asked the Secretary for Mines what were the increased quantities of British coal expected to be exported to Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and other countries as the result of the recent trade agreements; and what has been the increase in exports up to the present time in each case?

As the reply is mainly statistical I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The increases in exports of British coal which were expected to result from the operation of the coal provisions of the Trade Agreements with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland, as compared with the exports in 1931, together with the actual increase of coal exports to those countries in 1933 as compared with 1931, are given in the following Table. With regard to the actual increases last year, it should be noted that the various agreements in no case operated for the full year, the actual dates of operation being Denmark and Iceland 1st July, 1933; Norway and Sweden 1st August, 1933; Finland 1st December, 1933.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will state the figures of coal imports to Denmark provided for in the Danish Trade Agreement; whether the deliveries up to date have been maintained at the level anticipated in that agreement; and whether there has been any delay or diminution in the supply arising from the operation of the quotas fixed for coal production in this country or from any other cause?

The Anglo-Danish Trade Agreement provides that not less than 80 per cent. of the total coal imports into Denmark shall be imported from the United Kingdom. During the first five months' operation of the agreement, which is the latest period for which statistics are available, the deliveries of coal to Denmark were slightly in excess of that percentage. So far as I am aware no difficulties with regard to supplies have arisen as a result of the quota system, but I understand that in certain instances there have been delays in shipment from Blyth arising from other causes. I have urged on the interests concerned the necessity for obviating these delays.

Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what were the other causes?

There has been some trouble in respet of delays in loading. My hon. Friend will understand that there has been a heavy concentration of orders from Scandinavian countries at this port, and for that reason some congestion was probably inevitable.

asked the Secretary for Mines the cost and expenses to date of the Mines Reorganisation Commission since their inception?

The total cost of the Commission to 12th February, 1934, has been £68,530, of which £9,256 may be recoverable in accordance with Section 12 (3) of the Coal Mines Act, 1930.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is yet in a position to state the Government's policy as to the amendment of the central scheme under the Coal Mines Act, 1930?

Yes, Sir. I hope to introduce this week a Bill to amend Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, by providing for the inter-district co-ordination of minimum prices by the central council and for the freedom of coal for export from quantitative control.

Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the Bill has been reached by agreement with the coalowners, or is it a Bill which will be introduced in default of an agreement?

My hon. and gallant Friend will know that the coalowners have agreed by a large majority that these two purposes are desirable, but they have not agreed upon the method. This Bill is the Government's solution of the method.

Can the hon. Member say whether the Bill deals with the export trade?

I think hon. Members had better await the Bill.

asked the Secretary for Mines what was the nature of the emergency that necessitated the working of the Broomfield Pit, Stonehouse, Lanarkshire, on two successive Sundays, 28th January and 4th February?

I am not quite clear as to the hon. Member's meaning. There is nothing in the Coal Mines Acts to render Sunday working illegal, and I have no powers in the matter. I understand on inquiry that some coal is drawn at this pit every Sunday and that some extra coal winding was carried out on the two Sundays in question for special reasons connected with machine working, but I am not aware of any contravention of the Coal Mines Acts. I should like to take this opportunity of saying, as I have said before, that I strongly disapprove of any coal winding on Sundays.

Has the Minister of Mines sent one of his inspectors to that particular pit to see whether there is any regular evasion of the Mines Act taking place, not merely in connection with Sunday labour, but in connection with other operations as well?

Inspection has been made, and, as my Hon. Friend knows, his question was down for written reply up till yesterday, and my latest information had to be obtained by telephone this morning, so I am not aware of the latest developments, but he will understand that the problem here, in times of emergency, is in terms of a contravention of the Act of 1908, with regard to overtime working, and it would apply equally whether the working was on Monday or any other day of the week.

Is the Minister aware that coal getting on Sunday is not the custom of the mining industry, and when introducing legislation, will he make provision to make it illegal to draw coal on Sunday?

I should want to consider that, but I would point out that under the Lord's Day Observance Act of 1667, which is the only Act under which proceedings can be taken, they must be taken by way of the common informer.

Can the hon. Member say whether there was any coal getting on Sunday, apart from the winding?

Yes, I understand there was coal winding carried out on Sunday there.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission have yet been able to prepare their scheme for the Cannock Chase coalfield; and what the present position is?

I am informed by the Commission that at present there is nothing to add to the information given on pages 10 and 11 of their recently published Report.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Commission obtained all the information they desired in connection with this matter?

That is a separate question, and, if the hon. Member will put it down, I will try to get the information.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the new legislation announced to-day, any provision will be made in order that the nation may get some return from the expenditure which has been incurred?

The Bill refers to Part I and not to Part II of the Act.

asked the Secretary for Mines if he can make any statement on the recent prosecution regarding illegal overtime at the Montague Main Colliery?

At the instance of my Department, legal proceedings were taken against the manager and under-manager of the Caroline Pit. Montague Main Colliery, in respect of a number of contraventions of the Coal Mines Act, 1908. The charges related to the illegal working of overtime and to failures to make proper entries in the overtime register. Both defendants pleaded "guilty" to all the charges, and fines and costs amounting altogether to £47 10s. were imposed.

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of boys under 16 years and under 21 years, respectively, employed in the mining industry in 1923 and 1933, respectively, with the percentages of the total number of men employed represented by these figures?

asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of pitwood and of steel for roof support in mines for 1929 and 1933, with the tonnage of coal raised in the same years?

The output of saleable coal in Great Britain in 1929 was 257.9 million tons, and in 1933 207 million tons. Particulars of the quantities of pitwood and of steel for roof supports used in mines are not available, but as regards pitwood, the industry is mainly dependent on imported supplies, which were 2,692,506 loads in 1929 and 1,944,000 loads in 1933.

Has the hon. Gentleman been able to base any conclusion upon that information, regarding the relative safety of wood and steel props?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to put that question down. I could give a lot of information, but general conclusions are another issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of South Africa in regard to Dominion Income Tax relief for 1933–34 in respect of shareholders in this country of the Standard Bank of South Africa, Limited?

As the reply involves a statistical statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is available.

If my hon. Friend will send me a letter explaining the circumstances more fully, I will look into the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the progress made in carrying out the wishes of the Lancashire cotton delegation and the Indian Government for the increased use of Indian cotton; whether he will consider the advisability of granting a bounty to encourage its use; and whether he will take steps to have established in Manchester a spot market for Indian raw cotton?

