asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that various States, members of the League of Nations, have during the past eight years increased their expenditure upon armaments by amounts up to 100 per cent., he is satisfied that members of the League are in fact interchanging full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval and air programmes, etc., as they undertook to do under Article 8 of the Covenant of the League?

As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, the carrying out of the intentions of the last paragraph of Article 8 of the Covenant was provided for by a resolution of the Council of the League of Nations on the 7th July, 1923, whereby it was decided to publish annually an Armaments Year Book. The information contained therein is derived both from communications made by Governments to the Secretariat of the League in connexion with the Disarmament Conference, and from the official publications of the various countries. The issue for this year has not yet been received, but I have no reason to suppose that the necessary information has not been forthcoming.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the ratification of the League of Nations' Convention on traffic in arms?

As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, His Majesty's Government have already ratified the 1925 Arms Convention, and have consistently urged other countries to do likewise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the reception given to the proposals for an Eastern Mutual Security Pact in Berlin, Warsaw and elsewhere?

No, Sir, not at present.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is hoped to make definite progress before the meeting of the Assembly of the League?

I cannot give any further answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the signature of a treaty between Persia, Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan; and whether he can say what the main terms of this treaty are?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Whether he has any information as to the proportion of the present Saar inhabitants entitled to vote in the plebiscite?

No, Sir. The question of the right to vote at the plebiscite is one of those which has been referred to the Plebiscite Commission, which entered upon its duties on the 1st July.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to recruit a supplementary international police force for the Saar, in view of the continued partisanship of Saar police officials?

This matter is entirely within the discretion of the Governing Commission, which, under a resolution adopted by the Council of the League of Nations on the 4th June, has authority to increase the local police and gendarmerie forces should it deem it desirable. I have no information that such action has as yet been taken.

In view of the assassination of a police officer in the Saar yesterday, will it not be possible for His Majesty's Government to stimulate the recruitment of an impartial police force?

I think the matter must, at any rate in the first place, rest with the judgment of the Governing Commission. They have that responsibility, and I have every reason to believe that they regard their responsibilities very seriously.

Is it not a fact that a British subject has been appointed to take control of the new police force?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inquire of the Chilean Government if they will not make proposals to implement their undertaking to make good their contractual obligations on the Chilean Government debt in the hands of British subjects, in view of the recent nitrate agreement?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will request the British commercial representative in Chile to ascertain whether the agreement about Chilean nitrate exports can, with the assistance of the Chilean Government, be used to terminate the default to British subjects in respect of Chilean Government loans floated in British for the development of Chilean resources?

I assume that my hon. Friends have in mind the agreement recently reached in principle between the representatives of the Chilean nitrate industry and of the synthetic nitrate producers in Europe, reference to which was made in the Press on the 16th July. I understand that the details of this agreement still remain to be settled, and it is therefore clearly premature to attempt to estimate the effect which it may have upon Chile's ability to meet the service of her foreign debt. In the meantime I can assure my hon. Friends that His Majesty's Government are carefully watching the position as regards the possibility of a resumption of the service of the Chilean foreign debt, both through His Majesty's Ambassador at Santiago, and by maintaining close contact with the interests concerned, including the Council of Foreign Bondholders, who are themselves in touch with the competent Chilean authorities.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the number of cases of mutiny, if any, ascribed to political propaganda or to political influences which have occurred in the Navy, together with instances and the number of persons, sailors and civilians, concerned?

Political propaganda and political influences are sometimes to be counted among the causes of naval mutinies. But the causes of a mutiny are usually many and complex, and for that reason it would not be just to ascribe to political propaganda or influences every mutiny in which those influences have had a part.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of cases of mutiny, if any, ascribed to political propaganda or to political influences which have occurred in the Army, together with instances and the number of persons, soldiers and civilians, concerned?

There have been two incidents of mutiny during the past 10 years. The first was at Jamaica in 1929 and the second was at Singapore in 1932. In each case three soldiers were convicted by court-martial of charges of joining in a mutiny. How far these cases can be ascribed to political propaganda or to political influence is a matter of conjecture on which I am not prepared to pronounce.

Does not the small number of mutinies show that there is no necessity for any special legislation?

Is the fact that our men are proof against these incitements to mutiny any reason why we should allow them to be exposed to them?

Attempts have been made to incite the troops to disaffection, and I understand that that side of the question is now the subject of legislation.

Cannot we rely on the common sense of our soldiers to make them bullet proof against these incitements?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proceedings in the Stavsky case, including the judgment in the Supreme Court, have been or will be read by the legal adviser to the Colonial Office?

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the 14th of June.

In view of the obiter dicta of the Chief Justice that Stavsky would be found guilty in a British court of justice, would it not be advisable to have the opinion of the legal adviser to the Colonial Office at least on that disputed point?

I stated plainly in the answer to which I have referred what is the purpose and function of the Colonial Office in connection with judgments which have been given. I am sure it would be very improper for me to comment upon judgments.

I agree it would be improper for the right hon. Gentleman to make any comments, but is it certain that the case will be read through by his legal advisers so that he may receive from them comments from legal minds trained in British legal work?

That is rather a reflection on the Chief Justice of Palestine who presided over the case.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to bring the speed of the civil passenger aircraft flying under subsidy agreements with His Majesty's Government up to that of foreign competing aircraft?

The subsidy agreements with Imperial Airways contain provisions designed to ensure that their fleets keep abreast of developments in aeronautical design and performance. Taking into account all the various factors, such as safety, reliability, comfort and economy in operation, as well as speed, the results achieved by Imperial Airways compare very favourably with those of competing foreign lines: the company is, indeed, still attracting the great bulk of continental passenger traffic. The importance of the speed factor is, however, being borne prominently in mind and the company is now finding it possible to devote increased attention to it without sacrificing other factors on which the success of their services is equally dependent. Plans for the progressive acceleration of our Empire air services are also in hand.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the speed of our latest air liners is only half that of competitive liners of other concerns on the other side; and, if that be so, are the authorities really following out the policy which my right hon. Friend has just stated?

My information is that the latest aircraft which will operate on the Singapore line will be very little slower than the fastest liner used on the Dutch line in the East.

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to give the House an opportunity before the Recess to discuss the Report of the Committee on Control of Private Flying and the Secretary of State for Air's Memorandum thereon?

I regret that in the present state of Parliamentary business I cannot hold out any hope of time being found for the discussion of this subject.

In view of the great importance of this matter to all those engaged in civil aviation, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be able to give a very early opportunity after the reassembly of the House?

I can give no pledge so far ahead. When I said that no time could be found, that was correct, but of course there would be opportunity, if the hon. Member were able to raise the matter on the Adjournment. That is the only opportunity before the House rises.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the approximate number of first-line aircraft that will comprise the 41 new squadrons which the Government have decided to add to the present strength of the Royal Air Force?

The number is approximately 470.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the proposals of motor insurance companies to raise their premiums by amounts approximately equal to the remission he has granted in the tax upon horse power; and if the Government will take steps to prevent this frustration of its intention to encourage the manufacture of higher-powered motor cars?

I am not aware of any proposal by insurers to take advantage of the remission in taxation to obtain a general increase in rates of premium.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has any particulars of scientific research in the temperature effects upon the compressive strength of concrete exposed to different temperatures during hardening, with special reference to concreting conditions in winter weather; and, as such information may be of great value to local authorities regarding local labour, is any consultation ensured between his Departmental engineers and those of local authorities?

Much information on these points is in the possession of the Ministry of Transport, and special steps are taken to ensure that the results of the research which has been undertaken are available to the engineers and surveyors of local authorities. A special report was published last year on "Concrete in Road Construction," and much material is contained in the reports published by the technical advisory committee. The technical officers of the Department also maintain close touch with the engineers of highway authorities, and the consultation which the hon. Member rightly desires is, in my hon. Friend's opinion, effectively secured.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the position of colonels under the new promotion scheme for officers, both as regards establishment arid the period they are permitted to remain on half-pay?

The position of colonels has not been changed either as regards the establishment or as regards the period for which they may remain on half-pay.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that large quantities of British goods have been lying in Customs warehouses in Turkey for the last six to 12 months, and that facilities for clearing these goods have not been made available; and whether he will consider representing to the Turkish Government that if clearance of such goods is not immediately made possible His Majesty's Government will feel compelled to restrict imports of Turkish goods into this country?

I am aware that considerable quantities of United Kingdom goods are held up in Turkish Customs houses. This question will be kept in mind in the commercial negotiations with the Turkish Government which are now being undertaken.

Can my hon. and gallant Friend say where these negotiations will take place?

At Angora, and instructions have been sent to Angora in readiness for the opening of the negotiations.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of complete typewriters and of parts of typewriters, respectively, imported in the six months ended 30th June, 1934?

During the six months ended June, 1934, the declared value of the total imports into the United Kingdom of complete typewriters was £190,200 and of parts of typewriters £31,715.

In view of the figures just quoted by the hon. Member, is he prepared to consider the possibility of reassembling the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) on Monday?

The figures which I have given show the accuracy of the reply.

Did not the reply indicate that the bulk of the typewriters were imported for the purpose of assembly in this country and not as complete typewriters?

I was asked what other process could happen to a typewriter after being imported, and I replied "Assembling."

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider amending the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1906, with regard to grain cargoes in bulk on foreign ships by increasing the maximum penalty thereunder for offences dealt with summarily?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Durham East on the 15th May last.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the case of Rabindra Nath Dhar versus the King Emperor, in the Calcutta high court, the appellant's counsel accused the honourable S. K. Sinha, the Calcutta chief presidency magistrate, of tampering with the records and interpolating certain words in evidence not previously recorded; and will he make representations that inquiries should be instituted into the allegations made against the said magistrate?

I have no information about this case, and I have nothing to add to the replies given to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) yesterday.

Is it not the case that there have been a great number of complaints against this magistrate, and, in view of that, is my hon. Friend considering whether he should take any action?

As I informed the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset yesterday. we have undertaken to make an inquiry into the facts, and, until we have received that report, I think it would be unwise to come to any decision.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether, seeing that the quarterly statistics published by his Department are based in whole or in part on figures supplied by the accountants jointly appointed by the coalowners and coal miners and that the Durham Mining Association have partial responsibility for making these appointments, he will have inquiry made into the allegations of Mr. Collins, of the Durham Miners Association, made at the miners' conference at Edinburgh on 19th July, that the ascertainments were fabrications; and whether the Miners Association have suggested any alternative methods of compiling these statistics?

I have seen references in the Press to several speeches dealing with this question, which appear to have attacked the basis on which the calculations are made rather than the accuracy of the calculations. I understand that a resolution was passed instructing the Executive to examine the whole question of the ascertainments, and in particular to make an inquiry into the capital employed in the industry and into the effect of the modern development of subsidiary sales companies.

Is it the case that the gentleman in question described the ascertainment as a fabrication, and is not that going rather further than criticising the basis of the ascertainment?

My hon. Friend will understand that the atmosphere of public meetings is not always the same as the atmosphere of this Rouse.

Is it now the practice for only members of the Federation of British Industries to criticise the machinery of their organisation?

I believe that British subjects make general of their liberties.

Is the hon., Gentleman satisfied with the basis of the ascertainment?

That is much too complicated a question to discuss at Question Time.

Are there not a good many coalowners who admit that the basis is unsatisfactory?

There are always a number of people who are not satisfied.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received official notification of the French Government's decision to reduce the quota of imported British coal; and whether such reduction, if it takes place, is regarded as in accordance with the terms of the trade agreement recently made between the two countries?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether the arrangements for the exchange of coal from South Wales with pit-wood from France is outside the terms of the trade agreement recently made between Great Britain and France; and whether such an arrangement would be affected in the event of the French Government deciding to reduce the quota of British coal exported to France?

No, Sir. The Pit-wood Agreement constitutes the Protocol to the Anglo-French Trade Agreement of 27th June, 1934, to which, under Article 7, it is subject. The reply to the second part of the question is also "No."

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents, separately, which have occurred at the Bedwas Colliery, Monmouthshire, during the first six months of this year; and the percentage of these fatal and notifiable accidents at, this colliery compared with the whole of South Wales?

The numbers of fatal and reportable non-fatal accidents at Bedwas Colliery in the first six months of this year were five and eight respectively, compared with 81 and 308 for the South Wales coalfield. In relation to the estimated number of manshifts worked, the approximate rates per 100,000 manshifts were 1.78 and 2.84 for Bedwas Colliery compared with 0.42 and 1.62 for South Wales.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the cancellation of Commander Colmore's pension; when this pension was granted; what it was granted for; how long this officer was in receipt of his pension; and for what reason his pension was cancelled?

I have been asked to reply. Disability retired pay was awarded in this case as from October, 1919, and remained in issue until March, 1923, in respect of a wound of the left leg sustained in this country. Payment was discontinued on the ground that the wound was then found to have been incurred through the officer's own serious negligence and this view of the circumstances is in accord with the judgment of the Service Departments concerned. I understand that the officer was notified at the time of his right of appeal to the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal, but he did not exercise that right.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when this House will be put in possession of the repot of the committee set up to investigate the grievances of the milk producers in the East of Scotland?

My right hon. Friend has now received the report of the Committee of Investigation for Scotland on the complaints made by the East of Scotland Milk Producers' Federation. It is not intended to publish the report, but I am glad to take this early opportunity of communicating to the House a summary of the committee's conclusions. The committee's conclusions are as follow:

"(1) We are of opinion that it is neither necessary nor desirable in the public interest that as a permanent and integral condition of the scheme level producers should as such receive an additional price per gallon by way of level delivery premium or otherwise.

"(2) We consider that for a specific limited period some provision should be made by means of an additional payment per gallon or otherwise for alleviating the effects of the scheme on level producers generally in order to enable them if they so wish to adjust their system of dairying to meet, the changed conditions under the scheme.

"(3) We accordingly propose that it should be suggested to the board and to the federation that they should discuss our finding (2) above with producers in other areas whose interests will suffer to some extent if effect is given to it, and that an endeavour should be made to reach agreement on the subject as regards the method to be adopted, the extent of the additional payment, and the time for which it should be made.

"(4) We see no objection in the public interest to a continuance of the system whereby the board have contracted for a minimum butter fat content in excess of the legal minimum 3 per cent.

"(5) On the basis of the evidence before us we do not consider that it is practicable to institute a system of regional prices under the scheme."

Circulate it.

In view of the great importance of the Scottish milk industry perhaps the House will permit me to continue reading this statement.

"The committee defer their final conclusions on the question of haulage charges and also on the question of possible amendments of the scheme pending the outcome of their proposals for negotiations between the board, the federation and producers in other areas."

Is there any discrimination against cows on account of their political creeds?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps were taken by the Commissioners of Crown Lands to secure from the incoming tenant of Spittalhill, Stirling-shire, the same sheep-stock values as were paid to the outgoing tenant; whether the incoming tenant refused to recognise the existence of any acclimati- sation values; and, if so, whether that fact was officially communicated to the arbiters who fixed the prices paid by the State to the outgoing tenant and so caused the State to lose a sum of £2,500?

I have been asked to reply. The Commissioners were unable to find a new tenant who would take over the sheep stock at the values at which the outgoing tenants were entitled to claim. They therefore let the farm to a new tenant, who was only prepared to take over the sheep stock at fixed prices. The incoming tenant did not refuse to recognise the existence of the acclimatised values, but he was not prepared to pay those values on taking over. This fact was not officially communicated to the arbiters or the oversman, because the basis of the award was simply the value to the outgoing tenant under the terms of the tenancy, even if the Crown had taken the farm in hand and let to no new tenant.

Is it not the case that that part of Scotland is looked upon as a health resort for sheep, and therefore no acclimatisation value should have been paid?

I am afraid that condition was contained in the terms of the tenancy, and it is not a question of whether the air is better there.

Does not this show the folly of State enterprise in sheep farming?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the loss of £2,500 of public money arising out of the recent sheep valuations at Spittalhill, Stirlingshire, belonging to the Commissioners of Crown Lands, he will expedite the work of the special committee appointed to consider the problem of sheep-stock valuations in Scotland and will ask the committee to recommend as to the steps necessary to prevent arbiters from awarding extravagant sums or giving acclimatisation value where none exists?

My right hon. Friend is assured that the committee on the valuation of sheep stocks in Scotland appreciate the desirability of presenting their report at the earliest possible date, and he understands that they hope to complete their report very shortly. The questions referred to by the hon. Member fall within the scope of reference to the Committee, and I assume that they will be fully dealt with in the report.

Can the hon. Gentleman make any observations as to the difference in valuation which exists when State money is involved as against the valuation when no State money is involved?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will ask the arbiters in the recent sheep-stock valuation at Spittalhill, Stirlingshire, on behalf of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, to state publicly for what reason they allowed any acclimatisation value for the sheep taken over by the Commissioners; on what basis they assessed the acclimatisation value at nearly double the market value of the sheep; and whether there is any local precedent for such values, which involved a loss to the nation of £2,500?

The award was made by an oversman, following disagreement by the arbiters acting on behalf of the Crown and the outgoing tenants. I have no power to call upon the oversman to explain his award, and in the circumstances I do not feel justified in taking action on the lines suggested in the question. I have, however, brought the facts of the case to the notice of the Committee on Sheep-stock Valuations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the adverse comment which has appeared in the agricultural journals in regard to this valuation, and, in view of that, is it not necessary that the facts of the next valuation arrived at should be made public?

