Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 246: debated on Tuesday 9 December 1930

House of Commons

Tuesday, December 9, 1930

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Thorne and District Water) Bill,

"to confirm a scheme made by the Minister of Health under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, and relating to the Thorne and District Water Company," presented by Mr. Greenwood; and ordered (under Section 1 (9) of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Scotland

Mentally Defective Children

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many educable mental defectives in Scotland are receiving suitable education; what are the size and number of the classes; and what is the total expenditure?

The number of educable mentally defective children between five and 16 years of age receiving instruction in special schools, classes and residential institutions in Scotland is 3,938. I am unable to state the precise number of the classes, but the number of children in a class is limited to 20. The statistical information available does not enable me to separate the expenditure on such instruction from the other expenditure of the education authorities.

How many of these children are receiving institutional training as well as educational training?

I cannot tell without notice, but if the hon. Gentleman puts down a question, I will inquire.

Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to persuade people not to use the word "educable," which is rather an atrocity?

Street Accidents, Partick (Children)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many school children in the Partick parliamentary division have been involved in street-vehicle accidents during the last 12 months; the number of any involving loss of life; and how many such accidents occurred on Dumbarton Road between Crow Road and Victoria Drive?

Four children between the ages of five and 16 were killed, and 87 were injured, in street accidents occurring in the Par-tick parliamentary division during the year ending 30th November, 1930. Of these, three children were killed, and 51 were injured, in accidents on Dumbarton Road between Crow Road and Victoria Drive.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the distance of the road mentioned is only one mile, and will he take steps, in conjunction with the chief constable, to see that there is some police supervision over this particular area?

Ben Lomond (Sale)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the sale of Ben Lomond; and whether he will take steps by legislation, if necessary, to ensure that the right of access of the public to this and other mountains will be preserved?

Yes, Sir. I have seen reports of the sale of Ben Lomond in the Press, but I have no reason to apprehend that the new proprietor will be less careful of public rights and privileges than was his predecessor. As regards the second part of the question, I am not in a, position to give any undertaking as to legislation on the lines of the Access to Mountains Bill.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that while the new proprietor has certainly given very satisfactory assurances on this point, he may sell it again; and is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the powers that he has to protect the public rights?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the sale of this mountain shows the need of giving facilities for the passing of the Access to Mountains Bill?

Does not this indicate that, if the Germans had been wise in their day and generation, they would not have had a war, because the dukes would have sold Scotland to them for money?

St. Kilda (Settlement)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the St. Kildans, who were recently removed from their island homes and settled elsewhere?

The answer is in the affirmative. I shall circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement :

The 36 persons comprising the native population of St. Kilda were transferred from the island to the mainland on the 29th. August, 1930. Of these, 28 persons have been settled in Morvern, Argyllshire, where housing accommodation, and employment for the able-bodied males, have been found by the Forestry Commission. For the present, two widows are living in one house but active search is at present being made for a suitable house for one of these widows and her two daughters. Two families who considered the houses provided rather isolated are about to be transferred to other houses in the same district recently purchased by the Forestry Commission.

One family (man and wife) have meantime been settled in Culross, Fife, the man being employed at the Tulliallan nursery of the Forestry Commission. This house (the only one meantime available) is some distance from the man's work but arrangements are being made to transfer him at an early date to a house recently purchased by the Forestry Commission.

One household (consisting of a man, his wife, and her father) has been temporarily settled at Ardnarff, Strome Ferry, Boss-shire, where the man is working on a Forestry Commission scheme. As soon as a house can be built for them this family will be transferred to the Tulliallan estate of the Forestry Commission where they will be near to the family already at Tulliallan who are relatives.

For one man employed by the Inverness County Council lodgings were found in Inverness. A house, has, however, now been found for him and his housekeeper and occupation is to be given tomorrow (Wednesday, 10th). The housekeeper is a widow and her daughter, who was at first settled in domestic service in Skye, is at present residing with her with a view to entering such employment near Inverness.

As many of the islanders' sheep as could be brought away were sold by auction at Oban and it has been decided in the special circumstances to distribute the whole proceeds among the former stock owners without deduction in respect of expenses of transport and sale. It is hoped to make the distribution this week.

Unemployment (Milk Allowance)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he is prepared to provide for a milk allowance for all children of unemployed parents, in view of the results derived from the Lanarkshire experiment?

My right hon. Friend has no statutory power to act as my hon. Friend suggests. Local authorities who are operating a child welfare scheme under the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, have adequate powers to provide necessary supplies of milk to children under school age. The Education (Scotland) Act, which was passed last Session, confers powers on local authorities to provide milk to school children, and a joint memorandum, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, was recently issued on the subject by the Scottish Education Department and the Department of Health for Scotland.

In view of the advantages of the experiment in Lanarkshire, will my hon. Friend send the results of that experiment to all local authorities, and advise that a like scheme should be put into operation?

I cannot advise that a like scheme should be put into operation. We are printing in full the results of that experiment, and it will he available to the public very shortly.

Will the hon. Gentleman take what steps he can to see that any milk that is provided—

Poor Relief

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has called together representatives from the whole of the public assistance committees of Scotland, as promised during July, 1930, with a view to raising the scales of relief?

My right hon. Friend indicated in July last his intention to have a friendly discussion on the subject of allowances to children with some of the authorities concerned, as soon as possible after the new public assistance committees had had an opportunity of considering the problem with which they had to deal. Before any joint meeting with representatives of certain county and burghal authorities would be likely to achieve any beneficial result, it is essential that the wide disparities in rates of relief within certain of the industrial counties should be minimised. To this end, a conference between Lanarkshire authorities and the Members of Parliament for the county has been held and, before taking any further steps in the matter, my right hon. Friend will await the result of this conference.

When this promise of a friendly discussion was made in July, it was with a view to raising the scales of relief to children, and as it is six months since then, is it not advisable to get a move on to raise the scale for children of unemployed parents?

That is precisely why these informal conferences are being held. My right hon. Friend has no compulsory powers in the matter, but we are doing our utmost in the only way that is open to us.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the hardship now existing among the unemployed and sick poor in the face of the cold weather and the cost of fuel, he will take steps to circularise the local authorities, asking them to increase the payments in respect of relief and particularly to make an increase during the Christmas and New Year weeks?

My right hon. Friend is advised that any such recommendation as is suggested in the question is out-with his statutory powers. Under the Scottish Poor Law, an authority is required to grant needful assistance for the maintenance of health. But subject to this statutory limitation, the Department of Health have always agreed to a variation from the approved dietary in poor-houses at Christmas or the New Year.

What is the increased cost of the coal referred to in the question owing to the Coal Mines Act?

Steel Houses, Shettleston (Rents)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is prepared to advise a reduction of rents for the Government steel houses at Shettleston?

The Second Scottish National Housing Company is bound to-fix the rents for the houses in conformity with the rents charged for houses of similar accommodation in the district. The rents charged at the site are, I am informed, the same as those charged and secured at other Glasgow sites for the same types, except in one case where rents were reduced owing to a scarcity of tenants.

Seeing that there is no comparison between the Government steel houses and the corporation houses of a like size adjoining, would the hon. Gentleman advise a reduction in rent in view of the inferior type of the house as compared with the corporation house of equal rent?

The information I have is that the rents were fixed in conformity with the rents fixed for other steel houses in the district, but I will inquire into it.

Health Insurance Benefits and Pensions (Unemployed Persons)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that other approved societies than the Prudential have now issued notices to their members stating that, owing to their having had a long period of unemployment, from 1st January, 1931, they will not be entitled to benefits from either health insurance or from the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Pensions Contributory Acts; and, in view of the alarm that is being felt on this matter, if he proposes taking any immediate action?

I am having a meeting with the Scottish Approved Societies Consultative Council to-morrow, and the Government hope to be in a position immediately to make an announcement as to the steps which require to be taken.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are only now three days of Parliamentary time left to the Government, and will he state when a definite announcement will be made?

I am aware of the shortness of time, but, as I have already pointed out in the answer, this is being discussed with the Consultative Council to-morrow, and we hope to be able to make an announcement at an early date.

As we have only three days Parliamentary time left, will the right hon. Gentleman state definitely what day the announcement will be made?

In view of the seriousness of the position, and the fact that this question was brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice months ago, will he state the cause of the delay in coming to a decision?

The hon. Member must remember that many factors have to be considered before the matter is decided.

Dumbarton County Council (Unemployed Members)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take in the case of members of the Dumbarton County Council who are unemployed and are refused unemployment benefit on days they attend meetings of the council and also refused payment by the county council on the ground that they have no lost time?

I refer to the reply given to the hon. Member's question on this subject on the 4th November. I am informed by the Ministry of Labour that the member of the county council therein referred to has not yet taken the requisite steps to claim benefit in respect of days on which he attended meetings of the council, and that until he does so the question of his right to benefit cannot be determined. Only one such case has been brought to the notice of the Ministry.

Bays of Harris Road

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to proceed with the construction of the Bays of Harris road; and what is the cause of the delay?

The work will be commenced shortly. The adjustment of terms and conditions between the parties concerned has necessarily taken time, but there has been no avoidable delay.

Coal Industry

Royalties (Nationalisation)

asked the Secretary for Mines whether and, if so, when it is proposed this Session to introduce a Bill for the nationalisation of mining royalties?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. and gallant Member for the Northern Division of Leeds (Captain Peake) on the 2nd December, to which I have nothing to add.

Is the hon. Member aware that as long ago as last February the President of the Board of Trade informed me that a Bill would be introduced in the near future, and may I ask what is the present position?

The estimated amounts paid by colliery owners, so far as the information is available, are as follows:

Quarter ended 31st March, 1930.

Quarter ended 30th June, 1930.

Quarter ended 30th September, 1930.

Royalties;

£

£

£

Northumberland

89,300

73,200

61,000

Durham

236,100

200,200

195,500

Kent

9,400

9,100

9,000

Local Rates for all purposes:

Northumberland

Approximately £28,000

Durham

Approximately £159,000

Kent

Not available.

Seperate particulars of the amounts of local rates for specific purpose are not available.

Prices

asked the Secretary for Mines where, and to what extent, there have been any increase in the price of coal since the Coal Mines Act, 1930, came into operation?

Detailed statistics of coal prices are not collected by my Department, but a summary of the financial returns of the coal industry is published every quarter. The schemes under Part In of the Coal Mines Act,

Rates and Royalties, Northumberland, Durham and Kent

asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the amounts paid as royalty rents for the following districts, Northumberland, Durham, and Kent, for the quarters ended March, June, and September, 1930, and the corresponding amount paid out of the industry for local rates, i.e., for the social services administered by the Northumberland, Durham, and Kent County Councils and the respective rural and district councils in those counties?

As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer :

1930, did not come into operation until the end of October, and statistics of the financial returns of the industry for any period covering the operation of the schemes are therefore not yet available.

Is it not a fact that there has been a considerable increase in the price of coal?

Dispute, Scotland (Unemployment Benefit)

( by Private Notice ) asked the Minister of Labour, if she can tell the House what is the position of the men, women and children affected by the coal dispute?

I only received notice of this question a few minutes ago. The question whether the men concerned are entitled to benefit—if that is what the hon. Member wants to know—is a matter for decision by the statutory authorities. The insurance officer has, it is understood, disallowed some individual claims, and these claimants can of course appeal to the Court of Referees.

My first question is this: Does that mean that they will be all right on the Employment Exchange? Now I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether it is within her power to say how it is going to suit as regards public assistance committees?

Arising out of the answer, do I understand the Minister of Labour to say that she is not in a position to say whether these men will be entitled to unemployment benefit or not?

I thought I had made it perfectly clear that I cannot say one way or the other. That is for the statutory authorities. I understand that some claims have already been submitted and turned down. The next step is an appeal to the Court of Referees and to the Umpire.

Questions

Empire Settlement (Victoria)

25, 26 and 27.

asked the Secretary of State for the Dominions (1) if he can state, under the scheme approved by the Overseas Settlement Committee, the number of settlers who took up land under the Victorian land scheme and the number who are still upon their holdings;

(2) if he can state, under the scheme approved by the Overseas Settlement Committee, the amount of personal capital the settlers under the Victorian land scheme have put into the scheme;

(3) if he can state, under the scheme approved by the Overseas Settlement Committee, the total amount advanced by the British Government in connection with the Victorian land scheme?

The number of settlers who proceeded to Victoria under the Land Settlement Agreement dated 29th November, 1923, was 828, accompanied in the majority of cases by their wives and families. I have no complete information in regard to the personal capital of the whole of the settlers, but I know that the personal capital of 741 of them amounted to £266,271. According to the latest information available only 343 of the settlers took up land under the scheme on arrival, and of these approximately 240 are now upon their holdings.

A payment of £43,510 has been made from United Kingdom funds towards the cost of the scheme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything to assist the maintenance of the 240 families and to enable them to subsist upon the land where they are now?

No; the hon. and gallant Member knows that that is not the business of this Government. He also knows that in an answer given last week I stated that I had spoken personally to Mr. Scullin, asking him to expedite inquiries into this case; he promised me he would do so, and I have reason to believe that they are going on now. But the responsibility for the people while they are there rests with the Dominion Government.

Is there no responsibility on the part of the Home Government, after having sent out these people, who are now in a state of destitution and absolutely starving?

That is a statement which must not be accepted, because, if it is assumed that we are to take responsibility for the millions of migrants going to the Dominions from this country, a very serious situation would arise. The unfortunate circumstances in this case I deplore, but it cannot be held for one moment that the British Government can accept responsibility.

Certainly it was an approved scheme, and, as I have already shown, the British Government made their contribution, but there is also a responsibility on the part of the Dominions.

Is it not a fact that the 700 families who went out there were assured that they would be settled on the land, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is that 500 of these families are not on the land?

In this scheme, as in other migration schemes, there was a joint agreement between the Dominions and ourselves, based upon what were then regarded as certain prospects which were being opened. So far as the British Government are concerned—and this does not refer to our party alone, but all Governments—thev have discharged absolutely their responsibility. The question put to me now is: Are the British Government prepared to take over a responsibility which nominally rests with the Dominions? I have answered "No," and I cannot add to that.

South Africa

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa made any representations while in this country to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom regarding the future of the Bechuanaland, Basutoland, or Swaziland Protectorates; whether it is now proposed to alter in any way the status of or policy to be pursued in those Protectorates; and whether the reserved functions under the constitution of Southern Rhodesia are to be exercised, should such require to be exercised, through the new High Commissioner in the Union of South Africa, or direct by the Governor of Southern Rhodesia?

The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the negative; as regards the last, it is contemplated that the functions in regard to Southern Rhodesia to which the right hon. Member refers should continue to be exercised by the High Commissioner for South Africa.

Australia (Immigration)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the intimation of the intention of the Commonwealth Government to impose further restrictions upon immigration into Australia, he will state if the new regulations proposed will affect British subjects?

No restrictions are placed by His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia on the entry of any healthy migrant from the United Kingdom provided that he is of British nationality, is of good character and is in a position to defray his own expenses.

May I ask whether that answer refers to a statement made by Mr. Fenton, the Acting Prime Minister, an announcement about which appeared in the "Times"?

I do not know the particular statement to which the hon. and gallant Member was referring, but I assume that he has mixed two things. There are assisted migration schemes to various Dominions, but owing to the abnormal unemployment situation in those Dominions, all of them have said: "We either suspend or defer the continuation of those assisted schemes." The question put to me, however, was whether there was any restriction on an individual going out on his own, and I have pointed out that there is not, provided that he complies with the conditions.

Trade and Commerce

Italy and Russia

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received details as to the treaty for the interchange of commodities between Italy and Russia?

No, Sir. I understand that neither party to the arrangement is prepared at present to disclose its details.

Tariff Increases, Australia

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any representations were made during the Imperial Conference to the Australian Prime Minister with regard to the hardship and unemployment created in this country in general, and in Wolverhampton, Wednesfield, and Willenhall in particular, from recent increases in the Australian tariffs?

During the recent Imperial Conference, the United Kingdom delegates drew attention to the serious effects in this country of recent tariff increases in certain of the Dominions including Australia, but these increases were not discussed in detail.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this system of preferential prohibition is a good thing for the Empire?

Oh no, Sir; my hon. Friend knows that I am altogether opposed to such things.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is knocking the bottom right out of Empire Free Trade?

Empire Timber

asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of Empire timber imported into this country during the most recent 12 months for which statistics are available, and the quantity for the previous corresponding 12 months?

The total imports of wood and timber into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered as consigned from British countries during the 12 months ended the 31st October, 1930, amounted to 9,253,500 cubic feet of hard wood and 333,600 loads of other sorts, as compared with 10,450,000 cubic feet and 316,500 loads respectively during the 12 months ended the 31st October, 1929.

Motor Industry

asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage of the motor trade of the Dominions which has been captured by American motor manufacturers?

The annual average value, during the latest three years for which information is available, of the imports of motor cars and parts, including tyres, into the Self-governing Dominions from the United States, expressed as a proportion of the total imports from all countries, amounted to 73.5 per cent. The exclusion of Canada, whose imports of cars and parts are almost wholly from the United States, would reduce this proportion to 56.6 per cent., while, if India be included, the proportion is further reduced to 52.8 per cent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the deplorable situation at present existing is, in the main, due to lack of enterprise on the part of British motor manufacturers?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the very favourable conditions in which the motor industry is placed in this country, due to a tariff of 33½ per cent., his efforts abroad are lamentable and American competition in spite of that protection is displacing it?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the motor trade of Members of this House is being captured by American motor cans?

Tea Prices

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any evidence as to whether the retail price charged for tea reflects the reductions in the wholesale price of tea; and will he have investigations made into this matter?

The Board of Trade have not sufficient evidence before them to enable them to express a considered opinion, and I am asking the Food Council for a report on the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a reduction of 8d. per pound since the Budget of 1929?

Will the right hon. Gentleman include in his reference to the Food Council an investigation into the coupon system of selling tea, and its results?

In reply to both supplementary questions, there is a lag between the wholesale and retail prices to which attention has recently been directed, and I am not in the least doubt that on that point, and also on the later point put by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), the fullest inquiry will be made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the coupon system is not added to at the next election?

That, of course, raises a very much wider question. The Food Council will give information relating to tea, or any other commodity, but an inquiry into the relation between wholesale and retail prices raises a very much larger issue.

Food Prices

asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Royal Commission on Food Prices will present its promised second report?

I would remind the hon. Member that when the late Government decided in June, 1925, in pursuance of the main recommendations made in the first report of the Royal Commission on Food Prices to appoint a Food Council, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition announced that it was not proposed to ask the Commission to continue their inquiry further.

Board of Trade Journal (Russia)

asked the President of the Board of Trade why the Board of Trade Journal never contains any information as to the Soviet Government's trading plans such as is extensively given in regard to the trade of other countries?

There is no intention of differentiating, as regards publication in the Board of Trade Journal, between information relating respectively to the external trade of Russia and to that of other countries. The hon. and gallant Member will find certain references to trade with Rusia in recent issues of that publication. As regards, however, information as to the actual trading plans of the Soviet Government, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given yesterday by my right, hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich, from which it will be seen that no definite information on this subject is available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing like the same sort of information is given with regard to Soviet Russia as is given with regard to other European countries?

The object of the Journal is to give quite impartially the fullest information possible within its scope. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, quite clearly, that the information on certain points was not available, and as we had not got it we could not give it.

I do not know that any point of Order arises. It must be obvious to hon. Members that we cannot get through questions if on each question five or six supplementary questions are asked.

Iron and Steel Industry (Report)

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the representations made to him by the steel trade that they are unable to attain access to the report by the Committee of the Economic Advisory Council on the iron and steel trade, he will state when he proposes to publish this document?

As has been repeatedly stated in this House, His Majesty's Government have decided not to publish this report. Discussions with representatives of the industry on the recommendations of the report are proceeding.

Might not that portion of the report which does not clash with the Free Trade policy of the Government be issued?

Is it the fact that this report reveals such a deplorable state of things that the Government dare not publish it?

I think that the House would do well, in the national interest, to guard against opinions one way or the other as to the contents of a report which we have decided not to publish. The whole object, in the interest of the iron and steel industry, is to get a maximum of agreement in the industry, without any party considerations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very extensive extracts from this report have been published in the Press on the Continent; and does not that to some extent affect its interest here?

There is a later question on the Paper on the subject, and I will deal with that point when we reach it.

Will the Government publish a statement of what has been done, either by themselves or by the industry, arising from this report, or of what they contemplate doing?

The Government cannot promise to publish any statement, but from time to time I will give to the House an account of what is being done in connection with the reorganisation, not only of the iron and steel industry, but of other industries.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that extracts of what purports to be a resumé of the findings of the Government inquiry into the iron and steel industry has appeared in a foreign newspaper; and if he will inquire how this information has become available to the foreign newspaper in question whilst it has been withheld from Parliament?

I am aware of the publication to which the hon. Member refers, but I have no information as to the sources of the material alleged to have been used in its compilation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make further investigations to see where these leakages occurred, because, if they continue, responsible business men will refuse to serve on such committees in future?

I have every sympathy with the object of the hon. Member's question. Inquiry was, in fact, made, but we had no means of tracing this leakage.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman to make further investigations, and see whether it is possible to discover where this leakage occurred, because it is essential in the interests of this country that we should do so?

There is no reason in the world why I should not make further inquiries, and I will do so, but it would be wrong to hold out any hope of their yielding any result.

Was it not promised that this House should be given a copy of the report, whether it conflicted with the Government's policy or not?

No; no promise of that kind was ever made; it was always left to be decided, when these reports were received, whether they should be published or not. In this case, after consultation with the industry, it was decided not to publish the report.

Poland (Trading Companies, Great Britain)

asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the Polish trading companies registered in this country and the names of the directors?

Any trading or other company "registered in this country" will be a British, not a Polish company. There appear to be no British trading companies controlled by the Polish Government, and to ascertain what British companies are controlled by Polish private interests would be impossible.

Tariff Truce

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a statement with regard to the recent conference on the proposed tariff truce?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to make any statement to the House as to the result of the deliberations of the Economic Conference at Geneva as to the steps to be taken to bring the tariff truce convention into force; and from what date the convention will become operative and as between what countries?

The question of bringing the Commercial Convention into force was postponed by the recent Geneva Conference to a later session, since, while the number of ratifications so far received was insufficient, it was expected that several other countries would be prepared to ratify it. This later session is not expected to take place until the negotiations regarding tariffs are under way. At the recent Conference, the United Kingdom delegation proposed a method of reducing tariffs all round by agreed percentages, proceeding by groups of commodities, of which they suggested textile fabrics and machinery might be taken first. Alternatively, other delegations, in the course of conversations, suggested that there should be negotiations within groups of countries, and particularly between His Majesty's Government and a number of countries covering a substantial proportion of the United Kingdom exports to Europe. This suggestion was agreed to. I am not in a position to give the names of these countries pending certain preliminary exchanges of Notes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Italy is not the only great Power that signed; and does he intend to continue indefinitely these futile negotiations?

I am afraid I cannot give the information for which the hon. Member asks. I do not regard the negotiations as futile. On the contrary, I have already told the House that I have not the least doubt that, because of this effort, the upward movement in European tariffs has certainly not been increased.

Cotton Industry (Tariff Revision, China)

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any information regarding the new import tariff in China as affecting the Lancashire cotton industry?

His Majesty's Minister in China reported, on 3rd December, that proposals for Tariff revision formulated by the Chinese Tariff Commission were then before the Legislature, and that, according to the local Press, the new tariff would come into force on 1st January. No particulars as to the new tariff are available. I may add, however, that, by virtue of the Sino-Japanese Treaty, the duties on various descriptions of cotton piece goods and on certain other manufactures cannot at present be increased by more than 2½ per cent, ad valorem , and, by virtue of the most-favoured-nation provisions of our Treaty with China, this provision extends to similar goods of United Kingdom manufacture.

Are we to understand that China is not one of the countries with whom the right hon. Gentleman hopes to effect a prevention of the upward movement of tariffs by means of the Tariff Truce?

I do not quite see how that question arises, because they have not been a party to any such truce or negotiations?

Soap (Imports from Russia)

asked the President of the Board of Trade if any soap has been imported into this country from Soviet Russia during the last year; and, if so, how much?

During the 12 months ended the 31st October, 1930, the total imports of soap into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered as consigned from the Soviet Union (Russia) amounted to 24,043 cwt., of a declared value of £33,470.

Is the reason for the surplus of this article in Russia the same as that for the surplus of a similar article in Owen's New Harmony?

Imported Eggs

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the approximate number of eggs imported from France marked as French eggs; and what evidence he has that their real origin is France?