The committee set up in Lancashire following the Ottawa Conference to promote the greater use of Indian cotton in this country has already, by the appointment of a Cotton Commissioner to act in India as liaison officer between the Indian raw cotton interests and the Lancashire spinners, commenced action on the lines recommended by the recent United Kingdom textile delegation to India. I do not think a bounty to encourage the use of Indian cotton is desirable. As regards the last part of the question, I would point out that there has been available a spot market for Indian cotton in Manchester for several years past.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are very great difficulties in purchasing Indian cotton in Lancashire to-day?

Yes, but those difficulties have already been mentioned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility whereby future markets for Indian cotton, which is the more important point, can be set up?

I think the Lancashire cotton trade is quite capable of doing that itself.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many mills that would like to use Indian cotton need some adaptation of their machinery in order to be able to do so, and how would he help that adaptation?

I know there are some mills in which the adaptation has already taken place without Government assistance.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if the negotiations with the Japanese delegates on cotton and rayon have yet commenced; and, if not, when they will commence?

The discussions between the representatives of the United Kingdom and Japanese cotton and rayon industries will begin to-morrow.

If I put a question down for Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give information to the House as to what progress has been made?

No, I think it would be a most indiscreet thing to do.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the project for the importation of Indian raw cotton to be paid for by the export of cotton piece-goods made from Indian cotton; and whether his Department will be prepared to give active encouragement to such reciprocal trading between Lancashire and India?

I understand that a proposal on the lines indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend has been made to the Lancashire Indian Cotton Committee, and has been under consideration by that committee in the course of their work in relation to the use of Indian cotton in Lancashire. It would be premature to express any opinion on the matter in advance of consideration by the Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 3,000 bales of Indian cotton are on the high seas to be made up into Lancashire piece goods and sent back to India; and will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Government proposes to put into operation effective measures to carry out the wishes of the Lancashire Cotton Delegation and the Indian Government to increase the use of Indian to offset the Japanese moral claim to a large share of the trade in the Indian market based on her huge purchases of Indian raw cotton?

I have no reason to doubt the assiduity with which the committee are proceeding with their work.

asked the President of the Board of Trade in which of the trade negotiations which are now current the question of obtaining concessions with regard to the import of British herring is being raised?

Endeavours are being made to assist the British herring industry in connection with all the negotiations now in progress.

Can my right hon. Friend give any indication as to how the herring industry will be affected?

I hope, for their good.

When does my right hon. Friend expect the negotiations in regard to the herring industry to be completed?

I cannot make any definite promise, but I hope at a very early date.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the value, for each of the last two years, of the exports to Japan of munitions of war, both from this country and from the United States of America?

The total declared value of the domestic exports of arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores (excluding sporting arms and ammunition) consigned from the United Kingdom to Japan, including Kwantung, was £317,268 in 1932 and £246,354 in 1933. The domestic exports of firearms, ordnance, and ammunition from the United States to Japan, including Kwantung, were valued at 6,808 dollars in 1932; the corresponding figure for 1933 is not yet available. Any exports of explosives for industrial purposes would be included in these figures.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give details of the quantity and categories of arms, if any, licensed during 1933 for export to France and Germany, respectively?

The only war material licensed during the year for exportation to France consisted of 12,000 7.65 millimetre rifle cartridges, 150,000 13.2 millimetre machine gun cartridges, and 1,150 internal night tracers. No licences were issued for the exportation of war material to Germany, the importation of such material into that country being prohibited.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the recommendations addressed to him from the Council of the Chamber of Shipping; and when he proposes to take action to help the mercantile marine?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which were given to the hon. Member for Salford South (Mr. Stourton) on the 29th January and to the hon. and gallant Member for Paddington South (Vice-Admiral Taylor) on the 30th January.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the observance of the AngloTurkish Commercial Treaty of 1930 and the effort to secure most-favoured nation treatment for United Kingdom goods?

The whole matter is under active consideration, but I am not in a position at present to add to the replies I have previously given on the subject.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many trade and commercial agreements of this country would be affected by the withdrawal of the most-favoured-nation Clause;

(2) what period of time would be necessary to conclude the operation of the most-favoured-nation Clause in our present trade agreements?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on the 13th November, of which I am sending him a copy. The only change in the position since that date is that the trade agreement with Finland of 29th September, 1933, was ratified on the 20th November, 1933, and entered into force on the 23rd November.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the net tonnage of ships and of cargo passing through the Suez Canal in 1933?

According to figures issued by the Suez Canal Company, the net tonnage, Suez Canal measurement, of vessels, with cargoes and in ballast, which passed through the Canal during 1933 was 30,677,000 tons. The weight Of cargo carried cannot yet be stated, but for the first eleven months of 1933 this amounted to 24,123,000 tons.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action the Government propose to take with reference to the competition of Japanese goods with the products of Wolver- hampton and Willenhall; and whether they will consider the advisability, in view of the failure of the Japanese Government to adhere to its international obligations, of taking steps to secure a world-wide embargo on the import of Japanese goods?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) on the 28th November.

Does my right hon. Friend feel that it is right that Japan should have a free run in the markets of the world at a time when she is breaking her international obligations?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in view of the momentous issue raised by the question and the source from which it comes, whether he can use his influence with the Prime Minister, so that the hon. Gentleman may recross the Floor of the House?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any further statement with regard to the possibility of obtaining an agreement with France on the subject of quota cuts in respect of British goods?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the Order under Section 12 of the Import Duties Act which was made on 9th February and was laid before the House. For the rest, I have at present nothing to add to the statements I have previously made on this subject.

Is there anything in the statement that the French Government have asked our Government to suspend the operation of these increased duties for the moment?

I am afraid that I cannot give any further information than has already been communicated to the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give sympathetic consideration to the suggestion that, as a conciliatory act towards the French Government, he should suspend the operation of these duties, in order to clear the way to negotiations for a general agreement?

I will always give sympathetic consideration to any suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many cases have come to his notice during the past three months of failure to designate foreign goods as such; and whether he is satisfied that existing powers are adequate to deal with this matter?

As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the Merchandise Marks Acts do not require all imported goods to bear an indication of origin. During the last three months, eight cases in which there appeared to have been a breach of the statutory requirements were brought to the notice of the Department. In seven cases, the Board have secured from the firm concerned a written undertaking to comply with the law in future, and in the remaining case, the firm concerned are not now in existence. Some further complaints are being investigated. As regards the last part of the question, perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know in what particular direction he thinks that the existing Merchandise Marks legislation needs strengthening.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many horses were bought by the War Office from the Irish Free State during 1933–34?