If I took note of all the adverse criticism appearing in journals, agricultural or otherwise, I should have. no time to do my work in the House.

Is not State money involved in this case?

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this entirely fictitious acclimatisation value has caused a lot of trouble in Scotland for many years?

Actually a Committee is sitting at the moment on the matter, and it was appointed for that very reason by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what immediate emergency action he proposes to take to secure better prices to producers of eggs in this country?

I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that in addition to the Import Duties already imposed, the Government took action as far back as the middle of March with a view to holding the egg import situation. During the four months to the middle of July total imports of eggs in shell were some 7 per cent. lower than in the corresponding period of last year. As regards prices, I would point out that the average London wholesale price of National Mark Standards on Monday last was 12s. 9d. per 120 eggs, which was the price ruling at the corresponding date in 1933.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, great as the Government's action must have been in this matter, the final result is not entirely satisfactory, and that the majority of egg producers are men of limited resources who cannot wait for a long time and require some emergency and immediate action to be taken?

I am not suggesting that this is the final action of the Government, and as for prices I was pointing out that the price was the same as it was this time last year.

Is there no hope of any action, because the matter is urgent, and men are being forced out of the business because of the low prices for eggs and poultry?

Does the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that anything that the Government can do will cope with the effort made by the domestic hen to improve her output of eggs?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that last year 37,205 metric tons of butter were imported into this country from the Soviet Republic of Russia, and that this butter is not offered for retail sale in this country as Russian or Soviet butter, but is blended with other butters and sold under various names which in no case inform the public as to what they are buying; and whether he will introduce legislation when Parliament reassembles to amend the present law and make obligatory the full description of the origin of the component parts of all blended butter sold by retail?

The question of the marking of blends of butter consisting of or containing imported butter was fully investigated by the Standing Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, and is discussed in paragraphs 23–30 of their report (Cmd. 3878). The present requirements in this connection of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) No. 1 Order, 1932, are based upon recommendations of the Committee, and I cannot hold out any hope of further legislation with the object indicated by my hon. Friend.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not wish the House to infer that the Government have learned nothing since the findings of that committee of 1926, six years ago, and cannot he review the question with an open mind in view of the alteration in policy which the National Government have adopted?

Although there has been an alteration in Government policy, there is no alteration in the fundamental difficulty of discovering by analysis from what country a particular portion of a pat of butter may have come.

Why is it more difficult to have an inspector in butter factories than to have a gauger in a distillery?

To institute control of all processes of all butter-making as rigorous as the control of all distilleries would, as the hon. Member's neighbour the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) can tell him, be a very long business.

If the Board of Trade cannot distinguish between Russian butter and British butter, and between dyed kippers and genuine kippers, what is the good of it?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the Film Consultative Committee have met during the last 12 months and during the last three months; and whether they are in consultation with the British Board of Film Censors as to the principles on which the censoring of films should be conducted?

I understand that the Film Censorship Consultative Committee have met once during the last 12 months,. namely, on the 18th June, 1934. The committee were appointed to consider broad questions of policy relating to the exercise of film censorship with a view to securing closer co-operation between the British Board of Film Censors and the local licensing authorities, and for this purpose they keep in close touch with the board.

Does that not seem a long time to wait before they had their first meeting, and is it much use appointing a Committee in those circumstances?

Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that there is a rising tide of feeling about the kind of bills that are being shown, and will he ask the Committee to have a censorship of advertisements of films because the bills are in many cases as offensive as the films?

As the Committee have only met once in the last 12 months, does this imply that it is ceasing to function?

No, Sir.

Is not the right way to a good film not to allow any American films?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost to the Revenue for the current year and a lull year, respectively, of the changes recently made in the silk duties?

It is not possible to give a close estimate of the revenue effect of the recent changes in the silk duties, since this must depend, among other things, upon the effect of the duties on the different sections of the trades concerned, but I am advised that the cost in a full year might be about £2,500,000. It is still more difficult to estimate the cost for the current year owing to the temporary continuance of drawbacks at the rates appropriate to the old scheme of duties, but I anticipate that the loss may be something over £2,000,000.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18; and how many of them who were unemployed at the end of June had been so for more than three months?

At the beginning of July, 1933, the latest date for which figures are at present available, the number of juveniles, aged 16 and 17 years, insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Great Britain, was 899,700. I am unable to state the total number of insured juveniles who have been unemployed for over three months, but of 22,516 juveniles who, at 25th June, 1934, were applicants for unemployment insurance benefit, 2,094 had been on the registers for three months or longer.

In view of those figures, am I right in assuming that the current statement that many thousands of children of these ages are walking the streets without jobs is without foundation?

No.

Does the Minister regard 22,500 as an inconsiderable number?

Was the number not 22,500 but 2,094?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the present position with regard to the Naval con- versations preparatory to the conference of 1935; and to what date these have now been adjourned?

Preliminary conversations have already taken place with the representatives of the United States and French Governments. Similar conversations with representatives of the Italian Government will probably be undertaken in September, and with representatives of the Japanese Government in October.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement on the draft legislation of the Kenya Government instituting a moratorium on agricultural mortgages; and whether he 'has considered, as an alternative, the resumption by the Crown of the unused portions of estates alienated to Europeans?

I have not yet received copies of the draft Ordinance as published, but the general object is to provide that the holder of a mortgage on agricultural property shall not foreclose or take action for recovery without first giving due notice to the mortgagor, and that the mortgagor upon receipt of such notice may apply to the Courts for relief. This relief may take the form of an order to delay all proceedings for a period not exceeding 12 months subject to such conditions as the Court may consider proper. With regard to the second part of the question, as the aim of the proposed legislation is to assist the owners of mortgaged property, I do not see how the resumption of unused lands would further the object in view.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any statement to give to the House in connection with the Government workers' request for a 40-hour week; and whether the Government's considered reply has been sent to the workers' secretary of the joint coordinating committee of Government workers?

At the meeting of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments held on the 18th July, the Trade Union Side were informed by the Official Side that His Majesty's Government could not agree to the motion of the Trade Union Side for the reduction of the, working week of Government industrial employes to 40 hours without reduction of pay. The Trade Union Side indicated that they desired that the matter should be further considered at the next meeting of the committee.

asked the Minister of Labour whether any officials of his Department have yet been in touch with the management of the Pressed Steel Works, near Cowley, Oxford, in connection with the strike of nearly 1,000 persons if he is aware that the management has refused to see the representatives of the organised workers; and if he can make any statement on the matter?

Officers of the Department have not intervened in this dispute, but are aware of the facts. I understand that the management propose to re-open the works to-day.

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

I regret that, on the first occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman has to face the House in his new office, I should be called upon to move to reduce his salary, but I think it is rather the right hon. Gentleman's misfortune than his fault that he should have to face to-day what is practically a Vote of Censure upon the Government. Without undervaluing the right hon. Gentleman's talents and abilities, it does seem to us that this is a matter upon which not only he himself should answer, but some representative more highly placed in the Cabinet, in view of the criticism that we have to make.

On the 19th April, the Government decided that they would send out Commissioners to four of what are known as the distressed areas, to investigate the conditions prevailing in those parts. That is more than three months ago. I do not suppose that the most ardent supporter of the Government thought, when he heard the Minister of Labour make his statement, that the House and the country were to wait three months before we had any decisive action. The view was held, not merely on these benches but, also, I think, by hon. Members opposite, that there was really no need for investigation into the condition of these areas. Reports had been issued in 1932 of a very exhaustive character. The inquiries were conducted by very able investigators, men and women of detached mind, who submitted their reports in considerable detail, with reasoned conclusions. Anyone who looks at them can see how thorough was the work. One member of the Unemployment Board was appointed, I should say, almost purely in respect of the work that he did on that occasion. It was held generally that there was no need to have another inquiry.

The Government may say, as the Minister said, that the information was not up to date, but the Ministry of Labour is perhaps the best Government Department that there is in respect of these matters, and they could have got up-to-date figures immediately from their splendid statistical department as well as an accurate statement of the general condition in those areas. But, even though we held the view that there should be immediate action, we held our tongues. We refused to criticise. We said, "We have waited for some years. If the Government mean business, we are not going to seek for a moment to use this situation for mere political ends." Indeed, I think the Government would be prepared to say that we not only held our hands but we gave what help we could in order to see that what information was possible should be given to the Commissioners and what proposals were possible should be made. I think it will be agreed that the whole of the local authorities' organisations in each of those areas have heartily co-operated in the task. Our belief that the Government might be going to do something is not only developing into scepticism, but I am inclined to become rather cynical as to their intentions. No one will say that the "Times" is any other than very balanced and cautious in its judgments. On the day after the announcement was made, the "Times" Parliamentary correspondent said it was not expected that the report would be in the hands of Ministers for at least two months. He apparently never dreamt of three months. The "Times," in a leader the following day, said:

"These inquiries are to begin without delay, and it is to he hoped that they will also be completed without delay. The bare facts of the human desolation in the economically lifeless areas are known. Day after day there has been confirmation in these columns of the silent tragedy in those places without a future which have lately been described with graphic sympathy by our special correspondent in Durham. In other localities, not in Durham, there is a similar state of economic collapse. It is essential that before next winter comes the problem of the derelict areas should be in a fair way to being solved."

I quote those statements to show that I believe that there was in no quarter of the House anticipation for a moment that the House would rise without any statement of policy whatever—we should not have it until November and that nothing would be done in the meantime. If that be so, it would appear to me that there will be no concrete result from all these investigations before the spring. The Government have been very cautious over this matter. They are not so cautious when they consider the interests of the people who are behind them. They are very quick in taking a shilling off the poor man's unemployment benefit, but when it comes to dealing with the question of work there has to be secret ceaseless investigation, and they 'go very slowly. When it comes to subsidies for interests which usually support the Government, there is very quick action.

I should like to ask the Government what was their intention when they set up this scheme. What was the cause of it? Was it merely a sop to the Prime Minister to keep him quiet for the time being, or was it merely to get over the strong public feeling prevailing at that time with no real intention to do anything? It certainly seems to me that, if they meant well in April, their good intentions have evaporated since that time. That is the only interpretation that the most charitably minded can place upon their intentions after the three months of investigation.

I want to ask, too, are we not to be allowed to see the reports. I understand from statements by the late Minister and by the acting Prime Minister that they are not going to be presented to the House. Apparently, the Lord President of the Council would go further than that. In answer to a series of questions by myself he told us that the Government were not prepared to give us the facts as to the surplus workers in those areas, and the consequent surplus population. At least, we had that information in the surveys to which I have referred but, apparently, we are not to have even the plai4test and simplest of statements made to the country. I suggest that it is almost without precedent that Government representatives should be making thorough investigations into a very serious matter and that at the end of those investigations, for which this House pays, there is to be no record submitted to Members of Parliament. What is the Government's reason for that action? Are Members of Parliament not to be trusted, or are the Government afraid of the country knowing the facts? I understand that the reply will possibly be that the reports are not all in. It is well known that one or two reports are in. I saw a statement to-clay from which I understand that the last report is now in. Why should we not have the reports that have been in the possession of the Government for several weeks?

Constructive proposals have been made. If the Government have not at their disposal the whole of the reports what have they been doing with the reports that have been in their possession for some time? Have the Cabinet not had time to give serious consideration to the reports, or is it that the Cabinet or the Government do not intend to act upon any reports that they may get? On that score, I want to put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman. Is the House to have no statement at all of a detailed nature? If it is not to have the reports, is it to have any statement of a detailed nature giving the bare facts with which the Government have to deal and which the House may be called upon to consider Do the Government intend to make a statement of their policy at any time as to their procedure, the works which they intend to carry out, and their general policy in regard to these areas? The House may think that those questions are equivalent to carrying coals to Newcastle. It is assumed that the Government will make a, statement. We have assumed on our side that the Government will make a statement to the House, at least on the bare facts, that they will make a, statement of policy and that we shall have an opportunity of discussing it before anything is done. I am beginning to wonder, as I have watched the Government's activities, whether they intend to do that or not, and I say that because of the methods of the Government during the past two or three years.

I think it would be true to describe the Government as being absent from duty for three years with respect to these areas. In October or November, 1931, the Minister of Labour came to the House and told us that the Government were going to give the voluntary societies a few thousand pounds to do certain work. No one would pay more tribute to many of these voluntary organisations for their work than I, but when the Government took up the attitude that they were going to use these organisations for their own purposes we said: "You are using these voluntary organisations, some of them of a work nature and some of an educational nature, as a substitute for Government policy, and in so far as that is done we are going to be hostile to those activities." I and a good many of my friends have refused to lift a little finger in reference to these voluntary organisations.

You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

I have taken the opportunity of stating here now what I have said in public very often. I did it because we knew that the Government were going to use these organisations to do in an inefficient way work which the Government ought to do themselves.

Shelving responsibility.

When I said that the Government were giving a few thousand pounds for these organisations to do work which the Government ought to do, the Minister of Labour challenged that statement.

May I ask a question?

No, you cannot. Even while the Minister of Labour was making that statement the Prime Minister was making a statement by broadcast telling the world how we were going to settle unemployment by making duck ponds, or something of that nature. From that day to this the Government have never, until they sent out the commissions, shown the slightest interest in these areas. Everything that we said at that time about the voluntary organisations being prostituted to the Government's end has turned out to be absolutely accurate. The Government suppressed the Unemployment Grants Committee. They suppressed all activities in respect of public works. I do not for a moment think that public works are going to deal with this problem in a fundamental way. The Government will have to go much deeper than that. The question of alternate industries has to be seriously considered. But at least public works have the virtue that they help men to keep a grip upon life for the time being. I wish hon. Members could see some of these public works in action and note the difference in the men who are working compared with their condition when they are idle.

I had a revelation in regard to this only this year. On one occasion, being nearly 2,000 feet above the level of the sea, I saw what appeared to be countless silver strips on the side of the Pennines, they were really small streams which go to make up one of the rivers Just below me I saw a great reservoir in the making, men were tunnelling and drilling, 600 of them being engaged in the making of this reservoir, which was to drain some thousands of acres of land and make use of the water. Those 600 men would have been standing idle in the market place and at street corners, physically wasting away. I know that there are those who think that long idleness does not have any bad effect on the individual.

Who ever said that?

I hold strongly the view that long term unemployment has not only a bad effect upon the individual but ultimately a bad effect on the nation. That reservoir could not have been made but for a grant from public funds, through the Unemployment Grants Committee, and certainly at a time like the present, when water is extremely precious, no one will deny that public money spent in making reservoirs is anything but well spent. As I looked at this public work I thought of all the gloomy economists who always give us lots of figures to show how public works are wasteful, that only a few men are engaged and a large sum of money spent; I thought also of the long arguments we heard from the Government bench in 1931 and 1932 and how inadequate those arguments were in face of the fact that those 600 men were working in the open air with a grip on themselves and upon life generally.

The Government have broken public works. The Minister of Health says that anyone who wants to have a loan can have one, under certain conditions. I have never understood the conditions, but as far as I can understand them they are designed to make sure that nobody shall get a loan. For three years the Government have put nothing in the place of public works. Now they have set up Commissioners to investigate the facts, but these facts are to be kept secret from the country. I am not here to ask for charity, in fact, I hate raising the question of allowances in this respect. The one thing that is necessary, first and last, is to restore these people to work, to restore their self-respect. But we are compelled by the facts to face up to the question of allowances. Hon. Members will agree that during the discussions on the Budget the general impression was that the 10 per cent. was to be restored not only to people on benefit but to those people who were receiving the maximum allowance on transitional payment. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour is going to deny that, and I do not care whether he does or not if he will only explain it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made his Budget statement was greeted with shouts of joy and cheers by hon. Members opposite when he made the statement about £3,500,000 going to transitional payment, and we on this side were jeered at by hon. Members opposite. I sat on this bench and I saw two of the leading Members of the Government pointing to me particularly when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement, because I had previously said that as the law stood it was almost impossible for people in receipt of transitional payment to receive the 10 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer led this House and the country to believe that people receiving the maximum amount on transitional payment would get the 10 per cent. That cannot be denied.

What has happened? The Government's representative, the Commissioner —I am going to charge the right hon. Gentleman with being directly responsible—in Durham, is paying men under 50 years of age, single men, who are receiving the maximum transitional allowance, 9d. per week extra instead of ls. 9d. They are receiving 16s. instead of 17s. per week. The Government have a liaison officer acting between the Ministry of Labour and the Chief Commissioner in Durham, and I cannot think that the Chief Commissioner would have arrived at such a decision without first consulting the Ministry of Labour. I am certain that he would discuss matters with their officer, that is the go-between between the Ministry of Labour and the Commissioner. Therefore we have this situation, that while the Government led these people to believe that they would get ls. 9d. per week the Government's representative in Durham is paying less than ls. 9d. to the people to whom the 10 per cent. restoration was promised. I wonder if the Government gave him his baronetcy for this. He seems to be doing fairly well. I do not want to use my position here for the purpose of making any attack on any civil servant, but if he is not responsible then the Government must take the responsibility for the action.