Approximately 81,200,000 eggs in shell consigned from France were imported into the United Kingdom during the year ended 30th November, 1930. Under the provisions of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) No. 5 Order, 1928, imported eggs in shell are required to bear an indication of origin at the time of importation, but as the indication of origin may be either the word "foreign" or an indication of the country of production it is impossible to say what proportion of the imported eggs consigned from France were actually of French origin.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the working of the Act in the particular case of eggs?

Russian Timber

asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of timber imported into this country from Russia during the most recent nine months for which statistics are available; and the quantity for the corresponding period last year?

Information respecting the amount of timber imported into this country from Russia during the six months ended 30th September, 1930, and the corresponding period of 1929, was given in answer to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury on 30th October last, and I am sending a copy to the right hon. Gentleman. The particulars for the nine months ending 31st October last are being compiled and I will forward them to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

Yes. The increase, I think, is entirely in soft wood: If there is any suggestion of comparison with the Empire, the Empire diminution has been in hard and not in soft.

Woollen Goods (Import Duties, Poland)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the difficulties which are being encountered by the woollen trade owing to the imposition on woollen goods on importation into Poland of the higher rate of duty applicable to worsteds; and whether His Majesty's Government will make any representation on the matter?

Several such cases have been brought to the notice of the Polish Government as they have arisen; and His Majesty's Ambassador has recently addressed a Note to the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs drawing attention to the delay which has taken place in dealing with the cases and to the fact that the uncertainty engendered by the inconsistency of Customs decisions is a considerable impediment to the continuance of normal trade. No reply has yet been received to these representations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling in Hudders-field, and among wool exporters in general, not so much of the unfriendly acts of the Polish Government, but of the unfriendly acts of the officials whom the Poles allow to carry out their policy?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend that there is considerable feeling and difficulty on the point, but perhaps it will be sufficient to-day if I say I am hopeful that, as the result of our representations, we shall get an improvement in this position.

Hollow-Ware (Imports)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the imports of hollow-ware into this country since the beginning of June this year?

During the five months ended 31st October, 1930, the imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland of hollow-ware (for household, industrial, etc., use) of iron and steel, including tinned plate, amounted to 2,445 tons, of a declared value of £123,444, and the imports of aluminium domestic hollow-ware amounted to 150 tons, valued at £36,528.

Mercantile Marine

Lascars

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of lascars employed in the Mercantile Marine of this country; and what is the percentage of lascars of the total numbers of men employed in the Mercantile Marine?

The number of lascars, British subjects and foreigners, employed on the 31st March, 1929, in sea-trading vessels registered at ports in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands was 53,571, or 26.3 per cent. of the total number of seamen employed at that date.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider devising, with his usual skill, some form of legislation which will have the effect of a larger proportion of British seamen being employed?

I have already replied to questions on that point. So far as we have any influence at all, it is cast in that direction, but the difficulty is that a considerable number of lascars are themselves British subjects.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would not be so much difficulty in restricting the employment of lascars in home sailing ships, where, as he knows, there has been an increase lately? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that side of the question?

Broadcasting (Lighthouse Names)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department is investigating the invention whereby the names of lighthouses can be broadcast in fog; and whether he can make any statement on its general adoption?

I assume that the hon. Member refers to the invention with which experiments have been conducted by the Clyde Lighthouse Trustees at the Cumbrae lighthouse in the Clyde. Representatives of other lighthouse authorities as well as an officer of the Board of Trade have attended the trials. The adoption of the invention is a matter for the consideration of the lighthouse authorities of the country.

I could not give any further information until I have heard rather more regarding the results of the trials.

Road Traffic Act, 1930 (Amendment) Bill

asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to give facilities for the passage into law before Christmas of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (Amendment), Bill?

In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall refer to this matter on the Adjournment.

Ministers and Members of Parliament (Salaries and Allowances)

asked the Prime Minister if he will put forward, in the interests of national economy, proposals for a reduction of 25 per cent. of all Ministerial salaries and salaries of Members of Parliament, similar to the voluntary reduction of 25 per cent. in the fees payable to the directors of the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Company?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the proposal that the salaries of Ministers and Members of Parliament should be reduced proportionately with the reduction of wages of the working class?

In so far as the hon. Members' questions relate to the salary of Members of Parliament, I would refer to the answer which I gave on Thursday last in reply to a question by the hem. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard). The question of Ministers' salaries was recently considered by a Select Committee, which reported in July last, and in this connection I would refer to the answer which I gave on the 30th October last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander).

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Ministers are earning their salaries at present?

Might not a reduction of the salaries of Ministers and Members of this House, proportionate with the reduction in wages, be a method of measuring the failure of this House to maintain the standard of life of the people?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many unofficial Members of the present House of Commons refrain from drawing Parliamentary salaries?

Will my hon. Friend consider sending a reminder at the beginning of each Session that the salary is optional?

Unemployment

Work Schemes

asked the Prime Minister when the White Paper dealing with details of schemes of work initiated by the Government and the numbers of men employed thereon will be published?

The White Paper, which will be very much wider in scope than is suggested in the question, will, I hope, be available at an early date.

Reconstruction Loan

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider issuing a reconstruction loan for the purpose of employing the unemployed on works of national utility?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on 11th November.

Does not my right hon. Friend think the present time particularly opportune for raising such a loan, in view of the large amount of idle money?

I can only refer my hon. Friend to what I said in reply to the supplementary question on the occasion to which I have referred.

Royal Commission (Personnel)

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the constitution of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?

As announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 1st December, the Chairman of the Commission is His Honour Judge Holman Gregory, K.C. The other members of the Commission are:

Am I to understand from the statement of the Prime Minister that no representative of the trade union movement is on the Commission?

There are no direct representatives of either employers or employed. The purpose of the Commission is to take evidence from both sides.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the name of Councillor Asbury. Can he tell me to which council he belongs?

I understand it is Sheffield. May I withdraw that, as I am not really sure about it?

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that whatever the recommendations of this Commission may be, they will be accepted by the Government regardless of whether they conform to the policy of the Government?

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the business of the Commission will be twofold, in this way: whether there is to be an investigation as to why certain claims are not met by the Employment Exchanges as well as an investigation into the abuses?

On the question of personnel, I want to ask whether it was not possible to have had some distinguished trade unionist on the Commission? I am thinking of men like the right hon. George Barnes and the right hon. John Hodge who have not now any direct connection with trade unionism but have a thorough knowledge of the working of these Acts and the effect of them?

The whole question was very carefully considered, and if my hon. Friend will look at the composition of this Commission, he will find that if that had been done there would have been somebody else representative of the other side. We considered that the nature of the inquiry and the necessity for expedition was far better met by a composition such as has been announced.

German Reparations and Interallied Debts

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state for each year up to and including the end of March, 1930, the sums paid to the United States of America under the debt funding agreement with that country, the sums received from Germany in respect of reparations, and the aggregate sums received each year from those of our Allies with whom we have made debt funding agreements?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) on 19th May last, a copy of which I am sending to him.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there are any negotiations proceeding with the Government of the United States with a view to the readjustment of War debts?

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the statement of Mr. Owen D. Young in which he said it was only natural in times of depreciated commodity security prices that a nation's debtors should ask for a readjustment of debts and that he hoped the United States would listen with sympathy to any such adjustment of War debts?

Arrears of Taxation

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of arrears to date of Income Tax, Super-tax, Sur-tax, and Excess Profits Duty, respectively?

As the answer is a long one and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

In the case of Income Tax the only estimate that I can furnish in respect of arrears outstanding for past years is the amount of those arrears which it is estimated will be collected during the current financial year. At the 30th September last this amounted to about £15,000,000 including arrears of the second instalment of the tax for 1929 which was payable on 1st July last. At the same date the amount of Sur-tax and Super-tax in assessment which will ultimately prove to be collectible after allowing for reductions and discharges was estimated to be about £7,500,000. In the case of Excess Profits Duty I am not in a position to say how much duty remains to be paid. At the 30th September the gross amount of Excess Profits Duty in assessment amounted to about £44,000,000 but as the hon. Member is no doubt aware the assessments to Excess Profits Duty are liable to considerable reductions and discharges and the duty that will ultimately be paid will certainly fall far short of this figure.

Government Contracts

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the case of contracts placed by Government Departments, any preference is exercised in favour of supplies from the British overseas possessions even where such supplies are not the cheapest?

It is the practice to give preference in Government contracts to tenders from Dominions and Colonies as compared with tenders from foreign countries, but only within reasonable limits.

National Debt

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the nominal amount of the National Debt as at the last convenient date; and whether he will give the increase in the amount as for the corresponding period in 1913?

The nominal amount of the National Debt on 30th November, 1930, was approximately £7,538,000,000. The corresponding amount on 30th November, 1913, was approximately £668,000,000.

Income Tax (Foreign Artists)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether foreign artists appearing on the stage in this country are charged Income Tax at the time their salaries are paid to them; and what steps the Treasury take to see that it is duly collected?

As my right hon. Friend's predecessor explained in reply to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member on the 6th December, 1927, the working of the Income Tax machine has been accelerated in the ease of foreign artists visiting this country for short periods. I can only assure him that steps are taken to assess and collect tax as soon as possible after the arrival of the artists in this country. As the hon. and gallant Member will be aware, the matter has been considered several times in recent yeans. It is, however, one which I have decided to look into afresh, although it is clear that the revenue at stake is relatively very small.

Will the hon. Gentleman look into it quickly, while the salaries are being paid, and is he aware that, in the previous case to which he referred, although the tax was levied, the man got away without paying it?

British Army

Vocational Training

asked the Secretary of State for War the numbers of single or married soldiers who have received training at the Army Vocational Training Centre, Chisledon, for overseas settlement for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; whether these soldiers have proceeded direct to the Dominions; and has he any particulars and can be state the number of ex-service men who have been trained during the same period by arrangement with the British Legion and Overseas Settlement Department?

Thirty-eight married soldiers with their families and 116 single soldiers received training in oversea settlement at Chisledon during the period 1st September, 1929, to 31st August, 1930. Of this number, seven married men with their families and 56 single men proceeded direct to the Dominions on completion of training. No men, married or single, received training at Chisledon during this period by arrangement with either the British Legion or the Oversea Settlement Department.

Are facilities being granted for the other men and their families who have received training at training centres?

Chemical Warfare Department

asked the Secretary of State for War if he can give the total number of the staff of the Chemical Warfare Department; and if he will give the figures for 1920, 1925 and 1929, respectively?

I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

The total number of staff on the approved establishment of the Chemical Warfare Research Department on 1st April of the respective years is given below.

1920

410*

1925

480

1929

535

1930

553

* This figure excludes the staff of the Research Establishment, Sutton Oak, as in 1920 that establishment was under the Ministry of Munitions and figures are not available.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will prohibit the use of horses, cats and other animals by the Chemical Warfare Department for experiments with blistering, suffocating, irritating, tear and poisonous gases?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave on 25th November, to the hon. Members for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) and Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman), of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the Secretary of State for War the number of animals of various kinds used by the Chemical War- fare Department for experimental purposes with blistering, suffocating, irritating, and tear gases and poison gases, such as prussic acid gas, during 1929; and whether all of them were first rendered unconscious and afterwards destroyed before regaining consciousness?

Five hundred and thirteen animals were used at the Experimental Station, Porton, and the Physiological Laboratory, Cambridge, for experiment in connection with various kinds of gases in 1929. All the experiments were carried out in strict conformity with the terms and conditions of the licences and certificates held by the research workers concerned, and, as I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow on 4th December last, the terms of those licences and certificates definitely exclude any possibility of inflicting unnecessary suffering.

Do I understand the answer to mean that these animals are rendered unconscious before the experiment and killed afterwards?

I think I must ask for notice of detailed questions. I have dealt with the question that was asked, and I have given the answer.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any army horses have been used for the purpose of these experiments?

I think that during the last few years a few cast horses have been used in an experimental way before they were destroyed painlessly.

Is it a fact that certain of these poisons and drugs, like strychnine, morphia, opium and others, have an entirely different effect upon certain animals from that upon human beings and are not these experiments misleading and dangerous?

asked the Secretary of State for War how many horses have actually been killed by poison gas experiments at Porton each year since the cessation of the Great War?

Officers' Training Corps

asked the Secretary of State for War if he has now completed his investigations into the question of compulsory recruitment in officers' training corps at schools; and what action he is proposing to take?

I am having the whole question of the junior division of the officers' training corps examined and I hope to be in a position to deal with it in my speech on the introduction of next year's Army Estimates. But the hon. Member appreciates, no doubt, that so far as the War Office is concerned there is no question of compulsory recruitment.

Is it still the view of the War Office that enlistment in the officers' training corps should be entirely voluntary?

I have already said that I hope to deal with the question in my Estimates speech.

Expenditure (Mechanisation)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the decision taken at Geneva to recommend the calling of the world conference on disarmament as soon as possible, the Army Council has considered the advisability of reducing expenditure on the development of mechanisation of the Army in the meantime; and whether any decision has been reached?

I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that this, together with all other relevant consideration, will be taken into account in framing the Army Estimates for 1931.

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, but will there be any saving in view of the success of the Geneva preparatory conference?

I am afraid that I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to wait for a statement of policy upon the Estimates.

Special Campaign Pension

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is prepared to revise the custom of his Department to insist upon the age given by a man on enlistment as his correct age; and will he accept the birth certificate as proof of the man's age when marking application for the special campaign pension?

The age given by a recruit on his first attestation is accepted as his correct age throughout his Army career for various purposes, including the assessment of his pension, and I regret that I am unable to alter this rule. Nor as my hon. Friend will appreciate, would it always be in the man's interest to do so. I would add that steps were taken early this year to amend the attestation form in such a way as to leave no doubt as to the serious nature of the offence of giving on enlistment a false answer as to age.

Manoeuvres, Russia

asked the Secretary of State for War whether any representatives of the British Army were invited to attend the 10 days' manoeuvres of the Soviet army which were held recently?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the procedure should be different in Russia from what it is in every other country to which we send representatives?

Russia (Armed Forces)

asked the Secretary of State for War the strength of the armed forces in Soviet Russia including reserves and those who undergo annual training?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the Conference for the Limitation of Armaments at Geneva, he will say what is the present strength of the Russian Soviet Red Army with Ogpu detachments; and whether any reductions or increases have recently been made?

The hon. Members will find the latest information regarding the military forces of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics in the Armaments Year Book published by the League of Nations. I have no information as to any recent increases or reductions or as to the strength of the troops of the State Political Department.

Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Military Attaché at Moscow in order to find out?

Married Women (Torts)

I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the liability of husbands for torts committed by their wives whether before or after marriage."

On the 20th June, 1911, a Bill was introduced by Mr. Newton and supported by Mr. Norman Craig, Mr. Timothy Davis, Mr. Hinds and Mr. Ian Malcolm, called the Husband and Wife (Torts) Bill. The memorandum to that Bill was as follows:

On a point of Order. Would it be in order to move, "That the Question be now put"?

It would be quite in order to move it, but it is quite another matter if it is accepted.

The memorandum goes on to say:

"At common law a husband was liable, and his wife was not liable, for her torts committed after marriage, and he was also under a liability in addition to hers in respect of his wife's ante-nuptial torts to the extent of any property which he received with her. Under the existing Married Womens Property Act a married woman may be sued for tort as if she were a single woman, any damages or costs recovered against her in any action or proceeding being made payable out of her separate property, and not otherwise. It was held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Earle v . Kingscote that the husband was liable, following the decision of a divisional court in Seroka v . Kattenburg that the creation of this statutory liability did not relieve the husband from his common law liability which, therefore, still continues."

That Bill did not receive a Second Beading. The subject was lost for some time until a Bill was sent down from another place in 1925. It was entitled the Married Women (Torts) Bill and was drafted by the late Lord Chancellor, or in his office. Clause 1 of that Bill enacted that the husband of a married woman shall not as such be liable to be sued or made a party to any action or legal proceeding brought against her in respect of any tort committed by her whether before or after the marriage and the words " and wrongs committed" in Section 14 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, were repealed. That Bill also failed to get a Second Beading and was withdrawn on the 16th December of the same year. The House has thus on two occasions, no doubt owing to pressure of business, failed to take an opportunity of doing an act of elementary justice. The learned Attorney General in reply to a question of mine recently stated that he had a good deal of sympathy with the proposal but that he was not able to find time to deal with it. As to the general public and the legal profession, there is very little doubt that to a man and to a woman they are unable to understand why this wrong has not been righted and why Bills for the purpose of effecting this simple and obvious reform have been blocked in the past. Letters have appeared in the "Times" from the professor of jurisprudence at Oxford University drawing attention to the scandal, and in the "Times Law Reports," volume 46, of 11th July of this year, some remarks made by Mr. Justice McCardie in giving judgment in the case of Got-liffe v. Edelston appear. They are to this effect:

"A husband is liable for any tort his wife may commit, provided that it is not connected with a contract. It matters not whether the tort be negligence, slander, trespass or assault. Thus she may be driving a motor car against his expressed request. She may, by her negligence, cause damage to a third person to the extent of thousands of pounds. For this damage the husband can be sued, whether the wife be joined or not as defendant. Judgment may be given against him for the damages, and on that judgment he may be made bankrupt. He has no right whatever to claim any part of the damages from his wife even though she be possessed of a large private fortune of her own… If the wife threatens to commit a tort which may inflict a heavy burden on her husband he has no right whatever to apply to the Court to prevent her from doing the wrongful act. The husband is helpless."

Mr. Justice McCardie continues, in summing up:

"I find privileges given to a wife which are wholly denied to a husband, and I find that on the husband there has fallen one injustice after another. I hope that the day is not far distant when the vital and far-reaching relationship of husband and wife will receive the attention of Parliament."

Let me give one final instance of the absurdity of the present situation. A husband and wife had been living separately for seven years. There had been no judicial separation. The husband lived in South America; the wife lived in the South of Spain. There she slandered another woman by saying that she was immoral, and that woman brought an action in the British Court against the husband and wife together. The husband was held liable for damages for the slander of a wife who refused to live with him, and was at the time the offence was committed some 4,000 or 5,000 miles away. In view of that ludicrous state of affairs, I ask the House to give the First Reading to this Bill, and remove what is a blot on British law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tinne.

Married Women (Torts) Bill,

"to remove the liability of husbands for torts committed by their wives whether before or after marriage," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

Capital Punishment

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Proceedings and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee of Session 1929–30, together with Appendices, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 15.]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

COLONIAL AND NAVAL DEFENCE BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

New Member Sworn

James Henry Hall, Esquire, for Borough of Stepney (Whitechapel and St. George's Division).

Orders of the Day

Supply

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimate, 1930

Class V

Ministry of Labour

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Exchequer Contribution to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Education Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Transference of "Work-people and their Families within Great Britain and Oversea (including expenditure additional to that authorised under Section 2 (1) of the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909); and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."

On a point of Order. Might I ask you a question, Mr. Young, with regard to the scope of debate on this Estimate—whether, in view of the fact that the Estimate includes the expenses of training and the transference of workpeople, I would be in order in raising the question of the transference of cotton operatives to training centres for canteen work?

That does not arise on the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee. This is a Supplementary Estimate made up of salaries, wages and allowances for the Claims and Record Office, Kew, and outstations, and in relation to Sub-heads A and F for those who come under the transitional benefit arrangement.

Yesterday we were dealing with the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill to increase the borrowing powers of the Unemployment Fund to the extent of £10,000,000. The purpose of that Bill was to finance what we generally describe as ordinary benefit, that is to say, benefit paid to those persons who have paid their 30 contributions to the fund within the last two years. The purpose of the present Vote is to deal with those who cannot satisfy that 30 contributions test, but who are required to satisfy what is known as the alternative transitional condition. The Supplementary Estimate is necessary to meet the additional cost of transitional benefit for the current financial year, and the amount asked for is £10,500,000. The figures are rather confusing, and I shall be glad if the Committee will have patience while I try to put the position clearly before it. The Exchequer contribution to the fund, as I have explained so many times, is now divided into two parts. There is the contribution to the fund for ordinary benefit on the equal thirds basis, and is half of the combined contributions of employers and employed. Then there is the contribution to the fund for transitional benefit.

The original Estimate for the contribution to the fund for ordinary benefit was £15,970,000. Under the revised Estimate, the amount is £14,970,000—£1,000,000 less than the original Estimate. That is due to the fact that, as a result of the depression in industry, fewer people are at work than was assumed when the Estimate was drafted, and, therefore, less is paid in contribution by employers and employed, and on the equal thirds basis less is automatically paid by the Exchequer to the extent of £1,000,000. The original Estimate of the Exchequer contribution for transitional benefit was £10,500,000, and the revised Estimate is £22,000,000—an increase of £11,500,000. The main reason for the increased cost of transitional benefit is due to the increase in the live register. A continuance of an exceptionally heavy register must cause an increasing number of insured persons to fail to satisfy the 30 contributions test. Thus, in the coming months, out of any given number of unemployed, a larger number is likely to be on transitional benefit than would have been the case if the live register had been lower in the past months. Therefore, even if the total amount of ordinary plus transitional benefit remains unaltered, the increase in the cost of transitional benefit is probable.

Of the present numbers, how many are on transitional and how many on ordinary benefit?

I am coming to that. Another reason for the increase is explained in the White Paper as being due to the fact that the original Estimate did not include provision for certain classes, such as married women and seasonal workers, which, as explained in Command Paper 3453, issued on 11th December, 1929, were considered likely to be brought into benefit by the 1930 Act, but it was stated at the time that there were absolutely no data available to enable us to make any Estimate at all as to the possible consequences of that change. We now estimate that the change will cost the fund £4,000,000 for the current year. That is the present Estimate. The cost of transitional benefit for the year cannot be forecast with any certainty. In April last, the average weekly charge, including administration, was £335,000; in May, £360,000; and in the week ending 31st October, £415,000. We have decided that it is necessary to ask for a further sum of £11,500,000, making the total for the year £22,000,000.

To summarise the position. The estimated increase in the Exchequer contribution for transitional benefit is £11,500,000, the estimated decrease in the Exchequer contribution for ordinary benefit is £1,000,000, making the additional amount required £10,500,000. There are two other items in the Vote which in effect cancel each other out. It will be noticed that the total under Subhead A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, is £750,000, and that at the top of page 9 of the White Paper Appropriations-in-Aid amount to £750,000. That, therefore, does not affect the total of the Estimates for which we are asking to-day, because, as I say, the one cancels the other. The increase in the live register means an increase in the amount of work at Divisional Offices, Employment Exchanges and the Claims and Record Office at Kew. In any given increase, it is roughly calculated that it varies with the size of the register. Where there is a low register, it may be that we should require an addition of one to the staff for every 100 on the register, but where the register is very high, the general average per person employed in the Exchange tends to be higher. We calculate that an increase of about 200 in the present live register involves an increase of one in the staff.

The original Estimate for staff allowances and expenses of divisional offices and local offices was £3,171,200. The revised Estimate is £3,871,200, an increase of £700,000 for divisional offices and local offices. Then at Kew the original Estimate was £568,000, and the revised Estimate £618,000, an increase of £50,000, making the total increase £750,000. The number of the staff at outstations in the original Estimate was put at 12,667 persons. In post, at the end of October, we had 17,574 persons, an increase in the staff of nearly 5,000. The revised Estimate is based on an average live register of 1,910,000 for the six months ending 30th September, 1930, and 2,300,000 for the six months ended 31st March, making an average for the year of 2,105,000.

These Estimates are bound to be based, not upon actuarial calculations, but upon what we assume may happen. It is the nearest we can get, and that is the basis upon which we have put the figures in the Estimate. In the revised Estimate for the current year the staff provided per 1,000 on the live register is the lowest for any year from 1921– up to the present time. That is due to the fact that when you have a very high register, the number of claims dealt with per person increases. The additional sum of £750,000 required in respect of increased staff will be offset by the equivalent grant of Appropriations-in-Aid as explained in the White Paper. The whole cost during 1930–31 of the administration of unemployment insurance will be recovered in the first instance from the Unemployment Fund.

Before the right hon. Lady gets far away from that question, may I ask if she will reply to the point which I think has already been put to her and tell us not only the cost, but the number of persons who are now getting transitional benefit.

I was giving the average number on which the estimate is based, and I will come in a moment to the figure to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. The whole of the cost during 1930–31 of the administration of unemployment insurance will be re- covered in the first instance from the Unemployment Fund. The cost includes, not only the expenditure of the Ministry of Labour, but the cost of services rendered by other Government Departments, as, for example, premises, postal charges, sale of stamps, stationery, noncompliance inspection, and an equated cost of pensions. The cost so charged to the fund is between 96 per cent. and 97 per cent. of the total cost of the Exchange services. The present figure of those on transitional benefit is 350,000.

Can the right hon. Lady say what was the number when the estimate was framed?

