Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 297: debated on Monday 28 January 1935

House of Commons

Monday, January 28, 1935

The Houseafter the Adjournment on 21st December, 1934, for the Christmas Recessmet at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Private Business

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions, for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely:—

Baildon Urban District Council.

Birmingham Corporation.

Bootle Extension.

Bristol Tramways.

Bury and District Joint Water Board.

Chichester Corporation.

City of London (St. Paul's Cathedral Preservation).

Exeter Corporation.

Folkestone and District Electricity.

Frimley and Farnborough District Water.

Gelligaer Urban District Council.

Gloucester Corporation.

Golders Green (Jewish) Burial Ground.

Halifax Extension.

Hertfordshire County Council.

Hoylake Urban District Council.

Marlow Water.

Newcastle - upon - Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension).

Norwich Electric Tramways.

Nottingham Corporation.

Poole Road Transport.

Port of London.

St. Bartholomew's Hospital.

Severn Navigation.

Severn Navigation (Charging Powers).

Sharpness Docks and Gloucester and Birmingham Navigation.

South Metropolitan Gas.

South Suburban Gas.

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation.

Stourbridge Navigation.

Swansea District Transport.

Urmston Urban District Council.

West Riding of Yorkshire Mental Hospitals Board (Superannuation).

West Sussex County Council (Water).

Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Corporation.

Mr. Speaker's Warrant for New Writ

informed the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, a Warrant for a New Writ, for the Borough of Liverpool (Wavertree Division), in the room of Arthur Ronald Nall Nall-Cain, Esquire, commonly called the Honourable Arthur Ronald Nall Nall-Cain, called up to the House of Peers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Questions

India (Japanese Textile Imports)

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any figures indicating the amount of Japanese textile imports into India that have reached that country through a third or intermediate one in order to evade the agreed quota, whether it be a British colony or other country?

I have consulted the Government of India, who are satisfied that the kind of evasion suggested in the question is not taking place on any serious scale.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any evasions at all by second or third parties or in any other way?

I should not like to go so far as to say that there are no evasions at all, but we are doing our utmost to stop them all, and, I am glad to say, the Indian States are co-operating with the Government of India in this matter.

Yugoslavia and Hungary

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the dispute between Yugoslavia and Hungary?

At the recent session of the Council of the League of Nations the Hungarian Foreign Minister communicated to the Council a copy of a memorandum reporting the measures which the Hungarian Government had taken to give effect to the resolution of the Council of the 10th December, 1934. This memorandum has been circulated to the Members of the Council with the request that any of them who may have observations to make upon the report will communicate these in writing to the Rapporteur, who will then make such proposals as may seem to him appropriate.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British Government propose to make any comments?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement with regard to the Hungarian subjects in Yugoslavia who were expelled from their homes; and whether any steps have been taken by the Yugoslav Government to enable them to return to their homes?

As I stated in my answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) on 19th December, these expulsions have now definitely ceased, and I understand that the Yugoslav Government are at present considering the possibility of allowing certain categories of these persons to return to their homes.

Disarmament Conference

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to the Disarmament Conference; and when the work of committees is likely to be resumed?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the present position of the Disarmament Conference?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with regard to the Disarmament Conference?

As I informed the House on the 22nd November last, the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference adopted on the 20th November, 1934, a method of work consisting in the negotiation of protocols on certain specific subjects. It is anticipated that committees empowered by the conference to deal with these subjects will meet at Geneva about the middle of next month.

Saar Territory

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to the Saar?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the situation in the Saar?

In view of the result of the plebiscite, the Council of the League decided on 17th January that the whole of the territory of the Saar Basin should, under the conditions resulting from that Treaty and from the special undertakings entered into in connection with the plebiscite, be united with Germany. The Council fixed the 1st March next as the date for the re-establishment of Germany in the Government of the Saar Territory and instructed the Saar Committee of the Council to decide in consultation with the French and German Governments and with the Saar Governing Commission upon the arrangements necessary for the change of regime in the Territory and upon the manner in which the undertakings mentioned above should be carried out. Should these arrangements not have been decided upon by the 15th February-next, the Committee of the Council is to submit proposals to the Council which would take the necessary decisions in conformity with paragraphs 35 ( c ) and 39 of the Annex to Article 50 of the Treaty of Versailles.

Nothing has been decided in regard to the actual date on which the International Force is to leave the Saar territory, but the various contingents are expected to leave at the same time as the Governing Commission hands over to the German authorities. Arrangements with regard to this point will, it is understood, be discussed between the Commander-in-chief of the International Force, the Governing Commission and the Saar Committee of the Council.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the German Government and the French Government have come to any agreement about the amount of money which is being paid over for the handing back of the coal mines and ironworks?

Yes, Sir. I understand that that is one of the matters which was discussed with the committee in Rome and that there is an arrangement.

What arrangements have been made for giving free passage to people who desire to leave the Saar, in consequence of the change?

My understanding is that no obstacle is being put in the way of their leaving, and some of them, of course, are leaving now. My hon. Friend will recall that some undertakings have been given by the German Government as to the treatment of those who remain, and we have every right to expect that those undertakings will be observed.

Has any appropriate tribute yet been paid to the officers and men of the British Army for their work during the plebiscite in the Saar?

I do not think that matter has been overlooked, but I think it would be better to wait until their work is actually completed. They have gone through a difficult period and have acted to the admiration of everyone, and, I am sure that the House will be very glad when the time comes to express a final appreciation of their work.

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet seen the report of the Supreme Plebiscite Court in regard to the case of Mr. Meyer?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will make a statement regarding the conduct of the British troops in the Saar?

I am glad to have been given the opportunity of answering this question. The conduct of the British troops in the Saar has been, and continues to be, exemplary. They have been cheerful and good humoured, and have shown complete impartiality. Although they have been kept in the background their presence has been an important factor in an anxious situation, and they have carried out their unusual duties in a spirit worthy of the best traditions of the service.

Trade and Commerce

Manchuria

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to report from advices received from British consulates any improvement of trade with Manchukuo since the visit of the British mission?

No information is as yet available regarding the development of United Kingdom trade with Manchuria, subsequent to the recent visit to the Far East of the Mission organised by the Federation of British Industries. The only recent statistics available on the subject relate to the first six months of 1934. These figures, which have been furnished by His Majesty's Consul-General at Mukden show that, measured in terms of local currency, United Kingdom imports into Manchuria increased during that period by 52 per cent. in comparison with the similar period of 1933.

In view of the renewed activity of the Japanese, does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any real chance of increased trade for us in Manchuria?

I do not think that arises out of the question, but I should certainly hope that, among other things, the efforts of this commission would not be entirely fruitless.

Poland

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a trade agreement with Poland has yet been successfully concluded, and what are the terms thereof?

I am unable at the moment to add anything to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on the 10th December, but I hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

Agriculture

Pigs Marketing Board

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has an information to give the House regarding the present position of the Pigs Marketing Board?

The Pigs Marketing Board, after consultation with the Bacon Marketing Board, prescribed the terms of the contracts for the sale and delivery of bacon pigs by registered pig producers to registered curers during the 12 months 1st January to 31st December, 1935. Contracts, covering approximately a total supply of 1,800,000 pigs over the year, have been made between producers and curers and have been confirmed by the Pigs Marketing Board. This represents an increase of 11 per cent. on the total contracted for in 1934. I understand that there is some unevenness in the distribution among individual curers, and that discussions are proceeding between the boards regarding the means of obtaining a supply of additional pigs to meet this difficulty.

There is no shortage in the supply. There is an increase of 11 per cent. over last year.

But the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the factories wanted larger supplies. What is the deficiency in the supplies at the present time?

I could not say that, but there are certain factories which could deal with more pigs.

Meat Import Restrictions

asked the Minister of Agriculture the conclusions that have been come to with regard to the restriction of oversea meat imports?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the cattle subsidy is to be continued after 31st March, 1935?

asked the Minister of Agriculture how the retained imports of beef in 1934 compared with 1933; and whether he can now make any statement with respect to future policy in respect of meat imports?

Taking into account the beef equivalent of imports of fat cattle, total retained imports of beef in 1934 were 13,550,000 cwt., compared with 13,599,000 cwt. in 1933, a decrease of 49,000 cwt. or about 0.36 per cent. Arrangements recently made for the regulation of imported beef supplies during the first quarter of 1935 are designed, again making an allowance for the beef equivalent of imports of fat cattle, to secure a reduction in imports from a total of 3,220,000 cwt. in the first quarter of 1934 to 3,138,500 cwt. a reduction of 83,500 cwt., or 2.6 per cent. Imports of all meat (other than bacon and hams) will be reduced by about 165,000 cwt. as compared with the corresponding quarter of 1934. I am not at present in a position to make a statement regarding arrangements for the assistance of the home livestock industry after 31st March next.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that cattle to-day are selling at absolutely ruinous prices; and will the pledge of the Government be implemented, that the home producer shall have first preference in the home market?

I am aware of that, and the Government naturally stand by the pledge which they gave.

Will my right hon. Friend give the statistics asked for in my question?

I wanted the statistics with regard to the imports of beef—dead beef, not live beef.

I gave the figures as to the imports of beef. I thought all beef was "dead beef." I do not know of any "live beef."

Will my right hon. Friend give the figures for which I asked, namely, the figures for beef as so described in the Trade and Navigation Returns?

I gave all the figures for beef. If my hon. Friend wants the figures of any particular category and puts down a question, I will do my utmost to answer him.

Is it not the case that the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend include the beef equivalent of live fat animals imported?

The hon. Member asked for the figures for beef, and I have given the figures for beef. After all, the dead fat animals imported are beef.

Milk Marketing Scheme

asked the Minister of Agriculture what alterations in the milk-marketing arrangements have been made to secure that the milk producer shall receive a reasonable price for his products?

No alterations have been made to the Milk Marketing Scheme since it was approved by Parliament in 1933, but I understand that the Marketing Board are now considering whether any amendments should be made in the light of the experience they have gained.

Is a Milk Marketing Reorganisation Commission to be set up to inquire into this matter?

As I announced, there is to be a Reorganisation Commission for milk marketing which will take all the relevant facts into consideration.

This is a question of a reorganisation commission. Clearly there are certain problems arising, or it would not be desirable to appoint a commission to review the workings of the various boards in the light of experience.

Post Office

Lottery and Sweepstake Tickets (Confiscation)

asked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of letters containing lottery tickets that have been confiscated during the past 12 months?

It would, I think, be contrary to the public interest to give the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

Telephone Service

asked the Postmaster-General the total sum of money paid in advance by telephone subscribers standing to the credit of the Post Office telephone account at the beginning of the January and the July quarters?

I understand my hon. Friend to refer to telephone subscribers' deposits, of which a large part is being paid back under the recent revision of telephone charges. On 1st July, 1934, a sum of £2,995,093 was held as subscribers' deposits, but since 1st October last £1,434,000 has been returned to subscribers. The amount now held is therefore only about £1,561,000, that is, roughly 50 per cent. of the amount held in July last.

asked the Postmaster-General the average number of trunk calls per week since the revision in rates; and how that average compares with the corresponding period a year before?

The number of trunk calls made in a representative week since the reduction in rates is 3,062,700 as compared with a total for the corresponding period in the previous year of 2,659,000.

Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the facilities for the shilling trunk call to Sundays?

That is a matter that will have to be considered in due course. A very large number of concessions have recently been made, and I hope my hon. Friend will remain satisfied, at any rate, for the present.

Questions

Television (Committee's Report)

asked the Postmaster-General whether the committee set up to inquire into television has made any report; and whether it is proposed to publish the report?

The Television Committee's Report has been received, and is at present under consideration. It is my intention that the report shall be published, and I hope to be able to lay it before Parliament within a few days.

British Broadcasting Corporation

asked the Postmaster-General whether it is his intention to set up the commission which is to investigate the working of the British Broadcasting Corporation and its present charter during the lifetime of this Parliament, so that this House will have the opportunity of considering the report and the Government proposals before action is taken?

I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I have this question well in mind. The present Charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation has, however, nearly two years to run; and I do not consider that immediate action is necessary.

Will my right hon. Friend be so kind as to answer my question on the Paper, which is whether he will set up a commission during the lifetime of the present Parliament? If so, is he in a position to say whether he has decided to appoint a Welsh speaking representative of the Principality of Wales?

In view of the many considerations to be taken into account and the general interest in this service, will my right hon. Friend consider the propriety of setting up an inquiry or will he assure the House that some preliminary inquiry is already in hand?

This Parliament has still a long time to go. Later on I shall give consideration to all the matters to which both my hon. Friends have referred.

Hours of Work (Proposed Reduction)

asked the Minister of Labour whether the conferences have yet taken place with reference to the examination of the matter of the five-day week in industry; whether he will state the names of the organisations or firms whose representatives have met or are meeting; whether, in view of the successful working by Messrs. Boots, Limited, of the five-day week, Lord Trent has been invited to participate in the consultations; and whether any statement of progress can now be made?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any answer from the employers' organisations relative to the representations made by his Department as to the desirability of formulating a policy for the shortening of the hours of labour?

I discussed with deputations from the Trades Union Congress General Council and from the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations on Thursday and Friday last questions relating to the possibility of absorbing more workers into employment, including the proposal for the shortening of hours of work. I propose now to discuss these questions with the representatives of individual industries, and I hope confidently to have the co-operation of both the General Council and the Confederation in the steps I am taking to see that all possible action is taken to increase employment. I am sure that the assistance of all who have had actual experience of the operation of reduced hours of work will be available for my guidance.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the policy announced from Italy will help him in formulating his policy, and when he hopes to be in a position to state his plans to the House?

In view of the great public interest in this very important topic, and in order to prevent inaccuracies being broadcast, will my right hon. Friend be able to issue a statement giving the gist of these conversations and the matters discussed, both for and against?

I will certainly consider that, but I am sure that hon. Members will generally agree that, if we are to discuss these matters fully and freely with the representatives of employers and employed in the various industries, it is necessary that they should be done in confidence.

Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to make suggestions to each of these separate industries as to how to deal with the matter?

I want to meet the separate industries and hear their difficulties, and, if possible, either to listen to or to make suggestions.

Unemployment

Agricultural Workers

asked the Minister of Labour whether any report has been received from the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee with regard to the extension of unemployment insurance to the agricultural industry; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee have completed their inquiries into the question of insurance for agricultural workers; and, if so, when their recommendations will be published?

I have received a report from the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee on this subject which was published a few days ago as Command Paper 4786. The Government are considering the matter, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

Can the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as to when it will be possible to debate the report in the House?

If it is possible to introduce the scheme, will it be introduced in time to be in working order for next winter?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will await the statement which is to be made shortly.

Statistics

asked the Minister of Labour the number of young persons between the ages of 14 and 18 now unemployed?

asked the Minister of Labour the latest available figures for unemployment, giving separate figures for men, women and young persons?

At 17th December, 1934, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 2,085,815 unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, including 1,686,507 men and 299,192 women, aged 18 and over, and 56,277 boys and 43,839 girls, aged 14 and under 18.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in England, Scotland and Wales (including Monmouthshire), respectively, on the latest available date?

At 17th December, 1934, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges were as follow:

Insurance Acts (Consolidation)

asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to introduce a measure for the consolidation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts this Session?

Pit-Head Baths (Workers Insurance)

asked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to make provision for the inclusion in the unemployment insurance scheme of all persons employed in connection with pit-head baths?

Inquiries are proceeding with a view to the submission of a draft regulation to the Statutory Committee for the inclusion of certain workers in the scheme, including those to whom the hon. Member refers.

Questions

Cotton Manufacturing Industry Act

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a statement in respect of any action taken under the Cotton Manufacturing Industry Act, 1934?

As a result of the passing of the Act the employers' and operatives' organisations entered into negotiation with a view to making a new and comprehensive agreement. I am glad to say that this difficult task has now been practically completed and I understand that a joint application for the making of an order under the Act will shortly be made.

Will the result be an increase or a decrease in the wages of the workers?

I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait until he sees the agreement.

Coal Mines Act, 1930 (Evasions)

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can inform the House how many cases of evasion of the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, have been detected and dealt with since he assumed office; how many of these have been in Northumberland and how many in Durham; and how many in those districts have been dealt with in the last six months?

I have been asked to reply. The information asked for is not available in the Mines Department.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary for Mines whether he can not obtain this information in some form, and consider the advisability, in view of the constant evasions of the Act, of providing that the chair is filled by someone not connected with the industry in the area, with a view to stopping these evasions?

I will convey those observations to my hon. Friend. Of course, it is the District Executive Board which is responsible for dealing with evasions, and we have not information of the number of evasions detected and dealt with in any district or any period. As the schemes were all extensively amended on 1st January, partly with a view to dealing with this matter, it would not seem that any useful purpose could be served by collecting the statistics of evasions from the executives boards in respect of past times.

I think that in none of the amended schemes were there any provisions for an independent chairman.

Newfoundland

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received the report on the economic situation in Newfoundland; and, if so, when it will be published?

I have received a report from the Governor, and it has been published to-day as Command Paper No. 4788.

Irish Free State (Coal and Cattle Understanding)

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information to give the House on the subject of our relations with the Irish Free State?

I am sure that hon. Members will have seen with interest the announcement which was made at the beginning of the month as to an informal understanding which had been reached on the subject of exports of coal from the United Kingdom to the Irish Free State and of cattle from the Irish Free State to the United Kingdom. The general effect of the understanding is that, in return for an increase in the numbers of cattle admitted into the United Kingdom from the Irish Free State during 1935, it is anticipated that all imports of coal into the Irish Free State will be purchased in the United Kingdom, with a resulting increase in coal exports from the United Kingdom to the Irish Free State of approximately 1,250,000 tons a year, representing the full employment of about 5,000 miners.

May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to publish the whole of the details in connection with the negotiations for this new treaty with the Irish Free State as a White Paper; and, further, may I ask whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing this new treaty?

The latter question is one that I could hardly answer; it is a matter to be dealt with through the usual channels. There is no new treaty. There is no need of a White Paper. This was an informal understanding, with no papers published, and I have explained to the House the full purport of what was arrived at.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether any extension of this very commendable understanding is contemplated by His Majesty's Government and whether there is any hope that in the near future better; conditions will prevail between this country and the Free State?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if we are threatened with any more of these informal understandings, there will be any opportunity for getting the opinion of this House before they are made?

I do not think the phrase "threatened understandings" accords with the general opinion of the House. This is an arrangement satisfactory to both sides, and of benefit to this country, and, if this arrangement could be extended, certainly the Government would welcome it. If it would lead to a settlement of the bigger and wider political issues, equally, I am sure, all sections of opinion would welcome it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this new arrangement helps the British farmer?

Western Australia

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is in a position to say what action it is proposed to take in connection with the appeal of the Government of Western Australia to be permitted to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia?

As my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware, the Committee on Public Petitions in their report issued on the 27th December made a recommendation in regard to the petition of the State of Western Australia to this House in the following terms:

"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the petition and to report upon the advisability of its reception by the House."

So far as the Government are concerned they are prepared to accept this recommendation and to take such steps as are necessary with a view to the appointment of a Select Committee as recommended by the Committee on Public Petitions. At the same time, since a Petition in similar terms has been addressed to the House of Lords I realise that there would be advantages in the consideration of the question of receivability by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, if this would meet the general wish of the House of Commons, and would accord with the procedure thought convenient in another place. I propose to explore this possibility.

National Health Insurance

asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the representations from different organisations associated with the administration of National Health Insurance urging that the scope of medical benefit should be extended with a view to the provision of consultant services and of improved diagnostic facilities, as recommended by the Royal Commission of 1926; and whether he will take action upon these representations?

I have received representations on this subject, but I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Central Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Denville) on the 8th November last, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Housing (Demolitions)

asked the Minister of Health the number of houses demolished during 1934?

The total number of houses demolished in England and Wales under the Housing Act, 1930, during the half-year ended the 30th September, 1934, was given in Table V on page 8 of the housing progress return issued in December last, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. Figures for the calendar year 1934 are not available.

Local Government Employes (Wage Reductions)

asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the number of local authorities in England and Wales which have restored in full the emergency-salary and wage reductions imposed on their staffs in 1931; the number which have restored part of the said reductions; and the number of those whose employés are still suffering full 1931 reductions?

I am not able to furnish the desired figures, because returns are not obtained by the Government on the subject, but such information as is available indicates that most local authorities who made reductions have restored them in full and that only a few have not restored any part of the reductions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular to local authorities generally asking that the amounts already stopped shall be returned?

Sea of Galilee (Electricity Undertakings)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the result of his inquiries regarding the damage to the amenities of the Sea of Galilee caused by the operations of the electricity undertaking on the River Jordan; and whether he can give some assurance that will allay the widespread anxiety that exists in Palestine and at home as to the future of the lake?

The answer is a long one and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I can best answer by giving the following information contained in a recent despatch from the High Commissioner:

1. It appears from a graph, prepared by the Department of Surveys, of variations in level of Lake Tiberias, that the level fell to -203.9 metres from natural causes in the winter of 1929; and again to -203.95 metres in December, 1933, from a combination of natural causes and the preliminary operations of the Palestine Electric Corporation. The graph also reveals a comparative correspondence between the levels of Lake Tiberias and the fluctuations in the level of the Dead Sea. This would suggest that the present subsidence of the waters of Lake Tiberias is due to some appreciable extent to natural causes, namely, a succession of droughts, and that it cannot, therefore, he ascribed entirely to the operations of the Palestine Electric Corporation. At the end of December, 1934, the level of the lake had fallen as low as -204.68 metres but in the last few days it rose again by .75 metres, and is at present approximately -203.9 metres. This is appreciably lower than the minimum which it is proposed to offer to the Palestine Electric Corporation, namely, -203.5 metres.

2. The following description of the effects of the lowering of the level of the Lake has reference to a level of -203.9 metres or thereabouts.

The recession of the waters has resulted in stretches of new foreshore becoming exposed, but, if regard is had to the two reasons set out below, it cannot be said to be established either that this result is of such a character as to give offence at all points of its occurrence on aesthetic grounds or that it seriously impairs the natural beauty of sites on the margin of the Lake possessing traditional religious associations.

(i) The exposure is not continuous along the line of the shore, but has taken place at a few points only and at those points to a relatively small extent;

(ii) A minimum level of -203.5 metres will not normally be maintained throughout the year, and in fact it may be anticipated that the exposure as described will be considerably reduced, if not eliminated, and its effects mitigated, except in the three or four summer months.

3. The eastern foreshore is now extended by between eight to ten metres for a great part of its length but the shingly beach which has thus been exposed is not unsightly and so far as is known, there have been no complaints in respect of this section. The eastern shores are, in any case, very seldom visited by tourists.

At and near Capernaum, on the northwestern end of the Lake, the foreshore slopes steeply, and accordingly no detriment has been caused by the lowering of the level. At Tabgha a shingly beach has been exposed of 10 metres in extent.

It is at Buteiha, at the northern end, and at Migdal, some five kilometres north of Tiberias, that expanses of mud-flats have been created. At Buteiha, about 80 dunums of land formerly under water have been exposed and a somewhat larger area at Migdal. But at both places local Arab cultivators have planted maize and it is doubtful whether there can be any reasonable complaint of the appearance of these reclaimed areas under crops.

At Samakh, at the southern extremity of the Lake, an unsightly beach, varying in width from 10 to 40 metres, has been created; and facing and near Tiberias itself much of the town debris and refuse which was formerly under water is at the moment visible. As regards the actual frontage of Tiberias, the situation is temporary and will be completely remedied by the construction, now in progress, of a sea-wall which will accomplish the reclamation of the area now exposed and the disappearance of any foreshore.

As regards the foreshore near Tiberias, in the neighbourhood of the Hot Baths, the difficulty will recur at every lowering of the Lake unless special measures are taken to clear the debris exposed on those occasions; and the District Commissioner will be requested to inquire into the possibility of effective and permanent steps in this direction. It is true that at these two points the natural charm of the Lake has been diminished and, although the same criticism could hardly be sustained elsewhere, it is realised that in the case of Lake Tiberias aesthetic and religious considerations are inseparable. Nevertheless, the complaints that have been made are, in the High Commissioner's opinion, very much exaggerated.

4. The High Commissioner will take all steps in his power to mitigate so far as possible any effects of the lowering of the Lake level which give rise to justifiable complaint, and will endeavour to obtain the co-operation of the Palestine Electric Corporation in this object; but he is not aware of any other objectionable consequences which are likely to ensue from the operations of the company on the basis of a minimum level of -203.5 metres, inasmuch as the present situation has been brought about by a fall in level to -203.9 metres.

5. Although considerable material damage may follow the raising of the level of the lake, there is no present indication that this damage will be of a character likely either to affect the appearance of the lake and its shores, or to detract from its religious associations, provided that the necessary protective works which are contemplated are carried out.

6. It is undeniable that the lowering of the level of the lake, whether from artificial or natural causes, creates conditions favourable to the breeding of anopheles mosquitoes, and thus to malarial infection; and in fact the incidence of malaria was rather above normal this year. On the High Commissioner's instructions the Department of Health has instituted special measures for the extermination of mosquitoes along the western shore from Tabgha to Samakh; and these measures are extended as the needs demand. In the nature of things, the conditions in question cannot be entirely eradicated, but nothing will be left undone that can be done to minimise the malarious consequences of a low level of -203.5 metres.

Education (School-Leaving Age)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will institute a fresh survey as to the probable cost, in new buildings and additional teaching staffs, of the proposed raising of the school age to 15 years; and whether, in view of the widespread demand for this step in educational and other circles, and the necessity for preparation by local education authorities, the board will so far commit themselves as to provisionally fix a date, say April, 1937, when the new regulation might be brought into force?

My Noble Friend does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by an attempt to prepare fresh estimates, except in connection with specific proposals for legislation. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Bill

asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been taken by His Majesty's Government relative to recommendations contained in the Civil Lord's Report on the North-East Coast involving matters of policy, namely, unification of royalties, rational industrial planning, etc.?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements made in debate on the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Bill, to which there is nothing as yet to add.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the general impression is that the Government intend to deal with the unification of mining royalties, and does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be well, for the credit and prestige of the Government, to announce a policy as soon as possible?