In 1834, when commissioners were sent to make investigations in respect of the Poor Law, in many places the people made them fly. We are getting to a stage in Durham when not only will the persons concerned be involved in some activity, but even those of us who stand as representative people of the county will probably be involved in it, too. We are not going to sit silent much longer and see the kind of thing that is going on in Durham at the present time. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a case. A very fine young man whom I know lost his wife. The pair of them were esteemed in the locality. He returned home to his father and mother. He was working. His father, one of the finest craftsmen in the mines, unfortunately has not been able to get work for some time. Immediately the son returned home with his child in grief-stricken conditions, that man lost the whole of-his allowance. He has the knowledge that not only he and the boy's mother have to do what they can for their son and take care of the child, but they are conscious that they are living upon the son merely as a result of their kindness. I have the details of this case and quite a number of cases, but I am not going into them to-day. I have, however, written to the commissioners about this case. I want to know why a Member should have to write to a Government subordinate continually. I do not take to it kindly, but I have written to him, and I have had the reply that it is in accordance with the conditions. Is the Minister, or whoever is responsible for the giving of the allowances in those areas, going to justify that kind of thing? Then I would ask what they have to say about the 10 per cent. restoration in the cuts of transitional payments.

I am, however, more concerned, as I said, about the question of work. There is a general belief, I think, that when the President of the Board of Trade started to make these trade pacts, it was going to benefit industrial areas. In fact, it has not done anything at all for those areas. It may be said, of course, that it has hindered bad from becoming worse. I am not going to argue that question to-day. All I know is that, as time has gone on in the industries in those areas, the number of employed has got less. I am not going to trouble the Committee with a number of figures, except to say that in the mining industry in 1928, there were 920,000 employed; in 1931, there were 840,000 employed; and in 1934, the last figures were 771,000. All experience is one of continual reduction. Sometimes the Government say that things are better. When you ask where they are better, you are told that they might be worse. We who are in industrial areas are pretty certain—at least. I am as regards the coal industry—that the change in the fiscal system of this country, whatever it may have done for the country generally, has damaged the coal trade, and it has particularly damaged those export areas where the real trouble has been growing for many years.

Whether that be so or not, one thing is certain. The logic of the Government's policy is that they have got to take hold of those areas, and re-plan the country. It is not my business to-day, and, in fact, the Chairman would not allow me, to make alternate suggestions, but, as a matter of general principle, I think that the Government have to make up their minds that they have got to get alternate industries in those areas, that they have got to be very grim and determined in order to direct such industries into those areas, and that, generally speaking, they have got definitely to plan this country so that, at any rate, the people who have helped to make the country's prosperity in past years, are not made the victims of a policy which may be beneficial to people in lighter industries.

I have taken the opportunity of making this demand upon the Government, that we should have a statement of policy, that they should issue this report and that the Minister should answer the one or two questions I have put to him. It is not the first time that the Conservative Government have applied the policy which it is applying here. I remember on one occasion that a well-known public personage went north. The Press went with him. Unfortunately, I cannot mention names, but the whole country was stirred by that royal visit. That personage expressed himself, and the Press gave publicity to his statements, in such a way that it was said that the Conservative Government at that time actually interfered with the proposed visit to South Wales. At any rate, there was no statement made with respect to that visit officially. The people in those areas did not care, because the personage concerned was not only considerately received in those areas, but was highly respected because of the forthright way in which he expressed himself as to certain conditions there.

The Government, of course, had to set up a board which was known as the Transference Board. They had to state the facts, and the facts were stated. Why should it not be done now? It seems to be most incomprehensible that the Government should take a step of this nature, and the only explanation is that they want to hide the facts. I am not one of those who say that the way out of this problem is easy. It will be many-sided, but, at any rate, the people of the country ought to know the facts with which we are dealing, and I am sure, from knowledge gained from conversations and from letters generally, that this inactivity on the part of the Government does not at all represent the view which is held by great sections of opinion in this country. lE trust that the right hon. Gentleman to-day will give the Committee some satisfactory statement, a definite promise that this report is to be published, and that the Government at a very early date are going to take action of a beneficial nature upon that report.

Like the previous speaker, I regret that on this the first occasion on which the present Minister of Labour is to address the House for his Department, my remarks should be more critical than they usually are. I regret that on personal grounds, because we all in this House highly respect the Minister of Labour, and would wish him very great success in the management of the great Department to which he has been called. After all, the Ministry of Labour is a Ministry which affects directly a larger number of people than, perhaps, any other Ministry. It is engaged in a thousand and one tasks which affect directly the lives of a great number of citizens. Such a work cannot possibly be done effectively without great skill, tact and enthusiasm on the part of the staff of the Department, and from my own observation I think that the Minister is to be congratulated upon the great efficiency of the personnel over which he now has the honour to preside. The task of the Ministry of Labour, I think, can be briefly stated as that of facing the human problem in this country—a problem described in the term "Unemployment." At one time in the history of this country that problem was not a great one. Unfortunately, ever since the War, it has been an increasingly difficult problem, and now embraces something over 2,000,000 people.

In recent months—indeed, I think, in recent years—we have become accustomed to statements being issued by the Ministry of Labour showing a diminution in the unemployment figures, and an increase in the number of people at work. No part of the House fails to receive such announcements with gratification. We are always glad to know when there is a decrease of unemployment and an increase of employment, but I do feel at the present time that we are in danger of deluding ourselves by these small improvements in the situation. While it is admitted that there have been improvements since the year 1031, we are in danger of becoming satisfied with those slight improvements. The danger of comparing our present situation with the situation of 1930 or 1931 is that it may lead us into an almost irretrievable pass. The fact is that the year with which we should make our comparisons is not 1930 or 1931, but 1929. If we take a look at our unemployment and trade figures and compare them with those of 1929 we are bound to admit that we have a tremendous distance to go before we retrieve the position which we enjoyed in 1929.

It is not inappropriate to recall that in 1929 we did not regard the position as a position of happiness. The year 1929, to which we look back now as a good year, was in fact the last year of a long series of bad trade years which gave us a very large problem and an increasing problem of unemployment. It was the years from 1923 to 1929 which really created the problem of what we now call the distressed areas. During the eight or nine years before 1929 we had an unemployment figure which seemed to remain static at round about 1,000,000 to 1,250,000. The astonishing thing is that in those years our unemployment was confined very largely to five or six main industries: it did not spread itself throughout the country, but remained confined to those areas which we now call the depressed areas. From 1929 we, of course, came into an even more depressed field.

But I want to bring the Committee back for a minute or two to the mentality which we had in 1929. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has referred to the travels of a certain personage in 1928. In 1928 public opinion in this country was aroused on the problem of the distressed areas in a way in which it had never been aroused before and has not been aroused since. Large movements of social service were started, and I take this opportunity of dissenting from the remarks of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street with regard to that social movement. I would like to pay a tribute to all those ladies and gentlement in every part of the country who, by voluntary service during those years of depression, have lightened in any way the burden of less fortunate citizens.

I do the same thing. As a matter of fact, up to the time when the Government began to use this movement for its own purposes, as it certainly did, I was one of the most active supporters of it, and the Minister of Labour is aware of that fact. From that time I ceased to have anything to do with the movement, for the reasons I have stated.

I have no desire to do the hon. Member an injustice, and I am sure he will be obliged to me for having enabled him to make that explanation. Whether or not the Government are using these services for their own political purposes, I am certain that the people who are engaged in the movement have no thought of supporting political parties. I am only anxious that nothing should go forth from this Committee which would deter public-minded citizens from engaging in any way in work which they think will help the lot of their fellow men. In 1928, when all this movement was started, the total unemployment in this country was 1,250,000. The distressed areas, of which everyone became cognisant almost for the first time, were less distressed then than they are now. If we compare the position of the distressed areas to-day, and indeed the position of the country to-day, with what it was in 1929, we recognise that things are very much worse than they were.

Take the case of my own County of Durham. Looking at the figures to-day we are encouraged when we see that there are only 34 per cent. of the insured population out of work, for official figures tell us that this is a decrease of 7 pet cent. on the previous year. Everyone is rather inclined to ride off on that statement and to be satisfied. But the fact is that although it is an improvement on 1931, when the percentage was 37, it is worse than 1930, when the percentage was only 31. In 1929 in the County of Durham, when public opinion was directed to its condition in such a strong manner, the unemployment was only 16 per cent. of the insured population, compared with 34 per cent. to-day. That means that there is more than twice as much unemployment in Durham County now as there was in 1929.

Then take my own constituency. To-day we have 53 per cent. of the insured population out of work, and again we are encouraged to think that that is a decrease compared with last year. In 1931 we had 54 per cent, unemployed. It is true that in 1930 things were even worse, and that 72 per cent. of the insured population in my constituency were then out of work—a really terrible condition of affairs. We are thankful, I personally am thankful, that to-day it is only 53 per cent. But compare that figure with 1929. In 1929 there were only 29 per cent. out of work in an insured population of 10,900. In 1931 the insured population was 11,030, with 54 per cent. out of work, and to-day the figure is 53 per cent. Those are figures which tend to show that, whatever improvement there may be in certain trades and districts, the hard core of unemployment In the depressed areas in not being diminished. Indeed, it is growing.

These distressed areas have been a problem which the country has failed to appreciate. For some reason or another public representatives in these areas have not been able to make the impression upon public opinion generally which the condition of the area really warrants. To me the most distressing thing in unemployment is the plight of the juveniles, who cannot find work from the day when they leave school. Boys and girls are growing up in those areas without a chance of developing the capacity to earn a livelihood. That is the worst side of the problem. But a problem which gives me equal concern at the moment is the fact that with a total of 2,000,000 unemployed the number of cases of long-term unemployment is increasing. Long-term unemployment is tending to increase, and the number of people going on to transitional payment forms a greater proportion of the unemployed population than it used to do.

The next effort which brought the attention of the public to the distressed areas was the action of the "Times" in sending special correspondents into these areas. I think the nation is indebted to the "Times" for the action which it took. The articles it published have been of great value; they served the purpose of focusing public attention in a, way that nothing else had done since 1928. I will read one quotation from a "Times" article. The writer on Durham said:

"There are parts of Durham where one feels strongly, and sometimes angrily, that London has still no conception of the troubles that affect the industrial North."

Then later the writer said:

"In the North-West of the coalfield, round Bishop Auckland, for every 42 working there are 58 out of work."

Does my hon. Friend not think that it was the visit of the Prince of Wales about that time which concentrated national public attention upon the North-East district particularly, when His Royal Highness came with a truly regal gesture to that distressed part of the country?

It is not in order to refer to a member of the Royal Family in debate to influence the Debate.

I am sorry, but it is a fact all the same.

I am glad to find the hon. Member in such agreement with me. But that visit was in 1928, and the articles of the "Times" were published in March, 1934, six years afterwards. When the visit took place the total unemployment was only 1,250,000, and today it is over 2,000,000, and the percentage of unemployment in Bishop Auckland is far higher now than it was when public opinion was directed in that way to the situation.

It shows that neither of those visits was of any use.

I dissent from that view. Anything which calls attention to the actualities of the problem is of service, and the "Times" certainly did a public service when it published those articles. I think the Minister will agree that the writing of those articles was the chief cause of the appointment of the Commissioners who have been sent into the distressed areas. I take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the Commissioner, the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Wallace), who has visited the County of Durham. He has applied himself to his task with great enthusiasm and great skill, and, whatever may be the outcome of his report, I am sure that we are indebted to him, and that we would not be fulfilling our duty if we did not recognise the effort which he has made. I would ask the Minister on what lines the reports of the Commissioners are to be drawn up, and on what lines the investigations have been made. Are they purely regional investigations or are they investigations along the line of industries? If they are purely regional I would respectfully, suggest to the Minister that they should be accompanied by regional inquiries throughout the country. Otherwise, the Government are not going to get a complete picture of the problem as a result of these reports. If, for instance, a Commissioner finds that juvenile unemployment is a special difficulty in a _particular area and recommends transference of some sort, unless regional inquiries have taken place in the other districts to which the Commissioner thinks those juveniles ought to be sent, the Government will not be able to judge of the absorptive capacity of the districts recommended.

Especially do I fear that unless we have regional inquiries, areas may be omitted altogether which call for investigation as much as areas to which commissioners have been sent. Have the Government any thought for instance of investigating the affairs of Merseyside? Tyneside has been the subject of a social survey. A commissioner has been there, but I have yet to learn that a commissioner has been sent to the Merseyside and yet I understand there are real problems of special importance to that area. If, however, the investigations are on the lines of the different industries then we are brought up against the problem to which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street referred when he spoke of the continued diminution of the number employed in our heavy industries. There is going on a steady diminution of the number employed in the mining industry alone, and while we cannot in this Debate indicate the course which we would like legislation to take, I repeat that it is my firm conviction that we shall never find a satisfactory solution of the problem of the mining industry until we take the older people out of the industry and provide them with a sufficient maintenance by means of pensions.

I would reinforce the appeal made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street for the publication of the commissioners' reports. I am aware that when the announcement of this inquiry was made the Minister stated that the commissioners reports would not be published. I can understand that, the assurance having been given, there may be difficulties in publishing the full reports, because it meant that the commissioners would write and speak to the Cabinet in a way which they possibly might not do but for that assurance. That however does not preclude the possibility of these four gentlemen coming together and submitting to the Cabinet a report which they know will be published. As I say, the "Times" articles were, I believe, responsible for the appointment of these commissioners, and in to-day's issue that newspaper makes the plea that there should be published, if not reports from the individual commisioners, at all events a joint report or statement from the four commissioners in order that the public may know the conditions.

It is a great disappointment to me and I am sure also to many of my hon. Friends that the reports have not been given to the Government early enough to enable a statement of policy to be made before the summer Recess. When these commissioners were appointed, the people in these districts were already almost sick with hope deferred, but on that announcement being made they were inspired with new life and new hope that at last their case was going to be considered by the Government and some definite proposals made which would bring them relief. We all know the difficulties of the problem, and I am not going to criticise the Government for not having done things which I realise are very difficult and in regard to which it is not easy to make practical suggestions. But we must remember that the conditions prevailing in these distressed areas could have been known to successive Governments for the past 10 years, and though much has been done in the way of transference and grants, the central core of unemployment in those areas has not been tackled either by this Government or its predecessors. When these reports come to hand I hope that something will be done and that it will no longer be possible to say that the problem has not been tackled. I hope it will be recognised that we have in these areas a problem which is new and peculiar but a problem which once dealt with is not likely to recur in the life of the nation for many generations.

In the meantime the people suffer. They have given of their best. I would not say, however, that they are really dispirited. They are capable of throwing themselves with enthusiasm into any new plan of action which may be devised for them. But they are tired of false hopes being raised and they will not bear with patience the disappointment of their further hopes. It is because of that fact that I urge upon the Government the importance of publishing a statement in some form or other by the commissioners. The nation has a right to know the results of these inquiries. I trust that we shall have some definite proposals from the Government immediately after the Recess and that, in the meantime, by the publication of the commissioner's reports the public will be enabled to judge of the adequacy of such proposals. It is no part of my duty on this occasion, even if I had the time and the opportunity to make suggestions though I think there are suggestions which could be made with some guarantee that there was something in them. At all events, the conditions in these areas are known and there are only three courses by which a solution of the problem can be found.

The difficulties in my view are not insurmountable although the task is one of great complexity. The problem, not being insoluble, ought to be tackled. Like the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street I am not here to make political points against the Government. I honestly believe that they are making great efforts to tackle the various problems by which they are beset and I would not, on these matters, try to score party points. But I have the honour and privilege of representing a division of great traditions, an ancient township which has lived through the centuries, and which has behind it a great history. I know the people among whom I live and work, and I have seen for myself the effect of this long period of depression on the personalities of the people there. Knowing what is going on, I appeal to the Government, not in any partisan spirit but out of the sincere conviction that the problem can be solved if it is properly tackled, not to delay action and not to sicken with further disappointments a population which has already suffered many trials.

I am sure the Committee welcomes the fact that this Vote has been put down to-day, first because it is only right and proper that before the summer Recess these grave matters affecting so vitally a large part of our population should be debated, and secondly, because it affords us the opportunity of hearing the first important declaration from my right hon. Friend in his new capacity as Minister of Labour and of welcoming him as a Minister to whom we all look for great things. He has not only character but sympathy and intellectual power, a combination which ought to make his tenure of office memorable indeed. I welcomed as I think all hon. Members welcomed the appointment of Commissioners to inquire into the conditions in the distressed areas. We welcomed it particularly because we felt that that dramatic gesture was a recog- nition of the intrinsic and outstanding importance of a problem which had been far too long obscured by official complacency.

When I first entered Parliament 10 years ago, the Member for one of the Middlesbrough divisions was the late Mr. Trevelyan Thomson. He was one of the first men to raise this question, and by a long-continued agitation, to which he devoted all his energies and finally his life, he called the attention of Parliament and the country and particularly, that part of the country south of the Trent, to the pressing character of the problem presented by these distressed areas. Indeed I am not sure that he did not invent the term "distressed areas," but the official view at that time was that it was a problem which would solve itself, and that when the various reasons for depression had been dealt with, these areas would share in the general postwar recovery. I think the Governments of those years can claim to have made some attempts by derating, by local government reform, by the weighting of the populations, by alterations of grants and in other ways to deal partially with the problem, but I do not think that any of us—let us be quite honest about it—realised how deep-rooted was the problem, how difficult it would be to handle, and how incapable it was of being solved by the mere automatic correction of adverse trade conditions.