Against the sum which I ask for to-day in this Supplementary Estimate in regard to transitional benefit I think it is very important to place the saving in expenditure by local authorities on Poor Law relief or rather to mention that saving in connection with the sum for which we now ask. The cost of out-door relief for the year ending March, 1930, was £5,700,000.

Does that figure apply to the whole country or to England and Wales only?

That figure includes Scotland, and that sum would have been greatly increased this year but for the 1930 Act. I think that there is no doubt about that fact. What we have to try to visualise is what would have been the case if we had not brought in these transitional benefit arrangements, especially when we realise that the great lumps of unemployment were in those very areas where local government had already broken down.

Will the right hon. Lady kindly give the relative figures for the previous year as regards this sum of £5,700,000?

In reference to the question already put to me as to the number on transitional benefit I wish to state that the figure on which the estimate was originally based was 180,000, as compared with the present figure of 350,000.

What my hon. and gallant Friend is asking for now is the relative figures in regard to Poor Law relief. We cannot, of course, have the whole figures for the present year, but could the right hon. Lady give us, say, the figure for the first six months of the present year so that we may be able to make a comparison?

The figure with which I am dealing at present is the cost of out-door relief for the year ended March, 1930, and, as I have said, it was £5,700,000. The cost for the six months from March to September, 1930, was £1,650,000, so that there is a perfectly obvious reduction in the actual numbers as they then stood. If there had not been the change which was made in March by the 1930 Act, there is no doubt that instead of £5,700,000 there would have been a much bigger sum, on account of the rise in the number on the register and the consequent drawing off of people who could not possibly qualify under the then existing arrangements. Whatever the Committee may feel in some respects in criticism of this Estimate, I think we would be unwise to blind our eyes to the fact that if this cost had not been shown in this direction, it would have been shown very badly in a direction where there would be far less capacity to bear it than the capacity of the State.

The other figure which I wanted to give was in relation to the way in which the cost of administration is borne between the two sides of the fund. The fund itself, that is what I call the contributory fund, costs in the working of the scheme—the administrative costs—a sum which is calculated at £5,000,000, and the cost to the Treasury of administering transitional benefit is estimated at £1,500,000. Each side of the fund bears its own administrative costs in the proportion in which those costs are incurred. These are the figures relating to the Supplementary Estimate and I hope that the Committee will recognise that in a very difficult period we have tried to meet an unprecedented situation by a wise and careful administration of the fund which, in the long run, has been of immense value and of immense service to those who are poor through no fault of their own, who are out of work through no fault of their own, and whose only desire is that they should get back to work at the earliest possible moment.

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000,000.

This Supplementary Estimate is absolutely unprecedented. Not one word fell from the Minister as to the effect of introducing, more than half-way through the financial year, a Supplementary Estimate of £10,500,000 on the top of a Budget, which even on the best of showings would barely balance, and which in the opinion of most financial experts is already certain to show a tremendous deficit. Not one word of explanation or apology was offered for the financial strategy and foresight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in framing his Budget. Yet here we are presented with this tremendous bill which the Committee of Supply is asked to vote to His Majesty, to make up for lack of foresight on the part of the Government of the day. This Supplementary Estimate shows, admittedly, the deplorable condition of the trade of this country. It shows the deplorable state of the nation but, above all, it shows the utter failure of the Government to redeem the promises which they made at the Election.

They promised, I will not say to solve the problem, but at any rate to reduce it and to deal with it effectively. And now they present a Supplementary Estimate not to deal with insured persons but to deal with those unfortunate people whose employment record is so bad that for two years they have not had 30 weeks employment—or what is even worse, not 30 occasions on which they could get stamps on their cards. Is it not deplorable, after 18 months with this Government in power, with a special organisation under the Lord Privy Seal to deal with unemployment, to find work and all the rest of it, and after all that they said to us when we were in office on the necessity of the Government finding work and doing something to deal with unemployment, that they should come down here with a Supplementary Estimate for £10,500,000 on the top of another £11,500,000 to be paid out in pure maintenance and nothing else? This day marks a lamentable example of the utter and complete failure of the whole of the unemployment plans of the Government.

On a point of Order. I have no wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it is necessary at the outset of the debate to know the lines on which the discussion is to proceed. I wish to ask yon, Mr. Young, whether we are to be allowed on this Vote to discuss Government policy in relation to these figures and how far you will allow discussion following on the statements of the right hon. Gentleman?

In a discussion of this kind we are confined to the details given in the Supplementary Estimate, and in this Estimate there are two figures— one for wages, salaries, etc., and the other covering the cost of transitional benefit. All that relates to the transitional benefit arrangement will, of course, be in order.

But will discussion be allowed upon the Government's plans for dealing with unemployment and on the broad question of finding work?

I should like to know exactly how far hon. Members will go in that direction before saying whether it is allowable or not. It would be unwise at this moment for me to try to say how far a discussion on unemployment will be allowed on the Estimate. There cannot be a general debate on unemployment.

I think, Mr. Young, that you will not hesitate to pull me up if I stray out of the strict rules of order, and I suggest that I have not done so yet. The second point about this Estimate is that it shows a complete disregard of the general financial situation for the year. Having made my points in that respect, I come to the gravamen of our charge against the Government in regard to this Estimate. When the original proposal was made that the Exchequer should carry the whole cost of those people who had fallen out of the insurance scheme, it was made on the strict understanding, in the words of the Minister herself, that it was only for 12 months, and that those 12 months were required by the Government to look into the whole question of the able-bodied unemployed and to produce an entirely different method of dealing with it. Almost exactly 12 months have elapsed since then, and the Minister now presents us with this colossal Estimate, without any undertaking that she has any proposals, administrative or otherwise, for dealing with the problem. It looks as if before the end of the financial year we shall have yet another Supplementary Estimate, as well as a gigantic Estimate for next year.

This is what is wrong. In November, 1929, the Minister said:

"The transitional period is continued by the Bill for another year but on a different basis and with a definite objective…The definite objective in view in continuing the transitional period is . … to give the Government"—

I stress the word "Government''—

"time and opportunity to examine how best the able-bodied unemployed who are now outside the insurance scheme, may be dealt with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1929; cols. 749–750, Vol. 232.]

What has happened between her original Estimate and this Supplementary Estimate? She has had her 12 months.

No. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The 12 months only began in March.

The right hon. Lady is going to ride off on the assumption that on the 1st March next everything will be ready. I want to examine what the Government have been doing in dealing with this mounting figure of people who have fallen out of insurance. We were encouraged to hope that by training and by all sorts of things that she was undertaking at the Ministry of Labour these people would be dealt with. We were to see a special effort made to train them and to get them back into employment. We were promised when this undertaking was given that the whole question of the overlapping, which is still going on, between this national Poor Law relief, because that is what it is, adminstered by the Minister of Labour, and the local Poor Law relief administered by the local authorities was already, a year ago, being examined.

Let me quote the next statement made by the right hon. Lady. It was made on the Financial Resolution on the 25th November. Dealing with the carry- ing of the transitional benefit, people who had fallen out of insurance, she said, after referring to the unemployed, the employers and the Insurance Fund:

Then there was the committee which was so much advertised in the summer. When the cost of the transitionals, which was falling wholly upon the taxpayers, was growing, a new committee was announced, the three-party committee, that was invited to investigate, among other things, the problem of the financing and the maintenance of the transitional provision. The word "transitional" has become rather a bad joke, because "transitional" is coming to have the same meaning as the word "permanent." We know what happened to that committee. It met all through the Recess. The right hon. Lady was a member of it, and two Members of the party below the Gangway, and two of my hon. Friends who sit on this bench were members. Week after week they worked at the problem, and they presented a report. The documents are in existence. We must presume that they came to an agreement, yet within a few hours of the documents being put in the Prime Minister brushed that committee aside and told the House that he would have none of it. Its work was scrapped, and we were told that the matter was postponed for investigation by a Royal Commission. Is it not cynical treatment of these 300.000 people? They are just kept on the dole, which is flung in their faces. No action is taken, no attempt is made to link up. There is no attempt to co-ordinate. The old transitional methods are kept going, at gigantic public expense, without any remedial administrative action in dealing with these hapless sufferers of our present economic depression. It is a tragedy.

To-day, we have, at last, heard the names of the Royal Commission, a Commission which was announced with such a flourish of trumpets by the Prime Minister during the debate on the Address a few weeks ago. We have had to wait for the appointments. Yesterday, the only reference which the Minister of Labour made to this question, which comes up to-day, was this, speaking or the Royal Commission: they can make up their minds? [An HON. MEMBER: "What did your Government do?"] It is no use asking about this or that Government. We are faced with a Government who are proving themselves before the country incapable of dealing with this big question, and putting it off on to one Committee and then another.

Let us examine quietly where we are in this respect. Transitional benefit has been called many names. It started with the name of out-of-work donation. That became an unpopular name, and it was changed to uncovenanted benefit, and afterwards to extended benefit. Finally, we called it transitional benefit.

Various people at various times. What does it matter who coined the name? My point is that they all mean the same thing, and that none of them are benefits. They are simply payments by the taxpayer to maintain uninsured and uninsurable people. They are, in fact, doles, and we have always said that you will never deal with the real essence of this problem of the relief of the unemployed so long as these two categories are regarded as in any way connected. So long as insurance and what is really in fact the dole, that is, payment of maintenance by the State, are mixed up, administered on identically the same rates of benefit and by identically the same machine, you are bound to have not merely confusion but a great deal of trouble and worry and a most unsatisfactory and unscientific treatment of this difficult problem. That is one of the reasons why I move the reduction of the vote, if only to hasten the day when this Government would be forced to grasp the nettle and to separate these two quite different categories of unemployed persons.

I am surprised that no statement was made in explaining the Supplementary Estimate as to whether the whole of the extra £10,500,000 is to be paid simply in cash to these people who have been unemployed for something like nine-tenths of their lives during the last two years. In view of the figures given by the Minister of Labour recently—as to the number of people totally unemployed, we may regard the 350,000 as people who, on the average, have been virtually unemployed, except for a few weeks, for the last two years. I want to know from the right hon. Lady whether she still thinks that the same flat rate of benefit to people who have been unemployed for that duration of time is either solving the problem, or is any remedy, or is helping these people back into work even if trade revives again. I do not believe that it is.

This is not a question of benefit. It is a question of State payment to people who fall out of benefit, and the question is how can that payment be made for the purpose of giving those people who have suffered most in the long industrial depression from which this country has been suffering, a chance of getting back into employment and, when trade revives a chance of getting back to employment in their own trades. Is the hope still in the mind of the Minister of Labour which she held out to us when the Estimate was first introduced and the whole scheme was first outlined, that those people who have fallen out of insurance may be specially cared for and trained? Is any part of this £10,500,000 being devoted to these remedial and constructive objects or is it just being paid out at the flat-rate week by week through the Employment Exchanges? Is the Minister satisfied after 18 months' experience that the flat-rate suitable for insured persons who are in and out of employment is really meeting the needs of those people who have been out for two whole years and in many cases for more? Does she agree that in many cases that benefit is quite inadequate and that in others, owing to family circumstances, it may not be needed? We have to face not the problem of the able-bodied unemployed who have been in for the right period— there is no question of putting them on the rates or maintaining them by the parish—but the administration of the real national dole and, until that question is dealt with on a scientific basis as relief and not as benefit, you will not get an inch further in dealing with these matters, which are, I submit, the most important aspect of the whole problem of unemployment relief.

We are all encouraged by the Minister of Labour to hope that real insurance will one day be restored and a watertight scheme be put before the House. We are encouraged to think that something will come out of the Commission for this residuum of 180,000, which was the number when the Estimate was first made. Today it is 350,000, or nearly double. To have a scientific and remedial treatment of these people, we must wait for a Government with the courage and the intelligence to deal with the question regardless of popularity and consequences. I move to reduce the Vote by £1,000,000 to mark the failure of this Government at any rate.

Will you go to a meeting of the unemployed and deliver the same speech? I will convene one for you.

May I call your attention to the hon. Member for one of the Welsh Divisions who is saying things to me across the Floor of the House which are uncalled for?

I want to draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that when the Chairman rises to put a question these arguments should cease.

I rise for the first time this Session to take part in an unemployment debate. I do so with great reluctance and I had no intention of doing so before the right hon. Gentleman's contribution. In his speech, he made the point that this £10,500,000 was a national contribution and in the nature of national Poor Law relief. He traced the history of these people, dealing with what was formerly uncovenanted benefit, then extended benefit, and now transitional benefit, which he says has become permanent. Let me, in the first place, say this: He knows, as well as I do that he was a Member of a Government that retained transitional benefit for some considerable time. They did not say it was Poor Law relief and stop it. He and every Member on that side knows that no Government had the intention of stopping it, and it is no use for him to ask this Government to do what even a Conservative Government would not be allowed to do. No Government ever had: any intention of abolishing this benefit, and, when he comes along and claims that this Government ought to abolish it, he is asking it to take an action so reactionary that even a Conservative Government could not do it if it were in office. We sometimes hear about honesty in politics, and I say, quite frankly, that it comes very near a dishonest thing to ask a Government to abolish something which he knows in his own heart even his own Government would have to continue in some form or another.

May I be permitted to ask the hon. Gentleman if he heard me use the word "abolish"? Was I not in favour of transformation and of changing the whole system?

My right hon. Friend qualifies his statement, but what was his trend of thought 2 This was a dole and therefore, he said, abolish the dole. He says you have no right to keep people on this dole; you have a right to some other method, but not this. I say frankly to him that any Government, though it may reduce the numbers on transitional or extended benefit, must as long as the figures remain over 1,000,000 carry a certain number. Even if you reduce the number and introduce restrictions and make it harder to get, you must carry it on. What is in the mind of opposition spokesmen as to what we should do? Is it the plan of the party opposite that there should be two different categories of unemployment, unemployed persons who have established a claim and those who have not? Let us look at it from their point of view. I do not ask them to forsake Tory principles or to treat the unemployed more generously, for that would be asking too much from them, but take it from their point of view and what they call the moral of the unemployed.

We are told on all sides to keep up the moral of the unemployed. It is said that you lower it by a dole. On this side, it is said that the longer we keep people on the unemployed market the more you lower their moral. But what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? Let us take the unemployed person who has gone to America in search of work, the good type of workman. He remains there for two years, unable to get work and he comes back, with an insurance record before he went away but without the qualifying stamps. I had a case this week turned down by the umpire. It was that of a woman who was 31 years in her last job. She decided to go abroad and remained there for one year and 11 months. She came back and was turned down from receiving benefit. She is told it will be a dole even if she gets it. It will be national Poor Law relief, although she has contributed for 31 years. And they say we must keep up the moral.

5.0 p.m.

Let us take the man who has not worked for two years, at shipbuilding say. There are plenty of good men in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). They have been displaced by the new machines. Only yesterday I was talking to a man from his Division, as good a citizen as ever walked, a man of 51 who has been swept from being a highly skilled man into the ranks of the worst type of the unemployed. What are we going to do? It is bad enough that he should go to the Exchange; when he goes there it is shocking and indefensible to ask his children to live on 2s. a week. It is terrible to say: "Live on this shockingly inadequate benefit and watch your capital and your goods and chattels go." May I say to hon. Members opposite who are more in touch with big business interests than I am that if in big business they saw capital going smash, smash, smash, as it does with these men, something on a bigger scale than is now being done might be accomplished. Yet my right hon. Friend comes here and says that we are going to say to these men that they are down. There is nothing more contemptible than attacking a man when he is down. Yet we are to say: "You are so far down that you are not to sign on at the Exchange in the same way as other men and get benefit in the same way. You have sunk so low that you are not fit to be classed as one of the regular unemployed." That is the case as the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove knows and as I know. What is it that I am faced with in Kelvingrove? I will admit, and I am not egotistic about this, that large masses of the unemployed in Glasgow, whether they be in Tory, Liberal or Labour seats it matters not, look to me to some extent as their counsel. What has happened there? To some extent this is operating as between the able-bodied persons there and unemployment benefit. The man who goes to the Exchange is beginning to be looked upon as lucky because he can get unemployment benefit, but the other poor devil who goes to the public assistance committee has sunk below the level at which even the unemployed sneer.

The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove proposes to add to that number, and to create a different class when the men go to the Employment Exchange. They will be earmarked by the rest of the unemployed and will suffer from their contempt. Already, they are suffering from that contempt, and they are also suffering from starvation. Now they will have to walk to the Exchange to a different box, and that box will tell them that they are unfit to draw benefit as the other men draw it, because they have not got the 30 stamps in the two years. I ask hon. Members who advocate this change, and the hon. and gallant Member, What about the men's moral? The hon. and gallant Member knows that nothing can injure and hamper a man worse when he is down than to push him out of the ranks of his unemployed fellows. When he is with them, he is one of the lot, one of the million. When he is down and out, he finds great comfort, as these men do, in being one among them. Hon. Members should not forget that it hurts the unemployed man when he is cut off from his fellows, because he feels isolated, and even the comfort which he derives from being with his fellows is taken away.

I assume that when that is done, these men must have another card, because this scheme of separation cannot work unless there is something to denote their difference from the rest. I remember, when I worked at a trade before coming to Parliament, that we sometimes had to decide with regard to a man. The foreman would come up, and say that he wanted a man, and we would look at our society book for a week or for a year, and would say to the foreman, "Look here, there is a fellow we know of." The first thing which the foreman would say, would be, "How long has he been out?" And if we said that he was out for one year or for two, the foreman simply dismissed the man, and he had no chance.

What are you going to do now? At present, the books are of the same colour, and all that the employer knows is that a man was out for a period. Now, there is to be another coloured book, a yellow book, which will show the employer that the man who has it has reached the untouchable class. In India, you are going to solve the question of the untouchables, but in England and in Britain the Tories want to create a class of untouchables. It is suggested that there should be a different class of benefit. A man may be two years out of work, not as a result of incapacity, drunkenness or foul living, but you are going to say to him that he has reached the lowest class. The man's children will say to him, "Father, you are in a different class." You will attack not merely the man, but his children by having different scales, because the machine has thrown him out of work. Never was a thing more contemptible nor more worthy of condemnation. Hon. Members who want to create different scales should think the matter seriously over. What do they propose to do? Do they think that the present sum is too much, and that the men will not be worth it? Do they want to start taking into account the family income?

Let me deal with the old case, which hon. Member opposite love so well, of the young man drawing benefit while his father is working and earning £4 a week. Hon. Members say that the benefit is helping the slacker. I remember a case where two young men were both charged with not having had 30 stamps in two years; the family income was to be taken into account. One fellow, who was of Irish extraction, was asked what his father, who came from Ireland, had done. He told the committee that his father had been at work for 13 or 14 years under the Glasgow Corporation, that he had never had a day out, and that he was earning £3 a week. The committee came to the decision, as the Act laid down—they had no alternative—that the father should keep the son, and they reduced the benefit. The next man came walking in—both men followed the same occupation, that of boiler making—and I had a conversation with him. We happened to have, what is sometimes useful in these committees, a sense of humour. The chairman said to the man, "What is your father?" He replied, "My father is a steady chap, he is employed by the Government." The chair- man said, "Well, Government employés are usually all well paid." The man said, "Well, this is not." The chairman said, "Where is he employed,"? and the man replied, "He is at Peterhead, doing five years' imprisonment." The committee, in effect, said to the good father, who was of strong religious character, "Because you are good, you must keep your son; that will cost no money." To the other man, they said, "Your father is costing the country a lot of money, and he is a bad man. Therefore, because he is bad and costs us money, we will keep you."

Let me take another case. There may be cute men. At the South Side Exchange in 13 weeks, at holiday time, I defended 1,100 men. This Government or any Government may think that they can beat them, but those men could beat me, and I know them better than anyone. What happens to the family? The young man knows that he is coming nearer the end, and he shifts from his father and goes to live with his sister, in lodgings. The family income is the same, but he is now in lodgings, so he is given benefit, and all because he has deserted his father. You cannot cover it up in that way and you need not think that you can. All you are doing is that the decent fellow, who tells the truth, who sticks to his father and refuses to sink to a lower level and leave his parents, is penalised more heavily while the others are given benefit. Hon. Members can twist this about as they may, but all they will do with these various methods will simply be to create far worse anomalies. One of my criticisms of the proposal for raising of the school-leaving age, and the scales of benefit attached to it, was that I constantly objected that, because a man got £3 10s. or £4 a week, we should take something from him because he was decent. I hate and detest that; I have fought for the poor, and I represent no one else but the poor; but I am never going to penalise people because they have attained to a little income out of their wage. I hope that no Government will ever do that.

Let me turn to the other aspect of the matter. The real criticism of this is that the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said that the Government should have acted, as they promised, on the 29th November. When the late Minister of Labour introduced this, he told exactly the same flimsy story. All Governments constantly tell the same flimsy story, and when they introduce these Committees they plead for time. They are like football players who, when they are leading by one goal in a Cup tie, kick the ball out. This Government and all Governments have done it. This Commission is supposed to be a businesslike Commission. So was the Blanesburgh Commission, but it was unbusinesslike, and this Commission will be very much the same, no better and no worse. The ex-Minister of Labour, in this case, like the football player, had to play for time. He said that the transitional clauses would only be operative for a limited time, and there were supposed to be forces of work making for good trade and the revival of industry. That revival never came. These people are very much like gamblers, and I know a little about that.

There is only one sound law in gambling, and that is that one day you will back a winner and if you have patience you will win; but, by Jove! you need patience. That applies to the Government. I remember the expression of the right hon. Gentleman the ex-President of the Board of Trade, the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister). He said that good trade was coming and that it was almost here. I remember also that the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Minister of Labour told us that good trade was just at hand and almost within grasp; while the late Prime Minister said that we were on the threshold of good and excellent trade. That is their record, and that of the others is the same. The late Lord Privy Seal said that good trade was coming, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at a meeting which I attended, said, is not coming and the figures of unemployment are not going down. Let us be truthful and honest. You are dealing here with the transitional Clause. I go to the Umpire a week to-morrow to defend 20 of my constituents. Twelve of these men were battered, broken and smashed in the late War, and I go to ask for unemployment benefit for them. One of them, who is likely to be refused, has two lads now serving the country in the Army, and I am going to say that this man is not to be treated as if he were a leper. He is good enough to have his sons in the Army to do donkey work. Not one of my friends on this side has a son in the Army, and you could search this House, and you would not find a private Member who has a son a private in the Army. You are saying to these men that their sons are fit to kill and be killed, but they are not good enough to get benefit. Their sons can defend this country and fight for it, but they cannot have benefit. We say to them, "We will appoint a Commission to see how we can steal the benefit from you, and the only privilege you will get is to be hounded into fighting "—and that is the class of people which has the least to fight for. That is a contemptible display from all sides. Seeing these things, I have practically lost my faith in everything, my faith in Socialism even. I have watched people whom I have tried to help building up hopes and aspirations which have never to come to fruition as I thought they would come. And the Government are going to appoint a Commission! May I ask the Minister of Labour if she intends to accept the report of the Commission?

That was the answer I expected. Any commission of this kind is bound to report for taking away what the unemployed have now got. Let us be frank and honest about that. There is no doubt that if the commission are to get anything like unanimity, there must be compromise and the compromise must mean taking something from the unemployed. Everybody who has been on a commission knows that that is true. The Blanes-burgh Committee, the three-party committee, and every commission has meant a compromise and taking something from somebody. I ask the Government if the commission do report in favour of taking? something from somebody, what position shall we be in? Remember, it is a commission which we have appointed, and, if they report in favour of taking something from the unemployed, what position shall we be in in the country? We cannot attack the commission, because it is our commission; we cannot say that the commission is bad, because it is ours. It has taken weeks to appoint, and it has not stupid or wild people on it. When I see the so-called great brains at work on these commissions, I begin to wonder who are the wild people. They are not wild people on this commission, but careful professors. The commission is packed full with titles, and, if titles could bring us to Heaven, we would reach there to-morrow through this commission. The commission's report may not be a bad report, but from the nature of its work, it must mean taking something from the unemployed.

Just before we assumed office, this question received the careful consideration of the Labour movement. Every section of the movement, no matter what differences we had, gave their assistance, and the work of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) for the unemployed will live as a monument. He has by great scientific skill worked the problem out to the last detail. I ask the Government whether it would not have been better, if, instead of relying on dilettante professors who do not know anything about it, instead of relying on a crowd who do not understand the psychology of the problem, who do not have heartburnings for the unemployed and who have not stood in queues or defended unemployed men, they had taken the scientific and capable advice of the hon. Member for West Nottingham. I have no hope in this commission. I say to the Government and to all parties, do not gamble with good trade; it is but a gambler's choice. If we could reduce the unemployed by 300,000, we should be happy, but there would still be 2,000,000 of them. Do not think that it means 2,000,000 alone. Remember that the agricultural workers are not in, the railway workers to a large extent are not in, nor are the domestic servants. Remember also that these figures represent men with mothers, wives and children, and that the figures turn over two or three times in a year.