Armaments Inquiry

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the composition and the terms of reference of the body appointed to inquire into the manufacture of and traffic in arms?

I hope to be able to make a statement shortly on both the points raised by the hon. Member.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask whether, in view of the great public interest in and anxiety over this question, he will expedite this matter as much as he can?

Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement covering the persons to be appointed?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the anxiety is due to the unfounded statements made by hon. Members opposite?

Naval Armaments (Conversations)

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the naval discussions?

As the hon. Member is aware, the preliminary conversations which had been proceeding bilaterally since last October between representatives of the Governments of the United States and Japan and of His Majesty's Government, were adjourned on the 19th December. The views of the participating Governments had by that time been made known and fully discussed, and it was felt that a stage had been reached where the delegates should resume personal contact with their Governments. The conversations have fully served the purpose for which they were intended, namely, to enable the Governments concerned to understand, their respective problems and points of view, and to discuss a number of tentative suggestions for overcoming existing difficulties. This process will continue through the diplomatic channel, and, as soon as the situation develops so as to justify a resumption of the conversations, the appropriate steps will be taken by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Since the adjournment, the Japanese Government have given formal notice of their decision to terminate the Washington Naval Treaty. His Majesty's Government have realised for a long time that the prolongation of the Treaty beyond the year 1936 would be contrary to the wishes of the Japanese Government. But I feel it to be only consonant with the frank and friendly spirit which has always characterised the relations between the two countries to say that the decision of the Japanese Government in this matter has been received in this country with sincere regret, for the Treaty has, during its term, served the invaluable purpose of avoiding competition, with all its attendant evils of ill-will and extravagance, and His Majesty's Government would regard it as a matter of grave concern if there should be a failure to negotiate, before the Treaty terminated, a new arrangement limiting and regulating the future construction of naval armaments.

It is, therefore, with great satisfaction that His Majesty's Government have noted the assurance which has been conveyed to them by the Japanese Government that they have no intention whatever to proceed to naval aggrandisement or to disturb international peace. The Japanese Government state that they will continue rather to make sincere endeavours to strengthen the relationships of peace and amity among all the Powers by participating as heretofore in the friendly negotiations with the other Powers concerned, and that they will strive for the conclusion with those Powers of a new agreement, just, fair and adequate in conception and consonant with the spirit of disarmament, to replace the Washington Treaty.

In view of the assurance given by the Japanese Government that they will enter into conference again, do His Majesty's Government propose to take the initiative in calling a further conference?

I think I said that as soon as the situation was cleared up and after personal contacts had been established between the various representatives and their respective governments, His Majesty's Government will take the appropriate steps.

His Majesty's Silver Jubilee (Celebrations)

asked the Prime Minister whether, in the case of any Government establishments which are closed for any period in connection with the jubilee celebrations, it is proposed that the employés concerned shall not suffer any loss of wages?

Government establishments generally will be closed on Monday, 6th May, 1935, the 25th anniversary of His Majesty's accession; and the day will be observed as a paid holiday for the employés concerned, including industrial grades.

Have the Government considered the advisability of declaring the day in question a bank holiday so that thousands of other employés will be paid?

Do the Government contemplate making a statement, in view of the fact that numbers of municipalities are anxious to make arrangements and that until a statement is made on behalf of the Government they are in doubt as to what steps to take?

My hon. Friend should address that question to the Home Secretary who, by virtue of his office, is in charge of all such arrangements. I would like to make the reply which I made without notice to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) subject to that qualification.

Ribbon Development

asked the Prime Minister whether any immediate legislation is proposed to deal with the increasing menace of ribbon development; and, if so, whether such legislation will be retrospective?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the form which our proposals will take.

Do the Government realise the great public anxiety on this question and will they not take steps to implement the promise made in the King's Speech at the opening of Parliament?

Is the Prime Minister aware that, following upon the announcement that such legislation was in contemplation and as a result of the failure of the Government to make a statement that the legislation would be retrospective in its effect, there is ample evidence to show that ribbon building has been accelerated, with permanent damage to the countryside and to the amenities of surrounding districts?

I know that in certain quarters that statement is being made, but according to the information at our disposal, there is no evidence to show that that is the case.

As the Prime Minister has said that immediate legislation is contemplated, can he say on what date the Bill will be introduced?

By "immediate" I meant that the Bill will be introduced as quickly as is possible.

asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to introduce legislation to prevent ribbon development throughout the country?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to-day by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the prospect of legislation has intensified ribbon development; and whether he can now state the Government's proposals for the prevention of further devastation of rural amenity?

I am not aware of any specific evidence that the prospect of legislation has intensified ribbon development. As to the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to-day by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that a Bill will be introduced before Easter to deal with this question?

Does the Minister realise that such a Measure would be largely non-controversial; and does he not recognise, from the questions that have been asked to-day, that all parties are agreed that the introduction of legislation on this subject is needed at the earliest possible moment?

British Army

Discharged Soldier's Claim

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give consideration to the case of Mr. Edward Gregory, of 88, St. Helens Road, Leigh, Lancashire, who while serving in the Grenadier Guards sustained an injury to his leg during compulsory gymnastic parade and later on was discharged from military service as physically unfit because of the diseased condition of his leg, and who since re turning to civilian life has been constantly under medical attention and unable to work?

Arrangements have been made, subject to his consent, for Mr. Gregory's admission to the Queen Alexandra Military Hospital, Millbank, for the further investigation of his case. I will inform the hon. Member of the result of this investigation as early as possible.

Woolwich Arsenal

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a decision has now been reached with regard to the future of Woolwich Arsenal?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the investigations into the possible removal of the Royal Arsenal from Woolwich have been completed; and, if so, will he state the decision arrived at?

No decision has yet been reached, and I regret, therefore, that no statement can be made at present.

Can the right hon. Gentleman anticipate when he will be able to make a statement?

Questions

Workmen's Compensation

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to introduce any Measure this Session to deal with the anomalies which have arisen under workmen's compensation?

I do not know what particular points the hon. Member has in mind, but I am advised that most of the suggestions made from time to time for amendment of the Act would be controversial, and I am afraid, in any event, there could be no prospect of legislation on the subject this Session.

Although some of these suggestions are controversial, are not workmen still at a disadvantage under workmen's compensation law, and will the Government go into the subject again in order to see if some of the disadvantages can be removed by legislation?

Foreign Loans (Japan)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that the House of Commons will be consulted prior to the granting of Treasury sanction to a loan for Japan or Manchukuo, having regard to the refusal of the Japanese Government to carry out their obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations?

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) on the 8th November last and to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) on the 28th of that month.

Trustee Securities

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the large sums of money awaiting investment in trustee securities, he will take steps to widen the list of such securities at an early date?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White), on the 6th November, of which I am sending him a copy.

Cunard Steamship Company

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has yet been taken to build a sister ship to the "Queen Mary"?

Indian Constitutional Reform (Committee's Report)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of copies of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform Reports that have been sold to date, and the amount of cash received for them?

As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

It is assumed that the hon. Member's question relates to Volume I (Part I) "Report," Volume I (Part II) "Proceedings," and Volume II "Records" of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform.

The particulars asked for are:

Transport

London (Omnibuses and Tramcars)

asked the Minister of Transport the number of omnibuses and of tramcars in service in the areas now covered by the London Passenger Transport Board previous to the taking over by the board, and the number of each now in service?

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

Following is the answer:

The London Passenger Transport Board commenced to operate services on the 1st July, 1933.

The following figures indicate the numbers of tramcars and omnibuses (exclusive of coaches) operated on regular services in June, 1933, by undertakers whose services have since been transferred to the board and the numbers at present operated on regular services by the board:

Accidents (Level Crossings)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has been in communication with the Epping Rural Council regarding the alarm felt at the prevalence of accidents at level crossings in their area; and whether any action is being taken to secure efficient control at all level crossings?

As regards the first part of this question, I have received a copy of a resolution passed by the Epping Rural District Council in the matter. As regards the second part, the inspecting officer whom I appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the accident at Wormley has now completed his inquiry, and his report will shortly be available.

Does not the Minister think that, in the interests of the public and in the interests of employment, it would be an excellent thing to do away with these level crossings altogether?

Yes; I have said so, and we are offering a grant of 75 per cent. for the purpose.

May I ask my hon. Friend if there are any double crossings in Epping?

Questions

Coal Industry (Inspections)

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of inspectors of mines in the employment of the Mines Department; and the number of pit inspections made by them during 1933 and 1934?

I have been asked to reply. The number of inspectors of mines in the employment of the Mines Department is 100. The number of pit inspections made by them during 1933 was about 24,400 and during 1934 about 24,750. These figures include inspections of metalliferous mines, but not of quarries.

Water Supply

asked the Minister of Health whether he has any statement to make on the water supply?

Urban water undertakers generally are in a much stronger position than they were at this time last year, both in consequence of the measures taken to improve supplies where necessary and because reserves have been largely replenished by the heavy December rains. Deep underground sources in a few areas are still not up to normal level. In rural areas the primary need is for permanent supplies, and the total capital cost of schemes for which State grants have been provisionally allocated is now over £2,600,000 for schemes in 940 parishes.

Ballot for Notices of Motions

Light Aeroplanes and Gliding

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of encouraging the Light Aeroplane Club and gliding movements in this country, and move a Resolution.

Territorial Army

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the pay, training and conditions of service of the Territorial Army, and move a Resolution.

Industrial Organisation

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to Industrial Organisation, and move a Resolution.

Water Supply

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to Water Supply throughout the country, and move a Resolution.

Royal Navy (Sloops for Convoys)

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the need of Sloops for Convoys, and move a Resolution.

Education

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to defects in the national system of Education, and move a Resolution.

Imperial Air Communications

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of the further development and acceleration of the civil Air Communications of the Empire, and move a Resolution.

Fleet Air Arm

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of an adequate Fleet Air Arm, and move a Resolution.

Internal Airways

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for a National Board to organise Internal Airways, and move a Resolution.

Territorial Air Defence Units

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for more Territorial Air Defence Units, and move a Resolution.

Health and Mortality

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the Health and Mortality of the nation and move a Resolution.

Capital Ships

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committe of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the size of Capital Ships, and move a Resolution.

British Army (Mechanisation)

I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to Mechanisation, and move a Resolution.

Civil Estimates (Supplementary Estimates, 1934)

Estimate presented,—of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1935 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day

Supply

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimate, 1934

(Class V.)

Unemployment Assistance Board

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Unemployment Assistance Board and of the Appeal Tribunals constituted under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934; and sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Assistance Fund under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934."

3.41 p.m.

In moving this Supplementary Estimate for the Unemployment Assistance Board I would remind the Committee that although in form the Estimate is supplementary, it is in fact the first Estimate that has been presented on behalf of the board, and I am sure, therefore, the Committee will excuse me if I make some reference to the way in which it is set out and the headings under which the money is required. The Unemployment Assistance Board was set up on 1st July. The 7th January was the first appointed day when it assumed responsibility for transitional payments, and on 1st March it will take over the assistance of the able-bodied unemployed who are now on public assistance. The arrangement with regard to this year's Budget for the financing of transitional payments was that the transitional payments for the whole year, irrespective of the date of the passing of the Act and the coming into existence of the board, should be carried upon the Ministry of Labour Vote. Therefore, in the Vote for this year was included a sum estimated to be sufficient to pay the cost of transitional payments for the whole year, but it was then assumed that any amount not required owing to the cost of transitional payments being assumed by the board before the end of the financial year would be surrendered, and I will deal later with the amount of money which will actually be surrendered by the Ministry of Labour owing to the fact that the total cost of this service will pass to the board, and therefore to the Unemployment Assistance Fund, on 1st March.

The expenditure of £5,000,000 for which this Supplementary Estimate asks on behalf of the Unemployment Assistance Board falls into three categories. There is, first of all, the whole cost of the preparatory work of bringing the board into effect since the passing of the Act on 1st July. There is, secondly, the estimated expenditure on administrative services apart from allowances granted from 7th January, the first appointed date, to the end of the year, because although the cost of the actual allowances made to the unemployed on transitional payments will continue to be borne on the Ministry of Labour Vote until 1st March, the administration of the services in connection with the payments is charged to this vote of the Unemployment Assistance Board. Finally, there is the payment of the unemployment assistance allowance for March this year. Those three different forms of expenditure come to the total sum of £5,000,000 which is asked for in this Estimate and which will be accounted for under three Sub-heads: A, the salaries of the board, of course other than the salaries of the members of the board, which are charged on the Consolidated Fund; B, the Appeal Tribunal; and C, contributions made to the Unemployment Assistance Fund from which the allowances to the unemployed are paid.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say there is going to be an Estimate for the Unemployment Assistance Board apart from the usual Ministry of Labour Estimates? If so, who will be answerable, for it?

No. It will come under the Ministry of Labour Vote, but it will be under a special head and will be answered for by me. The Estimate will be presented to Parliament by the Ministry of Labour, and he will be answerable for it, but it will be a separate Estimate for the Unemployment Assistance Board and not for the Ministry of Labour.

The House then will be able to discuss the administration of the board on the Vote?

It will be an estimate which will be put down in exactly the same way as any other estimate, and, as a matter of accountancy, though I shall be answerable for it, it will not be part of the expenditure of the Ministry of Labour but the separate expenditure of this particular board. With regard to the first Sub-head A, which deals with the salaries of the board's officers, there is, I think, nothing to which I need call attention except the item which deals with agency arrangements with the local authorities. In the vast majority of cases the whole of the transactions in connection with the payment of these allowances are carried out by the officers of the board itself, but there are certain occasions on which agency arrangements have been made with the local authorities and use is made of some of their officers to perform some of the functions which elsewhere are performed by the officials of the board. The occasion for that has been in instances where the number of people coming under the review of the board is so small, or where the area in which they are situated is so scattered, that it would be uneconomic for the board to have special officers to deal with them.

The officers of the local authorities under these agency arrangements will carry out the duties in exactly the same way as they are carried out by the officials of the board, and subject to exactly the same regulations and instructions, and, as far as the unemployed applicant is concerned, the same use will be made of the Employment Exchanges in these cases as is made in the ordinary case, that is to say, the Employment Exchange servant will be responsible for the receipt of the initial applications, for the satisfaction of the condition that the applicant is capable of and available for work, and for the actual payment to the applicant of the sum that is due to him. These agency arrangements, necessary as they may be in certain cases, are on a very limited scale. It is estimated that of the number who will be dealt with and come over on the first appointed day from transitional payment, something like 750,000 will be dealt with by the board officials direct, and only some 30,000 will be dealt with under this agency arrangement.

The next Sub-head, Sub-head B, deals with the Appeal Tribunals. As hon. Members know, the Appeal Tribunals consist of three persons, the chairman appointed by the Minister of Labour, a member appointed to represent the board, and a person selected by the board from a panel of persons nominated by me as representative of the workmen. In addition, provision is to be made for an acting-chairman to take the place of the chairman if he is absent. The whole list of the chairmen appointed will be found in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for this month. Hon. Members will see that the provision for the expenses of these appeal tribunals appears in two places, because the salaries, remuneration and allowances under Sub-head B are chargeable on moneys payable by Parliament, while the expenses of the tribunals come on the Unemployment Assistance Fund. The Committee should know that the remuneration for the chairmen of these appeal tribunals is at the rate of £2 10s. for a full sitting, that is to say, any sitting over one and a-half hours, and £1 10s. for any sitting of less than that duration, that the workers' representative will receive an allowance for any loss of remunerative time, and that the representative of the board will not receive any allowance at all.

Are you not paying the chairman more than is being paid out of the Unemployment Fund?

On the question of the payment to representatives of workmen sitting on the board, is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider removing an anomaly of the past, where the representative of the workmen, being himself a small functionary or an official in some other capacity, has, when called upon, had to find a substitute to carry out his ordinary duties and has not been able to obtain any allowance? Will the right hon. Gentleman remove that anomaly in this connection?

If the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity of elaborating that point in Debate, or if he will discuss it with me afterwards, I shall be glad to consider the matter. I pass to Subhead C which deals with the contribution to be made by the board to the Unemployment Assistance Fund.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the duties of the advisory committees, and the remuneration that they are to receive?

No provision is made here for their remuneration. They are in the same position as so many committees who are asked to give their services in an advisory capacity on a matter of this kind.

Some of those asked to do this work will have to lose time if they are to attend to their duties.

I really think that hon. Members had better raise these points in Debate and allow me to continue. If the hon. Member will raise it later, I will deal with it. I was about to deal with Subhead C dealing with the contribution made by the board to the Unemployment Assistance Fund. This is the fund out of which the payment of the actual allowance is to be made to the applicant, and, as hon. Members know, its main sources of revenue are two: first of all, the contributions we are now voting from the Unemployment Assistance Board, and, secondly, the contribution made by the local authority. Hon. Members will find set out on page 7 of the Supplementary Estimate the estimated expenditure which will fall upon the Assistance Fund for the year ending 31st March. The allowances to applicants of £4,250,000, hon. Members will realise, deals only with the month of March. Until the month of March those now on public assistance will still be dependent on the public assistance authorities, while the cost of those who are on transitional payment will still be borne by the Ministry of Labour Vote. Therefore, this sum of £4,250,000 is for one month only.

Hon. Members will no doubt wish for some explanation of the amounts which have to be paid to Government departments for the expenses which they have incurred on behalf of the board. The largest of these sums is due to the Ministry of Labour for the expense incurred in the employment exchanges services in carrying out the duties which will fall upon them, that is to say, the receipt of the initial application, the investigation of the condition of being capable of, and available for, work, and finally the payment of the actual allowance. The Office of Works are responsible for the provision of the office accommodation for the board, the Stationery Office for the necessary equipment, and the Post Office, not only for the ordinary service which the Post Office renders to all Government departments, but for certain arrangements which have been made for the payment in some cases of these allowances by post where the applicant is so situated that it is inconvenient for him to get to an employment exchange to obtain payment in person. That will bring the gross total of expenditure to £4,850,100, and from that has to be deducted the contributions which are made by the local authority under the arrangement which was described during the passage of the Bill. Hon. Members will recall that, whereas a certain contribution remains to be made by the local authorities and paid into this fund, they are, after 1st March, relieved entirely of the financial responsibility for the assistance of the able-bodied unemployed. That, deducted from the gross total of the expenditure, leaves the net total of £4,590,000, which is the sum appearing in the Estimate for which sanction is asked to-day.

There are only two general points with regard to the method in which these Estimates are presented to which I need refer. The first is that since the 1st July certain expenditure for which we are now asking the money to be voted has been incurred by the board. The expenses in connection with preparing for the appointed day have been met hitherto from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and some of the money, therefore, which we are asking the Committee to vote to-day will go in repayment of these advances. The other point has regard to the surrender of money by the Minister of Labour. It is estimated that the amount to be surrendered at the end of March, when the full responsibility for these payments passes to the board, will be £3,100,000, £2,900,000 of which are transitional payments and the other £200,000 is the sum saved in expenses of administration through the early termination of the work of the Ministry in this connection. Of course, my hon. Friend and I will be glad to answer any questions with regard to the details of these Estimates, but I felt that, as it was the first occasion that the Estimates of the board have been presented to the Committee, I should be expected to give some explanation of the manner in which they appear.

I realise, of course, that the discussion is much more likely to develop on the lines of the board's administration rather than the details of the accounts which we are now considering. I do not want, in an opening speech, to anticipate the line which that discussion is going to take, or the criticisms which are going to be raised. It is, I think, much more satisfactory that they should be raised by those who desire to do it, and they will then, of course, receive not only the consideration but the reply to which they are entitled at the end of the Debate. Therefore, I will not enter into any detailed discussion of the effects of the board's administration. There are however, certain general observations which I should like to make. The first is this. Hon. Members opposite will, I think, do me this credit, that I never attempted to conceal from the House on the occasions when we have discussed the Regulations of the board, that the Regulations, if passed, would lead in certain cases to a reduction. Not only did I make that perfectly clear in my statements, but, of course, it was obvious to anyone familiar with the details of transitional payments in their particular area, that that would, in fact, be so.

It may not be. I pointed out that one of the particular complaints about the existing administration was the great lack of uniformity in all parts of the country, and that the object of this reform was to attain uniformity.

I would point out to the Committee the general effect on the unemployed as a whole. The estimated increased cost of these new Regulations as compared with the old scale is in the neighbourhood of £3,000,000 a year. That estimate I have no reason whatsoever to alter. It is, of course, quite plain, as it was plain then, that the reductions to which I referred would be more numerous and more severe in those areas where the administration of the existing law had ever been lax.

In some cases, as was admitted subsequently by members responsible for it, it was actually illegal. I do not know whether any hon. Member who comes from South Wales will be able, during the course of this Debate, to say that the administration of the transitional payments in that area was strictly within the letter of the law during the past year, and that in no cases were bigger assessments given by the local authorities on transitional payments when they were dealing with Government money, than they would be prepared to give in public assistance when they were dealing with their own money.

The second point is this. This, of course, is a vast undertaking. It meant when the appointed day arrived that officials untrained in the particular work had to assume responsibility for a large number of payments under a rather complicated system which had only just been brought into force. I do not think anyone from the pure machinery side can have any criticisms to make of the way the board came into operation.

I have heard no complaints recently of payments being late or not available for people entitled to them, and, in so far as that is true, it reflects great credit on those responsible for devising this new organisation. But in a system such as this which is largely discretionary in character, there are bound to be cases when the scheme was brought into operation where the local officials had no experience, and were not aware of the way in which it was intended that this discretion should be used. I am informed by the board that certain points have already been brought to their notice where it is quite clear that the officials had not understood the intention of the board as to the way in which the discretion was to be used, and that immediate steps are being taken to bring to all the board's officials the correct interpretation of this particular passage. I have no doubt that any further points which are raised in today's Debate will receive their consideration, and will be brought to the notice of the officials.

I come to the third point. It is too early to judge from the country as a whole the full effect of these Regulations. The change-over has not yet been completed. The local administration has not yet settled down, and, finally, in few, if any, cases have the appeal tribunal yet had an opportunity of reviewing the decisions which have been given. But I think hon. Members opposite will agree that it is already plain that in a large number of cases of families without resources the benefits they receive under this scheme have been increased. That is true, I believe, all over the country. The family without resources is, after all, the family which is in the most difficult position, and to whom our responsibility is greatest. The complaints, so far as I have been able to gauge them—and hon. Members, no doubt, will enlarge on them during the Debate—have been largely against the administration of the means test in connection with cases of households with resources. With regard to that, I would just make this point. The Unemployment Board was set up by the will of Parliament and charged by Parliament with the duty of caring for the needs of those who have to apply for assistance.

And Parliament itself inserted a provision that in caring for those needs they should have regard to the available resources of the household in which the applicant was. The board have every desire to see that the duty with which they have been charged by Parliament is carried out in the fairest possible manner. I am certain that if the Regulations which were submitted by the board and approved by Parliament are shown by further experience to lead in practice to grave anomalies or hardships which were unforeseen when the board submitted them, it will be both their desire as well as their duty to submit to the Government and to Parliament any amendments which are necessary to remove those anomalies or to redress those grievances. It is quite im- possible at the present time to gauge the exact effect of these Regulations. We hear a great deal about cases where reductions have been made. We do not hear nearly so much about the very large number of cases where increases have been made.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the proportion of increases and where the increases are?

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should make some inquiry in Lancashire.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiry in South Wales as to reductions?

I saw an estimate in the "Manchester Guardian"—a paper not hostile to the hon. Gentleman—quite recently which estimated that substantial gains have been made in the families without resources, and that they accounted for something like 50 per cent. of the total applicants. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is quite inaccurate!"] It will be some time before we are able to see the exact effect of these Regulations, not only on different individuals but on different parts of the country. I realise that the House of Commons is not only deeply interested in this matter, but clearly it is its duty to scrutinise with the greatest care the way in which the board may have set about its functions. I, therefore, propose, as soon as it is possible to get a really adequate picture of the working of these Regulations, that the fullest report of their working and their effect shall be available to Parliament. Meanwhile, I believe that to the country as a whole and to the great majority of the unemployed, these Regulations have brought, not reductions but advances. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] When the schemes develop we shall have full opportunity of seeing the actual facts. The other day I heard a great complaint being made at an Employment Exchange because reductions had been made, and on inquiry I found that the rate had been increased. When it is possible to see the fullest effect of these figures, I will see that the fullest report is presented to Parliament.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in Liverpool it has been suggested that there should be a mass demonstration held with regard to the great reductions which have taken place during the last few weeks?

4.14 p.m.

When the Bill was brought in and the Unemployment Assistance Board was before this House, we who are in a minority on this side sought to make the House and the country understand that the Bill was going to have a deadly effect upon the unemployed throughout the land. The Bill was so complicated that I believe a great number of Members in the House did not understand what it was going to do. The right hon. Gentleman says that he warned us during the passing of the Regulations that there would be certain reductions. That is true, but one thing said by the right hon. Gentleman, and it was said even more firmly in this House by the late Minister of Labour, who is now chairman of the board—it has also been said by Members of the Government—was that this new system would make the lot of the unemployed better. After the years that I have been in public life I thought that I knew something about the arts of misleading the public and that I could detect them immediately I saw them, but I have seen nothing to compare with what has been happening under this new system. In the Press and through the British Broadcasting Corporation there has been a continuous campaign which has been so effective that the great mass of the unemployed have actually thought that their lot would be improved. There are friends of mine in my own division, unemployed men, who have actually thought that their lot would be made better. That has been the experience throughout the country, and that was the object of the campaign. We knew—if I may use an old phrase—that the cows would come home, but I am not sure that they have arrived yet.

