asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that in the, Indo-Japanese agreement and treaty, on account of the ratio of exchange being fixed on the lower basis on which it stood on 31st December, 1933, any British cotton piece-goods, even if the manufacturing costs were based on a parity with those of the Japanese, would enter British India on the present tariff rates at a disadvantage of 15 per cent. to 17 per cent. against their Japanese competitors; and what steps he intends to take to rectify this position?

I am aware of the advantage enjoyed by Japanese exporters owing to the depreciation of the yen, but the position will be eased by the quantitative limitation of imports of Japanese cotton piece goods into India under the Indo-Japanese Commercial Convention as well as by the imposition of specific duties on particular classes of cotton piece goods.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the quantitative restrictions apply to the whole of India, that is to say, to the native States as well as to British India?

I think I had better have notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has anything further to report with reference to the large order, totalling some £25,000,000 in value, obtained by a French trade representative in Manchukuo.

According to the Japanese Press, a provisional agreement for the formation of a Franco-Japanese consortium designed to promote French trade with Manchuria was concluded at Tokio on the 3rd March between representatives of the South Manchurian Railway and of certain French interests. This agreement is subject to ratification by the parties concerned. It is not understood to involve orders of any such magnitude as my hon. Friend suggests.

Is there no possibility of our coming to some arrangement of the same nature, or is our trade to be entirely lost?

I sincerely hope not, but the hon. Member will observe that the transaction to which he has directed attention was the result of private enterprise on the part of trading interests in the two countries concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman looking into the question of whether, owing to our non-recognition of Manchukuo, adequate advice and assistance are available through the British Consular service to enable British firms to do business in this way?

The Noble Lord is quite right in speaking of non-recognition, but that applies to the other country concerned. None the less, I am satisfied that our Consular service in Manchuria operates quite effectively.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the large quantity of cheap timber recently imported into Finland from the Russian Soviet Union which, after being sawn and planed in Finland, is exported to Great Britain as Finnish timber, thereby injuring the home lumber trade; and what action is being taken in this matter?

I am aware that there is a trade in timber which is exported from Russia into neighbouring countries (including Finland) mainly in the form of logs, and that a certain quantity of this timber is re-exported after undergoing certain processes. This trade has been in existence for a number of years, and I have no reason to suppose that the recent importations into Finland have been other than normal.

Will the hon. Gentleman keep an eye on this matter in order to See that there is no abnormal importation of this wood from Finland?

Certainly, it will be most closely watched.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any information to show that the British official pavilion at the Levant Fair, Tel Aviv, will be ready by the opening date of this fair on 26th April; what is the total number of British firms which will be represented at this fair; and what arrangements have been made to deal with applications for space in excess of that available in the official pavilion?

I understand from the Federation of British Industries, which is responsible for its organisation, that it is confidently anticipated that the British pavilion will be ready by the opening day; that according to the latest information available, 164 United Kingdom firms will be represented; and that, in the event of space not being available for late applicants in the British pavilion, the fair authorities will find room for them in adjacent buildings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in respect of the erection of an aerodrome in or in the neighbourhood of Tel Aviv; and what facilities are being provided for air transport to the Levant Fair?

I am informed by the High Commissioner for Palestine that arrangements are being made for the establishment of a temporary aerodrome near Lydda, which it is hoped will be ready for use when the Levant Fair opens on the 26th April.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the action of the Irish Free State in offering a bounty of 10s. on calf skins, whereby the English market in skins is glutted with imports, he will consider the immediate prohibition for the present of all such imports from the Free State?

There is no power under existing legislation to take the action suggested by the hon. Member.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the wholesale butchery which has taken place recently in Southern Ireland; and will he inquire into the matter and see whether some legislation can be brought forward to prohibit these imports?

The whole matter to which my hon. Friend is drawing attention is extremely recent. I have seen Press reports, and am awaiting further information. The effect on British agriculture and British trade will, of course, be watched very closely.

Will the hon. Gentleman in his consideration of this matter, take care that nothing is done to make the work of the Dominions Secretary more difficult than it is?

asked the Secretary of State for India the names of the 17 men of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Garhwali Rifles sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in connection with the disturbances at Peshawar on 23rd April, 1930, as the result of a court-martial at Abbottabad in June, 1930; will he state the individual sentences inflicted on each man; the place of their detention; their present condition of health; whether any of these prisoners have been released, and, if so, which; and whether he will consider the release of any who may be still serving their sentences?

I am circulating the names of the men and their individual sentences. I have no information regarding the third and fourth parts of the question. Under the normal practice by which His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief reviews periodically the sentences of all persons convicted by courts-martial, eight of the men had been released by the end of 1932, and more may have been released since that date; I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief in the matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman get the details that he is unable to give now?

Yes, Sir, certainly.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the complaints now being made by people living in the villages of Patya and Dhalgat, in Chittagong, regarding certain indignities to which they are being subjected by order of the commanders of military pickets, and of the night raids which these pickets carry out in the district; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the reasons for the action of the military?

I have no information on this subject. If the hon. Member desires, I will make inquiries, but I would like to take this opportunity of saying, as was stated by the Home Member of the Government of India in the Assembly on the 21st March, that an examination of various complaints about the conduct of the troops in Bengal has shown that they were either without foundation or greatly exaggerated.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ask the German Government for an estimate of the percentage of the sterling funds retained, under the German debt moratorium, which will be used for financing German exports and for the recently announced increased expenditure on German re-armaments, respectively; and will he forward the information to the British representative on the German debt moratorium for his use at the conference in Berlin on 27th April?