I cannot see, look where I will, one sign of the figures coming down below 2,000,000. In fact, if all my signs are correct, they will move up. Look at the tragedy in the shipbuilding yards and steel works alone! What is the good of talking about good trade, and hoping for good trade? There is no hope, and there is only one way out, and here I differ from most of my colleagues. I am not by nature a good extremist. Plan as you may, the numbers go up. The numbers will not go down, and therefore poverty must increase. I ask that in this rich and powerful country, while we are planning, while we are arranging and scheming, you should cease your attacks on the unemployed. You may say that your criticisms are not attacks on the unemployed, but the unemployed think they are. We may use nice language here, but a man who is already down resents such criticism. If you Cannot give them anything, leave them alone. I plead with the Government to set aside for the moment every other consideration and to look at the poor, the widows, the old men, the children and the unemployed, and to say to them: "While our plans are maturing, while these vast figures remain, there is only one thing that we can do, and that is to see that in this country, which has wealth and a sunperabundance of goods, there shall be no poverty, and that at least the bestial and cruel conditions of the age shall under a Labour Government be smashed." If Labour can do that, they can stand the attacks from the other side, and meet their opponents with courage.

I do not propose to follow in any great detail the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He has surpassed himself in the eloquence in which the House has delighted before, and though we on these benches do not agree either with the method of his presentation of the case or with his ideas, we are always impressed by the sincerity and the knowledge with which he puts his case. There is one aspect of his attack on my right hon. Friend which we ought to rebut. He gave the impression, although I do not think in a personal sense, that my right hon. Friend's idea of the distinction to be drawn between unemployment benefits and the transitional benefits deliberate attempt to stamp down into further degradation those who are already in unhappy straits. We may differ as to whether it is a wise measure of administration, but the hon. Member will at least give us credit for the fact that, in the suggestions which we make, we are only following the lines which have already been suggested by his own Front Bench, and that the distinction which is to be drawn, if it is to be drawn, between unemployment insurance and the transitional benefit is a distinction which is drawn already in the terms of reference which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have given to this Royal Commission.

There will be a great measure of common consent on all sides of the Committee as to the capacity or the audacity of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, and surely hon. Members are not going to say that those who gave their lives, in many cases, to the working class movement, are deliberately attempting to stamp down into degradation those to whom in the past they had owed their support. I hope that when argument arises, as it must, on this question, it will be dealt with on the basis that we are all trying to find a machinery to meet the situation, to which the present machinery cannot cope, and that it will be possible to free our discussions from the suspicion of personal motive. I want to turn to an aspect of this Fund which has not been dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the occasion a year ago when the Act which has given rise to these Estimates was introduced. We on this side have already been threatened by hon. Members opposite with misrepresentation of our case in the country to people who are ignorant of Parliamentary procedure, by telling them that we voted yesterday to bring down Unemployment Insurance, and that we are voting to-day to dock the unemployed of benefit.

I would recall to hon. Members opposite the stand which we took when this Bill was introduced a year ago. The right hon. Lady will agree that all the speakers on this side at that time accepted in principle the change that had been made in the transitional period.

It is true that we did urge on the right hon. Lady—in what, in the light of subsequent events, we must look back upon as a burst of optimism—that she might, at the same time that she made this purely book-keeping transaction, try to do something of a constructive nature. We hoped the opportunity which, was given to her when she started for the first time to distribute these funds in her capacity as a Member of the Government and not as a trustee of the Insurance Fund, bound by certain rules to dispense the money for certain purposes, might be used by her to think over and to discuss with the House opportunities for, perhaps, a better use of this money in the interests of the unemployed than merely handing it out to them in a small, penurious way. She will admit, I think, that we accepted the principle that in times of emergency it must be the function of the State, and can no longer be the function of the local authority, to provide for the man who through no fault of his own has fallen out of employment and genuinely desires to return to employment when he can. It is the duty of the State to provide for that man's physical needs in a way that will at the same time best maintain his moral self-respect.

That was the principle to which we agreed, and that was the principle on which, I understood, the initial grant for which we were asked was assented to by the House; but it is evident that in the year which has passed the money has been used in certain additional ways which were not contemplated by anybody at the time the Act was passed and the principle to which I have referred was agreed to. We have had discussions regarding the use of unemployment benefit as a subsidy for short-time wages. I agree that that does not apply to the transitional period, but we have in the White Paper a reference to the fact that under this scheme married women are obtaining benefit who have—

I think the hon. Member, when he is referring to married women, has in mind married women who are living with their husbands, but he should always bear in mind that there are a large number of married women who are widows, married women who are separated from their husbands and married women whose husbands are out of work, and when those categories have been deducted the number remaining is infinitesimal.

Neither I nor the hon. Member has the figures, because they have not been analysed, but it is indicated here in the White Paper that there is a type of married woman who to-day is obtaining money under the transitional benefit rule and has no real intention of returning to work.

What is your evidence for that—if there ever was any evidence for that statement? Have you ever had a case?

The only evidence I will give is that which was in the White Paper issued by the right hon. Lady. A year ago she foreshadowed that it would have the effect of bringing into benefit a large number of married women who up to then had never thought fit to claim, and there is the further evidence in this White Paper that those, together with the other classes with which I will deal later, the seasonally employed, have accounted for £4,000,000. The other class is the class of seasonal workers, persons who never intend to accept permanent employment if it is offered to them, because it would interfere with the seasonal occupations which they prefer.

The hon. Member will have plenty of opportunity afterwards to put his point of view.

On a point of Order. The hon. Member is making general accusations against a class of unemployed workers. He is being asked for proof, and now he proposes to go right on without putting forward any proof. [ Interruption. ]

The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) knows that there is no point of order in question there.

The hon. Member was quite fair in his interruption; but I was making no accusation against anybody. It is no accusation to say that people in poor circumstances are taking advantage of what the law allows them to do, and there are very few in this House who would blame them, or dare blame them, for doing so. No one has said that this is an illegal abuse, and that the people who are doing this are acting fraudulently. The point I am making is that whatever the merits or demerits of these particular forms of payment may be, they were not in contemplation when authority was given for this grant. It may be a good thing that wages should be subsidised by the State, it may be a good thing that the State, out of its bounty, should subsidise the marriage of an employed worker, it may be a good thing that the State should subsidise the seasonal worker; but the point is that, be it good or bad, it was not authorised by this House. In the result these payments have grown up completely haphazard instead of forming part of a scientific use of our national resources. The money is applied indifferently, whether the married woman does intend to return to work or not. This money, instead of being used as part of a national scheme, is being dispensed to one class of workers and one class of employers who may be lucky enough or clever enough to work this particular scheme at the expense of other industries and other workers.

The reason why we on this side have departed from the practice we pursued during last year of not pressing for divisions upon these unemployment Measures is that we wish to mark our dissatisfaction with the failure of the right bon. Lady to inquire into and to analyse these allegations. She will say that her promise is to be redeemed by the setting up of the Royal Commission, but there are a good many things which give us a certain amount of ground for suspicion. To begin with, six weeks have elapsed since the Commission was promised. One can hardly call that speed, even with the new meaning of the word which has been given to it by the present Government. Again, the Commission is merely one of a succession of other committees and inquiries, and we wish to ask the same question that the hon. Member for Gorbals asked, namely, whether this Commission means business or whether it is just an attempt to put off having to face a difficult situation until something turns up to improve matters?

May I use a simile which at one time gained a good deal of currency among hon. Members on these benches? We were then going through what all parties experience at different times, one of those periods of domestic dissension and we had proposed some particular form of political machinery only to find it turned down by one of those candid friends which which all parties enjoy, on the ground that we were using this particular method not as a spear but as a shield. We want to know whether the right hon. Lady is using this Royal Commission as a spear or as a shield. Is she using it to get information on which she is prepared to base executive action, however unpopular it may be, or is she merely using it for the purpose of delaying a decision which sooner or later has got to be taken, and for delaying Measures which sooner or later must be introduced? That is why we are pressing these questions to a Division—because such scrutiny has been delayed, and because we believe it to be essential.

There never has been a time when the national resources of this country ought to be used by the Government more carefully and to the best possible purpose. The hon. Member for Gorbals said this is a rich country which can provide for everybody. I wonder whether it is really as rich as it looks to-day and as we can think it is. I know that there is very little on the surface which makes us frightened. We see the theatres, the football matches, all the pastimes and pleasures going on almost unchanged—

On a point of Order. The hon. Member in referring to sports, has been referring to the sports of working men, and I interrupted only to point out another class of sport, and surely that is not irrelevant.

The hon. Member's interruption was not, perhaps, irrelevant, but was mistaken. The country seems to-be going along in much the same old way. The sports of the rich and the poor continue. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is better."] Well, I mentioned theatres as being, perhaps, in contrast with football matches, and as bringing in the rich and the poor. They are all going on much the same, but the paradise in which we are living may very well be shattered to bits within the next few months. We do not know on whom will fall the duty of introducing the Budget next April. It depends on our estimate of the companionate marriage of which the Government are one of the parties. But whoever the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, if he is an honest man when he opens the Budget next year he will shatter that dream to bits. We have not only got to face the deficit, which is clearly before us, in the next Budget, but for the first time somebody has got to try to tell us what has been the result to the national income of the disastrous slump of last year. We have not yet began to experience it.

The dividends which are being paid to-day are still to a large extent the earnings of the period previous to the industrial crash. The Income Tax is still being received from the profits which were made in finance and in trade during the preceding four years. Next year, for the first time, we shall see the result of the kind of thing about which the hon. Member for Gorbals has been talking where there is only one ship being built upon the Clyde. The situation is that company after company which, during the last three or four years, has been making good dividends has not been prospering, and those financial concerns Which have been enjoying prosperity during the last four years are finding it very difficult to make any profit at all. Consequently, we may very shortly be faced with a situation where the immense reserves of national wealth will have shrunk to a very small amount. We are faced with a financial crisis which can only be averted by using public money economically and productively. We are entitled to ask that whatever extra expenditure is granted by Parliament should be spent wisely and well.

If a financial crisis comes, hon. Members opposite are going to be brought up against the comforting belief that the financial stability of the country is limited by the good will of the Govern- ment who happen to be in office. If we are really going over the precipice, as other countries are in danger of doing, nothing will prevent the engulfment of the amenities and the livelihood of the rich as well as of the poor. We were told yesterday by an hon. Member opposite the result that would follow if industrial depression got any worse. I quite agree that an industrial calamity, following a financial crisis, is a very serious matter, but do not forget that if it comes it will sweep away all the comfortable Kerenskys on the benches opposite. It is because we believe that only the greatest care and forethought can save the country from a fate of that kind that we shall go into the Lobby to-night to show that the Opposition party and the country desire that the inquiries which have been asked for shall be made, and, if action is necessary, I hope that the Ministry of Labour will, be prepared at long last to take it.

Reference has been made in this debate to the necessity for having a scientific plan to deal with this question. On that point I would like to say that the basis upon which we are producing unemployment is anything but scientific; in fact, it is haphazard. A large number of men and women are out of work, and they are unable to find employment. If you are not able to provide them with employment, how can you expect the people to buy their stamps? I was given an answer some time ago about the number of people who had been disallowed benefit during the transitional stage. I think the number ran into 114,000, and I was told that there was no other procedure to prevent that happening. Consequently, those people are bound to go to the public assistance committee if you do not provide for them under the Act.

We have heard a very telling speech on this point this afternoon from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). We are not going to stand by on a question of technical terms and deal with the human aspect of this question as a matter of phraseology. It is not a case of saving out of work benefit. The people with whom we are dealing are not 'able to find work whereby they can earn their daily bread, and they ought to have the benefit. There is no getting away from that. I agree with the statement which was made by a Member sitting on the Opposition benches as to the position of the Opposition in regard to this question. Why all this squabbling? Why this setting up of a committee of inquiry at one stage and another at the next stage, a disease which seems to have afflicted the present Government more than any other Government? The Labour Government claim to have specialised on the question of unemployment. The view prevailing was that if anyone knew anything about unemployment it was those sitting upon the Treasury Bench. Now the Government are saying, "For Heaven's sake, let us get some people to decide this matter, because we cannot, and we are incapable of tackling the question." They have called into consultation the other parties in the State, and there have been some difficulties on that account.

It has been held that in the inquiry one section must represent the workers and another section the employers. It is also stated that there must be somebody representing neutral opinion, but I think it is very difficult to find anybody who can be neutral on this subject. The question to be considered is a very simple one. Men and women are unable to find an honest means of earning a livelihood, and what is this wealthy country going to do for them? I agree with the contention that the Government, having appointed a Royal Commission, the names of which have been announced, there is almost certain to be a result of a comprising nature. The Minister of Labour knows quite well what happened on the last occasion when we had a similar inquiry. What will happen if the result on this occasion is another compromise? What will the Labour party-do?

The Government are appointing this Commission. I represent an industrial constituency and the people I represent are coming forward just in the same way as that which has been so graphically and correctly described by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). This is not a question of sob-stuff at all. The state of things of which we complain is not something which exists in a foreign country, but exists in our own land. It is a very serious state of things when these people go to the Employment Exchange to have their cases reviewed and endeavour to get the benefit which has been disallowed. I am satisfied, from my own investigations, that there is no real reason why the Government should go outside their own department in order to provide themselves with further information on this subject. The Ministry of Labour is fully provided with every information as to anything that you may call malingering, and anything that you dare to say is illegal in the transactions carried out in the bestowal of the benefits. The Labour Department is well equipped with the fullest information and there is no absence of evidence of every possible kind.

6.0 p.m.

The palpable and astounding fact is that steadily this great darkening cloud is deepening day by day. The substantial facts and figures are before us. We are always quibbling about having an insurance scheme for those who can pay or — cannot pay. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has declared that there ought to be a national scheme out with insurance, and certainly that has all the appearance of being a logical pronouncement. The facts and figures show that there is certainly evidence of activity, and of substantial financial results being obtained in some lines of business because the wealth is there. Consequently, it behoves Parliament itself, and the labour forces of the country, to see that the Government do not shirk their direct responsibility for the defence of the people. Their homes are defenceless now. There is no doubt about the necessity for serious consideration as to what is to be done, and how this problem is to be faced. While the homes of masses of our people are in a defenceless condition, millions of money are being spent on the Air Force, the Navy, and the Army, that might as well be scrapped now as far as the people about whom we are speaking are concerned, and at the same time questions are being asked as to whether those who have not a few stamps should get an opportunity to eke out their existence. What are you going to do? Are you going to starve them? Are you going to drown them? You have got to find the money somewhere: what is the use of all this humbug as to what sort of scheme or plan you are going to make? You are only quibbling. There is a reluctance to find money for people who cannot get work, but there are numbers of people who do not work, and who never ask for work, but who have all that is needful, and more. The State is finding money for people who are not engaged in any really substantial business of the country. The State can find, and does find, hundreds of thousands of pounds for those who can put in an idle life. I shall never support that sort of thing by vote or voice. We are sent here to defend those who are defenceless, and to let this Government or any other Government know that, by whatever means they have to find the money, the business of defending these people must be done.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and, 40 Members being present

Although I cannot agree with everything that was said by the, hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), there is one point on which I am in agreement with him, namely, where he expressed some slight inkling of a desire that we should get the best value for the money that we expend. The opinion has been expressed on this side of the House as well that we should face up to the question whether this money could be expended in any better way than it has been expended in the past. There are two points that I should like to raise on this Estimate. The first is a minor point, but I think it warrants raising. It is with regard to the organisation of the Employment Exchanges in administering transitional benefit. I have recently visited some of the Exchanges in my Division and in other areas, and have found that they have had to take on increased staff owing to the larger number of people who are coming on to the register and drawing transitional benefit. In those cases, they have, quite rightly, taken on clerical labour, but in every case I have been told that the specialised work of the Employment Exchange is such that the clerical labour has been of little use for some weeks after being taken on, being unaccustomed to the routine. I should be glad if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, could say whether some scheme of centralised training could not be started forecasting the increase which is going to take place in the register and the approximate requirements of clerical labour in the Exchanges, centralising at some training place the numbers that would be required, and decentralising them into the localities as they are called for. That method would, at any rate, result in a saving of mental labour to the present staff, which is now being absorbed, it must be inefficiently, by their having to carry on tuition duties as well as their present administrative duties.

The second point that I want to raise is in regard to the expenditure on transitional benefit, which is at present granted to people who have not paid 30 contributions during the necessary period, and, consequently, are drawing this transitional benefit. It is, in my opinion, miscalled transitional benefit, because, as has already been remarked, it is really a form of permanent benefit. I am quite sure that hon. Members in all quarters of the House, even below the Gangway, are agreed that, whether the system be a capitalist or a Socialist system, an efficient industry is necessary. It is not for me to argue whether that is to be attained under Capitalism or under Socialism; I consider that it needs no argument, but is self-evident. At any rate, however, if industry is to be efficient, there must be interest and enthusiasm. It has occurred to me, in thinking over this matter, that we could raise our national efficiency by using some of this money which is paid in transitional benefit for the purpose of bringing about an increase of industrial knowledge and education in vocational training.

Probably the curse of modern industry is monotony. The man who, when he is in employment, is constantly driving in rivets or bringing down the drill in a drilling machine, whatever his political views may be, or whatever he may think about the life of this country, has a monotonous and tiring job, and, if his interest could be increased, his monotony relieved, and the scope of his knowledge widened, I think it would result in an increase of industrial efficiency in the long run. I suggest, therefore, that some of this money which is used for transitional benefit might be devoted to a greater educative course for those men who are engaged in vocational training. A man who is engaged in some works boring holes with a drill in pieces of metal, must sometimes wonder why he is doing it except for the purpose of drawing his wage, and, if you could instil into his mind something of the romance of industry, and something of the knowledge that, however small his part may be, he is playing some part in, say, a great shipbuilding industry, building ships which bring trade to this country—

I understand that no part of the money which is voted for transitional benefit is utilised for the purpose of education. The estimate does not say that any money is being asked for educational purposes.

I was enlarging upon that point because the men who are on transitional benefit in certain cases undergo vocational training.

I understand that the Minister says that the money is not for that purpose.

I must bow to your Ruling, but I understood that some of these men were so engaged. I will not pursue that line of argument, but I should like to ask whether, at any rate as regards administration, the money which is being paid could not be used in a more efficient way, because, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley), we are liable to be living in a fool's paradise at the present time, and the very edifice which we consider so safe, and on which we base all our work, our pleasures and our various pursuits, is liable to crash about our heads unless we realise the situation before it is too late. We read in history that Nero fiddled while Rome was burning. Hon. Members opposite have talked a great deal, and filled many columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, without making any contribution to the improvement of the industrial situation of this country. If Nero fiddled while Rome burned, hon. Members have talked while this country was languishing.

There has been an aspect of unreality about this Amend- ment and the speeches which have been made in support of it, because one remembers that nearly all the points which have been raised by hon. Members above the Gangway relate to matters which have been in existence all the time that previous Governments have been in office. It is therefore a little difficult to understand why they should now be made the topic of what is tantamount to a Vote of Censure upon the Ministry of Labour. Some of those speeches appeared to me to disclose little practical acquaintance with the actual work of the Employment Exchanges, particularly in connection with the great industries which we ordinarily term the basic industries.

It has been suggested, as one of the main grounds for this Amendment, that there have been abuses, but, so far as I can understand, all the abuses that have been suggested are abuses arising out of legislation passed by previous Governments. That shows the necessity for remedial legislation, but it is obviously no reason at all for voting for a reduction of services of this character. Moreover, it must not by any means be imagined that all the abuses that have been suggested are on one side. One only needs a small acquaintance with the condition of affairs in the shipbuilding trade, the iron and steel trade, or the cotton trade, in some of which trades 40 per cent. of the operatives are unemployed, to appreciate the manner in which transitional benefit is being worked.

Whereas the "not-genuinely-seeking-work" Clause was abolished a few months ago, it is at the present time, as hon. Members with practical experience of these trades know, really being reintroduced in another form, on the ground that the persons concerned are not normally engaged in insurable work. What has happened has been that, whereas the number of people whose benefit was disallowed on this latter ground before the recent Act was a few scores or hundreds, now the numbers run to scores of thousands, and yet one finds that many of these people have been during the whole of their lives engaged in no other trade than the shipbuilding trade or the iron and steel trade in which they are claiming benefit. Until the recent depression they have never been out of work for a day in their lives, and they are only thrown out of work by reason of the abnormal circumstances of these times. They are engaged in trades where there has never been less, during the depression, than one man in every four unemployed, and where now there are two in every five unemployed. It is obvious, as everyone with practical experience of these trades knows, that it is the men who form part of the regular gangs who are the first taken on, and it is the men who are outside those regular gangs who are only taken on when there is very little unemployment in the trade, and what is happening is that men are being refused benefit on the sole ground that they have not been able to get any work for five years. Although they have never done any work other than in their particular trade; they have maintained registration throughout the whole period; they have never done any uninsurable work of any kind, and they are being turned down by scores of thousands on the mere ground that they are not normally engaged in insurable work. If there are abuses with reference to unemployment relief, matters of that kind are abuses that ought to be remedied at the earliest moment.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention, too, to another feature where men who have been engaged in some of these basic industries all their lives have been unable, because of the serious depression, to get any work, but they are genuine tryers. They want to work. They would rather work than remain idle and "draw the dole and, because they cannot get work in their own trade, they try to get work in some way which happens to be non-insurable work. I have had cases myself where men have been turned down. One man because he tried to get a living by selling hot cakes, and another because he tried to hawk vegetables, and so forth. They are doing that because they are genuine men and want to earn money rather than get it without earning it. They have managed to scrape a living for a little time, but for some reason or another find they can no longer carry it on. Perhaps it does not pay. They apply for unemployment relief, and they are turned down on the ground that they are no longer engaged in insurable work. Those are the real abuses of the unemployment system. I want to ask the Minister if these are matters that are going to occupy the attention of the Commission because, whatever abuser are coming up for consideration, these abuses of transitional benefit are certainly amongst those that ought to receive redress, especially having regard to the very large number of men who are being affected in this way. If the-Minister can give some indication as to what is in the mind of the Government about it, it would be a great relief to the feelings of those who are being affected in this way.

I should like to cite a particular industry to show the necessity for keeping this unemployed fund at a proper figure. I refer particularly to the shipbuilding industry. Let me show how the trade has fallen. According to the "Gazette," in 1920 there were 312,160 men employed in the ship-repairing branch and 14,333 unemployed—a percentage of 4 per cent. In 1929, the number employed had fallen to 152,372 and the number unemployed to 50,423, or 24.8 per cent. In the circumstances, I feel sure that those who are raising objections to this extra money being brought into use ought to recognise that these men are not unemployed through any fault of their own. The shipbuilding trade from 1920 has decreased year by year. It has been: harder hit than any other. In the Boilermaker's Union alone there are 19,264 men unemployed. Many of them constitute the group that this money is meant to help. They have been walking about for one, two or three years. They are adapted only to one particular industry and cannot fit into any other. They have failed to get the necessary qualification and have been going to the Poor Law. During the War, these men who are suffering so much rendered very great service to the country during very trying times. Continental Governments are taking an interest in their shipbuilding to the extent of subsidising it, and taxing repairs done in this country. If that is being done abroad, surely these men ought to be assured of maintenance to keep body and soul together until shipbuilding revives. I should like to say to hon. Members opposite who are prolonging the debate that their opposition to the increased amount of money that is necessary to keep body and soul together for these unfortunate people ought to be withdrawn and we should be allowed to get to more useful business.

I can assure the hon. Member that we have no intention of prolonging the debate for the sake of talking. We have an agreement as to the length of time the debate is to occupy. No one can say the speeches have been either over-long or have been made for the sake of talking. We have had a most interesting debate on the whole subject during the last few days. Yesterday week we discussed the financial side of the unemployment insurance system, yesterday we were able to go a little more fully into some of our objections on this side, and to-day we are turning our attention particularly to transitional benefit. I have been present at all these debates and I was present at most of the unemployment debates during the last Parliament, and what struck me particularly, as it must have struck most people who have been listening, is that there is a general body of opinion that feels that the present system is not by any means perfect, and we are trying gradually to evolve a better one. I do not think anyone could say that coming, as we have on the last two occasions, for a loan of £10,000,000 and coming, as we are on this occasion, to pass a lump sum of another £10,500,000 is really a satisfactory way of dealing with the unemployment problem.