For the period 1st April, 1933, to 31st January, 1934, the number was 168.

Can my hon. and gallant Friend find out from the Financial Secretary if these horses might have been bought in Great Britain, especially in Lincolnshire?

I think that if the hon. and gallant Member waits until the next question he will find some reference to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of con- victions for breaches of the law which have taken place in Scotland, respectively, for illegal trawling and for illegal seine-net fishing, in the years 1931, 1932 and 1933?

In 1931 there were 11 convictions for illegal trawling and 17 for illegal seining; in 1932, trawling, 17; seining, 11; in 1933, trawling, 16; seining, 9.

; Is my hon. Friend aware that the protection against illegal trawling on the North-East coast of Scotland is inadequate, and are the Government taking any steps to give the shore fisherman protection?

No effort will be left undone to make protection adequate and to suppress illegal trawling.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the range and average amount of penalties imposed in the case of illegal trawling and illegal seine-net fishing, respectively, within Scottish waters, for the years 1931, 1932 and 1933?

I am having a statement prepared, and if my hon. Friend would repeat his question in a week's time, I hope then to be able to give him full information.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of the grant made on the Department of Agriculture Vote, 1932–33, towards a biological investigation of the musk-rat; and why it was decided that the investigation should take place at Oxford University and not at a Scottish university or institute of biological research?

No provision was made on the Vote of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for 1932–33, and no expenditure has been incurred by them for the purpose indicated. I understand that expenditure in connection with the biological investigation referred to is met by a grant from the Vote of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Is it not the case that grants in connection with Oxford University are stated in the Appropriation Accounts?

That question must not be addressed to me.

May I ask if any success has attended this special investigation, which is rather important to Scotland?

That question should be asked of the Minister of Agriculture.

Is it not the case that biological research is specially engaged in in the Scottish Universities, particularly at Aberdeen?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of State-aided houses erected in Scotland in 1931, 1932 and 1933?

The number of State-aided houses erected by local authorities and private enterprise in Scotland in 1931, 1932 and 1933 was 10,654, 15,818 and 20,915, respectively.

Does my hon. Friend expect this figure to be exceeded in 1934?

I think it is too early to say that.

Will the hon. Gentleman be satisfied if the figure is not exceeded in 1934?

I am always hoping that each year will be better than the last in every matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the continuing detriment caused to agriculture in Scotland by the prevalence of bracken, which is threatening to over-run large areas of cultivable land; and what steps he proposes to take to assist in overcoming this menace?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, provision of assistance from public funds has recently been made for an investigation into the possibility of improving existing methods of eradication either by cutting by machinery or by spraying with herbicides from the air.

When is a report likely to be made?

Investigations are being made, but I cannot say when they will be completed.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the draft sent to him from the Scottish farm servants union of a scheme for collective bargaining in regard to wages; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend does not think that there is any action which he can usefully take in the matter at present.

Am I to understand from my hon. Friend that the attitude of his Department is on the whole sympathetic towards this matter?

So soon as joint proposals are made to us by the two parties concerned, my right hon. Friend will take every step that can possibly be taken to assist the subject under discussion.

Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that as prosperity comes to the farmers as a result of the marketing schemes there will be a reasonable demand made by farm workers for some share of that, and does he not consider that it is the Government's duty to take steps to see that that sharing actually takes place?

Up to date in Scotland the wages of farm workers have on the whole, when the situation was good, been a very satisfactory reflection of that situation. I should not be prepared to say, with that historic fact in the background, that it is necessary to take special measures, but we will certainly be most active to take any steps that can bring into being the proposals that are suggested as soon as the two parties have come to some arrangement on the subject.

Do the farmers recognise the Farm Workers Union?

I should require notice of that question.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Scottish method is much more satisfactory than the English method?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that unnecessary expense and waste of officials' time is often caused to local authorities by candidates standing in local authority elections who have no chance of being elected; and will he consider legislation to provide that a deposit of £10 shall be made by each candidate, such deposit to be forfeited as in the case of Parliamentary elections, if a candidate fails to poll a certain percentage of votes?

I am aware of the considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I would call his attention to the provision which has been made in the Local Government Act, 1933, with a view to discouraging frivolous candidatures. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to consider any further legislation on the subject at present.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that each of these futile elections costs the ratepayers between £100 and £150, and can he give any reason against a small deposit such as is suggested here that does not apply with equal force to the £150 deposit in Parliamentary elections?

The Chelmsford Committee considered this question, and they decided it was better to work along the lines of preventing a candidate from being nominated or from sitting for more than one seat or division. That is the line adopted in the Local Government Act of 1933 which has not had a chance of showing whether it will work satisfactorily. It does not come into operation until June this year and the hon. Member will then be able to see whether it solves the difficulty.

asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 66 of the second interim Report of the Business of Courts Committee, in which it is stated that 33 out of 65 chairmen of quarter sessions are not trained in the law; and whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter?

As is indicated in the paragraph to which the hon. Member refers, the justices at Quarter Sessions, with whom the appointment rests, realise the desirability of selecting a chairman or deputy chairman skilled in the law, where circumstances allow such a course. The Committee do not report in favour of any change in the law, and I do not think that any change is at present necessary or advisable.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman call the attention of Quarter Sessions to the opinion expressed in the report?

I think that Quarter Sessions are fully alive to the advantages of having a lawyer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Zeila salt area on the coast of British Somaliland, where natural salt is found, has been leased to the French Salt Company at Djibouti, thus depriving British Somalis of the means of livelihood on which they have depended for centuries; whether the French company is to exploit the salt or merely to control it for the purpose of removing competition from its own salt monopoly in Djibouti: and whether any compensation will be offered to the inhabitants of the Zeila district?

I am replying for my right hon. Friend. The suggestion that the salt area at Zeila has been leased to the French Salt Company at Jibuti, thus depriving British Somalis of their means of livelihood, is devoid of any foundation. The facts are that owing to the grant a few years ago by the Ethiopian Government to the French company of a monopoly for the sale of salt in Ethiopia, the salt producers at Zeila were faced with the necessity of selling their salt in Ethiopia through the monopoly company, or of foregoing their legitimate trade, so far as Ethiopia is concerned. In these circumstances smuggling has been resorted to, but this is unsatisfactory to all concerned, and particularly to the salt producers, who are exploited by the caravan owners and whose salt is liable to confiscation by the Ethiopian authorities. In the circumstances, the company has opened negotiations with the Government of British Somaliland which is endeavouring to conclude an agreement that will safeguard the interests of the Zeila salt producers. The negotiations are still proceeding.

asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he can state the number of acres in England, Wales, and Scotland, respectively, which have been denuded of trees since 1914; whether he has any reliable data to show what effect this has had upon the annual rainfall; and what the result has been?