As stated in the Reich-bank communiqué of the 1st February-last, the Gold Discount Bank at Berlin is prepared to purchase scrip from British holders of German external loans at 67 per cent. of its par value. German exporters are allowed in certain cases to purchase the scrip at a correspondingly reduced price from the Gold Discount Bank and to resell it at par to the German Conversion Office. In this way the sterling sums which the British creditors forego are used to promote German exports. They are not available as revenue to cover the expenditure of the German Government, whether on armaments or otherwise. As regards the second part of the question, the representatives of the British bondholders who will attend the meeting at Berlin on the 27th April are already aware of the facts given in the reply to the first part of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that Germany has recently imported some 100 tons of zirconium ore from Brazil, and that this ore is mainly employed to obtain an alloy which is used for the lining of heavy guns; and whether any request has been addressed to the German Government for information on this matter?

I have seen in the Press a statement to the effect that 96 tons of zirconium ore were shipped from Brazil to Germany last February. According to my information, this ore is not used in the manufacture of steel and does not therefore figure in the manufacture of gun linings. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

What is the ore used for?

I am informed that it is used for the lining of furnaces.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that a large consignment of pigs from Sweden to Canada are going to be transhipped within the port of London; and whether steps will be taken to prevent any contravention of the Diseases of Animals Act, which prohibits the bringing of live pigs and other animals to this country from the Continent of Europe?

I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has provisionally agreed to authorise this transhipment under conditions prescribed by him and no contravention of the Diseases of Animals Acts will be involved.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is able to make an estimate of the increase in production of vegetable produce in Great Britain since 1931; the numbers employed in that industry in 1933 compared with those in 1931; and the amount of wages paid in those two years?

The returns received from occupiers of one acre and over in 1933 showed as compared with 1931 that the area under vegetable crops increased by 14,125 acres to 197,970 acres in England and Wales. It is well known that there has been in addition substantially increased glasshouse production, but I regret that I am not able to give any estimate of this or of the extent to which employment and wages have been affected.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many cases of smuggling livestock over the border between the Irish Free State and Ulster have been detected by revenue officers since the imposition of special duties on Irish produce entering Great Britain?

I regret that it would not be in the public interest to furnish this information.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of eggs from foreign countries increased from 2,362,000 great hundreds in the first three months of 1932 to 2,869,000 great hundreds in the first three months of the present year, while the imports from Empire countries decreased from 1,276,000 great hundreds to 1,115,000 great hundreds; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the home and Empire poultry-farming industries, in addition to the limitation of imports from and after 15th March?

Between 1930 and 1933, imports of eggs from foreign countries decreased by 40 per cent. while the home production has shown a considerable increase. There was, however, an increase in imports from foreign countries in the first quarter of this year as compared with the same quarter of last year, which was due to the larger imports in January and February. Foreign Governments and the Government of the Irish Free State were therefore asked to limit their exports to this market as from 15th March. The question of further steps to regulate imports will be considered in the light of the Report of the Reorganisation Commission.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give a rough estimate of what the cost would have been during 1933 if those persons in employment who were compelled under the

asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for transitional benefit considered by the public assistance committee of the West Riding County Council from November, 1931, to the latest available date, giving the percentage of awards of full benefit, reduced benefit, and nil determinations.

As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I am afraid that there are no statistics on which such an estimate can be based.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question raised here causes a great deal of bitterness among the families affected, and does he not think it is worth some effort to get an estimate of what this relief would cost?

The hon. Member will be aware that to meet this position we are making special provision in the Unemployment Bill now before Parliament.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present practice is breaking up families in many parts of the country?

No, Sir, I could not possibly accept the accuracy of that statement.

asked the Minister of Labour what would be the cost to the Insurance Fund of reducing the contributions of the employers, the workmen, and the State, respectively, to the amounts payable before 1931?

With the present rate of unemployment the cost to the Unemployment Fund of reducing the rates of contributions to these payable before October, 1931, would be approximately £16,000,000 made up as follows: Employers £4,250,000, employed persons £6,425,000, Exchequer £5,325,000.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the claims of men who have long been on the registers of different Employment Exchanges are not overlooked when work presents itself; and whether, in view of the disappointment felt by such men at long periods of inactivity, he will suggest to local exchanges that whenever possible notice of vacancies should be given to them?

My right hon. Friend is satisfied that when vacancies are notified to the Employment Exchanges the claims of men who have been long on the registers are not overlooked. It is the practice of the exchanges to submit those applicants who best satisfy the employer's requirements, irrespective of the period during which they may individually have been unemployed.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient energy is displayed by his Department in finding employment for those who are registered?

Yes, Sir, I think the fact that the number of persons placed in employment through the exchanges has risen even in a year of heavy unemployment like 1933 is proof of the active steps taken by the officials of the staff.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government have under discussion any proposals dealing specifically with the condition of the distressed areas?

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on Thursday last in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson) and Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall).

May I ask whether the Government expect to receive any information as the result of this investigation which is not already known to them?

asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the number of men from England who are going to be sent to Jersey for the potato and tomato season; whether proper living accommodation will be provided; the number of hours worked per day and the rate of wages; and if the cost of the fares both ways is to be a charge on the Unemployment Fund?

It is hoped that there will be work for about 2,600 men in Jersey this year on the potato and tomato crop. They will be suitably accommodated on the farms free of charge. The wages paid are generally on a piece work basis and I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the rates fixed for this year by the Jersey Farmers' Union. The hours of work are usually from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. with breaks for meals amounting to about two hours. The fares to and from Jersey are paid by the Jersey Farmers Union. I am sending the hon. Member copies of explanatory leaflets on the subject and of an article from the Ministry of Labour Gazette describing the arrangements which were made last year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons for his refusal to see the deputation from the delegates from Liverpool and other distressed areas in connection with the 40 per cent. relief contemplated by the Unemployment Bill; and if he can now state whether 1st July is to be the appointed day?