It must have made everyone feel a little sad to think that the Minister estimated only a short while ago for a number of 180,000, and at present she estimates the number to be covered to be 350,000. She talked about wise and careful administration. I know that the administration of her Department is as good as you could get anywhere, but I do not think the Bill they passed last Session, some of the results of which are seen in this Supplementary Estimate, is such as to allow of wise and careful administration. It also makes one think, when we have a Supplementary Estimate of this enormous size brought forward, how futile have been the efforts of the present Government to find work, and it makes one wonder if they themselves are not coming to the conclusion that the whole of their policy in regard to unemployment is radically wrong, because Supplementary Estimates of this size have not aften been brought forward by Governments, and it makes one realise that the growth of the unemployment figure is such as has never been witnessed before. I believe there is a general feeling in the Committee that some alteration must be made and the question is: How are we going to set about it? We are moving our Amendment because we want to force the Government to act. They have had a long time and they have done nothing. It is only to-day that we have heard who the personnel of the Royal Commission are to be. Time does not stand still, and in the meantime millions of money are being poured out on what we are all agreed is not an entirely satisfactory system.

I should like to try to analyse the position as regards transitional benefit. When we talk about unemployment insurance, we must realise that the people affected really fall into three categories only. First of all, there are those who are genuinely on the fund. Those we dealt with at some length during the last two days' debate. Then we have a second category of people dealt with under this Estimate who are called transitional. They are the same people. First of all, we gave the name of "un-covenanted benefit," which we later changed to "extended benefit," but all these three words "uncovenanted," "extended" and "transitional" mean the same thing, that is, people on the fund who have not fully paid up their contributions. We have a third category of persons whom we must consider in dealing with transitional cases. They are the persons who obtain relief from the public assistance committees. I want the Committee to realise that there are a number of people at the present moment who fall out of benefit for one reason or another and have to seek Poor Law relief. That is admitted, and, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, it is not for us to discuss here. It is extremely difficult to draw the line as to the difference between a person on transitional benefit, that is to say, not fully paid up, and a person who, through no fault of his own, is now receiving relief from the public assistance committees. I could not understand the sincere argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) when he ob- jected most strongly to any idea that a person should go out of the present transitional category into what he called the poor relief categary. I entirely agree with him as to the Poor Law stigma.

Is it not possible, when you have the present arrangement in which some men are on transitional benefit and some are under the Poor Law, and there does not seem to be any dividing line between them, somehow to devise a scheme by which a greater number can come under what I may call a national relief scheme? I think that it is generally agreed—I tried to prove it when I spoke on the Financial Resolution to the Bill—that it is possible to have a completely watertight Unemployment Insurance Fund which is going to be solvent provided you stick rigidly to the insurance principle. When unemployment insurance started the fund remained solvent until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the Coalition Government brought in uncovenanted benefit as long ago as 1922. It is possible to have a completely solvent unemployment insurance scheme by which people can pay their contributions and in return draw their benefit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Show us how!"] If the hon. Member will look back upon the financial history of the scheme, he will agree that it is possible. I am now trying to show whether it is not possible to form some special category of the people who are at present on transitional benefit and others who are receiving Poor Law relief; to put them together and form a complete new category under a national relief scheme.

Because I think it is a much sounder way of doing it. It is no use hon. Members opposite becoming indignant. I think that most hon. Members on both sides of the House will come to the conclusion sooner or later that that must be done.

If we have a national relief scheme for people who are not entitled through their contributions to benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, there must be no Poor Law stigma about it at all. It must be a national relief scheme. It is no use pretending that anybody who is not paid up does not come under a relief scheme. [An HON. MEMBER: "A rose by another name!"] At the present moment the situation, as hon. Members opposite say, is not a satisfactory one-as far as they are concerned. If any member comes for unemployment insurance, either transitional or ordinary insurance, and he is not paid up, he has to go to the Poor Law, and that is the sort of thing that we want to see abolished. I believe that a scheme such as that which I have suggested will have to be brought about, and I should not be surprised if it was brought about by hon. Members opposite. We shall have to see to it that such a scheme is properly administered. I do not think that it will be possible to administer it by means of the public assistance committees. It will have to be administered in some other way. It will have to be strictly administered. I do' not believe, if it is to be a national relief scheme, that you will be able to avoid having some kind of inquiry into means. [ Interruption .] Hon. Members opposite seem to have an idea that I wish to put everybody on to Poor Law relief.

What is the difference-between an inquisition under a scheme such as that which the hon. and gallant Member is now suggesting and an inquisition by the public assistance committees?

There is a great deal of difference. If you have, in a national emergency, a scheme of national relief, it will be something entirely different from the present Poor Law, and particularly from the Poor Law of the past, which had a sort of stigma about it. In the past a person on the Poor Law was practically admitted to be down and out. We do not want that sort of thing. I am going to say another thing which will probably be unpalatable. In the second category you will have to see to it that if a suitable job is available for the recipient of national relief, even if it is not in his or her normal line of work, he or she must take it. Only in that way can you make a national relief scheme watertight and one which a country like ours would not be ashamed of administering.

The details will have to be worked out. Personally, I have had five years in the Army, and I am not ashamed of it. We cannot solve this problem—and all sides regard it as a very weighty problem—by refusing to face the facts. It is no use pretending that benefit without any qualification is not some form of relief. If we admit that it is a form of relief, we must introduce some satisfactory machinery for carrying out the relief. I think that the whole Committee are agreed that it is not satisfactory at the present moment to have these big supplementary Estimates and the system of loans such as we have had during the past week. This is the reason why we are moving this Amendment. The Government really know what there is to know on this subject. There is no necessity for them to set up a Royal Commission. They have had the Blanesburgh report, the Morris report on a different aspect of the situation, and the report—which this Committee have not had—of the three-party committee which sat in the summer. Delay will only make matters worse. I therefore hope that the Committee will support the reduction in the Vote which has been moved from the Front Bench in order to force the Government to take speedy and very necessary action.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson) suggests that the people who are on transitional benefit or on relief from the public assistance committees should be cut away entirely from the unemployment scheme and put into a category by themselves. Money, he suggests, has to be found from some other source than the Unemployment Insurance Fund in order to keep these classes of persons. It is obvious that the money must come from a similar source if the scheme is to be a national scheme. I assume that under his proposed system the hon. and gallant Member would pay the same benefits as those which are paid under unemployment insurance. What are the advantages of transferring persons from one category to another if you are going to pay the same benefits?

I do not want there to be any mistake about the position. I said that the administration would have to be carefully considered and that probably we should have to have some means test.

It would be a Poor Law system. I wish to point out that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would compel people, who through no fault of their own had been continuously unemployed for a certain period, to go into a category where they would find it more difficult to obtain employment. If he were an employer and a man came to him who had only been out of work five weeks and another man came to him who had been out of work two years, to whom would he give a job? He would not show his patriotism on behalf of the man who had been out of work for two years and give him the preference of a job, but he would put him into a special category.

At the present moment an employer knows exactly how long a man has been out of work if the man is on transitional or ordinary relief, and will probably take the man who has been out of work for the shorter time because he is more skilled. I do not think that in that respect there is any difference in my scheme compared with the existing scheme.

The man would not be in anything like the same position under the scheme suggested. Obviously, he would not be carrying the same kind of insurance card or credentials as a person on the Insurance Fund. At the present moment, men of 65 are notified of the fact that they are entitled to the Old Age Pension, and they are given a different form of card at the Employment Exchange. It is impossible for any man to live upon 10s. a week. Immediately such a man applies for a job and shows his differently coloured card his chances of getting a job of any kind are lessened by 95 per cent. Old men have come to me, as I have no doubt they have come to other hon. Members, and said, "How can I live on this?" We may say, "Cannot you find an odd job?" and they will say "How can I? look at his card. It marks me as being 65, and, if I get a job, I shall be exploited to the extent of 10s. by an unscrupulous employer." You are going to create a similar anomaly in respect of the proposed new category.

I do not know how a change of category would affect the position. The hon. Member has not made it clear. I can understand that a long period of unemployment diminishes the chance of re-employment, but I cannot understand how the position can be changed by merely shifting from one category to another.

If you take a man off the Insurance Fund and put him on to a national fund, you will take away his right to his card. The man goes to the Employment Exchange and is put upon a different scheme and upon a different basis altogether. As soon as he applies for another job an employer will know whether he has been out of employment for a few weeks or for a longer period. It may be that certain classes in the community are not bearing their share of unemployment insurance. It may be that an employer who gives employment to 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 people and gets a moderate income of a few thousand a year has to pay a larger contribution than the man with an income of £10,000 or £12,000 a year employing a few clerks on the Stock Exchange. That is not the way to remedy the injustice. Certain classes of the community, certain employers, are carrying a bigger burden than they ought to carry in respect of the wealth which they get out of the community. Some employ a few number of employ—s and pay a small contribution to the fund. They get far more wealth out of the country than those who employ larger numbers of men in the basic industries.

I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a simple matter which I hope he will be able to deal with during the year. There is a process at some Exchanges by which the management is farmed out; that is the only word that can be used. The sub-manager is given a certain amount of money for the work of the Exchange calculated on the amount of unemployment and as unemployment increases or de- creases clerks are taken on and dismissed as they are needed. If the sub-manager is a kindhearted fellow and does not like to dismiss his clerks, he may get into a deficit at the end of the quarter; he may lose money by trying to keep his office up to standard and his clerks in employment. If he imagines that there is going to be a rise in unemployment in his neighbourhood, he may say that he will hold on to the staff he has got and pay them their wages. He may make a mistake. Unemployment may go down, and the Exchange will be carrying a larger clerical staff than provided for in the quota. As a result of this, men are dismissed and taken on as they are required, and it may happen that by the time the sub-manager requires the services of a clerk he cannot get a trained man, and so efficiency is lost. It would be better if clerks were given to the Exchanges after they have had a certain amount of training and the grant paid upon the number employed. The quota should be submitted at the end of the quarter rather than at the beginning and a definite amount paid according to the number of people on the Exchange over a particular period. That is a simple piece of administration which might be attended to. In reply to a question the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the grant given to a sub-manager permits him to allow a clerk in continuous employment an annual increase, and that if it is not being done it is a question for the administration of the Exchange and the Minister has no right to interfere. There is some discrepancy here. In some areas the sub-manager makes allowances for an annual increase, in other cases he makes no such allowances at all. You have clerks after three years' service getting an annual income in certain areas, but in other areas no increment at all. Then again, a clerk must be employed at the highest rate of wages for that class of labour in the neighbourhood, but there should be a little more inquiry into the rates paid in order to see whether they are actually in all cases the highest rates for clerical labour in the district. With a little more thought and skill the process of farming out could be avoided, and a grant made on the quarter's actual unemployment, which would cover not only the expenses of administration but regulate the supply of clerks, give them some training before they are taken on, and also make some provision for an annual increment.

I desire to raise only one point, referred to in the speech of the Minister of Labour last night, and that is the very small proportion of jobs which are actually booked at the Exchanges. I suppose that 80 per cent. of employers, when they are looking for a man, go to other places than the Exchanges. That is obviously a very regrettable occurrence. The purpose of the Exchanges is to find unemployed men jobs, but I am afraid, owing to the burden of unemployment, that they have degenerated into institutions for the payment of benefits. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government could devise some method by which employers would naturally look to the Exchanges for supplying vacancies. Three methods occur to me. In the first place, is it not possible by a system of advertising locally to inform employers that when they go to the Exchanges every facility would be put in their way and that they will have a better service than is the case at present? In the second place, it very often happens that when an employer goes to the Exchange there are several hundreds, perhaps thousands, of men standing around looking very despondent, and he turns away and goes elsewhere.

Is it not possible to separate the office which pays the benefit from the office which finds work. It may be possible to have a room somewhere near, connected by telephone, so that an employer would not find his entrance to the office barred by hundreds and thousands of men, and where he could meet a skilled official and arrange for an interview with the men of the kind he requires. In my own constituency the Exchange building is so inadequate that there are hundreds standing in the streets. An employer in these circumstances thinks he can do far better by advertising or by getting men recommended by those who are already in his employ. I hope the Minister will be able to do something to increase the proportion of vacancies which are filled through the Exchanges, as it would remedy very much the deplorable state of things which exists to-day. In the third place, I should like to know whether the Minister has taken a survey of the present accommodation in Employment Exchanges. If he does he will come to the conclusion that they are very inadequate. We have tried to get new accommodation in my own constituency for years past but apparently we shall not be able to do so until next year. After all, the building of Employment Exchanges gives employment to scores if not hundreds of the very men for whom you are trying to find employment—those in the building trade, and if you treat this question as part of an employment scheme surely the building of these necessary Exchanges where they are very inadequate should be taken in hand at once by the Minister.

It has been arranged that the debate on this Vote shall conclude somewhere about this time and, therefore, I apologise in intervening between other hon. Members who wish to take part in the discussion. I wish the rules of order allowed me to go into detail as to the work that has been done by the Ministry during the past 12 or 18 months in reply to the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare). He asks whether there has been any survey of the Exchanges. There has been a survey, and, not only that, the buildings have been placed in their various categories. If it was possible I could give the hon. Member a detailed account of the actual changes which have been made. New Exchanges have been opened and other Exchanges have been altered and adapted, to such an extent that all will agree that a great deal has been done in this respect, although the Ministry realise that the situation is far from satisfactory even now. The First Commissioner of Works has not only been extremely generous but also very zealous in expediting these changes and alterations. The hon. Member also remarked that the Exchanges have really become places where benefits are paid rather than vacancies filled. A closer knowledge of the facts would I think surprise him. The rate of notification through the Exchange which is voluntary, is rapidly developing. As a matter of fact, great numbers of em- ployers have definitely agreed to engage their labour only through the Employment Exchanges.

Is it not true that the proportion of vacancies filled through the Exchanges is only about 20 per cent.?

The point to note is the rapid development of placings through the Exchanges. Inside the last 2 years it has risen from something like 1,250,000 to well over 1,500,000. That may not be surprising in view of the larger number of notifications, but considerable attention has been given to this work and the Minister is concentrating upon it in such a way that we may expect a great improvement in that respect. The alterations in the 1930 Act have rather helped us in that direction. The hon. Member for East Newcastle (Sir It. Aske) asked whether certain abuses, which he mentioned, would be dealt with by the Royal Commission. I think the terms of reference are wide enough and I am quite sure that interested parties will see that evidence on these matters is given.

Will these points, which are obviously urgent, be included in the interim report?

7.0 P.M.

I cannot say whether they will be included in the interim report, but I am quite sure that hon. Members will see that they are not neglected. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) also dealt with questions of administration at the Exchanges. No doubt sometimes, when there is a rush of work, extra clerks are needed. He, therefore, suggested that there should be means taken to train men so that the Department might have a reserve for that purpose. I can assure him that this difficulty of supplying the necessary clerical labour at the Exchanges, particularly when there is an increase of work, is a very serious one for the Ministry. All I can say is that we are conditioned by circumstances beyond our control in securing the kind of clerical help that we want, sometimes by conditions laid down by the House of Commons in previous years, but the suggestion which he made will be noted.

The money the Government is asking for to-day is on behalf of the people who are in the transitional class. One would have thought from the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman, who opened the debate for the Opposition, that the transitional class really began when this Government came into office. As a matter of fact, under one form or another and under one name or another, large masses of people have been in the transitional class for the last 10 years, though not always the same people. They have been called the uncovenanted class and by various other names. The late Government made up their mind that they were going to have a definite transitional system and, in passing their Act, they said that there were certain people who had not got the 30 stamps and could not possibly be covered by insurance under the present system but whom it was necessary should be carried, at any rate for a time. The general line taken was that their position would be under consideration for a year, and they were to be in the transitional class for a year. When that year was up, the Government said that they would give them another year, and so they kept on and carried these men and women in that way for two years and for three years.

Now they ask us why we are not dealing finally with the position of these people after 12 or 18 months. If the right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been on this side, it would have been interesting to have seen what would have happened to the transition period in this state of trade. There is no doubt what would have happened. The present Government, however, for the first time in the history of the question, said: "We will accept national responsibility for these people. It is not merely a matter of transition, of drifting along, and of trying to get rid of them somehow, but we will directly accept national responsibility for them." One of the interesting things which has happened during the past two days' debate is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have agreed for the first time that there there should be national responsibility for the people who are outside insurance. That is a very great advance indeed, because I have seen statements in the Press by the party leaders and by representative people on platforms out- side, which have not been repeated in this House, but which are quite different. [ Interruption .] I am going to give an example of the kind of thing I mean. I have here a quotation from the "Observer" of 25th November this year. [ Interruption .] Do not right hon. Gentlemen accept the "Observer" as Conservative?

That may be so or not, but that is a matter which is dealt with by the courts of referees, which include representatives of both the workers and the employers. The position, as far as the local authorities are concerned, is quite clear. They have been relieved of a great burden because of the very definite policy of the Government in reference to these people. Every Member here knows that industry in those localities has been eased of a great burden as a result. The policy which the Gov- ernment have pursued of accepting national responsibility for the people who are outside insurance has been of greater value in lessening the rates upon industry than the De-rating Act.

Who are the transitional claimants? The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) gave a very graphic description of them in a very powerful speech. There are people outside the House who have nothing very good to say about the unemployed, but every Member here knows very well that the great mass of these men who are on the transition list are men of the finest skill and experience, and that hon. Members themselves very often, if they had to choose between these men and the younger men, would take the older men because of their skill and experience. I myself have often wondered why, in collieries with which I am familiar, men were turned down because they were 50 or 55 and the preference given to younger men. My experience in ordinary industrial work is that age in these matters is no real test at all, but we know that it is a factor in the industrial market. While the Government on behalf of the nation has accepted responsibility for these people in the transition class, and assuming that their conditions and standards remain as they are at the present time, is the present position really satisfactory? I submit from my experience that it is not. There are many of these men who, if specialist treatment were given, could often vie and compete in the market outside with the younger men against whom at the present time they have no chance. In my own experience—and I have intimate knowledge—

Will my hon. Friend explain that interesting point he made just now when he said that, if the men got specialist treatment, they could compete with younger men?

Yes. In my own experience, I have had cases of men of 50 and 55 who have put it to me that they have no right to be deprived of possible opportunities of getting work in different parts of the country and of the opportunities which younger men have for training and transfer. In one or two cases I am glad to say that I succeeded, by personal correspondence and in view of the generosity of the particular employers, in enabling them to go to another part of the country to be settled. These single men sometimes feel hopeless, because there is not the same opportunity for them to be moved to another part of the country. I am referring to some kind of training for the older men to keep their skill; not only that, but there should be some way by which the nation itself can give special consideration to the placing of these men in employment.

I do not want to make comparisons, but this country would be very much surprised at the work done in trying to meet the needs of very badly disabled soldiers. I was myself a member of a Select Committee nine or 10 years ago, and one of the saddest and most appalling problems which I have ever had to face was that of how to get a great mass of disabled and very badly disabled men fitted into industry. There was set up what is known as the King's Roll. We all know what has been accomplished by that means. These men were not able to compete on equal terms, but, by giving special consideration to their special circumstances amazing work has been done in weaving and bringing them back into industry. The younger man gets some sort of training, and I think the elderly single man, who has been disciplined in a very stern school indeed and to whom it is a very great pain indeed to be unemployed, would respond to such training if special consideration were given to him.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have moved a reduction of this Vote. I do not know whether they are going to carry their Amendment to a Division or not, but I should hardly think that they will. [HON. MEMBERS: "They will!"] I am told that they will do so and I am very much surprised because if such a vote did result in the defeat of the Government, it would mean that a great mass of men who are getting transitional benefit would be affected, even within a week or two, and I can hardly think that hon. Gentlemen opposite mean that.

Is the hon. Gentleman right in saying that if there was a reduction of the Vote those who would otherwise get transitional benefit would be debarred from getting it within a week or two? Does he accuse us of seeking to stop such men from getting benefit?

The right hon. Gentleman knows the financial position of the fund and the financial position in relation to the transition stage, and he knows that a sum of £1,000,000 less in this Vote would certainly affect great masses of people and that, apart from anything else, it would have an effect upon the policy of the Government.

I understood the Minister to accuse us, in effect, of trying to stop transitional benefit for a great number of men within the next week or two, and I now ask him quite distinctly what difference would a sum of £1,000,000 make? Transitional benefit would still be carried on until well over Christmas, and the only result would be that the House of Commons would have a chance of reviewing this matter.

I know that the usual method has been to move to reduce a Vote by £100, but apparently hon. Gentlemen opposite are more zealous in that respect when they are dealing with the unemployed, and they want to reduce the Vote by £1,000,000. I ask the Committee now to come to a decision. We have had two and a half days discussion already on these matters, and I think that hon. Members should now be prepared to come to a decision upon this Vote.

We have all been interested in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but if I understand the figures given earlier by the Minister, the effect of a reduction of this Vote would be to compel the Government to come back to the House of Commons about two and a half weeks earlier than would otherwise be the case. They would be enabled to carry on for a number of weeks, but they would be compelled to take the opinion of the House of Commons rather earlier than if they were given the whole sum of £10.500,000. I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady want to put off as long as possible the evil day of facing the House of Commons again on this matter, and, while I am always overwhelmed by the charm of both of them in listening to their speeches, I cannot but realise what a sad hash they have made of the already bad case which the Government had to present on this matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the very excel- lent cases put forward by Members of the Liberal party in regard to the question of abuses, but I may point out to Members of the Liberal party that, when he came to deliver the goods, all the hon. Gentleman offered was a Royal Commission. The whole trouble with this Government is that they are always trying to get someone else to think for them and to do their work for them.

The Government appear to be quite incapable of thinking out a way of dealing with these abuses. They tell us that they know much more about the question than any ordinary Conservative Member. Why could they not have brought in a Bill to deal with some of these abuse and to save us some of the appalling expenditure with which we are now confronted? It is now almost common form with the Government to deal with everything by means of a Royal Commission, and doubtless we shall shortly arrive at a time when the Prime Minister will come down here with great pomp and dignity and announce that he is going to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the results of all the other Royal Commissions which he has appointed. That is the type of thing which would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's mind, and it is the sort of body which he would like to preside over himself, instead of some of the futile conferences in which he is usually engaged. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I do not know that I have said anything which should particularly offend hon. Members opposite.

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to refer to the Indian Conference and the Imperial Conference as futile conferences?

There is no point of Order. I am not responsible for the hon. Member's opinions on these matters.

On a point of Order. I remember when an hon. Friend of mine here was very seriously brought to book by the House because he used phraseology which, it was said, was calculated to bring the House of Commons into contempt. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to use language which would tend to bring into contempt the Indian Conference now sitting?

For any expressions of opinion by hon. Members, unless those expressions violate the Rules, they and they alone are responsible.

As my hon. Friends opposite who are now seeking to defend the Government—

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my sentence. He has had one whack at me. Will he let me have one whack at him? I withdraw any suggestion about tactics which might hurt the hon. Gentleman opposite and I will qualify my statement about the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in order to appease his very loyal and able supporters on the other side. I will confine my statement to the conferences already concluded, and I will deliberately exclude the present conference, with which I shall deal on some future occasion.

The hon. Member has not withdrawn his charge about my defence of the Government.

The hon. Member is now going into matters which have nothing to do with this Vote.

I would not have referred to these matters but for the interruptions from hon. Members opposite. I was about to deal with the question of the transitional period. I do not think that the Government have taken any steps towards helping to solve the problem by doing what the Parliamentary Secretary described as "accepting national responsibility" for the transitional period. I do not think that it is a good policy. I do not think that it has helped employment and I do not think that it has helped the financial position of the fund. It has definitely made it more difficult to get the people with whom we are dealing back to work. Certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on my own side of the Committee seem to imagine that it would be a good thing to divide the unemployed into two sections.

I have the same natural dislike to the Poor Law administration and anything connected with it, as hon. Members opposite. I do not think that that is a matter about which we need quarrel. But the insurance system as it has been worked in this country has seen us through a good many difficulties and we shall need to be very certain of our ground before doing anything to divide these people into two classes—those who are genuinely insured and those for whom a separate national system is provided. I agree with some of what hon. Gentlemen opposite have said in that respect. Once you divide these men into two categories, you indicate that in one category are men who have been able to hold down their jobs for long periods, while in the other category are men who have been unfortunate in getting work. There is the problem that in certain trades there are large blocks of unemployed and it seems almost impossible to reabsorb them into their own trades and employments.

I am afraid that the hon. Member is as irrelevant as usual. The argument which I am endeavouring to get into the heads of hon. Members opposite—and I am not sure that I ought not to try to convert some of the Members on this side also, is quite simple. Take the 200,000 men belonging to the coal industry who are unlikely to get back to work. If you label these men as a particular type of miners who have been out of work for two, three or four years, you are making it almost impossible for them to get back into the mining industry. You are definitely segregating them as men who have come from very bad districts, or who have been particularly unfortunate. I hope that some of the rather kindly-disposed people on my own side will definitely abandon the idea of segregating any section of the unemployed in that way.