No definite information is available, but it has been estimated that rather less than 450,000 acres of woodland were cut over during and immediately after the War. On the other hand, the Forestry Commissioners have planted approximately 237,000 acres, while the area of private planting is probably equivalent to current fellings. They have no data to show what effect, if any, the fellings have had upon the annual rainfall.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a committee of foreign creditors is considering the financial conditions of Rumania; and whether, in order that the Treasury may be informed as to the advisability of allowing loans to be floated again in London by uncreditworthy foreign borrowers, he will arrange to be represented on this committee so as to ascertain whether Great Britain has benefited on balance after the losses of British investors by the default of Rumanian loans, offered for subscription in London, have been taken into account and set off against the results of the export trade arising from the defaulted obligations of Rumania?

I understand that the Rumanian Government have invited a committee of three financial experts to examine the economic and financial situation of Rumania, and that their report is intended to supply the authoritative information required for the conclusion of an agreement in regard to the Rumanian foreign debt. The negotiation of such an agreement is a matter for the Rumanian Government and the representatives of the bondholders concerned, and I do not think that it would be desirable that a representative of His Majesty's Government should be added to this committee.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that during the past season the State of Rio de Janeiro shipped 725,000 boxes of oranges to three United Kingdom ports and that increased shipments will be made next year; and if he will make arrangements with the Brazilian authorities to ensure that the United Kingdom Customs authorities shall in future collect on the orange shipments to the United Kingdom enough per case to provide service on the defaulted loans made in London to the State of Rio de Janeiro?

I am informed that the shipment of oranges from the State of Rio de Janeiro during the period July to November, 1933, was approximately as stated in the question. I am not in a position to state what shipments will be made next year. My hon. Friend will have observed that the plan for the settlement of Brazilian loans during the period from 1934 to 1938, which was embodied in the decree published on the 8th February, includes loans issued by the State of Rio de Janeiro. I do not consider that it would be practicable to make arrangements on the lines suggested in the second part of the question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will take steps with a view to curtailing passport facilities in cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Departments concerned that through residence out of the United Kingdom it has not been possible to enforce the payment of Income Tax assessed and legally payable?

I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the curtailment of passport facilities in the case of British subjects who owe money to the Revenue, and that he would desire steps to be taken to prevent such people from leaving this country or from living abroad if already there. I am afraid it would not be practicable to adopt a proposal of this kind. It probably would not be effective in securing its object, but even if it were it would of necessity involve a restriction in the present period of validity for passports, namely, five years, which could not be confined to the comparatively small number of people at whom the proposal is aimed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost to the Exchequer in subsidy and rebate of taxation, up to the latest date for which figures are available, of the assistance given to the beet-sugar industry?

The total amount of State assistance given to the beet-sugar industry in subsidy and revenue abatement, from 1924 up to the present date, is £39,631,000.

In view of the fact that there is a draft scheme proposing to give further protection to this industry, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that a copy of it is submitted to every Member of this House?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate cost to the revenue if the law regarding Death Duties were amended to exclude the capital value of pensions received by widows from superannuation funds from which their husbands received pensions?

I am afraid that the statistics of the capital charged to Death Duties are not kept in sufficient detail to provide a basis for calculating the loss of duty which the suggested amendment would entail.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the present duty on imported films is estimated to work out at 8d. per performance only; and whether he will take steps in the forthcoming Budget to secure further revenue from the import of films from foreign countries?

As regards the first part of the question I have no information on the point mentioned; as regards the second part, I am sure that the hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the loss caused to the distributive trades through the encroachment of co-operative societies into the sphere of private trading; and, in order to prevent the adverse effect which they are calculated to have upon the revenue, if he will, in his forthcoming Budget, include provisions for taxing the whole gross profits of co-operative societies?

I am afraid that I must decline my hon. Friend's invitation to anticipate the Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that an ordinary trading concern may not charge its gifts to hospitals and charities against profits but is taxed on such gifts; and can he state what steps have been taken to ensure that, since the Finance Act, 1933, none of the sums of money spent by the co-operative societies on political propaganda are charged as a business expense but are taxed as part of the profit?

My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. The question whether any particular sum expended by a trader is deductible in computing his profits for income tax purposes is governed by the general provisions of the Income Tax Acts, which apply to the assessment of co-operative societies under the Finance Act, 1933, in precisely the same way as to other traders. Rule 3 (a) of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D provides that

"no sum shall be deducted in respect of any disbursements or expenses not being money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade, …."

Under this Rule such of the gifts mentioned by my hon. Friend as represent ordinary subscriptions to local hospitals and charities from which the traders' employés may derive benefit would be regarded as allowable. On the other hand, money spent on political propaganda is not deductible. I have no reason to suppose that co-operative societies are claiming the allowance of such expenditure in the computation of their income tax liabilities. If such a claim were made it would be opposed on behalf of the Revenue by the inspector of taxes in the ordinary exercise of his duty.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the loss to the revenue if the entire distributive trade of this country were to be based on co-operative principles?

The revenue statistics do not show the amount of tax derived from the distributive trade. I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to furnish any estimate of the effects on revenue that might result from such a change.

But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there would be a loss of revenue?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received as to the injurious effect of the Petrol Tax on the (garment) dry-cleaning industry; and whether he will consider this matter, and the question of allowing a rebate on the spirit used in the industry, when he is reviewing the tax in connection with his forthcoming Budget?

I have not recently received any representations in this connection, but I am aware that the matter has been raised on previous occasions. With regard to the second part of the question, all relevant factors are taken into consideration when particular duties are reviewed in connection with the Budget.

asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of making the necessary arrangements to set up an impartial committee of this House to consider all matters relating to time-table Motions in future?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 29th January last in reply to a question on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank).

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that one of the principal causes of irritation in the working of these time-table Motions is the feeling by the Opposition of the day that the details are drawn up by the Government and not by any impartial or representative committee; and does he not appreciate that if a committee such as is suggested in the question could find some way of getting over the difficulty it would very much facilitate the working of these time-table Motions in future?