It was, as I say, believed that the normal course of recovery would solve the problem of the distressed areas, but as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) has reminded the Committee, when one is living in a particular period and in a particular set of circumstances, it is difficult to take an objective view of the situation in which one is placed. We regarded 1929 as a year of depression. Now we know that it was the highest year of trade boom since the War—and I would recall to the Committee that the Government of that day were flung contemptuously from power because there were 1,000,000 unemployed when it went to seek the suffrages of the people, at the height of a trade boom. To-day we are in another trade boom. The figures of the production of goods and services are equal to those of 1929. The number of men employed is equal to the number employed in 1929, but we find that in this new boom we have a figure, not of 1,000,000 unemployed but of 2,000,000 unemployed. In my own constituency in 1929 which we then thought was a year of depression, but which we now find was a year of boom, one-sixth of the male population were out of work. To-day in the present year of boom one-third are without employment. I think we have realised at last that although recovery comes and goes, although one wave may go higher up the beach than another, these partial periods of recovery do not touch the core of the problem as it affects particular areas and particular industries.

We can no longer console ourselves with the view that in the normal and automatic course of things these problems will solve themselves. It is for that reason especially that the country welcomed the Government's decision to appoint these four commissioners. I think they took it, first, as a gesture from London, the south of England, and the more prosperous areas, showing that they do care for the distressed areas, and, secondly, as an indication of the fact that the Government recognise that the problem can no longer be left unsolved or left to chance to find a solution. I think there is perhaps some natural disappointment at the delay and that it is not possible to have the report before the end of this part of the Session, but we quite realise that these investigations take time if they are to be of any value, and I do not think it would have been feasible to expect them to be completed in any less time than they have. Indeed, I think it is remarkable that they have been completed so soon. If we are naturally somewhat disappointed that no statement of Government policy can be made before the autumn, there is a feeling of some anxiety in regard to the publication of these reports and also in regard to the use to be made of them.

First of all, to whom are the Commissioners reporting? I understand primarily to the Minister of Labour. After all, perhaps the Commissioners are not going to collect any facts which were not known before they made their investigation. The various Government Departments—the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Board of Trade—must have had in their possession a detailed mass of knowledge on these questions. I take it the real purpose is to co-ordinate and take a wider vision of the information already in their possession, supplemented of course by special local knowledge. I hope these reports will not be left as it were to the official survey of one particular Department. I hope they will be passed to a committee of the Cabinet, directed to the Government, and that high Government policy will result. I recognise that it would be impossible to publish reports which were confidential. No doubt there was a great deal of information given by individuals, and perhaps by individual firms, as to their financial situation and so on which could only have been made confidentially, and which it would not be wise to publish. But I do ask the Minister to consider, though not necessarily to tell the Committee to-day, whether it will not be possible to publish a statement, not about particular pieces of evidence of that character which might damage individuals, but giving in general the main recommendations and findings, to publish, if he likes, a White Paper or statement giving an outline of what in general the Commissioners have recommended, so that we may have before us when we come to discuss these matters in the autumn some more useful information on which to base our views on the policy on which the Government may ultimately embark.

The questions with which these commissioners have had to deal are vast indeed, and I am certain it has been the experience of these gentlemen themselves, and will be the experience of the Government Department that tries to base a policy on their recommendations, that it is impossible to deal with the distressed areas as a single problem. The further you go in your investigations the more you will be drawn into general policy, into high policy. It is not like a man who is ill with a particular disease, say cancer. You say you are sorry for him and would cure him if you and people who have not got cancer go on living their normal lives. The cure for the ills that oppress these particular areas, right or wrong—we may disagree about their character—will necessarily involve high policy, and I believe in the long run it will involve the formulation of the only policy by which State Socialism or State capitalism can be fought and defeated in this country.

This is certainly not the place, and it would be out of order, to go in detail into the kind of problem that will arise, but let us consider what is the reason of the distress, the cause of the collapse of these areas. It is generally a case of areas that in the past have depended on export trade and more particularly on the export of capital goods. That really seems to be the situation of these areas, and therefore the consideration of any policy, other than a palliative or short-term policy, must involve a deep investigation of the most important questions which arise between parties to-day. It must involve the consideration of foreign trade, foreign lending, the relations between finance and industry, the organisation of industry itself, the recruitment of labour and its relationship with our educational system, the control of industry, geographical control if you like, and the whole problem of local government in these areas and the remaining questions of differential rates.

These are all huge questions which arise, on which any and every successful long-term policy must be based. Of course, it is easy to recognise, and not difficult to recommend, a short-term policy which would be reasonably effective in mitigating the worst results of these harsh and oppressive features in the life of people in the distressed areas. I am not sure that unless your long-term policy is sound, your short-term palliatives may not in the long run do more harm than good. We have to face, if we decide to go back to the system of individualist capitalism of the nineteenth century, the system of laissez faire, whether it is wise to go in for housing or anything which will tend to keep people in areas from which under the nineteenth century system they would have drifted. Is it not better to face the fact that many of these troubles arise from the fact that the system is becoming rigid and has not the liquidity of 100 years ago? Are we doing a service to young people in these areas in keeping them there by a short-term policy, unless we have decided that they can play a useful part in the life of the country from a long-term point of view and are prepared to recommend the policy which will secure that result?

Are we not to-day, in many parts of the Government policy falling between two systems and getting the worst of both, destroying the automatic corrections of the old system of laissez faire without having the courage to go through to the logical Conclusion of our new idea of conscious control of our fortunes. I see in the Government policy no inclination to revert to laissez faire. Everything they have done, particularly in recent months, but in the whole three years they have been in office, has been the opposite, and, as the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate said, we have taken the great step of setting up a new fiscal system, and it is perfectly true it has had its reactions on the distressed areas that depended so much on export trade. What the corrective is it is not the time to say. It may be that a policy of financial expansion and internal lending must take the place of what was once supported by external or foreign lending. I do not know; but we have taken the tremendous responsibility of setting up a new fiscal system. That is the overriding condition under which this Parliament lives. We cannot go back and say: "We will have laissez faire where it suits us and organisation in any quarter where it suits us." Moreover, we have decided that we will not have the old automatic correction. We will have wheat grown, and not let the fields go out of cultivation. The laissez faire school would have said: "If you cannot grow wheat at a profit, let the wheat go. Let the labourers starve and the farmer be driven from the land." We have decided to have a shipping industry for national purposes, and we are ready to spend money. We have decided in the whole course of our agricultural policy that we will not allow the old automatic corrections to bring supply into relation with demand but will set up a new system.

I welcome the new Minister's appointment more than anyone in this House. I believe he has an immense opportunity in the two years that remain to this Parliament, and that it depends upon the relation which he can establish between this office and other Departments and the part he can play, as I believe he can, in the formulation of a coherent and consistent policy to replace those lines of policy which, sound in themselves, do not seem to me to be sufficiently related to one another. I think it will be found that out of this question of the distressed areas will arise all those great questions of trade policy and out of the decision of the Government on this particular part of the problem we may get the formulation of a new philosophy which in my opinion is the only political philosophy which the people of this country will accept as an alternative to Socialism. I do not believe they will ever go back to the harsh and cruel methods to produce what economists call equilibruim, which served us in the nineteenth century. I do not believe they will go back to the Whig Poor Law of 1834, wages depression, and labour made servile by these methods. I believe they have determined to be masters of their own fate. The only question is how it is to be done, whether by lion. Gentlemen who now sit on this side of the House and may in a year or two sit on the other side of the Table, or whether we, who have the support of a vast non-party population in the country, the support of an enormous amount of good will, whether the Government which is not in the position of governing a reluctant population opposing its policy but is dealing with people who are waiting to be led and asking for policy, will carry this through. On how they handle the situation which arises out of these perhaps minor questions, which will lead to the greater problems, will depend not merely their fate at the next election, though that is a matter of importance to all of us, but the development of these islands perhaps during the next decade.

I agree with much that the last hon. Gentleman has said, but I disagree also with a good deal, and I want to make that the text of the few remarks that I should like to address to the Committee. It is a poverty stricken House, almost a depressed area, and I suppose the reason is that we do not quite know where we are. We have already had three Debates, and the reports are in the Government's hands, but we are in the dark. I want to say that I do not believe what the last hon. Gentleman and others have said is true. I do not believe we know the facts. The hon. Member who has just spoken said that we have had 10 years with the automatic system and he went on to say that there is a considerable amount of rigidity. In fact, during the last 10 years, about 1,500,000 people in this country have changed their occupations. I want, as a preliminary to a practical suggestion that I wish to put before my right hon. Friend, to analyse that change. There has been a movement, which is still going on, from the fringes of these Islands to the centre. Scotland and Wales have lost between 40,000 and 50,000 persons during the past 10 years. Cornwall, Hereford, Cumberland, West-morland, Norfolk and Suffolk, have all declining populations. The populations even of Durham, Northumberland and Shropshire have increased by only a very small number; and in Scotland all counties north of the Clyde-Forth line, except Stirlingshire, have had decreases in population.

Side by side with this you have this entirely new phenomenon, that places like Birmingham and Coventry have great increases of population. Even Liverpool has 50,000 more. Inside the depressed areas, Newcastle, Manchester and Cardiff have accretions of population. Further, although coal has lost 500,000 people, the distributive trades have taken 500,000 more; although engineering has lost 130,000, the catering and food manufacturing trades have taken an equivalent number; although iron and steel have lost 60,000, the electrical trades have increased by something like 130,000 to 140,000. During the last 10 years a very big change has taken place. We have now the new phenomenon of old industries and new industries. We have even old communities and new communities. Iron and steel, docks, cotton and wool have a large percentage of workers over 55 years of age. In the newer industries —distribution, motor manufacturing and commerce—the average age is comparatively young. At Dagenham the average age is about 23. Further along at Ilford, it is 31. At Epsom, Tunbridge Wells and Bournemouth it is going up steadily.

But that is not the end of the story. I want to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot find the answer from the ordinary statistics. I do not believe anybody knows. There are at least four different volumes of statistics telling us about the past 10 years. I believe these commissioners have found out many new facts, and it is only by an acute analysis of the facts that we can get the answer. The more acute the analysis the more scientific will be the answer. While during the last 10 years there has been an increase in the insured population of 1,647,000, there are 400,000 fewer people in the category of "in retirement or not gainfully employed." I will allow the few people coming back from the Dominions, and also that unknown figure, of vital importance to Scotland and the North of England, of the increased number of people coming from Ireland, on which there are no statistics available. I believe the real solution lies in what the right hon. Gentleman who preceded the present Minister said, that as you increase the social services you: increase the numbers of people taking advantage of them. There are a vast number of people on the registers of social services to-day who were never counted before. No one knows how they lived; certainly they were not there ten years ago. That is the only deduction I can draw. At the beginning of this century there were about 1,750,000 people over 65 years of age. In 1931 there were 3,250,000 people over 65. In ten years time that number will go up to 4,000,000; and in 1976, when some of us will still be young, there will be 5,750,000 people in this country over 65, out of a total population of 33,000,000. The women alone in this category are going to double their population in the next 50 years. You have somehow to allow for all these factors if you are going to plan ahead. You have to think out what kind of a pension system we are going to have in the next 20 years. I will not complicate this by taking account of the figures of young persons between 14 and 18, although you can draw very interesting deductions from that.

reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Trustee Savings Banks (Special Investments) Act, 1934.

2. Architects (Registration) Act, 1934.

3. British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1934.

4. Administration of Justice (Appeals) Act, 1934.

5. Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934.

6. Shops Act, 1934.

7. National Maritime Museum Act, 1934.

8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Leek) Act, 1934.

9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sheppey Water) Act, 1934.

10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Stoke-on-Trent) Act, 1934.

11. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Weymouth and Portland Joint Hospital District) Act, 1934.

12. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wey Valley Water) Act, 1934.

13. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wycombe and District Joint Hospital District) Act, 1934.

14. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (South Middlesex and Richmond Joint Hospital District) Act, 1934.

15. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Herriard and District Water) Act, 1934.

16. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

17. London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

18. Rotherham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1934.

19. Torquay Corporation Act, 1934.

20 Chailey Rural District Council Act, 1934.

21. Sunderland and South Shields Water Act, 1934.

22. Lowestoft Corporation Act, 1934.

23. Tynemouth Corporation Act, 1934.

24. North Wales Electric Power Act, 1934.

25. Tyne Improvement Act, 1934.

26. Wantage Urban District Council Act, 1934.

As I was saying, we are becoming a more aged country. I wish to pass from these rather general figures and statistics, which might well be known more widely, to the specific point. There are now in this country more than 743,000 people over 64 years of age occupied. There are nearly 100,000 over 75 years of age and 200,000 between 70 and 75. Among this group unemployment is far heavier, as would be expected, than it is among those in the prime of life. I am obviously not suggesting that these persons should be with drawn from industry. I merely give the figure for what it is worth in order to put the thing in perspective, and to show, for example, that if we withdraw all those over 55 from industry there would probably be 1,000,000 vacancies. Without any knowledge of what is in these Commissioners' reports, I think the time has come to look ahead at the question of old age. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should consider very carefully the possibility of a retirement on pension. A proposition was put forward by Sir Oswald Mosley years ago and we are told the Department turned it down because the figures were all wrong. It has also been suggested by a great many people since. My suggestion is roughly on these lines, that something equal to the standard benefit be applied to those between 55 and 65—

I think that that would require legislation.

I will not go into any further details, but may I suggest that there are very nearly 300,000 persons who come within these age categories who are unemployed and are drawing transisitional payments. I think, therefore, that the benefit which would accrue would be very considerable. I think that something like one-tenth of the present unemployment could be attacked and that the cost would be infinitesimal, because, if some proposals of this kind were adopted, it would be very largely offset by savings in ordinary standard benefit and transitional payments, and to a small extent in public assistance. Anyone who has had experience of Poor Law work in the old days knows that if a man over 55 came for relief he was not asked questions. You said to him, "Good luck to you." Suppose a man of this age be a carman with four children, what is to be done with him? He cannot get into the habit of driving automobiles, and his life's work is pretty well done, so far as industry in many callings is concerned.

This is not a grandiose scheme to solve the unemployment problem. It will attack a percentage, and I put it at 10 per cent. The means test does not apply to people in this category, and I believe there are sound lines which could be followed in relation to the ordinary old age pension scheme. I dare not go any further, because I shall trespass on the Ruling of the Chair. It must be remembered that we are dealing with men in declining industries and that the chances of reemployment are very small in the distressed areas. It will be an enormous help in re-organising the basic industries of coal, cotton, shipping, and iron and steel if we can deal not only with the problem of redundant spindles and machinery, but also with the redundant personnel in the old age categories. As an hon. Member opposite said, we are beginning to organise exports, imports and basic industries, and I do not think we can leave employment to take care of itself. I am not unmindful of the fact that the Ministry of Labour placed a large number of persons last year in agricultural and industrial employment, but I think the time has come for a much closer co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and organised industry. In large numbers of industries at present there are retirement schemes dealing with pensions and so forth.

The time has come to talk about the concentration of employment in age groups. I know that this is unpopular, and I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary thinks there is very little in it. I would implore him to re-examine it. We cannot go on in this higgledy-piggledy way any longer with the extraordinary anachronism of old age in employment on the one hand, and people in the prime of life, when the expenses of a growing family are most serious, being, as it seems, permanently denied the opportunity of employment, on the other. I do not believe in making a national institution out of able-bodied unemployment and health insurance to work very much better, and would make the new Assistance Board's task very much simpler, because there is a limit beyond which the board could not go in tackling able-bodied unemployment. There are a large number of persons whom many of us would like to see brought into the unemployment insurance scheme, because they are indistinguishable in many ways from the able-bodied unemployed. We make an arbitrary arrangement, but we admit, and the Minister admits, that there is no real difference between these persons beyond the fact of their locality. No insurance scheme, and I go further and say that no assistance board, can deal with the depressed areas in a practical way because the thing has become unmanageable.

It is for that sort of reason that I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the question of age groups, I know it is not a thing to be clone wholesale, but taking industry by industry—though I think the pension scheme must be carried through on a national basis—and the unwanted leisure which has been thrust on the heads of families while schools are putting out quite a number of raw recruits from 14 to 18. I know the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) often reminds us that juvenile unemployment is small, and to a certain extent that is true, but that is not the problem. The problem comes beween 18 and 22, and afterwards. Some of us want to see some withdrawal from the labour market of those between 14 and 18, because we think that will help that position.

I say again, with other hon. Members, that we realise the difficulty of publishing these reports, and also the difficulty of publishing parts of the reports without publishing the whole of them, but it would be a good thing for the Government and the country if we were taken further into confidence about the facts, because we should not then have so many wild things being said from both sides of the House and in the country. Grotesque things are being said about unemployment and the unemployment figures, and I cannot believe that those gentlemen who have been giving their time to this subject during the last three months have not found out many new facts. An hon. Member opposite said that there was greater rigidity of labour, owing to lack of mobility, but in the so-called industrial depressed areas the facts are different, because with the development of motor transport a man unemployed in a mine can go to work 10 or 15 miles away in a new mine, and that facility is revolutionising the whole position. In Scotland that is not the problem, but the general depression of the heavy industry economy, and its results on trade, and that makes all the more important my suggestion about dealing with old age. Therefore, I come back to the one single concrete suggestion, because it is no good talking about the problem unless we can say something definite. We are getting the beginnings of a post-war Cabinet, and I am sure hon. Members on all sides of the House will back up the energetic prosecution of the new and very difficult task to which post-war Britain has called my right hon. Friend during the last few weeks.