The real method of dealing with these people has been pointed out. Perhaps I may have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is so very rarely that I pay a compliment to any Member on the Treasury Bench, that, when I do so, they might do me the courtesy of listening. During his speech the Parliamentary Secretary made one sensible remark and that was when he copied something from his predecessors. He said that a great deal could be effected by training men and helping them to adjust themselves to other forms of industry where they might have better chances of employment. That is a helpful suggestion and my object in intervening is to point out that the provision of money which we are now being asked to make, is the best way of putting more people out of work. The Minister pointed out that, by a curious circumstance, the sum of money now asked for was not as big as it might have been and that £1,000,000 has been taken off the total sum, because the Government contributions towards ordinary benefit have been decreased owing to the fact that a larger number of people are unemployed. In spite of the fact that that is a smaller sum than we might have had to pay, there is an actual contribution of one-third from the Government and that £1,000,000 represents a very much larger sum than there would have been under normal conditions. [ Interruption .] An hon. Member from the Clydeside thinks I need a watch, but he would be very much better employed in working quietly with his own party than in interrupting me and much better employed in getting his own Prime Minister to attend debates in the House of Commons. To return to the matter of finance, I do not wish to strain his patience. [ Interruption .] We are dealing with matters affecting the taxpayers of this country, and thanks, not to the Government but to a pure question of the cost of administration, they are not paying as much as they might have had to do, in spite of the fact that they have needlessly and wastefully raised their contribution to one-third. [ Interruption .] The Minister pointed out that under Subhead A there was a sum of £750,000 which was later cancelled out by a sum of the same amount. [ Interruption .] I wish hon. Members below the Gangway took the same interest in the debates as I do. Let me tell them that, owing to the Appropriations-in-Aid, the amount recoverable from the Unemployment Fund in respect of the unemployment insurance was expected—this Government never knows anything, but it expects 'a great deal—owing to the increase in the number of unemployed, to exceed the original sum.

That is what the subhead says, and the Government have absolutely no knowledge of why they are paying these figures. They have drawn up a nice little sheet of figures, quite inaccurate, without going into them, and, as time goes on, they will have to be amended, and, when we next come to this Estimate, we shall find that, as far as the Government themselves 'are concerned, it will be quite wrong and inadequate.

The only other point I wish to raise is really the most important one of all: Whether it is going in any way to help people to get work and if it is going to be any benefit to the taxpayer. As far as training schemes are concerned, the Government have shown themselves quite incapable of saying what they mean. Representing, as we are supposed to do in this Committee, the interest of the tax-

payer, we must recognise that he has a colossal burden, and we are asked to add to it, realising that this sum is not going to add one iota of benefit to the country in any respect. All it does— [ Interruption .]

Whistling in the House is an offence, and, if the hon. Member repeats it, I shall have to ask him to leave the House.

All this Bill does is to add to the sum of people out of work in this country, and it shows the hopeless incompetence of the Government, which is only natural when we see that incompetence personified on the Front Bench.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,500,000, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 274.

Division No. 57.]

AYES.

[7.40 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Grace, John

Ainsworth, Lieut. -Col. Charles

Chapman, Sir S.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Albery, Irving James

Christie, J. A.

Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.

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

Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Astor, Viscountess

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Atholl, Duchess of

Colfox, Major William Philip

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

Atkinson, C.

Colman, N. C. D.

Hamilton. Sir George (Ilford)

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Colville, Major D. J.

Hammersley, S. S.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Balniel, Lord

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Haslam, Henry C.

Beamish. Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

Beaumont, M. W.

Crookshank, Cpt.H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Croom-Johnson. R. P.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Berry, Sir George

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

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

Bird, Ernest Roy

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Boothby, R. J. G.

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

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

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

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Dawson, Sir Philip

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

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Dixey, A. C.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Boyce, H. L.

Dixon. Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Hurd, Percy A.

Bracken, B.

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Duqdale, Capt. T. L.

Iveagh, Countess of

Brass, Captain Sir William

Eden, Captain Anthony

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

Briscoe, Richard George

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

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

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Knox, Sir Alfred

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

England, Colonel A.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Buchan, John

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

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Ferguson, Sir John

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Butler, R. A.

Fermoy, Lord

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Butt, Sir Alfred

Fielden, E. B.

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

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Campbell, E. T.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Carver, Major W. H.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Ganzonl, Sir John

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Marjoribanks, Edward

Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Meller, R. J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.)

Gower, Sir Robert

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Mond, Hon. Henry

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

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

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

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

Ross, Major Ronald D.

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

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Thomson, Sir F.

Muirhead, A. J.

Salmon, Major I.

Tinne, J. A.

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Todd, Capt. A. J.

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

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Train, J.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

O'Connor, T. J.

Savery, S. S.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Oman. Sir Charles William C.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

O'Neill, Sir H.

Simms, Major-General J.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Skelton, A. N.

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wells, Sydney R.

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Smithers, Waldron

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Power, Sir John Cecil

Somerset, Thomas

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Purbrick, R.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Ramsbotham, H.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Rawson, sir Cooper

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Remer, John R.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.

NOES.

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

Day, Harry

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Isaacs, George

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Dukes, C.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Duncan, Charles

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Alpass, J. H.

Ede, James Chuter

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Ammon, Charles George

Edmunds, J. E.

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

Angell, Norman

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Arnott, John

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Aske, Sir Robert

Egan, W. H.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Elmley, Viscount

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Ayles, Walter

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Foot, Isaac

Kelly, W. T.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Kennedy, Thomas

Barnes, Alfred John

Freeman, Peter

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

Barr, James

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

Kinley, J.

Batey, Joseph

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Kirkwood, D.

Bellamy, Albert

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Knight, Holford

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Gill, T. H.

Lang, Gordon

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

Glassey, A. E.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Gossling, A. G.

Lathan, G.

Benson, G.

Gould, F.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Bentham. Dr. Ethel

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

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

Lawrence, Susan

Blindell, James

Granville. E.

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Bowen, J. W.

Gray, Milner

Lawson, John James

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Broad, Francis Alfred

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Leach, W.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Bromfield, William

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Bromley. J.

Groves, Thomas E.

Lees, J.

Brooke, W.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Brothers, M.

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

Lloyd, C. Ellis

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

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Logan, David Gilbert

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Longbottom, A. W.

Buchanan, G.

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

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Burgess, F. G.

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Lowth, Thomas

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

Harbord, A.

Lunn, William

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Hardie, George D.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Cameron, A. G.

Harris, Percy A.

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

Cape, Thomas

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

McElwee, A.

Charleton, H. C.

Haycock, A. W.

McEntee, V. L.

Chater, Daniel

Hayday, Arthur

McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Church, Major A. G.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

McKinlay, A.

Clarke, J. S.

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

MacLaren, Andrew

Cluse, W. S.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Compton. Joseph

Herriotts, J.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Cove, William G.

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

McShane, John James

Cowan, D. M.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

Daggar, George

Hoffman, P. C.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Dallaz, George

Hollins, A.

Mansfield, W.

Dalton, Hugh

Hopkin, Daniel

March, S.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Horrabin, J. F.

Marcus, M.

Markham, S. F.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Marley, J.

Raynes, W. R.

Sorensen, R.

Marshall, Fred

Richards, R.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Mathers, George

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Stephen, Campbell

Matters, L. W.

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Maxton, James

Ritson, J.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Messer, Fred

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

Strauss, G. R.

Milner, Major J.

Romeril, H. G.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoin)

Montague, Frederick

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

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

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Rowson, Guy

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

Morley, Ralph

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Thurtie, Ernest

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Tillett, Ben

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

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

Tinker, John Joseph

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Toole, Joseph

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Sanders, W. S.

Tout, W. J.

Mort, D. L.

Sandham, E.

Townend, A. E.

Moses, J. J. H.

Sawyer, G. F.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

Scott, James

Viant, S. P.

Muff, G.

Scrymgeour, E.

Walker, J.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Scurr, John

Wallace, H. W.

Naylor, T. E.

Sexton, James

Watkins, F. C.

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

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Wellock, Wilfred

Oldfield, J. R.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Sherwood, G. H.

West. F. R.

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

Shield, George William

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Shiels. Dr. Drummond

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Paling, Wilfrid

Shillaker, J. F.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Palmer, E. T.

Shinwell, E.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Simmons, C. J.

Williams Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

Perry, S. F.

Sinkinson, George

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.

Sitch, Charles H.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Pole, Major D. G.

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Potts, John S.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Price, M. P.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Pybus. Percy John

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Quibell, D. J. K.

Snell, Harry

Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Ways and Means

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the Thirty-first day of March, 1931, the sum of £10,500,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence. ]

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Unemployment Insurance Bill

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Thursday.

East Africa (Native Policy)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [ Mr. T. Kennedy. ]

I rise to deal with certain matters which have attracted little interest or attention in this country, but which are of considerable moment in Africa and which if not wisely handled by His Majesty's Government and by other interests involved are likely to lead to the most calamitous results. Before dealing particularly with one of these events, I desire to revert to a question which I raised on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House some three weeks ago, concerning a proposal for a conference to consider the amalgamation of the two Rhodesias. As was announced by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to the House at the beginning of October last a telegram was sent home by the Government of Southern Rhodesia asking His Majesty's Government in Great Britain if they would consent to a conference in order to discuss the question of the amalgamation of Northern and Southern Rhodesia. That telegram followed certain events to which refer- ence was made in the debate in question, and to which I do not wish to refer in detail to-night.

The answer which was given by the Under-Secretary of State on that occasion, 18th November, was that His Majesty's Government had replied to the Southern Rhodesia Government to the effect that the matter would be given full consideration. I pressed the hon. Member to let me know the decision as soon as possible. I now ask him whether any decision has yet been reached by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain. I suggest that if the Government of Southern Rhodesia desire a conference and if any considerable body of opinion among the European inhabitants in Northern Rhodesia also wish for a conference between the two Rhodesias on this subject, His Majesty's Government cannot refuse to be a party to it.

8.0 p.m.

I would like to give my reasons for holding that view. What is the position in regard to the two Rhodesias? In the first place, the frontiers of the two Rhodesias are co-terminous, the southern frontier of Northern Rhodesia and the northern frontier of Southern Rhodesia run together many hundreds of miles along the Zambesi River. In the second place, they have the same railway system; you pass from Southern to Northern Rhodesia without changing trains. But perhaps, most important of all, many European inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia have come from Southern Rhodesia where there is responsible government in the one case and no responsible government of any kind in the other. But that is not the end of my argument. Northern Rhodesia is developing more rapidly commercially and industrially than any similar colony at the present time. Large numbers of European emigrants, many of them trade unionists, have been going into the country for some time and are going in at the present time.

The actual immigration of Europeans in the last few months has been between 300 and 400 a month, which is greater than in Southern Rhodesia. The European population in that territory has more than doubled in eight or 10 years. All those facts show the importance of the question of the future status and constitution of Northern Rhodesia and the importance of the question of whether or not there will be amalgamation with Southern Rhodesia. I express no view as to whether amalgamation is or is not desirable at the present time. What I do say is that the Colonial Office and the British Government cannot ignore the facts I have cited. They have to be prepared to discuss matters with the European peoples of Northern and Southern Rhodesia through their representatives, and they have to state the Government's view as to the future of Northern Rhodesia. No one in any part of the House will dispute that you cannot indefinitely deprive British subjects of European descent abroad or at home of the right to control their own affairs, subject of course to the reservation of native African rights. You cannot do that in a territory when next door is a small colony which enjoys responsible government.

It is true that the Government here may insist on a certain figure of European population before anything is done, but they cannot adopt the merely negative attitude without violating a principle which has actuated this House in dealing with British settlement oversea ever since the American Revolution. If any Government did violate that principle, Northern Rhodesia would be fully entitled to petition both the League of Nations and the self-governing Dominions for sympathy and help, and it is quite certain that public opinion would force the Government to yield to their representations. All I ask the Government to do is to give us an assurance, if they are not able to announce their decision, that the decision will be announced at an early date and that they will tell us when that date is likely to be. It is now more than two months since the Government of Southern Rhodesia made those representations in a perfectly proper and constitutional way to His Majesty's Government, and it is desirable that we should have the decision of His Majesty's Government as soon as possible.

I now come to a matter which has been, I frankly admit, partly responsible for the great increase of opinion in Northern Rhodesia in favour of amalgamation, namely, the issue of the Command Paper 3573, known as the White Paper on native policy in East Africa. I am glad to say that later in the debate two hon. Friends of mine, who have had recent experience of Rhodesia, and who went out on a Parliamentary delegation, will give their views on this matter. What was the situation in regard to the relationship of Europeans and Africans prior to the issue in Northern Rhodesia of the White Paper? Emphatically, in my opinion, there was no ill-feeling in that country between Europeans and Africans. Each is essential to the other in the development of the country. Northern Rhodesia has been singularly free from any of those unfortunate and deplorable incidents in the relationship between European and African which have occurred in other parts of Africa. The majority of Europeans do not dissent from the existing policy which has been in operation in Northern Rhodesia ever since it was a British territory at all—the education and the social progress of the African.

Since I last addressed the House on this subject, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, Sir James Maxwell, has returned to that territory after having been in England on official business in connection with the recent conference of the Colonial Governors. Sir James gave an interview at Capetown to a newspaper which caused, a good deal of tension. What I am about to say must not be taken as an attack on a civil servant. I have no doubt that Sir James had good reason for giving an interview, not in his own territory, but in a self-governing Dominion. It created a certain amount of attention, because it suggested that the people whom he represented as Governor were unduly apprehensive as to the meaning of the White Paper. When Sir James got back to Northern Rhodesia, he made an official statement, in the course of an interview which was reported to the non-official elected members for the territory.

In the course of that interview he was at pains to assure them that there was no departure of any kind from the native policy which had always existed in Northern Rhodesia; that is to say, the White Paper did not mean a fresh departure in policy. If that is so, what on earth was the reason for issuing this White Paper and issuing it in the circumstances in which it was issued? It has created perturbation in Northern Rhodesia and made the task of the Government and the officials more difficult, and there is real risk that the issue of the White Paper may for the first time create ill-feeling between Europeans and Africans. Why, if there has been no new departure in policy, was it necessary to have upset the whole territories of Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa by this ill-worded, pontifical and authoritarian document? It starts with an astonishing note—let no one suppose that it is only in Palestine that Lord Passfield succeeds in causing the maximum of trouble by his communications and statements. This White Paper has been just as much resented as was the White Paper in respect to Palestine. This is the note with?which it starts:

Let me give another example of how utterly unsymmetrical was the applicability of this White Paper to Northern Rhodesia. It commences by setting out and recalling the statement of policy incorporated in the Kenya White Paper of July, 1923. This is how it begins:

Throughout this White Paper the words "native and immigrant" are used. We take exception to those words, for the proper term to use is "European and African." We take exception to them for this reason, and I shall be interested to hear what is the answer of those who support the White Paper. There are in Northern Rhodesia Europeans of the second generation of African birth, who were born in the territory itself or in Southern Rhodesia. There are in that country a number of people—and I know men myself—who are Europeans of African birth for six or seven generations, and their ancestors have been in South Africa longer than the ancestors of the African people of Northern Rhodesia have been there. Most of the Northern Rhodesian Africans are people who are descended from invaders to the country a hundred or 150 years ago.

Are those people who can trace their descent back six generations of British race and British birth?

The men who can trace their descent back to South African ancestry for six or seven generations are mostly South African Dutch, and those who since the South African War, have been born under the British flag. There are British people who can trace their ancestry back three or four generations. I know one man, having had business relations with him, who was originally a schoolmaster, and is now a farmer in Northern Rhodesia. He comes from a family which was originally at the Cape, and afterwards in the Orange Free State, and has been in South Africa since the beginning of the Eighteenth Century. It is an abuse of terms to refer to these people as immigrants. They are just as much natives of Africa as the negroes. The appropriate description in any Government document should be "Europeans and Africans." That is a term which is used in West Africa in all official documents. The people not only of Northern Rhodesia, but of Southern Rhodesia, take strong exception to being described as "immigrants."

What is the distinction? If the Noble Lord objects to calling them immigrants, why not object to calling them Europeans?

I am not going into that discussion, but, if the hon. Member has studied, as, judging from her writings in the public Press, she doubtless has, the history of races, she will know that it is usual to refer to people living in America, Australia or New Zealand who are of European descent as being of European descent, but we object to the term "immigrant" as implying that these people have no rights in the land of their birth. This distinction between immigrants and natives is wholly fallacious for the reasons that I have given. In fact, there are people in Northern Rhodesia who can trace their ancestry back to South African sources far easier than many people in this country can trace their ancestry back to British sources. That applies to those who sit in all quarters of the House.

When I quoted the other day from the speech of the Prime Minister of South Africa, and referred to a phrase which he used as to South Africa being his homeland and that of other people under the British flag in South Africa, there appeared to be some feeling on the other side that the Prime Minister of South Africa was not accurate in speaking in that way. I hope that it is not going out that anyone here wishes to decry any man of European descent, whether he is British or Dutch, who has been born in any part of South Africa, or any part of Africa, looking on that part of Africa as his homeland. If anyone does, it will create most intense ill-feeling and bitterness among the Dutch and British in South Africa.

I would like to quote certain portions of this White Paper, which show that the use of the phrase "immigrants" and "natives" is not exceptional, and that in some respects the Government are prepared to treat persons of European descent in the country as have rights inferior to those of the Africans. I will quote what is said at the top of page 6:

The House may say this is a small thing, but there is no question that the action of the Government in issuing this White Paper has not had a good effect upon the trading relations of South Africa and Great Britain. It does not help this country to sell its goods in Southern and Northern Rhodesia or in the Union for the Government to issue communications of this kind at a time when a trade delegation had been sent out from this country, headed by Lord Kirkley, to inquire into the question of promoting trade between Northern and Southern Rhodesia on the one part and Great Britain on the other. I have been told of the action of one man which it is worth while to quote, though I do not commend his action, and, in fact, differ from it. A very large merchant in Northern Rhodesia, a man who buys immense quantities of goods in Europe for sale both to Europeans and to Africans in Northern Rhodesia, who has always been strongly Imperialist, and strongly in favour of creating commercial ties between the Empire, has always given instructions to his agents in this country to purchase, if possible, British goods. After he had read the White Paper he wrote home and said "On this occasion do not trouble to purchase British goods; and if you want to know the reason why, ask Lord Passfield. He thinks he can treat us people like dirt, and he and his countrymen can learn that we are not the sort of people to be treated in that way." I do not commend what that man says, but I give it as an example of the ill-feeling which has been created by this disastrous publication.

I pass to one or two general observations. I am sure the hon. Member did not intend it, for I know him too well to think he intended giving an unfortunate impression, but the fact remains that two things which he has said in this House may, in my opinion, be easily taken in Northern Rhodesia as a very wounding reference to the Europeans there, and, indirectly, to Europeans elsewhere. Speaking in the previous debate on the Adjournment he said: That is not the sort of threat which has the slightest effect in a country like Northern Rhodesia. People laugh at that sort of thing. The only effect it does have is to increase such ill-feeling as there is between Northern Rhodesia and this country as a result of the issue of the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman went even further in an answer to a question in the House a short time ago. He was asked by an hon. Friend of mine:

I must point out that I was not making any reference to Northern Rhodesia at all, but was referring to the general principle, and I object very much to be told that I was making an insulting reference to the people of Northern Rhodesia. [ Interruption .] The Noble Lord should not attribute my remarks as being directed to the people of Northern Rhodesia.

I did not say they were "insulting references." I said that I felt sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend them to be injurious, but the result of the way in which he put it might easily be taken in that country as a wounding reference. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member was referring to the Secretary of State's Memorandum on Native Policy, which is exactly as I said. Of course, I accept from him, and am very glad to have his assurance, that it was not intended to be a wounding or injurious reference to these people. I say at once that I hold no brief for the Memorandum which the unofficial members of Northern Rhodesia sent in reply to the White Paper, and, in fact, there are many phrases and, indeed, principles in it, to which I take exception, but that it was sent was solely due to the exasperation which was caused in that country, not only to the non-official members, but to the whole country, by the autocratic tone of the White Paper. But whether one agrees with that Memorandum or not, it was a Memorandum sent home to the Secretary of State, and I say that the Secretary of State's reply was unnecessarily brusque: He refused to receive a delegation. I deplore, though I do not want to say much about it, because the hon. Member has already expressed his regret, the delay which there was in sending a reply to a perfectly proper telegram which was addressed to His Majesty's Government, or, rather, to the Secretary of State, by the non-official members of Northern Rhodesia. It was sent at the beginning of October, and it was not answered until I had asked a question in the House in November. It is a remarkable fact that no sooner had I asked the question six weeks later than they sent a telegram: I think the right hon. Gentleman's Department needs thoroughly rousing, and I hope he made inquiries as to who was responsible' for this gross and unnecessary delay of six weeks in acknowledging a telegram which was sent home. It shows deplorable casualness.

I want to come now to what is, after all, the crux of the whole matter. Communities are governed either by consent or by force. That is true for every community, great or small. If the Government choose to ignore the consent of the governed, who in this case are the people of European descent in Northern Rhodesia, they will not be able to govern them by force. They have not any force there, and they will not face an Imperial crisis of the first magnitude by trying to send British troops through the Union and Southern Rhodesia, whose people sympathise with Northern Rhodesia; so I sincerely hope they will endeavour to obtain what every previous Government have had in that country, and that is, the consent of the governed, both the Africans and the Europeans. I hope we shall have no threats hurled at our heads, because I can say, speaking for Northern Rhodesia, that they will not have any effect upon us, but will only be likely to stiffen our backs. I have seen an article written by an hon. Member of this House, though I am not certain whether it is an hon. Member who is in the House now—[ Interruption. ] It is the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Horrabin) I am told, and if I do him an injustice he will contradict me. I saw an article by him or by some hon. Member on those benches in one of the weekly reviews—[ Interruption. ] It was the "Week-end Review," in which he suggested that the whole of the people of European descent in Africa had originally filched or stolen their land from the natives. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Well, I am astonished that anyone who can get elected to this House should come here with such an utterly irresponsible point of view. If that be true, it is equally true of the 120,000,000 people of North America—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"]—equally true of Australia—[An HON. MEMBER: "And of England!"] Well, all I can say to those individual and irresponsible Members on the benches below the Gangway is that they represent nobody but themselves, and the people who are foolish enough to send them here—[ Interruption. ] Let them tell that story at Washington, let them tell it to the American people, let them tell it to the people of Australia, to the people of New Zealand, and let them tell it to the horse marines, because no one attaches the slightest importance to what they say. What a picture is conjured up! The conscientious objectors of the War are threatening the people of three continents that they are going to take back the land.

The Noble Lord refers to us, in the first place, as being irresponsible; and, secondly, as those who did not serve during the War. He made no exceptions, but there are considerable exceptions. My service in the War was as good as the Noble Lord's, if not better.

I did not think that the hon. Gentleman was one of those foolish enough to agree with the hon. Member for Peterborough.

I certainly was aware that the hon. Gentleman had a fine War record, and I wish to congratulate him upon it.

I have not the smallest wish to boast about War records, but I would like to say that I was not a conscientious objector. The Noble Lord and his fellow-Members on the opposite side of the House have not a monopoly of gallantry.

I was not com plaining about that, but I was referring more to the fact that the conscientious objectors formed a league against Imperialism, and those are the people who are supporting this movement. Let the hon. Gentleman opposite, who has been so ready to interrupt me, when he speaks on a trade union platform, tell his listeners that the people of South Africa have filched the land from its rightful owners. It is deplorable that anyone should make such an irresponsible statement as that. If the hon. Member for Peterborough really believes that 140,000,000 people in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are occupying territories—

The Noble Lord is going very wide of the mark. We know that the people bought their land legitimately from those who pinched it, but that, at any rate, does not prevent us from saying that the original people pinched it.

That is not the charge, and, apparently the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Marley) has not read the letter of the hon. Member for Peterborough, who stated that the Europeans in Africa had originally filched the land from the natives of the country. Does the hon. Member deny that?

I am quite ready to answer the Noble Lord's question. I never implied what the Noble Lord is trying very hard to make my words mean, namely, that the present individual holders of the land had individually stolen it. I said that the European races in Africa had taken their land from the Africans by force, by fraud, or by the application of legal codes of their own.