My right hon. Friend received a deputation representing the distressed areas on the 7th December last, after the Unemployment Bill had received Second Heading. He also gave very full consideration to further representations which were made to him on their behalf before he announced, on the 27th February during the Debate, in Committee on Clause 44 of the Bill, that the special grant to distressed areas would be continued until Part II of the Bill came into operation. In these circumstances it did not seem to him that any useful purpose would be served by receiving a further deputation. No statement can yet be made as regards the appointed days under the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will have inquiry made of the Governor of Kenya Colony as to whether African cultivators are granted compensation from the revenues of the game department or from other public funds for the devastation caused to native cultivation in South Kavirondo and elsewhere by elephants; and, if this is not done, whether he will recommend that compensation shall, in future, be made for such damage?

So far as I am aware, no compensation is payable in such cases, but provision exists in the Game Law whereby natives may obtain permission to kill any wild animals causing damage to their lands or crops. I will communicate the hon. Member's suggestion to the Governor.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far he met representatives of the different communities in Kenya Colony during his recent visit; and, in particular, whether he met representatives of such important tribal groups as the Kikuyu and Kavirondo?

I greatly regret that owing to my illness I was forced to abandon the programme which had been arranged to include meetings with representatives of both tribes.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the annual payment due to the United States of America from this country if our Debt was settled on the same basis as that of the recent American-Finnish Debt Settlement?

The terms of the recent American-Finnish Debt Settlement have not yet been published, and I am accordingly not in a position to give the figure asked for.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give the percentage of direct and indirect taxation that will obtain when the reduction of 6d. on the Income Tax becomes effective?

If the proposals in the Budget become law, the percentages of the estimated tax revenue in the current year are: from direct taxation, 58.8; from indirect taxation, 41.2.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the decisions of the divisional court in relation to events described as bottle parties; and whether Entertainments Duty is collected in respect of such events?

I assume that my hon. and learned Friend has in mind the recent decisions in the cases of Mizen versus Old Florida, Limited and Egan versus Mizen. I may explain that under the law, Entertainments Duty is chargeable only on payments for admission to an entertainment as a spectator or member of an audience and that, consequently, on the facts as stated in the cases mentioned, the question of liability to Entertainments Duty does not appear to arise.

Might I ask the hon. Gentleman to make further inquiry and ascertain whether any charge is made for admission to the places at which an entertainment is presented; will he further consider the hardship caused by the avoidance of the duty by these persons, and the burden put upon struggling amateur dramatic societies?

I will certainly consider my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion. I would point out, however, that his supplementary question is merely a re-submission of his earlier question, and that his opinion is over-ruled by a higher authority.

Would my hon. Friend inquire further and ascertain whether a charge was made for admission?

Certainly.

Sir Henry Betterton.

On a point of Order. May I ask if this proposed new Clause, which is a Government Clause, will take up time allocated under the Guillotine Resolution; or shall we be entitled to extra time in compensation for the fact that the Government are taking up the time of the Committee and thereby cutting out opportunities for private Members?

I am afraid that this Clause, like all the new Clauses, must come within the time allotted by the time-table for the discussion of new Clauses.

Would it not be as well, Captain Bourne, if you could state to us what is in the mind of the Chair with regard to the calling of Amendments?

I think that perhaps I had better not anticipate the new Clauses, about one or two of which I am in considerable doubt. I think I had better wait until we reach them, and see how the earlier discussion may affect them.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I think I shall be able to make clear in a very few sentences the purpose of this Clause, and the reason why it was necessary to put it down. The Clause is necessary in order to make certain what has been, of course, the intention of the Government all the time, namely, that transitional payments shall continue without interruption until the Bill becomes law and the board which is to be set up under Part II comes into operation. Otherwise there would be a hiatus, with consequences which I am sure none of us would wish to contemplate. Under the existing law, transitional payments to persons who have not the 30-stamp qualification, as well as a good many other provisions of the insurance scheme, come to an end on the 30th June this year. The Committee will remember that there is in the Bill a carrying-over Clause, namely, Clause 28; but that Clause, of course, does not come into operation until the provisions of the Bill itself come into operation, one month after the passing of the Act. When the Bill was originally drafted, I had contemplated that there would be ample time after it received the Royal Assent to allow for that period of one month, in which case Clause 28 would have come into effect; but now it seems likely—indeed, almost certain—that the Bill will not receive the Royal Assent one month before the 30th June, and, therefore, it is necessary to have this new Clause, which is a mere carrying-over Clause to secure that the transitional payments and the other provisions which normally will come to an end on the 30th June this year shall continue in operation until one month after the Bill becomes law.

This is only one more of the numerous illustrations that we have had of the Government's uncertainty as to their intentions and as to the time when the Bill is to be on the Statute Book. The right hon. Gentleman has wasted some time, which under the Guillotine Resolution ought to have belonged to the House, through having changed his mind after the introduction of the Bill, and has now come to the conclusion that, although he contemplated that there would be ample time between the Bill receiving the Royal Assent and the beginning of July, that is unlikely to be the case. For that circumstance Members on this side of the Committee are not responsible; the responsibility lies with His Majesty's Government. I do not want to use too hard words, but this is another illustration of the very clumsy way in which the Bill has been handled. Under the Guillotine Resolution the time ought to have belonged to the House with the minimum of intervention through the Government changing their mind day by day, but we are now faced with having to spend time, on this last but three of the days allotted for the Committee stage, because it is found necessary to introduce a carrying-over Clause. I think the Committee, if it looks at this from a business point of view, must regard the necessity for the Clause as deplorable and must feel with me that it is very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman did not think a little more about the Bill before he introduced it.