The right hon. Gentleman, assisted by his Parliamentary Secretary, will probably not be at a loss to reply to some of the charges which have been made. The charge of official complacency, by the way, was not made from these benches, but by an active supporter of the Conservative Government, who has thereby prevented that charge being made by those who are looked upon as being capable of such things. I do not propose to follow that hon. Member in his reference to high policy and complacent officials or official complacency. As representing a distressed area, I say that the Government can have all their high policy and their surplus and their reports if only they will give us, in the distressed areas, immediate relief. Reference has been made to the need for the publication of the Commissioner's reports and to the promise of the Government to deal with their recommendations. It is understood that some of those reports are ready. The "Times" had a letter this morning from Sir Rhys Williams expressing the hope that the reports should be published, and although I admit that I have expressed the opinion that I have yet to be convinced that the Government can expect any information from those Commissioners which they had not already in their possession, let me pay a tribute to Sir Wyndham Portal, the Commissioner who visited the area in which I live and which I have the honour to represent. No one could have been more patient in listening to the statements made by representatives of the different organisations in the Abertillery area.

It is a very unpleasant thing for an active business man to have to listen to the observations of a professional politician, but he did it with considerable credit to himself and great credit to those who sent him. It could not have been a very pleasant task for these gentlemen to be brought into personal contact with distress such as they had only the faintest idea existed, especially in some of the mining valleys of South Wales. My reason for saying the Government have the information in their possession already and cannot expect much more is based on what was learned in the surveys, the results of which were published only in 1932. In the "Times" of last Friday there is an article by Professor H. A. Marquand, who was the bead of the staff which prepared the survey for the South Wales area. It shows that conditions are getting considerably worse in South Wales, and that article ought to be some incentive to the Government to announce their policy, in view of the fact that we shall soon be breaking up for the Recess and that our people will in all probability experience another winter even worse than last winter. The Professor says:

"Coal mining is the chief industry and employs about 40 per cent.—in 1923 it was 52 per cent.—of all the insured workers in employment in that region. In 1930, the last complete year before the survey was made, the output of coal was approximately 46.000.000 tons. In each following year the output has fallen, and last year was only three-quarters of what it was in 1929, while exports were only two-thirds of what they then were."

I hold the opinion, for what it is worth, that there is no hope for South Wales with a bankrupt mining industry. In that article reference is made to the need for the introduction of new industries as the only possible alternative to permitting the decay to continue. The establishment of new factories in South Wales may assist us to ease the position, but will not remove all the unemployment in that area. The Government are doing very little on the lines of the suggestion made by Professor Marquand. According to the figures supplied by the President of the Board of Trade on 1st May of this year, 463 new factories, employing 25 or more workers each, were opened last year, and in addition there were 95 extensions. The extensions and the new factories gave employment, it was said, to no fewer than 29,500 persons. Those statistics were unsatisfactory in my opinion, because 409 factories had been closed down in the same period and we were not told the number of -persons who became unemployed but I will not pursue that point.

Out of the 463 new factories, 220, or nearly a half, were erected in Greater London and only two in South Wales. It would be of interest to those who come from South Wales and Monmouth to be told where those two factories were erected. There were two out of a total of 463. The number of persons employed in the 220 factories in the Greater London area was 13,450. The number employed in the two new factories in South Wales was not in excess of 450. There is optimism over more persons being in employment and the improvement in trade, and I do not grudge the Government any credit to which they are entitled in that respect, but the conditions in South Wales are worse than ever. In the course of his article in the "Times" Professor Marquand says:

"Our 1931 estimate of a surplus of 40,000 was made at a time when unemployment was less than it is to-day; and it was made on the assumption of a return to the 1929 level of output in coal mining and the other basic industries. To-day the surplus is greater than it was in 1931 and the social effects of prolonged unemployment are more apparent and even more deplorable."

He goes on to say:

"Nothing short of vigorous State action can check the waste of splendid human material and the wearing down of the spirit which have gone on for so long."

I have already said that South Wales will in my opinion be non-existent without a resuscitation of the coal mining industry in some form or other. If we want to ascertain the degree of distress in some of these areas there is no more reliable guide than the number of meals provided free for the children in our ele- mentary schools. In my area, in 1931, 931,602 meals were supplied to school children, and in 1933 the number had increased to 1,166,039. Since 1921 no fewer than 6,091,000 meals have been supplied to the children in a part of the division I have the honour to represent. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) to the insured population in his area who were unemployed being in the region of 52 per cent. I am in an urban area where 62 per cent of an insured population of 7,000 is unemployed.

I desire to stress a new point in connection with the depressed areas, which is not only true of a part of my division but is generally true of all such areas in Great Britain. Migration may be a good and desirable thing for those fortunate enough to secure employment elsewhere, but the burden is increased for those who remain in the area. Let me give an illustration in connection with the General Exchequer Grant payable in the Abertillery Urban District. Under the Local Government Act of 1932 it consists of a capitation grant based upon the estimated population—and other conditions. In my area on 1st April, 1930, it was calculated at the rate of 151 pence per head of the population. Since then that figure has been reduced to 145 pence. Instead of that grant realising £20,662, as it did in 1931, it only amounted in 1934, to £19,067, a reduction of £1,595. The demands of a depressed area are as great as and even greater than others, but they have a decreased income to meet the increased demand.

I am not at liberty to cover some of the points which have been submitted to Government Departments, but I am entitled to express the opinion that, from the point of view of the distressed areas, insufficient consideration has been given to the points upon which agreement has been reached by the Urban District Councils' Association. Four of those points are well known to Members of the Government, and propose, in order to relieve distress in those areas for the period, that there should be a reduction in rates of interest charged by the Public Works Loans Board, a reduction in house rents of subsidised schemes, an increase in Exchequer grants and a spreading of the burden of poor relief over the whole country. I would direct the attention of the Minister to a case which has come to my notice in my division. The late Minister of Labour, in his annual report last year, made reference to the number of vacancies filled by applicants from districts other than those in which the work was available. Those cases are on the increase; we take no exception to them, and some of us are very grateful for them, but it is very necessary that an accurate statement of the conditions of employment should be made to applicants before they leave their homes, especially when the applicants are boys under 16 years of age.

The case to which I refer is that of three boys who were sent by the Abertillery Employment Exchange to work at a brick works about 12 miles from Bedford. Notwithstanding that they were 16 years of age, the boys were paid the handsome sum of 6d. per hour, and they were expected to work 52 hours per week. During a discussion upon this Vote on the 21st of this month, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour made a reference to the 40-hour week Convention, and said that there was no reason to believe that 40 represented what was required any more than 36 or 42. I would like to know if he is disposed to include 52 hours for boys of 16 years of age? I am informed that the boys commenced work at half-past six in the morning and remained at work until 5 o'clock in the afternoon. That period included meal times, breakfast being provided two hours after the start of the day's work. For boys living in a depressed area to commence work without food is nothing short of a scandal. The boys were lodged in a large brick-built bungalow with persons with whom boys of that age should not be allowed to associate. They had to pay Li for lodgings and keep, which left them with three or four shillings per week for what was inaptly described as "pocket-money."

Because of these conditions, the boys walked 12 miles to the Bedford Exchange in order to lay a legitimate complaint not only in regard to the conditions under which they worked but those in which they were expected to sleep. They were told by the manager of the Bedford Exchange to go back to work. Their parents were informed of the conditions, and the fathers went to Bedford and brought the boys home. Particulars of the conditions which I have related have been sub- mitted to the Abertillery Employment Exchange. I am laying no complaint against the manager of the Abertillery Exchange, but I am complaining about the information which was sent by those who were responsible for inviting applicants from Abertillery to fill vacancies in the brickyard under those scandalous conditions. Something should be done in such cases, especially when they concern boys who do not object to leaving their homes at so young an age.

An article which I was interested to read in the "Times" of the 20th of this month bears on the case. I make no apology for reading from this leading article, in view of the particulars of the case which I have just submitted to the Committee. It said:

"It is pretty safe to say that any English discussion of English national characteristics would give pride of place to a sense of fair play. To foreign critics we may on occasion be a nation of shopkeepers ' or 'perfidious Albion.' But a warm and hearty determination to give and receive fair play is far more conspicuous among our national traits than far-sightedness, acquisitiveness, skill in bargaining, or political adroitness. Other nations are prone to put down our success in winning and holding an Empire to these more intellectual and cold-blooded qualities. In our own judgment it is far more largely due to that instinct for seeing, hearing and understanding the other side which is at the root of that vague notion of ' fair-play.' One of the other names of that instinct is the sporting spirit '—the tendency to take the part of the under-dog, the desire to give every man his say and his chance, however much the odds and the general opinion may be against him."

There is certainly no English conception of fair play or of justice in expecting boys of 16 years of age to leave a depressed area in order to accept employment under those scandalous conditions.

I have another instance of a young man in my division who was sent to work after having had a miserable six weeks' or six months' training as a bricklayer.; When he got to the place of work he was asked whether were his tools. He had not been supplied with the tools necessary for the position. He came home, and the Employment Exchange submitted his case to a court of referees in order to compel him to return money that had been given to him by the Exchange to undertake employment in another district.

The Minister draws attention in his report to some interesting facts. Refer- ences have already been made to one or two of them. He points out that June, 1933, in comparison with June, 1923, shows a contraction in employment in the productive or basic industries of nearly 1,000,000 people, while in the lighter or service industries during the same 10 years there has been an increase of 1,300,000 in the number of persons employed. He points out also that during the period there was a decrease in the mining industry of more than 537,000 persons, and that in the distributive industries there was an increase of over 593,000. In the miscellaneous services there was an increase of over 219,000. In commenting upon these statistics, and in relation to others, he said:

"This is perhaps one of the most striking features of the employment history of recent years."

There was nothing striking about those statistics in the observations made by the Parliamentary Secretary when this matter was under discussion. He said:

"I do not regard it as in the least unsatisfactory that more time and labour should be devoted to the distributive, decorative and electrical trades, and so forth. I regard it as evidence of a wider distribution of interest over the lives of many people, so that the ordinary man gets a wider enjoyment out of life."

You cannot sustain people who are unemployed upon mere decoration, nor by a distribution of articles which they may desire and deserve but cannot purchase. The Parliamentary Secretary also stated:

"That is not necessarily a thing which has to be deplored, for surely economic progress consists in the satisfaction of more and more human wants, and it is only possible to achieve that increased satisfaction of human wants by reducing the amount of time and labour devoted to producing the primary necessities of life. When you release more time and labour for the secondary necessities of life, you are able to widen the general life of the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1934; cols. 681-82, Vol. 291.]

Is the Parliamentary Secretary quite certain that the old theory of alternative employment is inapplicable to the present situation Is he sure that those rendered idle by improvements in the methods of production will be compensated by permanent employment in the auxiliary services? If he is, it might be possible for him to estimate how long it will take to absorb all the unemployed under the improved methods of production. The Minister does not appear to be quite so confident of that as the Parliamentary Secretary, because he states in his report:

"These changes would be sufficiently important if they indicated merely that employment has moved away from some industries to other industries of which the nature, for the most part, is vastly different; but there seems, in addition, to be some possibility that the centre of gravity of employment is shifting from production to services."

My own opinion, if these figures show anything, is that they show the extent to which the productive capacity of the industries of this country has developed. It constitutes part of our indictment of the existing economic system that it is cheaper to produce an article than it is to Bell it or distribute it. If the Parliamentary Secretary is correct, then he is not aware of the statement which is to be found in the "Times Trade Supplement" of 23rd July, 1932, that between 1913 and 1928 the increase in output per head of workers employed in 30 principal industries in Great Britain was 33 per cent., and the increase in employment was 2.2 per cent., or less than the increase in population. The expectation that by mere transfer of the surplus labour from productive industries it will be absorbed in the auxiliary services cannot be borne out by the facts.

What do the Government propose to do on behalf of the people who cannot save themselves, but who are simply vegetating in the depressed areas of Great Britain? What is their policy? Are our people to experience another winter similar to, if not worse, than that of last year? You can have all your auxiliary services; what we demand is immediate belief for the people whom we represent in the depressed areas of South Wales.

This is not the first time during this Session that the Estimates of the Ministry of Labour have been under review, but on the previous occasion on which they were discussed they were presented by my predecessor, Sir Henry. Betterton, who was able to present them with a knowledge which he had acquired over many years in the Department, and which it would be idle to pretend to rival. The standard of courtesy and humanity which he showed during his term of office will be handed down as a tradition in the Ministry of Labour, and by his successors, whoever they may be. I am sure that all of us here, irrespective of party, will join in wishing him success in the arduous and important task that he has undertaken.

I share the sorrow of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) at the fact that my first task in representing the Ministry at this Box should be to defend my salary, because the reduction of £100 which he has moved would pretty well take up all that I have so far received. I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that, although the Ministry of Labour Vote has become almost the automatic vehicle for the discussion of this great problem of the derelict areas, it is not by any means the most convenient one. My hon. Friend has had the opportunity of seeing the work and of knowing the powers of the Ministry of Labour from both sides of this Table, and it is extraordinary what a difference that short distance makes in the view that one takes. He knows also how many of the large questions which have been touched upon during the Debate this afternoon are outside the administrative limits of this particular Department, and it is for that reason that I am forced to decline, for instance, the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan) to discuss all the very many factors which, I quite agree, have to be considered in the formulation of any long-term policy. Some years ago my hon. Friend and I, as members of a group which was irreverently called by other Members of the House, of Commons the "Young Men's Christian Association," took part in writing a book, and I can assure him that, with the added experience which years have brought to us, I shall be only too glad of his advice and help in this task. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) invited me to look further at old age; but as I gather from you, Captain Bourne, that that requires legislation, I am not permitted to do so. It is obvious, therefore, that any reply to the Debate That we have had so far must be in general terms; but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I attempt some short analysis of the problem that we are discussing, because I think it has its bearing both upon the appointment and upon the task of the commissioners who have been in these derelict areas.

I am not sure, as a matter of fact, that the term "derelict areas," although we have become accustomed to use it, is a very good one. I am not sure that it really conveys a very true picture of the problem with which we have to deal. In the first place, the word "derelict" rather gives one the impression of, say, the devastated regions of France after the War—whole areas laid waste, where reconstruction was a necessity, and where no signs of life could be found. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have much closer experience of these areas than I have, will agree that on the whole that would be an untrue picture—that not only does the derelict area, so called, shade off into more prosperous areas around it, but even inside the worst areas spots will be found where some particular industry or some particular pit maintains its vitality and gives life to the neighbourhood. In addition, there is the very important point, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock referred, of the increased mobility which modern transport has given to the inhabitants of a particular locality, and which, therefore, keeps the locality alive even if the particular spot in which they live may be industrially dead.

While that may be the case as far as the mines are concerned, the areas around some of the steelworks, like Ebbw Vale and Dowlais, are absolutely derelict.

I am not denying that you may find inside South Wales or in Durham areas which are derelict, and to which none of the exceptions I have mentioned may apply but I am saying that you cannot put down either South Wales or Durham, or the other areas which we are considering, as areas which are completely dead in the same sense in which we think of the devastated areas of France. Further, I am not sure that we are wise in insisting too much upon the term "area," because we must, after all, remember that the responsibility of a Government is not to places, but to people—it is not to particular areas, but to the populations in those areas. The whole history of economic development in this and other countries has been that of fluctuations in the prosperity of particular areas. As the advantages—physical, geographical and so on—of an area wax or wane, so its prosperity increases or falls; and it will, I think, be agreed that it would be impossible for any Government, so long as industry has any connection, either in its production or in its distribution, with geographical or geological features, to standardise the prosperity of an area. It is the same when you come to deal with particular industries. There again the whole economic history of the world has been that of the rise and fall of particular industries, and the whole history of any civilised nation has been that of the inevitable decline of the heavier industries as its civilisation has become more and more complex. The figures, to which some reference has been made in the course of the Debate, which deal with this subject, are extremely illuminating. If we take, as our two test months, the month of June, 1923, and the month of June, 1933—a period of 10 years—actually during that period there was an increase of nearly 500,000 in the number of insured people in employment; and that was a period in which, as is shown in the Ministry of Labour Report, the number of people employed in coal mining had decreased by 537,000, in general engineering by 109,000, in shipbuilding by 87,000, and in iron and steel by 75,000.

It is quite clear that the normal economic process which we have learned to expect has been working, and that, as labour is relieved by the easier production of, and the reduced demand for, the commoner necessities of life, so that labour has been absorbed by the more intricate requirements of a more advanced civilisation. A decrease of 500,000 in the coal-mining industry has been replaced by an increase of 600,000 in the distributive trades, a decrease in iron and steel by a comparable increase in the electrical trades, and so on. Although, of course, that change-over may create, and does create, in certain areas and in certain industries, very grave problems and very heavy stresses, yet I do not think one is entitled to regard it as an unhealthy symptom of a developing civilisation; and I am sure that it would be not only unwise, but impossible, for any Government to attempt to fight against 'an economic tide of that kind and try to standardise at any time the prosperity of this or that industry. The responsibility, not only of this Government but of any Government, is to its people. The responsibility of the Government is not to maintain the level of employment in an area or in an industry, but to find employment for its people wherever and however it can be found.