That makes the position less serious than it appeared to me after reading the hon. Member's letter. What the hon. Member was really referring to was the question of the original landlords, or the lack of landlords. On that there is room for two schools of opinion. We feel very strongly about the attacks made on our good faith and honour in this matter, but if I have done the hon. Member for Peterborough an injustice, I am willing to apologise. I think, however, that the hon. Member must realise the great importance of this matter, and I appeal to him to refrain from saying things which can be regarded as wounding or injurious to our fellow-subjects in Africa. A great deal of mischief has been done by the issue of the White Paper, but much of that can be mitigated if the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and others who may speak for the Government tonight, will make it clear, as Sir James Maxwell made it clear in Northern Rhodesia, that the White Paper is not intended to be any departure from the existing policy. I urge the Government in the future not to issue a White Paper of that kind without consultation with the authorities concerned, and without having ascertained the opinion of the people in the country concerned.

The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) has claimed—and rightly claimed— to speak on the subject of Northern Rhodesia with some authority on the grounds that he has for many years been intimately associated with that country, and has recently been requested by the elected members of the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia to express their views in this House, in which they do not themselves enjoy the right to speak. I cannot lay claim to so long or so intimate an acquaintance with the territory as the Noble Lord, but I have recently returned from Northern Rhodesia, where, as a member of an Empire Parliamentary Delegation, I was given every opportunity—such as is always afforded to delegates in similar circumstances—of meeting, and hearing the views of, every section of the community.

Throughout that territory, I found that the entire European population was greatly alarmed and incensed at the sudden and unexpected issue of the White Paper (Command Paper 3573), the Memorandum on Native Policy in East Africa, to which the Noble Lord has referred to-night. This White Paper was issued by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and on his instructions the widest publicity was given to the doctrine of "the paramountcy of native interests." Whatever the author or authors of that policy may have intended, it was taken by everyone to mean, no more and no less than, that the rights and interests of the Europeans were, from now and for henceforth, to be subordinated to the interests of the natives.

I will deal with the question of "Why not?" if the hon. Member will only be a little more patient.

Do I understand the hon. Member's contention to be that in territories occupied by an overwhelming preponderance of natives the rights of small bands of white settlers are to be paramount?

Not at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not justified in putting that construction upon what I said. I am about to put a question to the Minister which will make my point clear. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had only listened a little more carefully, he would have heard that what I said was not that the interests of the whole native population quâ native population, were either superior or inferior to those of the white population, but that authors of the policy were taken to mean that the rights and interests of an individual European quâ European, were to be inferior to the rights and interests of an individual native quâ native. That leads me to the first question that I wish to put to the Minister and the hon. and learned Member opposite will no doubt receive an answer from the Minister to-night expressing the views of the Government on the subject.

I cannot keep on giving way to questions on this one point. The hon. Member will hear the question that I am putting to the Minister, and I hope that when he hears the Minister's reply he will be satisfied, and that I shall be satisfied as well. I was saying that, whatever the authors intended, that was the construction placed by everyone on this document. I do not say that they were right or that they were wrong in holding that view. That is for the Government to say, and that is what we are going to ask them to say to-night. I do, however, state as an undeniable fact that the Government's policy, as it was understood by them, was bitterly resented and unanimously condemned by every section of the European population throughout the territory, and that a spirit of good will and a desire to cooperate had, at a stroke, given place to a widespread and definite feeling of intense antagonism towards the Government of this country.

I think the debate would be much more profitable if hon. Members were allowed to proceed without interruption.

If hon. Members insist on interrupting, I will give them something to interrupt about.

The first question that I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies is this: Is it the intention of the Government that a European's rights and interests in Northern Rhodesia should be regarded as being in any way inferior or subordinate to the rights and interests of a native? That is my first question. If the Under-Secretary's answer to that question is, as I imagine it will be, in the negative, then I wish to ask him this second question: If a European's rights and interests, as such, are not to be regarded as inferior to a native's rights and interests, then what meaning does the Government attach to the phrase "paramountcy of native interests"? The natives have their distinct rights and interests, and Europeans have theirs also. Their respective interests are largely mutual and interdependent. Both the native and the European are governed from Downing Street. Each has an equal right to look to the Government in this country to protect his interests, and to see that the one is not subordinated to the other. [ Interruption .]

On the 19th October last, a statement appeared in the Press, which purported to have been issued with the authority of the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, to the effect that there was to be no departure from the native policy which had hitherto been in operation in that territory. On the 18th November last, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies made a statement to the same effect in reply to my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. That brings me to my third question, which is this: If it was the intention of the Government that there was to be no departure from the existing native policy in Northern Rhodesia, then what was the Government's object in issuing this White Paper containing phrases, which greatly alarmed the population in the Territory, and which could have the interpretation put upon them —as indeed was put upon them—that there was to be a change of native policy? What was the object of the issue of that White Paper in those circumstances?

The Noble Lord, rightly, in my opinion, claims to speak on behalf of the elected members of the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia. I am not concerned to-night with the Memorandum on the White Paper which the elected members dispatched to the Colonial Secretary. I neither condemn it nor defend it. The Under-Secretary himself is well aware— and I think the House should be aware seeing that this document has now been tabled—that that Memorandum was compiled by the elected members immediately after the publication of this White Paper, and at the very moment when passions, mingled with resentment, had been aroused to their highest pitch by the action of his own Government— by the action of his own Department— and that it should be read in the light of that fact. Owing to the exceptional circumstances in which this Memorandum was drafted, I cannot but believe that its being tabled in this House was a mistake.

In the nature of things, it is never an easy task to govern a young and progressive Colony from Downing Street. Even under the most favourable circum- stances, that is a function which is fraught with every manner of difficulty. But, in so far as the home Government has discharged its responsibilities of Colonial Government successfully in the past—and I believe it is generally conceded that, on the whole, its efforts hitherto have been remarkably successful—the degree of its success in any one Colony has been determined mainly by the extent to which those responsible in this country have appreciated the varying and particular circumstances and requirements of that particular Colony, and by the extent to which they have rightly interpreted the ideals and aspirations—both moral and material—of those whom they were governing. The conditions in Northern Rhodesia certainly did not warrant the issue of this White Paper. Its publication was not only uncalled for, but a piece of incredible folly on the part of the Government.

If there is one thing more than another that the Government should avoid doing in Northern Rhodesia, it is to divide the population into two groups, the one anti-European and the other anti-native. That would, indeed, be a calamity of incalculable consequence. It would infallibly ruin the territory. Yet, nothing could be more calculated to bring about such a division than the publication of this document, drawing, as it does, a distinction between the European and the native populations invidious to the European population; a document which, on the one hand, speaks of the native interests as being "paramount," and, on the other hand, describes the Europeans, many of whom, as my Noble Friend has said, were born in the country, and a great number of whom have lived there for the greater part of their lives, "as immigrant races." That is a wounding, gratuitously offensive, and singularly inappropriate description to apply to such people. If the Secretary of State had identified himself with the feelings of the people on the spot, as indeed he should have done—if he had not failed utterly, lamentably and tragically in his duty in this respect—this White Paper would never have seen the light of day. I can only hope that the replies that the Under-Secretary will give to the questions that have been addressed to him will help to remove some of those doubts and misgivings, which the Government went out of their way to create, and which unhappily still exist in the minds of the Northern Rhodesians.

I am sure all of us on this side of the House have been specially interested to see hon. Members opposite so passionately defending the rights of minorities. They are not always so enthusiastic about the rights of minorities, but obviously they can be so sometimes. The Noble Earl who opened the debate made certain direct personal references to me. I can only repeat that the letter he quoted, which was written in part as a reply to a letter from his right hon. Friend next him, did not for a moment assert, or even imply, that the individual white owners of land in any other Continent had themselves stolen that land. I wrote the letter to emphasise, with all the force of language I could command, that it was no use blinking the historical fact that European races, using the collective phrase, had acquired their lands in Africa either by force or in some cases by fraud.

I fully accept the interpretation that the hon. Member has put upon it. I am glad he has brought it up, because he has made clear what is the real meaning of it, which is quite different from that which I read into it.

9.0 p.m.

I am very glad to accept the Noble Lords apology. I wanted to stress that point, because it seems to me that there is no use in entering into the discussion of a problem in which we misinformed stay-at-homes try to take an intelligent interest, and to act on the advice of eminent Gentlemen opposite to think imperially, if we are going deliberately to shut our eyes to certain facts about the whole land position in Africa and elsewhere and the history of land acquirement and land settlement; or to the economic relations between white settlers and native Africans. It is a perfectly unreal and academic discussion which does not take those fundamental facts into account. I can claim, in saying that this is a historical view which seems to me to be the right one, the authority of a very eminent historian who is at present writing in South Africa from the point of view of the man on the spot.

I want to say something about a matter which the Noble Earl from his point of view very skilfully avoided saying very much about. It is the document which his fellow countrymen, since he insists on us regarding him as a Northern Rhodesian, have addressed to the Secretary of State on the matter. I forget all the adjectives he used, but he characterised the Memorandum on Native Policy as authoritarian. I have seldom read a document more completely deserving that particular adjective "authoritarian" than this document. I am glad the Noble Earl admitted that he disagreed with it, but I do not think we can ignore the existence of this document in estimating the point of view of the Noble Earl's countrymen. On reading it, I was impelled to remember the ancient saying: It is a sort of modern version of the old proverb, "Each for himself and the devil take—civilisation." The whole of this document is framed on that basis and argues from that original point of view. These fellow countrymen of the Noble Earl's do not combat paramountcy by a demand for equality. They fight the paramountcy of native interests with a demand for absolute paramountcy for themselves. A few days ago a settler from East Africa endeavoured to persuade some of us in another part of this building that the doctrine of native "paramountcy" was wrong precisely because, said he, it was animated by that same spirit which we all condemned so lustily a few years ago, expressed in the words "Deutschland uber Alles." I will leave hon. Members of the House to decide whether this particular document breathes that spirit or not. It is not only of interest psychologically. It quite definitely, at least by implication, suggests an entirely new doctrine of Imperial relations, a doctrine in which, one might say, to put it in simple colloquial language, you are quite prepared to be a loyal part of the Empire when your friends are in power in this country, but you use all sorts of threats of rebellion when your political opponents are in power. It is a new doctrine of Imperial loyalty.

I have just been reminded that there are historical precedents for it.

I want hon. Members on this side of the House to notice also that not merely does this document suggest that there is an absolute identity between civilisation on the one hand and the white race on the other, but the whole political flavouring, especially those hints of criticism about home affairs concerning which—I do not know whether I shall be in order—the only adjective I can think of is "insolent," suggests not only that civilisation is identical with the white race, but that it is identical with a particular class of that white race, a thing which is of some interest to us on this side of the House. I said that there are distinct threats of rebelling contained in the document. These, of course, are races under the protection of the British flag— the phrase:

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to do an injustice. He is entitled to quote those figures. As a matter of fact, the whole situation has rapidly altered since the industrial development of the country, especially since the mining development, and he will find that the revenue contributed by the European settlers is vastly different from what it was in 1922.

Last year's report was that it was £500,000 odd. I do not think that the Noble Lord would suggest that the actual native figures have decreased. The native population has very much increased, so at least I should think that it is safe to say that the natives are paying in 1930 at least the same amount in direct taxation as they paid in 1921–22. Even so, the natives, apart from the share they would have in indirect taxation, would be responsible for 20 per cent. I speak liable to correction, as I have not been able to find the exact recent figures. At the foot of that same page there is a purple patch which is marvellous in its omissions: —a German serfdom for a British selfdom.

I come to the point which I wanted to emphasise at the start. The gist of the whole matter, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, is, that the difference between the two races, about which there has been this discussion, is not merely a difference between black and white, it is not merely between degrees of civilisation. The vital thing, from our point of view, in relation to this policy, is that the difference is between white capital and black labour. What the settlers of Northern Rhodesia and of Kenya ask for is that they, the masters, the landowners, the employers, should have absolute political rights over their labourers. I suggest that it is a thing for which the party which sits on this side of the House can never stand and which they can never approve. The settlers argue that only by contact with them and with white civilisation can the natives advance in civilisation. The contact means in actual fact the opportunity to earn wages from a white employer.

What are those wages in Northern Rhodesia? I have been able to see the most recent official figures. They vary from 18s. a month at the centres of employment near the railways to 5s. per month in some of the more remote districts. Those are figures in which hon. Members on this side of the House will be interested. All the more, because, as the Noble Earl reminded us, there are certainly going to be enormously important industrial developments in Northern Rhodesia in the near future. If the labour question has not been of importance there, it certainly is going to be so in the near future. We do not want to see reproduced in Northern Rhodesia the same colour complex and the same colour problem which led to all sorts of trouble in the Transvaal.

I know it is the fashion among some people to defend the memorandum on native policy by half-apologies for the word "paramountcy." I prefer to stand for that word, in all its implications, whole-heartedly. I suggest that common justice demands that the interests of the enormous majority of people should be paramount. The Noble Earl has told us that the white population of Northern Rhodesia is increasing. Even so, it has not yet passed the proportion of half of one per cent. of the total population of the colony. Common justice demands that, where interests clash, the interests of the 99.5 per cent. of the people should prevail over the interests of the minority. Common justice demands that; because that 99.5 per cent, despite their numbers are, because of their social state, helpless in front of the white man and the white capitalist owners in particular. Common justice also demands it, because we owe, historically, a pretty big debt to the natives of Africa, a debt which we ought at least to pay now, and a debt for which our fellow-countrymen who have gone to Africa ought to be prepared to make certain sacrifices.

I intervene in this debate primarily because I was fortunate enough to be one of the Empire Parliamentary delegates who went to Northern Rhodesia in the vacation, and consequently had some opportunity, during the short time we were there, to obtain at first hand some idea of the conditions in that great colony. We landed there at a time when the terms of the White Paper were being discussed by everybody, and I can only say, after talking with a good many people in the colony and listening to their opinions, that in many respects the paper from which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Horrabin) has been quoting to-night did not really give the House a fair understanding and knowledge of the real mind of the white settler in Rhodesia. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was rather like the fat boy in Pickwick. I admit that the parallel is not in some respects physically perfect. He tried to make our flesh creep by a lurid picture of these seven elected Members grimly and desperately resisting an armed British force which was endeavouring to open a pathway from Capetown to Northern Rhodesia in order that the Colonial Office should carry out its White Paper policy. It was rather, I think, headlining a solid speech in certain respects rather too heavily.

We are given to understand that the White Paper will have the effect of driving Northern Rhodesia into the arms of Southern Rhodesia. I admit that the talk about amalgamation between these two territories has grown enormously and in a way as a result of the White Paper, but frankly, if two peoples are so desperately anxious to embrace one another, I cannot see that it would bring down the Empire if Northern Rhodesia did combine with Southern Rhodesia, although I think it would be a foolish policy on the part of Northern Rhodesia. Northern Rhodesia is a territory which as they say in mining circles, has struck lucky. An enormous industrial change is taking place and I deprecate from both sides of the House the suggestion that the interests of the natives and the white settler can be divorced from one another. They are indissolubly bound together. To listen to some of the speeches tonight, one would get the idea that quite suddenly and on the advent of the White Paper in Northern Rhodesia, the whole of this question of the discontent of the seven elected non-official members has sprung up. May I point out that even in the time of the previous Government certain of the non-official members had learnt to talk and also to doubt. I should like, however, to say at once that I regret intensely that in the course of these debates there should be any question of indicting this Government or the previous Government.

The real truth is that great changes have recently taken place and greater ones are imminent in this country. Up to quite recently it has been merely a country with a small white population and its enormous territory is changing almost overnight into highly industrialised areas. I should be happier if we could direct our attention to what is the real problem in Northern Rhodesia. It would not be fair to the kindly people in Rhodesia not to say something about the White Paper. There is no question that it did create an enormous amount of disturbance in that country and it was not only the fiery gentlemen who wrote the document from which the hon. Member for Peterborough quoted, but the farmers out in the countryside and the men in the mining townships. This White Paper may have been a fair interpretation of what is in the mind of the Government, and if it is in the mind of the Government I do not mind them saying so, but in many cases it merely repeated old things in a new way which was perhaps somewhat offensive; and that is the real indictment of the White Paper. I feel that in a way it was a straight jacket made for Kenya but ill-fitted to Northern Rhodesia.

In Kenya there is a type of unofficial governing population which does not exist in Rhodesia. It may be, I do not know, that the White Paper as applied to Kenya might be said to have some justice, but little if applied to Northern Rhodesia. There are in some of those parts, Kenya for instance, settlers of such piety and holiness that they are convinced that in the country where they are settled a government of any organised form is redundant and totally unnecessary. That was not the case in Northern Rhodesia, and therefore I do not wish to say any more about it, because in the odd spot of bother which took place between the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Peterborough enough was said. They both reminded me rather of the music-hall sketch called "A Sister to Assist'er." What is the real problem facing us? The White Paper, for better or worse, has been issued. It is regarded out there by many as a very successful prize essay, but quite unsuitable for their circumstances. There it is, and you cannot expect the Colonial Office to withdraw it.

What is the position? You have got there a perfectly loyal and very fine type of settler and 1,250,000 natives who are prepared to work perfectly peacefully with the white man. Our duty is to get them as close together as we can, because superimposed on their old environment you have a sudden grand scale industrialisation of the native population, a change coming almost overnight. Five years ago you could travel over hundreds of miles without seeing a person or many living things at all. To-day you can motor in the same way for 150 miles through narrow roads, woods and forests and suddenly you find yourself running on perfect roads and into a mining town of 15,000 people, with every modern device for mining purposes, with 10,000 natives there, hospitals, concert halls and canteens—and I am sure the hon. Member for Peterborough will be glad to hear this—every conceivable form of amenity. In view of this you must try to reconcile those quite sincere, but a little amateur, statements made just now by the hon. Member. You have several thousand natives separated from their tribes and womenfolk and children, and yet they are part of a tribal system built up through the ages. If you interfered too much with one limb of it you might destroy the whole delicate fabric of civilisation which keeps a tribal population together.

Problems of that kind are much too serious to allow party feeling to enter into them. I do not wish to keep the House any longer, but simply to say this one thing in conclusion. I am perfectly certain that in this particular territory inside our empire there is a new orientation which must be dealt with by the people who are in the Government at home, by the Government in Livingstone and by the people up and down the the country itself. Our clear duty is to see to it that all this mineral treasure which, measured in terms of modern civilisation, is inexhaustible, is developed in such a way that neither the native nor the white settler can have any reason to say that the British Government have done unfairly by any race or class under their control.

I am going to add only a very few words to what has been said in reply to some of the observations from the other side, and particularly those made by the Noble Earl in explaining his position with regard to the situation in Northern Rhodesia. I wish to do so with the best will in the world towards him. I cannot help feeling that I can even bring some little enlightenment to his mind on the subject with which he has dealt. I asked myself before I came to this debate of what exactly it was that speakers on the other side were going to complain. I knew they would complain of the White Paper, but of what was it in the White Paper they would complain? We are told very often that in substance it is good but offensive, or in substance good but very tactless, or that it ought to have been-said in another way. It seems to me there must be some extraordinarily delicate and refined conception lurking behind the minds and words of those who make that criticism.

I am bound to say the small points-which the Noble Earl has put down as being peculiarly offensive seem to sug- gest that his sensitiveness in these matters must be of the most hyper-refined and delicate kind I have ever come across. The first point he picked upon was to object to the term "Immigrant races." That term has become almost an accepted term with everybody to express what we mean without conveying any offensive meaning whatsoever. I do not see why he brings a charge against the Labour Government for having used the term, for he is in the rather dangerous position of those people who live in glasshouses, since this term has been used just as much by his own friends. I want to quote one or two words from the White Paper issued by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1927 on this particular question, and to tell the Noble Lord that it related to Kenya. These words were used in a previous despatch by the Secretary of State of his own party: referred to in every sentence of the White Paper. They are very frequently referred to and the question is very particularly dealt with on page 5 and the position of the Government is made perfectly clear:

Since the hon. Member's question has been addressed directly to me, may I say that I was not responsible for this document, that I hold no brief in regard to it, and that I cannot explain it all, but obviously what was meant by the passage which the hon. Member has quoted is, "If you are going to treat us like this we shall enter into an agreement with our friends in Southern Rhodesia." The hon. Member may regard that as a threat or not.

Of course, I accept the explanation given by the Noble Lord as representing the best account he can possibly give of a somewhat obscure statement, but, if all they mean is that they might wish to amalgamate with Southern Rhodesia, then they might have expressed it in a more tactful, a more conciliatory, even in a more intelligible fashion than by wrapping it up in this highy minatory expression as to "the virility of their race, manifesting itself in other directions" and the other remarks which have already been quoted. When the Noble Lord complained that the White Paper of the Labour Government is insulting there again I think he was on thin ice. If it is insulting to describe the European populations as immigrant races is it not at least as insulting to describe the vast majority of the population of the country as alien and barbarous natives. If it is a question of insult, then, comparing the one with the other, I should say that the balance of insult was distinctly on the side of the phrase which occurs twice in this document as to barbarous races.

I do not want to make too much of this deplorable document, which I am sure the Under-Secretary consented to publish only with regret, but if we are to judge the fitness, as we are asked to do, of tiny minorities of European people in certain territories to govern with absolute political power over a majority of more than 95 per cent. of their fellow-inhabitants in that country —if we are to judge their political capacity, if we are to judge their suitability to undertake this tremendous responsibility and to take it out of our hands and into their own, then we are entitled to consider the type of people who are asking for this astounding privilege and we shall think twice before we grant it.

The hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. C. Buxton) has made an elaborate defence of the Government's Memorandum on Native Policy in East Africa, but that defence is a condemnation of the document. The answer to it is that this Memorandum has succeeded in uniting the whole white population of South and East Africa against what they consider to be the policy of the Colonial Office as there expressed. The Secretary of State, is perhaps, a little more happy in dealing with the English Poor Law than with Colonial policy. His efforts with regard to Palestine and East Africa have not been particularly successful. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For the reason that I have just given. He has caused disturbance where disturbance did not exist before. In Northern Rhodesia there was perfect peace between the white settlers and the natives. There was no question of differences or trouble. This Memorandum has gone far to create trouble and that, I hold, is a most un-statesmanlike result.

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Horrabin) began his speech with a most sensible remark that we ought to regard this matter having in view the facts of the case. I have visited East Africa and learned something of the facts of the case. I found them extremely interesting, and not at all what they are supposed to be by hon. Members opposite. It surprises, or rather it saddens, me to listen to hon. Members opposite assuming that their own flesh and blood, their own race, when they get out of this country and settle elsewhere treat the natives badly. It is not true. They are their very good friends. I had often heard a certain settler in Kenya abused for not treating the natives properly. I happened to be staying with him, and there came in three natives, each of them for advice and help. They would not have come if he was what he had been said to be. He talked to one of them, a Masai, in his own language, and to the other two in Swahili. Some time after that I motored 200 miles from Nairobi to Arusha. When we came to the Tanganyika customs barrier, the Indian, who kept it, told my friend that he must pay duty on his rifle. He said he would leave it until his return in three or four days. A little group of Masai who knew my friend said he was to be trusted, and the official gave him back his rifle. I mention this to show the feeling that exists between native and settler. To talk about oppression is arrant nonsense.

Is the hon. Member familiar with the long difficulties of the Masai over their lands?

Yes, I know about that. They have a territory, 200 miles long by 100 wide, and they are among the richest people under British rule. They have per head an amount of cattle which renders them, at current prices, one of the richest people per head on earth, and people talk about oppression. There is Tanganyika, one-third of the size of India. On the basis of Indian population it should have 100,000,000 people. It has some 6,000,000, and hon. Members say there is not room for the white settler and the native. I drove over the highlands of Tanganyika, and there were hardly any natives there, because they do not like the cold climate. It was like the Sussex Downs. I hope to see these highlands settled by our own people. These are facts that hon. Members ought to know. When the hon. Member for Peterborough says that the territory is taken by force or fraud, he should remember that it was the Sultan of Zanzibar who invited our people to settle along the coast, and their settling inland was followed by Government action putting an end to the slave trade. Would he leave the native at the mercy of the slave trader?

Does the hon. Member suggest that the Sultan of Zanzibar ever exercised any authority over the highlands?

At least, the hon. Member will admit that the Government have never paid him tribute except for the coast.

The hon. Member has been exaggerating the position, and he ought to examine the facts before making these allegations. And what of the Sudan? Did we get that by force and fraud? We turned a centre of cruelty and murder into a peaceful centre of commerce, and we ought to be proud of it, and of the fact that it was the British Army that did it. When people talk about reducing the Army, and militarism they ought to remember the Sudan. But to return to East Africa for a moment. I frequently hear hon. Members talking about forced labour. There is no such thing. There is compulsory labour for the Government when there are particular national emergencies—road labour for instance—but no white settler can compel any native to work for him. We found all over East Africa and South Africa that a bad master does not get labour, and so they have to treat the natives well. They have made provision for their health. I remember meeting a young Englishwoman, recently married to a settler, and she told me how she had to give medical treatment to natives. She told me in the most sympathetic way possible. People ought to know these things, and ought to realise that our own people in East Africa are doing a great deal to uphold the British nation.