I fully recognise the problem which my hon. Friend has stated, but I doubt whether the suggestion he makes for dealing with it, at any rate in the first instance, is a practicable one. It is under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received from the Austrian Government a statement of the evidence on which their recent complaint to the German Government was based, and whether he can make any statement regarding the present situation in Austria?

The Austrian Minister communicated to me on the 8th February a collection of documents, constituting the material on which the Austrian Government propose to base their appeal to the League of Nations. On the following day I handed to Baron Franckenstein an aide memoire of which I will read the text:

"His Majesty's Government note that the Austrian Government have decided in principle to bring the matters of which they complain before the League under Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.

His Majesty's Government have publicly stated that they do not seek to discourage Austria in bringing this appeal. The integrity and independence of Austria are an object of British policy, and while His Majesty's Government have no intention whatever of interfering in the internal affairs of another country, they fully recognise the right of Austria to demand that there should be no interference with her internal affairs from any other quarter.

On entertaining Austria's appeal, the Council would presumably endeavour to ascertain what Germany may have to say as to the facts alleged, before reaching its recommendations. His Majesty's Government therefore think that the proper course is not to pronounce a view on the Austrian material in advance of its consideration by the Council."

That was in reply to the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question. In reply to the second part of the question, Sir Walford Selby, His Majesty's Minister at Vienna, has been informed by the Political Director of the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, that the sequence of the principal events of yesterday was as follows: The Socialist headquarters at Linz were visited yesterday morning by the police in search of arms. There was armed resistance by members of the Socialist "Schutzbund" and one policeman was shot. The troops then intervened, and martial law was declared at Linz. Following these events, the Socialist party declared a general strike in Vienna, and this was answered by the Government with a declaration of martial law. The town hall was occupied in the evening by regular troops and the Mayor and principal officials were confined to their quarters. Sir Walford Selby also reports that the municipal council has been dissolved and the Minister of Social Welfare has been appointed Federal Commissioner for Vienna. There appears to have been intermittent street fighting with some loss of life, the extent of which cannot yet be estimated. The streets were in darkness last night—that is, the streets of Vienna—but otherwise essential services had not been interfered with. Martial law has been proclaimed in Carinthia and Styria, and disturbances appear to have taken place in the latter province. The rest of Austria is believed to be quiet.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Austrian Government that any suppression of representative institutions in Austria is not going to help their case with public opinion in this country?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is for the Austrian citizens to decide between the Austrians and the Germans, now that the Austrians are doing the same thing that the Germans did?

May I ask if and when the League of Nations will be able to discuss the difficulties of Austria?

I believe the situation is that, though the Austrian Government have decided in principle to present their appeal to the League, it was left to Dr. Dolfuss to decide at what moment that should be done. As soon as that appeal is presented, I apprehend that there will be a special meeting of the Council.

Will the League take no notice of these disturbing events unless the matter is brought before them by Dr. Dolfuss?

I do not at the moment see how the League could of its own motion enter upon the matter of a dispute under an Article which gives to Austria the friendly right, to raise such questions, if Austria wishes to do so, as she says she does.

Is there not something, if not in that Article then in some other Article, which gives the League a certain responsibility where conditions in one nation are threatening the peace of Europe?

I must have notice of that question.

Will the Government make their support of Austria in the League of Nations Council dependent upon decent treatment of that Government's own citizens?

Can the right hon. Gentleman get for us any information as to the whereabouts of ex-Chancellor Renner, Mayor Seitz, and Herr Bauer, about whose fate the "Times" newspaper seems to be in doubt?

I have already asked for information, and I cannot give any answer to that question at present.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there was a number of provocative incidents towards the trade unions and co-operative societies—

Order!

I have some doubt in my mind as to whether a question dealing with the policy of another country is in order. It may be, if it only asks for information, but it certainly cannot be debated.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware, that in Committee on the Unemployment Bill, out of 19 Clauses already disposed of, eight Clauses, most of them affecting very materially the structure of the Bill, have been passed without debate; and whether, in view of the importance of this Measure and of the fact that it vitally affects large numbers of people in every constituency, steps will be taken to ensure the proper consideration of all its Clauses, and a definite pronouncement made on this matter before the resumption of the Committee stage next week?

May I say that in asking this question I am not pressing the Prime Minister for an immediate answer? I understand that there was some difficulty in the usual channels, and that he has only recently received the question. Moreover, he also replied on the subject last night. Perhaps, therefore, I might ask him for a reply in the course of a week, when he has had an opportunity of considering the matter.

It is quite true that I have had an unusually short notice for a question of the importance of this one, but I am prepared to answer it.

The principles of the Bill did of course receive very full consideration in the three days which were devoted to the Second Reading of the Bill, and the financial aspect received consideration in the Debate on the Money Resolution, which occupied a little over a day and a-half. I regret the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and can only repeat what I have stated several times, that, when the Committee stage is concluded, the Government will provide such time on Report stage as will ensure discussion of the really important points which have not been adequately dealt with in Committee. It is the Government's intention, when the time comes to allot the number of days which can be given to the Report stage, to consult the Opposition parties and representatives of supporters of the Government so as to work out a time-table in the most convenient form for the House as a whole.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the feeling, which is very widely distributed throughout the House, that some of these Clauses especially needed to be discussed in Committee, he will not consider the possibility of recommitting certain of the Clauses, particularly the financial Clauses, which cannot be discussed fully on Report? In view of the fact that it was the omission of the important Committee stage that impressed Members yesterday, and that a mere discussion on Report does not get over the difficulty, could not the right hon. Gentleman, before we resume the discussion of the Bill again next week, consider whether it is possible to make a statement with regard to recommitting certain of the important Clauses?

I should like to reinforce that suggestion, and to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not specially consider recommitting the Bill for the consideration of the very important Clause 18?

I think the House will agree with me that any statement definitely pledging the Government to any method of procedure in the matter at this moment would be quite premature; but I would say to the House that all the suggestions that have been made to facilitate business, and to carry the assent of the whole House on the business that has been done, will be considered by the Government before they take into consideration what is to be done on the Report stage.

The possibility of recommittal is not excluded?

I am afraid I really must confine myself to what I have already said.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he really understands that Clauses 17 and 18 are practically the heart of the Bill as far as Part I is concerned, and that he is not at all meeting us in this matter if he is merely depending on the Report stage? That will not do at all; the House wants an opportunity of discussing the principle of the Clauses.