It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon that he is very conscious that the Government have not quite succeeded in improving the lot of the unemployed. I thought that I detected an undertone in his speech which showed that he is not only afraid of what is happening in the country but that he is anxious about what is coming. We shall demonstrate this afternoon by fact upon fact that a situation is arising in the country which will soon make most of the Government's programme archaic and out of touch altogether with the life of the country. The House will not be empty when we are discussing this question later. The time has passed when it can be said that in giving judgment upon this matter we were influenced by political motives. Already it is clear that there is a body of opinion arising in the country, which is almost outside politics, which is deeply concerned over the physical and moral well-being of the people of this country and disturbed as to the effect of this Act. Let me read a very important letter that has appeared in the Press and which may be taken as a forerunner of what is to come. To-day in the "Manchester Guardian" there appears a general protest by ministers of religion with regard to the new means test in South Wales. It represents Nonconformist, Church of England and Roman Catholic clergy in the whole area about Merthyr and Dowlais: results of administration in a county where he will not say that administration is lax. I refer to Durham. Representatives of his own Department have been in charge there for two or three years, and we know that they are not lax. The Minister has informed us that after the local assistance committee had been deposed the representatives of his Department reduced the income of the unemployed and saved the Government £300,000 a year in a small community like that. We know the result of all that saving. Life has been lamentable for the great mass of people under the administration of the representatives of the Ministry of Labour, and it was reflected in the report of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on that area.

Already we find that the Unemployment Assistance Board are going one better than the gentleman who has been in charge in Durham for two or three years. If they can go one better in Durham, what is happening in the rest of the country where the elected representatives on the public assistance committees have been in charge? Let me give a few cases. We were told that the amount for children was to be increased and that life was going to be much better. I would ask the Committee to bear witness to the fact that I never laid any stress upon the question of the increased amount for the children. I always said that what did matter was the amount that went into the home. Here is a case of a man 30 years of age. His wife is 30 years of age, and he has one daughter aged 12, another daughter aged 11 and two sons, one aged seven and one aged five. That was the kind of case that was calculated to benefit under the new system. The transitional payments in that case under the old administration were 34s. The woman was ill, and the public assistance committee gave her 7s. 6d., which brought the amount up to 41s. 6d. That was not the standard set by elected representatives, but by the Ministry of Labour's own representative in Durham, who has dictated to the public assistance committees. His standard was 41s. 6d. in this case. The Unemployment Assistance Board have allowed in that case, inclusive of the amount given by the public assistance authority, 35s. They have reduced the amount to the family by 6s. 6d. If lax administration in other parts of the country is the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, then his own representative in Durham must have been lax according to the standard set by the Unemployment Assistance Board. We had hoped that the Unemployment Assistance Board could improve very much upon the administration of the gentleman who has been in charge for some years in Durham.

Here is another case of a man 55 years of age. His wife is 54 years, he has a son 16, a daughter 13 and another daughter 18. They were allowed 28s. a week transitional payment and 10s. a week for the boy, making 38s. a week under the old administration. They pay a small rent of 4s. 3d. a week. In the other case that I have mentioned the rent was 5s. 6d. Under the new arrangement of the Unemployment Assistance Board the amount allowed is 29s., or 9s. a week less than was allowed for the family according to the standard of the Minister's own representative before the board came into operation. If I were the right hon. Gentleman I would not use the term "lax administration" with regard to Wales and other parts of the country.

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member. He must bear in mind that what we are discussing now is the administration for which this money is asked. I only want to warn him that we cannot rediscuss the Bill which became the Act which was passed in 1934 or rediscuss the Regulations which have been approved by the House.

I put a question to the Minister on this subject when he was opening his speech. I understand that we are asked to vote money to the gentlemen who are administering the Act. Are we not entitled if, in our judgment, they are administering the Regulations wrongly and not carrying out the duties imposed upon them by the Act, to raise that matter in the discussion?

Certainly. That is a proper subject for discussion, as I thought I had indicated, but we cannot discuss over again matters which have already been decided, namely, the Bill which has now become an Act and Regulations which have been approved.

The point is this. The right hon. Gentleman in his statement drew attention to the matters which my hon. Friend is now raising. We are not raising questions as to the amounts under the Regulations, but we are rais- ing the question of the administration by the gentlemen whose salaries we are voting; and in doing that we are only following the right hon. Gentleman himself in his opening speech. Surely we are entitled to do that before we part with the Vote.

I was trying to meet the arguments put forward by the Minister of Labour so that hon. Members might get a proper estimate of what is going on. The point in the particular cases I have mentioned is that the amount which was given in advance to the children has been taken away. It is also quite clear that the Unemployment Assistance Board is becoming the dictator not of the unemployed or of the House of Commons but of the public assistance committees. Let no one be under any misapprehension—the Unemployment Assistance Board is going to set the standard for public assistance committees in respect of the standards of life for the unemployed. I have said repeatedly that it is not possible for the Unemployment Assistance Board to continue side by side with public assistance committees, and the fact is now becoming clear that they are dictating to the public assistance committees what is to be the standard of life of the unemployed. The Secretary of the West Auckland Miners' Association in a letter to the Press says:

Let me ask a question about the appeal boards. Are they working? Who are the chairmen of these boards? Are they people in direct contact with the conditions of the people? Are they trade unionists? Are they people who have a reputation for social services and a deep and intimate knowledge of the condition of the people? I have a letter here which I do not propose to read, but which is indicative of what we have to expect from this kind of administration. The Derbyshire Miners' Association have protested to the Minister of Labour against the appointment of Dr. McCrea as chairman of the local tribunal. He has been actively associated with the Conservative party in the capacity of chairman of the Conservative party. Everyone knows the kind of people who are to be entrusted with this kind of work. I challenge hon. Members opposite to say that the average person who is being appointed to preside over these appeal boards is a person who is in touch with working-class affairs or has an intimate knowledge and sympathy with working men. They are not. Often they are people with legal minds, and while I will not say that they do not care I will say that in nine cases out of ten they have not shown the slightest interest in the social life of the people whose affairs they have to administer.

Then again, who are to be appointed as workmen's representatives? The right hon. Gentleman appoints these, and he takes them from a panel. Are these workers' representatives trade unionists? Are they working-class representatives? Are they workmen? This is really an important matter. My experience is that working men are not always appointed. Take the matter of assessment. I want to put a question on this point. Under the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Act the unemployed have to pay half their arrears in order to keep their health benefits up whilst unemployed. Even after paying these arrears they will, if unemployed long enough, run out of insurance, but they have the option then of becoming voluntary contributors. Can the right hon. Gentleman given an assurance that unemployed coming under Part II of the Unemployment Act will, when assessments are being made, be allowed the amounts paid by them in respect of health insurance? Then there is the further point, that trade union benefits are being included in the assessment. We must protest against that.

I am sure that when this matter is discussed in the future there will be a much fuller House than there is now. The Government have paraded this as a new deal for the unemployed. As far as they are concerned, it is a very bad deal indeed. The lot of a great mass of people at the present moment is indeed painful and lamentable. I agree with my hon. Friends in saying that I do not think the Government can make this thing work. One think is certain. We are a minority in this House and little heed is paid to us as far as the Lobby is concerned, but the Government are going to be faced in the months to come with a situation among the unemployed more dangerous than any it has known since the end of the Great War.

4.46 p.m.

When we were discussing these Regulations in the month of December we were in the realm of theory and it was impossible to foresee in exactly what way they would work out. There were many of us who felt at that time that they would work out adversely. Now we are in the realm of practice. The few weeks that have gone by have been sufficient to show that in administration the Regulations are working out in a way that was, I believe, never contemplated by this House, and in a way that can hardly have been contemplated by the Minister, who is well known to be a man of most humane mind. I believe that as the weeks go by the Government will be astonished at the volume of protest that will come from all over the country at the drastic cuts that are taking place under this scale. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that on future occasions this House will be crowded if the same kind of administration continues under these Regulations.

It is quite true that there may be a certain disorder, a little difficulty at the present moment, while the new officials are getting down to the job and learning how far they can go; but, making full allowance for that, I do not think it is possible to defend the sort of action that is being taken in many cases. I cannot help feeling that the Government are going to save a very large sum of money under the present administration, and I cannot for the life of me understand for what the extra £3,000,000 is wanted, for I do not see where it is going to be spent. The Government will save £3,000,000, or very much more than that, according to the information that has come to me. Possibly the Minister can give the actual facts, and it will be extremely interesting to hear them.

The scale being put into operation under the present administration is a large reduction on the old public assistance committee scale, and surely that old scale was never regarded as being generous. It was regarded as being an unfortunate scale that had to be put into operation at a time when economy was required. But many people who were bitter critics of the public assistance scale are now obliged to say that it was a model of generosity compared with the treatment that is being received to-day. The present scale is in large numbers of cases far below the public assistance committee scale, and below the Poor Law too. If the Minister says that there was extravagance in those scales, is it not really a criticism of him? Why did he tolerate it? Why did he not carry out the law of the land and send down commissioners to take the place of those who were breaking the law? It is really a criticism of the Government itself if that argument is used. I do not think anyone can seriously maintain that the old scale was anything but one that we had to put up with in a time of grave national emergency. Any further depreciation from that is quite indefensible.

One of the main points in the original discussion was that there would be more benefit coming under the new scale for children. But I think that to a very large extent those benefits are illusory. I agree that where there are no earners in the family the children do benefit, but where you have two or three in a large family earning something, there is no benefit to the family as a whole; there is an actual reduction in the amount being given owing to the contribution that the earners are now obliged to make. The Minister said in his opening remarks that if difficulties were found, if mistakes had been made and the Regulations were not right, no doubt they could be altered and brought into line with what was required. But we cannot wait for experience in this matter. The large numbers of people who are suffering weekly under this new scheme cannot wait for experience to be gathered. I hope that the Minister will take the earliest opportunity to review the whole position, both in the way of instructions regarding administration and, as he himself indicated, by the withdrawal and amendment of the regulations themselves, for without that it is very difficult to see how the situation can be put right.

With regard to the question of money, we know that there is money available and that these economies are not necessary. Reduction in taxation has taken place, expenditure on all sorts of other things is taking place, and the Government have no defence from the point of view that national economy is so necessary that we cannot afford to give these amounts and are obliged to make the supercuts. I am glad that the Minister has issued, in the form of a White Paper, the instructions that have been sent round to the committees. I would ask this question: When is it proposed to issue the other Regulations under Section 52 of the Unemployment Act? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be good enough to deal with that point when he replies. I presume it is not intended that the Regulations shall be secret. It is desirable that they should be brought to the attention of the public.

I was asked a few days ago by a large section of my constituents who are affected by these Regulations to come down and meet them, so strong is their feeling and so disturbed are they at the situation—not, I should explain in Wolverhampton, but in Willenhall, where the administration has been on not perhaps the same scale as in Wolverhampton, for there we know that the Minister at one time threatened to send down a commissioner. I have no doubt that there have been certain increases, but I cannot find many of them. I have found only one or two. But there have been astonishing numbers of reductions, and large reductions. Let me give an indication of the kind of thing that is taking place. I will quote a number of cases taken haphazard, showing the old payments and the new. Thirty-eight shillings reduced 25s. 28s. reduced to nothing, 26s. to 6s. 6d., 17s. 6d. to 10s., 14s. to nothing, 21s. to nothing, 16s. to 10s. 6d., 10s. 6d. to nothing, 26s. to nothing, 16s. 3d. to nothing, 13s. to nothing. Making all allowances possible, it seems incredible that the Minister could have intended reductions on that scale to take place when the previous scale was already low enough. I should like to know what the explanation is or what hope is to be held out of an end being put to reductions of that kind.

I believe that the two main reasons why these drastic cuts are taking place are these: First of all there was in the old days, under the public assistance committee, a certain allowance for the earnings of the other members of the family. The first 20s. was very often ignored for those of adult age and smaller sums for those not grown up. At the present time that allowance is being taken away and a very much heavier inroad is being made on the earnings of members of a family. I cannot believe that that was envisaged at the time the scheme was put in hand. It may be that by circulating fresh instructions this matter can be remedied. The system with regard to the taking of earnings is now very rigid. No reasonable pocket money is being left to the members of a family who are contributing. When you have cases of sons and parents dependent on the earnings of daughters who are left with very little, an extremely awkward situation is created in the household. There are many cases reported of members of a family leaving the house and breaking up the home in order to relieve the situation and get further allowances.

The second point is that it appears that under the public assistance administration certain individuals, the husband or wife, were sometimes taken as individuals and a grant was made to them as such. Now they are lumped in as members of the family, and in that way a large reduction is made in the allowance given to them. I notice that in the instructions that have been issued to committees it is laid down that an allowance should not be made which comes within two shillings of what a man might be expected to earn. That raises a very important point. It raises the amount that a man might reasonably be expected to earn. I ask the Minister to indicate what exactly is meant. Does it mean the standard rate? Does it mean the rate that is generally recognised as being paid by a good employer, or does it mean what I am afraid it is meaning in some cases, the lowest sum which a worker can be forced to accept because of the difficult position of the labour market? I have been given instances of very small sums being earned by people at the present time, and if it is to be suggested that allowances must not be given which come within two shillings of those sums, you get a degradation of the whole situation. I ask the Minister to make clear what I think must be the case that he has in mind the high standard wage which is recognised in that particular part of the country.

Let me give one or two examples. I have here particulars of the case of a man with nine children. That was a case where obviously the family was going to benefit. Under the old scale they got 38s. a week. Now they get 25s. The reason is that two members of the family are working, a son earning 16s., and a daughter 13s. Because of that the family is brought down from 38s. to 25s. The Poor Law allowance would have been more; it would have been 27s. 3d. There you have a man who has to keep himself and his wife, two working children and seven other children of school age on a total of 54s. a week, an average of something like 5s. each. That is 20s. less than they were obtaining before. Then I have the case of a man who had his allowance reduced from 17s. to 15s. He was a widower living alone and after paying his rent he had only left 4s. 2d. upon which to live. I venture to think that that really is indefensible. If it be said that he is living in a house the rent of which is too high and that he ought to move, he must be given time to do that. Then I have another case of a family consisting of a father, 63 years of age, who earns 32s. a week—an example of a ridiculously small sweated wage—an invalid daughter incapable of working, a son and his wife. A reduction took place there from 26s. to 7s. The total income for those four persons is 39s. a week. What strikes me particularly about that case is that a man of 63, earning a small wage himself, is made to keep the whole of the rest of his family and only 7s. is allowed as a contribution towards the cost.

The situation, I believe, is much worse than the Government realise. It will have tremendous electoral repercussions, but that is beside the point. The point that really matters is the daily life of these people. I urge the Government to give this matter their early attention. In 1931 a drastic change took place in the lives of most of these people. In a time of dire crisis they were brought down to an entirely different level. Now when we are told that we are in process of recovery, that confidence is fully restored, is it really the intention of the Government that another drastic cut should operate because that is what is happening? The position is really indefensible, and I urge the Government who, I am sure, desire to respond to any human appeal, to take the earliest opportunity to remove this injustice that is daily being put into operation among the unemployed in this country.

5.3 p.m.

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

I only wish that it were possible for the millions of working-men and women in this country to look by some process of television upon us this afternoon, so that they could witness the tremendous anxiety which Members and supporters of the Government feel for the welfare of the working-classes, and see with what complacency hon. Members can witness the revolution that is now taking place. There is something going on that is no less than a social revolution. It is the deliberate reduction to lower levels of subsistence of large numbers of our population, a reduction to a level that no Member of the Government and no supporter of the Government would dare justify even in this House. They have never told this House that the scale of unemployment pay is adequate. They have never contended that the unemployment benefit of 17s. a week for the adult is adequate. In justification of the scale they have pointed out that unemployment insurance benefit was simply intended to help those unfortunate men and women who are liable to come out from any of our industries for brief periods of unemployment, it may be a week or two in this industry, or a month or two in another industry. They have said that they recognise the necessity of making provision for assisting those people—not to meet their needs in that period, but to help them over that gap. It is on those lines that they have justified the rates of unemployment benefit.

When these absurd Regulations were introduced the Minister commented—with some personal gratification I thought—upon the fact that, taking unemployment generally in this country, he was very glad to be able to say that 60 per cent. of the total number of persons unemployed had not been in that position for three months and that 70 per cent. had not been in that position for six months. He therefore implied that it was not a very important or pressing problem, because only three out of 10 had been unemployed for six months or over. Here you have the absurd position that, when dealing with 70 per cent. of the total number of unemployed, the supporters of the Government say that the scale of benefit is inadequate to maintain life, but, when dealing with 30 per cent.—and that is what South Wales has to deal with, the 30 per cent. who have been unemployed not for 12 days or 12 weeks or 12 months but for 12 years—10s. or less is sufficient for such men. They are deliberately starving the people, and there is no possible excuse. If the feeling that exists in the county of Glamorgan were broadcast through the country, the people sitting on these benches would be leading a revolt without any apology. We should be seeking, by force if necessary, to remove this Government or anybody else who stood in the way of subsistence for our people.

Do not think for a moment that the view we hold of these scales of assistance is not held by other people. Ask the Bishop of Llandaff. Ask the Archbishop of the Catholic Church in South Wales. They are not members of the Labour party. The chances are that politically they would be staunch supporters of the Government. Ask them what they think of these scales, and they will tell you that there is no law in Heaven or hell than can justify this sort of thing. There is no word in the English language that can adequately condemn this business. If we did our duty to-day, we should upset this Parliament so that no business could go on until this wrong was redressed. We are to give 40 days to India. I have every sympathy with the Indians and with anybody who is oppressed, but I am hanged if I am going to sit here quietly while a single child of an unemployed man is starving in this country. And they are starving. Make no mistake about that.

Then there are cases which I think are the most tragic of all. I am proud of my Welsh ancestry and proud of the Welsh working-men, the most independent type that I know. Some of those men who have laboured for years have become possessors of a house. In many instances they have no other resources. But there are cases when it is a misfortune to have something. The lucky man is the one who has nothing but debts. He is the fortunate man, and the unfortunate man is the one who has a roof over his head. He is still more unfortunate if he has a second house. The Government say, "We will value your second house. You may have nothing else. You may have worn out your clothes and your furniture, but you are the owner of this house, and we will value that house. To be quite certain that it is valued properly, we will call in the Inland Revenue to value it." The house is valued at, say, £301. What then? For that man there is no hope. He is expected to live upon that house. How is he to do it? Perhaps the Ministry will tell him. What use is it to tell such a man that his house is worth £300? He will make a gift of it to you, if you ask him. It is no use to him. Those who are in the house are unemployed. If he is told to sell it, who will buy it? Another unemployed man? The thing is staggering. I cannot understand how anybody except a group of civil servants in fine positions here in London, who have probably never seen a working-man, could have devised and concocted these regulations.

I can tell the Minister who will get this £3,000,000. A huge chunk of it will be spent in the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire on the army of civil servants which will be created to administer these regulations. I invite the Minister to make an investigation and to compare the cost of administering this "humane" system with the cost formerly incurred under the "lax" system in the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire and if, under the new system, five are not employed, for each one that was employed before in the work of administration, I will make a public apology. That is where the administration is going to cost more—fat salaries, useless men, multiplication of staffs.

Take what happened in the Rhondda Valley a week ago yesterday. The Minister perhaps can make some attempt to imagine the depth of the feeling in that division when I tell him that in the Rhondda Valley there is a total population of less than 140,000 and a week ago yesterday 100,000 people demonstrated there. There was nobody in that district who was not demonstrating except those who were in the hospital. Every man and woman in that area and practically every child of over 16 demonstrated spontaneously. It was not a whipped up or organised demonstration. It was simply a rising of mass indignation against this system. I only wish to God that the same thing prevailed in London and the surrounding boroughs. If that spirit prevailed the people would mass round this ancient institution and shake this Government to its foundations.

These very people who have been roused in such a fashion are going to the Employment Exchanges this week to draw their reduced scales of benefit and they will see inside the Exchanges and in adjoining buildings, dozens of additional officials employed in reducing their benefit. There will be dozens more than there were before, engaged at far larger salaries than were ever paid there before, and those additional men and those increased salaries will be for no other purpose than to reduce the subsistence level of the unemployed miner. Could any human being stand that? I will do the Minister this credit. I do not believe that he would welcome that sort of thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "He does."] No, I do not believe he would welcome that. But if he wants to understand what we feel upon this matter let him go down there and see the people there, and try to defend these proposals there. I will guarantee him perfect and fair play. We will give him safe custody. Let him go there and hear the people say for themselves what they think of this national board of guardians—for we should not call it an assistance board.

I think everybody in the House of Commons learned to respect the Minister's predecessor in office because everybody recognised that there was a good deal of sincerity about what he said in connection with unemployment. But go to the unemployed now and mention his name and what do you find? I regret to say it, but it is the case that Sir Henry Betterton's name will not be honoured among the working classes of this country. He is looked upon as a man who has taken £5,000 a year in order to rob the child of the unemployed man. It is useless trying to hide the fact. I only wish to God that it were otherwise. I would have preferred to have continued respecting Sir Henry Betterton's name. I would have preferred to have been able to pay him a sincere personal compliment for what I know to be his own desire and sincerity. But he has been placed in such a position that his name will now be a mockery for evermore.

This National Government are shielding themselves behind this so-called national board. They have deliberately created it and they are seeking to hide themselves behind its rotten bulwarks. I know that many more of my colleagues wish to speak on this matter. We would much prefer to act rather than to speak about it and our actions would not be very peaceful ones either. I hope the time will come when we shall do it. I hope the working classes of this country will pay heed to what is said and done here to-day and that from now onwards the agitation which is at such a height in South Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "And all over!"]—will spread like a flame throughout the country and that the English and Scottish working classes will join with the Welshmen and make the demand that, come what will, these damnable Regulations must be withdrawn from the Statute Book of this country.

5.23 p.m.

Like the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) when these Regulations were first announced I thought they were very good.

I was referring to the Press campaign mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He said that a great many people in the country were led to suppose that these Regulations would be very beneficial for the unemployed. I thought so myself I must say, and I went to my constituency at Christmas time and explained to large audiences there how beneficial they would be to the unemployed. But I did not then know the effect of the Regulations as applied to my constituency. I do not think that hon. Members can be expected at the moment, just after these Regulations have come into force, to deal with their effect on constituencies other than their own. We must each judge of their effect upon the constituency which is our own immediate concern and interest, and I can only tell the Committee of the effect of the Regulations so far as I have been able to find out the result of their application in my constituency.

I have taken what steps I could, in the comparatively short time which has elapsed since the Regulations came into force, to discover their effect. In the town of Peterhead, which is a small fishing town on the North East coast, inquiries have been made at my request, and I think I can say with complete accuracy that in 42 cases there has been an average reduction of 6s. 11d. per household, per week, as compared with the old transitional payment, and that these reductions range from 2s. 6d. per week up to 18s. 6d. per week. I shall have something to say later about the condition of these people. But I do say with all sincerity that that is a state of affairs which cannot be tolerated. I also requested those who were making these investigations to discover if and when there were any increases under the Regulations. Up to the time of going to press, if I may use that expression, they have discovered only one—a case in which there has been an increase of 1s. per week. I have reason to believe though I cannot in this case give exact figures, that the position in Fraserburgh, the other fishing town in my constituency, is at least as bad as that in Peterhead, and in some cases I understand the figures are even worse. The Town Council of Peterhead estimate that the total purchasing power among the unemployed in the town has already been reduced owing to the Regulations by between £400 and £500 per week which is very serious in a town of that sort.

This is a point which I wish to put to the Minister and on which I would like to have a reply. There is no doubt whatever that under the new Regulations the payments now being authorised by the Unemployment Assistance Board are definitely below the public assistance level. What is going to happen about that matter? Hon. Members above the Gangway suggest that it means that the public assistance level will have to be brought down, but I do not think that will be done and I do not think it ought to be done. Therefore an impossible anomaly seems to have arisen. My right hon. Friend suggested that in some parts of the country there had been laxity of administration. I do not doubt that but I will not admit that there has been any laxity of administration in the North of Scotland and no complaint has ever been made and no suggestion has ever been made of sending commissioners to the North of Scotland at any time or by any Government. As a matter of fact I think my right hon. Friend well knows—as also does the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—that experiments recently conducted in Peterhead by the Government have proved that there has been during the last three years and that there is now, a great deal of undernourishment among the children there. I do not believe that there has been any lavishness in the distribution of transitional benefit in Peterhead. I do not believe that there has been laxity of administration.

I would draw the attention of my right hon. Friend and of the Committee, to the conditions which prevail all along that coast. I speak for my own constituency because I know it best. I think everybody admits that the herring fishing towns in this country are distressed areas if such areas are to be found anywhere. They have been going through a terrible time—just as bad as South Wales and in some ways worse—during the past two or three years. The fishermen do not qualify for unemployment insurance proper. The areas are not scheduled as distressed areas and therefore do not get any advantages or benefit from the new policy of the Government or from the commissioner who has already turned down various schemes put up to him on the ground that these districts are not in the schedule of distressed areas. What, then, do they get? They get only these paltry allowances in place of the old transitional benefit.

The Parliamentary Secretary when defending the refusal of the Government to grant unemployment insurance proper to the fishermen, told me that they would be far better off under Part II of the Unemployment Act. He assured me of that. How can I go to these people and tell them that they will be far better off when they are suffering cuts ranging from 2s. 6d. to 18s. 6d. per household per week? These men are much praised. Everybody has heard tributes to their quality and character. Everybody knows that they constitute the basis of the auxiliary reserve of the Fleet in time of war. I say without hesitation that there are many of these men who will not go to the public assistance committee until they have practically reached the point of starvation. I could bring case after case. No one who visists these places—I have not been to South Wales, and I dare say conditions are as bad there—nobody who visits Peterhead and Fraserburgh and those places on the east coast of Scotland, which I know so well, and who sees the conditions under which the fishermen and their wives and families are living, can deny that the poverty is terrible; and nobody can have the face to get up at that Box and defend any reduction in the amounts that were paid to those men who come under Part II.