After having made that preliminary analysis, I want now to pass to the main question—the question how far the Government are entitled to say that any general trade revival will provide a cure for the particular problem which we have been discussing this afternoon. Are we entitled to regard this problem of the derelict areas, not as a separate problem requiring separate treatment, but simply as part of that main problem which must face 'any Government—the problem of the trade activity of the country? One thing, I think, is quite clear, and that is that, whether or not a general trade revival is a cure for the problem of the derelict areas, it is certainly a condition precedent. What suggestions have been thrown out during the course of this Debate for some solution of that problem? How can you deal with the problem, not of the area or of the industry, but of the population within it?

First of all, you can find work for those people where they are. There are only two ways of doing that. Either you can revive, if possible, the industries which already exist—and that, clearly, is part of a general trade revival; or you can absorb some portion of the unemployed by setting up new industries in those particular areas. Of course, a great deal of discussion can go on between economists as to whether on the whole that is a national advantage or not. One person can point to the fact that in the industrial areas of, say, South Wales, dwellings have already been provided for the workers, and also the social services and municipal activities which would have to be provided in the different areas to which those new industries might be attracted; and it may also be said that, if you deliberately encourage industries to go to places where they are farther away from their consuming centres, and where the cost of transport is higher because the distance is greater, that is a permanent charge upon the national economy, and in the long run has to be paid for by the depressed areas themselves. But, whatever force there is in those arguments, whatever may be said in favour of an industry going to Slough or in favour of its going to Durham, it is no good even beginning to argue until you have conditions in which a new industry is going anywhere at all. It is no good talking about setting up new industries in depressed areas until you have conditions of confidence, of belief in development, of general prospects of successful enterprise under which new industries will set up anywhere in Great Britain at all.

Then there is a further consideration. There may be—indeed, I think it is better to face the facts and say that there will be—people in those areas with whom you will find it impossible to deal by either of these methods. There may be people in places where it is not possible either to set up new industries or to revive old ones, people whose age, health or general experience makes it impossible, and, indeed, unfair, to demand that they should be transferred elsewhere. The alternative, of course, to the provision of work for people in the areas in which they live is the provision of work for them elsewhere—the policy of transference which has been carried on now for a considerable time by the Ministry of Labour, and which has resulted in a large number of the people from these depressed areas finding new hope and new lives elsewhere; and I rather regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) raised those two cases with regard to transference—publicity for which can only have the effect of making young men nervous of such a policy—without having given me some notice of them, and giving me an opportunity of verifying the facts and being able to put before him the other side of the case. Naturally, now that the facts have been raised, I shall investigate them and let him know the results.

I am sure that on all sides of the House we are anxious to promote a policy of this kind. We are anxious to find new life and new hopes for the people in these areas. A visit which I recently paid to a Government training centre was the most hopeful thing that has happened to me for a considerable time. Most of the trainees, I think, came from South Wales. It was quite clear that they were interested in their training, and were desperately anxious to get the jobs which they were certain were waiting for them at the end. There is nothing that so irritates as that kind of ill-informed criticism—which, I am glad to say, is very rarely heard now in this country, but which is sometimes made abroad—that the unemployed in this country do not want work. You have only to pay a visit to a centre like that to see the energy with which people submitted themselves to the essential discipline and to the training of an industrial centre simply because the prospect was held out to them that submission to the discipline meant the chance of a new start and of permanent work. I am glad to say that in that particular centre, of 400 people who completed their training during this year, so far only five have failed to secure a job.

But I am afraid there is still a class for whom we shall not be able to find work in the place where they live, and whose age and condition make it unfair to expect them to start a new life somewhere else. It is clear that we have first of all to ensure to them a tolerable, physical life for the future, but I am not certain that, when we have done that, we have really done all that is expected of us, or that the mere possibility of physical existence for the rest of their lives is all that they are entitled to ask. We have to go beyond that and bring into their lives some sense of dignity and utility, some sense of feeling that they are of use to themselves and to the community. However we are going to do that, it is no good closing our eyes to the fact that it will cost money, that it will be a burden on someone, that it will, in fact, be a burden upon the people in the other areas. If the people in the other areas are to be in a condition to bear that burden, you must have a certain measure of trade activity.

I have elaborated that point at some length because I deny that the years the Government have been in office have been years wasted in dealing with this problem. On the contrary, I say it is the revival that has been brought about by the Government during those years which alone has made such a, discussion as we have had to-day even possible. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that we have wasted these two years and have done nothing for the distressed areas. I am sorry that he brought in the National Council of Social Services on the ground that we have used that as a cover for our inertia.

I did so when the Government first took this action because I thought they were wrong and I think so still more now.

If the hon. Gentleman has done it twice, I am doubly sorry. There was a reason for the Government assistance to this body. It was with no idea of shirking or hiding their essential responsibility. It was because the Government felt, as I think most individuals feel, that if there is anything that can be done to make the lot of these people more tolerable, it is the duty of everyone to assist in doing it. But, when the hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of having done nothing for two or three years, what did his Government do? If he had been standing at this Box and had been challenged by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) as to what he had done for the derelict ares, what answer would he have been able to make? The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the instances that he gave of the expenditure of public money did not affect the position at all in a fundamental way. The question I should have asked, is, "What did he do in a fundamental way in the two years when he was in office?" The answer, of course, is that he did nothing to deal with the problem. I am not blaming him, because the economic conditions under which the Government were in office made a solution of dm problem impossible. It was a time of declining trade and increasing unemployment all over the country, and staggering finances. You could not set up new industries, because there were no new industries to set up. You could not transfer people, because there was nowhere to transfer them. You could not assist the lives of the people in the localities, because the burdens that you were putting on other areas were rapidly turning them into derelict areas. I deny that these three years of Government activity, as far as the depressed areas are concerned, have been wasted. They have indeed created the conditions under which alone any attempt to deal with this problem becomes possible.

Now, having shown conclusively that a revival of trade activity is an essential condition precedent to any solution of this problem, we have to proceed to the much more difficult question whether it can possibly provide a cure. Certainly the figure which has most struck my imagination, in looking through all the figures which I have been consulting, is the figure of the increase in employment between September, 1932, and June of this year. In September, 1932, the effect of the Government's policy was just beginning to be felt. Till then all that had been achieved was a slowing down of the decline which had been going on continuously for two years. In September, 1932, the decline was arrested and the upward movement began. In that period of less than two years 1,019,000 more people found employment. That is a figure of impressive magnitude, and shows that in those months a trade revival of really considerable proportions has taken place. I think it is idle, and I am sure hon. Members opposite would not wish, to deny the fact.

But in connection with figures of that kind, staggering as they may be, and comforting as they may seem at first sight, there are certain disquieting signs, because examination of the figures of unemployment shows how very unequal has been the incidence of the undoubted improvement that has taken place in those 18 months. You have a great group of areas covering a field of heavy industrial employment, where the decline in unemployment has been very great, and where the resultant residue of unemployed has not entirely disappeared, but no longer presents a problem of really striking gravity. For instance, in greater London the unemployment figure now is only just over 8 per cent., in Middlesex it is only just over 5 per cent., and in Surrey, 5.5 per cent. If you take some of the smaller towns round the London area, in St. Albans there is only 2 per cent, of unemployment, in Watford 5.2 per cent., in Luton 1.8 per cent. and in the whole of Bedfordshire only 3.2 per cent. If you go further afield, to the great industrial towns in the Midlands, you find in Birmingham an unemployment percentage of only 7.5, and in Coventry 8.2.

It is clear that, so far as areas such as those are concerned, the general trade revival has been enough to reduce the unemployment problem to comparatively modest proportions. It is true to say that even in the areas that we are par- titularly discussing to-day, in Durham, in Cumberland, in South Wales and in certain districts of Scotland, this revival has had some effect, though of course a very much smaller one, upon the general employment situation. Unemployment in Durham, for instance, has fallen in the last two years from 41 per cent. to 33.8, Cumberland from 35.7 to 26.2, Glamorgan from 42.5 to 38.4, Monmouth from 42.4 to 38, and Lanarkshire from 32.1 to 27.4 per cent. It is when you take particular districts or towns inside these so-called derelict areas that the inequality of this improvement really manifests itself. Where great districts have seen their unemployment problem almost solved, where even in the worst districts there has been an improvement, you get these smaller areas where the situation has not only not improved but actually, during that period of really considerable revival, has deteriorated. I do not think I need trouble the Committee with instances of that kind. There is the case of Bishop Auckland in Durham or. Maryport in Cumberland, towns such as Aberdare, Merthyr Tydfil, Mountain Ash in Glamorgan, or Abertillery in Monmouth, Hon. Members are only too well acquainted with the facts. It is just the areas which we are now considering that have gained least from the undoubted revival of trade in the past two years and, whatever feelings one might have on first seeing the figures of 500,000 more people in employment since ten years ago, a close consideration of these figures and a realisation of the position of some of these areas would forbid us any complacency in the way we view the present situation or any confidence that in the immediate future any general trade revival, however continuing, however steady, would provide an immediate or a satisfactory solution for the problem that we are discussing.

It seems to me, in view of these facts, that the Government sent out these commissioners to the distressed areas at exactly the psychological moment. It would have been idle to send them out before the trade revival was so established that one could say that the conditions were such that a real attempt could be made to deal with the problem. It would have been dangerous, in view of the figures which I have just quoted, to delay any longer the sending of those commissioners. I may here make this point in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, that the commissioners were appointed not by the Minister of Labour but by the Government. They report to the Government and their reports will be considered by the Government and, of course, any action taken will be action by the Government.

The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street has questioned the necessity for sending the Commissioners. He said that there were plenty of available data already, and in support of that assertion he instanced one particular publication which was brought out in 1932. I should have thought that the mere fact that the latest collection of statistics which he could quote upon a particular area was already two years out of date was in itself some justification for the collection of new materials and facts. But it is not only a question of the Commissioners going out and getting facts. Even if those facts could be collected by somebody else, the important thing is the possibility of seeing the facts through those new eyes; and the obtaining of their personal reactions on what is really a problem of persons. We are not only dealing with areas and industries but with people, and I believe that we get the best light on the real needs and the real difficulties of these people not only by facts and figures but by personal contact as well.

I am going to use the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street as a witness. He once did me the honour of giving me a book which he had written about life in a mining district. So far as I know, that book did not contain a single figure, it had no appendices and there were no statistical data; but I learned more from that book about the needs and difficulties of the miners than ever I could have learned from a Royal Commission's report. I only emphasise the fact that the problem before the Government is a problem of people and not of area, to reinforce the argument that the best way to get information upon that subject is by personal contact. I believe, indeed, I know, that the Commissioners have performed the task allotted to them with sincerity and assiduity. The hon. Member complained that they have been so long doing it. I do not believe that they could have done it in less time. Tributes have been paid to their co-operation with the local authorities, and their readiness to hear and to talk with every representative of public opinion and every possible giver of information in the district. The whole effect of their visits would have been spoiled if, half way through their seeing the local authorities, they had to say: "We are sorry; we cannot see any more, otherwise the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street will say that we are taking too long about our inquiry." I believe that they have performed their task in a really efficient way, and all the reports have now been received or are expected within a few days.

Now I come to the question of publication. It was definitely stated at the time when the Commissioners were appointed that their reports would be treated as confidential. They have written their reports on that understanding, and it would be clearly impossible at this stage to go back on the definite promise that was given to them and to treat now as public what they had been assured would be treated as confidential. I am perfectly certain that the only way to get the full value out of their personal observations was to make their report of a confidential nature. It is no good pretending that we should talk so readily or write so freely for publication as we do to.a person whom we can trust and who we know will keep our communication secret. If your remarks are published, if our statements are published, there is a possibility that they will be misunderstood, or that they will be taken out of their context and in some way or other be twisted into something we never intended them to mean. If we want, as we do want, from these Commissioners the fullest and frankest advice upon the local conditions, there was no other way of getting it than by treating their reports when received as completely confidential.

In the event of the Commissioners themselves agreeing that their reports should be published, will the Government reconsider the matter?

That is a hypothetical question. The matter has been treated as settled, and I, therefore, have no authority from the Commissioners to answer for them. I certainly believe that any suggestion that their reports should be treated as public matter would be resented, above all, by the Commissioners themselves. I am asked about the publication of certain facts or figures which might be taken out of the reports. I subkait to the Committee that the most unsatisfactory way of all is for the Government to publish bits of a report. The effect is that people say that the Government have taken out bits which suit them best and have put them forward for publication. It is, of course, clear that when the time comes to debate this matter it will come on the opportunity which, I believe, the House prefers, and that will be the decision of the Government to take action upon the reports. Then, in supporting their action and in defending their policy, they will necessarily make use of a great deal of the information contained in these reports.

I think that it is unnecessary further to elaborate a defence for the confidential nature of the reports. Behind the demand for publication, there does not really lie a desire to see what is in the reports, because the hon. Member who presses for the publication, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, says he knows already everything that the commissioners can report. It is a fear, a suspicion, that the sending out of the commissioners was nothing more than a smoke-screen, that it was just an attempt to keep this House of Commons quiet for three months until we get hon. Members away on their holidays. I can give the Committee the assurance that it was not the intention of the Government to use the sending out of these commissioners and the awaiting of their reports merely as an excuse for delay. The Government sincerely hope that from these reports will emerge something of real value, and that with the assistance of the reports they will be able to undertake what no other Government, whether a Government of hon. Members opposite or of hon. Members on this side, have so far been able to do, and that is some real work upon the solution of a problem which is as complex as it is difficult.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for answering the first question I put about the statement of fact. I gather by inference from his statement that when the Government do consider the reports, and they have made up their mind what they will do upon them, there will be a statement of policy in the House. Quite bluntly, what I am asking is: Are the Government going to do this business themselves or leave it to the Unemployment Assistance Board?

If that is the question which the hon. Member puts, I cannot answer it now. I do not know what the reports are going to recommend. I do not know, therefore, whether any steps that we are able to take will be steps which are appropriate to the Government or which are appropriate to the board. But I do say that the appropriate opportunity which the House would most look for in order to discuss this matter is not some general statement, even if such statement were supported with figures taken from the reports, but the time when the Government announce the action which they are going to take upon the reports.

I regret that I have already occupied the Committee so long. I have confined myself entirely to this extremely important subject, although other points have been raised. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is going to reply and he will deal with the other points in due course. I close with this last observation, that I can assure the Committee that the sending out of the commissioners was not to delay action. The Government are fully aware of the seriousness of the problem. We hope to get from the reports real assistance, and that it will be possible for us to add to the other achievements of this National Government the achievement of being able to tackle this desperate problem.

The right hon. Gentleman made the remark that he hoped to deal with this problem with the sympathy and the humaneness which characterised his predecessor. We believe that the sympathy and humaneness of his predecessor will be continued by the right hon. Gentleman, but we want something far more than sympathy. We have had sympathy for a long time, and we believe that the time is overdue when we ought to have some action. Summing up the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to- night, if his speech means action, then I do not understand the word. It seems to me that we are to be just as far advanced when the House adjourns for the Recess as we were at the beginning of the year. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that the term "derelict areas" was not the appropriate term to use. Perhaps areas may not be derelict, but certainly "derelict villages" is a correct term to use, because we have in our distresssd areas mining villages which are really and absolutely derelict, where collieries have been closed for many years, where there is no other chance of employment and no prospect of work. If the appropriate word is not "derelict," then one has a difficulty in understanding the word.

It is not sufficient for the Minister to ask what the Labour Government did when they were in office. He knows that when Labour sat on the Government side they did not sit there with the majority possessed by the present Government. The Government to-day have a sufficient majority to carry into effect any policy that they wish. Labour had not that opportunity. Therefore, it is not sufficient for the Minister to shelter himself behind the argument as to what Labour did or what Labour would do to-day if they were in office. I should like to repeat an argument that was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). Why were these inquiries necessary? Why were they undertaken? When the Minister of Minister of Labour announced that Commissioners were to be appointed to go to the four areas, I asked in a supplementary question:

"Will the Minister tell us what use there is in making an investigation like this when the Government already have all the information? Is it not simply wasting time? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1934; col. 1102, Vol, 288.]

Fourteen weeks have elapsed since the Government made that announcement, and we are in the same position to-day as we were then. We are justified in saying that it has been nothing but wasting time. To appoint Commissioners to go to distressed areas and collect information, when the Government had all the information they wanted was a mere excuse for pretending that they were interested in these distressed areas and they were simply using the appointment of these Commissioners, and using their time, until it was not possible for the House of Commons to have the reports or discuss them, or decide upon any policy emanating from the reports. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street was referring to the two gentlemen who have gone to Durham, I interrupted and said that we were no better than either of them. I did not mean that to be a, reflection on either of the gentlemen who went to Durham; all I meant was that the Government were prepared to use as an excuse anyone who went to a distressed area as a justification for doing nothing. These Commissioners were appointed on 19th April, and the Durham Commissioner started on 1st May. The Minister of Labour has said that they have wasted no time. I have no hesitation in saying that as far as the Commissioner for Durham is concerned, it has been a part-time job. If the Government had been really anxious to have the inquiry completed for the House to discuss the reports before the Adjournment, they could have done it, but there has been delay again and again.