In view of the fact that it is not possible to discuss Clause 18 in full on Report, would the Prime Minister undertake to give special consideration to the question of the possible recommittal of this particular Clause, in order to give the House an opportunity of considering it? It involves £115,000,000.

Answer!

Really, I have answered. I have nothing to add to what I have said.

May I ask the Prime Minister if there is any alteration in the business for Thursday?

Yes, Sir; an alteration is proposed in Thursday's business. In addition to the Motions to approve the Cattle (Import Regulation) Order and the Additional Import Duties Orders Nos. 1 and 23, it is proposed to take the Import Duties (Foreign Discrimination) Order. The Motion to approve the Amendments to the Hops Marketing Scheme will, in consequence, be postponed.

I beg to move, in page 19, line 38, after "agriculture," to insert:

"and of persons whose salaries exceed two hundred and fifty pounds per annum."

When I was called upon last night, five minutes before the Adjournment, the House was in the kind of conversazione which always takes place in the Chamber at about a quarter to Eleven, and I am afraid that very few Members present were able to hear what I was saying. I will not repeat myself beyond saying briefly that this Amendment, which stands in the names of myself and a number of other University representatives, has for its object the taking of the only step which appears to be immediately practicable to move persons who have been earning salaries of over £250 within the scope of the Bill. The strait waist-coat in which the Financial Resolution restricts the powers under the Bill debars us, I understand, from attempting to move persons of this kind directly within unemployment insurance, and it also debars us from trying to remove the still more glaring anomaly which prevents persons earning over £250 a year from applying to the Unemployment Insurance Board if they should be so unfortunate as to require assistance from public funds; but it is within the power of the Government to do both of these things by recommitting the Bill, and I would urge them at least to do the latter. There may be controversy as to the desirability of bringing persons of this class within compulsory insurance, but, while there is some doubt as to whether the professional or executive officer class themselves desire compulsory insurance, there can, I think, be no difference of opinion as to the grave injustice of excluding them from the operations of the new body that is to be set up under Part II of the Bill, and leaving them, if they should require assistance, to the operation of the Poor Law. If the Poor Law is not good enough for the agricultural labourer, it is not good enough for the university graduate, the professional man or the executive officer class.

When I first saw how my own constituents, men and women belonging to the professional occupations and chiefly recruited from them, were treated under the Bill I saw red. I could hardly believe that I had read the Bill aright. It is astonishing that this matter has attracted so little public attention. The explanation is obvious. It is that there is relatively a very small number of educated unemployed persons who are in such straits that they are compelled to apply for assistance to public funds. I do not say that educated unemployed people themselves are few in number. Unfortunately, there are no ways of measuring the number, but I believe that if the truth were known it would be found that there are far more of them than is generally suspected. Undoubtedly the great majority of them manage to keep their heads above water by the aid of savings and family assistance, and they do not have to apply either for charity or public aid, but there is a certain number who, either from bad luck or ill health or heavy family claims and the like and lack of well-to-do relatives, are brought actually to destitution by unemployment.

May I mention three cases? One is that of a Manchester graduate who served right through the War, distinguished himself at Manchester University and took an honours degree, and he now writes that he has been for 2½ years out of employment. He has written over 500 letters to private employers and has answered double that number of advertisements, scarcely ever so much as getting a reply. He adds, "You cannot conceive the depth of misery to which those unavailing efforts have brought one." Another case is that of a Cambridge graduate, a commissioned officer throughout the War, who then held a post of great importance in one of the Dominions and returned home and put all his savings into a school. It failed utterly and now his family are left destitute. The third is the case of a man educated at a Scottish secondary school who for many years was a bank manager in one of our Colonies, earning at one time £1,500, and now a friend who knows him personally writes that he and his wife and four children are down and out, on the rocks, literally starving. It is pitiful to witness the misery shown in their faces. They look almost demented.

Two-thirds of my constituents began their education in elementary schools. That is an indication that they are not men and women with wealthy families behind them. Largely through their own exceptional ability and industry and the sacrifice of their parents, they have raised themselves to a position in which they are able to earn more than £250 a year. It is contrary to all common sense and justice that, when owing to this long continued economic depression they are thrown out of work there should be no resource for them but the Poor Law and that they should be utterly ignored under this Bill, just because they have been more successful than some of their comrades and reached a relatively high salary. Why should it be so? Is it simply because they are relatively few? Is it because they have not a trade union with several million members behind them? I cannot help thinking that the small attention that has been paid to their case is due to the fact that these people are thought to be of little political importance, but it is not good to leave men and women of that sort profoundly discontented, labouring under a deep sense of injustice.

My Amendment does not propose to set any limit of income. I am aware that the Unemployment Insurance Commission recommended that insurance should be extended up to the income limit of £350, and there is a later Amendment proposing an income limit of £500, but there is really no reason for an income limit. It will be a matter for the Statutory Committee to decide if it brings forward proposals. I suggest that an income limit would be troublesome to work. The better off these salaried persons are, the better they can afford contributions and the less likely they are to make claims for benefit. Therefore, they will be a positive asset and will not be a heavy drain on the assistance boards if they are brought within them. As the Commission pointed out, there are objections to an income limit, because those round about the border line change. Sometimes a man gets a rise which raises him above £250, when he loses the benefit of his previous contributions. Then he may have a cut in salary or may have to take a lower paid job and falls below the limit and has to start over again. It will do no harm if we Members of Parliament have to buy our 1s. 1d. or 11d. stamp. The 15s. or 13s. a week benefit might come in useful to some of us.

There is a very considerable case for the Statutory Committee considering whether these persons should not be put into separate classes with benefits and contributions higher than the general range of contributors, the Exchequer contribution being, of course, the same for everyone, in order that there may be some relation between contributions and benefits and the standard of life. I should like to see the principle of graded contributions and graded benefits extended to all classes of contributors, as is done in other European countries which have developed the system of unemployment insurance. I appeal to the Government not only to accept this very modest Amendment but to go further and see whether, by recommitting the Financial Resolution, they cannot do justly by this class of people both under Part I and Part II of the Bill. Sometimes one thinks that Members of this House forget that the fact that disability and injustice and suffering only affect a few persons is no reason for ignoring it. Suffering is always individual. There cannot be any suffering greater than the suffering of one mind, one body and one heart, but that is no reason why the suffering of these men and women should be ignored.