I think the Prime Minister ought to be here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fetch the Prime Minister."] On the facts as I have received them in regard to Peterhead and Fraserburgh, the new administration is brutal. I can use no other word. The cuts are brutal. I think that the question of rent is very largely responsible, and I have reason to believe that this applies to the whole of Scotland, for I think that very much the same conditions are prevailing in the west of Scotland. I do not believe that the Regulations in regard to rent have been properly administered, and the Government ought to look into the question as it affects Scotland. The rents in Scotland, particularly for the poor fisher men class who live in cottages of the most modest description, to put it mildly, have never been high. These people should not be asked now to make a great sacrifice, as they are being asked so far as their benefit is concerned, simply on the ground of rent, any more than they should be asked to pay 10s. for the wretched houses in which in many cases they are compelled to live. The rent question is operating very unfairly all over Scotland. You will not give the fishing population unemployment insurance proper, and now you make these cuts because they are not charged 10s. a week for the miserable houses in which they are compelled to live.

I ask the Government, What is the economic justification for these cuts? We are rightly told that this country has made a great advance during the last two years. Take any test you like. Take the number of people in work, or wages, or the prosperity of industries all over the country; take the building trade or the level of Stock Exchange shares; you will find evidence on all sides of a substantial industrial revival for which the Government deserve very great credit. Is that a reason for cutting down the unemployment benefit of the worst-hit classes in the country as against what they were receiving two or three years ago when we were at the height of an economic crisis? I do not see the justification for it from an economic point of view. The Prime Minister is not here. He used to make political capital out of the fact that he was brought up among these poor fishermen of the north-east coast of Scotland. He has never raised a finger on their behalf, and I do not expect anything of him now.

I expect something of the Minister of Labour, however. He is always sympathetic in these social matters, and the House and the country know it. I remember fighting the Economy Bill in 1925 side by side with him—a Measure which I think now was a mistake. I am certain that if he and his Parliamentary Secretary were on the other side of the House they would be fighting these Regulations because they are not fair and not right. I do not believe that, at any rate so far as my own constituency is concerned, the Minister can ever have intended that they should operate in the way that they are doing. If the facts are as given this afternoon a case has been made out ten times over for an immediate review of the situation by the Government, especially in connection with rents which affect the position in Scotland. I do not want to oppose the Government or to be factious or difficult, but it is our duty to put these points if we see our constituents being battered, as I think my wretched people are being battered. Who wants them to be battered? I do not think the Minister wants them to be, nor the financiers nor the industrialists. Who wants these Regulations to be harsh, as they are in their present form? I do not think anybody does, and I appeal to the Government to review the situation as quickly as possible.

5.36 p.m.

I find myself in sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). Only yesterday I was in my constituency and made an inquiry into the whole position. I make allowance, of course, for the fact that the Regulations have only just been put into operation and that it may not be fair to judge what will take place. Like my hon. Friend who has just spoken, however, I did not contemplate that there was even a remote possibility of such cuts being made as are now operating in the Dumfermline district of burghs. A very strong feeling has been aroused, and one can quite understand and appreciate it. It is not very long since I spoke in the House on the restoration of the cuts and remarked how much more money would be in circulation because the unemployed would have more to spend, but I do not think I should be honest with the Government, or with my constituency, or certainly with myself, if I did not say that I look at the position which has arisen as a result of the administration of the Regulations with the most genuine concern. I spent a considerable time on Saturday getting accurate figures of the allowances that used to be made by the public assistance committee and those which are now made under the new Regulations. I can only say that I was startled by the result. I shall be glad to give my right hon. Friend particulars of those cases, but I have no doubt he will be supplied with them from elsewhere.

I followed the various debates on the Unemployment Insurance Act and heard the Minister speak at various times. I formed the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that, generally speaking, the conditions were to be better, and not worse. The late Minister of Labour had the kindliest feelings and a genuine, deep sympathy for the unemployed, and I cannot believe that he himself knows how these regulations are working out. I cannot tell whether it is the fault of the administration or whether the mistake liesin the Regulations themselves, but they are working out in the harshest possible manner. In an interview which I had on Saturday with a deputation of the unemployed at Cowdenbeath I was informed that the increased allowance now being given for the child is to cover any allowance which was previously given for clothing and boots for school children; in other words, that that allowance has been withdrawn as the result of the increase having been given. I should like to hear the Minister's view on that point. I was also informed that any allowance for rates formerly given to the unemployed was to be withdrawn and I should also like to hear the Minister on that point.

I am speaking as a consistent supporter of the Government, and I should not be doing my duty as a Member of the House if I failed to inform them of the strength of feeling existing with regard to the operation of the Regulations. It seems to me inevitable that a revision of the scales will have to be made. I do not know how we stand from a Parliamentary point of view towards the Unemployment Assistance Board. I am not going to use the strong language employed by another hon. Member and refer to it as the national board of guardians, but I am sure that if the cases are properly presented, the board, as well as hon. Members who have definite evidence of how the scales are working, will see the absolute necessity of a revision at the earliest possible date.

5.42 p.m.

I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour speak on many occasions, but I have never known him to speak so much with his tongue in his cheek as he did this afternoon. I have always looked upon him as a fighter for the views he holds, but I am satisfied that he felt this afternoon he had a difficult case to justify the administration under these Regulations. I spent 10 years of my public life close to case papers. On occasions I have had in a single sitting to go through as many as 1,700 cases of able-bodied unemployed. I was not disappointed, therefore, with what has taken place under these Regulations from 7th January up to date. When the Act was before the House the Parliamentary Secretary and Sir Henry Betterton, in replying to arguments put from this side, left the impression on the minds of hon. Members that when Part II was operative the unemployed generally would not be worse off than they were then. There is no doubt about that, and if any evidence is required, I need only quote the Parliamentary Secretary on 5th December, 1933, when he used these words:

I do not mind confessing straight away that in certain parts of the country members of the political party to which I belong, serving on public assistance committees, have tried to treat the unemployed in something like a decent way. In 1920, when these matters were under the jurisdiction of the late Sir Alfred Mond, a representative from this House came down to Sheffield to tell us that unless we reduced our scales of benefit for able-bodied unemployed we should get no sanction to borrow any more money. The scale was reduced, but it was never put into operation, because the moment intimation was given that it would come into force there was such indignation among all classes of people in the city of Sheffield that the then Lord Mayor and Sir William Hart came up and saw the Minister of Health, and were told to go back to Sheffield and advise the board of guardians to rescind their previous resolution. The indignation created then will be nothing to the indignation which will exist in certain parts of the country as the result of these Regulations.

The right hon. Gentleman said that we could not call to his attention areas in which there had been any mistakes, or many mistakes, since these Regulations have been in operation. I have here the case of a man who, without having had any previous notification in any shape or form—his house had not been visited by any investigation officer—found when he went to the Employment Exchange that a substantial reduction had been made in the allowance formerly allotted to him. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is in accordance with the spirit of the Regulations? I have here another case in which a man had 32s. under transitional payments and is now receiving 4s. He suffered a reduction of 28s. a week simply because one of his boys happens to be earning a little more this week than he earned a few weeks ago. Here is another example of what is taking place. It is the case of a father and mother, with seven children under 13 years of age and two boys working. In that particular case 8s. a week has been knocked off, and the man says that he cannot for the life of him understand how the allowance has been calculated.

He was receiving £2 before and he gets 32s. now. Of the two boys who are working one is earning 17s. 4d. a week and the other a little more than £1.

I wish the hon. Member had to try to keep a lad or a young man of from 18 to 25 on 10s. a week. We should see what a mess he would make of it. In another case, concerning a man and wife with two children, one aged five and the other eight, the allowance has been reduced from £1 9d. 3d. to 7s. 6d. When the man went back to ask indignantly why the reduction had been made then, without any further inquiry, the 7s. 6d. was increased to 13s. 6d. That does not look as though we had a well-oiled machine working. Either the 7s. 6d. was right in the first instance or it was not. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) mentioned the personal requirements of the young men. Let me give him another case. A widow was drawing a widow's pension, 10s. a week, and the public assistance authority gave her 5s. in addition, making 15s. Her son was drawing 17s. a week as transitional payment. That made a total of 32s. This boy has had 7s. knocked off his 17s. because it is considered that 10s. is sufficient to maintain him.

Here we have another case. The right hon. Gentleman ought to pay some attention to these matters. It concerns a man and wife with a child of 18 months, who are living with the man's father-in-law. The father-in-law is an intermittent worker, working three days a week, and he is not a big wage man. The man's allowance has been reduced from 17s. to 10s. He said to me "What on earth am I to do, Mr. Smith? Am I to sponge on my father-in-law? He has not got sufficient for his own needs, without having to keep me and the wife and the youngster." Cases of that kind are causing tremendous indignation up and down the country. Why on earth should the man who marries the daughter have to sponge on the daughter's father, who himself is working only about three days a week and has not sufficient to maintain his family as they ought to be maintained? I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is living in a fool's paradise if he thinks these Regulations will be acceptable to the general mass of the people who are out of work in industrial areas. No. Those people have committed a crime—the crime of being out of work for a long time, the crime of not being able to find a job or lucky enough to retain one. Because they draw money from the State they are subjected almost to an inquisition. They are subjected to one of the most cruel and brutal means tests that ever I have known, although there are other people, in affluence, drawing money from the State to whom no means test is applied. I say that what is taking place under these Regulations is an absolute scandal, and I make no apology for being hostile to them, I was hostile to the Bill, and I shall be hostile to the Regulations until we get better treatment.

Another question I wish to ask the Minister is, What is the position of a woman in receipt of a pension for a son killed in the War? On page 30 of the new Circular issued this morning explanations are given dealing with old age pensions, contributory pensions and non-contributory pensions, Army Reserve pay, Navy Reserve pay, and Air Force Reserve pay. I am glad to see the First Lord of the Admiralty present, because he is a great patriot, and knows the quality of the lads in all three Services. Possibly he knows some of the reserve men. When these reserve men draw their money at the end of the quarter they are not to have it for themselves; it has to be "taken into account." I want the Minister to be perfectly frank on this question of the pension received by a mother in respect of a son killed in the War. Has the whole of this pension to be taken into account, or only part of it? I know of cases where the whole of it has been taken into account. Further, I know of a lad in one of the Fighting Services who has allotted 5s. a week to his parents out of his meagre Service pay. Because he has allotted that sum to his parents his allowances under these Regulations are reduced by 5s. That kind of thing is taking place all over the country.

A good deal—the major portion—of the indignation is due to the fact that insufficient is allowed in respect of people who are living within the family in respect of which there has been an application. The allowance of 10s. for a young man over 21 years of age who is working, even in addition to one-third of the first £1 and one-quarter of the remainder, is absolutely inadequate. It leaves him with nothing in his pocket. It does not permit him to clothe himself as he wants to be clothed. It leaves him nothing out of which to make provision for getting married. It allows him nothing with which to enjoy himself at the week-end as he ought to enjoy himself after working. It is doing nothing more or less than breaking up homes. I recall that 30 years ago Anti-Socialist Union speakers used to say that the Socialist party stood for the breaking up of the home life of this country. The Government are doing it with these Regulations, and I say here and now that they ought to be withdrawn. There ought to be a time limit put to them, or they ought to be withdrawn.

We are told by the British Medical Association that they are going to write a cookery book for people with small incomes. In my experience of physicul-ture I got to know a little about calories, and I challenge the British Medical Association or any hon. Member on the other side of the House or elsewhere to draw up a cookery book giving meals which will nourish the body as it ought to be nourished and which can be purchased by those who are in receipt of the allowances under these Regulations. There is talk about 3,000 calories. The late Sir Alfred Thompson, in a book published by the Caxton Publishing Company, stated definitely that a healthy man, working, would require 10,000 calories in 24 hours. Look at the country as it is to-day under its white mantle. Picture what it means to a mother in an industrial area who has to get up at five o'clock in the morning to try to prepare a warm breakfast for those of the family who have to turn out at six into the rigours of this winter. What kind of breakfast can be produced? There is no question of providing fish and then bacon and eggs or bacon and kidneys, and things of that kind. It just cannot be done. The marvel is how some of the women make the money eke out. They are proving themselves to be real economists. I say that these Regulations are not good enough. They are proving too harsh, and are arousing tremendous indignation. There is a demand for a revision of them from all classes. Since 1931, the means test has stunk in the nostrils of thousands of people, but these Regulations are even worse. When transitional payments under the means test were assessed—I say this to the right hon. Gentleman without the slightest apology—some hon. Members were paying as much as three guineas per week for sleeping quarters and some spent more in a day than a family receives to keep a house going for a week. If those who made the Regulations and hon. Gentlemen who voted for them had to live on them for three weeks, they would either withdraw the Regulations or commit suicide.

6.1 p.m.

The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and other hon. Members on the Opposition benches have put forward a case to which the Minister of Labour himself has said he was going to give consideration. Disturbed thoughts have been expressed on all sides of the Committee as to the way in which some of the new formulas are working out, but the Minister said in his speech that he would review the situation and keep it under constant consideration, and that he would give a report on it to the House. I therefore do not think that the over-stressing of the case by the Opposition is doing any good. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They may think so, but as the election gets nearer and the life of the Government draws to a close, more forcible declarations may be made, always based upon exceptional cases and drawing general conclusions. I have heard such speeches here for five years. There was a threat from one Member of the Opposition of violence and of revolutionary demonstrations. If one has a sound case I do not think that it does any good to overstress it in that way. There are anomalies and the Minister has said that he is going to review them forthwith.

We have heard very little about the increases in payment, as to which the Minister gave statistics in his speech. He said that he had seen an analysis of decreases and increases in regard to a particular return, and that in one case the increases were greater than the decreases. Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to quote exceptional cases, but they should not ask the House to draw general conclusions from them. Something like £3,000,000 more is being distributed in transitional payments under these Regulations than before, and the money must go somewhere. It does not go to the Civil Service as one hon. Member suggested, but into the pockets of certain classes of the unemployed. Hon. Members of the Opposition ought to be only too glad that there are increases, instead of moaning all the time about people who are suffering from anomalies which the Minister has promised to review at the earliest moment. They do a disservice to their constituencies, although they may think that they are gaining electoral support.

One of the statements made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street has general support throughout the country. There is a body of feeling in the churches and the non-political associations, as well as among people who owe allegiance to no political party, that the Regulations should not be operated to cause large, general reductions in unemployment benefit. I have analysed some of the effects in my division and I rather think that the rent formula is not working out as we expected it would. That may or may not be the case, but I suggest that we should give the Regulations a chance to work for a reasonably short period, in order to get a better perspective as to where the faults lie. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street was grossly unfair to the appointed chairmen of the boards. I can quote an instance of a gentleman who had been connected with the Conservative party in my area, and if the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street knew him I think he would agree that this gentleman is eminently suitable for the post. The gentleman has given a great deal of time and thought to the social welfare of the community, but he was ruled out because he happened to be conected with my own political party. Would Opposition hon. Members agree to ruling out the people who belong to their own political party from the post of chairman? The Opposition object because they feel that there are going to be Tory chairmen, but they would be jolly glad if they thought there were going to be Labour chairmen. The Regulations as laid down are for the benefit and the general welfare of the unemployed and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street does scant justice to gentlemen who are taking up these appointments.

The gravamen of the complaint is that anomalies are boiling up. Let us give the Regulations a chance. It is up to the House as a whole—though one despairs of the Opposition—to accept, in the spirit in which it was offered, the Minister's promise to review the anomalies and to see that any faults which are showing are put right. The unrestrained declamation of the Opposition will find its own level among the unemployed of the country, who realise that the Government are endeavouring to alleviate their lot and—this is what the Opposition always forget—that those efforts should be far outweighed by efforts to put industry on its feet and to give the unemployed permanent employment and some happiness in the future, which the Opposition always fail to give by every policy which they pursue.

6.8 p.m.

Most speakers so far have assumed that the very grave hardships in the working of the Act in some areas—and some of the cases cited have been staggering—have been due to those who are administering the Regulations. We should be fair, and we should recognise that by far the greater proportion of the cases of hardship are probably more due to the Regulations themselves than to the administrators. I wish to speak for a very short time upon one aspect of the case. In his speech the Minister said that those who were without resources altogether would receive the greater part of the benefit and most previous speakers have dealt with the question of the assessment of resources. I suppose there is general agreement that, where the Regulations have been an improvement upon past practice, the greatest improvement is with regard to children's allowances, but on that point the country has to a considerable extent been misled. When I spoke in this House on the Regulations, I gave the fullest credit to the Unemployment Assistance Board for the fact that there were substantial increases in children's allowances, taken by themselves, over what had usually been given by local authorities in respect of children, at least in the case of the smaller families, but a claim has been put forward, and great publicity has been given to it, which is not borne out by the facts. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour was defending the Regulations he said:

"The allowance for the married man without children and the allowance for the married man with children are both equal to or in excess of what are regarded by the British Medical Association as the minimum requirements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1934; col. 1221, Vol. 296.]

The "Times," evidently basing its statement on that remark by the Minister, said in a leading article next day:

"In every case the scales are above the minimum standards for food, fuel, clothing, cleaning, light and rent laid down by the Nutrition Committee of the British Medical Association."

The last bit of that statement is obviously a mistake, because the British Medical Association did not assess anything but food. But take the Minister's, own statement: it is simply not the case that the scales in almost every instance satisfy the standard laid down by the British Medical Association. On the contrary, when a family is living wholly on the scale, and where the question of resources does not come into the case at all, if you bring the British Medical Association standard up to the present cost of living and compare it with the scale allowed under the Regulations it will be found that there are deficits varying from a few pence to something like 11s. in the case of a man with five children.

The hon. Lady is now discussing the Regulations, but they have already been disposed of by the House and are not now before us for consideration.

I appreciate that we are discussing the administration, but may I point out that every speaker has attacked the administration? We have to be fair. We are being asked to vote money for the administration; am I not in order in pointing out that the scales are causing great discomfort and dissatisfaction and that a large part of that dissatisfaction is due to the Regulations themselves and to the scales, rather than to the administrators?

The hon. Lady has already pointed out in Committee that it is not fair to blame the administrators. We are not now discussing the Regulations.

Some speakers have argued that we are not to vote money for the administration because the Regulations are being administered badly. May I not defend the administrators by advancing the thesis that the inadequacy of the amounts which they are giving is due to the scales? However I will not enlarge upon that, as I want to obey your Ruling. I wish to put in my protest.

May I point out further to that Ruling that when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour introduced this Vote he raised the whole question? The matter was slightly discussed by the Chairman of Committees, but since that time there has been a very wide discussion on the question of whether some people were getting more and others less. That obviously brought us to dealing with the scales themselves and all through the evening that is the the line which the discussion has taken. I hope that you will not rule out a discussion which has been in order up to now.

The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the Chair in these discussions is in a position of some difficulty. Part of the Regulations, and the scales which the hon. Lady was discussing, have, in point of fact, been approved by Parliament, but I understand from a publication which I—and I expect other hon. Members—have received this morning that there is in those Regulations a good deal of variation in administration. I have no desire to curtail discussion, but the hon. Lady was really going back to matters which Parliament has already settled. As long as she keeps to the point of how far these Regulations may be modified by administration, she will be in order.

I think you will see that it is very difficult indeed to discuss adequately whether the administration itself is satisfactory unless one can discuss whether the dissatisfaction which has been aroused has been aroused by mistakes on the part of the administrators or by the text of the scales themselves. I want to lead up to a direct question as to the way in which the administrators may use their powers. The Parliamentary Secretary, in discussing the scales laid down, said:

I do not want to elaborate the relation of the scales to minimum physiological needs, because I realise that it is very difficult to discuss that question at length without going outside your Ruling, but I hope we shall soon be able to issue some reply to the criticisms which the Parliamentary Secretary made of a document issued by the Children's Minimum Committee. I would point out however that the public have been very considerably misled on this subject, and I think that that is partly the reason for the discontent with the administration. For example, when the public first saw that basic rent was to be on a sliding scale, which increased with the size of the family, I think everyone thought at first —I confess I did myself—that that was a very reasonable concession. If the family was larger, it was, of course, necessary to pay a higher rent, and I thought, therefore, that such a family was being given a larger sum with which to pay it. The truth is that the basic rent scale is a rather subtle way of taking back something which the increased children's allowance gives. The basic rent scale increases with the size of the family, and in effect the children are expected to pay a bit of the rent out of their allowance.

It works in this way: If a man with only two children happens to be paying a rent in excess of the basic rent for a family of that size—I think that in that case it is 7s. 6d.—he gets something in excess because he is paying a higher rent of, say, 10s.; but if a man with a large family is paying 10s., then, because the basic rent has gone up with the size of his family, he does not get any addition on account of the excess of his rent over 7s. 6d. Therefore, the actual effect of the sliding scale of basic rents is to make the children pay a little bit out of their allowances. Another thing which makes the larger children's allowances partly illusory is the arrangement by which 1s. is taken off for every member of the family in excess of five. I believe the truth is something like this, that over a large part of the country, where the public assistance authorities have had a very low scale of assistance, and especially in the case of families where there are no other resources, the present scales will be found to yield a considerable increase; but, as many other speakers have shown, they will also mean a considerable deficiency over other large parts of the country, and in no part of the country can it be maintained for a moment that the scales fulfil the promise, held out by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary when the Unemployment Bill was going through Parliament, that all the needs of a family other than medical needs would be met out of the scale. I challenge the Minister or the board to produce the basis on which their scale has been made, and to show that it enables families, quite apart from the question of assessment of resources, to satisfy their basic minimum needs according to the estimate of those needs laid down by the British Medical Association or any other scientific body.

6.24 p.m.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words to the Minister this evening. I am at a loss to understand what is really the power vested in the board, and why we are discussing the problem here to-day if the House of Commons has no authority whatever in the matter. As I understand what we have already done, that appears to be the position of the House. We can only move a reduction of the Vote in order to give expression to our thoughts and opinions, which have been most forcibly uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), in language which was not too mild but which was most applicable to the subject. As to the question of the interpretation of the Regulations by the board, I am fully convinced that the Minister is sincere in coming to the House, and is just as anxious as his predecessor to do the right and proper thing. That is my humble opinion, and I give him that honest criticism in regard to what I think of him. But I have another point of view that must be expressed. The whole system, as I see it to-day, is not humane; what is going on is against the canons of public decency. It destroys the morale of the recipient, and the low standard to which they are now brought is degrading to the unemployed.

During the discussions on the Bill and on the question of the framing of the Regulations, those Members of the House who took any interest in the Bill said that it was going to be a just Bill, and a latitude was going to be extended that would remove it from the scope of Bumbledom. We were told that the Poor Law was about to disappear, that the old régime which had been going on since the days of Elizabeth was now happily ended, and that the respectability of a National Government was about to be brought into play and the unemployed were going to be dealt with under a new scheme and a new plan. I have been for 14 years on a public assistance committee in Liverpool, and I say here and now that your system, administered under a National Government, is the most damnable and iniquitous system that has ever been introduced since the days of Elizabeth. There has never been anything like it known in the land, and any administrator of public assistance relief will remind you that you have now reduced the people to such a level that, even in a scientific age like this, the greatest culinary experts of the day would not be able to find the food with which to feed the people on the money that you now supply. It is becoming a subject of academic discussion now how fine an art it is to live on the sustenance allowance of a National Government.

We do not find the Prime Minister anxious to take part in these Debates. It seems to be unique in any matter affecting the people to find anybody responsible here except the Minister in charge of the Bill. But the country seems to be in a state of ferment. I must say to the Minister, much as I admire his talents in many ways, that the motto of "No change" is a mockery to many of the people in my district. During the last fortnight I have been visited at my home by 30 or 40 people, all complaining of the low level to which they are now brought, and of the iniquity of these Regulations. To me, regulations carry no weight unless they carry responsibility. Whom am I to blame? Am I to blame the Unemployment Assistance Board, as being the authority with full power vested in it to deal with these matters under the Act and do whatever it likes? Or must I only come to the House of Commons and sit silent—which would be unique on my part—and vote simply because the Minister says that there is a good time coming and everything in the garden is going to be lovely? That is of no use to the people of a great city who are unemployed. It is not tolerable. I would sooner have the opportunity of telling the Minister in this House that the time has come to inquire into these Regulations and the inhumane way in which they have been worked.

I have been in one or two cities during the vacation, and have heard distressing accounts in regard to reductions. The whole life of the unemployed is becoming a damnable thing. The conditions in the homes of the poor are becoming such that the people will certainly revolt. I am not revolutionary in the sense of bringing people into the streets to fight for their rights, but a position is being arrived at where men and women in Liverpool are brought down to a standard at which it is not possible to live, and, whether it be church or chapel that sounds the voice in this Christian country, it must certainly say that the people are not being given adequate treatment. Under the Poor Law there is power to give adequate relief to those who require the things of life. If a family is not getting enough to eat, have I not the power to go to the relieving officer and tell him to step in, otherwise they will die and he may be charged with manslaughter? Has there been a repeal of the Poor Law by the Unemployment Act? If proper assistance is not given by the board, have we not the power under the Poor Law to give a subsistence allowance? It is unpalatable to me to say the things I am saying, but I must ask the Minister to consider the position in which we are and to pay attention to the voice of Members of the House. I pay attention to these people when they come to my door in Liverpool, and I hope that expressions here will be heeded. Anyone who comes from Lancashire will recognise that it is a fair and just claim on the part of those who are being inhumanly treated by the Assistance Board and its Regulations, which are denying the subsistence of life to many of our people.

6.34 p.m.

We have heard during the Debate a good many expressions of strong language. The hon. Member who has just spoken has referred to the damnable and iniquitous treatment that has been meted out to the people on transitional benefit by these Regulations, and we have heard other equally strong expressions of opinion. One hon. Member complained of the Regulations affecting a man who had a second house under his control, or even a single house. As I read it, it means that, if a person owns a second house or a house of his own, the only alternative would be that someone else who owns a house or a second house would have to pay for the upkeep of those dependent upon him. Another hon. Member spoke of a father-in-law having to pay for his daughter and son-in-law. He did not say whether they were living with the father-in-law. The real alternative is that, if the father-in-law has a big enough house and does not keep his son-in-law and daughter, some one else's father-in-law will have to keep them. We have heard a lot about hard cases, but we have heard far too little of any examination of specific cases. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and I addressed a public meeting in my constituency and we were considerably disturbed at the number of complaints that we got, so much so that I took the very great trouble of making a very large number of inquiries into cases that were brought to our notice. I found that the stories that were told at the meeting were in a large number of cases incorrect. To give one instance, a man complained of the degradation of being kept by his wife, degradation which, I am sure, any of us would feel who were in that position The statement was that he had only £1 a week and a son earning 10s. and they were given no determination of any kind. I found as the result of my inquiry that for a considerable portion of last year the wife was earning 35s. 10d. We have to accept these stories with a good deal of reservation. It is my invariable practice to inquire into specific cases of grievance in my constituency, but for hon. Members to talk about the damnable and iniquitous way in which the Regulations are being used, without taking the slightest trouble to make inquiry—

I said that 30 or 40 people came to see me at my home, and another hon. Member cited case upon case. Surely the hon. Member does not want them all in detail!

