Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 297: debated on Tuesday 29 January 1935

House of Commons

Tuesday, January 29, 1935

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

Public Departments (Gross and Net Cost, 1933)

Copy ordered,

"of Statement showing the Gross and Net total Cost of the Civil and Revenue Departments, and the Navy, Army, and Air Services, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1934."—[ Mr. Duff Cooper. ]

Trade and Navigation

Copy ordered,

"of Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1935."—[ Mr. Runciman. ]

Oral Answers to Questions

Trade and Commerce

India (Agreement)

1, 2 and 3.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether the trade agreement being negotiated with India includes a preference for British goods;

(2) whether he is satisfied that the trade agreement with the Government of India will allow of the recovery of a large part of the textile trade to India from this country;

(3) whether the trade agreement with the Government of India contains a quota method of allocation of imports with home production?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the text of the agreement, which has been published as Command Paper No. 4779. The agreement provides that the measure of protection afforded to Indian goods shall not be higher than is necessary to equate prices of imported goods to the fair selling prices for similar Indian goods; and that wherever possible, having regard to this policy, lower rates of duty will be imposed on United Kingdom goods. I regard this assurance of equitable treatment of United Kingdom goods of kinds subject to protective duties, linked as it is with the main Ottawa Agreement, as a valuable safeguard for our future trade.

While thanking my right hon. Friend and congratulating him on this agreement, may I ask if he expects that there will be a marked advance in the exports from this country to India arising out of it?

I do not like to prophesy as to what will be the exact effect of the agreement, but I have no doubt that it will be to the good.

Russia

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the present balance of payments between this country and Russia; and whether he is satisfied that the Anglo-Russian trade agreement is being faithfully carried out on both sides?

The information necessary for the exact calculation, in accordance with the Anglo-Russian Agreement, of the balance of payments between the United Kingdom and Russia for the year 1934 is not yet available, but I hope that the final statement will be ready in about a month's time. As regards the second part of the question, I have no reason to doubt that the provisions of the agreement are being observed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Russia is selling to this country roughly fifteen times the amount of fish that she is buying from this country, and will he take steps to make representations on the matter?

I shall be quite ready to pay attention to any of these comparisons when the figures are completed.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement as to the balance of payments between the United Kingdom and Soviet Russia during the year 1932?

The information necessary for a statement as to the balance of payments between the United Kingdom and Russia for the year 1932 is not available.

Balance of Trade

asked the President of the Board of Trade the net balance of trade, visible and invisible, for the United Kingdom during the year 1934?

The excess of imports over exports of merchandise during the year 1934 was £285,000,000. An estimate of the invisible items entering into the balance of payments is being prepared and will be published in the Board of Trade Journal, as usual, about the end of next month.

Retained Imports (Manufactures)

asked the President of the Board of Trade how the volume of retained imports of manufactures other than non-ferrous metals and oils in 1934 compares with that of 1933?

If the effect of price changes is eliminated, the volume of retained imports into the United Kingdom of goods classified in the trade returns as wholly or mainly manufactured, excluding non-ferrous metals and manufactures thereof and refined petroleum, was greater by 13.3 per cent. in 1934 than in 1933.

British Army

Officers' Employment Bureau

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, under what auspices the officers' employment bureau has been established; what are its objects; and who are its personnel?

The Employment Bureau for Retired Officers of the Regular Army was established with the approval of the Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary of State for India. Its object is to assist retired officers of the Regular Army, both British Service and Indian Army, to find civil employment; and more particularly to assist those officers both at home and in India who will retire at a compara- tively early age under the various terms which were announced last year. Its personnel consists of a retired officer, who is paid as secretary from non-public funds, and three other retired officers, who are giving their services gratuitously as assistant secretaries.

Uniforms

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can make a statement regarding the proposed new uniforms for the Army?

The report of the committee appointed to investigate the question of dress and equipment is now completed and will shortly be submitted to the Army Council.

Coal Industry

Flooding (Lancashire)

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is in a position to say what steps have been taken by the colliery owners in the Wigan, West-houghton, and Leigh area to deal with the water problem and the danger to the mines through flooding; and whether any mine has been abandoned during the last 12 months because of the threatened danger of water breaking through?

The owners of mines in the area referred to have each taken independent steps to safeguard their property and their workmen from water dangers. I have consulted them informally and I understand them to be very strongly of the opinion that, in the present circumstances, nothing is to be gained by co-operative action. So far as the safety of the workmen is concerned, the matter is kept under close review by H.M. Inspectors, and I am satisfied that the steps taken to that end are adequate to avoid any immediate danger. During the last 12 months, two seams of one mine have been abandoned because of danger from water, but no mine in the area affected has been wholly abandoned on that account.

Will the Secretary for Mines continue with his attempts to get the coalowners to co-operate in dealing with the water, and point out to them the benefit that would come to both the community and themselves as a result?

I should like to ask the Minister to do all he possibly can with a view to preventing this flooding. There are great accumulations of water which is gradually percolating to other mines which are still working, and if it gets there it will mean more miners unemployed.

Poland (Agreement)

asked the Secretary for Mines whether the coal agreement which was provisionally agreed between Polish and British coalowners in London has been ratified by the constituent bodies?

The Agreement was ratified in December last both in this country and in Poland.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Agreement has led to a rise in the price of export coal in this country?

Shot-Firing

asked the Secretary for Mines when he will be in a position to make a statement on the investigation he is making concerning shot-firing in mines; and whether he is considering other methods of getting down coal that will do away with shot-firing?

I am not clear what particular investigation the hon. Member has in mind. The safety of the materials and methods of shot-firing and the development of alternative methods of breaking down coal have been, and continue to be, the subject of a great deal of investigation and research, both at the collieries and elsewhere, by His Majesty's Inspectors, by the Safety in Mines Research Board, by colliery managements and by other experts, and the results of these investigations are published from time to time.

Accidents

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons killed and seriously injured in and about coal mines during 1934 and the various causes of the same?

The figures are 1,068 killed and 3,175 seriously injured. As the remainder of the reply involves a statistical statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The information is as follows:

Number of persons killed and seriously injured during the year 1934, in and about mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911.

Place or cause of accident.

Number of persons.

Killed.

Seriously injured.

Underground:

By explosions of Firedamp or Coal Dust.

292

92

By falls of ground

441

1,404

Shaft accidents

17

65

Haulage accidents

154

756

Miscellaneous

91

573

Total Underground

995

2,890

Surface:

On railways, sidings or tramways.

33

92

Other surface accidents

40

193

Total on Surface

73

285

Total (Underground and Surface).

1,068

3,175

Gas Detectors

asked the Secretary for Mines the position with regard to the suggested regulation for the compulsory use of gas detectors underground?

I have given formal notice, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 86 and the Second Schedule of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, of my proposal to make general regulations as to the provision of firedamp detectors for use by workmen. The notice was published on 16th January last, and the period during which objections may be lodged expires on 7th March. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the draft regulations and covering circular.

Protective Wear

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has had a further consultation with colliery owners over protective wear, namely, helmets, leather gloves, kneecaps, &c, used by mine workers; and what is their attitude towards providing them free of cost to the workman?

Good progress is being made in the development of protective equipment, particularly with hard hats, of which some 60,000 have recently been supplied. I have had no consultation with the colliery owners collectively regarding protective equipment, but, in view of the importance of the matter, I have recently come to an arrangement with the Safety in Mines Research Board for the appointment of a special technical officer who, for the present, will devote his whole time to this question under the general supervision of the board's chief mining engineer. It is impossible for me to give a general answer to the last part of the question. The matter is one for arrangement between owners and workmen, and as I informed the hon. Member on 17th July last, there is no settled practice.

Is it not true to say that the provision of this protective wear would actually be an economy, as it would save money in the matter of compensation for injuries?

That is a general question, but, as the hon. Member will see from the answer, progress is being made, and there is great good will in the matter.

Gresfoed Colliery Inquiry

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he proposes to issue an interim report of the inquiry into the Gresford colliery disaster?

When, in September last, the Court of Inquiry into the Gresford Colliery disaster was set up, I expressed publicly my desire to receive as soon as practicable an interim report dealing with the condition of the mine before the explosion and with the exploration and rescue operations which were attempted after the explosion.

The court completed its hearing of the evidence relating to these two parts of the Inquiry on 14th December last and decided to adjourn sine die until further evidence relating to the third part, namely, the actual cause of the disaster, could be obtained by examination of the workings affected by the explosion.

Just before the adjournment, Counsel for the North Wales Miners' Association made the following statement to the court:

The first of these steps, the erection of an air-lock at the top of the Martin shaft, is already in progress, and this work is expected to be completed about the middle of February. The next step will be to take any necessary measures to render it safe for men wearing self-contained breathing apparatus to descend the two shafts to ascertain the conditions at and around the bottom of each of them. Subsequent procedure has been considered but cannot be settled until that has been done.

It is still impossible, therefore, to say when the third stage of the public inquiry can be commenced, and in all the circumstances I think the right course now, in the public interest, is that an interim report should be prepared and I have so informed the Commissioner, Sir Henry Walker. The completion of the interim report will take some time, and the question of its publication can be decided when that time arrives, in the light of the further progress made with the recovery operations at the mine.

Education

Teachers' Pensions

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is yet in a position to state what steps it is proposed to take to safeguard the pension rights of school teachers who retired during the period the economy cuts operated?

I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 1st November last.

May I ask whether the delay is due to the teachers' union or the Department?

It is not due to either. Conversations are proceeding, and I cannot say what the outcome will be.

Does not my hon. Friend realise that a large number of teachers are affected and actually suffering at the present time, and that this delay is causing a lot of worry and irritation, because they do not know what their potential income is likely to be on retirement?

I explained to the House that some time ago the Board made an offer to the teachers, and that offer is still under consideration.

Will my hon. Friend make representations to the parties to hurry up their discussions, if possible?

Teachers (Employment)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of teachers who left training colleges in July last; the number of those that have secured positions as teachers or in other professions; and the number still unemployed?

According to returns received from Training Colleges and University Training Departments, of the 7,459 students who left in July last, 5,875 were reported to have obtained teaching posts by the 31st December last and 1,359 to have not then secured employment as teachers. In the case of the remaining 225 no information is available, but it can be assumed that some of these have in fact obtained employment.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what steps are likely to be taken, or whether any steps are likely to be taken, to secure employment for this large number of young teachers who have left college?

The position is something like this: The students all leave the colleges at the same time, but the vacancies do not occur all at once. At the present time, of those who left in the last six months nearly 80 per cent. have obtained employment, and our experience shows that probably most of the remainder will be absorbed in the next six months.

School-Leaving Age

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether legislation will be introduced this Session to raise the school-leaving age?

No, Sir. Apart from other considerations, other claims on the time of the House would in any case render the introduction of legislation this Session impracticable.

May we take it that it is definite that the Government have decided not to raise the school-leaving age?

I have made it clear in my answer what is the intention of the Government.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that the Government have such a terrible fear of education for working-class children?

Children Leaving School

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what is the average number of boys and girls leaving school each year?

The number of pupils who left public elementary schools for employment during the year ended 31st March, 1934, was 533,140. The estimated figures for the year ending 31st March, 1935, and the following two years are 590,000, 560,000, and 530,000, respectively.

Has the Minister any idea of the number of boys and girls who will get employment after they have left school?

It is estimated that from November, 1933, to November, 1934, the number of juveniles aged from 14 to 15, available for employment increased by about 200,000, and it is also estimated that close on 90 per cent. of this additional supply has been absorbed into employment.

Questions

Hours of Work (Proposed Reduction)

asked the Minister of Labour the position with regard to the industrial conferences on the subject of the 40-hour week and other matters; and what progress has been made?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friends the Members for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) and Wallsend (Miss Ward).

Can my hon. Friend say which of the individual industries are to be tackled first?

May I ask that before any recommendations are made on this very important matter the Department will consult with the trades concerned or with the associations representative of the trades?

The object of our consulting the federations is to discuss the matter industry by industry.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this question of the 40-hour week is coming up at Geneva in June, and will he advise the representatives of the British Government there to vote in favour of a universal reduction of hours?

Not until we are satisfied on the facts that a reduction is possible or desirable.

Will my hon. Friend make sure that we do not degrade the standard of labour by reducing the standard of output?

Two-Shift System

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment whether the committee set up to inquire into the working of the two-shift system have concluded their deliberations and made their report; and, if so, when it will be published?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore at present arise.

Unemployment (Juvenile Transference Scheme)

asked the Minister of Labour to state the number of young persons that have been transferred from various parts of England and Wales to London during the past 12 months, the number in situations, and the number registered as unemployed?

During the 12 months of 1934, 395 boys and 699 girls were transferred, under the Ministry of Labour Juvenile Transference Scheme, from the depressed areas of England and Wales to London. In the case of the boys, the majority were transferred to industrial employment, and, in the case of the girls, to private domestic employment. Of these all have remained in employment in the Metropolitan Area except 79 boys and 199 girls who returned home. I may add that any transferred juvenile who becomes unemployed, is either sent home or put into another job. Our experience is that most of the girls whose occupation is private domestic employment, are re-absorbed either nearer their home area or else in some other part of the developing areas other than London. It is quite a common thing for girls taking up their first place in London to remain there until they have saved enough money for a ticket home. They then go home for a holiday, but, having more confidence, find other employment for themselves nearer home or else in some other part of the South, not necessarily London.

Have any steps been taken by the Ministry of Labour to keep contact with these young girls, who come up from Wales and elsewhere, and to assure themselves that the conditions under which the girls are asked to work are such as would deserve the commendation of this House?

Oh, yes, I can give the House and the hon. Member every assurance. We keep in touch with all the boys and girls brought up by the Ministry of Labour under our juvenile transference scheme, and we inquire as to the places to which they are going before they are sent.

Registered Clubs

asked the Home Secretary whether he will give the numbers of registered clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied in England and in Wales, respectively, in the years 1921, 1926, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934?

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 numbers of registered clubs ( a ) in England and ( b ) in Wales, on the 1st January of each of the years mentioned, were:) in Wales, on the 1st January of each of the years mentioned, were:

Year.

England.

Wales.

Total.

1921

9,635

289

9,924

1926

11,727

411

12,138

1931

13,422

525

13,947

1932

13,841

536

14,377

1933

14,452

558

15,010

1934

14,732

566

15,298

(provisional)

Transport

Motoring Accidents (Manslaughter Charges)

asked the Home Secretary how many persons were charged with manslaughter in respect of fatal accidents, the result of motor traffic on the roads, during the years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934; and how many of the persons so charged were convicted?

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 number of cases in which a motor traffic fatality resulted in a committal for trial for manslaughter was 46 in 1931, 73 in 1932, 83 in 1933 and 104 in 1934. I cannot say how many convictions resulted in 1931: the number of convictions was 22 in 1932, 29 in 1933 and in 1934 there have so far been 34. In a further nine cases which arose in 1934 the result of the trial is not yet known.

Built-Up Areas (Speed Limit)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the date on which he will bring the speed limit of 30 miles per hour in built-up areas, as provided by the Road Traffic Act, 1934, into operation?

As I have already announced, I propose to bring the speed limit of 30 miles per hour in built-up areas into force on 18th March next.

Driving-Test Examiners

asked the Minister of Transport whether any persons with less than seven years driving experience have been, or are to be, appointed as driving-test examiners?

Candidates are required to state the number of years they have driven, and the extent of their driving experience will be taken into account by the selection boards, but no qualifying minimum period has been prescribed.

In view of the value of experience and the great number of applicants, will the Minister consider laying down some such minimum as seven years driving experience?

Pedestrians' Crossing Places

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make in respect of the future policy to be pursued in respect of pedestrian crossings?

I am satisfied that pedestrian crossing places make for the safety and convenience of road users and that, with the co-operation of the public, they can be made of increasing value. I have appointed 15th March as the date by which schemes of pedestrian crossing places or statements as to the reasons why they are not considered necessary are to be submitted by local authorities throughout the country. I have also made regulations extending to the whole country the provisions hitherto operative in London with regard to pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the crossings.

Will the Minister consider the suggestion that pedestrians should give a definite indication that they propose to make use of a crossing?

Will he consider also giving the London public some further information as to their rights on these crossings, in view of the confusion that prevails?

In regard to the first question: I have considered that point, but there are certain dangers surrounding the proposal. As regards the second question: I hope that the situation may be progressively improved.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider making it an offence for pedestrians to disobey the red, green and amber lights?

Will the hon. Gentleman state specifically what are the legal rights of pedestrians versus wheeled traffic at uncontrolled crossings, because no one seems to know?

With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers), of course any regulations that I may be able to make are dependent upon the powers with which Parliament has invested me. I will certainly see how far they go in the direction suggested. I will send the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) a copy of the regulations, which I think will answer his question, and I should be very much obliged to him for his assistance in making the regulations better known.

Further to the Minister's answer to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers), surely it would be absurd for pedestrians to be banked up at a perfectly empty crossing, waiting for the lights to allow them to pass?

Is not the Minister aware that in London at least 75 per cent. of motorists utterly ignore the Belisha beacons?

The hon. Member is probably aware that there has been a number of prosecutions, mostly with successful results. I hope that by this and other means motorists and pedestrians will gradually be induced to observe the crossings in the universal interest.

Will the Minister consider the advisability of giving in the report the time of the day or night at which accidents take place?

Questions

Abyssinia and Italy

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the situation with regard to the dispute between Abyssinia and Italy?

This question was placed upon the agenda of the League Council on the 17th January. At a meeting held two days later the council took note of letters addressed to the Secretary-General by the Italian and Ethiopian delegations in Geneva intimating that both parties were disposed to seek a settlement of the dispute by means of direct negotiations in the spirit of the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of Friendship of 1928, in particular Article 5 thereof, which lays down that questions which cannot be decided by diplomatic means will be submitted to a procedure of conciliation or arbitration. These letters also declared that the two Governments concerned would take all appropriate measures, and issue all necessary instructions, with a view to avoiding any further incidents. In view of these assurances the council adjourned consideration of the appeal made by the Ethiopian Government under paragraph 2, Article 11 of the League Covenant, until its next session.

Bolivia and Paraguay

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the present position of the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay?