Before we go on with the Debate, I should like to deal with a question with which I have been asked to try and deal with a view to economising the time available for the Committee on this and the following Amendments. Following this will come an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) and others with a view to setting up machinery for the bringing into Employment Insurance of share fishermen, and that will be followed by one in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) deal- ing in a similar way with domestic servants. There is, of course, a common principle concerned in regard to all these Amendments although the classes are different. The class dealt with in the Amendment now before the Committee is most commonly known as black-coated workers, and this will be followed by similar questions relating to share fishermen and domestic servants. Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee in general to discuss on this Amendment the provisions of the following Amendments dealing with share fishermen and domestic servants, and then only to take a Division, if required, on the following Amendments. That, of course, can be done with the general assent of the Committee.

I wish to support the hon. Lady in this Amendment. University Members are aware of a large number of very serious cases covered by the Amendment. They arise out of a rather curious state of circumstances which probably the Committee have not quite realised. Since the War a large number of members of the Universities have come into residence from poor homes, and, assisted by charity, their numbers have very greatly increased. In fact, at Cambridge it reaches a total of very nearly half the University. These young men have very poor homes, but they go on. When I say that in one of my colleges I know of two boys who are going through their university course, having come from homes maintained on unemployment relief, hon. Members will see the sort of cases that we have in mind. These boys will naturally take their degrees in due course, and when they take their degrees they will very likely get black-coated employment in offices and such like occupations and perhaps have a salary of more than £250 a year. When these men get out of employment, as large numbers of them do, they have not the well-to-do homes, as was the case with the old university student, to which to return and obtain assistance. They have to face a state of absolute destitution. The Amendment asks that the Unemployment Statutory Committee should be asked to look into the matter and to report, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will see his way to accept it.

May I say a few further words to the Committee following upon what I said just now? Obviously, if we are to adopt the course proposed it will be for the convenience of the Committee generally that the Chair should first of all call upon hon. Members to speak in the discussion who are interested in the black-coated workers, and then pass on to call those interested in the share fisherman, and afterwards those interested in domestic servants. I need only say that it will of necessity assist the Chair and facilitate debate if when Members are called upon to speak on one of the later Amendments they will regard the Debate on the earlier Amendments to some extent as being closed.

I believe that the proposal which you have made will have unanimous acceptance among the Committee and that it will give an opportunity to discuss this principle in a general way and the movers of the Amendments an opportunity to put their respective views. The proposal has been accepted so unanimously that I feel sure that it will be honoured.

I merely ask that those who wish to speak with regard to share fishermen or to domestic servants should not rise in their places until after I have called the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth and that those who are interested in domestic servants should not rise until after I have called the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon.

Will you make clear, Sir Dennis, what you mean when you say that you will call those interested in black-coated workers. Do you mean those whose names are down to the Amendment?

That is what I mean, and I shall know, if hon. Members rise before I call upon the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth, that they have done so because they want to speak on the question of black coated workers.

I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), and, in view of the general desire for economy of time, I will compress my remarks into a very small compass. It is true that neither my name nor the names of my hon. Friends are among the names to this Amendment or to the other Amendments mentioned, but we have Amendments down which, if not exactly the same in scope, are, at all events, seeking to achieve the some objects as the Amendment of the hon. Lady. The Amendment is one which will receive the sympathetic consideration of the whole Committee, and it will no doubt be the wish of the Committee that the matter should be referred to the Statutory Committee for consideration. The hon. Lady expressed some doubt as to how widespread was the desire among the higher salaried workers for an Amendment of this kind for the purpose of including them within this scheme. The demand for it is somewhat wider than the hon. Lady seems to think. Certainly all those organisations which are concerned to represent the professional classes and the black-coated workers are in favour of the consideration of this matter by the Committee, and, indeed, would go further and ask to be included in the scheme or brought within the scope of Part TI of the Bill.

Judging from the correspondence which has reached me from all parts of the country since the Amendments have appeared on the Paper, I have little doubt that there is a very widespread desire indeed for treatment of this kind for these people who are in misfortune. It is only natural that there should be. A few years ago things were different, but now, owing to trade depression, accentuated by amalgamation of businesses, which is such a feature in our modern organisation, and also the mechanisation of office practice, not only has the volume of unemployment among the black-coated workers been very much increased but it has tended to be very much more aggravated. After a long period of unemployment it becomes increasingly difficult to find work in other directions, and it is exceedingly difficult for these men to find work in a reasonable time.

I take encouragement in this matter when I refer to the fact that the importance of this proposal was recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one of his speeches on the Second Reading of the Bill. He admitted that there was a strong argument in favour of the inclusion of this type of worker within insurance, and went on to point out that there were certain consequential difficulties of an administrative character which might arise, especially in relation to health insurance and in connection with pensionable rights. But if there are difficulties—and it would be idle to say that there are none—they are not a reason for not submitting these cases to the committee for their consideration, but rather a reason for submitting them as quickly as possible, in order that the matter may be thoroughly explored, and justice may be done where it is badly needed. It is perhaps apt to be overlooked that those who work in an office and wear a black coat, belong just as much to an industrial organisation as those who are carrying out process work in the factories. They are just as essential to the conduct of the industry as those in manual work. I have no wish to add to the list of hard cases quoted by the hon. Lady. I imagine that it is the experience of everyone of us to hear of cases which are heartrending in their character. In the majority of these cases there are social obligations, which, although they are an unwritten law, are nevertheless effective. I think that these cases call for as much sympathy as any others, and therefore, I hope sincerely that the Government will accept this Amendment, and give some assurance which will afford relief, and do justice to a class which is deserving of it.

The hon. Member who has just spoken has given very conclusive reasons why the Statutory Committee should consider and report upon this problem, and I need not add, in confirmation, any words to the argument that he has used on the general case. I want merely to refer to a special case which has been brought to my attention—the case of musicians working in orchestras, theatres and such places. They are ruled out of Unemployment Insurance and Health Insurance, although their wages are often a good deal less than £250, because their wages are deemed to be higher than that, as their hours are short, and also because they are deemed not to be manual workers.

I really do not know why a musician in an orchestra should be deemed not to be a manual worker if he wants to be. I do not know if my right hon. Friend has passed the time in playing the violin, or piano, or even the flute. If he has done so, he will find that these pastimes need manual dexterity at least equal to that of a mechanic, and I should have thought that musicians had every right to be deemed to be manual workers. Anyhow, the limit of salary is particularly hard on them, because a very normal wage for that class is worker is, I understand, something between £3 and £3 10s. per week. Although their hours are, perhaps, only 24 to 30 during the week, they cannot spend their leisure hours gainfully in any other way. For their 30-hour week they get, perhaps, £160 to £180 a year, and surely those people should be deemed not to have an income in excess of £250 when the facts are all against it. A case of that kind, I submit, is one which the Statutory Committee should reasonably look into and report upon. Because I hope that the Minister will encourage them to do so, I ask him favourably to consider this case.