Has the hon. Member been to the Unemployment Assistance Board to inquire into those 30 or 40 cases?

Is the hon. Member aware that the Assistance Board refuses to allow anyone to accompany the applicant?

Was the hon. Member present when the man was having his case determined?

When I called at the assistance board I had nothing but courtesy, and they told me that if any of my constituents had any grievance they would give me the full facts of the case. I have not yet been able to find a single case of legitimate grievance which has been put to me, but a number of the stories told me were incorrect. Before the hon. Member declared that the system is damnable and iniquitous he should have found out the true facts of the case.

I have known some of these people for years, and I know they are truthful, and reductions have taken place. That is what I consider to be damnable and iniquitous.

Possibly some reductions have taken place, but has the hon. Member also made inquiries as to increases that have taken place? In my division there are not as many increases as decreases, but there are a very large number of increases. Let us come to a little bit of common sense. Do hon. Members opposite, does the Leader of the Opposition, approve of fraud? Do they approve of people saying their weekly income is only £1 a week when it is 35s. 10d.?

I understood the hon. Member to say that the person concerned had 35s., and I just had a doubt in my mind as to what his earnings were at this moment.

The wife was earning 35s. 10d., and in their declaration to the assistance board they declared their in come at £1. Does the right hon. Gentle man approve of fraud of that kind? Why does he support his hon. Friend who, without the slightest investigation—

Really my hon. Friend is a little unreasonable. We are not discussing the question of fraud at all. We are discussing the question of these Regulations and their administration. They are being administered in my constituency extremely harshly. There are many cases of serious reduction, and practically none of increase. You may say that my constituents are fraudulent and I am a liar. I deny both suggestions.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend made inquiries of the assistance board. If he did, he might express a rather different opinion.

I wish to make a suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary. The notices which are sent out with the determinations showing, at the end of the week, what a man is to receive, are rather crude and do not show exactly how the determination is arrived at. I have written, as has my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon, to Sir Henry Betterton on the matter. If the notice showed exactly how the deter- mination was arrived at, it would get rid of a great deal of the grievances and misunderstandings of which we have heard to-day. In some districts where the area is very narrow and largely populated, it may be easy for a man to go to the local branch of the Assistance Board, but in a division like mine, which covers an area of something like 12 or 14 miles, it is almost impossible either for the officer of the Assistance Board to go into the district where the man lives, or for the man to come to the place where the board is located. The Minister could get rid of a great deal of this trouble by having it clearly stated on the notice of determination how and in what way the determination has been arrived at. The criticism to which I have listened to-day is wholly unfair, and not worthy of serious consideration.

6.47 p.m.

I should like to reinforce the point which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer). Because people make a complaint to them, Members of Parliament should not rush into this House and make a great demonstration in the hope of impressing their constituents, unless they have first of all taken the trouble to investigate the cases properly. This scheme came into operation only on 7th January, and, in any event, certain mistakes were to be expected. It applies at the present time to 750,000 people. The complaints are rather patchy. There is not such a high proportion of unemployment in my constituency as there is in the constituencies of many hon. Members. I do not know the numbers in my constituency, because the Exchange area covers two constituencies and the fringes of some others. I imagine that there are about 2,500 on the live register. The proportion who have not exhausted benefit is smaller still, so that, relatively speaking, the number of people on transitional benefit would not be very large. I do not know whether any grievances have arisen, but I have not received a single complaint up to now, and my constituents are not backward in communicating with me when in trouble. They have every opportunity. I have spoken to other hon. Members of the House and find that many of them have not had any complaints; on the other hand, several hon. Members say that they have had a great many.

My experience is that Members of the House, irrespective of party, look after their constituencies very well. I do not think that anybody need complain that a Member of Parliament does not pay attention to the wishes of his constituents. Therefore, it would appear that there is a certain amount of patchiness. I was surprised at this great outburst of indignation, in particular, from the lady to whom the hon. Member has referred. Somebody commented that it was a terrible thing that a man should be expected to depend upon his wife. His first claim is upon her rather than upon somebody else's wife. When all is said and done, this public money comes from somebody's husband or wife, and, therefore, let us be frank about it. The first claim of a person is upon his own relatives before asking anybody else's relatives. That is a truth we ought to recognise. If we are to spend on the present basis of unemployment £3,000,000 more, then, on balance, people are to be better off rather than worse off. This proposal is very much more generous than any submitted to Parliament in 1924 when there were three Unemployment Insurance Acts passed, and more generous than proposals submitted from 1929 to 1931, during both of which periods the cost of living was substantially higher than it is now. The scale is much more generous than anyone dreamed of 10 years ago, and more generous than any scale brought forward by any Minister when the party opposite were responsible, though not more generous than proposals put forward by the party opposite without any responsibility. I am talking about what was put forward when they were in a position to take action. These charges seem to be grossly unfair. When a new organisation comes into being—though it may be that the personnel is the same—it has to administer a new set of Regulations, and they are of necessity rather complicated. I should require to do several weeks of hard study before I satisfied myself that I was giving a fair interpretation of those Regulations. All this talk of violence, revolution and the rest of it does not seem to be the right thing yet. Let us clear up the initial administrative difficulties which have arisen.

I reinforce the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. Like him, I have written to Sir Henry Better-ton urging that the assessment form should at least be as clear as the Income Tax form, which is not saying very much, I admit. They do not tell you how much Income Tax you have to pay without telling you of your allowances. The Income Tax form is a means test. You have to disclose a lot of information, and it is to your advantage to say how many children and dependants there are, whether you are insured and other things of that nature. They are all put on the assessment form, although, I agree, the forms are not always very easy to understand. You are told how much you have to pay, and you can check it. At the moment the man who has had an assessment from the local office of the board is merely told what he is to receive, and there is no opportunity whatever of checking it. Consequently a complaint is brought and there is no means of testing the validity of the complaint. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to the board the extreme desirability of the form containing a statement of the calculation to show how the assessment is arrived at, so that if there are cases of complaint, it will be possible to test them and find out whether the Regulations are really harsh or not. At the moment we are at a great disadvantage, because we have only the rate or figure and not the basis on which it is arrived at. I would again press this matter upon the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary.

6.55 p.m.

The only part of the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) which really satisfied me was that part where he indicated that he was not going to let the revolution start yet. I hope that when the time is ripe he will give us word, but perhaps it will not come from him. It is not a satisfactory way for hon. Members, who happen to represent constituencies where either unemployment is not very great or, administration is easy and gives them what they want, to approach this House in a comfortable way and suggest that everything in the garden is really lovely from their Own experience. They should hesitate to suggest, when other hon. Members are producing an experience of another kind from their own constituencies that there must be something wrong, that they have not made due inquiry. I cannot imagine why such a suggestion should be made. People naturally deal with the effects of any great social Measure such as this primarily from the way in which it is brought to their notice from day to day by the people to whom they are responsible. They are likely to make searching inquiries before they bring anything to this House. The hon. Member for South Croydon has no ground whatever for suggesting that any of the complaints to which several hon. Members have testified are in any way inaccurate.

I do not think that the hon. Member has been here all the time. I have been here all the time, except for a few minutes, and the wildest statements have been made from many hon. Members. There was no indication that the bulk of them had investigated the cases. The experience of the only Member who had taken the trouble to investigate was clearly, that many of the charges that had been made were unfounded.

If the hon. Member takes credit for having been here a great deal of the time, I am afraid that he has not been listening. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) gave the most detailed cases which he had taken the trouble to identify and check. The hon. Member for South Croydon shakes his head, and I must leave the matter to the hon. Member and his hon. Friend. The details given on that occasion conveyed to every Member of the Committee that the hon. Member had taken the greatest trouble before he brought the facts before us. Reference has been made to the speech of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), and I should not have thought that any one of those statements is very reassuring on this occasion. I think I am not misquoting him when I point out that he said that the cases of increase which he had found were not as great in number as the cases of decrease. He stated that quite definitely. So that was what he really expected when the Bill passed its Third Reading. Was the prospect opened to us by the speakers on behalf of the Government on any stage of the Bill, that, when we came to this, the first important occasion on which we have an opportunity of reviewing the Measure, one of the few Members who succeeded in finding anything to say for the administration of the proposals, at present finds that the decreases are greater in number than the increases.

I am not inclined to take the easy way out suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour). I am glad the hon. and gallant Member has returned to the Chamber, because I am about to devote attention to a few of his remarks. He said that we must be patient for a while, but it is not we on these benches who have to be patient. It is the people in respect of whom the decisions which are being made are a matter of day-to-day existence. If they are suffering from injustice, they cannot wait three weeks or three months in order to get it put right. We have to give the Regulations a chance. We have also to ask whether the Regulations are giving other people a chance. We are told that we must not quote exceptional cases. If he listened, as I am sure he did, to a good many of the speeches which have been made this evening, he must have realised that in large areas at any rate the cases are not at all exceptional. There is the question of miscalculation with regard to the proposal to take rent into consideration. This applies over large areas wherever the rents are on a certain general level. The hardship produced by a feature of that kind cannot be taken as an exceptional case at all. In any event, it will be of very little comfort to a man who is in dire misfortune and hardships, and near the edge of starvation, to be told that, after all he need not worry because his is an exceptional case.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but he appears to have misquoted me twice. What I said was that while hon. Members were entitled to quote exceptional cases they were not entitled to ask the House to draw general conclusions from them. I said that the working of the rent formula might lead to specific grievances, but because specific grievances might be caused by the rent formula that does not justify a wholesale condemnation of the scheme. The hon. Member also misquoted me as regards saying that everything is quite all right. What I say is that if you allow a reasonable time to elapse you might be able to correct anomalies in a more satisfactory manner for those whom we are anxious to help than by hasty action.

I do not think I have misquoted the hon. and gallant Member. I was pointing out that Members have to come to this House with cases of great hardship to try and get things altered at once, because there can be no question of patient waiting by these people. There are cases which are urgent. With regard to the other point, I can only repeat what I said, that the very nature of some of the cases which have been complained of show that they are not the result of any particular administration of the Act by a particular officer. The nature of these cases and the fact that they are spread very widely over an area, a mining area for example, show that the causes for the reductions go far beyond the discretion exercised by any particular administrator.

I think I shall still be in order in discussing such general matters as the administration over a wide area of the Regulation which deals with rent, because we have to remember that the primary duty which is put upon officials under this Act is to assess need. There is the duty to do that in each individual case. I remember having somewhat of an argument with the Solicitor-General on this point during the Debates on the Bill. It was then brought out quite clearly that this assessment of need is the paramount consideration and that the strict letter of the Regulations in other respects can be overridden by officers if necessary in seeing that they fulfil this primary necessity of accurately assessing the needs of the people who come before them. If it can be shown in any case that need was not properly assessed, that is a matter of maladministration as well as a defect in the general rule. There is a widespread feeling over vast areas of the country on this matter, and I can assure hon. Members that it is not just got up for the occasion by malcontents, but that it is a spontaneous expression of widespread popular feeling. If, during the Debates on the Bill, we could have known that on the first occasion when we came to consider the working of these Regulations we should find this widespread hostility in the country, it would have been a great shock to those supporting the Unemployment Bill and the Regulations. I remember myself suggesting that I was afraid that, as the result of our abandoning our Parliamentary responsibility to an outside body, we might well find that the general scale of assistance would be reduced to the level of that previously given by the harsher local authorities. Similar suggestions were made from above the Gangway and from these benches.

The general line taken by supporters of the Government then was that we must not be ready to assume that these reputable people would not administer the Regulations in a perfectly humane way. Further encouraged by speeches from Ministers, Members supporting the Government generally, and I think genuinely, assumed that the result of these Regulations was going to be a general improvement in the condition of the unemployed. When we look round to-day to find that general improvement, where do we see it? The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) assures us that there must be improvement somewhere. I have been trying to find it; I shall be very glad to know where it is. I still hope we may see things get better, but I rather sympathise with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan); I am not at all sure what our powers of suggestion in this matter are under the working of the Unemployment Act. Now that we are discussing an Estimate we can bring cases to the attention of the Minister, but it is not the Minister now who is primarily responsible for dealing with this matter. The responsibility rests with the Unemployment Assistance Board. At this moment when we have an Estimate before us we can discuss the matter, but it seems to me that we have very little power of control. We have parted with that to another body. I think we are seeing to-day the first-fruits of our abandonment of our responsibility.

I do hope that the Minister will undertake some general review of the working of the Regulations so that he may assure himself, as the result of the experience gained so far, whether these Regulations are really working as he expected or as he would desire. With regard to the question of rent, I think it is obvious that a miscalculation has been made. I think that if the matter was properly reviewed, it would be found that the grievances which existed with regard to the assessment of the family income are not being relieved by the administration of the present Regulations. The heart-burnings and breaking-up of families to which reference was made previously are still going on, practically unchecked. Although the board has been set up as a kind of screen in front of the Government and this House, I do not believe that the people will allow us or the Government to evade our responsibilities in this matter. They will continue to hold us responsible, for we are their elected representatives; and, if they cannot look to us for assistance, I do not know to whom they are to look.

7.8 p.m.

A point upon which great stress was laid during the passage of the Unemployment Bill and when these Regulations were before the House, as an argument in their favour, was that people were to be taken off public assistance, and were to come under this new scheme. How ironical it is that now when the Regulations are seen in force, not only are vast numbers of men being placed in a worse position than they were before the Act was passed or the Regulations made, but that a great many of them are now to receive actually less than when they received public assistance. If public assistance was the test of need, surely there was no possible room for any reduction upon it. One sees placarded all over the country at the present time that unemployment is lower, that employment is better, that trade is better and that exports are better; while at the same time one sees that under these Regulations the conditions of the unemployed are in many cases worse.

There were certain areas where public assistance was given on a generous scale, and consequently transitional payments were given on the same scale. There were other areas where the public assistance scale was not so good, but by some means the public assistance authorities managed to give to the unemployed in transitional payments a rate which was more than the public assistance scale—which was of course illegal. There were other areas where the public assistance scale was low and where the transitional payments scale was correspondingly low. It is obvious that when that state of affairs existed, there must, now that uniform Regulations have come into force, be large numbers of reductions in the allowances in some areas and increases in other areas. On the part of the North East coast with which I am most intimately associated we, having had a low public assistance scale, naturally have a substantial number of increases; but, even although that scale was so low, we have a great many decreases also.

The areas in South Wales, about which a great deal has been said in this Debate, are now experiencing for the first time the real "cuts" which we on the Tyne have been feeling for the last three or four years. They are feeling the real burden which we have been feeling all the time. To us who have been suffering so much all this time, it is all the harder to feel that at this time of day a large number of our people are being still further reduced in their circumstances. In Newcastle, conditions in regard to the administration of public assistance were so bad that the Minister of Health actually had to press the local authority to increase the scale. In view of that, I suggest to the Minister of Labour that it must have been obvious that there was no scope at all for any reductions on those allowances. The trouble is that before these Regulations were made the public assistance scale and the transitional payment scales were far too low and ought to have been considerably higher.

There are two matters which can be dealt with as subjects of administration to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. One of them has been emphasised by some speakers already, and that is the question of the rent allowance. This is a matter for discretion. The same basis is laid down for the town as for the country, and that obviously implies that there is great scope for the exercise of discretion in the matter. You must expect the house that you get for 5s. in country districts to be vastly different from the house that you would get for 5s. in a large industrial town. If people are paying only 5s. rent in an industrial town to-day, that means that they are suffering great inconvenience and probably distress through insanitary arrangements and other defects. These matters should be looked at, not from the point of view of reducing the unemployment assistance allowances, but rather from that of increasing them. The people who are paying 5s. rent for a more or less tumble-down dwelling in a large industrial town are saying that they are having to pay by the reduction of their unemployment assistance allowance for the people who are getting more money because they are living in newer and better houses and, consequently, receiving more money because of rent allowance. There ought to be no reduction because of rent in large industrial towns. It may be taken as an absolute axiom that if the rates are low, it means that the people are living under conditions which ought to be altered. This can be done as a mere matter of administrative instruction. If as a matter of administration, directions are given that there shall be no reduction because of rent in any cases in industrial towns, we shall not be placing the particular people concerned at an advantage as compared with people living in agricultural areas.

There is a second point that can be dealt with in regard to administrative instruction, and that is the allowance for man and wife. Since the Act came into force, the allowances in many places in Northumberland have been raised in the case of unemployment assistance or transitional payment to 26s. for a man and wife, although the public assistance scale is only 24s. That was done for a very important reason. It is absolutely essential in the case of able-bodied men that they should be kept in such a position that they can maintain their physique ready to re-enter the labour market if opportunity arises, and it was felt that 24s. was not enough. That appears to me to be perfectly right. When we remember that an enormous percentage of people in depressed areas have been unemployed for long periods, it is seen at once why that additional sum has been given. The whole household needs replacement. A man who has been unemployed for five years or more, as a great percentage of these men has been, has not been able to spend anything upon the maintenance of his home. It is essential that there should be a proper replenishment of the home and clothing, and that is expressly provided for in exceptional circumstances by the Regulations. These are exceptional circumstances. Whenever a man has been unemployed for four, five or six years he is in exceptional circumstances by reason of that fact, and there ought to be a larger sum given in these cases for man and wife than is given in normal cases where a man has a reasonable amount of employment or has not been unemployed for such a long period. These are cases where an increased amount ought to be given, where men have been unemployed for more than a limited period. That can be done as a mere matter of administrative instruction by indicating to the board that these are special cases and ought to be considered upon that basis. I would ask the Minister to see that that suggestion is conveyed to the Unemployment Assistance Board.

7.20 p.m.

Hon. Members had perhaps some justification for reminding us in their speeches that the Unemployment Assistance Board has only been functioning for about three weeks and that therefore some of the criticism which is being levelled against it is premature. I note that there has been a stream of criticism from some hon. Members who voted rather enthusiastically for the Regulations when they were being discussed earlier. The hon. Members who have sought to defend the Government or the Unemployment Assistance Board, the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour), the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) reiterated in their own way the remarks of the Minister in his opening speech. I want to examine two of the arguments which the Minister put forward as an explanation or as an excuse for what the Unemployment Assistance Board have done in this short spell of administration.

The first argument of the Minister was that probably cuts were taking place because in those areas there had been lax administration. I think that that was the phrase he used. He told us that he had reminded the House at a previous stage that it was to be expected that in such areas there would be reductions when the board got to work. I do not know whether the area from which I come can be regarded as an area in which there was lax administration. I have been familiar with the making of transitional determinations ever since public assistance authorities took over the matter. I have been a member of the public assistance committee of the Nottingham County Council during the whole period. The Nottingham County Council is a Tory county council. In the initial stages there was in one area what the Minister would perhaps describe as lax administration. The Minister of Labour intervened, and the result was that the Nottingham County Council, being a Tory county council, set up a revisions sub-committee to revise all the decisions made by the guardians area committee. The revision sub-committee did their work very thoroughly. I do not think that anyone would contend that in my area during the last 18 months there has been anything that could be described as lax administration, because all the determinations have been supervised by the revisions subcommittee, composed mainly of Tory members of the county council, who have gone into the business very thoroughly.

Like many of my colleagues and other Members of the House I live in my own constituency. I do not want to exaggerate, but during the last 14 days there has been a constant procession of men to my house who have received the most drastic cuts, and not in an area where there has been lax administration. Nobody could bring such an accusation against that area, at any rate in the last 18 months. I have gone to a great deal of trouble, with the scales before me, to try and relate the determinations which have been made to the scales and in scores of cases I could find no relationship at all between the determinations which have been made and the scales. While I was trying to do that there came into my mind what the Minister said when the draft Regulations were going through the House, and what the Parliamentary Secretary said. They reminded us that applicants for assistance from the Unemployment Assistance Board have no statutory right to these scales, that the officers of the board have all the time an overriding discretionary power, that the scales have been merely set up for the guidance of the officers of the board, and that "no applicant has any statutory right to the scales set down. As I have said, in scores of cases I can find no sort of relationship between the determinations made and the scales. Therefore, the first argument put forward by the Minister and by other Members of the Government to-day that the cuts are mainly taking place in areas where there has been lax administration will not stand examination. The cuts are taking place in areas where there has not been lax administration. They are part and parcel of the general process of cutting down the levels of subsistence which have been previously allowed to large sections of the unemployed.

The second excuse advanced by the Minister and hon. Members who have sought to defend what has happened is that this is a piece of new machinery and that at the beginning there is bound to be friction. I do not know what has happened generally but in my own area the people who are doing this work have been doing it for the last two years. They have been taken over more or less bodily by the Unemployment Assistance Board and are quite familiar with the job. There is no justification for the argument that what has happened is due to the fact that this is a piece of new machinery and will not work without friction in the initial stages. I put it to the House quite frankly that the Minister's defence this afternoon of what is taking place was wholly inadequate and that the defence put up by hon. Members supporting the Minister is equally inadequate.

There has been an accusation levelled against us on these benches, particularly because of a speech made by the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) in which he called attention to the growing feeling against the Unemployment Assistance Board and the determinations that are being made, and in which he stressed the discontent that is springing up in various parts of the country. They are not given to demonstration in my area. They do not usually do things like that where I come from, but I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary and the Committee that even in an area where we do not have great mass demonstrations there is a revulsion of feeling against the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board in so far as it has gone and sooner or later it is bound to take forms which the Government and their supporters will not like.

I have never been one of those who thought that in the main we established our system of social insurance or set up the new Unemployment Assistance Board primarily for humanitarian reasons. That is not the main motive which has actuated the building up of all this machinery. It has been done, in the main, to maintain social peace. That has been the main motive. The humanitarian motive has played a part, but the desire to maintain social peace has been the real reason, and I am convinced that the section of the unemployed who are now suffering most by the administration of the board will never get their grievances removed unless they demonstrate and express their feelings. If they thought there was any menace to social peace the Government would buy them off by easing the Regulations. That is the way they have always dealt with the problem, but it is the meanest and most miserable manner of dealing with the problem of the unemployed. Unemployment is no crime, it is a misfortune, due to the social system in which we live. I ask: Cannot this great wealthy country mete out more humane treatment to these people than is being meted by the administration of the bureaucratic body we have established? We were told that this was putting the coping stone on a great social edifice; we were led to look forward to a sort of new Jerusalem for the unemployed. A new Jerusalem, indeed! They have been suffering bitternesses and hardships during the last few weeks which they have never experienced before, and those responsible will reap the harvest they are now sowing.

7.32 p.m.

Last Friday week about 80 per cent. of the people in my constituency who came before the board suffered a reduction. I have done all in my power to get at the facts, and I have confirmed my figures. What worries me is that I cannot explain why it has happened. When we were discussing the Regulations I had a mind to say that they were not good enough; and, as a matter of fact, no one could possibly estimate over a week end the effect of the Regulations. We made the best of it. I am not blaming the Minister or anybody else; it was an impossibility. As far as we could see, the Regulations regarding children would work out well, although it was impossible to give any real figures. Along with other Scottish Members I objected to the 7s. 6d. We do not know what a 7s. 6d. rent is in the poorer parts of my constituency; 2s. 6d., 3s., 3s. 6d., 4s. 6d. and 5s. is generally the rent—

Not perhaps as well as the hon. Member knows his. There is no doubt that the rent factor of 7s. 6d. is telling badly against the applicant. In the second case it may be that in the consideration of cases of boys under 17 years of age is all right, but to take one-third of the first pound and one quarter of the second pound, where the earnings are, for example, 40s., accounts for a fairly large number of other reductions. In the third place, we were all pleased to see some difference was made between an immediate relative and a less distant relative; but the difference in practice is not much; it only amounts to about 2s., but this more distant relationship which is not recognised in ordinary law is telling hardly in a percentage of cases. These are the three main factors accounting for the deductions. The Government may be doing well, and I say they are, but this is a very serious thing. You can do what you like to restore trade, but these people are going home with smaller sums of money, and they cannot go to the Poor Law. They are not allowed to go to the Poor Law. I know from evidence that you can go right through the Regulations and not find any method for using discretion in some of these cases. I have tried. There is, therefore, something wrong. But I am not going to crab the whole scheme on that account. We have done our job when we bring to the serious attention of the Minister the fact that there is a question which requires urgent attention. The thing is not going to work out. It cannot. Certain cases can be relieved, but there are one or two things which are fundamentally wrong, and the three factors I have mentioned account for some of them.

I want to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know who worked out the rent factor, but in a previous Debate it was pointed out by the hon. Member for Willesden West (Mrs. Tate) that the thing was illogical; and she has been proved to be right. Some of us wanted to know what was an average family. There is no such thing as an average family; and, as for an average rent 7s. 6d., in any case is far too high. I am putting these points, because it is my business to present the facts to the Committee; otherwise, there will be definite suffering, and there is no immediate step that can be taken to remedy that suffering. We are not dealing with methods of presenting forms, but with the food of the people, and there are many people who cannot supplement their income except by charity. I do not say that they will all be on a starvation basis, but there are many cases where it is impossible for them to get any supplementary benefit, and I hope the Government, therefore, will hold an immediate inquiry, or that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some answer to the hard facts which have been put before him. We want to see the other functions of the board put into operation; it was not established merely as a board to dole out money, but as a body to re-equip the people to take their part in industrial life. That part cannot come into operation the day after to-morrow. The unemployment policy of the Government in regard to the depressed areas cannot come into operation at once. But we are dealing with immediate suffering and unless something is done there will be a great deal of trouble in my part of the world.