The Clause deals with the time when a certain part of the Act will begin to operate. It is suggested now that it should come into operation on 1st July. I cannot quite dissociate this Clause from the next. It is unfortunate, notwithstanding certain technical difficulties which I know exist, that the date when the Act comes into operation, with the provisions as to the restoration of the scales of benefit, should not be approximately the same as that upon which the Income Tax payer begins to enjoy the advantages of the reduction of the Income Tax. While the Income Tax payer begins to enjoy his remission of 6d. from the beginning of the financial year, the unemployed workers will have to wait until 1st July. We cannot move an Amendment to make 1st April the date of coming into operation of the Act instead of 1st July. That is a matter that lies entirely in the hands of the Government. But it seems to us that it was necessary to raise this point and that, as an act of simple justice, if Income Tax payers are to enjoy relief as from practically the beginning of April, steps ought to have been taken to see that those who are to get the restoration of their cuts enjoy it from the same date.

We are not opposing the Clause, but we feel bound to point out that there is an element of injustice in allowing the Income Tax payer his relief three months earlier than it is going to be allowed to the unemployed. I am satisfied that hon. Members who may not agree with us in our general attitude on the Bill will agree that, as a matter of common justice, it would have been fairer to the unemployed, who do not and in the circumstances cannot pay Income Tax, that the restoration of the cut should date from approximately the time when the Income Tax payer gets back his beloved 6d.

There is one definite point on which I should like to ask for some explanation. It relates to the coming into operation of Clause 18, which deals with the debt. Under the Clause there is provision for the payment of annual instalments amounting to £5,500,000. Assuming that that is the figure that will remain in the Bill when it gets on the Statute Book, that would become the rate of repayment of the debt as from 1st July. But at present the fund is piling up a surplus, we are told, at the rate of £16,000,000 a year over and above the present provision for interest on the debt. What is to become of that £16,000,000 per annum between 1st July, when the Clause comes into operation, and the earliest date on which the Committee will have to apply their minds to its disposal? The general provisions of the Act will not come into operation as soon as 1st July. After they have come into operation the Committee must be set up, and then it must consider what it is going to do. It must, under Clause 17, give notice of its intention to report, and the Minister has two months to consider the report before it can receive effect through a Resolution of the House.

Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that we shall be in a position, at any rate before Christmas, possibly not before next February, to decide what is to be done with the surplus that is gradually piling up. It will not continue to pile up at the rate of £16,000,000 after the Bill becomes operative, because there will be the sums which have to be paid for extending benefit from 156 days to the whole year in certain cases, but it may very well be that £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 will be piled up between 1st July and the date at which any recommendation of the Committee can become effective. I should much welcome an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that repayment to the Exchequer will not take place at any greater rate than the instalments in the Bill after 1st July. That would seem to be in accord with the intention of the new Clause.

I raised the point in Committee on Clause 17. It was just before the Guillotine fell and there was a certain amount of interruption and the Chancellor was unable to make as full a statement as he obviously intended to make, but he said that some alteration would have to be made in the provisions of the Bill with regard to paying over to the Exchequer at a greater rate than £5,500,000 a year. If such an alteration is to be made on Report, as far as I can see this surplus piling up has no destination provided for it in the Bill, and it seems to me that the right course would be that it should continue to pile up and be available for the disposal of the Committee when the Committee comes into full working order and is able to apply its mind to that question. When there is £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 to deal with, the Committee would welcome an assurance on the lines I have suggested.

There is nothing inconsistent with the framework of the Bill in piling up a surplus of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 for the disposal of the Committee. I ventured to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the proceedings on Clause 17 whether it would be competent for the Committee to carry over from one year to another, say, £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, and the answer which he gave, as reported in column 1,654 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 12th February, was that that would be a matter for the Committee to consider. Therefore, there is nothing inconsistent with the principle of this Bill in a sum of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 being piled up as a sort of reserve fund. It is true that a reserve fund under that name is not provided for in the Bill, but, on the other hand, the explanation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on that occasion makes it plain that something of the nature of a carry over reserve fund is provided for, or at least is competent within the framework of the Bill.

It seems to me that the sum of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, or however many million pounds it may be, which piles up as a surplus over and above the instalment between the 1st July and the date on which the Committee can first deal with the matter in a practical way, might very well follow the lines which I have suggested and remain there for the Committee to dispose of when they first come to a full detailed consideration of their future procedure under the Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can assure us that that sum of money will be there for the Committee to deal with and will not simply fade away into the hands of the Treasury without anybody being able to question whether that is the correct destination for it or not, some of the doubts in the minds of hon. Members may be removed.

I think that the Debate, short as it has been, will have shown to the Committee already the difficult position in which we are going to be placed in discussing these two Clauses separately. The Minister has introduced this Clause very shortly as though it were a matter dealing with the subject under Clause 28 of the Bill. It is clear, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) pointed out, that what is really involved in this Clause is the reference to 1st July. We have an Amendment down later on to make, as my right hon. Friend also pointed out, the date 1st April instead of 1st July. I do not know whether I am right or not, but I rather gather that it is not going to be possible to discuss that date, and I should like to know. It is rather important that we should have a Ruling upon the matter.

The position with regard to the hon. Member's Amendment to the next Clause is as follows. If this Clause is agreed to by the Committee and is added to the Bill, we are bound by it. Under paragraph (b) the date on which a charge can be laid on the Treasury under the Financial Resolution as part of paragraph A, lines 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Financial Resolution, will then be the 1st July. The hon. Member will appreciate that as long as Part III of the Bill is in operation any increase in the way of unemployment benefit will entail a corresponding increase of transitional payment which is a direct charge on the Exchequer. Paragraph A of the Financial Resolution provides for that charge until such period as Part II of the Bill comes into operation, and that charge is only operative as from the moment that Section 5 of the Unemployment Act, 1921, ceases to have effect. If this Clause is carried that date will be 1st July this year. I hope that I have made the position clear.

Therefore, it will not be possible to move the Amendment?

Not if this Clause before the Committee is added to the Bill.