The Assembly of the League of Nations adopted on the 24th November last, under the terms of Article 15 of the Covenant, a report and recommendations for the settlement of this dispute. This report was unconditionally accepted by the Bolivian Government, but has not yet been accepted by the Paraguayan Government, and in the meantime hostilities are, I regret to say, still continuing.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the embargo on arms has been raised in respect of Bolivia?

There was a recommendation of the advisory committee to that effect, and it is now being considered by the Government.

Poor Law Relief

asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief on the last available date, giving separate figures for men, women and children, and comparable figures for the previous two years?

The total numbers of persons in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales (including dependants but excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only and casuals) on Saturday, 5th January, 1935, and on the corresponding days in 1934 and 1933, were 1,471,987, 1,401,224, and 1,376,040, respectively. The weekly returns from which these figures have been obtained do not distinguish the numbers of men, women and children, but approximately 29 per cent. of the total consisted of men, 35 per cent. of women, and 36 per cent. of children.

What is the proportion of the total number of persons on the live registers of the Employment Exchanges, together with dependants of those persons?

In so far as the persons were breadwinners, all but 13,000 would be so registered.

Housing (Overcrowding)

asked the Minister of Health whether he can furnish figures giving the numbers of families living in one-room and two-room tenements in England and Wales, with separate figures for each of the large towns?

The most recent figures available are those of the 1931 Census, which will be found in Table 6 of the recently published Census Report on Housing, and in the corresponding Table (Table 11) in each of the county census reports.

His Majesty's Silver Jubilee (Celebrations)

asked the First Commissioner of Works what arrangements are being made to floodlight public buildings, etc., in London in connection with the Silver Jubilee celebrations in May next; and what expenditure of public funds will be involved?

Provisional arrangements have been made to floodlight certain public buildings, including Buckingham Palace and St. James's Palace, the Admiralty and Horse Guards arches, the clock tower of the Houses of Parliament, the National Gallery, the London County Hall and Westminster Abbey. Almost the entire cost of floodlighting these buildings, together with St. James's Park, is being generously borne by the electrical and gas industries. I am hopeful that a number of other buildings in public and private ownership may also be floodlit in celebration of the Royal Jubilee.

Retiring Pensions

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated net cost in 1936 of granting retiring pensions of £1 to all persons 60 years of age in the present insurable class and their wives from 1st January, 1936, after deducting saving on present pension, unemployment, and sickness benefit schemes, and assuming that half of those eligible at 60 do retire and take advantage of the scheme?

The cost of providing retirement pensions of £1 a week to all insured persons over the age of 60 and also to their wives, whatever their ages might be, on the assumption that 50 per cent. of those eligible took the offer contains too many speculative elements to enable a firm estimate to be made. But making as near an approach to accuracy as can be arrived at, it could hardly add less than £100,000,000 a year to the expenditure of the next few years and this sum would later grow considerably with the increase of the population of advanced age. The question of increasing widows' pensions would also arise, as a widow, possibly with children to maintain, could hardly be paid a smaller sum than the wife of a man who had elected to give up paid employment.

Old Age Pensions

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of doubling all present old age pensions on condition of retirement from industry, and assuming that 50 per cent. took advantage of the proposal?

The estimated cost of doubling all old age pensions at the present time would be about £61,000,000 a year. I am afraid that the hon. Member must make his own assumption as to the amount which would be saved by attaching the condition of retirement, but I am not disposed to agree with his suggestion that only 50 per cent. of a class consisting wholly of persons over 65 years of age would accept the conditions on which a double pension would be payable.

Does the Chancellor actually mean to say that the wages paid to those people in industry are so low that more than half of them would accept the pension?

Anglo-German Payments Agreement

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the recent Anglo-German agreement about the default on post-War German Municipal Bonds floated in London provided that German Funding Bonds should be issued to British subjects in lieu of cash payments of interest; that British subjects entitled to the German Funding Bonds have not received them, and that the delay prevents such persons selling them in order to use the proceeds as income; and will he take up the matter with the German Government?

I understand that the detailed arrangements in connection with the issue of 4 per cent. Funding Bonds by the German Government, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (ii) of the Anglo-German Payments Agreement of 1st November last, are under discussion and that it is hoped that an announcement in regard to the issue of the bonds will be made shortly.

Brazil (British Investors)

42 and 43.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has considered the financial statement issued by the State Bank of Brazil about 18th December; whether he will, in view of the figures therein stated respecting the borrowings in England by Brazil and upon which she has defaulted three times in the last 30 years, inform the Brazilian authorities that, irrespective of the embargo upon the issue of foreign loans, Brazil will not be permitted to issue another loan in London until she has ceased to over-borrow; and whether he will notify the Brazilian authorities that the British exports created by Brazilian defaulted loans have caused a loss to Britain;

(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the statement respecting exchange issued by the State Bank of Brazil upon Brazil's debts to creditor countries; and whether he will inform the Brazilian authorities that the views expressed towards those British subjects whom Brazil has invited to lend their capital to develop Brazilian resources will render it difficult to raise the embargo to enable financial assistance to be granted to Brazilian borrowers by British investors when London is again available for the flotation of foreign loans?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the possibility of Brazil's obtaining in future years further financial assistance in this market for the development of her economic resources must depend on the fair treatment of British interests and the prudent management of her finances. His Majesty's Government will not fail, if occasion arises, to draw the attention of the Brazilian Government to these considerations.

Is the Chancellor aware that while exchange affairs between Brazil and England continue in a state of chaos, it is impossible for any British manufacturer to risk taking an order for the delivery of goods to Brazil because he knows he would not be paid for them?

Oil (Imports and Duty)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House of the number of tons of oil imported during 1934; the corresponding figures for 1933; the amount received by the Treasury from the tax on oil during the period quoted; and whether he can give any information concerning the extended use of coal in place of oil?

Statistics of the imports of hydrocarbon oils are given at pages 56 and 92–94 in the Monthly Trade Accounts for December, 1934. The yield of the hydrocarbon oil duties was £38,586,000 in 1933 and £41,994,000 in 1934. With regard to the last part of the question, I have at present no information beyond that given in the reply to a question by my hon. Friend on 29th November, but I hope to receive further reports in the course of next month.

Coroners' Inquests (Committee of Inquiry)

( by Private Notice ) asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the procedings at the inquest at Weymouth into the death of Mr. Jeffreys Charles Allen, J.P., and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to confine coroners' inquests to an inquiry into the cause of death.

I have had under consideration for some time past the ques- tion whether changes in the law or practice regarding coroners' inquests are desirable. The issues involved are complex, and, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor, I have decided to appoint a committee of inquiry into the subject. I hope to be able to announce the membership and precise terms of reference of the Committee at an early date.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether, pending the result of the inquiry, he does not think it would be in the public interest to circularise the coroners of the country with a view to securing that the inquiries shall be confined to the simple matter of the cause of death, and not ramble as the recent inquiry did?

I think it would be much better to await the result of the pending inquiry.

Government Departments (Superintendents of Typists)

46 and 47.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) what were the numbers of superintendents of typists and chief superintendents of typists, respectively, employed in each Department on the 1st of April, 1924, and at the same date in each of the succeeding years; and

(2) what was the number of promotions from the rank of superintendent of typists to that of chief superintendent, Department by Department, for each of the years within the period 1st April, 1924, to 31st March, 1934, inclusive?

The number of superintendents of typists and chief superintendents of typists employed in each Department on 1st April, 1924, and 1st April, 1934, will be found in a statement which, in view of its length, I have arranged to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Similar particulars for the intervening years, and information regarding the numbers of promotions from the grade of superintendent to the grade of chief superintendent cannot be obtained without considerable expense and labour which, I feel, would not be justified.

Following is the statement:

Irish Free State (Coal and Cattle Understanding)

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make as to our commercial relations with the Irish Free State?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn).

Business of the House

The business for Friday will be as follows:

Third Reading of the British Shipping (Assistance) Bill; Second Reading of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ], and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; and, if there is time, other Orders on the Paper.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ The Prime Minister. ]

The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 60.

Division No. 35.]

AYES.

[3.25 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

Liddall, Walter S.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

Doran, Edward

Lindsay, Noel Ker

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

Drewe, Cedric

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Apsley, Lord

Duggan, Hubert John

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

Aske, Sir Robert William

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

Assheton, Ralph

Dunglass, Lord

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Loftus, Pierce C.

Balniel, Lord

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Lovat Fraser, James Alexander

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Elmley, Viscount

McCorquodale, M. S.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

McKie, John Hamilton

Bernays, Robert

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Blindell, James

Ganzoni, Sir John

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Borodale, Viscount

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Maitland, Adam

Bossom, A. C.

Gledhill, Gilbert

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

Glossop, C. W. H.

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Brass, Captain Sir William

Goff, Sir Park

Martin, Thomas B.

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Grimston, R. V.

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Browne, Captain A. C.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Mitcheson, G. G.

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Hanbury, Cecil

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Moreing, Adrian C.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

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

Carver, Major William H.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Munro, Patrick

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Nunn, William

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

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

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Hornby, Frank

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Peake, Osbert

Clarke, Frank

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Pearson, William G.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hurd, Sir Percy

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Colfox, Major William Philip

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Pybus, Sir John

Cook, Thomas A.

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Radford, E. A.

Cooper, A. Duff

Knight, Holford

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Copeland, Ida

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Crooke, J. Smedley

Leckie, J. A.

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Cross, R. H.

Leigh, Sir John

Ray, Sir William

Crossley, A. C.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Rickards, George William

Smithers, Sir Waldron

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Robinson, John Roland

Somervell, Sir Donald

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Soper, Richard

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Ross, Ronald D.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Watt, captain George Steven H.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Spens, William Patrick

Wells, Sydney Richard

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Stones, James

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Wise, Alfred R.

Salt, Edward W.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Womersley, Sir Walter

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Sutcliffe, Harold

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

Tate, Mavis Constance

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Scone, Lord

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

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Thompson, Sir Luke

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

Shute, Colonel Sir John

Train, John

George Penny.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Milner, Major James

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Parkinson, John Allen

Attlee, Clement Richard

Harris, Sir Percy

Rea, Walter Russell

Banfield, John William

Janner, Barnett

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Batey, Joseph

Jenkins, Sir William

Rothschild, James A. de

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

John, William

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Buchanan, George

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

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

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Morgan (Caerphiliy)

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Daggar, George

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lawson, John James

Thorne, William James

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Leonard, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Dobbie, William

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Logan, David Gilbert

West, F. R.

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Lunn, William

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

McEntee, Valentine L.

Wilmot, John

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Mainwaring, William Henry

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maxton, James

Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions

3.35 p.m.

I beg to move: in the present Session. This Bill is extremely simple and short and will have very considerable effect on a number of women who are left widows, and I am sure it will be the general desire of the House that at such a time of distress in their families there should not be inflicted on these women the further affliction of getting notice from their landlord to quit the house in which, perhaps, they have lived for a very long time.

There does not appear to be any reason why the widow of a man who has made a will should be penalised as against the widow of a man who has not made a will. It does not appear to be any crime that a man should make a will and that punishment should be inflicted on his widow after his death because such a will has been made. There came to my notice within the last few months the case of a man who died intestate and the widow received notice to quit within, I think, about three weeks. She came to me in the ordinary way for advice, and I was able to convince the landlord that in fact he had no such power as he was seeking to assume. Another case came to my notice more recently still, of a man who had made a will before his death. The widow received notice to quit within a couple of days of the funeral. The landlord told her he was quite willing to permit her to remain as tenant of the house subject to her paying an additional rent of 8s. 6d. a week. In these circumstances I think the House would agree that the law, for some reason or other that I cannot explain, is very unfair. I think it would be a good, a generous and a fair thing that women in these circumstances should be allowed to continue as tenants and not be disturbed simply because of the death of their husbands. I hope that the House will, therefore, allow me to introduce this simple but rather important Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. McEntee, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. John, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Paling, Mr. Banfield, Mr. West, Mr. Janner, and Mr. Logan.

Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Bill,

"to amend the interpretation of 'tenant' in paragraph ( g ) of sub-section (1) of section twelve of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 12th February, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

Message from the Lords

Consolidation Bills—That they have come to the following Resolution, namely, "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."

Orders of the Day

Supply

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, 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."

3.43 p.m.

On a point of Order, Sir Dennis. I desire to ask you a question of which I have given you private notice, namely, whether the Committee can be assured of protection against a repetition of such conduct as that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) yesterday. I was not present, being engaged in my constituency, but certain expressions were used which fortunately did not reach the ears of the official reporters and are therefore not in the proceedings, but which unfortunately reached the keen ears of the representatives of the Press and have been circulated throughout the country. I ask you this question on a point of Order on the view that I respectfully submit that such language is an insult to the House.

If my recollection be correct, you, Sir, occupied the Chair during the period referred to by the hon. and learned Member while the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was addressing the Committee, and I want to ask if it is in order for an hon. Member, by raising a question of this description, to cast reflections upon your conduct in the Chair?

It is my last desire to cast any such reflection on the Chair. I should have raised this matter immediately, but directly it came to my notice in the country, I thought it my duty to raise it, and I believe that this will meet the general sense of the House.

The hon and learned Member, as he says, was not in the House at the time. It is a case in which perhaps the best thing is frankly to say that even occupants of the Chair are only human and may let things slip which they ought not to. No appeal was made to the Chair at the time, and no question was raised. If it had been, I am perfectly certain, whoever had been in the Chair, myself or anybody else, that the matter would have been dealt with properly, and the Committee given such protection as the hon. Member now suggests.

3.45 p.m.

I rise to say that in the first place I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have given me notice that he was raising this matter. Such notice I have not received from him. Yesterday, speaking with heat, and coming straight from Gorbals where I was born and bred and my parents before me and where I have seen terrible poverty from my earliest days, and having helped to put the man in, I said things that possibly if I had been cool, calm and collected, I should hardly have used. No man has said more things oftener than I have done, or has been more sorry. I regret that on this occasion, having had a night of sleep, and having been able to think of my native division, and, looking over it, I am terribly sorry that I cannot withdraw. Nay, I believed that what I said was true.

3.46 p.m.

I beg to move,

"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I acknowledge quite freely the courtesy of the Patronage Secretary in not taking a Division on the Votes we were considering last night.

On a point of Order. May I ask if the matter is to be considered as disposed of in these circumstances? May we have an assurance from the Chair that the Committee will be protected from a repetition of this language?

I thought that I had already answered that question. I do not think that there is now any question of or request for any withdrawal. The demand for a withdrawal should have been made at once. I have no doubt that the Committee generally will be glad to hear the expressions of regret that fell from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).

I want to be frank with the Chair. I have regard for the Chair in this House and both for Mr. Speaker and for you, Sir Dennis. It is because I have that regard that I do not want to mislead you. I cannot withdraw what I said yesterday; I cannot withdraw.

The hon. Member has not been asked to withdraw. If any withdrawal were required, it should have been asked for at the time, and I am perfectly certain that the matter would have been dealt with properly by the Chair, whoever was occupying the Chair at the time.

I might try to pour oil upon troubled waters, as I have been in a similar position myself. I wish to acknowledge the courtesy of the Patronage Secretary in not pressing for a Division on the Votes which we were considering last night, but the conditions under which the particular Vote was being discussed compels us to move to report Progress in order that we may once more ask the Government quite definitely to hold up the further application or administration of these Regulations until they have had time to put the whole of the machinery into working order. The answer to all those who spoke yesterday complaining of terrible hardships—and the Committee is aware that those protests came not only from my hon. Friends behind me, but from all parts of the House—was, and it will be given to-day, that we must wait until the appeal tribunals have been set up and the applicants who consider themselves to be wrongly treated have gone before the tribunals to get their grievances remedied. None of us know whether it will be a day, a week, a month or a year before this business gets into working order. Even if it is only a week, when one considers the small balance that there is between semi-starvation and living, on the fullest amount given under the Regulations, any fair-minded person would say that the applicants and their women folk and children ought not to have to endure the torment of waiting a day, let alone a week, before their grievances are considered.

The right hon. Gentleman must agree with me that, although, as he says, some people may have got more allowed and others less, it is no answer to a semi-starving woman or a starving child that someone in the next borough or district has got a little more than they were receiving a month ago. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary are so illogical that I cannot understand them standing up and putting them before the Committee. In a way, they are rather inhuman, but I am sure that neither of them quite realised the effect of what they were saying. They say to these people: "You must wait for your daily bread,"—not for some luxury—"until we have had time to put these things in order." Part of this Vote is to provide for the appeal tribunals to be set up under the Act. They have not been set up.

indicated dissent.

At any rate, we were told last night that we must wait until they were set up. We were told that they were being set up and that we must wait until the applicants go before the tribunals. It was acknowledged that there were only a few of them at work. What I want to urge upon the Committee is, that we have no right to vote money for the working of these tribunals until they have been constituted, and we have no right to sit still here and see these people waiting. Therefore, I urge the Government to give reconsideration to their decision and to give an assurance that the Regulations shall not apply in the manner they are being applied to-day and that the applicants shall receive the equivalent of what they were receiving before, leaving the matter to be adjudicated upon between them and the Unemployment Board by the appeals tribunals.

No party in the House can throw stones at another for creating disturbances here. I have witnessed disturbances from the Gallery and I have witnessed them from the Floor of the House. When hon. Members feel strongly things are said and done which, after the grievances are remedied, we are all very anxious to forget, but I should be a humbug, which I hope I am not, if I professed any indignation about what happened in the Gallery last night or as to what happened to me in the Central Hall last night, or what happens to me when occasionally I am shouted down at a public meeting. This matter just now calls for action by the Minister in the direction I have suggested, because people are feeling the iron of downright brutal injustice. I will not detain the Committee but I hope that every hon. and right hon. Gentleman who was not present throughout the Debate yesterday will read the OFFICIAL REPORT. They may read our speeches or the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), or the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) or the speech of an hon. Member for one of the divisions for Newcastle, and I think they will agree with me that there is downright brutal hardship. Those words were used not only by us but by the friends of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

It is often said that we make propaganda in order to get votes. I make propaganda. I do not stand here to say that I do not go out to make propaganda in order to obtain a majority. It is my job to do that and I shall go on doing it. I would point out to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that when the question of tariffs comes up one Member after another rises and tells us of the trade in his own constituency. There is nothing to be ashamed of about that. We are here to deal with the grievances of the commons of this country. Here is a grievance where tens of thousands of people, children, women and men, are being brutally treated but not by the will of the House. One could not be in the Committee yesterday without feeling that the sense of the House if hon. Members could have voted without any Whips being on would have been expressed in the Lobbies against the Government. It is not that the Government are a set of people who wish to depress and oppress the poor but somehow or other they think that they have produced a scheme which at one and the same time will save money and also feed the masses who need feeding.