The Minister has attempted to justify the non-publication of the reports. I submit that it is not fair to those who have given all the help they could to the Commissioners. They have met local authorities, deputations and everyone has been anxious to give all the help possible, and as quickly as possible, and they have a right to know what is going to be done with their proposals and suggestions. It is not fair to say that it would not be right to publish these reports; it is not fair to those who have made suggestions. They should be able to know whether they have received that consideration which they believed they would receive.

It was quite unnecessary to send Commissioners to distressed areas. On 4th June the Commissioner for Durham told the Press that his problem was to find employment for 147,000 unemployed-137,000 males and 10,000 females. He also said that there were in Durham 60,000 who had been unemployed for less than one year, 24,000 who had been unemployed for more than one year and less than two years, 22,000 who had been unemployed for more than two years and less than three years, 22,000 who had been unemployed for more than three years and less than four years, 9,000 who had been unemployed for four years and less than five years, and about 9,000 who had been unemployed for more than five years. He knew his problem; he knew the number of unemployed and how long they had been unemployed. The last time the Prime Minister addressed his constituents, in May, he said:

"There are Commissioners going round now. Were the districts really derelict or could new forms of industry be brought into them?"

The Prime Minister, it seems to me, had in his mind the bringing of new forms of industry into derelict areas. Here is the commissioner who knows his problem and here is the Prime Minister talking of the remedy. If they are both satisfied, one of the problem and the other of the remedy, why the delay? I submit that there is no justification for delay. The delay is only to get this House to rise, and once the Recess has begun nothing more will be done until the winter. When the Government come forward with their proposals in the winter we shall discover that no employment will be found, no attempt will be made to set up new industries, and the people in the derelict areas will be in the same position this winter as they were last winter. The Minister of Labour rather boasted that there was more employment to-day than previously, and he quoted some districts in Durham to show that unemployment was not quite as bad as it was in 1932. If the Prime Minister had been present, I was going to direct his attention to three exchanges in his own division where things are worse, where there is more unemployment. In one district, the Hordern district, the percentage of unemployment in December, 1931, was 4.7; to-day it is 10 per cent. At Windgate, in December, 1931, the percentage of unemployment was 28.5; in June, 1934, it was 42 per cent. In Seaham Harbour, the percentage of unemployment in 1931, was 13.3; in June this year, it was 22.1. The Minister of Labour may say that there is not quite so much unemployment, that while the coal mining industry may have suffered other industries have benefited, but here in the Prime Minister's own division are figures which justify taking action very quickly.

That is exactly what I said. The figures for Dunham as a whole show a slight improvement, but there are spots in that area, and in South Wales, where the position during that period is actually worse.

For once we are agreed. There are spots where the position is worse, and the Prime Minister's own division is one of the places where the position is worse. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street in what he said regarding social services. We are entitled to raise this matter because the National Council of Social Services have received three grants from the Treasury, £10,000 in 1932, £25,000 in 1933, and £40,000 in 1934, a total of £75,000. What better are the unemployed in the distressed areas from this money spent on social services? The Minister of Labour promised to publish the report of the council, but so far one has not received it. I say that the Government are simply using the National Council of Social Services and the Personal Service League in order to justify doing nothing themselves. When the Government are prepared to do so much for other industries, where those who are receiving the money can always be relied upon to support the Government, we are entitled to ask that they should publish the reports of the commissioners and also should be prepared to act upon them and do something to help the distressed areas. There is no question of shipowners voting against the Government, and they have been well repaid by the Government. Farmers have never voted Labour, and they have been well repaid. Miners, as a rule, do not vote Tory, and, therefore, they are being left in the cold as far as this Government is concerned.

May I remind the hon. Member that a prominent shipowner on Tyneside was a Member of this House representing a Labour constituency in Newcastle, and that one of the principal members of the Social League is the largest landowner in Northumberland?

One swallow does not make a summer. Take it through and through, my statement stands. I argue that because miners as a rule do not vote Tory, do not support the National Government, it is no reason why they should be starved as they are being starved now. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street also raised the question as to how the unemployed in Durham are being treated at the moment. We understood that everybody was going to have the 10 per cent. restored. In the County of Durham a, single man in lodgings, it does not matter how old he is, if he is over 21, is receiving only 16s. per week. A woman is receiving only 14s. per week. Both of them are being robbed of is. a week by the Government, because it is no good the Government attempting to shelter behind the Commissioners in Durham. A hint from the Government that the Commissioners should pay full benefit and the benefit would be paid. A single adult, 18 or over, living with parents or relatives, receives only 10s. a week. We are entitled to complain of the Government treating our people like this. These unemployed men and women are entitled to the full benefit if anybody is entitled to it, and our complaint is that the Government are robbing them of is. a week, which means so much to them.

I believe that poverty—and we see an abundance of it in our distressed areas—is the result of misgovernment. I believe that the Government have the power to remove that poverty. As a matter of fact, I believe that if we had a Government with the will to do it, we need not have one miner in this country idle at the present time. Our distressed areas could be altogether different from what they are, only the Government have no interest in them. They have no interest in the mining classes, and our distressed areas are in their position largely because of the policy of the present Government. They would not be in the position they are if the Government had not pursued a tariff policy. Because of the tariff policy of the Government, our people are called on to starve and to suffer. If the Government had the will—they may have the sympathy—to help the distressed areas, they could do it. There is only one consolation that we have. After all, the working classes have the power to alter this kind of thing. One trusts that when the time comes they will use that power to put in a Government which will legislate on their behalf.

I should not have intervened if it had not been for the speech made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). After the Minister had spoken I thought that the criticisms of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) had been fully answered, but it appears that they have not been. The hon. Member for Spennymoor has blamed the present Government for not having cured all the unemployment in the country. I think that I am right in saying that he said that if the Government had had the will they could have cured all the unemployment

No. In the mining districts.

In the mining districts. The only thought that springs to my mind is, What was the position of the late Government? Were they incapable or did they not have the will? They cannot have it both ways.

As Member for one of the distressed areas, I have naturally been taking a pretty close interest in the activities of my particular commissioner, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The hon. Members for Chester-le-Street and Spennymoor wanted to know what necessity there was to send commissioners to inquire into the condition of those areas. Both have emphasised the fact that reports have been published comparatively recently on the conditions in those areas. That is quite true. In fact, in my area a. report was published—I think in March, 1933—and it was a very capable report prepared by two very skilled economists belonging to Manchester University. But surely it must be obvious that if the Government desire to do what they can for an area, they cannot base their operations upon reports produced by people who are not responsible to the Government or for any portion of the Government's work. Surely the Government must satisfy themselves fully before they make any attempt to do anything in the way of spending public funds or encouraging public activities; and it seems to me that it was essential that these commissioners should have been sent.

I know that the first thing which springs to one's lips in the usual way which one's idle thoughts do come out is that everybody knows the conditions. I thought that I did know the conditions in my area very well, hut I have been impressed by what I have learned since my particular Commissioner started work, not because he has disclosed to me in any way what he has been doing, but because I have been vitalised a little more. If I may without egoism, I would like to rub this point in. Two years ago, after pretty close consultation with persons deeply concerned in one industry in my area, an industry which is found almost entirely in my area except for a small amount in South Wales, the iron-ore industry, I made a definite proposal to the Government. One would have thought that I knew all about it. So far from the Government doing nothing, the Member of the Government who is responsible has been working pretty hard, and constant inquiry has been going on in the last two years. During those inquiries I have learned a very great deal, and with each successive deputation which I have had the privilege of bringing to London to discuss this matter 'with the responsible Minister, I have learned some more. I am sure that the Commissioner for my area, having made his inquiries on the spot and having, with an unbiased mind, seen all these people, knows more about that particular industry than I do. I am sure that his mind has been directed in an unbiased manner and he is acquainted with all the facts and circumstances connected with that industry.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that everything was known. That statement was not correct. Everything is not known, and I am very grateful indeed to the Government that they have seen fit to appoint the Commissioners. I am looking forward to something very definite being done. So far from joining in any criticism of the Government—and it is not often that I get an opportunity of being wholly on the side of the Government—I heartily congratulate them on having had the courage and insight to send these Commissioners to the distressed areas, and I only hope that when the reports are presented, the Government will find it possible to act on the suggestions made. It would not be proper to make any surmise as to what the contents of the reports will be, but I do not agree with my hon. Friends opposite when they say that the reports should be published. The Commissioner, very naturally, in getting his information, must have received a very large amount of purely confidential information. I have had that myself in my own little investigations. What I am far more concerned to see than the publication of the reports is the action which is to follow the reports.

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the House will not meet until October or November, and very quickly we shall be right in the midst of winter. Does he not think that whatever action can be taken ought to be taken at a much earlier period?

I myself regret that we have not been able to get the reports presented any earlier. I am judging only from what I know of the activities of may own Commissioner, but I know that he has been very fully occupied indeed. I have watched his comings in and goings out with a great deal of interest, because he has been disguised not a very successful disguise. But I have watched his activities with interest, and I can assure my hon. Friends that certainly my Commissioner has been very actively engaged all the time, and I do not see how it would have been possible for him to present his report any earlier. It is a pity. But may I suggest that if on receiving these reports during the Recess the Government decided that some particular work was necessary, there would be no particular obstacle to their getting on with that piece of work. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would welcome the news that certain activities had been started. The mere publication of the report has no connection with it at all. What may hon. Friend is really worrying about it that the report has not been presented as early as he and I would have liked.

The question of a long-term policy is a very important matter, but I should very much regret if in this matter of the distressed areas the Government allowed themselves to be delayed further by too great a consideration of their long-term policy. We want at the present moment the short-term policy to deal with the very vital matter of the people in the distressed areas and their present conditions. I am quite prepared to have the Government considering their long-term policy afterwards, but we do not want any expert economists and very deep thinking to put influence on the Government which will have the effect of switching them from the immediate affairs of the distressed areas on to the prolonged consideration of what shall or shall not be their long-term policy.

I was a little disturbed by one thing that my right hon. Friend the Minister said. I do not think he really meant it to be taken as I took it, but he did seem to imply that there was little hope for industry until we had a general revival of trade activity. Of course in one way that was perfectly true, but surely it is claimed that Governmental action, Governmental policy, has had an effect in reviving industry, and we are hoping that there will be an application of policy and of our methods to this question of the distressed areas, which will have the effect of re-establishing, in great measure at any rate, the industries of those areas. I know that the question of the transference of labour is one which has necessarily engaged a great deal of attention, but I would remind the Minister that it is not all to the good—I am speaking more particularly of my own district—to take people from districts like mine, where nature is very kind and very beautiful, when they can possibly be re-established in their own industries there in comfortable little townships with no slums, and to force them to go into the crowded areas to engage in other forms of industry. I do hope that the Government will do all that it can, by the application of National Government policy, towards keeping these men as far as possible in their own industries. It is not altogether a question of a general trade revival.

I do not want to go into specific cases. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply, and he knows far more about this subject than I do. But there is an industry there which is suffering from the general industrial conditions, certainly, but very largely from foreign competition, and the application of the tariff principle of the National Government to that particular industry might very well re-establish that industry in a measure of real prosperity, and save us from the necessity of having to move the people belonging to that industry from their charming little townships, and conveying them to places in the Black Country perhaps, or here to swell the mass round about this great Metropolis of ours. I would very much regret it if every possible effort were not made to keep our industries in their own par- titular areas. Of course if that is not possible, if as a result of the inquiries made the commissioners show that it is not possible in a large number of cases, we have definitely to face the prospect of keeping the people idle in their own places or making some effort to remove them to areas where they can work. I disagree entirely with hon. Gentlemen opposite who think that time has been wasted, that it was unnecessary to make further inquiry. In contra-distinction to them I believe that the Government is making a very real effort, and that there will be a result coming from the reports of the commissioners.

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a point which has not been raised in the Debate. We have had many speeches on the question of the distressed areas, but the subject I want to deal with is the relationship of the Ministry of Labour to the International Labour Office in Geneva. This is rather an important point. For the most part Members of the House of Commons have very little experience of the working of the International Labour Office, and certainly in many respects are unaware of its importance in labour matters. The International Labour Office is part and parcel of the Versailles Treaty. At the end of the War it was thought that the workers, the common people who did the world's work and had fought for their countries, should receive a higher standard of life and a better social service. As far back as the Washington Convention of 1919 we did attempt to put into operation a 48-hour week for the whole of the countries which came within the treaty.

I have had some experience of the working of the International Labour Office. In 1924, and again in 1925, I was in Geneva 'as an adviser. The first thing that always struck me in connection with the work of the International Labour Office was the supreme importance of the position of this country and of the views put forward by those who represented the British Government. It must be remembered that this country had already taken the first place so far as social legislation was concerned. Because the industrial revolution came earlier here this country had done certain things so far as factory legislation was concerned. Many countries have still to come up to our standard. But I suggest that if there is one country more than another which stands to gain by bringing the other nations of Europe up to our level, it is this country. In all my experience as a trade union official for many years, I have been faced with the argument over And over again that a good deal of the social legislation of this country was unfair, because other countries did not observe these particular conditions.

My complaint, and the complaint of the Trade Unions Congress and of those interested in the International Labour Office, is that within the last couple of years or so there has been a distinct move on the part of those who represent the British Government at Geneva, not to help to improve the conditions of labour in Europe generally, but rather to retard improvement, to oppose conventions and to put back the clock in many respects. For instance, this year at the International Labour Office the question of the, 40-hour week was considered. The charge made by trade unionists is that the British Government representative most openly took up the side of the employers and backed up their arguments, and further that, not content with voting against the Convention, there was an attempt to prevent the matter being discussed in 1935. Although it is to the credit of the other Governments 'and their representatives that that idea was defeated, the fact remains that the British Government, instead of making any attempt to set a lead on the hours question this year at Geneva, rather tended to put back the clock.

Then in 1931 we had the example of the Coal Mines Hours Convention. I am certain that had the Labour Government remained in office that Convention would have been ratified, but when the National Government came into power difficulties were put in the way of ratification, and by reason of these difficulties, which could have been dealt with within the text of the Convention, the Conference held in June to discuss that Convention failed. The ratifying of a Convention which would impose the same conditions of labour in all the countries where the labour was employed, is a most desirable thing and one for which almost any British Government should work, especially so far as the hours of labour is concerned. It is on the question of the hours of labour that there is some possibility of getting uniformity in all kinds of trades and industries. It is true that you cannot deal with the question of wages internationally in quite the same way, but you can deal internationally with the question of hours of labour. My complaint and the complaint of the Trade Unions Congress is that the National Government have apparently embarked on a policy which supports the view of the reactionary employers of all countries rather than realises that the best interests of this country and even of the employers of this country would be served if we got some uniformity of working conditions.

Take the question of overtime. At the 1933 Geneva Conference a Resolution was passed, for which the British Government representative voted, which asked all governments to take measures for limiting to the utmost exceptions to the 40-hours week. The French Government did something in that direction, but the British Government seems to have contented itself with merely consulting the employers and the workmen. There is a great gulf between the Government's professions and its attempts to realise them. Here is a point which must receive very serious consideration. We have heard to-day that in spite of the fact that the volume of trade is probably now as great as it was in 1929, we have double the number of people unemployed, and the reason for that can be stated in the words of Lord Trent, who in a speech at Nottingham on 7th June said:

"The unemployment problem was thought by many to be due to the present monetary system, but the most obvious point in his mind was that the proportion of machines to men had steadily increased. Machines did not buy food, clothes and chemical products but men and women workers did and when human beings were replaced by machines, purchasing power was reduced until those people were again employed."

The point has been made before but it is worth reiterating, that the time has come when we must realise that there is no excuse for having large numbers of people working long hours, while others are doing no work at all. The international limitation of hours of labour is a task and a problem calling for statesmanship of the highest quality. It is a work which would repay itself in the good which it would bring to this nation and to the world. It seems to me that we have a just cause of complaint against the Government on the ground that they have made no effort at Geneva to impose a limitation of hours, although the best interests of this country would be served by an international convention of that kind. It is said that if we reduce the hours of labour and if the workers demand the same wages for the shorter hours, something dreadful will ensue and that more people would be put out of work than would be brought into work by such a course. But that kind of argument has been used in reference to every reform of working hours or conditions. What we must recognise is that we cannot hope for any reduction in the number of unemployed by an increase in trade, because, day by day and year by year, the machine is displacing more and more men and women workers. The Minister may disagree with me but if he does I think the facts are against him.

I take another fact. The Government were sympathetic to a proposed convention for the abolition of fee-charging agencies but now they refuse to ratify the convention although such agencies have been abolished in other countries. As one who has considerable experience in these matters, I am convinced that these agencies represent one of the grossest and meanest forms of exploitation of poor and distressed people. The Committee would, I am sure, be surprised to know that even here in London an agency of this kind will secure a man a job for which he receives 10s. wages and will then charge him 2s. 6d. as a fee. Some of these poor people will pay as much as a week's wages or even more to one of these agencies for a job and all sorts of abuses are involved. There is even the possibility of one of these agencies getting a man discharged from a job after he has been in it for a week, on some pretext or another, in order that they may have a chance of putting another man into the job and securing another fee.