That is a rather complicated explanation. In the nature of things, it is fortunate for me that I bad an opportunity of getting some understanding of it at any rate earlier on. Let the Committee note where this leads us. If the Clause which was so innocently moved by the Minister of Labour makes the date of this part of the Act come into operation on the 1st July, I should say that it is necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an explanation of the finance in respect of which the date is based. It is very necessary because an hon. Gentleman has already raised the question as to whether it is based upon the assumption that payments in reference to interest do not mean something more than that. I have been wondering, as there is a balance of £16,000,000 in the fund on the present figures, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is assuming that the unemployment figures are to remain at the present total and whether the finance is based upon that state of affairs. Is he assuming that the fall in the figures which occurred last month, and which, fortunately, has been consistent for some months, is to be maintained? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer assuming that the figures are to remain at the present point, or that there is going to be a fall? The Committee must understand that a fall of 100,000 or a rise of 100,000 means a difference of £4,000,000 a year as far as the fund is concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "£3,000,000!"] Including transitional payments. I had an answer to the effect that £2,800,000 was for benefit alone. That was the figure I received from the Minister of Labour. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer questions those figures, because I have them here in the answer which the Minister gave.

When I was speaking on the subject some time ago I said that on a drop of 100,000 there would be an additional sum of a little more than £3,000,000 in the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Of course, I was not dealing then at all with anything outside.

If we take the sum of £3,000,000, it is bound to have some effect upon the fund. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer basing the position upon the present figures becoming static or upon the possibility of a reduction in unemployment? There is a further calculation; out of the £16,000,000 there has been assumed a figure of something like £8,350,000 as the cost of the extra 26 weeks under one of the Sections of the Act, and the calculation is that some of the people who are upon transitional payments will come in. The Committee would like to know how we shall be affected. Are we to launch into a discussion of the finance of this matter on this Clause or on the Clause which follows, regarding the provision of the rates of benefit? I would much rather that the discussion took place on the other Clause. If we pass the present Clause as it is, with the July date, we shall be hindered from discussing later the possibility of making April the date, according to our Amendment. That is one of the difficulties we have been in on this Bill, mainly due to the fact that the Financial Resolution was drawn so tightly that we were precluded from discussing the debt, and now we are in the difficulty of talking either upon this Clause or upon the other Clause. I think there is a case for the Chancellor of the Exchequer making an early statement, so that the Committee will know where it stands.

The point is, when can we discuss whether April should be substituted for July? There would be a general desire to discuss that question, and we all wish to keep within the bounds of order. Can the Deputy-Chairman tell us whether we can discuss that question on the next Clause if we pass the present Clause?

The position as I see it is this—if this Clause is agreed to by the Committee it will be impossible to discuss the question, or rather to move on the next Clause an Amendment, that April should be substituted for July. It would not necessarily be out of order to raise the point that April would be a better date, on the Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," as a reason for objecting to the Clause, but it would not be in order to move a specific Amendment to the Clause in order to alter the date to earlier than the 1st July. I hope that is clear.

We complain that the restoration of the cuts has been put off until the 1st July, and we want to move an earlier date. It seems to us rather strange that this Clause should be moved. If says:

"If this Part of this Act is not in operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the following provisions shall have effect."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, during his Budget speech, that the restoration of the cuts would not take place unless the Act was in operation on 1st July. Everybody anticipates that the Unemployment Act will be in operation on the 1st July. Therefore, it appears to me to be totally unnecessary to pass this Clause. In order that we may have a discussion on the question that the restoration of the cuts should take place earlier than the 4th July, would it be in order if I moved to delete paragraph (b) from the Clause? That paragraph says:

"Section eighteen of this Act shall come into operation on the said first day of July, and the repeal by this Act of so much of section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, as ceases to have effect by virtue of that section and of paragraph (4) of article eight of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, shall have effect as from that date."

I should like to correct one statement made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), as to what I said in my Budget Speech. I Said nothing about the date on which this part of the Act would come into operation. What I said was that the cuts could not be restored by the 1st July unless the Bill had been passed and had come into law. A Bill may have been passed but not have come into operation.

In regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor, he will appreciate that we must read the Clause a Second time before any Amendment can be moved. I should like to consider the point that he has raised, and I will do so after the Clause has been read the Second time, and before it is added to the Bill.

I think the Committee would desire some explanation, and it is very simple, why the 1st July was inserted in the Bill and not the 1st April as the date for the restoration of the cuts. The date is not based upon finance but upon the time when the Bill comes into law. The hon. Member asks that the restoration of the cuts should be dealt with retrospectively to the 1st April when the Bill comes into operation on the 1st July. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that it would involve inextricable confusion if we were to try, after the Bill comes into operation, say, on the 1st July, to deal retrospectively with the restoration of the cuts which, ex hypothesi, have accrued since the 1st April. The confusion that would result would make that course impossible. There is another reason, of a different character, and it answers the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). He will remember that when these cuts were imposed in October, 1931, they were not imposed until after the passing of the Economy Act in 1931, but the increase in the Income Tax rate was applied for the year commencing April, 1931, or six months before the cuts operated. We did not hear at that time any protest on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that the increased Income Tax should not come into operation until the Economy Act was in operation. Therefore, from the point of view of whether it is a practical proposition to carry out the suggestion of hon. Members opposite, I say that it is not, because the confusion would be quite hopeless and, secondly, on its merits there is every reason for the course which we propose.

The right hon. Gentleman is unconvincing. We have such a belief in his sincerity and his obvious desire to take the Committee into his confidence that it does come to us as a surprise to find him giving such reasons for not doing what I believe the House wants and the country desires. Where there is a will there is a way, and if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government really desire that immediately after Parliament has decided to restore the cuts the people concerned should get the advantage of it, the Government, with all their skill and with all the legal advice at their disposal, could provide a way of achieving that purpose. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government desire to put into operation the restoration of the cuts when the time is ripe for them, all they have to do is repeal the Economy Act. I remember how very quickly that Act went through, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—I have no right to speak for my hon. Friends above the Gangway, but I am going to do so—that if the Government would bring forward a one Clause Bill for that purpose it would receive no opposition in any quarter of the House. We would let him have facilities. We would suspend the 11 o'clock Rule and everything else to let the Bill go through.

Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman why we attach so much importance to this matter. The great army of people directly concerned in these cuts have shown exemplary patience. They have been led to understand that they have had to suffer this loss in their income because of the national emergency. In many countries there would have been riots, protest meetings, bitterness and bad blood, but one of the most noticeable things here during the last three years has been the patience with which, on the whole, the inconvenience and hardship of these reduced benefits have been borne. Now that the Chancellor announces, with all the publicity of the Budget, that the financial position of the country is so improved that it is possible to restore these cuts, the postponement for three months is going to cause a great deal of feeling of hardship and discontent. It seems to me that the wise, the right and proper course is to let these people have the advantage with as little delay as possible. For the Minister to suggest that he is prevented from doing the right thing because of the wording of a Clause in the Unemployment Bill is really begging the question. I am perfectly satisfied that we could help him. At any rate, if 1st April is not possible, because to date back is perhaps always a difficulty, he could select an earlier date than 1st July—it might be 1st May. There is no difficulty about the wording of Acts of Parliament if the Government have the intention to do a particular thing. I, therefore, suggest to the Minister that he has to put up a better case than he has been able to do for resisting what is, I believe, the general desire of the whole House of Commons to restore to this large army of people, without further delay, the original rate, which was only reduced because of the national emergency.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister to give his sincerest consideration to the request to restore the cut, at least at an earlier date than he proposes. Personally, I cannot see that it is very difficult to reckon up so many weeks at 2s. or 3s. a week more, as the case may be. It does not appear to be an insuperable difficulty, but if that is too much to do at least we could possibly talk about 1st May or 1st June. This afternoon a question was asked in the House as to what would be the cost to the Insurance Fund of reducing the contributions of the employers, the employed and the Treasury to the amounts payable before 1931. The answer, if I remember rightly, was something like £16,000,000 per year. I think we were told in the Budget statement that, apart from what would fall on the Unemployment Fund by the restoration of these cuts, that is, the cost of transitional payments, there is to be in this year approximately £4,000,000. So that if the restoration of the cuts were made from 1st April, I take it that the restoration would cost the Treasury on transitional payments something like £1,000,000 to £1,500,000. There would be no charge on the Unemployment Fund which the fund could not afford to bear, simply because we are told that already there is a reserve, which is building up at the rate of £3,000,000 a year.

To give back to the unemployed, therefore, 25 per cent. of the extra contributions imposed in 1931, does not seem to me to be in the same proportion as the Income Tax restoration, and I appeal to the Minister of Labour that the excuse of not being able to reckon so many weeks at 2s. or 3s., as the case may be, will not satisfy what, I think, is a legitimate demand. The fund can bear it; it is quite solvent. A reserve is being built up, and the only thing asked of the Chancellor in making the restoration date from the same time as the Income Tax, is a matter of from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000. I therefore, trust that, if not on this Clause, because I know the difficulty there would be between the other Act going on and this one coming in, the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind before we come to a decision at some stage in the Finance Bill, whether this cannot be done. There is a legitimate grievance on this point, the cost is infinitesimal and it would assist the unemployed greatly. The very fact of increasing the payment shows that the Chancellor recognises the hardships under which the unemployed are suffering, and I, personally, think that there could be this restoration without any difficulty. I hope, therefore, that it will be borne in mind.

I will not detain the Committee very long, because, like many others, I am anxious to get on with other Amendments; but I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. He has really only one answer, which is a fairly good answer from an administrative point of view. The question of whether the Income Tax people have got their reduction a day earlier or a day later does not matter. We are not now considering questions of Income Tax, but a section of very poor people, and whether the Chancellor can give them this concession a few months earlier to ease their lot. That is the issue, and not questions about Income Tax. The issue is whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot make the life of very poor people more pleasant a little earlier than would otherwise be the case. The only argument of the Minister is that it would be administratively impossible to make the date 1st April, thus antedating the concession and repaying people the amount outstanding. He says, in effect, that the difficulty of the exchanges would be insuperable. I cannot follow him in what is his only case.

The occupants of the Front Bench are becoming every day about the worst set of politicians in this country. I confess that they do certain things—things which do make a certain improvement; but when they do them, it is in the worst possible way. When restoring cuts they do it with tardiness and delay which, to the ordinary man in the street, is unbecoming, and certainly it looks as if they did not want to do it. If I were giving them any political advice—it is almost impossible to give the Prime Minister advice, because he knows everything already—but there are other ordinary human beings in the Cabinet, and from ordinary human, political considerations, they ought to do what they are now asked to do. When you are making a concession, the value of the concession is to make it at once. If you start to delay you lose a great deal of the value of your concession, and I say that, from the point of view of those supporting the Government, with any knowledge of strategy at all, they ought to bring this concession in much earlier.

The question of ante-dating to 1st April might be a little difficult, but if the Government have no greater difficulty that that, I think that with good will and a certain amount of toleration, the thing could be adjusted. Why it cannot be done from next week I cannot understand. Why cannot managers of the local Exchanges start next week and make up their forms accordingly? I can see a little difficulty in ante-dating, which is a good argument administratively, but I cannot sec why there is any difficulty about next; week, once they know that they have to do it. The Government do this thing, and they do it miserably, and appear to the world as miserable creatures. That is the long and short of it. The ordinary man, whether he believes in people on this side or anywhere else, says that if you are going to do it, let the people enjoy the concession quickly, instead of floundering about in this way. Those who have control of the Exchanges, the divisional officers and Employment Exchange managers, can do it with good will, and the Minister, in his own interest and in the interest of the unemployed, if he fixes the day for next Monday, I am sure will make ail much happier and himself much more humane.