7.41 p.m.

We have had a rather surprising speech from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay). No one has supported the Government more slavishly than the hon. Member. We on this side were under no illusions at all as to the effect of the Regulations upon persons in receipt of transitional payment, but the hon. Member has now to admit that the number of cases in his constituency in which assessments have been reduced is no less than 80 per cent. Yet he supported the Regulations.

I have already explained that. It was quite impossible to foresee the result, and I made a protest at the time.

And I have no doubt that the hon. Member will proceed to do again what he has always done, and will support the Government notwithstanding the fact that he knows the full effect, or at least some of the most serious effects, of the Regulations upon the people whom he represents. I should like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the district represented by the hon. Member cannot be said to be a district where there has been any laxity in fixing the amount of transitional payment by those responsible, yet there has been a reduction in 80 per cent. of the assessments for transitional payment made by the public assistance committees. The Minister of Labour, when referring to those districts where there has been laxity, no doubt had South Wales in mind, and I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will take up a great deal of time in his reply in referring to what has taken place in South Wales during the last three years, particularly in the districts of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, and in the county borough of Merthyr Tydvil. As a representative of a division where there has been a generous interpretation of the amount of transitional benefit let me say that those responsible for it, as well as myself, have no apology to make for what has been done. As far as they are concerned, and as far as I am concerned, we have never felt that 26s. a week is too much for a husband and wife who are unemployed. I have never held that 17s. a week is too much for a single unemployed man, and I think that any public assistance committee, or Unemployment Assistance Board, or Minister of Labour, who thinks that they should have less are depriving the people of something to which they are justly entitled.

From the Debate the Committee will realise that it is dealing with one of the greatest human problems which can confront it. There are nearly 4,000,000 people in this country who are now coming under the control of the Unemployment Assistance Board. That is an estimate which was once given. Those 4,000,000 people are to be controlled by Regulations of which we have had experience for the last three weeks. In my own district in South Wales, the area which was covered by the investigation of Sir Wyndham Portal, no fewer than 75 per cent. of the men who are unemployed have been unemployed for a period longer than 12 months, and they have come under the control of this board. During the whole of my public life, which goes over a very long period, I have not known such resentment against the action of any local authority or any Government as has been displayed against these Regulations.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) mentioned a demonstration of nearly 100,000 people in the Rhondda—people who met spontaneously to protest against the Regulations. They were not all persons who are suffering a reduction under these Regulations; they were not all unemployed. It was a demonstration made up of unemployed and employed, representatives of the churches who are concerned about the social consequences of these Regulations and the fact that almost every household in South Wales will suffer not only a reduction in income but a complete break-up of the family life. With that the Church is very seriously concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) read a very striking letter which appeared in the Press this morning, not from the Member of Parliament for that division, not from any Labour or Socialist organisation, not from any political organisation whatever, but from 23 representatives of the Christian Churches in the area of Merthyr Tydvil. That letter was a striking commentary on the effect of these Regulations upon the people. What can be said of Merthyr Tydvil can be said of every other area in South Wales.

Since I have been a Member of this House I have not received as many protests from ministers of religion of all denominations, Catholics, Anglicans and Nonconformists, and from all kinds of people, as I have received on this matter. They are all at one in opposition to these Regulations. That can also be said of the traders. For the first time I have had the two chambers of trade in my division protesting against the action of a National Conservative Government. They foresee the full effect of these Regulations upon their business. Business people are already hard hit as a result of the very low spending power of the people, but they are going to be very much worse hit as a result of these Regulations. No fewer than 5,500 people in my division have passed out from transitional payment and now come under the control of this board. From personal investigation and after being in contact with the people who will suffer reductions in that poverty-stricken area, it is safe to say that the Regulations will mean a reduction up to £1,500 a week in the spending power of these people.

I say without hesitation that the application of these scales is brutal. The scales apply to people who are already impoverished by periods of unemployment varying from 12 months to five or six years. They are people who have no resources whatever. They have taken all that they can take from the other members of the household. They are broken in spirit, impoverished, struggling to keep body and soul together, and here is this further imposition. I care not what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) says about the Regulations not meaning starvation, for I maintain that thousands of people in my division will be in want of food as a result of the application of these Regulations.

I wish to deal with one or two cases brought to my notice. It cannot be said that they are exceptional cases. Like the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown), I live in the centre of my division. I have had from 300 to 400 people who have been adversely affected by these Regulations at my home during the last three weeks. I have not yet met a single person who has received increased assistance. [An HON. MEMBER: "They would not come to you!"] An hon. Member says they would not come to me, but evidently he does not know the working people. They would come to me; they know me well enough, and I know them. At a meeting that I held on Saturday of last week I asked any one of the 30,000 people present to hold up his hand if he had an increased payment, and not one did so. A person called at my house on Thursday of last week. He was a respectable hard-working man who has spent 40 years of his life underground and has done his best for his children. He has had that dread disease nystagmus, and cannot get employment. He has been unemployed for two years. He has a boy in college. There is one son working. It is rather a large family. As a result of these Regulations the household income has suffered a reduction of no less than 31s. a week.

There is another case of a man with six children, two of them boys who are working. One thing I cannot understand about this Assistance Board. It assumes, in accordance with the Regulations, that apart from the personal allowance and the deductions from a man's pay every penny which a single man earns goes into the resources of the household, irrespective of whether that person, a single man living at home, is 21, 31, 41 or 51 years of age. If he earns £3 a week his personal allowance is 6s. 8d. from the first pound and 5s. from the second and third pounds, which makes a total personal allowance of 16s. 8d. After deductions from his pay it is assumed by the board that he contributes every penny that is left to the resources of the household. The board cannot understand what is taking place in working-class homes. I should say without hesitation that more than 60 per cent. of the single men over 25 years of age living at home pay a weekly sum to their parents towards the maintenance of the home. I know that in a number of cases, after deducting their personal allowance and something for clothes, they pay in the remainder to the household; but I think it is safe to say that 60 to 70 per cent. make their weekly contribution of 25s. or 26s., and in some cases perhaps 30s., and not the whole amount, as is assumed, after the personal allowance and deductions out of their pay.

Here is another type of case, the case of a man who is living apart from his wife. There is an order of the court against him for the maintenance of his wife and child. He is unemployed. He has gone back to his mother, who is a widow, and there is another unemployed son. But there is also a son who is in employment and getting a fairly reasonable salary. This man who has an order of the court against him for the maintenance of his wife and child has had a nil assessment. No allowance at all is paid to him. But he is under a definite obligation to find £1 a week for the maintenance of his wife and child. He is refused assistance. His brother has not only to maintain himself, but his widowed mother and another brother who is unemployed. There are many similar cases. Another person who saw me had an order of 10s. a week against him for the maintenance of his wife. Because he is in a household living with another relative he has been assessed at 10s. a week. Therefore, if he pays in accordance with the order of the court for his wife, he will have nothing with which to maintain himself.

The local officer under the board has been interviewed, and he has said that so far as he can see there is nothing in the Regulations which enables him to pay these persons even the amount which they are supposed to pay in accordance with the orders of the courts. I ask the Home Secretary what will be the problem of the courts in a matter of this kind. I have no doubt that proceedings will be taken against these persons because they cannot comply with the orders, and when proceedings are taken I have no doubt that the magistrates will sentence these persons to imprisonment for two or three months. It costs something like 32s. or 33s. to maintain a prisoner. But the Minister of Labour is not prepared to pay the 10s. to enable a man to maintain his wife in accordance with an order of the court.

These are only a few of the anomalies under these Regulations. It is not merely a question of the basic rent, already referred to, which is inflicting considerable suffering on the people, though that is a matter which should be dealt with. It is the question of the rigid application of the means test to the household resources. I know of nothing which is going to cause greater unpleasantness in homes than this rigid application. Young men are leaving their homes. I will state the case of two young men who called to see me last week. They were in receipt of transitional payment. In one case the father is 64 years of age and is employed, getting what is called in South Wales a subsistence wage, about £2 4s. a week. There is a son at home unemployed. He has been unemployed for two years. Taking the resources of the household into consideration, the father of 64 has to keep this young single man 30 years old, and he does not get a single penny from the public assistance committee. This young man completed a course of training in September last year. He has been to the Employment Exchange and asked them to send him again to a training camp, but because he finished his training as recently as September last the necessary interval has not elapsed, and he will have to wait, I understand, another six months before he can again be sent to a training camp. This young man definitely declared to me that he would not continue to live at home and allow his father, 64 years of age, to maintain him. He is a good respectable fellow, who has never been in trouble, but he told me that the only thing he saw before him was to steal in order to live. I said to him, "Very well; you know the consequences." If he does that, he will compel the Department presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to pay something like 32s. a week to maintain him in prison, because the public assistance committee will not pay him even the assessment of 10s. to which he should be entitled.

There is in my opinion no redeeming feature in these Regulations. Agitation in South Wales at the present time is very marked and people are endeavouring to prevail upon the public assistance committees to come to the aid of these people who are desperately in need. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to tell us whether the law is now amended so that a person who is in need and destitute cannot go to the public assistance committee to enable him to get sufficient to sustain himself? There is another question I would like to put. I think the Ministry of Labour are in some way to blame. The Minister referred to the fact that there is in the Ministry of Labour Gazette a full list of the chairmen of the tribunals set up under Part II of the Act. Is he aware that there are very few areas in which the tribunals are actually functioning, notwithstanding the fact that the board took control on 7th January? Three weeks have elapsed, and, as far as my area is concerned, there has not been a single meeting of the tribunal to deal with the numerous cases that have arisen. I cannot say that I see very much use in the tribunals, but still a great deal has been made of their powers, and the one newspaper in South Wales which supports the Government has endeavoured on that ground to justify the Regulations.

I find that very few of the officers acting under the board really know the Regulations. The Minister of Labour, when the Regulations were introduced, dealt with the discretionary power of the officers under the board and said that they would be able to do this and that. I doubt very much whether the officers acting under the board in South Wales at any rate have used their discretion in 1 per cent. of the cases brought before them. I do not think that in their instructions they have been made acquainted with their full rights as far as discretionary powers are concerned. Those on this side of the House who opposed the coming into operation of the board and who opposed the Regulations can see what is the motive of the Government in treating young men as they are now being treated.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock rightly said that the framing of Regulations and the administering of assistance were not the only functions of the board. We agree. The training camps are to be set up. This is an attempt in my opinion to force a number of these young men into training camps because no one in his senses would say that a young man can be maintained for the amount allowed under the Regulations. The object is to make it almost impossible for young men to live at home. I can see in the future an army of casuals tramping this country from end to end, and that army of casuals will be made up of these young men for whom no assistance is provided.

We on this side of the House say without hesitation that these Regulations are unworthy of the Minister of Labour, that they are unworthy of any Government, that they are unworthy of the Unemployment Assistance Board which was primarily responsible for bringing them into operation. I am amazed, knowing the personnel of that board, that the members should have allowed themselves to be charged with such inhuman treatment of people who are entitled to something better. I doubt very much whether they have consulted a single local authority. They could not have consulted any representative opinion in the districts where the greatest suffering is felt; otherwise, they would not have come to the conclusion that the amounts laid down in the Regulations are sufficient to maintain these people.

I would ask the Minister of Labour to take into consideration all that has been said, and I would ask him to go to these districts himself. I ask him not to seek the opinions of persons representing any particular political party, but to go down to the district himself and ask the representatives of the churches, the representatives of the trades, the representatives of professional men, to ask any representative men what they think will be the effect of these Regulations upon the morals and upon the physical condition of the people who live in these districts. I beg him to take these Regulations back. They are unworthy of him, unworthy of the Government, and unworthy of the board. There is arising in South Wales quite spontaneously a movement the like of which I have never seen previously. That movement is growing, and as far as I can see is likely to spread through the whole country. We ask the Government to give way upon this matter now rather than wait until they are compelled to do so by the pressure of people who feel that they have been unjustly treated by the Government and the board bringing into operation Regulations which must mean starvation to the best type of people in the country.

8.10 p.m.

I feel at a certain disadvantage because I have not been able to listen to the whole of this Debate, and therefore I have not full knowledge of what has been said. I should like, however, to refer to one remark of the hon. Member who has just sat down. No real fault can be found with his speech on the score of moderation, but I must take exception to his statement that there is no redeeming feature in these Regulations. I think that is scarcely accurate, because there are many redeeming features which I may mention as I go on with my speech. In the second place, I want to refer to the speeches of the hon. Member for South-West Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and other Members who I think said that they have had few representations regarding the working of the Regulations. For the last three weeks I have been closely investigating this question, and I want to say that that is not my experience. I have had experience of much discontent at the way the present Regulations are affecting my constituents. As a loyal supporter of this Government, I believe that the basis of the Act is right, and that the basis of the second part of the Act is right; that is, that assistance should be given to persons who are in need having due regard to their reconditioning for entering into industry. If I thought that these Regulations violated the principle laid down by the Act, I would give them unremitting opposition. But I am hopeful that there will be adjustments which will largely mitigate what is happening at present. There have been diverse methods of administration in the past, differing between the Tyne and the Wear and the Wear and Tees-side, which were not very desirable. They were not good either for the applicants for assistance, or for the country. It is a great feature of the present Act that we have arrived at some kind of uniform administration.

That is not what I said. I said uniform methods of administration. If the Regulations prove to be harsh and severe, and there is not the least doubt that they are harsh and severe in some respects at the present moment, then in the interests of humanity and of everybody it is the duty of the Government to adjust those hardships.

What, with a Prime Minister like that? A Prime Minister who would double cross his own aunt?

I want to be perfectly fair. In my constituency there are 50 per cent. who have suffered decreases so far. There are 25 per cent. who have had normal determinations and 25 per cent. have had increases, some being of a substantial nature. I recognise that it was inevitable that changes would occur as a result of fixing the scale at 24s. and if that had been the only factor to operate I think there would have been no disquietude. Discontent has been caused by the fact that, apart from that difference, which in my area was a difference between 26s. and 24s., other factors of a material character have operated. We are here to make practical suggestions for dealing with these matters and I would like to put to the Minister certain points which I hope he will be prepared to consider and to which I hope we may have, if possible, some answer which will help us to deal with our difficulties. It seems to me ridiculous that where there is a small difference between the determination made under the public assistance system and the determination under the board that difference should be persisted in, having regard to the means and circumstances of the people concerned. I believe that even within the compass of the Regulations there are discretionary powers to deal with these small differences.

Yes, I think I have read practically everything relating to the matter. I suggest that if the Minister could make some mitigation in regard to these matters he would be taking a really helpful step. The first point which I would put to him is this. A good deal has been said already regarding the rent rule. I think it operates adversely—certainly in the North East area—and I would appeal to the Minister for some form of adjustment or mitigation in this connection. Take the case of a family of eight persons—a case of which I know. In that case the rent rule covering the 24s. to 30s. of income and the rule as to the one shilling reduction where there are more than five in the family operate very adversely and severely. That family because of sheer necessity cannot pay a high rent. They must perforce live in a house at a low rental with the result that in the assessment under the new Regulations they suffer twice—on account of the low rental and also on account of the number in the family—with the result that in their case an adverse determination has been made. In such a case there should be the possibility of an adjustment so that the family under those conditions would not suffer a lower determination than that which it had under the public assistance committee. My next point is perhaps best illustrated by mentioning a concrete case. I take the case of a man and his wife with a small child and a father-in-law living with them. The man was earning a wage of about £2 12s. 6d, with the result that the rule as to the 7s. 6d. rent applied and the father-in-law got a lower determination. Surely that is wrong and surely that is a matter which requires adjustment.

I am only mentioning that case as embodying the principle which I wish to put before the Committee. My point is that within the Regulations themselves there should be the opportunity of making adjustments to meet the cases of people who in such conditions receive lower determinations, The last point which I would put to the Minister is a more difficult one and is one which would mean, perhaps, a complete alteration of the Regulations or might even involve legislation. I put it, however, to the Minister with real serious ness. There is nobody in this Committee who could have clearly defined what would be the result of the deduction of one-third in respect of the first 20s. of earnings—

Hon. Members opposite said in an ambiguous way that they thought it would work adversely but nobody said to what extent it would work adversely. The truth is that what we have to do now is to try honestly to get some method of helping those who are affected under the present system in these cases. That rule may work up to the first 20s. and it may work fairly well up to the first 30s., but in regard to the first 40s., 45s. or 50s. it is going to create a position under which it may possibly pay a young man to find quarters for himself somewhere outside his own home and I put it to the Minister that that is a serious consideration. This Govern-does not and never could stand for the disintegration of family life.

I would be much appalled if such a result would arise out of these Regulations which, I admit, are entirely new but which we must not judge too precipitately. As a supporter of the Government I am in favour of giving the Ministry every chance to administer them to the fullest extent. But I say seriously to the Minister that if under present conditions there is no some relief or adjustment in cases such as I have mentioned, it may be necessary to fall back upon the exceptional rule which would be a very serious matter. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give careful consideration to the points which I have made. They are put forward by one who is intimately connected with and who understands his own constituency and I hope that there will be a statement promising some mitigation of the difficulties arising in these cases.

8.25 p.m.

There seems to be general agreement that three weeks may not be sufficient to prove how the Regulations will work out ultimately, but it is clear that three weeks have been sufficient to show that they have meant a heavy reduction in thousands of cases throughout the country. The Minister tried to explain that by the fact that in some parts of; the counry there had been lax administration, and he referred with some pride to the fact that in Lancashire things were different and that a good percentage of the applicants were enjoying an increase. If that be so, may I remind the Minister that it is because of the harsh administration in Lancashire prior to the Regulations. If he is going to take credit for any increase in Lancashire as the result of the Regulations, I want to emphasise that had the previous administration been as generous there as elsewhere there would have been no increase under these Regulations. There is not a county council in the country that has treated the unemployed on transitional payments with such meanness as that of Lancashire, and one is not surprised that a good percentage of the applicants may receive some increase. Even in that county, following upon the harsh administration, there are some reductions in consequence of the Regulations.

I did not think it would be possible for reductions to take place in that county, and I thought that every applicant, if there were a change at all, would have a change upward. A number of cases in my division have been brought to my notice of fairly substantial reductions because of the Regulations. I am not going to give individual cases because I do not think it necessary. I think the Minister will realise that we who live in our division would not come here and say there were reductions if there were not. I could read letter after letter giving the size of the family, the ages of the children, and the amount of reduction. The reductions in Lancashire are due largely to two or three causes. The first is the question of who are members of the household. In Lancashire, especially among the miners, the people are accustomed to take in a number of lodgers, some having some relationship to the household, it may be a brother to the wife, or a cousin. We find that in many cases, simply because the brother-in-law to the unemployed person has a substantial income, large reductions are being imposed. We can hardly believe that the Minister intended that where a brother-in-law, or a brother, or a cousin happened to be lodging with an applicant, his income should decide the amount of allowance to the unemployed father of a number of children. That is actually happening in Lancashire and is resulting in reductions.

The rent formula in many parts of the county is working to the disadvantage of many applicants. In many places there are houses of a poor character, and I should think that the fact that families are condemned to live in such houses should be considered a ground for increase and not decrease. A man and wife with no income previously were receiving 26s. They are now receiving 24s. less 2s. 6d. reduction owing to low rent. And that happens in a county where the Minister expected there would be increases. The working of the rent formula will need investigation. If the Minister wants it at all, it must be much lower than the present. The question of the number in the household will also need revision. Even when the Minister has done all that, the amount which the unemployed person will get will not be very great. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about Lancashire, I hope he will not forget that it was the county areas which were suffering from harshness. We have in that county a number of boroughs governed by Labour majorities, and in those places substantial deductions are being imposed. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) could inform the Committee of reductions varying from 6s. 6d. to 17s. 6d., and the hon. Member for St. Helens (Captain Spencer) could give worse cases. The county areas may receive some advantage under the Regulations, but a sum almost equivalent to the amount they receive will be lost to the boroughs. Three weeks may not be sufficient time to determine what the Minister ought to do, but I hope he will bear in mind that there have been reductions in Lancashire, that the rent formula has accounted for many of them, and that the method of assessing the family income is one of the main causes.

8.32 p.m.

Owing to the fact that last night I was addressing a meeting on these Regulations and I found it impossible to leave the meeting before I had interviewed practically everybody in the audience, it was impossible to catch the 10.30 train from Glasgow last night, and I had to travel this morning. As a consequence, I missed the opening speech in this Debate which I had arranged to be present to hear. We have been having up and down the country the schemes of various political parties to deal with the problems which face the country. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is propounding a new set of schemes. In some quarters it is said that he has not succeeded. Other statesmen have propounded schemes, and it is said that they are not catching on. The real truth is that the great masses of the people do not believe in your new schemes. You can propound them, but there is no interest in them. There is no interest even in your Housing Bill. The fact is that we have 2,000,000 people unemployed with their wives and dependents—the number is more because it turns over and is not a static amount. They know that the great problem is not some kind of scheme that is to be worked out, but how they are to live now. All your schemes pass them by.

We are discussing to-day the only issue in politics. It is the only issue. The great scheme of all Governments was to be the care and the well-being of the unemployed and to take the question out of politics. All Governments have striven and Ministers of Labour have worked, but just as hard as they strove to keep the question out of politics it remained more than ever in and became a greater problem. To-day we are discussing the only thing that matters to the mass of the people. What is the use of the Government telling the great mass of people this week that they are going to give them new houses. I addressed a meeting in my division the other night in a hall that was packed to sufforcation. We charged a penny ticket for everyone who entered. They stood round the hall and hundred were turned away. What interested that audience? It was not the prospect of getting houses. What is the use of telling people they are to have houses with hot water and electric light and no overcrowding if they have no food? It is only a mockery and a sham. If I had to choose between having a good house and living in a slum, and were sure of getting food in the slum, I would choose the slum, unhesitatingly.

To-day all these questions about education and other popular issues pass the people by because they feel the Government are engaged in a terrible conspiracy against them. I make no appeal to the Government to-night, because I loathe them. I do not see the Prime Minister here, though I shall have a word to say about him later. I expect nothing from the Minister of Labour. He does not come from the common people. He was born in another strata, came from another class and lived another life, and it is no good demanding anything from him. His philosophy is not mine. But the case of the Prime Minister is different. He gained strength and grew into power on the pennies and halfpennies of the people whom he is now robbing. Without them he would never have attained the political heights he has gained to-day. The issue that made his party great was the old "Right to work" claim. They try to "get away with it" now with talk about Geneva and other issues, with talk about banking, but that was the issue that made the party and it will be the issue that will test them in the future. Now that the Prime Minister has climbed into wealth and power and position he is using it as a mere mountebank, and he does not even deign to attend the House when this human issue is under discussion. He never comes near. At the time the people were glad to see him gaining wealth and position, and having obtained them he might at least have had the courtesy to look in to hear about the sufferings of the people who put him into power, but he stays away.

I differ from some of my colleagues over the question of possible modifications in the Regulations. I say there are no modifications possible. The Regulations are not working more harshly than we expected. I delivered lectures about them before they came into operation. I am sorry hon. Members opposite never invited me to lecture to them. It might have been better if they had spent more time on this subject and less on India. I knew that what is happening would come to pass, and I am no superman; others knew it as well. The scheme cannot work. It is not a case of giving it another three weeks to try it out. It cannot do anything other than what it is doing. In Glasgow I have had numbers of cases brought to my notice. On one batch of cases which I forwarded to the transitional payments officer I had to pay postage of 3½d., there were so many. There is the question of the breaking up of families. I see opposite the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Anstruther-Gray). One of the issues he brought forward at his election dealt with Soviet Russia. I heard him deliver a criticism of Soviet Russia, and in particular of family life there; but to-day we are engaged here in the most brutal and criminal conspiracy to smash the family life of this country. In my early days we used to be told that Socialism would ruin family life, and it was also alleged that the Socialists were going to do something about religion. What is religion unless it concerns itself with the common people and their home lives?

Take the case of a man who has lost his wife and is left with a family. He says to himself, "If I bring in a woman to be a housekeeper the fact will get about and I shall be in an impossible position." He will not be living in a big house, but, perhaps, in an apartment consisting of a room and a kitchen or of two rooms and a kitchen. He asks himself, "Who is the best person to look after my children?" If his wife had a sister, married, obviously she will be the best person. So he goes to his deceased wife's sister, who is married, and says, "I will come and share your house if you will look after my children." He takes up his quarters there. Then, if the man is unemployed, and seeking assistance, the question of the income of that family is raised. I had a case which I took up locally. It proved to be a border line case, because the house was on the border of the constituency of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), and he knows it as well as I do. Such things often happen—these border line cases. But I have also a case of my own. When such a case as I have described happens it is said of the man, "He is living with his folk." He is, but in order to do what? Not to do anybody out of any money—because if he had not made that move he might have got more money—but in order that his children shall have the next best woman to their mother to look after them. When the man has moved to his sister-in-law's house he finds that his brother-in-law, if he is working, has to keep his own family and that man's family as well. You talk about murder! Lots of men have gone to the scaffold for doing less than the Government are doing. The man walks down to the Employment Exchange to get his 23s. or 24s. a week with which to buy food, and he gets nothing, nothing.

When this case was brought to my notice I went down to the authorities and said, "Surely even this Government are not so depraved as to act in this way?" I should explain that while I raise these cases here I know the necessity for immediate action, and rather than write to London, the first thing I do is to go and have a talk with the local man. In this case it is a man called Duncan, a nice, civil man. What he said to me was, "We cannot help it. We have actually sent the case to London to see what can be done." For a fortnight the case was lying in London and in the end we found that the man was to be given 5s., a sum that has to last him for nearly three weeks. In this case there is no question of anything being wrong with the character of the man, or anything like that. You will celebrate a great Jubilee in a few months, yet you are breaking up decent men and women in that way. It is hypocrisy. You give a celebration for one man, and you rob other men, who are just as good, of even the minimum decencies of life. I do not know how men stand for it.