If the Government believe that the International Labour Office serves a useful purpose they ought to do something to ratify some of the Conventions which are passed there from time to time. In 1925 the Convention abolishing night baking was opposed by the British Government but received the necessary two-thirds majority at Geneva.No steps at all have been taken to implement that Convention. I hope it may turn out that I am not correct in my view, but I have the impression that there is a certain amount of friction and that there is a feeling on the part of the Government which might be expressed thus. "It is all very well passing these things at Geneva but when we come back here we are not going to act on what has been done there." My own opinion is that the International Labour Office could be made a great and useful agency for removing some of the well-founded complaints of industrialists of this country against the conditions of labour among their competitors on the Continent. It could be used as an instrument for raising the status of the workers all over the world and for ensuring that all the competing industries should start at some reasonable level. It is not fair for instance that the British employer should have to give his people a 48-hour week when his competitors in Czechoslovakia are working their people 70 or 80 hours a week.

In the International Labour Office the British Government has tremendous power, prestige and influence. It ought to use that power, prestige and influence in favour of Conventions which would bring about uniformity in working conditions between all the different countries which subscribe to the Treaty of Versailles. It appears to me that the feeling has got abroad in connection with these matters that, however sympathetic the various Governments may have been in the days immediately following the War with the idea that the common peoples of the world were deserving of a better outlook in life and were entitled to a square deal, those Governments are now gradually but surely ranging themselves on the side of the great industrialists whose belief is that the interests of industry come first and wages and conditions of labour a long way behind. I suggest that the historic role of the British Government in these matters is that of giving a lead. We ought to say to the other countries concerned, "We have set up a certain standard in Great Britain; we ask you to come up to our level and we are prepared to help the work of the International Labour Office in bringing other nations up to that level." I believe that the present Government have a case to answer on the ground of their failure in this respect. They went to Geneva prejudiced against the possibility of a 40-hour week unless it involved also a 1:eduction in wages and they presented arguments based on that ground.

Eventually, the question of uniformity of hours of labour and a drastic reduction of hours of labour, will have to be faced by all Governments. The machine is displacing human labour and the work will have to be distributed among those who are willing to do it. We cannot continue to keep 2,000,000 unemployed in this country while millions are working 50, 60, 70 and even more hours a week and little girls of 14 are employed from 8 in the morning until 8 in the evening in our great factories. When we talk about reduction of hours of labour we are frequently told,' "While our Continental, competitors are working their people all the hours that God sends, what can we do? We have already set an example to the rest of the world." My answer is that by means of the International Labour Office there is a chance of bringing a good many of our European competitors into line and my complaint against the Government is that they appear more anxious to fight the battles of the employers than to recognise what is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

If the International Labour Office is not to become a mere farce, if we are to continue contributing £60,000 a year towards its expenses let us attempt to get some value out of it by making it work in the interests of the working people of this country and of the whole world. The question of the redistribution of labour is not going to be settled from a national outlook. It can only be dealt with internationally. Labour problems are more international in character to-day than they have ever been in history. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance that the International Labour Office is going to be used for the purpose for which it was created. Bitter feelings have been aroused in trade union circles this year by the attitude of the British Government's representatives. We are not complaining of those representatives personally. They are men whom we like and respect, and they were only carrying out their instructions. The responsibility lies upon the Government and I hope the Government will realise that, while the employers have arguments the workmen have arguments too on these matters, and that it is the business of a Government, not to take sides but to try to hold the balance fairly and do justice to both, remembering always that the interest of the nation as a whole is bigger than the interests of the employers or any other section concerned.

I followed with great interest the remarks of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). He is respected for his opinions but I was surprised that a man of his calibre in presenting his case should have put the cart before the horse. He suggested that we should come to an agreement with the employers of labour in foreign countries to reduce the hours of labour internationally. Before we can do that, it seems to me, we must ask foreign employers to bring their standards up to our level. If we followed the hon. Member's line we might find ourselves in the same position as the Durham miners. Some time ago the average hewer in the North of England worked six hours at the coal face, but in order to bring about uniformity they were changed from six hours to something nearer eight hours which they are working at present. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) will bear me out when I say that the hours of the hewers in Northumberland and Durham are not as good to-day as they were 20 or 30 years ago.

That was due to a Tory Government.

I do not care whether it was a Tory Government or a Liberal Government or what kind of a Government it was. I am pointing out that there is a grave danger, if we begin interfering with hours and conditions in foreign countries, of bringing our own people down to their level. I am keenly in favour of hours of labour being reduced all round. I believe that in time it would get a. lot of our own unemployed into work, but we cannot bring our hours down to 40, when in foreign countries they are working 50, 60 or 70 hours a week. If the foreigners desire to work with this country in an international agreement let them bring their hours and their wages to our level. We have put our house in order or are trying to do so. Let them do likewise, and we shall be prepared to welcome them, but, until they have something to offer, it is the case that good old Britain as usual is being asked to give everything and get nothing in return. I think a great deal more time might be spent in watching how the various municipalities in this country are dispensing transitional payment.

I have in mind a case in my own constituncy, Newcastle, where it has been declared by the officials that it would be illegal to give workers on transitional payment more than 24s. a week. It may be so, but it seems to me very much like the case of a judge who has the power, if he likes, to give a man a very severe sentence for a very small offence, or, on the other hand, to give a very minor sentence for a very serious offence: That is the position in Newcastle-on-Tyne. There are means known to us all by which the transitional payment could be brought up to the full amount of 26s. They are very simple. It could be done in two different ways, by raising Poor Law relief or standard benefit. It has been said by the authorities that they have no ground for raising it. I can only suggest that they do not wish to raise their parish relief. With all due respect to the Newcastle Corporation and to the members of it who are all keen sighted, hard-headed north countrymen, very blunt and honest, 1 must say that in this they are making a very grave mistake indeed. If they were to raise the Poor Law relief to bring it up to such a figure that transitional payment could be paid up to 26s., they would only be doing what is absolutely necessary in places like Newcastle-on-Tyne.

The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street some time ago made use of words which were howled at in. this House, that the condition of out-of-works to-day is worse than it was two or three years ago. I think I know what he had in mind. It is not that those who are out of work to-day are receiving any less, or that the price of food is any more, but a man who has been out of work for a year or two years can possibly stand the strain because he has certain resources. When he has been out of work three, four or five years there are no blankets in the house, no sheets, no crockery, the furniture has gone down the street to uncle's and stays there, and the entire household falls to pieces. When a man has been out for five years he is in a desperate position. Indeed, when a man has been out for two years he is in a desperate position. I do not belong to the party of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, but I respect the remarks made by him. Anyone who lives among workmen as I have done can appreciate the difficulties, and I know that some of the most extreme cases in the North of England are among workmen whom I am proud to call my friends. They are in conditions in the City of Newcastle in particular in which I would not keep my pigs. A question was put by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) some time ago to the late Minister of Labour, Sir H. Betterton, who made the following reply:

"I have been asked a specific question by the hon. Member for Wallsend, and I think the Chancellor made the point perfectly clear in his Budget speech the other day. He pointed out that the maximum rate of transitional benefit terms was regulated by the rate of standard benefit, and he reminded the House that, as the standard rates of benefit are going to be increased, it carried with it a corresponding increase in the maximum rate of transitional benefit. The hon. Member for Wallsend asked how it would he computed. The answer he gave is perfectly clear. Whenever the circumstances permit of the new maximum, the new maximum will be paid."

I have it also in my mind that, on a certain occasion, the Prime Minister made a statement from the bench opposite. Referring to the propaganda being used by the Socialist party of that day relating to the 2s. paid for the child, I think I am correct in saying that the Prime Minister pointed out that this 2s. did not mean that they were debarred in certain circumstances from giving more. I think that is still within the memory of the House. The position is this We have in Newcastle a distressed area, one of the hardest hit areas in the whole country, and with all due respect to the Member for Chester-le-Street, or the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) or any other division in Northumberland, Durham or elsewhere, I will say this, and they will agree with me, that the conditions under which they live in Newcastle-on-Tyne are more onerous than in any other portion of the North-East coast. Rents are higher in Newcastle than anywhere else. I do not know if the Committee will credit it, but there are people in Newcastle paying as much as 8s. for a coal cellar whitewashed.

Does the local council permit that?

I do not know if they do, but, if they permit a sate of transitional payment less than the majority of people think should be paid, we must not be surprised if they permit that sort of thing. As I have pointed out, there are two ways by which Newcastle Corporation, if they so desired, might raise the payment of transitional payment to 26s. a week, but it seems they are following the line of least resistance and hiding themselves behind the fact that they are perfectly legal and entitled to abide by the decision. Nobody disputes that, but, as I have said before, the Exchequer are offering them a present of money, and they will not take it, which leads us to believe either that the exchequer of Newcastle Corporation is low or their outlook is too narrow, or they are too mean to increase the Poor Law relief to the figure to which the people of Newcastle, I believe, are entitled. I have taken up the matter with one or two of the ratepayers in the town. Naturally, the ratepayers are the people most likely to be affected by the raising of Poor Law relief, and the shopkeepers to whom I have spoken have looked at it in this way, that whatever is given to the men out of work is money placed in circulation in the town and not outside, and it is money well spent.

I know the position of the Minister of Labour in connection with cases of transitional payment, and I am not going to ask him to reply to this at all. I do not think it fair that any corporation should shelter itself behind the Minister of Labour. They must face the mistake, and I think they should do a generous act. It is not a question of climbing down. It is only a great man who can climb down, a poor-spirited man refuses to climb down even when the odds are against him. In this case the feeling of the whole North-Eastern area is against this payment of 24s. a week when our people are in a worse position than those in any other portion of the North-East Coast, and, if the Newcastle Corporation will try to be magnanimous and put their house in order, what they lose on the swings they will gain on the roundabouts.

I have listened with interest to the last speaker. I regret that I cannot follow him, because, while one is in great sympathy with him, it seems to be a purely domestic matter. He has already stated that he does not require the Minister to refer to it. I sincerely regret personally that the rate of payment in Newcastle does not correspond with that of other constituencies on the North-East Coast. I rise to-night to offer a few remarks regarding the general question that has arisen in this distressed areas discussion. I see the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) just leaving, and I want to say that I was very much interested in the speech which he made. While he did not contribute anything to the distressed areas, he did show the involved nature of a settlement of the unemployment problem in the districts not only in the North-East Coast, or the distressed areas, but throughout the country and throughout the world. It is that involved nature of the problem which calls for a good deal of thought and care.

I welcome very much the appointment of the commissioners for one or two reasons. For many years in this House I have been endeavouring to draw attention to the nature of the problem of the distressed areas. Those who have been located in the South have not hitherto appreciated our problem. I think it is fair to say that with the setting up of these commissioners the problem of the distressed areas has taken on a new significance. I should like to say, from my own personal point of view, that when I knew these commissioners were appointed I felt very much like the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who said, "Why set up these commissioners when we have all the information necessary?" I was inclined to say the same thing myself. But I believe the majority of Members of this House have been brought round to the opinion that their information was not so complete as it might have been. If when I tried to get an analysis of unemployment in Sunderland, I had been asked by those associated with my constituency why we have such a large volume of unemployment, I should have said that it was entirely due to shipbuilding. I think that would have been a reasonable reply, but the truth is that, when you begin to analyse the figures, even for a constituency like Sunderland, you find that shipbuilding alone does not account for 50 per cent. of the unemployment that we have there. There are other problems in an area like Sunderland. The problems of Sunderland and Newcastle are dissimilar. They are dissimilar between the Tyne and the Wear, and between the Wear and the Tees, and, in view of the involved nature of these problems, I am satisfied that these Commissioners have been sent to investigate the full extent of these problems. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says that it is a waste of time.

The Minister is carrying on the old policy.

I hope that there will be a substantial policy formulated by the Ministry itself. There will have to be. I would like to go a step further than that which has been suggested by many hon. Members to-day. For many years I have been interested in the policy of this Government and of previous Governments. I am not going to refer to any individual Government. I believe that the fiscal policy of this country for many years has been wrong. I believe that we have arrived at the culmination point. At present we are suffering acutely, particularly in the heavy industries of the country. If they are to be reorganised on lines which have proved through the years to be mistaken, the policy will be a complete failure. However, I would say to the Minister that it is very encouraging to find distinct indications of better times in the heavy industries. No one can deny that conditions are better in the iron and steel industry and that unemployment has decreased very materially. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Sunderland?"] Not in Sunderland, because we have no iron and steel industry, but on Tees-side and elsewhere. No one can doubt, even in the coal industry, that, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has said, in recent months there has been a distinct improvement. If we had not had trade agreements the coal industry would have been infinitely worse. It may be some little time before we reach the turning point in shipping and shipbuilding, but I welcome the statement of policy of the Government regarding shipping and shipbuilding because both industries are intertwined. Even there, however, the problem is an involved one. It must be remembered that in the shipping industry, on which shipbuilding really depends, there has been no line of agreement until recent months. The problem is difficult so far as Sunderland is concerned, because we can only build a certain type of vessel. I am very hopeful that the pronouncement the Government have recently made will be productive of good, and that there will be a quick and distinct reflection in an improvement in the shipping industry.

The hon. Member for Wednesbury spoke about the displacement of labour by machinery. That is true to a large extent in almost every industry, and particularly of the shipbuilding industry. To-day that industry has been entirely revolutionised by new means, methods and machines. All these problems are so involved and far-reaching that even when the reports of the Commissioners are presented, I would not wish the Government to come to a too hasty conclusion on the matter. We who represent the heavy industries on the North-East Coast are very anxious that the reports should be presented as quickly as possible, but I hope that when they are presented the Government will take a reasonable time in which to come to a decision and will bear in mind the involved nature of the problems which I have tried to indicate. I hope that when they have had time to confer and to come to a conclusion upon the reports their action will be decisive, ample and quick. I would forgive the Government for delaying the matter even until we re-assemble if I could feel sure that when we came back some effective measures would be taken to deal with the distressed areas. The hon. Member for Gorbals may shake his head, but I have sufficient confidence in the Government to believe that they are feeling the impact of the great question of the distressed areas, and, judging by their actions in the past, I am confident that something will be done, and it is in the hope that something of a substantial nature will be done that I have ventured to take part in this Debate.

In rising to take part in this discussion, I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley) on being promoted to the office of Minister of Labour. It would appear from the developments in the different Departments in which he has served during his career as a Parliamentarian that he is what one may term in modern phraseology "a live wire," but when I saw the announcement in the Press that he was to be appointed to his present position I felt rather sympathetic towards him, because I wondered whether there would be any job left for him to take over. The passage of the Unemployment Act has really done the right hon. Gentleman out of a job, because his Department are left with practically very little to do. There is a Statutory Committee to deal with increases or decreases in benefits, and to decide what particular class of persons are to be eligible for coming within the ambit of the Act. There is also the Unemployment Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor has been appointed chairman, who are to take charge of the men who pass out of standard benefit and come on transitional payment. Therefore, the only thing which is now left for the right hon. Gentleman to do is to see that contributions are paid every week by the employer and the employed. He will simply be the Minister to gather in the money, and somebody else will see to its disposal. Nevertheless, I think that he will be quite capable of doing that job in a satisfactory way, and I wish him God speed in his work.

I want to deal with points raised by the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Denville), and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson). The hon. Member for Central Newcastle deplored the fact that the Newcastle Public Assistance Committee were not putting the amount of transitional payment at a higher figure than 24s. But the hon. Member was one of those who voted in favour of giving that committee that power. He voted for the Bill which eventually became an Act giving such authorities the power to do the very thing of which he now complains. Probably it may have slipped his memory, or he may have regretted what he did on that occasion. At some time in our lives we make mistakes and try to rectify them, and there is something to be said for actions of that kind. His complaint, however, is really too late to be of any benefit, because that matter has passed out of the ambit of the Committee into the hands of the Unemployment Committee set up under the new Act of Parliament. Special committees will be appointed in different areas to deal with persons on transitional payment.

The hon. Member referred to the hours of work on the Continent and in this country, and he gave, as an illustration, an account of what happened in the Durham mines. I do not know as much about Durham mining as my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), but I had the opportunity of working in Durham mines for some time. When the Eight Hours Act was passed in 1910 Durham miners generally were prepared to make sacrifices so that the young boys employed in the mines at that time could have the advantage of more reasonable hours. But when the Seven Hours Bill passed through this House the Durham miners fell into line with the rest of the miners in the United Kingdom.

The six-and-a-half hours for coal hewers were not interfered with until after 1926, when the Eight Hours Bill became an Act.

I was coming to that point. As the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street reminded the Committee, the Durham miners were compelled by law to come under the eight hours arrangement. I wish to emphasise that the sacrifices which coal hewers made in Durham were largely and primarily for the benefit of the boys employed in the mines, and to keep in step with the other members of the Miners' Federation. The hon. Member for Sunderland raised two points with which I wish to deal. He said that the trade agreements have been beneficial to the mining community, but a good deal depends upon what year he bases his figures. If he takes 1932 as his basis, there has been a slight improvement, but, if he takes it from October and November of 1931 he will find that these agreements lowered the amount of coal which we were able to send abroad.

I said that had it not been for those agreements the coal trade would have been worse than it is at present.