I have gained the impression—I hope that I am right—that the Minister of Labour has been deeply moved by the appeals which have been made to him. I have observed him very carefully, and when my hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties of administration, I noticed that he appeared to be seeking expert advice. I should imagine that if he took the Committee into his confidence, he would be able to tell us that the administrative difficulties could easily be overcome. I further observed that he had consultations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I trust that those consultations were as hopeful as the previous consultations he had. I am convinced that the Minister himself, if he were a free man, would now get up in his place and announce that this concession would be made. I am sure that it would meet the wishes of the whole House. I do not believe that there is a Member of this House, however interested he or she may be in any other particular section of the community, but would gladly see the restoration of this cut to the unemployed at the earliest possible moment.

It may be that the Chancellor, quite naturally, is concerned about creating a precedent as far as other restorations are concerned, but I do not believe that he need fear that. There is no section, as I say, represented in this House, and certainly no section of the cut classes outside, who would grudge for a moment the restoration of the cut, as far as it has gone in the proposals of the Chancellor, at the earliest possible moment, and I would like to join with those who have appealed to him to get rid of the idea that there would be insuperable difficulties for the administration. As a matter of fact, there would be the same difficulties, perhaps not to the same extent, on the 1st of July. These administrative difficulties will occur then. If the Government decided that the restoration of the cuts to the unemployed should take place at the earliest moment they would not only create a better feeling amongst the unemployed, but every cut section in the community would rejoice that this partial measure of justice had been done to the most unfortunate section of the community.

To me the reply of the right hon. Gentleman seemed unconvincing. In the first place, he said that it would be difficult to make the restoration of the cuts retrospective. I admit that additional work would be thrown on the officials of the Department, but the records are there, they know perfectly well all the people who have been in receipt of benefit and are entitled to benefit since the 1st of April, and all it means is that on the 1st of July, or whenever it may be, they would get as an additional sum the amount of benefit to be added to the restored pay. My arithmetic is not very good but I think it would mean that a single man would receive on the 1st of July 22s. 9d. in respect of the 13 weeks during which he had been paid the lower scale of benefit when the House had determined that he should receive the higher. If there was sufficient good will on the other side the administrative difficulties of this problem could easily be overcome. The right hon. Gentleman is in a conciliatory mood. Let us follow up the suggestion and make it prospective instead of retrospective. Let us take the glorious 1st of May as the date at which the cuts should be restored, then the restrospective difficulty would disappear.

The second point of the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought so devastating, made no impression on my mind. It was that in October, 1931, the increase in Income Tax was retrospective as from April, whilst the cut in unemployment benefit only operated after the passage of the necessary legislation. In reply to that I say that the increase of 6d. in the Income Tax did not amount to an additional 10 per cent. levy on the incomes of Income Tax payers. A reduction of 10 per cent. in unemployment benefit meant a net 10 per cent. reduction in the receipts going into a working class home. The two cases are not on the same footing. If the Chancellor's view about graduated taxation is right, then 10 per cent. to the Income Tax payer is an entirely different thing and a much lighter burden than 10 per cent. to people who are below the Income Tax level and who are in receipt of unemployment benefit.

My real object in rising was to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to remain silent on this Clause, which deals with the date at which the Bill is to come into operation. It refers specifically to Clause 18 dealing with Treasury advances to the Unemployment Fund. Now that the Government have got out of the haze and uncertainty in which they have been living ever since they introduced the Bill, at least they have not disclosed the dates they had in mind, and as we have now some definition as to the dates, surely the Committee is entitled to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the financial results of specifying the definite date of the 1st of July instead of the Bill remaining as it stood. This is the third or fourth time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been present and we should hate him to remain a silent member. We hope he will say something on the financial aspects of the Clause. The Committee at least is entitled to know his views as to the financial effects of giving this new precision to the Bill, which was not there when it was introduced.

I am wondering whether the consideration which is uppermost in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the fact that he is making a profit on the unemployed and frankly does not like to give it up until the latest possible date. He said that a reduction of 100,000 in a number of the unemployed meant a saving of something over £3,000,000 to the Exchequer. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be good enough to sneer less and pay a little attention to what is said. He may be an extremely able man, I am not disputing that, but it does not give him the right to sneer at anything which is being said by another Member of the Committee. I feel certain that the people who have been suffering the cuts consider that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not generous, and if this matter were left to a free vote of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman and The Minister of Labour would find that there are Members on their own side who would desire that the cuts to the unemployed should be restored at, the earliest possible moment.

The reply is that the earliest possible time is the 1st of July. Why? I think it is because it is inconvenient to the Department and to the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour will not say that it is impossible to restore the cuts earlier, neither will the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everybody knows that it is not impossible to restore the cuts, whatever the date, whether it is the 1st of April or the 1st of May. It is perfectly possible. The only question is; is it the desire of the Government to do so? I think it is the desire of the Committee, if they were allowed a free vote; but is it the desire of the Government? To that question we are entitled to have a straight reply. Nobody in their senses will assert that it is impossible to restore the cuts, if the desire is there, and I am certain that the officials of the Department would not begrudge working overtime if it was necessary in the interests of these people. It might mean a few extra men and women being taken on; they would have an opportunity for employment. That would not be a disaster. It would help the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the numbers of the unemployed were reduced by the numbers it would be necessary to take on to make out the cards and books.

I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Labour to give a straight reply; do they desire to restore these cuts or not? That is the whole question. If they do, then let them say so; and if it cannot be done then they should give us some reason, and not treat members of the Committee as though they were children, as though they were so simple that they can be put off with the story that it is impossible to restore the cuts earlier than the 1st of July. Members are not so simple, and people outside the House are not so simple. Nobody with an elementary education would believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister if he says that it is impossible. In that case why not tell the country the real reason? It may be the matter of the £3,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, like everybody else, is anxious to hold on to any money he can get for the purposes of the future, and the amount for three months would mean 25 per cent. of the £3,000,000. That is a consideration for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I appeal to the Minister to grant some concession to these men and women who are starving. A continuation of that state even for one week makes a big difference, and for one month a much greater difference. For two or three months it may mean life or death. Therefore, I hope that he will make a more satisfactory statement than the one he has made.