We all go about saying that we hope to cure disease, and we talk about the terrible scourge of tuberculosis. Two of the factors in thespread of tuberculosis are underfeeding and worry. We go out with our health campaigns, yet in other ways we do far more damage. I was addressing a meeting last Thursday night, and I noticed the lines on the brows of my audience. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said of a former right hon. Member of this House that he was guilty of the murder of children. I say to the Ministry of Labour to-night that they are also guilty of it. The Minister will get up at the end of the Debate and say that we are exaggerating. At times, for the sake of stressing a point in political discussion, we may exaggerate, but there is no need for us to exaggerate to-night. Last night I was in the Division of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay). I went down to explain the Act and just to give them the facts. I got there at half-past two and I left at a quarter-past seven. Kilmarnock is not like Gorbals, in that things are not nearly so bad and that it still has a little touch of comfort and brightness such as we have not, but there were the unemployed men, pensioners having to be paid, old men and widows their allowances being mathematically calculated in sixpences, as by a Shylock.

Look at this Estimate: "Secretary, £2,000." I look at the chairman in Glasgow, an ex-official of a Glasgow trade union. If a sitting lasts an hour and a half he gets 30s. If it lasts more than an hour and a half he gets 50s. He sits for three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon, and for sitting 15 hours a week he gets £12 10s. plus his pension. If he were a lawyer, it would be plus his private income. To another man who has possibly fought for his country and possibly given more for his country than the chairmen of all the appeal tribunals in the world, you measure out a miserable payment. There is nothing you can do to modify that contrast. Things are terribly wrong.

The Government have set up a terrible bureaucratic machine. It is criticising the House of Commons when I point out that if we were discussing India the House would be filled, as it will be next week when we debate armaments. Let us discuss some scandal—assume that a Minister or an hon. Member has got into some personal trouble and there is a scandal—and the House will be packed to hear all about it. It is a scandal that poor people should be wrongly treated. I tell the Government, as I told them before the Adjournment, that they will be lucky if they win 100 seats. Hon. Members in most places will be lucky if they get away with their lives. I see the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Lieut.-Colonel Kerr), which is not an uncomfortable place. A few weeks ago he would not have been unkindly treated there, but let him go now and he will find a change in the tone and temper of the division. He will find that the feeling has changed and not because Labour party or Independent Labour party people have been at work. The change has been brought about by a far greater force than ours. It has been done by Members of the Government sitting on that bench. The Prime Minister is the head of a Government who are doing these things to my folk, and my folk are as good as he is. He knows he is doing it, and will not come here. There are thousands—nay millions—of decent kindly souls who on a winter night in my native land are suffering as nobody can tell.

8.54 p.m.

This morning I received two resolutions from my division on this subject. Up till then I had received no complaints whatever. I came down to the House and listened to the Debate and then I telephoned to my own division and asked the Provost of one of my burghs—an absolutely reliable man—what was happening. He said that he regretted to tell me that there was a good deal of unfairness operating at the present moment. I am mentining this in order to try to help the Government to realise the seriousness of the situation. I, like, I expect, many other Members of the House, thought that the working of the Bill and of the Regulations would mean that no one in this country was going to be worse off. Certainly that was the impression that was left on my mind. There was another thing that I thought, and that was that the late Minister of Labour would have the power to deal with any cases which, under the working of the Bill, turned out to be not fairly treated. It seemed to me that there was going to be flexibility as regards the administration. Now it appears as if the whole thing is far too much a hard, cut-and-dried machine. I am in agreement with what was behind the remark of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) just now—that we must introduce more of the human touch into this question; you cannot deal with it by a cut-and-dried machine. That, I am sure, is what the majority of Members of the House thought was going to happen when the Regulations and the Bill came into operation. That is all that I have to say. I merely got up in order to impress upon the Minister, for whom I have the greatest possible respect and affection, the gravity of the situation in my own division.

8.57 p.m.

The speeches this afternoon have been very largely concerned with the difficulties which hon. Members have personally observed to exist in their constituencies with regard to the working of the Regulations, and I confess at once that whatever I am now going to say will have this general application as well as a particular application. Those of us who happen to have had a little more experience than others can generalise about the working of the Regulations, but we can all, from our personal knowledge, testify as to how they are working in the constituencies that we represent.

The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Lieut.-Colonel Charles Kerr) voiced, I think, the opinion of the whole Committee when he said that, while some have been less disappointed than others, we have all been to some extent disappointed by the rigidity with which the Regulations are working. I think it is true to say that under the present system much of that personal touch which public assistance committees had with the people whom they knew has been lost. It is quite true, of course, that in many cases the same staffs are being employed, but it is also true that in many cases the head officials of the local unemployment assistance boards do not come from the actual areas where those boards are working, and, although they may in time gain the local knowledge which is necessary for administering the Regulations with flexibility and effect, they certainly have not had time yet to do so. To expect anyone introduced suddenly from outside into a large borough of 100,000 or 200,000 inhabitants to acquire in a short time that local knowledge which is really necessary for administering the Regulations properly, is to expect too much.

I should like to support an observation which fell from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Sir R. Aske) with regard to the position of those who have been a particularly long time out of work. The hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) referred to that point, remarking that, while the Minister's reference to the large number of the unemployed who had been out of work for a comparatively short time was perfectly true, he wanted to speak about the "hard core" who have been out of work sometimes for as long as 12 years. I am in much the same case. The unemployment on the north-east coast is, generally speaking, in the coalmining, shipbuilding and allied industries, and as a rule it has been of long duration. I should like the Minister, if it were possible, to make some recommendation to the Unemployment Assistance Board that special attention should be paid, if there is any way of doing it within the Regulations, to those who have been unemployed for a long time, and who have naturally suffered more and need more attention than those who are out of work for a comparatively short time.

No doubt it is possible for someone who is out of work for a comparatively short time to subsist without physical injury on the scale laid down, but I do not believe it is possible for people who have been out of work for a long time to suffer a reduction on account of the scale without severe physical injury. Their health must suffer, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend that that should be so. If he desires, or expects, or hopes to get a large proportion of the unemployed back into work again, he must at the same time desire that they should be able to go back to work and to work effectively, and, for those who have been out of work for a long time, any reduction in their scale is going to have a very serious effect upon them physically. The hopes raised in the House—and I think that hopes were generally raised in the House among supporters of the Government—have, as we have seen from the testimony which has been offered this afternoon, on the whole been falsified. When I went to my own constituency I was cautious enough to say that there were hopes that in the case of families with children there would be an improvement on the whole, but I was doubtful about the rest of the scheme.

The difficulties under the scheme arise from three causes. The first is that the rent ascertainment has extraordinarily illogical effects in many cases. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay), for instance, has pointed out that in his constituency the rents are about 5s. I do not know if facts of this sort were known to the Minister before the Regulations were made. If they were known to him, I think he would not have made these Regulations, for there is no doubt that in many cases the reduction due to the rent ascertainment has had an extraordinarily illogical effect. I have a case here, which I know to be perfectly correct, and where the ascertainment was made correctly by the local Unemployment Assistance Board. It is the deplorable case of a man with a wife and eight children, five of whom are under five years of age. He was receiving from the public assistance committee 42s. a week, but under the present ascertainment he receives 40s. That is due to the fact that he is not paying a sufficiently high rent. It does seem ludicrous that in a case of that kind a man should suffer through what is obviously no fault of his own, and under regulations which, we were told, were deliberately designed to assist those with children. The argument at the time in favour of the new arrangement was that it was deliberately designed to help the children—that the grown-ups might to some extent be left more to look after themselves, but that what the Minister and the whole House wanted was to care for the children.

The second thing is the reduction of 1s. a head when the family is over five. There, again, I very much doubt whether the calculation about mass catering is a valid one. I can understand it being applied to families of, say, over 50, but I do not really believe that the difference between catering for a family of five and a family of seven makes it 2s. a week cheaper to do it. I do not think in our personal experience, if we have had anything to do with catering, say, for a mess in the War, or for our own families, or for a club or any conceivable kind of institution, when you get down to small numbers of that kind the addition of one or two can make the slightest difference. I think that is an instance in which the people who are affected might feel it very hardly.

The third thing that I should like to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's attention, although it is not of quite the same importance, is the case of separated couples. I have not heard it mentioned to-day but I know that it is causing a good deal of hardship. Under the public assistance committees the joint allowance, if the family were separated, was paid to the man and he had to send to his wife the money to which she was entitled and get her receipt for it. Under the present arrangement the man only gets his money and the wife has to go to the Assistance Board. That, I think, is a definite hardship and it is undoubtedly unpleasant for the wives in those cases to go to the guardians. The old system, as far as I know, worked perfectly satisfactorily. That is another thing that the right hon. Gentleman might look into.

Then there is the question—it may have been asked to-day, but I do not know the answer to it—where are we as Members of Parliament to apply in cases of extreme and immediate hardship? I can, of course, communicate with the local board, but presumably the thing does not come within their discretion, or they think it does not, and we have to apply to London—to the right hon. Gentleman I gather. Are we to apply to Sir Henry Betterton's board, and in what form and how? It would be of use to all Members of the Committee if we could be given some indication of the best way for Members of Parliament to bring urgent cases of what they think injustice to the notice of the suitable authority. In ordinary cases where a Department of State is responsible for the administration of an Act of Parliament we know exactly where to go, but in this case we are in a good deal of doubt, and it would be useful to the whole Committee if the right hon. Gentleman could clarify that point.

I do not think we have had sufficient time to-day for this discussion. I believe it would be of use to the Minister himself and of interest to the whole Committee to have heard many more personal experiences of Members in their constituencies. We have had a good number of speeches, which fortu- nately have not been long. I believe, if the right hon. Gentleman were to consult his colleagues and give us perhaps another half day to-morrow for the discussion, a great many more Members would come than have been present to-day. There has been a complaint from the benches above the Gangway that the benches opposite have not been filled. In many cases Members have not appreciated exactly what was being discussed to-day or how important it was. If they saw in the Press to-morrow that the right hon. Gentleman, in consultation perhaps with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, had allotted another half day to the discussion, it would be brought home to them how important to the country as a whole, and to them individually as responsible Members of Parliament, this discussion is, because, as has been pointed out in all parts of the Committee, the working of the Regulations during the last three weeks has disclosed a state of affairs which, although my hon. Friend below me said he fully anticipated, much the greater number of Members did not anticipate. I do not think they really thought that the particular difficulties—some have noticed some difficulties more in one constituency than in another—or so many difficulties would arise. It would be of use to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Unemployment Assistance Board if we could get made public a greater variety of experience even than there has been to-day. The discussion that we have had will, I hope, result in insuring that the grosser anomalies in the Regulations are dealt with, but what he cannot do without amending legislation is to breathe a new spirit into the Regulations altogether.

I think that in spite of this memorandum and the apparent opportunities for the elastic working of the board, we are going in fact to see unemployment assistance under these Regulations administered far too rigidly. Certainly in my experience it has been the case so far, and unless the Minister breathes a new spirit into the Regulations, and gives the people who suffer under them a far greater measure of real explanation than they have at present received, I am afraid public indignation will grow. My own experience is the rather remarkable one that, although there is great indignation in the borough that I represent, which suffers tremendously from unemployment—it is almost the worst in the Kingdom—indignation and puzzlement are equally combined. I had a meeting the other night solely devoted for an hour and a-half to questions, nearly all of which were on this particular point. The hall was packed, and there were not 25 of my own supporters. They were nearly all people who voted for my opponents at the last election and will do so at the next. They were nearly all people out of work. Many of them have been out of work for many years. We expected noise and interruption, and even possibly a row. It is a serious thing when your income is under 30s. to have it suddenly reduced, if only by a shilling, without understanding very often why it is done at all. But that was not the spirit of the meeting. They were angry and in some cases, very naturally, bitter. I remember very well one interrupter saying about some question, "At any rate they have abolished those things in Russia." I expected there to be a loud and almost unanimous cheer from the body of the hall, but there was not. Those people were not Communists or revolutionists, but they are puzzled and bitter and miserable. I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot alter the whole basis of the Regulations—and I know he cannot—he will see that they are administered with the greatest kindness and elasticity possible.

9.15 p.m.

It must be borne in mind that the Regulations have been in operation for only about three weeks. It must, therefore, be obvious to all reasonable people that it is impossible to pass anything like a final judgment upon the working of the Regulations, but it is already quite clear that the first reaction to the Regulations is unfavourable. The explanation of it is not due to political propaganda throughout the country, though it may be to some extent, but is largely due to the hopes that were created by these Regulations in people who had to come under them. I think that throughout the country it was anticipated that the able-bodied poor would find that their position in general would be distinctly better under the new Regulations than was the case under transitional payments. I said that it was too early to pass judgment because all the determinations had not been made, and I rather distrust some of the calculations made with regard to the percentage of deductions. Until we know all the determinations we cannot say in what percentage of cases there have been deductions and the exact percentage in which there have been increases.

I do not wish to trouble the Committee with any individual cases with which I have come in contact, but in my considered opinion the Regulations are operating rather harshly. There is an absence of elasticity, which, personally, I had hoped to find. The ideal way would have been that the Regulations should have worked easily, fairly and with elasticity right from the beginning. Evidently that was too much to hope for, I would far rather that the Regulations should start rather strictly and that those operating the Regulations, with some difficulty, I have no doubt, in interpreting each Regulation and each Clause in the Regulations, should stick to the letter of the Regulations and that then, on appeal to the appeal tribunal, the harshness should disappear and the machinery work more smoothly and fairly. I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who said that the machine could not work. The machine is working now. It is causing a strained feeling in different parts of the country, including my division, but I believe that when the machine is adjusted within the scope of the present Regulations and the officials exercise the discretion with which they are empowered, it will work much more reasonably. It has been said that in no case under the Regulations will anyone be in a better position. I cannot accept that statement, because the allowances in respect of children are definitely better than the flat rate allowance under the transitional payment of 2s. a head. The Minister, when speaking of the Regulations last December, gave an estimate of about £3,000,000 which he expected to be the additional cost of the allowances to be paid to those coming under the Regulations. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the estimate of £3,000,000 is based upon the assumption that the number coming under these Regulations will be the same as those previously in receipt of transitional payment. If that is so—and I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to agree—I think that the estimate of the additional £3,000,000 will be largely accounted for by the additional allowances in respect of the children.

As far as I know, very few appeals have been taken, but I would remind the Committee that the first obvious and reasonable step for any dissatisfied person to take is to appeal. The machinery has been provided. Although necessarily, if there are a large number of appeals, the determination of them will take time, but I have no doubt that test appeals will be taken and that the Chairman of the Unemployment Assistance Board will give rulings where necessary for the guidance of the Appeal Tribunal, and that after a few cases the Appeal Tribunal may rule upon a large number of cases beneficially throughout the country.

I agree with hon. Members who have expressed the opinion that the rent factor, which I thought was one of the best features in the Regulations, is not working out quite as well as we expected. The idea of making an increased allowance when the rent is above the basic rent is undoubtedly a good thing. It is a very good feature in this part of the Regulations, but if there were an opportunity of amending the Regulations later, it would be much better not to have any reduction in the amount in respect of low rent. I think—I may be wrong—that it would all be part and parcel of the scheme for encouraging people, including the unemployed, throughout the country to get into better houses under the scheme provided in the Government's new Housing Bill. There is one point which, I understand, is causing some difficulty in different parts of the country. It has been brought to my notice in my constituency. The question arises out of what is known as the "pots and pans" Clause, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the point. I understand from a reading of the Regulations that it is a reasonable provision for an exceptional payment to be made where there is an exceptional need owing to the replacement of household necessities. I also understand that there is some doubt about this in the administration, and that the allowance in some cases is only given where there has been accidental damage to household utensils. I shall be much obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary can clear up the point.

In considering the aim of the Regulations—we are not considering the Regulations themselves—it must be borne in mind by the Minister and by the Unemployment Assistance Board that the fundamental idea was not to apply a destitution test to the able-bodied poor throughout the country. The Poor Law applies a destitution test, but the underlying idea of unemployment assistance should be to prevent applicants getting down to a destitution basis, and to maintain them in such a position that they would be all the more able to return to the labour market. If that be so, the Regulations should be administered, as I hope that will be in due course, in a more reasonable and generous way than public assistance.

9.24 p.m.

We all agree with the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) and hope that these Regulations would be interpreted in a better way than they have been up to now. We all expected that. I would remind the hon. Member that those who supported the Regulations told us all that when they were before the House and that it would mean a great improvement on what had happened in the past. But from all sides we find out that that is not so. The part from which I come expected to obtain better treatment from the Regulations than any other part of the country. That was because we had been treated so badly before, and I am bound to admit that we have had some improvement in Lancashire under the new scales of assistance. When I spoke in the Debate on the Regulations I made a plea that nothing should be done to lower existing standards of relief, and that if those standards were higher than those being laid down in the Regulations they should not be disturbed. The speeches we have heard from all parts of the Committee show that even hon. Members opposite expected much better things. We are getting the same kind of complaint from Durham, South Wales and various other places. Hon. Members should have realised when the Regulations were before the House that they threatened to do what has actually happened.

I would like to draw attention to the point made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone). Will the Parliamentary Secretary make it clear to the Committee what the position of Members is in dealing with these Regulations? Just now I have been called to the Outer Lobby by certain people who have grievances. They were people from constituencies round about London who know me personally, and they came to ask what I could do to help them. I have told them that the intention of Part II of the Act was to take these matters outside the scope of the activities of Members of Parliament. They could hardly believe it, because the citizen naturally feels that he ought to come to his Member of Parliament with grievances, and he looks forward to something being done for him by a Member of Parliament. It is hard to tell people now that we have no power at all to help them in these matters, and that it is not the slightest use our trying to get these Regulations altered. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to make clear to us what our position actually is. Have we any power at all to get these determinations altered if we think that they are not as they should be?

Another point with which I want to deal is in relation to members of the household. This point is troubling many of my constituents, and I will give one or two cases which have come to my notice. A week last Saturday a determining officer, or some person sent out by him, went to a house where there resided a woman and her husband, who kept a small business. They were elderly people and they had living with them the woman's unmarried brother, aged 56, who paid board, and who under the arrangement previously existing got full unemployment benefit. The man who went to the house told the unmarried brother that the position was altered and that they wanted to know what the business run by the elderly sister and her husband was making. The man replied that he did not know, and that it was not his business to find out. He was told that there would be a nil determination against him unless he got to know. He was told that the only way out of the difficulty was for him to leave the household and lodge somewhere else. He was given three hours in which to do that. If he went somewhere else, he was assured, the determination would remain the same, but if he did not move there would be nothing for him. The same night this man went to a common lodging-house to protect himself and the other members of the household. I can vouch for that instance.

In another case, in Leigh, an examining officer went to a house where there was a husband out of work. He was a man of 60, and had a wife and three children. There was also living with him a married daughter and her husband and two children. The examining officer asked what were the arrangements. He asked if they constituted separate households, and said that he wanted to see the larder to see the division of the food. I was surprised at that, and could scarcely believe it, but I know that my informant was a man likely to speak the truth. He told me that he took the official into the buttery, as we call it in Lancashire, where the food was kept and showed him the separate compartments before he would be satisfied. The officer said that he was only carrying out the Regulations and that he had to find out if there were two separate households.

Has it come to this, that people are to be driven out of households to satisfy these Regulations? If this is all that the National Government have got to stand on at the next election, then it is God help them. Not one of their supporters will be able to get up anywhere in the country to defend this kind of thing. If they cannot defend it on the platform, now is their opportunity to take some step to try to get these conditions remedied. I agree that there may be some difficulties at the beginning of this new scheme, but when we hear instance after instance of maladministration we expect that the Government will take an early opportunity of trying to improve the Regulations. If hon. Members opposite and Members of the Government fail to take this opportunity, they deserve all they get when they go to the country. It is unfair to our people to be treated in this way. If we cannot get the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to do something, I trust that other Members of the Government will do something to urge them to get a move on. I think very few Members who have spoken are really satisfied. I do not think the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) is satisfied in his own mind, although he is an earnest supporter of the Government on all occasions, or on most occasions.

I think I have voted against the Government almost on every occasion during this Parliament.

That is very good. I am very pleased to know that we have one Member who dares to assert himself in the Lobby, because many of his colleagues talk and do nothing further. I am glad he has the courage of his convictions, and I would invite him to carry it further by supporting us in this matter.

I hope the Government will take the first opportunity of altering these Regulations, and introducing something like a humane treatment of the unemployed, so that these people may know that something at least is being done for them in the present House of Commons.

9.34 p.m.

In the early part of the Debate my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) made a complaint that certain individuals were likely to benefit in connection with the working of the Act. He said that the chairman of the Conservative party in a certain place had been given the job of chairman of one of these new appeal tribunals in his district. That totally alters my idea of what is happening. On arriving in Newcastle last week I met rather an important man who was very rude to me and started blackguarding me and the Government, saying that we had given all these jobs to the Bolshies. As a matter of fact, I believe that in my own district one of the most important Socialist representatives has got the job. I do not care whether he is a Bolshie, a Socialist or a Conservative, as long as he does his work properly and gives a fair crack of the whip to the people who come before him. It is to me a matter of indifference to what political party he belongs. I should, however, like to correct the impression that these jobs are being given to members of the Conservative party and not to the best men that can be procured.

I should like to refer to an injustice that is done to a certain class of people, the entertainment class, who pay for their ordinary stamps, where necessary, but who are not entitled to public assistance, although they are generally employable. Ninety per cent. of the entertainment class have no homes of their own. They live in apartments, in lodgings, and because of that fact they are unable to get any assistance whatsoever from the public authorities. The consequence is that entertainers living in Newcastle to-day and in Liverpool to-morrow, who finish up in Liverpool and are stuck there, out of work, genuinely employable people, cannot get any assistance from the authorities—I am not referring at the moment to the dole—because they live in furnished rooms. I have brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Health and I hope that I have made it sufficiently clear to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour this evening. Because these people happen to live in a room which is furnished, and for which they pay rent, they are not entitled and cannot claim any help. Therefore, they have to come upon the benevolent fund connected with the entertainment industry. One hon. Member said something in regard to common lodging houses. I am under the impression that if anyone occupies a room in a common lodging house there is some difficulty in their getting an allowance.

There has been in Newcastle. I am pleased to hear that it is not so, because I shall be able to take up the matter. Actors, actresses, music hall performers, circus performers, musicians, all people connected with a circus or the entertainment industry if they live in furnished rooms in a town or a city cannot get public assistance or any help whatsoever, because they rent furnished rooms. What are these people to do? They never had a home. I never knew what a home was myself until 15 years ago. I had always lived in apartments. I would ask the Minister to give further consideration to this point so that provision may be made for these people who, through force of circumstances, are not able to live in homes of their own.

9.40 p.m.

I sincerely trust that the Minister will ignore some of the advice tendered to him during the Debate. I have particularly in mind the statement made by one hon. Member that sufficient experience has not been gained by the operation of the Regulations to justify any modification, and certainly not their complete withdrawal. May I make a personal reference in view of the fact that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone) referred to a large meeting which he had addressed in his constituency. Like most hon. Members, I toured my division during the recess, and I never addressed such meetings in the division since the election of 1929. Yesterday, not organised by the Members of my party but simply by an announcement, we had a demonstration with an attendance of approximately 17,000, and most of those people had walked six, seven, eight, nine or ten miles. At the meeting there were not only politicians present but Ministers and representatives of different industries in the division, who addressed the demonstration.

I am amazed at the display of innocence by some hon. Members to-day. I would refer to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson). Anyone would think if they had heard the hon. Member for the first time that he was delivering a homily or a very pious lecture in connection with a P.S.A. meeting. That display of innocence is a discreditable indictment of the intelligence that he makes manifest during our discussions. To get up to-day and say that he did not anticipate when the Regulations were under discussion that there would be any harshness from their operation, passes my understanding, in view of the fact that the Regulations provide for a reduction in the transitional payment from 17s. to 10s. a week. He argued for uniformity. He seemed to ignore the essential condition for uniformity, and that is that under these Regulations it is a case of lowering the level of subsistence in order to obtain uniformity. He has not in this House ever advocated the converse method of securing uniformity by raising the level.

The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) said that the Regulations were unworthy of the Unemployment Assistance Board. We were told when the Bill was under discussion that advisory committees would be set up throughout the country to advise the board. Complaint has been made to-day that the committees have not been set up, with the result that, whatever value the advice might have been, that advice has not been given, because the committees have not been set up. The hon. Member for South Shields said that he was amazed at an observation made by the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) when he pointed out what should be obvious to every hon. Member that the Regulations are based upon the principle that the person who has been idle the longest period is the one who should be entitled to the greatest benefit, whereas it is the man who has been idle for the shortest period who gets the benefit. For instance, the man who goes to the Employment Exchange gets benefit because he has not been idle for a period in excess of that which would disentitle him to any benefit, whereas the persons affected by these Regulations are not entitled to benefit as a right but as an allowance, based upon need. The need in their case is considerably more important than that of the person who is entitled to the standard benefit. It is amazing to hear hon. Members say that they never anticipated that the Regulations would have that effect, seeing that we endeavoured to point out that they would have such an effect.

It is difficult to discuss the administration and operation of the Regulations as distinct from the character of the Regulations themselves. Complaint has been made of one of the overriding provisions which says that an area officer can either increase or decrease the assessment. In my opinion that is an utter farce and fraud as far as the unemployed person is concerned. In order that the area officer shall not exercise his discretionary powers in the interests of the persons who apply he is a person who has been imported into a new area. There is no area officer who is there in virtue of the fact that he knows the psychology of our people or the conditions under which they have been permitted to exist. I, personally, approached an area officer and asked him what he proposed to do on the question of disregarding the payments made for omnibus fares. I assured him on the authority of the Minister that the total charges for omnibus fares should be disregarded. He retorted, "I do not propose to disregard all omnibus fares, but I am prepared to disregard some of them. In many instances there may be men who do not work at the colliery but who may require to purchase a collar, and if I disregard all omnibus fares in one instance I am obviously under an obligation to have regard to a man who wants to purchase a collar." A more absurd interpretation of the Regulations it is difficult to imagine.