I feel and my friends feel that we cannot sit down under this. We do not threaten the Government or anybody else in the matter, but we shall ask our people to raise as effective and strong an agitation as possible up and down the country in regard to these Regulations. We hope that all sections of the British labour movement will unite to tell the House of Commons and the Government that we are not going, to tolerate at this time of day wholesale starvation of men, women and children. I want also to say that under this particular Act these people have been robbed of their last defence, the Poor Law. The Committee did not realise last night, and I am sure that they never realised when they passed it, that they have now taken out of the hands of any local authority the power to deal with semi-destitution or with destitution itself, where an able-bodied man is concerned. It is all very well to talk about sudden and urgent necessity. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that all these people will not understand that, and will not know, and it is also perfectly true that the ordinary relieving officer or public assistance officer will not be over-willing to overstep what the Unemployment Board desires to be done.

Therefore, I hope that those Members in all parts of the Committee who made their protest yesterday will join with us now in an effort to get the Government to take back this Vote and hold it up until the appeal tribunals are in existence, and, in the meantime, pay these people the funds that are necessary to maintain them in decency and comfort. I do not make any apology for adding the word "comfort." You have no right to expect the innocent victims of a brutal economic system to live under conditions worse than you would afford to a horse you wanted to keep in condition. Also I want the Committee to understand that, for my part, and on behalf of my friends here, we are not going to join in any denunciation of the unemployed. I hope they will not be stupid enough to come into conflict with the authorities, but I hope they will make their voices heard in every district in the country. I hope, further, that the example of those clergy who signed that splendid letter which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" yesterday will be followed by the religious people in all the churches throughout the land, and especially I hope that the House of Representatives of the Church of England who have just passed a vote on this subject, will understand that words are of no effect but deeds, and that they will bring their influence to bear on the Government to withdraw these infamous Regulations.

A Motion has been moved to report Progress, and it is my duty to consider and to decide whether to refuse the Motion, to accept it and allow debate, or to accept it and put it forthwith. The right hon. Gentleman, if I understood him aright, moved to report Progress on two grounds: first, that the Government should withdraw the Vote until there has been further experience of the working of the Regulations, and, second, if I understood him aright, that they should withdraw the Regulations. I could not accept the Motion on the latter ground alone, because the Government, so far as I can see, have got no power to withdraw the Regulations. That is, if I am not mistaken, a matter which would have to be dealt with by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be quite in order in moving to report Progress when he fortifies his request to that effect by saying that it is to ask the Government to withdraw this Vote until there has been further experience of the working of the Regulations.

I knew when I started that I was entering upon a rather difficult discussion to keep within the terms of order. I bow to your Ruling, and ask leave to move the Motion so that the Government may get its machinery in order, and to induce the Government to hold up the whole of this administration until the House has had an opportunity of reconsidering the whole matter.

4.6 p.m.

I think it is desirable that I should say a few words at this point. I have listened with great care to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and naturally I take no exception to it. I know how keenly, how ardently he feels on these matters, and I think he was only fulfilling his duty as Leader of the Opposition in making the speech which he did. But I would point out to him that the remedy which he proposes is no real remedy. In the first place, I am not sure, not having had notice of what exactly the proposal was, that it is feasible, and, in the second place, it seems to me that it would lead to chaos. I do not wish for a moment to enter into an argument on details. After all, from my point of view, they are a little beside the point. This phrase of the subject was discussed yesterday and I have followed it very closely in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that, as so often happens, yesterday being the first day after returning to work, I had a great deal to do, and was unable to be in the House until the evening, but I have made myself familiar with the Debate, and I am not unfamiliar with the subject.

Let me remind the Committee exactly what the position is. We are asking for a Vote for a certain sum of money which is to finance what was ordered by the House for the period from now until the end of the financial year on 31st March. A new system under the order of the House has just been introduced in this country, and whenever that is the case there must be at its inception, admirably as I believe those connected with the work have started on it in their organisation, there must be difficulties and anomalies before it gets into working order. I, for one, and I am quite sure my hon. Friends near me, are glad that so soon after the inception we are able to have a Debate in the House where Members can bring to the House, as the proper place, all that they have to say in criticism of the beginning of this new system. It is most important that the House should know and that the Government should have that information from those who are naturally disposed to be critical. There may always be—I admit it freely—in any Government at any given time a tendency to think that your own work is proceeding more smoothly than your opponents think. It is that criticism which keeps Governments alive, and keeps them up to the mark.

My right hon. Friend the Minister will speak again this afternoon. He has a statement which he wishes to make. I do not want to anticipate anything that he may say, or to say anything really that is immediately pertinent to the Vote. I wish to confine myself to the question of whether the Government can consent to allow Progress to be reported at this moment. I must give my view that I believe the better course for the Committee to pursue is to get on with this Vote, so that the money may be provided for the purpose desired by Parliament, and that those who have their criticisms to make may make them. All those criticisms are being examined immediately by the Government, because they must be examined, not that we doubt the bona fides of any statements that are made in this House, but they have to be examined and looked into and checked. No one in this House desires that the administration should be an administration that brings undue hardships on people, but it may well be that adjustments may have to be made. We cannot tell until we have examined these complaints. It was with these points in view that my right hon. Friend—I forget when, but I believe it was the time when the original scales were before the House—promised the House a report, at as early a date as was convenient, on the actual working of the new scales and the new system of administration.

It is the intention of the Government to examine carefully all the complaints which have come, and, in so far as it may seem possible, to adjust what can be proved to be an unfair hardship or any injustice, to try to meet those cases in so far as they can be met. As I say, I am not here to make a speech on the merits or demerits of any particular allocation or any particular thing that may be done. I am merely here to say that I cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept this Motion for the purpose for which the right hon. Gentleman has moved it, and while I have neither the wish, the power, nor the right to make this Debate a short one, I do express the hope that, in the interests of all, we may get on without undue delay with the discussion which we began yesterday, and to the very important and serious business which is directly before the House.

4.12 p.m.

The observations that have been made by the Lord President of the Council are undoubtedly cogent so far as parliamentary forms are concerned. It is quite true that if this Motion were to be carried it would mean the postponement of the consideration of a Vote of money which is, in any case, essential in order that the allowances should be made to those who are unemployed. But, as we all know, this Motion is made, in the only parliamentary form available at the moment, as a protest. It is for that reason that the Leader of the Opposition has made it, as a protest against these Regulations and their being enforced at the present time in the form in which they have so far been made. Just as frequently in Debates in Supply a motion for the reduction of a Vote is made because it is the only parliamentary means of advocating an increase, so on this occasion the Motion to report Progress is a mere form, the substance of it being that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition desires to enter at the earliest opportunity a renewed protest against the substance of these Regulations.

Yesterday in the Debate—I heard almost the whole of it—from every quarter of the Committee the most vehement protests were made against many of the features of these Regulations and their application. Three of my hon. Friends from these benches spoke, and gave specific instances which have come to their own knowledge in their own constituencies. I, myself, have received from my own division the strongest protests which I propose to go down to investigate in the course of the next few days. I cannot yet speak from first-hand knowledge, but there is undoubtedly in the whole country a feeling that great mistakes have been made in the drafting of these Regulations and in the administration of them, and therefore we on these benches must associate ourselves with the protest made this afternoon.

The acting Leader of the House has said that the Minister desires to make a statement on the whole matter, and it may be that the Leader of the Opposition—I have no idea what is in his mind—would desire to hear this statement, and, if it is unsatisfactory, then to renew his protest. I do not know whether it would be in order for the Chair to accept the withdrawal of the Motion now, so that the Minister might make his statement; and then, if necessary, it might be moved again at a later stage. That is for the right hon. Gentleman to decide for himself. If, however, he goes to a Division now, we on these Benches will feel bound to support him. I should like to enter a word of protest against an observation made by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the disturbances in the gallery last night. This House never has allowed itself, and never can allow itself to be influenced by disturbances in the public gallery, and I am sorry that the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman seemed to condone in some degree those disturbances and to imply that the opinions and votes of this House should in any circumstances be influenced by untoward events such as took place in the public gallery last night.

4.17 p.m.

I rise to associate myself with the Motion made by the Leader of the Opposition. I should have been content to have left the matter with the statement the right hon. Gentleman made had it not been for the reply of the Lord President of the Council. If the Lord President of the Council was speaking the mind of the Government, it seems to me that he is seriously misunderstanding and under-estimating the nature of the situation confronting the Government. It is not a question that certain Members of the House have their hearts touched by a number of anomalous cases. What the Committee has to realise is the fact that the working people of this country are stirred on this issue to an extent that has not been evidenced on any other political matter during the last five or six years. I have been a regular and persistent agitator, stirring up working-class discontent in all parts of the country. It is not an easy job, normally, the workers of this country are not easily agitated. They are calm and philosophical even under very serious and sore trials, but I have never known in my experience as an agitator—and this is felt also by the leaders of the Communist party with whom I have been associated—a period when the people were so rushing the agitator instead of the agitator rushing the people. The drive has come from below.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that this House should not make its decisions on anything which may take place in the gallery, but surely if the demonstration in the gallery here was a manifestation right on the spot of the feelings of millions of people throughout the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, it was not"]—in my view it was—then the Government are confronted with a serious situation. My friends in the West of Scotland organised a protest meeting in Lanarkshire last Saturday in the town of Motherwell. They assumed that they would have to make arrangements for a meeting of a thousand people. As a matter of fact, the crowd which came from far distant mining villages was such that the authorities of Motherwell were completely taken by surprise, as were also the organisers of the meeting. The newspapers in the West of Scotland estimated the number present at 20,000, while the organisers put it much higher than that. It was one of the most imposing demonstrations that has ever taken place in the mining county of Lanarkshire. That is the nature of the situation, and that type of feeling is not aroused because Mrs. So and So has 2s. less than she ought to have or because John Smith has been put on a lower level. It is aroused because there is among the working people of this country a feeling that this is a tremendous injustice and a great imposition upon people who are already down to the depths. This is a feeling which is widespread amongst both employed and unemployed.

The Government cannot meet the situation by saying that there are always anomalies when new legislation is introduced, that a certain number of people are always disturbed, "let us take our time, examine it in a scientific way, and find out the nature of the problem." It is something bigger than that. In my view, the Government are up against a serious emergency. If I were to consult merely my own limited political interests, I should say let it rip, let it go on, let discontent spread throughout the land, let the agitation go ahead and the whole thing boil up and boil over. But I have to recognise that there are human issues immediately pressing on millions of homes in this country, and I am not prepared to allow my own narrow political party interests to be placed in front of a consideration of the needs of these people.

I ask the Government to realise the nature of the situation with which they are confronted. They must not pooh pooh the issue and regard it as a small thing which will pass in a day or two. They are up against something which affects not only their continued existence as a Government—we could contemplate their demise with great equanimity—but something which also affects the whole future of the country and which must be coped with now. I ask the Government to accept the Motion, to go back over the whole matter, hold a special Cabinet meeting and discuss how the situation is to be met and give to the people a decent chance of going through these difficult times in ease and comfort. They would call a special Cabinet meeting if something happened on the Indian frontier or in some other part of the Empire. I ask the Government to realise what they are up against

and to call a special Cabinet meeting to devise emergency methods for dealing with a serious national emergency.

I only want to say to the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that I think it is much better to take a decision on this matter now. The speech of the Lord President of the Council did not hold out much hope for us that our view would be met. If that had been the case he would have made the statement himself, or the Minister of Labour would have made the statement right away. I think it is better to take a decision on our Motion now.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 243.

Division No. 36.]

AYES.

[4.25 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Aske, Sir Robert William

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).

Maxton, James

Attlee, Clement Richard

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

Milner, Major James

Bailey, Eric Alfred George

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Owen, Major Goronwy

Banfield, John William

Grundy, Thomas W.

Parkinson, John Allen

Batey, Joseph

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rea, Walter Russell

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

Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Buchanan, George

Harris, Sir Percy

Rothschild, James A. de

Cape, Thomas

Janner, Barnett

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jenkins, Sir William

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

Cove, William G.

John, William

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Daggar, George

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Kirkwood, David

Thorne, William James

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Stephen Owen

Lawson, John James

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Dobble, William

Leonard, William

West, F. R.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Lunn, William

Wilmot, John

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Fuller, Captain A. G.

McEntee, Valentine L.

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mainwaring, William Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)

Boyce, H. Leslie

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

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

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

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Clarke, Frank

Apsley, Lord

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Assheton, Ralph

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Browne, Captain A. C.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Buchan, John

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Balniel, Lord

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Cook, Thomas A.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Butler, Richard Austen

Copeland, Ida

Beauchamp, Sir Brograva Campbell

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Crooke, J. Smedley

Bann, Sir Arthur Shirley

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Cross, R. H.

Bernays, Robert

Carver, Major William H.

Crossley, A. C.

Blindell, James

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Borodale, Viscount

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Bossom, A. C.

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Denville, Alfred

Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Dickie, John P.

Doran, Edward

Lees-Jones, John

Ross, Ronald D.

Drewe, Cedric

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

Liddall, Walter S.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Duckworth, George A. V.

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Duggan, Hubert John

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Dunglass, Lord

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Loftus, Pierce C.

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Salt, Edward W.

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

Elmley, Viscount

McCorquodale, M. S.

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

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

Scone, Lord

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

McKle, John Hamilton

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Everard, W. Lindsay

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Maitland, Adam

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Ganzonl, Sir John

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Smithers, Sir Waldron

Gibson, Charles Granville

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Somervell, Sir Donald

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Martin, Thomas B.

Soper, Richard

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Spens, William Patrick

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

Goff, Sir Park

Mitcheson, G. G.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast. S.)

Gower, Sir Robert

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Stones, James

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Granville, Edgar

Moreing, Adrian C.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Moss, Captain H. J.

Sutcliffe, Harold

Grimston, R. V.

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Tate, Mavis Constance

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Munro, Patrick

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

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Train, John

Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Hanbury, Cecll

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Hartington, Marquess of

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

Patrick, Colin M.

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Peake, Osbert

Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Peat, Charles U.

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Petherick, M.

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

Wayland, Sir William A.

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

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Hornby, Frank

Pybus, Sir John

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Radford, E. A.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Hurd, Sir Percy

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Ramshotham, Herwald

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Kimball, Lawrence

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Womersley, Sir Walter

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Ray, Sir William

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Knight, Holford

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Rickards, George William

Leckle, J. A.

Robinson, John Roland

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

Original Question again proposed.

4.35 p.m.

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

In the few remarks I was able to make last night I stated what was the position of the people in the district that I represent, many of whom have been for a long time unemployed. They have met in a philosophical manner every new scheme that has come along hitherto. They have protested at times and have been somewhat annoyed at the restrictions imposed upon them, but in the whole of my long experience I have never seen such bitter resentment as that which prevails at the present time in the district. As a matter of fact there is one seething mass of discontent. Not only the unemployed men who are on transitional payment, but practically every section of the community is protesting against the devastating way in which these Regulations are affecting those, concerned.

It may be that anything I say this afternoon will not have much influence on the Government, and probably not much effect on this Committee, but I want to assure the Committee that I have not to go through my division to find put what is going on, for I live in the middle of the division and the people come to see me. In the last fortnight I have had more people asking my advice as to what they ought to do than I have had in the whole of the 16 years that I have been the Member for the constituency. The difficulty is that one can do nothing to help, other than to advise the people to appeal. Finally, we made arrangements to ask for an interview with the area officer, as things were becoming so bad. Meetings were being held in every part of the division and men were going to the area officer and standing in queues. We thought that if we could get a discussion with the area officer we might be able to get some information that would allay the fears of those who were suffering. We got that interview with the area officer and another officer superior to him, yesterday morning.

I want to-day to utter a sweeping condemnation of the Regulations on principle, and as Regulations. Secondly, I am of opinion that the officers who are administering the Regulations are using in the narrowest possible way the discretionary power about which the Parliamentary Secretary talked. Having no intimate knowledge of the lives of the people in a particular locality, they are not able to give to cases the consideration that they ought to give, and are not able to put that humane touch into their administration that Sir Henry Betterton said over the wireless they would put into it. I know not of one case but of hundreds of cases in which there has not been the slightest touch of humane feeling.

So far as the rents provision is concerned I say frankly that during a discussion of the Regulations some weeks back I was very much in a mist as to how it would operate. Not being a chartered accountant or a first-class mathematician I had difficulty in finding out how the rents proposed would work out. I tried to work out the problem in my own mind and I put on it the best possible construction. In my constituency I tried to make it look not as bad as it turned out to be; I tried to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. But I found that I was a long way out in my calculation. The Regulations state that the basic rent will be 7s. 6d., inclusive in the 24s. for man and wife, but I find now that there is a new interpretation, that it is 7s. 6d. within the 24s., but that when the amount going to a household is 30s. it becomes 8s. 6d., that when the amount is £2 it becomes 10s., and that when the amount is 50s. it becomes 12s. 6d. If the man is paying 5s. rent instead of the 1s. 6d. being deducted because he is not paying the basic rent, the area officer assesses him as if he ought to have been paying 8s. 6d., 10s. or 12s. 6d., and deducts the difference between the nominal rent and the rent that the area officer thinks he ought to have been paying. So far as the allowance for higher rents is concerned I found very few cases where that has been of any effect to the people who pay those higher rents.

On Friday, 12th January, a man came to me and asked me what his position would be under the Regulations. The man was then very pleased, as he expected to get an increased assessment. There were himself and his wife and four children. I said to him, "Subject to some reduction on account of the low rent you are paying you would be entitled to 37s. 6d." He replied, "I thought it would be 38s. 6d.," but I told him the fourth child, being the sixth in the family, would lose one shilling per week, leaving him the 37s. 6d. He was contented. I said, "It may be, on account of your paying only 4s. 6d. a week rent, that there will be a further reduction, but I think you will get about 34s. 6d., putting it at its worst. At the end of the calculations you will be about sixpence better off under the new Regulations than under the old." He got 34s. under the old Regulations for himself, his wife, and four children. But when he got his paper the following day he came to me. He seemed to think I was a first-class liar, for instead of getting 37s. 6d., which I thought he ought to receive, he had the sum of 31s. 6d. He wanted me to explain how that was. He thought I ought to be a bigger man, with more knowledge, than the area officer. I told him quite honestly, "Believe me, the chap down in Bell Isle Street is a far superior man to me, and I cannot for the life of me tell you why you have got down to 31s. 6d."