One cannot discuss one section of workers without having regard to the whole field of insurance, and I have felt all along that there was a great deal of selfishness in this approach to the question. There are to-day certain sections of working people who, because of the alteration in economic circumstances, now come along and ask to be brought in, and I confess that this Amendment raises the whole question of bringing within the insurance field and scope of this Bill every section of the community. You cannot go on exempting railwaymen, and, at the same time, demand that these other people should be brought in. To-day the issue arises of covering every field by insurance as a whole. The point here is that of the black-coated workers, as they are familiarly called. While I think there is still for the doctor, teacher and clergyman a fairly regular continuity of employment, the real tragedy—and I speak with some knowledge of Scotland and the universities there—is with regard to those who have been to the universities and are never placed. We have in Scotland a tradition, which is still fairly highly honoured, of very poor people sending their sons and daughters to the great universities in order that they may give them a better chance than their parents had. One of the tragedies is that these poor people—frequently miners, labourers or those belonging to the engineering trade, earning a very insufficient wage—save and stint themselves in order to maintain certain members of their family at the university, and when they have finished, they find that the great public authorities who employ the school teachers in Scotland have no vacancies for those men and women.

I speak only for those places I know best, but to-day one of the tragedies is that of women who have taken the degree of Master of Arts, or Bachelor of Science, pleading to become temporary clerks in the Employment Exchange. The same applies to the men who have finished, and find it impossible to be placed as doctors. The result is that they have nothing to keep them during the most awful period, perhaps, of their career. It is not so important, in my view, although I do not say it is not important, for the doctor who has been established for a number of years. But it is vitally important for the young man who has been through the university, and I think that in any scheme which is brought in—and I hope that a scheme will be brought in—these people attending the university, and keeping out of the labour market, ought to be credited with stamps for the time they attend the university. I say to the people who control the fund that that is one of the best things that could be done.

One hears constantly in this House that we want people, not on unemployment benefit but in work. It is a commonplace phrase. I have little patience with it, but it is said every day in the week here. Everyone who keeps a son out of the labour market at 14, 15 or 16 years of age, and from the terrible competition, ought to be encouraged and recompensed for so doing. We are constantly punishing decent people. Under the Anomalies Act, if a man deserts his wife, the wife is treated better than if the man lives with her in decency. Encouragement should be given to these people who are trying to do the right and decent thing. The present system is miscalled insurance. Every working person, whether he be a doctor, Member of Parliament, or railwayman, should be included within the four walls of this scheme, each contributing their quota to it. The present scheme has never been an insurance scheme. Anything which exempts good lives and leaves in the bad ones is not insurance. Everything should be revised. Certain people in municipalities who are within the income limit are exempted because they have a superannuation scheme. I say that those people are good lives, and ought not to be allowed to contract-out. They have a duty to the insurance fund just as much as the regularly employed bricklayer or miner. Nobody because they happen to be privileged should be allowed to contract-out. All should take their equal share, and I trust that this Amendment, limited as it is, will be carried, and that every section of workers will be brought within the field of insurance.

I would venture to make an appeal to the Committee on this matter. We have still to get through 14 Clauses before 7.30. Some of them raise quite important points of principle, and the point of this Amendment and the succeeding Amendments is really a narrow one. It is not whether or not black-coated workers should be included in the scheme, or whether share fishermen should be included, or whether domestic servants should be included. None of those three classes can possibly be included in the scheme under the Bill any more than agricultural workers, and if it were desired to include those classes, it would be necessary to have a new Measure altogether.

Could it not be done by recommitting the Financial Resolution?

No; it would be necessary to have an entirely new Bill. Therefore, the point which we are discussing this afternoon is the very narrow one of whether or not this House desires to lay on the Advisory Committee the statutory duty of considering immediately whether they can produce practicable proposals for these three classes. This Statutory Committee is being set up by my right hon. Friend advisedly in order to fulfil the sort of duties that hon. Members desire to see them do. We are concerned more particularly to-night to see that the very valuable time of the committee should not be mortgaged unduly at the very beginning of its existence. The committee will have to review the whole finance of the scheme and see whether or not any alteration should be made in the rates of contribution, or the rates of benefit, or the statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit. Clause 20 also lays on the committee the duty of considering impartially whether any practicable proposals for an insurance scheme for agriculture can be drawn up. In addition to that, my right hon. Friend, at an earlier stage of the Debates, promised that he would refer to the Statutory Committee certain issues arising out of the operation of the Anomalies Act. It is impossible to-day to foresee exactly what other important problems will arise on which we shall require the considered opinion of the committee shortly after its appointment.

As regards the three classes we are discussing this afternoon, they stand in a rather different position from agriculture. Agriculture and the other three classes were all considered in great detail and with great care for a long period of time by the Royal Commission, who received a great deal of evidence on the subject. In the case of agriculture the Royal Commission definitely recommended the course that has been roughly followed in the Bill, namely, that of asking the committee to see whether they can devise a means of getting round the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend referred last night in dealing with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). In the case of the other three occupations which we are discussing this afternoon the Royal Commission said that they ought not to be included in an insurance scheme at all. Therefore, without expressing any considered view as to whether the Royal Commission was right or not, there is a prima facie case against the inclusion of these three occupations, whereas in the case of agriculture there is a prima facie case that it should be considered immediately by the Statutory Committee.

My right hon. Friend has no intention of opposing his mind to the three particular cases. Indeed, the plea made by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) was very powerful and, in due course, no doubt the Statutory Committee will be asked whether there is any means of carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Members. The same thing applies to the cases of the share fishermen and domestic servants, but to impose upon the Advisory Committee the statutory duty of considering at once those three cases when the Royal Commission have said that they are not suitable for inclusion in the scheme, would not be possible. For these reasons, I hope that hon. Members will not press the Amendment, and I appeal to other hon. Members to allow us to get away from these particular Amendments to the remaining Clauses with which we have to deal.

How does the hon. Member reconcile his statement that the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance advised against the insurance of black-coated workers, when they say in their report:

"After reviewing the evidence, we consider that, so far as unemployment insurance is concerned, it is desirable on general grounds to raise the income limit to £350."