I know that the Minister will not do what I want, and that is withdraw the Regulations. My submission is that you cannot sympathetically operate any Regulations the fundamental principles of which are unsympathetic. It is impossible to convince the right hon. Gentleman; and for this reason. The Regulations provide that there shall be a shilling reduction for each member of a family in excess of five, and a more discreditable defence of that Regulation I have never heard. The Minister said that expenditure on fuel and light and cleaning materials in a home does not increase in amount in proportion to the numbers of the family. That is true. He said that a fire which provides warmth for two also provides warmth for five or six. I cannot look with any favour on a Minister who makes such a lame, plausible and childish attempt to defend the Regulations on that ground. There is a Regulation which makes it possible for four different payments to be made in the same home. If the oldest member of the family is a boy he gets 10s., and if the subsequent member is a boy he gets eight shillings. Who will defend that Regulation on the basis that regard must be had to the needs of the individual? The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, apparently, do not know that it is possible for the needs of the younger member to be considerably in excess of the needs of other members of the household who are entitled to 10s.—

I must remind the hon. Member that Parliament has agreed to the Regulations, and that they are not now under discussion. He can discuss how the assessments have been made.

I am endeavouring to point out that as far as the administration of this particular Regulation is concerned it is possible to have four different payments in the house, and that the area officer, even if he can increase or decrease the assessment, has no power to interfere with these scales of payment. The Minister has said that he has not heard from us any reference to cases where persons will be better off. He is not entitled to make that observation unless he has a greater knowledge of what we have been saying during the Recess. I have pointed out that there may be instances where persons will benefit under the administration of the Regulations, but if there is a family who may be better off to the extent of 5s. per week that is no consolation to the family next door who have suffered in some instances reductions of £1 and 35s. per week in their allowances. He has also said, and I suppose he had Monmouthshire in his mind, that payments made by the county council through its public assistance committee were made because its administration was lax. If that statement is true, if the payments which have been made not only by Monmouthshire but by the Glamorganshire County Council as well have been lax then the right hon. Gentleman is advertising the inefficiency of another Department of State, when they did not step in and take from them the control of these scales of payments. All that these county councils have been doing is to pay transitional payments equal to the amount a man would receive if he were in receipt of standard benefit, and there has never been during all our discussions on the question of unemployment any Member of this House who has ever asserted that 17s. a week is too much to maintain an unemployed man. That is all that these lax administrative bodies have been doing.

Reference has been made to the appeal tribunals. One hon. Member has said that when these tribunals commence work the applicants will be at a decided advantage. I submit that the constitution of these appeal tribunals is nothing better than a farce. You have the chairman who will receive in all probability after 12 months work £600 a year. He is appointed by the Minister of Labour. Another member is appointed by the Unemployment Assistance Board, under whose auspices and authority these Regulations will operate, and you have one person representing the applicants. What are the instructions issued to the appeal tribunals? That is a matter of importance, but the Minister ignored it. The court of referees, which deals with unemployment insurance benefit, has a provision that no unemployed man shall sit as a member of the court in order to maintain impartiality. But what is done with the appeal tribunals? The Government have inserted precisely the same instructions to the tribunals, but with this addition: Not only shall an unemployed man have no right to sit on a tribunal, but even if he is employed and has a member of his household unemployed he cannot sit and act as a member of a tribunal. That is in order that the tribunal's decisions shall be impartial—an absurd implication in view of the fact that the chairman is appointed by the Minister. The test of these Regulations is that those who are responsible for them, including members of the Unemployment Assistance Board, should be subject to their operation for a similar period to that to which our men are restricted.

The Government should not take lightly the spontaneous demonstrations that are taking place throughout South Wales. Last Saturday I attended a conference held in Cardiff, where there were over 16,000 representatives, not only from the miners' organisations but from every trade union in South Wales. In addition there have been demonstrations without any attempt at organisation, representing in numbers from 17,000 to 45,000. If the Government desire to maintain peace in South Wales they must have regard to the fact that in different districts there have been mass demonstrations to interview the area officer, an individual who obviously can do very little even if he desires sympathetically to operate unsympathetic regulations. It is also proposed to have mass demonstrations to the local public assistance committees, another quarter to which it is useless to appeal for any redress at all. In one town in my own district, according to a statement made by the local chamber of commerce, there will be a reduction in the purchasing power of our people in Abertillery by no less than £500 a week. That is no less than £2,000 a month, or £24,000 a year.

I agree with an hon. Friend who said that any measures taken by our people can be justified if they compel the Government to withdraw the Regulations. I do not agree with the opinions expressed by many this afternoon that a modification of the Regulations will satisfy. It is astounding that in the Regulations the Government should provide for three over-riding provisions. First of all the Government lay down the Regulations and then make provision for the over-riding of the Regulations by suggesting that the area officer can either increase or decrease the assessment made in accordance with the Regulations. If the Government were sincere they would not import foreigners into the distressed areas to operate the Regulations. The only object they can have in doing that is to provide that they should not be influenced by their associations, as local people would be, or by their contact with men who in some instances have been unemployed for not less than 12 years. Modification of these Regulations will not satisfy our people. The only cure is for the Government to withdraw them if they want to maintain peace amongst the unemployed.

10.0 p.m.

I have now been in this House for five Parliaments, and I presume to say that this is one of the most serious Debates I have heard in those five Parliaments. I represent a constituency which is probably the best-off constituency in Scotland. I have the utmost confidence in the Government, and especially in the Minister of Labour, but I rise to warn the Government. I am sure things will be rectified. But this Debate has disclosed many things which none of us like. We may have from the Parliamentary Secretary a speech which will throw a new light on the whole question, but if a portion of the things which have been said is true, then I am sure that my constituents, the best-off constituents in Scotland, will be the first to resent Regulations which bring hardships upon those who are in less fortunate circumstances than themselves. With all sincerity I ask the Government to take note of what has been said in this Debate, because it may be the turning point in their career.

10.2 p.m.

The Government cannot congratulate themselves upon the afternoon it has had. Every Member who has spoken, with the exception of two, has criticised in some way the operation and the administration of these Regulations. A curiosity about the Regulations is the anxiety of the Government to have us understand exactly what they mean. When the Regulations were before the House for Debate, the Government issued a memorandum of ten pages to explain the meaning and the purpose of them. Evidently they have realised that the meaning of the Regulations was not thoroughly explained by that memorandum, and to-day we find in the Vote Office another memorandum explaining the previous memorandum and the Regulations as well. The Command Paper issued to-day runs to about 30 pages to explain the ten-pages memorandum previously issued.

When the Regulations were being discussed originally Members on the Labour benches, and some below the Gangway, told the Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary and the learned Solicitor-General, that the Regulations would not work as those Ministers assured the House they would work. We warned the supporters of the Government, and to-day we find practically every spokesman on the Government side who supported these Regulations when they were first discussed, and who voted for them, coming before the House and uttering the direst warnings to the Government. I submit that when you find such unanimity in a Debate of this character, when you find that such a loyal supporter of the Government as the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) now finds it necessary to turn against that Government—

Well, perhaps it was just a half turn. At any rate a warning fell from the hon. Member's lips, not as to what he might do, but as to what his constituents might do. I gathered that while he might remain a loyal supporter of the Government his constituents might become disloyal, in which case the hon. Member might cease to be—

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to think that a catalogue of cases which have been determined to the advantage of the applicants is a sufficient reply to the Debate that has taken place this evening. The cases which have been cited to him have been put forward as illustrative of the manner in which the Regulations are being worked. If he quotes against them other cases, that will not satisfy the people who have been suffering adverse determinations. I will myself quote two cases which will show him how these Regulations are operating, and how they are being administered. The first is that of a husband and wife with four children, a brother-in-law who is now unemployed but who until August, 1931, had worked consistently for nine years, and a nephew, an orphan, the only member of the household working, who earns £2 per week. In the case of the householder and his wife and four children there is an assessment, The brother-in-law receives nothing because the nephew is earning £2 per week and is expected to maintain the brother-in-law, because the excess over the allowance of 13s. 4d. on the assessment is considered to fulfil all the needs of that particular family. When the man came to see me about it, I tried to work out the scale in every possible way to see whether I could not by some side road find a chance of getting him something from the committee, but there was absolutely no possibility. A visit to the assessor's room at the area committee's offices met with no success. Because this nephew, an orphan boy earning £2 per week, is living in the same house with his two uncles, he is expected to maintain one of the unemployed uncles. Another case is that of an unemployed man with two sons unemployed. The full scale for the husband and wife is allowed with 10s. for the first son, and 4s. for the second son.

Can right hon. Gentlemen across the Floor justify these determinations? If they justify them because they are in accord with the Regulations, can they justify them on the score of humanity? These Regulations ought to be withdrawn, as I suggested when they were first being debated. They are an insult to this House and to the country. We have heard cases quoted from all parts of the House. What do we get from the Ministry? We are told that the Regulations may not be working properly, that it will take some time before they work properly, that undoubtedly there will be some cases that will seem harsh. Harsh! They are not merely harsh; they are brutal. Yet Ministers sit there in quietness listening to protests from their own supporters. How can you expect clerks to work out the scale that is contained in the Regulations, a scale which is so surrounded by provisos and by legal terminology that it would require an individual who was both a lawyer and a chartered accountant to work out the scale accurately and give a proper assessment. The Solicitor-General smiles. I will give him a case from my own constituency, and challenge him to work out that scale accurately. Yet you expect working-men with an elementary education who have flung before them a paper containing, not the details, but merely the total sum they have to receive, to understand it and to walk away quietly. Really, your estimate of the working-classes is very extraordinary if you think that they will accept these determinations as peacefully as they have done in the past. It is no wonder that to-day in every part of the country you have a rising flood of protest from those who are suffering as no section of the community has suffered in this country since the days immediately following the Napoleonic Wars.

The Prime Minister tells us that this country is becoming prosperous and he has restored to certain sections of the community the cuts imposed on them in the depth of the depression. Yet he seizes this moment of so-called prosperity as the opportunity to make further cuts in the money that is going to the hardest pressed members of our community. If the country is prosperous, if we are going "on and on and on, and up and up and up," what is the necessity for doing so? But probably like "the grand Old Duke of York" when we are only half-way up, we are neither up nor down. Certainly the unemployed are down all the time and I hope even yet that the Government will see to it that something is done for them. We have heard no word of praise for these Regulations and no word of congratulation for the Government. Even the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), even the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) who seemed to consider the scales in the Regulations to be ample, had to enter their complaints against certain parts of the Regulations. With that optimism which individuals who represent comparatively well-to-do constituencies usually assume, they seemed to think that if the Minister would only make that buff paper issued to each applicant a little more explicit all would be well.

I was not discussing that. I was simply referring to the kind of optimism indulged in by certain hon. Members.

May I say that both my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and I based our remarks on our experience at a public meeting in Congleton.

I am not concerned as to where the hon. Member had his meeting or upon what he based his remarks. I am dealing with the words which he used and that is all that matters here. Even those hon. Members thought that all would be well if more explicit directions were issued. Do they expect that the man who receives a nil determination is going to be more satisfied with it, if be is furnished with an explanation in words of one syllable each and not in legal terminology. Why not have it printed on perfumed paper? Perhaps that would help to soften the blow. The Minister says that he expects £3,000,000 to be the additional cost. My own impression is that the Government will save more than £3,000,000 by the nil determinations and the other reductions which will be imposed on the unemployed. They may find that this Vote is unnecessary and then they will be introducing some other Measure here to enable them to hand back to the Treasury the amount of the Vote which we have spent to-day in discussing. Not that the day has been wasted, because I think the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, if they were under the impression that matters were proceeding favourably, have by now realised that they were living in a fool's paradise, and that matters have not been proceeding well.

These Regulations have been in operation for exactly three weeks. I have never seen in my constituency people gathered in groups discussing these matters with greater indignation than I have seen them do during this week. Wherever I went there was a group waiting on me to ask me to explain why they were getting this determination and receiving deductions, when, from the explanations given by the Government, they were expecting under the Assistance Board to be treated in a generous manner. The Government propagandists over the wireless extolled all the benefits the unemployed were to receive from these Regulations. The Government now send out a statement asking for the numbers of people whose benefit has been reduced or who have been refused any benefit whatever under the Regulations—the very Regulations which they were extolling and making so much of over the wireless. The Government wished the unemployed a happy new year then, and told them that on the 7th January they would enter into a new heaven. They are reaping the happy new year before the chimes have scarcely died away.

Conservative Members and Members who are supporting the National Government know from the letters they are receiving from their constituencies what the feeling is. I am confident that so long as these Regulations are continued, so long as the administration of them is continued along the same lines, so long will indignation arise and a feeling of revolt prevail. I am certain that when Tory Members go down to their constituencies, although they may smile in this House at what they consider cheap theatrical talk on the part of Members of the Opposition, they will realise that what we have uttered in this House and the manner in which we have uttered it is mild compared with the things that will be said and the manner in which they will be said in their constituencies.

The Government ought to consider seriously sending out immediately to every area for returns to be made as to the new determinations. I am certain that if that be done we shall have what I advised the Government to do on the second day of the Debate on the Regulations, namely, the withdrawal of the Regulations. The Government may consider that the India Bill will form the important Measure before the House for the main part of the Session, but I warn them and the Chief Whip that, although they may call the tune, the unemployed of this country will make the Government dance. [ Interruption. ] I am warning the Government that the India Bill will not be the important Measure of this Session. Just as unemployment has been the predominant subject before the country for the last 10 years it will remain so during the present Session, and unless the Government use their great voting strength not in the steam roller fashion of the past, but in order to turn their Measures and their administration on to humanitarian lines, conferring real benefit on the people instead of taking benefits away from the people, then the surge of the country will ultimately sweep them from their seats on the Benches opposite.

10.27 p.m.

I rise—[ Interruption ]—It would perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to divide what I have to say into two parts, because I admit quite frankly that the conditions in South Wales differ from those in other parts of the country. The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) asked us in his speech why, if administration in Glamorgan, Monmouthshire and Merthyr Tydfil had been so lax, we had not used our powers to put in a commissioner. The explanation was really given by a member of the Labour party, a member of the county council, in a speech delivered at Aberdare on 12th January, or at least reported on the 12th January. I will read one or two extracts. It is headed "How Labour outwitted the Ministry."

But whose heading is it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Is that the member's heading or the Press heading? Why cannot you say quite clearly?

It is not a speech by an hon. Member of this House but by a member of the county council.

This is the extract from the speech:

"A letter was received from the Ministry, say, pointing out irregularities and stating that payments had been too generous. The county took three months to consider the letter and to send a reply asking for more information about the alleged irregularities. As the Ministry was a Government Department it took three months to reply. All the while Glamorgan went on paying as generously as possible."

The next sentence is the one to which I wish to call attention:

"In effect they said, 'It is not our local money we are paying out but Government money. Let us give more generously'"—

It goes on:

"Then when they knew that the new Regulations (to come into force on 7th January) were being considered and the Government had no time to make reprisals, Glamorgan had decided in the last months of the old Act to operate even more generously, and not to make any reduction."

It goes on to point out that the number of assessments at the full rate was something like 93 per cent. That clearly proves, what we have repeatedly said in Debate here, that the law was not being carried out, and that when the law was carried out and the Regulations were put into force, many of those people would suffer reductions. The reductions were necessary. Some of the grants of money that have been given would not, I believe, be justified even by some hon. Members opposite who sit for the constituencies in question. The hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) asked if a man owned a house besides the one in which he was living and it was valued at £300 or £400, how could be be expected to realise any money on it if he could not find anyone to purchase the house? In that case, if there were no market for the house, the house would not be worth £400; it would be worth nil.

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the house would have cost the man £400, and that he would have lost the lot?

That is what I am trying to get the hon. Gentleman to see. If the man lost the lot the house would not be worth £400. The man would not be regarded as having £400 and would, therefore, be entitled to a determination.

What I said was that it is provided under the Regulations and the Memorandum that an Inland Revenue officer could be called in to value the house having regard to the average cost of producing such a house.

Let me take an actual, concrete case which I have of a single man owning five houses and without encumbrance who was granted an allowance. That case shows a type of administration that by no stretch of the imagination can be called carrying out the law as this House has laid it down. People having had those allowances in those circumstances were bound to suffer reductions. Of a number of other cases which I could quote to the Committee, I will cite only one or two in which, when persons had exhausted their transitional payment or had, for any other reason, been disallowed benefit by a court of referees, they had to apply to the same public assistance committee for relief from local rates. This is the sort of thing that happens, to which we took exception on behalf of the Ministry. Here is the case of a man whose transitional payment was assessed by the committee at 31s. 3d., but, when he went to them for relief under the Poor Law, was reduced to 25s. In another case, in which a man was receiving a transitional payment of 15s. 3d., it was reduced to 8s. in kind—not in cash—when he went to the Poor Law. In another case a transitional payment of 16s. 9d. was reduced to 5s.; and so I could go on down the list.

I suggest that examples of this sort, taken from various parts of the country, show that, although the public assistance committees, taking them by and large, have carried out, or attempted to carry out, the law, there have been cases—numerous cases—in which the law was definitely being disregarded, and in which assessments and determinations were be- ing made which were higher than could be justified by the circumstances of the particular case; and I think it would be true to say that that tendency has increased materially in the course of the last few months, when public assistance committees, investigating officers and relieving officers, knowing that the board were going to take over in a very short while, did not see any object in incurring odium and difficulty by investigating cases too closely. That, I think, is one of the reasons why in many parts of the country there have been these reductions.

Another very common reason is that in certain areas public assistance committees were accustomed to treat the cases of two applicants living in the same house as separate applications, while under the Regulations which carry out the Act it is laid down that, where two applicants live in the same house, form part of the same household, and share the same table, the application is to be regarded as the application of one applicant, the second applicant coming in as a member of the household. That accounts for a very large number of such reductions as have taken place. There is the particular case of the single man living at home, who, instead of being treated as an individual applicant and getting, in many cases, 17s., is treated as a member of the household—as the first adult—and becomes, under the Regulations, entitled to 10s. That, I should imagine, without knowing the whole of the circumstances of these cases, would account for a great number of the reductions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). There has also been undoubtedly, in the course of the last few months, a considerable number of cases in which the circumstances of the earning member of the household have been altered—

When the hon. Gentleman speaks of the last few months, is he referring to the last few months since the Bill was introduced as an excuse for something that occurred before that?

No; I am talking of what has actually happened in practice in the course of the last six months since the Bill was passed, and since it was known that the work of the public assistance committees would come to an end on the 7th January.

My point is this: How can anything that has taken place subsequent to the introduction of the Bill be a justification for introducing the Bill itself?

I am explaining why, in a number of areas, there have been reductions in determinations under the Regulations. The reason is that there has been a steady improvement in employment, and in a great number of cases men have been working better time. The determinations, once made on the old basis of their earnings, have stood, and have not been altered by the public assistance committee as the result of the increased earnings of those men. Now the board comes along and demands new information, as in the case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), it is found that there are new circumstances in the man's earnings, and a certain amount of reduction is necessary. That accounts for a material number of the cases.

Several Members opposite have recalled the fact that we have estimated the additional money distributed among the present recipients of transitional payments at something like £3,000,000 a year, but, in view of the reductions which have come to their notice, they doubt whether that forecast is correct. Of course, it is impossible at this stage to be absolutely certain, but in this Estimate we are allowing for some £300,000 extra for one month alone, and we have this to bear us out. Every week it is known what rate of transitional payment is being made, and it is possible to calculate every week the average amount paid to each recipient of transitional payment. That does not give an accurate estimate of what each person gets, but it gives a picture of the rate of payment taking the country as a whole, and the interesting thing, I am sure the Committee will be glad to learn, is that our forecast for the increased expenditure is being borne out, because in each of the first three weeks of this year the rate of determination per head has steadily gone up, so that, in spite of the introduction of the Bill, actually more money, on the average, is being distributed every week throughout the country, and I think it will probably be found that our calculations are more or less correct.

I should like to deal with one or two specific questions that have been asked. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asked about appeal tribunals and whether any were in actual operation, and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) suggested that it would be well if a notice were placed in the Exchanges drawing peoples attention to their right of appeal. I find that a leaflet has been circulated to the Exchanges and is being handed out to the recipients. The first sentence says: under-Lyne a trade union secretary who was formerly a working weaver. At Bradford we have the present Lord Mayor, who is a Labour Member of the City Council. In Ayrshire, we have a miners' agent who is the representative of the County Council on the Ayrshire Development Board and Chairman of the Ayrshire Education Committee. These are men selected at random. In South Wales we had a certain amount of difficulty, but we have, on the whole, appointed what we hope will prove to be a satisfactory panel of chairmen, at least as good as the present chairmen of Courts of Referees, who, I think, everyone will agree carry out their work very well.

The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street asked me about Chesterfield. It so happens that I personally took a great deal of trouble about this case. The man whom we have actually appointed was originally decided upon while he was still Mayor. We were informed while he was Mayor that he did not propose—naturally he had resigned all his political appointments—to resume his political activities. By the time that the actual appointment was made we found that he had resumed his activities, and the Divisional Controller made one, if not two, special trips to Chesterfield to try and find some alternative chairman. He interviewed a number of people who, for one reason or another, either were not satisfactory or refused the appointment. Eventually it was because we could not find anyone else that we fell back upon this gentleman on condition that he resigned his political appointments. I think that that is the only case upon which I have heard criticism, and I assure the hon. Member that we have gone out of our way to try and find people, as far as possible, who can be trusted to carry out their duties fairly as between the public and the Board. The hon. Member for Normanton also asked two other questions, one of which was about a widow's pension in respect of a son killed in the War. That is a needs pension and not a disability pension and will therefore be taken into account.

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of appeals, may I ask him how they get the workmen's representatives? Are the workmen's representatives directly selected from workmen's organisations, or are they private individuals?

Workmen's representatives are appointed, as are the court of referees' workers representatives, through the local employment committee, and trades councils and so forth are being asked to put forward lists of persons who are satisfactory. One hon. Member asked me about the advisory committees. The Act provides that any workmen's representatives on advisory committees shall be compensated for loss of remunerative time. The whole of the board's time hitherto has been occupied in getting the rest of the machinery running; they are now turning their attention to this matter, however, and it is anticipated that advisory committees will shortly be appointed, and in the Estimate asked for to-day we have included the token sum of £100 for any expenses which may arise before 31st March. The appeal tribunals have already started, and, although not many cases have actually been heard, a very large number of applications have been made. I should like to take this opportunity of again calling attention to the fact that men under certain conditions have the right to appeal. In certain cases, I believe, men are not exercising the right of appeal, because they are afraid that their position may in some way be worsened. It cannot be worsened but it may be improved, and I hope that men will not hesitate to make use of the appeal machinery set up for them.

I specifically asked a question with regard to notices being posted, because I know, from my own investigation, that a number of men do not know the proceedings.

The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) asked me what the position of Members of Parliament is to be. I think it is clear that Members of Parliament have access both to the board and to the Minister. If a Member knows of any particular cases to which he thinks our attention ought to be called no doubt he will write to us and we will do our best to get from the board an explana- tion of the particular circumstances and let the Member have it. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) asked me when we were going to start issuing Rules and Regulations under Section 52 of the Act. A large number of these have been issued already and have been laid on the Table of the House. I will not weary the House now with a list of them for they are very detailed Rules, but I shall be glad to send the hon. Member a copy of them.

The hon. Members for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson), Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone) made speeches which I am sorry to say I did not hear in full, but I can assure them that the points they raised will be referred by us to the board, and I think it is safe to say that the board will in fact be able to meet the several points they desire to have met by administrative action. I think that a good deal of the trouble that has arisen in various parts of the country has arisen owing to the fact that the machine has not got properly running. I think that hon. Members would do well to read the Memorandum which was circulated to-day. That Memorandum was issued as a result of requests made by hon. Members opposite before Christmas, and it embodies the instructions issued to the board's officers and to the board's representatives on the appeal tribunals. Hon. Members will see on reading the Memorandum that the overriding instruction is to see that a determination is fair and reasonable. I doubt very much whether any case of hardship quoted to-day has been through an appeal tribunal. There has not been time.

Is not the Parliamentary Secretary misleading the House about these appeal tribunals? Ought he not to tell us quite frankly that no case will go before a tribunal, except on two legal points, without the sanction of the chairman?

Yes, I admit that this is very important indeed. The whole effect of the Regulations depends upon the action of the appeal tribunals. We have gone to the trouble of trying to find men who will carry out the obvious intention of the Act and of this House, and they are responsible for seeing that no determination goes out that is not fair and reasonable. I cannot personally conceive of any chairman of an appeal tribunal refusing leave to appeal where he has any doubt whatever, on looking at the case papers, that the determination was other than fair and reasonable. I am perfectly certain that if this Debate had taken place three weeks from now, when the appeal tribunals have been working, we should have heard a very different story. However, I think the Debate has served a very useful purpose, because I have not the least doubt that the members of the board and their chief officers will read the Debate with care and attention and make sure, as far as lies in their power, that these alleged cases of hardship are sympathetically dealt with.

The only other point was that raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) who asked whether I could find out from the law officers what would be the position of public assistance committees who wanted to supplement the determinations made by the board. Clause 1 of the eighth schedule of the Act says:

Yes. That is a very different thing from a public assistance committee deciding, on principle, to supplement determinations of the board's officers. That, of course, would be wholly illegal.

The Government itself is not going to carry out a review of the Regulations in the light of the arguments, the evidence and the facts brought forward in the Debate to-day?

My hon. Friend asks me if the Government are going to carry out a review. The whole point of my argument was that the cases had not yet been finally decided, that the whole of the people have not exercised their right of appeal and that we do not know what the final determinations in any of these cases will be. Until we know that, it is premature to say whether a case has been made out or not, and whether the Regulations will finally work, with the discretions which they contain. With regard to the three points raised by the hon. Members for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone) and Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) I will have them looked into.

The Regulations have had a most devastating effect upon our people, but I recognise that anything I may say to-night in regard to the Regulations will not have much effect upon the Government or the Committee.

It being Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Captain Margesson. ]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.