I have had lots of other cases of a similar character, in which people, instead of getting an increased payment, have had a reduction. I am not giving any case to the Committee which has not come under my own observations. I have another case of a young married man. His wife had lived with her mother and, naturally, the young couple instead of taking a house of their own, went to live with the old lady so that the daughter could continue to look after her. The old lady was receiving the old age pension and the public assistance committee had allowed her 5s. for medicine and nourishment. When the assessment took place in the case of that young man and his wife, their determination instead of being 24s. per week was only 15s. 6d. per week. The rent of the house was, I think, 4s. 6d. All I could do was to tell him to appeal. I could give numerous cases of that kind, and if the Parliamentary Secretary, who is usually fairly good at juggling with figures across the Table, will explain them to me, I shall be grateful. I am getting on in years but I am always willing to learn. If I were to give all the cases that have come under my notice the Chamber which is not very densely populated now, would, I fear, become even less populated. I can give dozens of cases of the most deplorable character. Now I come to the question of the man who keeps poultry.

Yes, it is a case of the fox and the hens and of making ducks and drakes of it. If a man keeps a certain number of poultry he loses a certain amount on his determination. Yesterday morning, when we interviewed the officials to whom I have already referred, one of my colleagues put this case to the officer. "Suppose a man gets 50 eggs a week from his poultry, and 40 of these are used in his own home and he sells 10. What proportion of the 50 eggs counts against him to reduce his allowance?" The officer said that the 40 eggs consumed in the house would be taken into account. He was then asked whether that rule also applied to the case of a man who had an allotment and who grew cabbages, and the reply was "No." Therefore, I would like hon. Members to be clear on that point. Their constituents can produce cabbages ad lib without having it counted against them, but if their hens produce eggs they will be penalised.

I did not ask about potatoes, but I think I have said enough to show that the whole thing is farcical. In the Regulations it is stated that the officer can give certain benefits in special circumstances and in cases of a special character. We asked the officer in our area if that had been done in any case under his survey. He said it had been done in several cases, and that he had given up to 2s. 6d. per week additional allowance, but that it was necessary to go to the superior officer if 5s. was to be given. I suppose if one wanted anything more than 5s. one would have to go to the Minister or to Parliament. I think enough has been said in this Debate to show how these Regulations are being applied, and I think it must have been the intention of the Ministry and the board that they should be applied in that way. Otherwise, the officers would not be acting as they are acting.

The question of lodgings presents a very difficult problem to these area officers, and I wish to give one or two instances on that point so that the Parliamentary Secretary may have some idea of what I wish to put to him. If any relative of a family, however far removed, is living in the house with that family, he is regarded in certain circumstances as being one of the family—even though there may be only two or three drops of blood between them. I have the case of an unmarried man of 53. He had lived with his father and mother, and when his father died he kept on the house for his mother. Eventually his mother died also, and some years ago he went to live with a married sister. In 1929 he became unemployed, passed from standard benefit to transitional benefit, and finally he has come into conflict with these Regulations. His sister and his brother-in-law are receiving the old age pension. There is a married son with a wife and two children who works as a miner, and earns the average miner's wage in that locality. There is another nephew living in the same house who is unemployed, and who has been reduced to 10s. a week.

This man of 53 years of age has received a nil determination. He has been treated as one of the household. Either the old age pensioners have to keep him, or the miner with a wife and two children has to keep him, or the other nephew with 10s. a week has to keep him. The only other alternative is to turn him out, and they could hardly be expected to turn out any man in such circumstances, whether he was a relative or not. That man is wondering whether the next step will not be to the workhouse. Here is a man who has worked all his life up to three or four years ago, and because he happens to be placed in the circumstances which I have described, he is told very politely and nicely in the official note which comes from the board that as from a certain date, a week or a fortnight ago, he is to receive no further transitional payment.

I have also the case of an old woman of 79 who has living with her a married daughter, husband and two children. The married couple and the two children have been reduced to 19s. 6d. and when we inquired we were told that the man was not the householder, that the old lady was the tenant, and that if the man got the rent book changed his case would be reassessed. I put it to any hon. Member, is it right that a man should be asked to tell an old lady in such circumstances that she must give up her house to him? It represents to her the last shred of independence left to her. That may be sentiment, but it is a strong sentiment, and a natural human sentiment. To tell that old lady that she must give up her tenancy so that these people may get a few shillings more on which to exist, would be brutal and callous. I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that a searching examination of these Regulations is required and especially an examination of the manner in which they are being administered in some localities. In regard to the question of appeal the Parliamentary Secretary last night said: to the chairman of the appeal board who has to satisfy himself that the appeal is not frivolous or trivial, and that the man has some justifiable grounds for it.

Yes, under the scales. If the chairman decides that in the man's favour then the case goes to this wonderful appeals board. I say frankly that I am satisfied with the trade union representative on the appeals board in my area, and I have no right to raise any question about the others because I do not know them. I want to put this point to the Parliamentary Secretary. Suppose the two assessors on the appeals board, that is, the representative of the Unemployment Assistance Board, and the representative of the appellant consider the appeal to be justified, can the chairman over-rule that decision? Can he veto a decision arrived at by his two colleagues? If that is the case, then bad as the appeal system seems to be up to now, it will be even worse in practice. When a man sends in an appeal he gets a most courteous letter from the area officer. I have seen these letters and they are very nice letters until you get to the last paragraph.

I have here a letter sent to a young man who put in an appeal form. He lives 14 miles away from the area offices. Fourteen miles there and 14 back make 28. He gets this letter from the area officer, telling him very politely that he will see him on a certain morning—last Thursday, I think—between 10 and 11. But in the last paragraph he says, "I beg to remind you that there is no travelling allowance to and from this office." So he has to walk, if he wants to see the area officer, 14 miles one way and 14 the other, because there is no travelling allowance. This young fellow was in a difficulty, and the determination made in respect of him was drastic, so that he had to walk the 14 miles. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that surely the unemployed deserve better than that. I have come to the conclusion that the whole of the Regulations are anomalous, and I say without hesitation that in every case that I know, instead of the officer trying to find out anything that would be advantageous to the man or giving the benefit of any doubt to the man, he has tried to find everything he could against the man and the man has never been given the benefit of any doubt.

There is another thing, in regard to ascertaining the net wages of persons employed in a household where there are no unemployed persons. The only deductions from the gross wages that the officer is allowing are the statutory deductions, namely, for unemployment insurance and National Health Insurance. I pointed out to him that the payments for lamps, explosives, picks, and other tools used by the workmen had all to be paid for to a certain extent, and the man should be given credit for them before deciding what his net wages actually were. There seemed to be a difference of opinion between the two officers to whom I put the case. One of them said that only the statutory deductions had to be taken into consideration. The other said, "No; all off-takes affecting the man's employment must be given consideration." I told the officers, in order to make myself right, that I would present them with a copy of the speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary just prior to the Recess.

I only regret that I cannot make my protest with the vehemence with which people have made their protests to me. The scene in the Gallery of the House last night may be called regrettable, but, believe me, if there had been 50 people from my Division in the Gallery last night, what actually occurred would have been a kindergarten as compared with what would have happened. In the last 10 or 12 days all my efforts have been exerted in trying to stop things of that kind. So far as the Regulations themselves are concerned, I hope that whoever possessed the brains that devised them, and any of his friends who may know about it, will keep it quiet from the public, because no credit or honour is given to him. Whoever was the author of them cannot be said to have had one touch of human feelings so far as the unemployed are concerned. He has done everything that could be done to frustrate these people and to prevent their being allowed even to exist. Speaking from my own personal knowledge of these areas, I have seen strong men gradually declining under the conditions which have been meted out to them in the past. What is going to be the physique and the condition of these men, when work is found for them, when they cannot get the necessaries of life even to maintain any semblance of existence? And this type of man cannot go on like that all the time.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we are told in speeches by prominent Ministers of this Government, and by what we see in the Press that wonderful times of prosperity are upon us and that there is a large reduction in the numbers of the unemployed. Let us accept that as correct. Surely, if the number of the unemployed is so many hundreds of thousands less in 1935 than it was in 1932 or 1933, the cost of maintenance of the lesser number must be considerably less. Why, therefore, try to reduce the cost of the remaining unemployed by imposing more severe conditions upon them than before? This is, to my mind, the most debasing thing that has ever been imposed on these men. It is ruthless, callous, and brutal, and I say quite frankly, as an ordinary Member of Parliament, in what is called the Mother of Parliaments, that I feel ashamed to face these men and to tell them that this is the best that Parliament can do for them. Every Member of this House ought to feel ashamed, with all this talk of prosperity, to tell these men who have been thrown on the scrap-heap by the mechanisation of industry that the best we can do for them is barely to allow them to exist.

5.9 p.m.

I should like to express sympathy with the last speaker and with many other hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate, but I find great difficulty in relating this Debate to reality. Having listened as attentively as did hon. Members opposite to the speeches of Sir Henry Betterton last Session, having regard to the known intention of all Members of this House in passing this Act that the general condition of the unemployed in the country should be bettered and not made worse, and having regard to the fact that the Measure is in fact, I believe, to distribute an extra £3,000,000 among these very people, I find it difficult to relate these speeches, especially the more extreme among them, to the facts of the case, and I hope the Minister, when he replies, will explain to us how this extraordinary series of anomalies can arise all over the country. Will he say, for one thing, what proportion of this extra £3,000,000 is actually to be swallowed up in administrative costs?

Thank you very much. Then I find it still more difficult, if this £3,000,000 is actually being distributed over and above what was being distributed before, to understand how it is possible that there can be this tremendous uprise of feeling against the Government that hon. Members have shown to-day and yesterday. I would like also to ask one favour of the Parliamentary Secretary. There is no doubt, as he himself has explained, that this large and complicated piece of machinery is not operating in many places, not only as the Government supporters, but I believe the Front Bench also, expected that it would operate. I see an interval of time between now and the satisfactory functioning of these Regulations, and, assuming that the efforts of the new boards are not very successful at the outset, will the Minister of Labour consider making some sort of stand-still order which would result in these cuts which are being effected not becoming operative until the people who are suffering them shall have been able to have their cases heard on appeal? As it stands, we shall have a great many people all over the country suffering these cuts and waiting for what appears to be an unknown interval until they have their appeals heard, and I feel that it is not the country's wish, nor is it the wish of this House, to save the few thousands of pounds that may represent the difference between carrying on the old rates of pay for the few weeks until the appeals are heard and making the cuts operative at once. I hope the Government will consider that possibility.

5.14 p.m.

We hear a good deal of woe from all parts of the House, and every speaker so far, I think, has had something to say about the hardships imposed by these Regulations; and justifiably so, because, after all, the people of this country who have been among the unemployed for years past are certainly feeling the very great hardship which the present cuts are imposing upon them. I come from a great industrial centre where they have been suffering very great hardships for a number of years. I think they have suffered hardships equal to those suffered in any other part of Great Britain. Quite a large number of the collieries and mills have been closed, and there is no further opportunity for employment.

I was very much struck by the Minister's statement that he wanted uniformity of payments, but uniformity of payments ought not to mean that it is the minimum payment that shall be uniform. There ought to be something nearer a maximum which would give life and hope to the people who are suffering so badly at the present time. I believe that this will mean a reduction to the minimum uniformity as far as it can be applied. While it may mean an increase to some people, it will mean large reductions to many others. Is the number of people who are being relieved greater than those who are being compelled to suffer more. So rigidly are the Regulations applied that temporary assistance cannot be given. I was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay) suggest a stand-still order for the cases which are down for appeal, because I was going to make the same suggestion. It is not fair to reduce the income of applicants who have made an appeal until their appeal is heard, particularly as it appears that the appeal committees are not to operate immediately.

All the appeal tribunals are in existence and able to function if and when appeals are made to them.

In his speech yesterday the Minister said something about making inquiries in Lancashire. I do not want him to take the Lancashire County Council scale as the one that should be the basis of the payments for every other area, because all along it has been the very minimum. The number of protests that have been made in this House against the Lancashire County Council scale need no reiteration from me. I believe the county has been paying a lower scale than any of the cities or boroughs in the county, and it passes my comprehension why Lancashire should be the place in which to make inquiries. I wish the Minister would inquire into the discrepancies that have occurred where the county areas touch the borough or city areas. Some people in the boroughs have been receiving one or two shilling more than people in the county, but now the process is to be reversed, and those who have been receiving a higher rate of income must come down to the lowest. That is why I say that we ought not to base the scale of payments on the minimum but that it ought to be something considerably better.

A large number of people are unemployed in my borough of Wigan. Shortly after they were appointed, the public assistance committee tendered their resignations to the Ministry. They would not consider carrying on the work if they were to be rigid and given no elastic powers so that they could apply special consideration to special cases. The difficulty was settled, and I understand they had to use their discretion in order to satisfy their own consciences and at the same time do the best they could for the people. Their scale has been higher than the county scale, but at the same time it has not been a scale which could be said to be wasteful of public money. I believe they have given fair consideration to every case. It is not very often I raise my voice in the House about the poverty in my area, but I am compelled to say that we have as much poverty in the Wigan area and as many cases of hardship as in any other part of the country. Meetings are going on night after night in every part of Wigan protesting against what is taking place. I will not weary the Committee by giving the number of cases, but it came to my notice during the last week-end that there are scores of cases of reductions ranging from 1s. to 17s. 6d. a week.

There must be something wrong with the Regulations or with their application. I do not think the trouble has been with the application of the old Regulations, because I do not think the public assistance committee would have given more than ought to have been given. There is another circumstance which exists in every part of the country. I refer to the young men whom the Regulations make a kind of burden to their people if they live at home. It has always been said that the Socialist party does not believe in home life, but I have never known that to be so. I have been speaking for the Labour movement for 30 years, and in the early part of my career it used to be alleged that our desire was to break up the home life of the nation. What the Government are now doing will tend to do that, for a large number of young men are leaving their homes rather than penalise their parents as they are made to do under the administration of these Regulations. I do not think the Minister will agree that that is the right thing to do. One of the greatest safeguards of the country is to make family life a success and to make it have a binding effect on each member of the household. These Regulations, however, are working in the other direction, and, if they are allowed to continue, this Government will create a record greater than that of any other British Government in taking steps towards destroying the family life of the nation. When men who are serving in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force make an allotment to their parents, it is taken into consideration. That means that the men are making a sacrifice but it does not help their parents. They are doing something which they need not do and it ought not to affect the amount of money which is paid under the Regulations. The Minister ought to look into that point, because, if a young man is serving in the forces and feels he ought to send some contribution to his parents, it ought not to be taken into calculation of the amount to be received by the parents.

The cases of discontent because of the Regulations are many, and far too many to be healthy, not only in my area, but in every area of the country. The Regulations have created a sort of glorified board of guardians which applies from one end of Britain to another, and it is given powers which are so rigid that it is not possible for it to exercise even the powers possessed by former boards of guardians. This makes it worse for the people because special circumstances cannot be given the same consideration as before. The scale of payment is so rigid that it will tend in the direction of creating physical and moral deterioration in our people. The rigidity of the Regulations is a great mistake and there ought to be wider discretion given to the people who have to work them. References have been made to the demonstration in the public gallery last night. One can only say that it is a forerunner of what we may expect throughout the country. Demonstrations are being arranged in all parts of England, and I know that the Labour Council in my constituency are considering a monster demonstration. I hope that something will be done to avoid the necessity for them, and that the Regulations will be altered so that they will not rouse the people to that state of ire and anger which forbodes trouble. The Parliamentary Secretary made the only point that he could make in alleviation of the difficulty last night, when the said:

I should like to ask the Minister to take away some of the rigidity of the Regulations and to give to the officers who are appointed under the board more discretionary power so that they can relieve cases according to their necessities. There is no need for the great inquisitions that are taking place. Some of them are getting beyond the bounds of modesty. The officers are taking upon themselves greater powers in making inquiries in the homes of people than they ought to do, but they ought to be able to give relief where necessary and not be forced to penalise people for circumstances over which they have no control, such as having lodgers and members of the family living at home. The officers ought to be given greater discretion so that they can relieve cases which to-day are not being relieved at all. When I go home to my division at the week-ends I am faced with many cases, and immediately I go into the borough of Wigan on Saturday mornings I am met with complaints and grievances from people who are suffering under the Regulations. Last week-end cases of reductions ranging from 1s. to 17s. 6d. were brought to me. There is something radically wrong in a scheme which demands such amounts to be taken from that which the applicants formally, received.

5.30 p.m.

I was a supporter of these Regulations when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour brought them in. Previous to that, as he will remember, I had been a critic of the administration of the means test. I have recently returned from my constituenccy, and I can tell him quite frankly that if he makes inquiry in Lancashire he will find that things are not running satisfactorily. I ask him to make inquiry in the industrial parts of Lancashire, in order to find out for himself. It seems to me that it is not so much the actual scales in the Regulations which are wrong as the rigidity with which they are being administered. It is the anomalies more than the actual scales which are objected to. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not say that that is always so, but I do think that it is the rigidity with which the scales are being administered which results in large decreases in places where, I feel, such decreases ought not to take place. I wish to quote a few words of what the Minister said in his speech:

"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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1935; col. 44, Vol. 297.]

There my right hon. Friend frankly admits—I am sure he would frankly admit it—that the scheme is not working satisfactorily at the present time. I make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he is just as sympathetic as his predecessor, Sir Henry Betterton. All of us in this House, regardless of party, whatever hon. Members opposite may say, wish to see these unfortunate people who are unemployed treated fairly and properly. We on this side of the House are as anxious to see that as are hon. Members opposite, and the Minister himself is no exception. The means test was administered in the past through public assistance committees. Those committees have been working for some years and they understand very clearly the conditions prevailing in the different districts. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not consider the question of keeping in being those public assistance committees, which have worked so admirably in the past, and using them in an advisory capacity for the benefit of his new officials who are administering the present Regulations. I feel sure that the old public assistance committees would be able to offer very good advice, because they are already in touch with the local conditions in various parts of the country. I want him to take this suggestion seriously, because I think it might get us over the transitional period, which is causing great trouble and hardship in certain parts of the country, such as no one wishes to see, least of all the Minister. It would help to smooth out the transition period between the time when the public assistance committees ran the administration and the new officials are settling down to their work. The Minister further said in his speech:

"The Unemployment Board was set up … with the duty of caring for the needs of those who have to apply for assistance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1935; col. 45, Vol. 297.]