In 1931 this country was supposed to be in a financial crisis and immediately it was discovered the Government took steps to put into operation the cuts and an increase in Income Tax in order to overcome the situation. These steps were taken as speedily as possible; the cuts were put into operation as early as possible. It was understood that when the financial crisis ended the cuts would be restored and the sacrifices no longer continued. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the financial crisis ended in March of this year, and he now finds the financial position of the country such as to allow him to modify some of the impositions put on in 1931. If that was the financial state of the country on the 1st of April, where on earth is the reason why the unemployed, who are the least able to bear the imposition, should have to suffer for three months longer than the financial state of the country warrants. I wish the Minister would look at it from that point of view.

The Minister of Labour says that it is all very well for us to stress the fact that the unemployed have to go on to till July, although the Income Tax payers get their 6d. from the beginning of April, and he adds that the imposition of the Income Tax in 1931 dated from the beginning of April, and that the Income Tax people have endured that imposition longer than the unemployed endure the cut in benefit. That is true. But surely that is not the measure by which we should judge this business. Although the Income Tax payers may have had the imposition longer than the unemployed have had the cut, the fact remains that the Income Tax payers could stand it and that the imposition of the extra 6d. for three months longer than the imposition of the cuts on the unemployed did not make a single pennyworth of difference to their standard of living, did not mean that they went short of a single meal, and I doubt whether they paid 6d. less for any meal that they have had in this House. But with the unemployed it was quite a different proposition.

Everyone knows that the position of the unemployed is such, and their standard of life so low, that their physical health is suffering. We have had statements from the Secretary for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty about the appalling number of men who have been rejected for physical reasons when they wished to join the Army or the Navy, and we are hearing almost every day statements of medical officers of health up and down the country that the health of the children is declining, mainly in families where unemployment is rife. If the health of the people, adults and children, is declining because of lack of means, surely it is important to restore those means as soon as possible. Why should these people, who, in many cases, have not enough food to consume, have to wait until the beginning of July when the money is there to be given them if the will to give it were there also? It may be a little difficult to go back to April, but it could be done if the Government wished to do it. Even if there were an insuperable difficulty about going back to April, it would not be nearly so bad if the Government went back to the beginning of May. We would rather go back to April, but would take May rather than nothing. That would still give the unemployed two months' extra money, and I am sure the Minister of Labour would find no difficulty in putting the proposal into operation.

The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has expressed the distress of mind that he feels at seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting upon the Front Bench and not taking part in the discussion. I would like to relieve him from his inconvenience. Also, of course, I was asked a specific question by an hon. Friend behind me. There seems to be some misapprehension on the benches opposite as to what the effect of this new Clause really is. The right hon. Member for Wakefield repeatedly asked me to make a statement as to how the finance would be affected by the operation of the particular Clause. It does not affect the finance in any way, except of course, that it makes provision that transitional payments which otherwise would expire on 30th June will go on until other arrangements take their place.

The Clause operates in July.

But if Part I has not come into operation on 1st July, then this provides for a continuance of the present payment of transitional payments.

How about Clause 18 of the Bill, and the question of coming into operation of those payments?

I shall come to that point in a minute. First let me deal with what was said by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). He seemed to be annoyed because I was surprised at his statement that every 100,000 reduction in the number of unemployed means £3,000,000 in the pockets of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making a profit out of the unemployed, and said that I wanted to hold on to the money as long as I could. He said twice that every time there was a reduction of 100,000 in the number of the unemployed it meant £3,000,000 for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If that really be the impression of the hon. Member surely it must be unique, because I think that everyone else in the Committee knows that it is the fund which benefits by the £3,000,000 and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Would the Chancellor not benefit because of the transitional payments?

The hon. Member for West Walthamstow was not talking about transitional payments. He was accusing me of making a profit out of the unemployed by trying to hold on to £3,000,000, which he said would come to me by a reduction of 100,000 in the number of unemployed. Hon. Members are so evasive. The right hon. Member for Wakefield accused us of injustice because he said we were treating the Income Tax payers better than the unemployed. When he was answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who pointed out that the Income Tax payers began to pay the higher tax sooner than the unemployed received their cuts, hon. Members turned round and said that that was not the point at all, that the position of the unemployed was much harder than that of the Income Tax people. Hon. Members opposite can argue it one way or the other, but they cannot argue it both ways at the same time. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to press the point about injustice he must meet the point of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Let me turn to the question which was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. J. Reid), who wanted to know about the repayment of the debt on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He inquired whether we were going to repay the debt and thereby to cut into the surplus which might be available to the Statutory Committee when it comes into existence. The answer is quite simple and plain. We have to go on repaying, or paying interest, until the 1st July. There will be some small repayments, I understand, in May, but as it happens there is nothing due in June. There will be no payment in June, and after 1st July there will be no more repayments except those provided under Clause 18.

If I move to leave out paragraph (b) of the new Clause, would it be in order?

The hon. Member would not be out of order in moving that Amendment, but I ought to point out that the only effect of the Amendment would be to postpone the date on which the increase of pay would go to the unemployed.

Every Member of the Committee would like to be able to debate the point if possible. It is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour to put us in a difficulty. They are entitled to laugh up their sleeves because they have linked the restoration of the cuts with the coming into force of this Bill. Some of us want to put off the coming into force of the Bill as long as possible, but on the other hand we want the restoration of cuts as quickly as we can get it.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. If an Amendment to delete paragraph (b) were carried, it would have the effect of postponing the restoration of the cuts until the Bill comes into operation.