf of the Conservative party that they have a monopoly of interest in the welfare of agriculture. They have not, and neither have they a monopoly of the votes of the agricultural interest. I confess I wish very much that we could do anything which the farming community seriously desire, and of course it is only natural that we, above any other party, should be keen for the prosperity of agriculture both on account of the farmer and also the still larger bodies of agricultural workers who depend on the prosperity of the farmers. We only differ in opinion as to what is of real benefit and not in the smallest degree in desire to benefit. May I give the history of this matter for the last five years. The Government have been repeatedly pressed since 1926, and the reason generally given in answer to this request has been expressed in the formula, " formidable difficulties." The plan was finally announced on a date that is noteworthy—18th April, 1929. At a later date the Prime Minister somewhat altered the declaration, saying that the announcement would apply to home-fed meat and not only to home-killed meat, which would have meant in the main Irish meat killed at Birkenhead. For four years this proposal was pressed on the Ministry, and the late Minister reminded us that the pressure had been very great during those four years. It is rather singular that the resistance to the proposal broke down at a very notable date. The reasons which had been adduced in opposition to the proposal suddenly lost their force. It was only on the 5th March of this year that the Secretary of State for War, answering a question on this matter, had given the ground of expense as a reason against it, only a month before the Prime Minister decided that it should be done.
What is the difference between the situation then and the situation now? Perhaps the difference is that we are in a somewhat calmer atmosphere after the election is over. It is a time when the merits of the proposal can be examined again, and it appears that, perhaps, first thoughts were best thoughts in regard to this question. As I said last week—and I make no bones about it, though the Noble Lord may think that the question of prices is a matter of no moment—the question of prices is the main reason why we have rejected the proposal. I might remind the House that on this matter of prices the late Minister gave as the reason why there should be no Protection of foodstuffs that it would cause a rise of prices. What would be the use of the proposal to the farmers unless the purchase resulted in a rise of prices? We all know how a rise, even though slight, in wholesale prices, is an occasion for a rise of retail prices, which, after all, is a disaster to huge classes of people. How could the Labour Government, how could any Government with the interests of the poorer classes at heart, deliberately take pleasure in causing a rise in prices? It is a matter which affects possibly millions of people whose wage is actually below the subsistence level.
The second reason is that the gains which might accrue are not really commensurate with the; expense, and that is a reason which has constantly been advanced. The right hon. Gentleman the late Minister will forgive me if I remind the House of what he said on one occasion to the Council of Agriculture. He said: The reason given is one which commends itself to us. The Noble Lord has treated this with some warmth as a party question. I am afraid he is not much taken with the Prime Minister's appeal that this House should adopt the spirit of a Council of State.
rose —
I have only just time to say what I want to say.
One would think from the indignation expressed that this plan had arisen from a pure zeal for agriculture. The appeal fell for a long time upon deaf ears until it was too late to assure agriculture that a benefit could accrue to it by establishing this custom years before. Are we to take it that the zeal is genuine? I think it is rather a case of living in glass houses. I do not know that there was any occasion when farming was more flagrantly made the plaything of party interests than when the Agriculture Act was passed in 1920 and, to the ruin of ever so many farmers, was repealed in 1921. The result of that was that the claim made by the Tory party that they are the only friends of agriculture was rejected by the farmers. The Farmers' Union in 1929 passed a resolution
In the only moment I have left to me I would like to express the hope that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) should be adopted in our debates in this Parliament in the conduct of questions like agriculture. The hope has been expressed that the parties will co-operate in something in the nature of a Concordat in regard to agriculture. I trust that spirit will prevail and will help us to look at proposals strictly on their merits and do something to bring real benefits to agriculture in ways that are commensurate with the expenditure. I have given what are the perfectly plain and intelligible reasons for this decision. It has been taken with the utmost desire to do for agriculture everything that is in our power.
In the moment that remains I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that home beef is at present more expensive, and that the object of his policy is to keep prices low, what steps he proposes to take to reduce the price of home beef to that of foreign?
It is Empire beef and not foreign.
The Minister has told us that the proposal would raise the price of beef to the poor of this country, but is it not a fact that by buying cheaper meat for the Army you are using up that cheaper meat and compelling the poor in this country to pay more?
May I point out to the House that this beef is not foreign beef? We are insulting the Australian people who send it here by calling them foreigners. The party which on one day this week were pressing for Free Trade within the Empire are now asking us to prevent Australian meat from coming in.
It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, the SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.