That is their duty. In doing that duty they have a discretion under the Regulations. He went on to say—I am not quoting his words exactly, but only reading a few words to give the sense of what he said: "If the Regulations lead to anomalies it will both be the desire and the duty of the board to submit to the Government and to Parliament any Amendments necessary to remove the anomalies and to redress the grievances." I ask the Minister how long it will be before he makes inquiries. He has not had time to do it yet, because the system has been operating for only a few weeks, but I impress upon him the urgency of the matter, because it is a very serious one. I want him to make inquiries at once, to go into this matter to see whether all the speeches made in the House yesterday about anomalies and reductions in allowances were really justified. He ought to see whether the extra £3,000,000 which we speak of as being paid to these people is reaching them, or whether there are more reductions than increases. I would like him to make a careful inquiry into those questions, because the matter is an urgent one and one in which, I feel sure, the whole House is deeply interested. I do not think the suggestion put forward by an hon. Member that there should be a stand-still order is a feasible one, but I do think that if the Minister calls the public assistance committees into consultation with his officials the latter will get a very good idea of what ought to be done and how the Regulations really ought to be administered.

5.38 p.m.

Every Member of this House, having in mind what happened when the Regulations were first made public, desires that every working man who is unfortunately out of work shall have his fair share of the fund which is available, but at this stage, after the scheme has been in operation but a few weeks, we ought not to allow ourselves to be stampeded by the production of a few isolated cases brought forward for the purpose of political propaganda. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] To bring forward a few isolated cases, and they are very few, out of which to make political capital is neither proper nor fair.

The purpose of this House is to get the facts. It may be true that in certain districts these Regulations, have not worked as they ought to have done, but that is not true of the whole country. Last week I was in the division of my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) and addressed a meeting, a very noisy one, attended by many of the supporters of hon. Members opposite. I asked anybody there to bring to my attention any case of unfairness or case where people have not been properly treated. I asked them to communicate with me at once and let me know, but I have not received a single letter of complaint from any source.

As I have said, there is not a Member of this House who does not desire to see fair play or who does not believe that the Minister intends that fair play shall be given—except hon. Members opposite, and I will say of them that they would seem to be hoping that fair play shall not be attempted. We know that we shall get fair play if the Minister is given time. Time is essential in putting a huge machine of this sort into operation. From all sides we have heard complaints as to the needs test, and yet hon. Members opposite are saying that their one desire to encourage family life. The complaint most often brought before us is that the amount which the children in a family are bringing into the house is taken into account. I have always thought that one of the essential duties of members of a family was to support one another in times of need, and I cannot see the logic of the complaint of hon. Members opposite that the sum which a child brings into the house, or a portion of it, is taken into account for the support of the parents. It seems to me that the first duty of a child or of a patient is to contribute towards the support of the other. I will not detain the Committee except to reiterate what I have said, that I have the utmost faith in the Minister and in those appointed to work under him, and that if they are given a proper chance—not a three weeks' chance—these Regulations will be made to work fairly and equitably.

5.43 p.m.

I would like to remind the Committee of the vitriolic comments passed upon these Regulations from all benches yesterday and to-day. It is perfectly manifest that a large number of the supporters of the Government accepted these Regulations with an in- fantile credulity and failed to realise the import of them when they were first introduced, and now, with similar credulity, they are urging the Minister to effect improvements in their administration. There is no elasticity in the Regulations such as would allow of improvements. When this Bill was introduced the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor—who, if any man in this country has earned an honour, has earned it, because he has utilised all the ingenuity of the devil in preparing these Regulations, and he deserves his honour for effecting the economy desired by the Government—said that it was necessary first of all to make the Unemployment Fund solvent. Secondly, he said that as we have accepted the view that permanent unemployment has become a part of our social scheme we must make provision for the derelict. He said, further, that no one in this House would ever believe that unemployment benefit was sufficient to maintain a man when he was unemployed, but that it was a cushion for longer or shorter periods of unemployment, and therefore people who had become derelict as the result of long spells of unemployment must be dealt with in a much more sympathetic and generous manner than they had been dealt with up to then by public assistance committees. It was our duty as a nation to remove from the old people the stigma of the Poor Law.

Let us examine these Regulations and see how that spirit has been carried out. We remember that he mentioned, as one of the reasons for removing people from the stigma of the Poor Law, the whispering gallery of the members of public assistance committees. Men were afraid to go there and reveal their circumstances, because of that whispering gallery. These Regulations make, provision for amplification of it into a loud speaker. First of all, there is the investigating officer. A man has to go to that officer under the board and, if he is to get any redress, ultimately he goes to the tribunal, if the chairman permits him to do so. The income of a miner who is working for starvation wages is to be taken into account in order to relieve the Government of their responsibility. One of the things said by the Minister was that the country has now recognised a national responsibility to maintain the able-bodied unemployed, now that so many men are unemployed through no fault of their own, but the Government are asking the family who are already on the poverty line to share with the employed miner who is in the same household the miserable pittance which he receives from pit work. Bumble was a toff, compared with these Regulations.

The Government are asking blood relations—anybody with a similar red corpuscle that has come down from Adam, if the owner lives in the same family—to maintain the family by their employment. There is the definite case of a cousin of other cousins living with a widowed mother having been given a nil determination, and of those cousins being expected to maintain him, notwithstanding the fact that he had been a bona fide lodger for five years. I will not enter into cases. My division consists of a town of 45,000 people. Out of 11,500 insured population, 6,000 are unemployed, and 5,000 of these come under the means test and have been denuded of everything in consequence of their long period of unemployment. I am not going to argue about the man who is bringing income into a family from wages which it is proposed to treat in this pettifogging way, but about the man for whom the Government are making provision, the man who has been unemployed for a long time, and who is not only to have maintenance but is to be restored to the position of being able to take up employment again in the future. I will cite the case of the family of an unemployed man and his wife and two male adults who are also unemployed. I want to apply that case as a test of these Regulations. That family formerly received 60s.; that was their right, under transitional payments. It was made up of 26s. for the man and wife and 17s. for each of the adults over 21 years of age. The Government admitted that that was the poverty line, or was even below the poverty line.

Now the Government, in order to help those people, who are down and out and who have no clothes or boots, are asking them to accept a reduction from 60s. to 42s., perhaps with some arithmetical devilry in regard to rent. In that case, when the needs test was applied, it came to 42s., 24s. for the man and wife, 10s. for the first adult and 8s. for the second. The rule is then applied of one quarter of the excess over 30s. to make a new basic rent allowance, which then becomes 10s. 6d. If the rent is actually only 8s., there is a reduction of a further half-crown. That drops the family income from 60s. to 39s. 6d. There is nothing in the Regulations that provides sufficient elasticity to deal with that case. Much play has been made during the Debate in regard to the provision for rent. When the Regulations were being discussed before the Christmas Adjournment, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there were 760,000 people in receipt of transitional payments, 155,000 of whom were married couples without children. The Government were dropping their allowance from 26s. to 24s., but were going to be generous by making the rent allowance. People who have been idle all these years have been unable to pay rent and large numbers of them have had to go into apartments. Now the Government say, "If your rent is 5s. and you receive an income of 24s. your basic rent allowance is 7s. 6d., so there is half-a-crown off your income." The 26s. which they were receiving under transitional payments and which was regarded as the poverty line, now becomes 21s. 6d. It is only in special circumstances that those people can be dealt with, but those are not special circumstances, they are ordinary circumstances.

Yes. Hon. Members have said this afternoon that the Minister will administer the Regulations sympathetically. I believe he will, but there is no elasticity. One of my hon. Friends spoke this afternoon about lodgers. We are much concerned in our area with the potential breaking up of thousands of families. Boys who get work are being driven away from home. Their fathers may be out of work and their own incomes are taken into account to maintain the family. It is all very well in theory, but you have to get that person who is responsible for the income to give it towards meeting the needs of the household. Therefore boys are leaving. We have had discussions with our area officer, and his findings are quite different from those of the White Paper. We extracted this from him in regard to lodgers. It is a common practice in our area for lodgers to be accepted at a very small figure, particularly if they are unemployed. People have taken them in out of sympathy, and are giving them lodging on what is called a tea-and-potato basis.

The Government propose to assess the profit out of 5s. paid for lodgings at 3s. 6d. If I am unemployed, 3s. 6d. is to be taken off my needs assessment because I have an asset of 3s. 6d. What will be the result of that? It will drive those lodgers to the lodging houses. The pettifogging meanness of the Government is abominable. In these Regulations they make the provision that if a man is a lodger but goes to a lodging house, his assessment will be decreased, because he is living under undesirable conditions. That is the arrangement that the Government are making. They give a man 15s., but how can they expect, him to live a decent life on a decent level? They are driving all these men to lodging houses, and at the same time are becoming the dictators of the morals of the people.

The Government make a provision which is the depth of meanness. If a man loses his employment and becomes bereft of benefit he goes to the board, and the Government say that the needs test will be applied and the man will be provided for in accordance with the needs of the family. Take a case of a family whose needs are 50s. It might be 55s. if the family is large. The man is asked, "What are your earnings and when were you last employed?" He may be a colliery labourer earning 39s. per week. The Government do not think it is sufficient to say, "We will take the difference between 50s. and 39s.," but they lay it down in the Memorandum that there must be a further reduction of 2s. The needs of the family may be 50s. but the Government give only 37s.

The gentle breezes of protest are flowing from the valleys from which I come, and the Government must take a warning. The breezes come from a sea of discontent and from poverty-stricken people who have been on the poverty line for years. The Government are driving them down far below the poverty line, and I say to the Government, "Be careful that the breezes do not develop into a cyclone that will produce devastating results." Like the Leader of the Opposition, I hope that the demonstrations will be carried out in good order, but let the Government remember that they can exhaust the patience of a patient man, and that when the patient man becomes a fury you are not dealing with a patient or non-intelligent ox. You are dealing with intelligent men and women of culture, who have aspirations and who know that, there is no need for this poverty in abundance, and that the pantry of the nation is full to overflowing, glutted to such an extent that men cease to work because the pantry is too full. Those people are not going to tolerate that.

In our country we have a motto "Death before dishonour." If I be the father of children whom God has given me the right to protect, I would rather lose my life than see those kiddies starve. I want to warn the Government that if these Regulations are not withdrawn and reasonable conditions substituted for them, they must beware, because once the attack is commenced the people will not be satisfied. As has been stated before, this is not a series of demonstrations engineered by vicious influences, but one that arises from the deep-rooted fact that human beings are going short of food, while the Government are filling the girths of other people. Our people are tightening their belts as they have never done before, because they have insufficient money to maintain themselves, quite apart from being able to equip themselves for work in the future.

The most petty things are being taken into account, such as cocks and hens. Do not let us be frivolous over cocks and hens; if school meals are to be taken into account, then it is not frivolous to talk about cocks and hens. We have had indications that allotments were to be taken into account, but that proposal became unpopular. I have been telling the people in my division about their allotments. The commissioner who is coming in to assist us to rehabilitate trade, to raise our spirits and paint our municipal buildings, is prepared for more allotments. It was too unpopular to go on with what the Solicitor-General told us would be taken into account, and therefore there is, I understand, no reference at all in this Memorandum to allotments. Indeed, if these Regulations operate for three or four months, the land that would be required for allotments will be needed for other purposes, unless we can popularise the crematorium, because the people will be dying of literal starvation. I appeal to the Government to respond to the appeal which I bring from my people, believing that the sounding-board is here. If there is a democratic demand in the country regarding something which is pressing hardly upon them, this Government should respond to it. Let us test that democratic spirit, and say, after all the evidence that has been produced during this Debate, these Regulations ought to be withdrawn and more human ones substituted.

6.2 p.m.

I think that the Debate to-day has gained on yesterday's Debate, in that, on the whole, it has been very quietly, reasonably, and constructively argued, and many suggestions have been made as to what could be done to improve the lot of those who come under these Regulations. Originally I was an opponent of the Regulations; I could not see how it was possible to frame Regulations to meet the very varying conditions prevalent in this country. I was told again and again, however, that we had to have something in the way of Regulations, some uniformity of standard, or we should find people on one side of the road drawing very much less money than people on the other side of the road with the same needs, which obviously creates a sense of injustice and unfairness.

When the Regulations came out, I was pleased to see that they were very adaptable, that they took into consideration such questions as rent, which obviously very much affected the amount of allowance to be made, and that they increased the allowances for children. On the whole, £3,000,000 a year more is being given than was given before, so that nobody could say that they represent a drastic and remorseless cutting down as has been suggested in many speeches. But I welcomed them especially because they were flexible; and, listening to the speeches made yesterday and to-day, it is brought home to one very much that the defect in the carrying out of the Regulations so far has been that the Regulation at the top of page 8, which permits of flexibilty, has been regarded as a dead letter. Otherwise, all the anomalies of which we have heard could not have arisen.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. D. Davies) quoted a case in which there was a reduction in the income of a household from, I think, 60s. to 42s., and he said that that could not be dealt with under the heading of exceptional circumstances. I maintain that it could. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If anybody's income is reduced without notice by one-third, I think that that is an exceptional circumstance. If a thing like that had to be done, I think it should not have been done by a stroke of the pen, but in reasonable stages, giving the family due notice. But if you are going to strike a level it does not mean, and it did not mean when we were discussing the Regulations, that everybody should be raised to the highest scale that was being paid anywhere in the country. That would have been a very easy thing to do, and, if we had raised everyone to the highest scale that was being paid in the country, we certainly should not have had the outcry that we have had to-day.

We know as a matter of fact that a great many more people must have had increases than decreases, but we have not heard in two days more than a very few instances in which there has been an increase. If we raised everyone to the highest scale, the result would merely be to put a burden on the rest of the people who were in employment, to lessen the likelihood of unemployed people getting employment, and probably to lose other people their jobs. We have to avoid either extreme; that is the duty of a Government and the supporters of a Government. We do not want to put the nation back where it was in 1931; we have to steer a fair and reasonable middle line. But that does not mean that anybody on this side of the House, and least of all the Minister, has the slightest desire to see anybody suffer through want. We are just as determined as any-one on the other side of the House that people should have fair treatment—

I support the Regulations because I think they are a very considerable advance on what we have had before. They take the circumstances into consideration; they give an increase for the children; they take rent into consideration. In the Debates of yesterday and to-day we have heard of nothing but rents that were very low, but we have had Debates in the House in which nobody had ever heard of a rent under 15s. Yesterday most of the rents quoted were from 4s. downwards. Surely, if it is right for a person to get more money because he has an expensive house on an expensive site, and has to pay a high rent, it is also fair that someone who has the advantage of a very cheap house should draw less money. Otherwise, why have Regulations at all, or try to secure any uniformity? Surely, hon. Members opposite must be as anxious as we are to see uniformity brought about. Otherwise you do not get fair play, but a sense of injustice, and that is what is going to make trouble in this country. Hardship does not create nearly the ill feeling that injustice creates.

That brings me to another point which I made incidentally when the Regulations were introduced. I think that a great deal of trouble arises because the recipient of relief does not know how his assessment has been calculated. He is merely told that he will get so much. Then he has to write to his Member of Parliament, or see someone locally, and ask the reason why there has been a reduction. Obviously, whoever makes the assessment has to make certain calculations, and not only that, but he has to report those calculations when he gets back to the office, and the report has to be filed under the heading of the case. Presumably the report—I have never seen the forms—has various headings printed on it, for the purpose of showing the amount allotted, the number of children in the family, the rent, and the other considerations provided for in the Regulations.

If these particulars have to be worked out and placed on record in the office, why cannot the recipient of the allowance have a carbon copy of the statement, so that at any rate he may know how his allowance has been calculated; and if there are special circumstances owing to which he receives a bit extra, there might be a note at the bottom. Then, when he approaches his Member of Parliament or anyone else with regard to his case, or when he wants to appeal about it, or take advice as to whether he should appeal or not, there will be no question whether he has omitted certain relevant facts. Even the best of us, when we read through the Regulations, will know what a complicated business it is, how numerous are the considerations which have to be taken into account, and how difficult it is to be sure that you have covered the whole ground. If a man could produce an exact paper showing the basis on which he has been paid, it would cut away argument to a very great extent. I respectfully suggest once more to the Minister that he should find some way of giving the recipient a copy of the calculation of his case.

In conclusion, I hope it will be possible to do something to insist on the flexibility contained in these Regulations being brought home to those who have to administer them. One can quite imagine that, with new rules, a man who has just been appointed to a post—although I understand that most of these men are already experienced—would be very anxious to stick strictly to the letter of the law, and I think it would be well if the Minister could let it be known that in a big transition like this, where many cases may be transferred from a lavish authority to a very strict basis, the change must only be brought about gradually, in order to give the people a chance, and that very hard cases such as have been mentioned to-day should not be enforced, because obviously they are special cases such as are referred to in paragraph (2) on page 8 of the Regulations. If the Minister could convey that to the administrators, or, if he has already done so, as I daresay he has, could impress it further upon them, I feel sure that it would do a very great deal to remove the distress and agitation caused by the interpretation of these Regulations.

6.13 p.m.

The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto) hit the nail on the head when he said that people do not know where they are, that there is general confusion, and that they have to go, to use his phrase, to their Member of Parliament or someone else, who is just as confused, apparently, as the ordinary persons who are affected by these Regulations. Moreover, the Member of Parliament, or the person described as "someone else," has no status. The whole essence and foundation of this scheme is that the power and duty to give relief has been taken out of the hands of the local authorities. It was first transferred from the boards of guardians to the county councils, and now it has been taken out of the hands of the county councils, and even out of the hands of Parliament. My hon. Friend below me is glad of that; he does not want the responsibility. The result is that these people, when they are in need, when they are in difficulty, have to be handed over body and soul to bureaucracy. I do not know if my hon. Friend, with his individualist ideas, approves of that. This is a bureaucratic machine. I am not saying anything against any of these people. Most of them are hard-working, decent people who are trying to do a most difficult task according to the Regulations. But you cannot give, and you have not given, latitude to the officials, who are required to carry out the Regulations as passed and approved by Parliament.