When I hear about the document written by the settlers, I know it might be better expressed, but they wrote it under a sense of irritation, because they are so misjudged by hon. Members opposite. We are all good Britishers, and we ought to give credit to our own people. It is no good trying to compel white settlers to do this or that. It is no good attributing to them a course of conduct which they are not following. If you want to raise the standard of living for the natives, you cannot do it without the settler. You can teach the native to grow, to produce, but, when you have done that, he is dependent on the white settler for factories, for first treatment of her crops, for transport and markets. It is no good therefore, setting one against the other.

It was the height of folly to ask that this paper should be distributed among the natives. It was bound to be misunderstood. That phrase "paramountcy of native interests" was most harmful. I am quite aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have largely the same view about native policy. We are trustees for the natives, but we must be careful how we express ourselves. The natives are in many respects like children, clever children. For instance, the chauffeur of a friend of mine one early summer asked his master for an overcoat because it was so cold. His master said, "Why should a young fellow like you want a coat?" The reply of the native was: "Yes, it is the old people who do not need coats, because they have experience of cold weather, and know how to bear it. We young ones have not so much experience, and we need them." Let me conclude with a word of appeal to hon. Members opposite. I would say to them, think the best of our own people, and realise that they are doing their best for the natives. On the whole, the relations between the white settler and the native are excellent.

10.0 p.m.

I think every Member in the House will agree that the debate has been worth while. The Noble Earl who initiated the discussion is not in his place, but I have no doubt he will be here very soon. The first subject that he raised was that of amalgamation between Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. I think the House is aware of the position. We had a request from the Government of Southern Rhodesia for a conference between the three Governments to consider the question, and there was also some correspondence with the unofficial members of Northern Rhodesia. This is a big subject, with great economic and political issues, and we must have time to go into it. It is only three weeks ago since the subject was last brought up, and I am afraid that I am not in a position to give any further information to the Noble Earl. In regard to the points that he raised, I would say that we have already indicated that, unless after consideration we feel that there is a prima facie case for the amalgamation of all or any part of Northern Rhodesia, a conference would simply encourage false hopes. It is true, as the Noble Earl said, that the frontiers of the two Rhodesias are co-terminous, but it must also be remembered that Northern Rhodesia is not a geographical entity. It is nearly as large in area as France and Italy combined. It includes the large native area of Barotseland, where there are no white settlers. It incorporates also other areas naturally linked to adjacent northern and eastern territories. We have lost no time in going into the matter, and if His Majesty's Government find that any degree of amalgamation is possible I have no doubt they will be glad to arrange a conference. We have had two White Papers on East Africa. One of the White Papers deals with closer union, and is at present the subject of consideration by a Joint Committee of the two Houses. That Committee has already held one meeting and will meet again this week. Therefore, the House has obviously tacitly agreed that it is not desirable or necessary to discuss that White Paper.

I come now to the White Paper on native policy, which has been the main subject of discussion to-night. We have published a number of White Papers.

I do not claim that they are all of equal merit. Of them all, I like the White Paper on Native Policy best. Nevertheless, it has been criticised not only in the House to-night but in Kenya and Northern Rhodesia, and in certain other quarters. In Kenya it is mainly criticised because of the use of the word "paramountcy" and in Northern Rhodesia and elsewhere it is criticised on more general grounds. Why is it criticised? It is not a new policy which it announces and the word "paramountcy" is not a new word. The word paramount was first used in the Conservative White Paper of 1923. It is interesting in view of to-night's discussion that the Noble Earl himself was largely responsible for the White Paper of 1923 being issued. It was published following a great volume of protest against the Wood-Winterton franchise proposals. It will fee interesting to make one or two short quotations from that Conservative White Paper, and to note that many of the criticisms which we have heard to-night could be directed equally against that White Paper as against the White Paper that we have recently issued.

Will the hon. Member read the title of the White Paper. To which White Paper does he refer?

The paper is entitled, "Indians in Kenya." I would, however, point out that at the beginning of the second White Paper of 1927 there is a paragraph which says that the White Paper of 1923, from which I am about to quote, As I have said, this is a very good illustration of what paramountcy means. So far as we are aware, there was no objection made to the word in that White Paper, or to such an illustration as I have given of what it meant, either by settlers in Kenya or by political parties at home.

Then, as has already been pointed out, the Conservative Government issued another White Paper, dealing with future policy in East Africa. In that White Paper, again, as the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Buxton) has shown, we find the same passage on the paramountcy of the interests of African natives. Later, we had the Hilton Young Commission, which was appointed by the Conservative Government. That Commission went very fully into the question of the meaning of the word paramountcy, and made it clear what the word stood for. Their interpretation was not repudiated by the Conservative Government, and that is not surprising, in view of the quotations which I have made from their White Papers.

Our White Paper has met with a very different reception, and I must say that some of the criticisms of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) were petty. He said that it was sent out secretly, in a sealed package. He must be aware that it was sent out sealed so that the traditional privilege of hon. Members of this House when a Command Paper is published of having it first available to them before it is published generally, should be observed. That is the only reason for the sealed packing, and it is quite a usual course.

In our White Paper we quoted the same passage which was published in the White Papers of 1923 and in 1927 by our predecessors, and we adopted the same interpretation which had been placed on it by the Hilton Young Commission, which they appointed. We say, in our White Paper:

The quotation which I made from the 1923 Paper showed the application of the general principles to one subject, that of immigration. Our White Paper related the application of those principles further, especially to the subjects of land, labour, and taxation. Although this White Paper of ours has been attacked, I have not heard in any quarter any criticism of the method or of the statement of application of the general principle in regard to those subjects; and that, after all, is the important test. The fuller material in our White Paper, in applying these general principles, which have been agreed to all along by the different Governments in regard to the subjects of land and taxation and labour, is evidently acceptable, and is not criticised by hon. Members opposite. That is a point which has been notable to-night; the avoidance of specific charges against the White Paper. It has all been extremely vague.

If it is true that, as I have said, our Paper was on general lines, that we merely stated what was in former Papers by Conservative Governments, and were carrying out a policy which has been carried out before, and had merely stated the application of principles further than they had previously been stated, why was our Paper attacked? It is said that while one man may steal a horse, another may non look over a hedge. We must only conclude that any Paper issued on Imperial subjects by a Labour Government must be considered, ipso facto , to be designed to ruin the Empire. There is also the other explanation which has been hinted at in some quarters, and no doubt it is a factor of importance, and that is the increasing sensitiveness of Britons overseas to what they consider government from Downing Street. That is a factor that has no reference to any particular Government.

At the same time, I do not accept the suggestion that our White Paper is universally unpopular in East Africa. I accept a great deal of what the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) said about our people in Africa. I am glad to say that during the summer I met a number of settlers, especially from Kenya, and I am quite satisfied that the speeches that we have had to-night from hon. Members opposite, and much of the criticism that we have had from East Africa and elsewhere, does not represent truly the majority of the settlers in East Africa. I agree with the hon. Member for Windsor when he spoke of the settlers who knew the language of the natives and lived near the reserves. I was especially struck with the fact that settlers like that, who can understand and speak with the natives in their own tongue and are interested in their welfare, possess sympathetic understanding. Quite a few of this kind of settler have been in this country during the summer, and I can assure the House that their views are very much in line with the views expressed in the White Paper. It is not always easy for those who have a different point of view from that represented by the more politically minded members of these Colonies to have their point of view brought forward, and that has to be remembered. One has to consider what the position is in these Colonies. The great majority of the settlers have to work hard; they have not time to take an interest in politics, and they have necessarily to leave political expression and articulation to those who have time and inclination to devote to the political side.

My feeling is that a great deal of what has been said about the White Paper does not at all represent the view of many of the settlers, and especially of those who know the natives best, who understand them best, and who sympathise with them most, including the missionaries. I am not dismayed by the threats or suggestions of the Noble Earl as to the terrible things which are to happen as a consequence of the White Paper. I am quite satisfied that we shall get the co-operation of many men of British stock in East Africa who love fair dealing and hate injustice. I think it is quite clear also that the trusteeship of the natives must be maintained by the Imperial Government.

I do not know that that view is very seriously disputed, except by the settlers of Northern Rhodesia who have been referred to so often to-night. At any rate we owe them one debt of gratitude, because it is out of this Memorandum that the debate of to-night has developed. The demand of the settlers of Northern Rhodesia which has been mentioned to-night was not for equal treatment but for the definite subordination of native interests to those of British settlers. It will be noticed that the Noble Earl was very careful not to associate himself with the sentiments in-that Memorandum, and yet he put up a very strong fight for what seemed to be the same thing, although he did not specially commit himself to it. I am quite certain that sentiments in that paper do not represent the sentiments of the bulk of the settlers in Northern Rhodesia.

The hon. Member quotes me as having put up "much the same thing." On the contrary, I said that the policy we ought to pursue, a policy with which I am sure the Government would agree, was that of parallel and equal development of both races.

Yes, but I am within the recollection of the House, and I think the House will agree that throughout his speech the Noble Lord suggested that the elected members had very good grounds for the Memorandum which they put forward.

I said they had very good grounds for their complaint against this Government.

Oh, yes, of course! [ Interruption ]. But I am not going into that. I must say this is rather disappointing. I was going to say something friendly about the elected members, and the Noble Earl has forced me to consider whether I ought to go on or not. I was going to say that not only does that Memorandum not represent the views of the great bulk of the settlers, but that I do not believe that it represents the views of the elected members in their better moments; and it is noticeable that when the Governor returned and discussed the White Paper with the elected members a very different position was created. At the same time, making every allowance for the elected members and for the irritation and so on under which they were labouring, I think their Memorandum is an additional proof that we could not contemplate handing over or sharing our trusteeship with those gentlemen.

Is that intended to be a declaration on behalf of the Government that they will not consider proposals for amalgamation? This is really very important.

Oh, no, no; this has nothing to do with amalgamation. My point is clear: that the Memorandum, with every allowance that one would make for it, and I am quite willing to make great allowances, is one proof that the trusteeship of the African communities in our Colonies must be kept in the hands of the Imperial Government. There is a further point relating to what the Noble Earl said about Rhodesia which perhaps hon. Members opposite will consider is of some importance. Northern Rhodesia was not conquered. We have treaty relations with the native people of that country, and they came voluntarily under our protection. That is a point to note. The Noble Lord spoke about General Hertzog and South Africa. He did not develop that theme, or I might have been tempted to accept the opening which the Noble Lord gave me. I will not however, follow him on that subject.

I would like to say, speaking generally, that there are those who think that the African is not capable of sharing the highest civilisation, but without discussing the merits of that proposition, I wish to say that we as a Labour party and a Labour Government hold that he must at least have the opportunity of rising to the full height of his possible stature. We do not believe that such opportunities are a menace to the true interest of white settlers in our colonies. We are also anxious for the welfare and prosperity of the white settlers. We believe further, that the dual interests of those settlers and the African natives are fundamentally complementary, or if they are not they should be.

There have been one or two references to Palestine. I am not anxious to enter into a discussion upon that subject, but there is one general matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the House in that connection, and that is the apparently growing practice of making great Imperial issues matters of party politics. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) during the Imperial Conference was one example, and later the subject of Palestine was vigorously used by both Opposition parties for party purposes. I trust that this matter of our native policy will not be made a matter of party politics. It would be to our benefit, as I do not believe that hon. Members opposite realise the deep feeling of the country in regard to this matter. I do not, however, wish to take any advantage of that. I would much prefer that the serious duties and responsibilities of trusteeship should be accepted by all sections of our people and by all parties in this House. I trust that there will be no further attempts to make a bogy of our White Paper. I hope that all our people in East Africa will find themselves able to accept it, and to work in full co-operation and harmony with us in this great Imperial task.

I think that the speech of the Under-Secretary in reply to this debate will do a good deal to assuage the passions that have been aroused in connection with this whole matter, and the last thing that I wish to do to-night is to do anything that would not be helpful to that end. Frankly, I think that unnecessary apprehension has been aroused in regard to this native White Paper. I still feel very strongly about the other White Paper, but that is before a joint Select Committee. What is the reason for the trouble? I think it is that the two White Papers were issued together, the one with a statement that it was to be regarded as a document in which the collective wisdom of all parties and of Parliament was to be asked to decide, and the other, when it was published—not so much now—was declared to be the final word of a Government speaking professedly as they said, on behalf of a party. That very wide distinction was drawn between the two White Papers. I think that the distinction was unfortunate, because both arose out of a series of East African problems, and largely out of the history of matters more particularly connected with Kenya; and both, when published, were considered as yet a further stage in a discussion that is essentially centred upon the problems that have arisen in Kenya.

Certainly, when the two White Papers were published, we on this side of the House understood that both applied to Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda. It was not until some time afterwards, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) asked a question in this House as to whether either of these White Papers applied to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, that we got from the Under-Secretary the reply, which surprised me very much, that the one document, but not the other, applied to Northern Rhodesia. Do let us remem- ber that, without any warning to the Governor or the Government of Northern Rhodesia, it was decided to apply to that territory a document every line of which seemed to be dictated by historical circumstances in Kenya. The reference in the White Paper on native policy to the land question bears no relation to the facts in either Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia, Tanganyika or Uganda, where the land systems are widely different.

That was not all. This was suddenly sprung upon Northern Rhodesia, although we must recognise the wholly different historical position of Northern Rhodesia as compared with what are called the East African territories. When the original White Paper of the Duke of Devonshire—I was Under-Secretary at the time—was drawn up in 1923, Northern Rhodesia was pot under Colonial Office administration. It was not in any way under the government of Downing Street. It had its elected members, and its whole development had taken place irrespective of Downing Street. It was connected with South Africa by a railway; it was colonised largely from South Africa; all its newspapers were South African; it had no Indians; it had no connection with the controversy that had been raised in Kenya. That is why Northern Rhodesia, more than any other part of East Africa, has been excited by this White Paper.

What was the next thing done by the Government which excited apprehension in Northern Rhodesia, which I hope will now gradually be assuaged? I want to make a few remarks about the further steps that should be taken in that respect. What was the further step that frightened them? It was this. Not only was this one White Paper—not the two— in respect of the East African territories, to be considered by a Joint Committee of Parliament, with an undertaking given that settlers', Indians' and natives' interests would be heard before that Committee, but one document was applied, and one document only, without an opportunity of being heard by the Joint Committee, and was sent out to Northern Rhodesia. On the top of it there was a direction to the Government that the laws of Northern Rhodesia were to be brought into line meticulously with the provisions of the White Paper. That is most serious, because that was a definite indication that Downing Street was going to demand a revision of all their laws. I do not know what amendment that would involve, but it was an attempt to bring Northern Rhodesia, which has grown up for many years not under Downing Street rule—a country which has only been six years under Downing Street rule—into line with the Government policy in Kenya. Does not this all come from the fundamental fallacy, which you find in the Hilton Young Report itself, that in the Continent of Africa you can only have one policy and one native policy? With all the variety of conditions and tribes and natives, I do not believe it is possible to have one land policy or native policy even in any one big territory. We all know Nigeria, where three quite different native policies are being applied inside the administration of one Government, and quite rightly too, for different historical reasons. The craze for uniformity is, I fear, what has frightened these people. It was a feature of the Hilton Young Report, which frightened settlers up and down Africa, that there was to be one cast iron policy. What is the danger I see? If that becomes the conception and you create fears amongst the white people outside the Union of South Africa, they will all tend gradually to gravitate round the Union of South Africa.

The hon. Gentleman, I think, made one unfortunate remark which he ought to think over. He says, when a Conservative Government issues White Papers very much in the same language as those issued by the Labour party, they are accepted, but, when they are issued by the Labour party, they are regarded as ipso facto breaking up the Empire. It is most unfortunate that that sort of sentiment should be expressed from the Government Bench, and I honestly do not believe it is true. What is the essential difference as I see it? One of these documents, at any rate, was issued without any warning or any consultation. We never once issued, when we were in office, a White Paper without prior consultation with the Governors of those territories, and all the people there knew that we were consulting them on the issue of a White Paper. In every case full notice was given, quite publicly, to the effect that we intended to produce a White Paper dealing with the subject, and in almost every case we had delegates over here from the unofficial communities to discuss them. Take Indians in Kenya. There were long weeks of negotiations with Indian delegations, European and commercial delegations and a delegation in London with the Governor of the Colony. What the people of Africa fear is something being sprung upon them from Downing Street quite suddenly, which arouses their suspicion. There will be no apprehension if the present Government pursue the plan which previous Governments have pursued of consulting and giving fair warning to the people beforehand.

I regret this decision of the Government not to have a delegation of the people from Northern Rhodesia. This document is obviously written by the characteristic journalistic pen of the first signatory to it. Anyone who has read the "Livingstone Mail" will know the style quite well. I have been the victim of it, and I expect the hon. Gentleman will be the victim of it in turn. We recognise that fact. A great deal could be avoided, when apprehension of this kind has been created, if the Government would consider how these things looked from the other end and would, quite frankly, take the earliest opportunity either of sending out the hon. Gentleman—I remember that on one occasion I was nearly burnt in effigy in Nairobi—or of inviting them to come over here and talk the matter over. I believe that there has been a misunderstanding. The people thought that there were going to be wide and great changes of policy, but they have received the assurance both of the Governor and of the hon. Gentleman that that is not the intention of the Government. They are merely dotting the i's and crossing the t's. It is even worth while to get those people to come and have a talk at Downing Street.

The Government of Crown Colonies 5,000 miles away, especially in pioneer countries is becoming increasingly difficult. I wish to keep the system of crown colony government in those Crown Colonies. I do not want to see them permanently handed over to self-government. I want them to keep the authority and power of this House and of this Government. You will not be able to exercise to the full the right of trusteeship over the natives, which is the paramount duty of this House and of this Parliament, unless there is mutual confidence and goodwill between Europeans in this country and the Europeans living among the natives out there, the small minorities—and the smaller the minority, the more important it is—that there I should be some understanding of their lives and of their position. I am certain that you can only carry on this crown colony system of government by the closest personal intercourse and contact between all our races.

It was not under the British Government that they started the system of elected members in Northern Rhodesia. We found it when we took over the Government of the country six years ago. Those members are responsible to the electors. They feel a sense of responsibility and have to justify themselves to their constituents as we do here. If they are treated with a little personal consideration and are met round a table, they will not leave it to the editor of the "Livingstone Mail" to say the things he has said in his paper. In the memorandum they say that: a Colony where the same words mean very different things. In Malaya and Ceylon the same words mean quite different things, and until one realises this it is very dangerous to issue White Papers of any kind. I hope the debate will have done good, not harm, that we shall do our best to keep party controversy out of these matters and that every effort will be made to keep good will between Europeans here and Europeans there in order that the trusteeship of the British race, wherever it is, and particularly in the centre of Africa, may be maintained and that the tradition of our good name as native administrators may continue to be handed down.

This is a very great hullabaloo about nothing at all. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) made a speech in his usual patronising way and made a great deal of rambling charges against everybody. I for one am one of those responsible for agreeing with the policy of the Labour party as laid down in the White Paper and I was a conscientious objector during the War. The Noble Lord immediately honourably retracted his statement. I disagree entirely from the views expressed by hon. Members opposite and with the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). He is constantly expressing the most reactionary views in the most democratic language. He talks as if Crown Colony government is a blessing in every guise and he wants it maintained. It is strange how at times he relaxes his hold in certain directions and then tightens it in others. He quoted one sentence from the Memorandum issued by the settlers. terests of the great majority of the native people of a great continent to be paramount, everything must be sacrificed to the interests of a few white settlers. The Government in the White Paper says nothing of the kind. On page 4, of a document dealing with labour policy in West Africa there is this sentence:

I made an interjection about doctors for the native population and there was laughter, and someone said I was considering the trade union principles of the medical profession. Is the native being treated so well, and what is the proportion of doctors for the native population? What is the death rate and the infantile mortality rate; what is the school accommodation and how are the natives getting their children educated; how much is spent on native education as compared with the white settlers' education? If you take these questions as a whole, in my view, compared with the prospect of the white settlers and the amenities of life which the white settlers enjoy through their superior civilisation and knowledge and contact with Europe, the poor black proletariat, as they may be called, have practically no chance and are not being treated properly. If they were properly developed, there are opportunities and prospects of advance in colonial intercourse and trade which might have a reflection in later years on unemployment in this country.

It has been said that this Memorandum of the settlers was written in a spirit of irritation, and therefore must not be taken to mean exactly what the words indicate. It means this, that when a native does anything against the law or makes any threat or charge, he is sent to the worst part of Kenya and for years left there, and not brought back to civilisation. The white settler loses his literary grace and cannot express himself properly in a considered document to the Colonial Office, because he has a sense of irritation at some alleged misinterpretation of the declared policy of the democratic party in this country.

Deputations have been received by the Colonial Office time and time again. We have been absolutely pestered in the Lobby in the last few months by delegations from East Africa and people asking us to see them. We have heard about them in the Empire Parliamentary Association. No delegation from East Africa can pretend they cannot get a hearing in this country. They can. The Colonial Office, having decided on this policy, may have had certain reasons for declining in this particular instance to receive this particular delegation. There it is. It might have been wise to receive them, but that has nothing to do with the ordinary back bencher. The Government may have had adequate reasons in this particular case. Cases have arisen when the hon. Gentleman was himself in the Colonial Office in which he declined to receive individuals.

Yes, I can give an m stance of a delegate from the West Indies calling at the Colonial Office and asking for a personal interview with the right hon. Gentleman who was then Under-Secretary and having that request definitely declined. I refer to Mr. Marry-show, of Grenada.

I know Mr. Marryshow and have often talked with him and I am not aware that he ever called at the Colonial Office when I was there. If he did so, and if I had known that he was in the Office, I would have seen him, but I was never told.

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman says that the interview was not declined by him. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. It is a perfectly trivial point and I could only go on information which I regarded as authentic and which was given to me personally. I end on this note. In Africa the interests of the white settlers cannot possibly be on the same ground, as far as the democracy in this country is concerned, as those of the natives. The natives must be given a chance of education and of development and of social welfare, but that policy does not necessarily mean that the white settler is to be kept down. Opportunities must be given to the white settler to develop his work in his own way. The two things, as the Under-Secretary said, are complementary and all this fuss is being made because certain white settlers and certain people with interests in Africa think that the policy of the Government may clash with their own interests. As an ordinary obscure back bencher I hope that the Government will stand by their policy because it represents the real feeling among the bulk of the people and the democracy in this Empire.

There are two points which arise in this debate. One is as to the manner in which this question has been dealt with when putting it before the Colonies concerned and the other is as to the matter involved. I feel that there is a great deal in the criticism which has been made with regard to the manner adopted. I think that, not for the first time, a lack of consideration and tact has been shown in the way that the matter has been brought forward. If I may mention two other instances, they are the unfortunate reply issued by the Colonial Office to the Mandates Commission with regard to Palestine which I think was most regrettable and the general statement of Government policy on Palestine. These are three examples of the way not to do things and I think that with a little more consideration the Colonial Office would be able to get their policy carried through with far more acceptance and success. It is merely a question, in my opinion, of lack of consideration. For example, in sending this report to Northern Rhodesia there might have been, at any rate, some covering letter explaining that no revolutionary change was intended and that it was simply meant to carry out the policy which had been in force for many years.

These settlers are a long way off and are out of contact with opinion in this country, and they may have gained quite a wrong idea of the attitude of the Government. If the Government had only taken care to smooth the path by an introductory letter of some kind probably a great deal of this trouble would not have arisen. With regard to the reply of Lord Passfield in which he said that as the differences of principle were so profound, he did not feel justified in placing the expense of a deputation on the funds of the Protectorate, there is a great deal to be said for that in the ordinary way. The differences were profound and probably no agreement would be reached, but I think that, in the circumstances, there is something to be said for the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) that it might ease the situation if a certain number of the elected members were brought over here in order that it might be explained to them—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put .

The Orders of the Bay were read, and postponed .

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

I was suggesting that it might be wiser on further consideration for the Colonial Office to adopt the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Stafford. But when we come to the manner and to the policy itself an entirely different situation arises. The policy put forward by the Government represents the view of the vast majority of people in this country and in this House. I was very much interested in the speech of the Noble Earl, who referred to himself as the leader and interpreter of the elected members in Northern Rhodesia. It was a very curious position for him, because he was obliged to repudiate almost the whole of the views put forward by his alleged supporters in Rhodesia. I hope he does not think of qualifying as leader by settling there, because the House will be deprived of one of its greatest delights in his frequent and fervent interventions in its debates.

This matter having been raised, it is necessary to make it clear that the view of the elected members in this White Paper would not be tolerated in this country for a single moment. Many points have been dealt with, but I would like to refer to one or two. For instance, on page 5, it says that

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.