It is true that the right hon. Gentleman has printed and placed before us, and I give him credit for it, a complicated memorandum of 32 pages and 116 paragraphs. I have been busy during the last few days trying to master these very complex paragraphs. I am accustomed to Bills, and for many years I was accustomed to carrying out Acts of Parliament. I am accustomed to the complicated phraseology of official language. But I defy any ordinary person, who, after all, is the person concerned—the person who is going to get the relief from the Employment Exchange—to understand these 116 clauses, complicated, involved, and difficult to understand as they are; and I entirely agree that half the trouble is due to the fact that people do not understand what their rights are. I was down in my district a couple of days ago, and I can only describe the condition of the persons affected there as one of bewilderment. Suddenly, through no fault of their own, they find themselves cut by 1s., 2s. or 3s. That may seem a small amount to hon. Members, but, if you are living on the margin, it is a serious thing. Every penny is counted in the household budget. This reduction is deeply resented. Suddenly on 7th January they find themselves transferred from one authority to another without any explanation that they can understand, but they are told by a direct business-like official that it is according to the Regulations.

Yesterday I came across a case of an old age pensioner, a widower, living with his son who was also a widower. He had had from the public assistance committee an addition of 5s. 3d. to enable him to make his contribution to the home. Under the new Regulations that 5s. 3d. has had to go. The public assistance authority say that they have no power to add to the amount that he receives. The son, who is aged 57, finds his income reduced because the old age pensioner is living with him. The old man said he had no alternative but to go to the workhouse and no longer be an embarrassment to his son. In the old days he could go to the public assistance committee and have it out, and, even if a concession could not be given, he at least felt that his grievance had been ventilated.

Now, what is the remedy? Hon. Members opposite say he can go to his Member of Parliament, but in the ordinary way a Member of Parliament cannot do anything in the matter. Questions are not allowed across the Floor of the House. It is only by pure accident that we have these two days at the beginning of the Session and, as far as I can see, after this Debate there will not be another opportunity until the main Estimates come up, and we can raise the question on the Minister's salary. As I pointed out on the Third Reading of the Bill, we are departing from the sound principle of personal contact in helping people in time of distress. You are handing over the whole organisation of this difficult, complex, intricate problem to officials who are responsible, not to the House of Commons, not to the public, but to a board of half-a-dozen gentlemen, excellent gentlemen, anxious to do what is right, well selected, but on the other hand having a job quite impossible to administer sympathetically and humanely. With a board sitting at Whitehall dealing with a population of 40,000,000, with conditons varying from district to district, differing in London from the North—you have only had to hear the discussion of the last two days to realise how different the conditions are—it is impossible to have an elastic machine effectively operated by a board of paid officials without having hundreds of these cases of grievance. However good the Minister's intentions, however anxious he is to have these Regulations elastic, a big organisation like this inevitably ends in bureaucratic methods, and he is undertaking a herculean task.

6.21 p.m.

It is very difficult to comprehend the mind of Members who endeavour to justify the means test or the application of these Regulations. When the Government came into office they passed their economy measures and by that means extracted £60,000,000 from the unemployed. Since then they have endeavoured to rectify the adverse balance of the fund by increasing the contributions of employed, employers and the State, and they have obtained by that means roughly £17,000,000. In addition, they passed through the House a means test which had to be administered by the county councils, which under the 1929 Local Government Act were obliged to take the place of the boards of guardians. It is very difficult to estimate the total sum that has been extracted by way of the means test throughout the country, but it must be an enormous sum. It is said by some to amount to £40,000,000. Having extracted this enormous sum from the unemployed, I cannot understand how hon. Members can now justify a continuation of the means test, but three or four supporters of the Government have attempted to do so. I am sure hon. Members on this side are in the same state of confusion as myself. When we meet hon. Members opposite, including Ministers, from time to time, we endeavour to think that they possess the best of human qualities, that they are cultured individuals, that they are, as they would describe themselves, gentlemen who would on all occasions endeavour to exercise the maximum of compassion for their fellows when they are down and out. But when they come here in their corporate capacity as supporters of the Government they can do things which are really fiendish. In that corporate capacity the Government are grinding into the very dust the people who have made the enormous sacrifice of being unemployed for years.

It is in contra-distinction to all the principles on which State insurance was based. Anyone reading the speeches on the 1911 Act and all that has been said in the House since, would be obliged to agree that standard benefit is computed at a certain figure in order to carry people over intermittent employment—to tide them over a lean period of some weeks or months. At the termination of the War some millions of people who had no credit in the fund at all were demobolised. One would think a sensible Government would have built up a reserve fund for the purpose. However, because they were faced with what might properly be described as a revolutionary situation, they saw that those people were given uncovenanted benefit and to all intents and purposes brought within the scope of insurance. Up to date we have had a kind of hand-to-mouth method applied. At this stage, we have to balance the fund by sacrificing the people who have been idle longest. We have to sacrifice the people who have had to exist upon that small sum which was considered adequate to carry them over intermittent periods of unemployment. The Postmaster-General is in charge of propaganda for the Government. It is the greatest joke in Britain to-day that the head of a public service should be trying to justify the need of a Government which believes in private enterprise. I presume that in his propaganda he will say he does not believe in expropriation, that the Socialists are the persons who believe in that, and yet in these Regulations you are expropriating the property of the poor and taking the savings even of their relatives. Any little resource of any kind that can be tapped is balanced against the provisional assessment. Subtract one from the other and the people are left with, what? In South Wales with substantially less than they have had for some years.

Hon. Members are surprised that we speak on this matter with some feeling. They would understand it if they had lived like we have lived or if they had people like myself, my father, my brother and my brother-in-law, who have been unemployed for years. They would appreciate what we feel if they had personally gone through this as we have. During the last week-end I have seen manifestations of protestation the like of which I have never before witnessed, and I have been in charge of strikes and lockouts for more than 20 years. I have never seen anything comparable to that which we have experienced during the last fortnight. This does not apply to reckless-minded people. It is the decent people who are protesting, those who have done their best for their children and are now obliged to live upon them. There is a valley in my constituency, the central town of which is known as Maesteg, and it is generally admitted that in proportion to the number of miners resident in that valley compared with other valleys, there would be a larger number of persons owning their own houses than elsewhere in South Wales. Out of 6,500 people, there are about 4,200 persons coming under these Regulations. They have been slowly eating into their small savings, and have struggled to educate their children to enable them to obtain a brighter future. I have a sheaf of authenticated cases of persons who have been brought down in the world. I could give the Minister sample cases from the area.

I cannot for the life of me understand why hon. Members in their corporate capacity as Government supporters stand for this kind of thing. They will hand over £10,000,000 to shipowners, millions to Austria, and will give months of consideration to India, and yet in South Wales, and in the Minister's own constituency, perhaps in Lancashire, there are large numbers of men who, according to hon. Members who have spoken, are suffering injustice. That the Committee should stand for this sort of thing is really a standing disgrace. The Parliamentary Secretary in replying in the Debate yesterday said that Glamorgan people are hardly hit because there has been maladministration, and he cited a case. Elementary logic should have taught him that citing the special and ignoring the general meant that there has been no maladministration. The mere citing of one or two cases is an admission that he is searching for the exception. He cites an exception which no one could possibly agree should be allowed to continue, but it is no evidence in support of the Regulations or of maladministration in Glamorgan.

We have heard that the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins), for whom hon. Members will have some regard, is already in charge of some of these big committees. I sat there for a few years myself. I sat to administer the means test when it came into operation, and I was not prepared to agree that parents should be dependent upon their children to the extent of preventing their children from having any resources or anything that would be regarded as reasonable in order to enable them to carry on. In Glamorgan we said that it was not too much to permit a young person over 21 years of age to have 25s. for himself for clothes and all the necessaries of life, and we disregarded that amount. Under these Regulations, if a man is earning £2 a week—and that is just about the average wage of an adult in the South Wales coal field—one-third of the first pound and a quarter of the second pound, are disregarded, a total of 11s. 8d., whereas under the public assistance committee it is 25s. Would any hon. Member say that 25s. was too much? A sum of 15s. was taken into the calculation and thrown into the family pool, and now, instead of 15s., it is 28s. 4d. These things are absolutely indefensible.

In every county area where you have human decency in the administration of public assistance there must be an enormous amount of hardship and injustice imposed upon the people under these Regulations. Frankly, I do not see how it is possible to introduce any kind of elasticity into them at all. Like my hon. Friends, I have seen the area officers. I have no complaint to make against them at all. I sympathise with them in the task which they have to undertake. The persons who are investigating are mostly those who have been working for the public assistance committees. If one complains, the area officer will say, "This is in accordance with the scale, and the man has nothing to appeal against." There is not really any ground of appeal. If there is a change of circumstance he can obtain a "b9." form from the Employment Exchange, and fill it in to indicate, for instance, that this week he worked three shifts, whereas last week he worked five. But as long as the scale is calculated correctly in the provisional assessment and resources are properly ascertained and the final settlement is in accordance with scale, there can be no appeal. It is sheer humbug for people to suggest that there is any possibility of elasticity being introduced when you have distinct figures, and persons of a certain age must, in the provisional assessment, have allocated to them so much for personal allowances.

South Wales will not be satisfied, and I do not believe that this country will be satisfied, with the operation of these Regulations. They are mean and callous because you are imposing this burden upon people who have been burdened for years merely to take them out of politics and to save local government for yourselves. You know that the bitter treatment these people are suffering would cause them to resent it by using their political weapon, and, in considering the people who are making them suffer, you therefore take them out of politics in order to save your own political constituencies. It is a disgrace to make these people suffer merely in order to retain local government for yourselves. That is the only reason for the introduction of these things. You are prepared to give £3,000,000 to buy political security in the county councils, but in Glamorgan we shall lose nearly £900,000, according to the estimate of our clerks. In Monmouthshire we shall lose, roughly, £350,000. Following this Vote we shall have a distressed area debate, and you will hand to us a few hundred thousand pounds and snatch from us at least three times the amount.

If one is to relate this to an economic policy, the whole thing is ludicrous in the extreme. That is why in South Wales we have, not only trade unions and political parties of a given kind or colour but most of the humanitarians, those who have regard for their fellows, the religious organisations of almost every sect and denomination, protesting by means of huge demonstrations. I wonder if it is too late to do anything. I expect that it is. The Government are really a hard-faced lot. They may just dabble with the trimmings, but as far as the principles are concerned, I believe that it passes their comprehension that a man who has been unemployed for years is as good as any of us and has a right to have sufficient to educate, clothe and shelter his children such as we desire for ourselves. I am afraid that it is no use pleading. These demonstrations must go on. They will go on. We are going to help them to go on until the people who are now suffering receive justice.

6.42 p.m.

I am sure that it will be no matter of regret to the Government that it was impossible to adhere to the original arrangement and take this Vote last night and that they should have had an opportunity to-day of hearing further discussion of the effect of these Regulations. It is clear to anyone who has responsibility that the Regulations should work well and smoothly, and without creating hardships. To anyone who is unprejudiced and who is prepared to take a fair view, it must be obvious that both the Government and hon. Members as individuals have no desire to see hardship created by this new machinery. It is only fair to the supporters of the Government and to those who assisted the passage of the Bill and the Regulations, to repudiate at once the suggestion made by some hon. Members opposite, that the Bill and the Regulations were introduced as an economy Measure with the idea of saving money out of the unemployed. That is completely and diametrically opposed to the truth. I gave an estimate to the House when I was presenting the Regulations of what the extra cost would be, not in administration or in assistance to local authorities or in assuming the responsibility for those who are not now on transitional benefit, but of the actual cost of the effect of the new Regulations upon those on transitional benefit. The estimate I gave was one of £3,000,000 a year. I said then that it could only be calculated by means of analysis and that it was the best estimate that I could give, but what I can tell the Committee now—not estimate as I did then—is, that the result of the introduction of these Regulations has been that week by week the amount per head being paid to those on transitional benefit has been increasing. It is now appreciably above what it was before the Regulations were brought into force.

No, the amount per head; the amount paid in transitional benefit, divided by the number of applicants.

I cannot give the actual areas at the moment. I was saying that this applies to the country as a whole, and it refers to transitional benefit as a whole. I hope that hon. Members will at least take my word for it that there really is an increase.

How can we take your word when we can produce cases of families where £1 a week less is going into the household?

"Facts are chiels that winna ding."

I am not trying to make any political capital out of this matter. Hon. Members who really want to remedy the grievances of which they complain will surely be prepared to listen in silence to what I have to say, just as I listen in silence to very hard and, I think, sometimes very unjustified things that have been said.

The point I make is that in actual fact the Regulations, as drafted and as passed by this House, are bringing to the unemployed as a whole in transitional payment more money than they had before.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that they are getting more than they originally obtained out of Government funds, or more than they originally obtained out of Government funds, plus what the guardians gave?

More than they were getting out of Government funds. The amount of supplementation of transitional payment by local authorities was certainly almost infinitesimal. There were only 20,000 cases in the whole country.

There were only 20,000 cases in England and Wales, and I think in Scotland there were about 14,000 cases.

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. Would that include the coal allowances, clothes, medical comforts and that sort of thing given by the guardians? The right hon. Gentleman has said that there were only 20,000 cases.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the parish councils were constantly relieving the able-bodied, in addition to the cases where the allowances were supplemented. Does his statement include that?

No. The comparison is with the money paid in transitional benefit by the State. I have not sought to disguise the facts. All I say is that the information at my disposal is that the amount of supplementation from the public authorities is so small that it does not affect the fact that the sum being given is greater. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have, quite frankly, brought forward grievances from their constituencies with regard to cases where there has been reduction, but I think they will be able to say also that they can find in their constituencies numbers of cases where their constituents have benefited from the application of the Regulations. I am informed that in Merthyr Tydfil, which is one of the hardest hit places under the Regulations, something like 50 per cent. of the people are getting increases, small ones, truly, but at any rate they go to counterbalance the reductions in the cases of the other 50 per cent.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received information from Merthyr Tydfil to justify the statement he has just made, or is it merely word that has come along to him?

The statement was originally published in the "Manchester Guardian" in an article which, I think, the hon. Member or some of his friends quoted with approval on other points. I made all the inquiries I could as to the truth of the statement, and I was informed that it was probably approximately true.

May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that no such statement was made from this side of the House. Whether it was printed in the "Manchester Guardian" or any other newspaper, it was not uttered by me. I consider that the Minister's attempt to justify the statement he has made in respect of Merthyr Tydfil under the new Act is absolutely ridiculous. He has no information except newspaper information. It is absolutely abominable, in face of what is taking place.

I have quoted a certain fact which was stated in a newspaper article which on other points was quoted with pleasure by hon. Members opposite. I made what inquiries I could to see whether that figure could be substantiated, and I was informed that as far as could be stated it was approximately correct.

From the board. Whatever the effects are in certain cases, I think hon. Members will not deny that in a great many cases the Regulations will in fact mean, and have in fact meant, increases. I challenge anyone to say that the Regulations were introduced with the intention of being an economy measure or with a desire to save money at the expense of the unemployed. Having made that point, let me say that I quite appreciate the fact that it is no answer to a claim as to a hardship in one case to say that somebody else is going to benefit from the same system that has produced the hardship. I want to make it plain that the Regulations and the system as a whole have been made and can be made to benefit all the unemployed, and that what we have most certainly to deal with are the instances of grievance and hardship under the Regulations which have been raised in Committee.

During the Debate these last two days there have emerged some very definite criticisms of the operation of the Regulations and some definite cases have been quoted in which hardship is alleged to have been caused. It is not easy exactly to say what are the principal causes of the hard cases that have occurred and of the discontent that has been aroused, but certain of those causes have quite definitely emerged. The one which appeared to me to create the greatest feeling and which I think was responsible for—I do not know the numbers—the biggest cut, has been the case where you have in a household what are, in fact, two separate families. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) quoted the typical instance of a widower and his two children who lived with a brother-in-law, who also had children, and the operation of the Regulations made the brother-in-law, who was in work, support not only his own family but the other family in the household. I think it must strike the Committee generally that that really is an impossible position from the social point of view.

If anyone were considering finance in this matter, which I do not think he would be justified in doing, there is obviously no financial gain in a system which must drive one family out of the house in order to qualify for benefit. The combination in one household of two really separate family units, who come together because it is cheaper to live as one unit than as two, and the treating of them as one family in the same way that we treat a father and his son has, I think, led to undoubted hardship. That was a matter which had already been engaging the attention of the board in regard to cases that had been raised, and I am informed that immediate instructions are being issued, which will become operative almost at once, which, by the use of discretion, will enable cases of that kind to be dealt with and will prevent the sort of situation to which the hon. Member for Gorbals referred.

Another case was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone). He cited the instance of a very large family living in a very low rented house, where they had the double burden of the rent reduction cut and the super-cut for a large family. That also is a case which had been brought to the notice of the Board and which the Board have been considering, and they are issuing immediate instructions to obviate such a double cut of that kind in relation to a large household containing children. Another general complaint—not a complaint of substance in the way of suffering but more a case of pinpricking which causes annoyance—was the fact that where a new determination differs from the old one only by a very small amount, the difference was still made and the man or woman had the cut. The Board have already issued instructions that in cases where a new determination is only slightly less than the old one it shall be ignored and the applicant shall continue on the old determination. There is another point, to which the Board are giving their consideration, which I think appealed to the Committee, not so much on the humanitarian but on the commonsense, human, point of view. One hon. Member opposite raised the case of a man, out of work, an elderly man living with his son-in-law. The son-in-law was in work and the father-in-law's determination was nil. There may be no actual financial hardship in that, it depends what the wages of the son-in-law are; but there is obviously a hardship in the elder man, the father-in-law, having to go to his own son-in-law for every penny he wants to spend.

That is worse than the Poor Law. You cannot make a son-in-law keep a father-in-law under the Poor Law.

That is a case which I think affected the Committee very much, and I may say that that point is receiving the immediate consideration of the Board. These are four definite points which have_ arisen during the course of the discussions, and immediate steps are being taken to deal with them.

There was one further specific point which the Parliamentary Secretary said would receive consideration at the same time, the case of separate couples.

Is it intended to bring in some new Regulations to make these amendments, or is it suggested that the board should set aside the Regulations as they stand by issuing instructions to officers?

All these difficulties, in the opinion of the board, can be met by the issue of instructions as to the way in which discretion is to be used. I am informed by the board that they believe themselves to be capable of doing that, and that they intend to take that action. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, when they are giving that relief, believes that they will be acting ultra vires, he will be able to challenge them. I am assured by the board, who are responsible for, and have to account to this House for, any money spent, that these difficulties can be met by the use of discretion, and that they are going to instruct their officers accordingly.

Has the Minister fortified himself with the opinion of the Law Officers on this grave constitutional question?

The Unemployment Assistance Board are a body that have to satisfy themselves.

Has he satisfied himself with the opinion of the Law Officers as to whether this is a permissible thing to do?

I was more anxious to get something done immediately. Let me deal with the question of rigidity. It has been a general complaint that the operation of this machinery has been conducted with a rigidity that has in cases led to unnecessary hardship. It is practically inevitable that at the beginning of a new system, bringing together new officials administering new Regulations and new instructions, should lead to that, for new men doing a new job act with a timidity that experienced men do not. I am certain though, that if things were left to themselves, this tendency to rigidity would pass away. Yet I quite agree that hardships are being inflicted, but the board are looking into every one of these cases and were doing so before the Debate took place, instructing their officials more and more as to the extent and the direction in which the discretion of individual officers can be exercised. In each succeeding week the officers have been making more use of that discretion. It is said by hon. Members opposite, "Well, that is not quite enough; the hardship may not be due to lack of discretion but to Regulations which tie the officer down so that discretion is not possible." It is quite clear that in the weeks that have elapsed it has not been possible yet to determine exactly the way in which these Regulations are operating. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have referred to one difficulty in particular, and that is the difficulty of operating the rent rule, especially in low-rented areas of Scotland.

According to the facts brought before the Committee there does lie there a case for immediate inquiry. I understand that the board are taking immediate steps to inquire into the effects of this rent rule in low-rented areas. I quite admit that if the result of their inquiry does disclose that a good deal of hardship and irritation—because, above all, this Regulation appears not to be understood—if that situation should be disclosed, then probably the situation could not be dealt with by way of an instruction to officers of the board to use discretion, and could only be dealt with by the board coming to Parliament and asking for the Regulations to be altered. There may be other cases of a similar description. Apart from immediate steps the board can take by the use of discretion to alleviate these hardships, if any other hardships are disclosed which necessitate some amendment of the Regulations, then I am sure the board will have no hesitation in advising the Government of the amendments necessary and in asking them to submit them to the House. Above all, I realise that urgency is the essence of the matter, that if there are hardships they should be put right as soon as possible, and that this is not a case where you can settle down comfortably for some weeks and then take a survey. As particular hardships are disclosed by examination, so will the board be prepared and so will this Committee co-operate to redress them as quickly as possible.

One word about appeal tribunals, because there is some misunderstanding. The appeal tribunals are already set up, all ready to proceed with appeals. I have no doubt that action will be taken by those aggrieved to have their determination checked in this way to obtain an alleviation where the court is in their favour. Another point raised was whether the chairman could override the other two members of the tribunal. The chairman of the tribunal cannot do that. Another matter is the importance of the advisory committee and the possibility of introducing a local flavour in accordance with local needs in so far as the Regulations permit. I shall certainly represent to the board the strong desire expressed in this Committee, a feeling I share, that these advisory committees should be brought into being at once.

About the powers of the chairman, if the chairman likes to refuse a motion from any member on the ground that it is outside the Regulation, to that extent the chairman has an overriding power over the other members and is the determining factor in the motions considered?

Unless the motion for an appeal can show a prima facie case, that it is not outside the Regulation, then the chairman can rule it out. This was done to prevent a flood of appeals in cases in which the tribunal could not make any alterations. The chairmen of tribunals, I am perfectly certain, from the type of person I have nominated, will at the outset, when there is no settled case law as with insurance, restrain the use of that power to the minimum, applying it only in the case of what might be described as a frivolous appeal, giving the benefit to the officers of the board itself of those appeals being heard.

Will the Minister represent to the board that applicants should have their expenses in appearing before the tribunal met by the issue of a warrant or something of that description, in the same way as happens before the court of referees?

I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising that point. I shall certainly consider it and make representations.

There is one point to which I ought to refer and that was the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) that allotments from sons in the Army or Navy should be taken into consideration. I understand that that point is one which the board have been considering, and one in which they think it will be possible by use of discretion to meet the difficulties which I see the whole Committee appreciate, of simply passing contributions from sons in the Services to the Unemploy- ment Assistance Fund. I do not want to end merely on a note of political controversy, because I know Members opposite are entitled to their own beliefs. I would assure them, however, that I do want to see these Regulations operating fairly.

They cannot operate fairly when a man has his allowance reduced from 60s. to 42s. The Regulations cannot help him.

I said at once that there might be cases of hardship which could not be met by discretion, only by a change of the Regulations, and instanced the case of the rent rule, where no doubt the board will consider the matter and reach a decision. With regard to the case of Glamorgan, the hon. Member made great play with my hon. Friend's speech last night because he quoted only one case where there was an infringement of the law, inferring because he quoted only one case that this showed there were no more. I will not go into the cases of Glamorgan and Merthyr Tydfil to-day. I wrote a letter before the board came into existence in which I stated to the authorities concerned some of the grosser cases. There was one case where the income into the house was at the rate of £985 a year. It is not because we have not got instances that my hon. Friend forbore to deal with them yesterday.

To the supporters of the Government who have expressed anxiety on this and that point in the Regulations but who yet realise that on the whole they do bring an advantage, I can say that some of the hardships have already been remedied by an operation of the board's discretion, and I can assure them that urgent and definite inquiry is being made into those other classes of cases in which it is alleged they have produced hardship, and all that it is possible to do will be done by the board to meet them.

7.17 p.m.

My justification for speaking after the right hon. Gentleman is that we were expecting something very tangible and definite from the Minister of Labour after the statement of the Lord President of the Council; something which would remove a great deal of the criticisms which have been made regarding the Regulations during our Debate. But a large number of hon. Members are very disappointed with the speech of the Minister of Labour. Whilst it is true that he is going to remove some cases of hardship which may arise, yet the general grievances still remain. He has made one or two statements this evening upon which we must express our dissatisfaction. The interpretation we must put upon his speech is that the Unemployment Assistance Board are going to get power, or will take power to themselves, to alter and change the Regulations utterly regardless of what the House of Commons has passed. The Regulations, in the first place, were very involved, and the instructions which have been sent to those who are working under the auspices of the Unemployment Assistance Board are equally involved. It would appear from the statement of the Minister that the board are going to send out other instructions giving their own interpretation of these involved Regulations. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked whether he had ascertained from the Law Officers whether this was legal, no reply was given.

The reply then was in the negative. Surely the Minister ought to get legal opinion as to whether the Unemployment Assistance Board are empowered to put their own interpretation upon the Regulations, to alter the Regulations, and also get legal opinion as to whether the Regulations so altered by the board are legal. In regard to the case of Merthyr Tydvil the Minister surely ought to be able to get from his own Department the exact figures and not have to depend on the public Press. Whatever may be the figures given in the "Manchester Guardian" and other papers, surely he has the means of obtaining accurate information. Are these new scales going to be of any advantage to the unemployed generally throughout the country? The right hon. Gentleman slays that there will be an increase on the average of £3,000,000 to those who are on transitional benefit. But the £3,000,000 is to include a number of men who are coming on to transitional benefit. It will include the agricultural workers—

No. I made it perfectly plain on several occasions that it will be £3,000,000 extra for the same people on transitional benefit before and after the Regulations. There will be an extra expense of £5,000,000 a year up to the 31st March when the agricultural labourers come on to the board.

The £3,000,000 will be an increase on the average. According to information we have received from the officials of the Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire County Councils, there is going to be a reduction of £1,250,000. It may be true, and I am not denying the statement, that there will be a £3,000,000 increase on the average, but that will not be of any benefit or advantage to the unemployed in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire who will lose £1,250,000. What advantage is it to the unemployed in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire to be told that they should be satisfied with this reduction because it will be an advantage to unemployed in other parts of the country, who will receive an increase. The unemployed in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire will not be satisfied with anything of that kind. We have protested against these Regulations and their effects, and, if the Government believe that the statement of the Minister of Labour this evening will satisfy either the unemployed or the employed, particularly those in the depressed areas, they are making a big mistake.

Some reference has been made to the large meetings and demonstrations which have been held, and which will be held. What do these demonstrations indicate? In my constituency there was a demonstration last Sunday of 80,000 to 90,000 people. It was not organised, it was a spontaneous indignation meeting on the part of practically every citizen in my constituency and the adjoining constituency. The churches closed their Sunday schools, doctors joined in as well as the chambers of trade, and, in fact, it was a spontaneous indignation against inhuman and brutal Regulations which the Government have put into operation. It was an indication of the indignation of men and women of all classes of the community in that area, many of whom do not take any part in politics but who, nevertheless, do know the conditions under which the unemployed have lived in the Rhondda Valley for the last eight years. Surely, those who have been unemployed for 10 years require more than those who have been unemployed for a much shorter period. These unemployed have been hounded about from pillar to post. Under the old Acts of Parliament they were hounded to the courts of referees and to the umpire. Now these Regulations have been introduced these people will be hounded much worse. Talk about an inquisition. They go into the house and want to know whether they are paying cash for their food. They want to see the rent book and the shop books. These people are subjected to all indignities imaginable. Still they are not so much concerned about that as they are about getting sufficient food to maintain themselves. So far as they are concerned everything has gone. They have had to live a dull monotonous life for the last 10 years, rising in the morning and doing the same thing every day, with no outlook on life. And at the end of 10 years along comes these damnable Regulations.

A Government which can introduce such regulations should be ashamed of itself. Where is the Secretary of State for the Dominions and the Prime Minister, who used to be leaders of the Labour party? These Regulations are degrading to humanity. How are these people going to live? It has been said by one hon. Member that there ought to be an obligation on one member of a family to maintain another. Is there no other ideal in life than that a son or daughter who happens to be at work must maintain brothers and sisters and the rest of the family on a bread and butter basis? A young man standing on the threshold of life wants to be able to provide a home for himself. The average wage in South Wales is £2 5s. a week. There is 10s. for his allowance, one-third of the first pound, that is 6s. 8d., and one-quarter of the remainder, that is 6s. 3d. That is 12s. 11d.; shall we say 13s. Can he get full board for that? Can he get full board for anything less than 25s. a week? Where is the money to come for his clothes and boots, and the other small social amenities of life? But everything over and above that which is laid down has to go to maintain his family. What are the hopes of the family of getting work?

The depressed areas are to get a sum of £2,000,000. Suppose South Wales gets 25 per cent. of that sum; that is £500,000. You are going to give £500,000 to South Wales, but you are taking back £1,500,000 under these Regulations. If there be any greater hypocrisy than this, I should like to see it. What purpose is there behind all this? What prospect have these people? What outlook for the future can these young men and women have who have to maintain their fathers and mothers and the rest of the family? But what prospects have these particular people got in life? How many young men sitting on the benches opposite would like to be placed in the position that for years to come they are not to have any prospect other than maintaining their fathers, brothers and sisters in one routine, monotonous daily life? Surely the National Government have a higher ideal than that for young men and young women.

These Regulations ought to be withdrawn. It is not simply a question of the demonstrations against the Regulations. If the Government believe that the men and women in South Wales are going to be satisfied with demonstrations they are making a big mistake. There is going to be a greater agitation yet, something more than words. If I can help there will be strikes in South Wales against the Regulations, not because we believe in a destructive policy but because there comes a time in the life of man when human nature can stand no more. To take away £1,500,000 from tens of thousands of men who have been unemployed for eight or 10 years is wrong and unjust and cruel. We are not going to be content with simply coming to the House of Commons and making protests. If need be we will have to do something more than protest by words. Actions will have to speak, and I think I can speak on behalf of the Members from South Wales in saying that.

The Government are dealing with starving people with whom it is impossible to reason. These people cannot be asked to wait for a general election. The Government cannot say to them: "All right, we will go on with political propaganda in the hope that this year or next we will be able to change the Regulations." The Government cannot do that with unemployed men who are depressed, who have no ideal in life, who have been forced down over and over again in their standard of living. While we appreciate the small improvements that may be brought about as a result of the Minister's speech, we sincerely hope that the Government will reconsider the Regulations in their entirety and in the light of yesterday's Debate and to-day's.

If it could be argued that the amount that the unemployed in South Wales are receiving now is more than sufficient, one could see some justification for the argument of averages. But it cannot be argued that the unemployed man has been too well paid, or that he has been able to put anything on one side. The argument with respect to averages, therefore, cannot be applied to the unemployed in South Wales. But I am not arguing for the unemployed in South Wales alone. I am arguing for the unemployed in the whole of the industrial areas. I appeal to the Government to withdraw these Regulations and to introduce new Regulations that will be more humane to the people, Regulations that every supporter of the National Government will be able to justify. There has not been a single Member or supporter of the Government who has justified these Regulations either yesterday or to-day.

7.36 p.m.

Would the Minister be good enough to answer one question with which he did not deal? I quite appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's desire to do all that he can to deal with a very difficult situation, but I do not think that his suggestions will go far enough. I believe that a great deal of the trouble and feeling in the country is due to the small amount that is left to the wage-earner in calculating the family allowance. We have got down to the level of one-third and one-quarter. Will the Minister consider, amongst other points, the possibility of altering those proportions of one-third and one-quarter? Ought there not to be a larger amount?

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,999,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 243.

Division No. 37.]

AYES.

[7.40 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

Maxton, James

Attlee, Clement Richard

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

Milner, Major James

Banfield, John William

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Batey, Joseph

Grundy, Thomas W.

Parkinson, John Allen

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

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rea, Walter Russell

Buchanan, George

Harris, Sir Percy

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Cape, Thomas

Hicks, Ernest George

Rothschild, James A. de

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jenkins, Sir William

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cove, William G.

John, William

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

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Daggar, George

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

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Thorne, William James

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kirkwood, David

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Stephen Owen

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

West, F. R.

Dobbie, William

Lawson, John James

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Leonard, William

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Wilmot, John

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Logan, David Gilbert

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Lunn, William

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Mainwaring, William Henry

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

Apsley, Lord

Denville, Alfred

James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

Assheton, Ralph

Dickie, John P.

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Donner, P. W.

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

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Drewe, Cedric

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

Balniel, Lord

Duckworth, George A. V.

Kimball, Lawrence

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Duggan, Hubert John

Knox, Sir Alfred

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Dunglass, Lord

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Law, Sir Alfred

Blindell, James

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Borodale, Viscount

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Lees-Jones, John

Bossom, A. C.

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

Eimley, Viscount

Levy, Thomas

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Liddall, Walter S.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Bracken, Brendan

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Llewellin, Major John J.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Brass, Captain Sir William

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Loftus, Pierce C.

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Broadbent, Colonel John

Ganzoni, Sir John

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Gibson, Charles Granville

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Browne, Captain A. C.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

McCorquodale, M. S.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Gledhill, Gilbert

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

Burghley, Lord

Glossop, C. W. H.

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

McKie, John Hamilton

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Goff, Sir Park

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Carver, Major William H.

Gower, Sir Robert

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

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

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Grimston, R. V.

Martin, Thomas B.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Clarke, Frank

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Harbord, Arthur

Milne, Charles

Colfox, Major William Philip

Hartington, Marquess of

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Conant, R. J. E.

Hartland, George A.

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Cook, Thomas A.

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

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

Cooper, A. Duff

Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

Morrison, William Shepherd

Copeland, Ida

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Munro, Patrick

Crooke, J. Smedley

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

O'Connor, Terence James

Cross, R. H.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Crossley, A. C.

Hopkinson, Austin

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

Thompson, Sir Luke

Patrick, Colin M.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Peake, Osbert

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

Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Petherick, M.

Scone, Lord

Tree, Ronald

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Pybus, Sir John

Shute, Colonel Sir John

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Radford, E. A.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Slater, John

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Soper, Richard

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Spens, William Patrick

Wells, Sidney Richard

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Remer, John R.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Rickards, George William

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Robinson, John Roland

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Stones, James

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Ross, Ronald D.

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Womersley, Sir Walter

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Sutcliffe, Harold

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Tate, Mavis Constance

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Salt, Edward W.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Grants to Local Authorities in Distressed Areas (England and Wales)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £403,500, 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 Special Grants to Local Authorities in Distressed Areas in England and Wales."

7.50 p.m.

The purpose of this Supplementary Estimate will be seen on reference to the third page of the White Paper. It is for special grants to local authorities in distressed areas in England and Wales and the amount is £403,500, and I think that a statement of a historical character will be the simplest explanation of it. In June, 1933, it was announced that the Government would find a sum of £500,000 for the relief of the rates in the distressed areas as a temporary measure, pending the introduction of the greater measure of relief for those rates which would come with the adoption of the Government scheme for the transfer of transitional payments and other matters connected with the care of able-bodied persons to the Unemployment Assistance Board. A scheme was devised for distributing this £500,000 among the local authorities concerned in proportion to the excess of the out-relief rate of those authorities over a rate of 2s. in the pound so that the relief went to those who had a rate for out-relief of over 2s. in proportion to the excess of the rate over that amount.

The preparation of the major scheme occupied time both in discussion and in legislation, and it was found necessary to continue the temporary arrangement pending the final coming into force of the larger scheme. In February, 1934, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced and I think there was common agreement in the House of Commons, that the temporary grant in relief of rates at the rate of £500,000 a year should be continued over the period intervening before the major scheme could come into force. The major scheme will come into force on the second appointed day which is 1st March next, and that is the relevant date as regards the continuation of the temporary grant because it is the date on which the able-bodied unemployed other than those under the transitional payments administration will be transferred from the local authorities to the care of the Unemployment Assistance Board. The Estimate is for the purpose of prolonging that temporary grant, at the rate of £500,000 a year, for the final period up to the date on which the major scheme comes in force, and the amount of £403,500 has been arrived at in this way. There is, first of all, the Scottish deduction, because I am speaking now only of the relief for the authorities of England and Wales, and not those of Scotland. That deduction brings the £500,000 down to £440,000. We then take eleven-twelths of that sum because there are only eleven months of the year to which this applies, and that makes it £403,500.

I ought to let the Committee know that I have received representations from the representative associations of the municipal corporations and county councils advocating an increase in that amount. Those representations appear to be based upon two misconceptions. In the first place it is a misconception that it was ever possible that the major scheme should be introduced at an earlier date. It was impossible to do so owing to the elaborate character and magnitude of the organisation which had to be erected. In the second place, it is a misconception that there was ever any undertaking that there should be any bigger relief at an earlier date. If hon. Members refer to the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th February, 1934, they will find that that is not the case, and that we are now literally fulfilling the undertaking given on that occasion. With that brief explanation I commend the Estimate to the Committee. It is really a question of bridging the gap until the major scheme comes into force.

7.55 p.m.

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

It is my duty on behalf of the official Opposition to move this reduction in the Vote and I think we shall be able to show that we are justified in taking that course. The Government have been searching the dictionary to find words to convey what they mean in reference to these several areas of our country. We are now dealing with "distressed" areas. When we have finished with this Vote we shall deal with "depressed" areas. The wise men in another place, however, did not like the words "distressed" or "depressed" so they have now called some parts of the country "special" areas. I think we shall have to search the dictionary a little further to find out what all these terms mean. In any case, if the present Government remain in office much longer the whole country will become distressed and depressed, and it will then indeed have become a special area to be handled by a Labour Government when such a Government comes into power.

The Minister of Health is regarded in some quarters among the local authori- ties, and in my view rightly regarded, as having let them, down in this matter. It is no use saying now that there was no guarantee and no promise as to the money which was to be given. It was, I think, understood in the negotiations between the right hon. Gentleman and the authorities concerned, that the new scheme which is to come into being on 1st March next, would have been brought into operation earlier and possibly in October, 1934.

The hon. Gentleman has made a very direct statement that there was an understanding between me and the local authorities that the scheme would come in earlier. I say most emphatically that that is not so.

I think if the right hon. Gentleman reads the report of the recent proceedings of one or two of the Lancashire local authorities he will find statements there to the effect that they understood that the new scheme was to come into operation in October, 1934, and not in March, 1935. I am not saying that they understood that from the right hon. Gentleman, because it is difficult to understand anything from a Minister of the present Government, but they understood it nevertheless by some means or other. The history of this proposal is fairly well known to the representatives of the distressed areas, because they were responsible for compelling the Government in 1934 to come to the aid of these local authorities. They held meetings upstairs of members of the Tory party and members of the Liberal party also, I think. They pressed the Government to aid the distressed areas with success. In the end the Minister said, "We propose to ask the well-to-do areas to levy a halfpenny rate which will give us £250,000, and the Treasury will add another £250,000 and thus the distressed areas will get all told £500,000." But the well-to-do areas would not have that sort of thing any more than the well-to-do individuals will come to the aid of the poor in the State. I live in a district which is not far from St. Anne's, Morecambe, Blackpool and Southport. Well-to-do people who have made their money in industrial areas go to live in luxury at the seaside and, of course, they decline to come to the aid of the poor local authorities in my division. That is one of the problems in this country to-day. The people who have made money in the industrial areas leave those areas derelict and go to live in luxury at the seaside or in other beautiful districts of this country.

The well-to-do areas would not, as stated, come to the aid of the distressed local authorities, and so the Ministry itself took over the whole burden, and the local authorities concerned are going to benefit once again from this grant. We have had a list of the local authorities which benefitted by the last sum granted, and it ought to be noted in passing that these distressed areas are not coterminous by any means with the districts which are now called special areas. I wonder whether there is anything sinister about what follows. I find, for instance, that Pembrokeshire and Anglesey are included in this list. Everybody knows who represents those counties in the House of Commons, and I wonder whether the new orientation in our politics has had anything to do with bringing these two counties into the picture. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health who knows something about the Liberal party will enlighten us on that point, as to why they came in before and whether they are going to participate on the next occasion.

I have a list of local authorities that have already benefited. The counties number eight and the county boroughs 16. It will be very interesting, therefore, to find out whether the same local authorities are to benefit from this sum as on the last occasion, or whether we shall find a larger number of them being included to share in this sum. I should imagine that the situation has worsened in respect of rates for public assistance in many parts of the country. At any rate, it is so in Lancashire. We are often told that the general industrial situation is improving, but if I appealed to any Lancashire Member of Parliament here to-night, he would agree, I am sure, that on the whole, in Lancashire, the amount paid away in public assistance is increasing almost month by month in almost every town. That applies to Bolton, Wigan, Manchester, and Liverpool; and indeed over the whole of the county the situation in respect of payments for public assistance is getting more deplorable as the months go by. I should think, there- fore, that there will be more authorities claiming from this sum than on the last occasion.

Let us take the figures for the county of Lancashire, just in order to show how the situation has worsened since we paid the last amount away. I wonder whether it has not worsened to such an extent that even that great county itself may now be regarded as a distressed area for the purposes of participating in this money. In the county of Lancashire on the 1st January, 1931, the total number of persons on outdoor relief was 18,231, and on the 1st January, 1935, it was 41,353. I suppose that a goodly number of those people have been cleared off the unemployment registers in order to give the Government the glory of seeing those numbers declining, forgetting all the time that the numbers are proportionately going up on public relief. Now let me see further how the total sum for public assistance is affecting the county of Lancashire. For the year 1931 they paid away £1,146,000, and for 1935 it is estimated that the cost will be £1,500,000. I repeat that wherever we turn in that county of about 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 people the situation is growing worse month by month.

The Employment Exchange registers in this country are no longer an indication of the number of persons out of work; you have to take into account the public assistance figures as well. Let us take Wigan. The number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief on the 31st December, 1931, in the township of Wigan was 2,595, and in 1934 it stood at 3,961. The amount paid away on outdoor relief alone in this comparatively small town of Wigan increased over that period from £878 to £1,394 per week. The situation indeed is becoming alarming, and I should like to know whether some of these towns are entitled to come in for a part of this grant.

Let me turn to Liverpool. I have given some figures relating to Liverpool before, but I have the latest here. The number of persons relieved in Liverpool on the 1st January, 1931, was 57,000 odd, and in December last year, about a month ago, it was over 93,000. The cost of public assistance in Liverpool has grown from £496,000 in 1931 to over £1,000,000 in 1935. Then I have here the figures for public assistance in Manchester, which was in- cluded on the last occasion, and I want to know whether Manchester is to be included on this occasion also, whether its public assistance rate has increased to such an extent that it will participate in this money. The average number of cases per week in 1931 was 9,405, and on the 12th January this year it was 20,873. I should say, therefore, that these figures prove that the sum which we are discussing is paltry in the extreme by way of trying to help the local authorities.

Take the township of Bolton, a very respectable town, a suburb of Westhoughton for all political purposes, but one of the Lancashire textile towns that is always entitled to claim that its industries are more stable than the rest. I say nothing of its representation in this House, but in this very respectable, erstwhile flourishing town the number of persons relieved on the 31st March, 1931, was 1,424, and on the same date in 1934 it was 1,647. The annual cost over those years has gone up from £38,000 to £62,000, and that in one of the best towns in Lancashire, so far as industrial prosperity is concerned. I want to know, therefore, whether these towns are to benefit from this fund. If there is an increase in the number of counties and county boroughs that are to participate in the fund proportionately, the amount available for each on this occasion will be infinitesimal.

I repeat that I am very much afraid that unless there is a change of policy towards the export trade of this country, especially in relation to Lancashire, the whole of that vast county, with its several county boroughs and its county council, will gradually fall into the category ultimately of a distressed area, and not only so, but we shall find it in the end both a depressed and a special area as well. I think, therefore, that in these appeals that we are making, we ought not to confine ourselves merely to statistical formulas, to adding up one and one or two and two, but we ought to know the reasons why it is necessary to spend money in this way to relieve local authorities. It would be far better to change the trade policy of the Government and to improve the industry of the county of Lancashire in particular, so that this money would not be required at all.

Will the hon. Member say whether the figures of employment have increased or decreased during the period of which he has spoken, namely, 1931 to 1934?

I do not think that belongs to my argument, except to say that as the population is increasing, there ought to be, at any rate, some increase in the number of persons employed, but, if there were, it does not destroy my figures.

8.11 p.m.

I think I can answer the hon. Gentleman quite simply. He asked the exact basis of this grant, and the answer is that it is exactly the same as the basis of the grant in 1933. My right hon. Friend the Minister explained that the grant was in respect of out-relief expenditure in excess of the equivalent of a 2s. rate and in proportion to that excess. The hon. Gentleman has a list, I think, of the counties and boroughs in the depressed areas that benefited from that £500,000 grant. That grant was fixed on the standard year 1932–33, and so it must continue. There is no other way of doing it. Therefore, the same places benefit, and nobody else, but they will benefit to the extent of eleven-twelfths of what they have received heretofore. I think that clears up that point.

The only other point raised by the hon. Member was the difficulty of the increasing burden of Lancashire and other parts in respect of out-relief, but that argument cuts both ways, because it really means that when the financial burden of responsibility for the able-bodied unemployed is transferrd, if in any area it has increased, the local authorities will be relieved of a larger burden for the same contribution. One can put it simply in this way, that if in any particular borough the cost of outdoor relief in the standard year 1932–33 was, say, £100,000 and the contribution of such local authority to the board was then fixed, and fixed permanently, at £60,000, or 60 per cent., then, for the payment of a premium of £60,000, they will be relieved of the financial responsibility of £100,000, assuming that the circumstances are the same. But if their burden increases, say, to £150,000, for the payment of the same premium of £60,000 they are relieved of the burden of £150,000. That argument, therefore, is a dangerous one for the hon. Member to use, because it is really in favour of the generous financial provision of the Act. Now that I have made those two simple explanations, perhaps my hon. Friend will be satisfied.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £403,400, be granted for the said Service".

The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 185.

Division No. 38.]

AYES.

[8.15 p.m.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Mainwaring, William Henry

Banfield, John William

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Maxton, James

Batey, Joseph

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Milner, Major James

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

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

Paling, Wilfred

Buchanan, George

Groves, Thomas E.

Parkinson, John Allen

Cape, Thomas

Grundy, Thomas W.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Cove, William G.

Hicks, Ernest George

Thorne, William James

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jenkins, Sir William

Tinker, John Joseph

Daggar, George

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

West, F. R.

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Stephen Owen

Lawson, John James

Dobbie, William

Leonard, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Logan, David Gilbert

Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Ganzoni, Sir John

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Gibson, Charles Granville

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Moreing, Adrian C.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Aske, Sir Robert William

Gledhill, Gilbert

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

Assheton, Ralph

Glossop, C. W. H.

Morrison, William Shepherd

Bailey, Eric Alfred George

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Goff, Sir Park

Munro, Patrick

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Balniel, Lord

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

Nunn, William

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Grimston, R. V.

O'Connor, Terence James

Blindell, James

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Harbord, Arthur

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

Pearson, William G.

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Penny, Sir George

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Petherick, M.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

Broadbent, Colonel John

Hopkinson, Austin

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Pybus, Sir John

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

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

Radford, E. A.

Browne, Captain A. C.

James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

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

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Kirkwood, David

Remer, John R.

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

Law, Sir Alfred

Rickards, George William

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Leckle, J. A.

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Clarke, Frank

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Robinson, John Roland

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Lees-Jones, John

Ross, Ronald D.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Levy, Thomas

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Liddall, Walter S.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Conant, R. J. E.

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Cook, Thomas A.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Cooper, A. Duff

Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

Salt, Edward W.

Copeland, Ida

Llewellin, Major John J.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Crooke, J. Smedley

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Scone, Lord

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Loftus, Pierce C.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Slater, John

Denman, Hon. R. D.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Denville, Alfred

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

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Dickie, John P.

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Soper, Richard

Donner, P. W.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Dunglass, Lord

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Elmley, Viscount

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Martin, Thomas B.

Stones, James

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Milne, Charles

Tate, Mavis Constance

Thompson, Sir Luke

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Womersley, Sir Walter

Train, John

Wells, Sydney Richard

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Tree, Ronald

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Major

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Waliseng)

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

George Davies.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Grants to Local Authorities in Distressed Areas (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £55,000, 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 Special Grants to Local Authorities in Distressed Areas in Scotland."

8.23 p.m.

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

The amount that is to be voted for Scottish purposes in this Supplementary Estimate is a part of a sum set aside, and is therefore only the proportion which is considered to be the amount which Scotland ought to receive out of the total. At the same time, I think a clear case can be made out for a larger amount, because during the year, since the original Vote was given, matters have worsened in Scotland. We cannot, of course, plead for an increase now since this is only a proportion of the total sum, but we can show how matters have proceeded in Scotland with the hope that if conditions do not get any better during next year we can ask for a larger proportion. Judging from what we have seen in the country and the statements we have heard from Scottish Members during the Debates yesterday and to-day, it is evident that something more will have to be done for this part of the United Kingdom.

I received to-day from the Scottish Office figures which, in my opinion, are illuminating, figures which show the conditions under the Poor Law in Scotland over the past three years. They show the numbers who have been in receipt of poor relief in 1932, 1933 and 1934, at the 15th December in each of those years, a date which is considered to be the most convenient by the Ministry. At the 15th December, 1932, the total number of sane persons in receipt of poor relief in Scotland was 273,768; at the same date in 1933 the figure had increased to 308,162; and by 1934 the total had risen to 401,927. In a nation of fewer than 5,000,000 people the best part of 500,000 persons are on Poor Law relief. Those figures do not take into account those who were actually unemployed and, at those particular periods, were in receipt of standard unemployment benefit.

It is only fair to the Ministry to say that the increase in 1934 was largely due to the payment of supplementary allowances to persons in receipt of unemployment benefit and transitional payment. They were made, as I suppose, because the recipients, in view of the fact that they were not in receipt of either the full scale unemployment benefit or the full scale transitional payments, had had to apply to the public assistance authorities to have their money made up to an amount which was regarded as sufficient to provide against the destitution in their homes. If we analyse the figures we find that in 1932 there were 79,000 male persons in receipt of poor relief, that in 1933 the figure had jumped to 91,000 odd, and in 1934 had gone up to 115,000. The figures for dependent wives and dependent children also show large increases over the period, taking 1932 as the standard year. In the case of the children the increase in the two years amounted almost to 60,000.

The figures for the destitute able-bodied unemployed in receipt of payments on 15th December in each of the three years also show large increases. On 15th December, 1932, the total of destitute able-bodied unemployed, with their dependent wives and children, was 107,546, in 1933 129,414 and in 1934 197,643. An analysis of the figures shows that there were 34,802 males in 1932, 43,245 in 1933, and 60,684 in 1934; and it is curious to note that in the 60,000 destitute able-bodied unemployed males recorded as being in receipt of Poor Law relief we have practically the figure which was put forward by Sir Arthur Rose as the number of the unemployed in Scotland who are not likely to be received back into industry. In his report to the Ministry he gave 60,000 as the figure of those who will never again find employment in Scotland, and I repeat that it is rather significant that in these figures which I have received from the Scottish Office the number of destitute able-bodied unemployed in receipt of Poor Law relief in Scotland at the 15th December, 1934, should so closely coincide with the figure put forward as an estimate by the commissioner appointed to inquire into certain parts of Scotland which were regarded as a derelict area.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure the House—I say "assure the House," because I am certain that English Members are just as much interested in the relief of destitution in Scotland as are Scotsmen, just as we Scotsmen are interested in the relief of destitution in England and Wales—that when in future any Votes for the distribution of money to Scotland in connection with unemployment are brought before the House we shall have a sum which will guarantee to those who are in dire necessity, and who are scheduled as being destitute, a decent life such as, unfortunately, they cannot enjoy at present. Going back for a moment I should explain with regard to the destitute able-bodied unemployed that in that case also the figures for 1934 seem to be "loaded" through the payment of supplementary allowances to persons in receipt of unemployment benefit and transitional payments. The point I was making was that when we in Scotland have received grants in respect of these cases the proportion has been worked out on something like the Goschen scale of 11/80ths or 11/12ths, or something of that kind, but I hope that in future Votes the proportion will not be fixed in an arbitrary manner according to certain proportions worked out by Chancellors of the Exchequer long dead and gone. I hope that we shall have a proportion, not estimated on figures, but upon the amount of destitution in each of the countries over which the sum being voted is to be spread. That will be the fairest way.

8.38 p.m.

The Committee will be glad that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has quoted the figures which I gave him by written answer to-day. It is the fact that the figures for the last year, up to December, 1934, have been increased by supplementation. I do not think that he is right in saying that that supplementation only refers to cases where full transitional payment, and so on, was not being made, because there are also the cases where there was an increase in the Poor Law scale which enabled those who had transitional payments to apply, either on their own behalf for a certain period, or later on behalf of their children. I hope to go into that in greater detail, although it is not really the main object of the Vote which is before the Committee.

I listened with sympathy, as I think we all did, to the hon. Member's observations in regard to any formula of division of money between the two countries not being absolutely stereotyped and applied to different circumstances in a purely automatic way. I do not think there is any risk of that; in this particular context, certainly not. The hon. Member will recollect that when the second appointed day occurs in March, the situation will then be as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health described to the Committee a moment ago, in regard to the English Vote. The local authorities, in respect of the able-bodied poor then taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board and who had previously been on the Poor Law, will pay a proportion fixed in the standard year. Where the number of persons oh the able-bodied roll exceeds what is given in a standard year, and therefore the expenditure, of the local authority correspondingly increases, the relief will be greater. The actual improvement which will result, and the actual relief to the local authorities, cannot be attempted to be calculated in pounds, shillings and pence until the appointed day comes, but it is a fact that the relief will be correspondingly generous where the present figure is higher than in the standard year, and of course, taking the swings with the roundabouts, if the number of poor and the consequent expenditure has decreased between the standard year and the present moment, the matter will be the other way, so far as the local authorities are concerned. Throughout Scotland, speaking broadly, the gain will be much greater than was, I think anticipated.

My hon. Friend did not spend a great deal of time upon the actual matter of the Supplementary Estimate. It is the last stage of the relief which was given last year. It is for 11 months, and the total of £60,000 in a full year in Scotland is therefore reduced to £55,000. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said in regard to England, the recipients are the same.

They are eleven twelfths. It will not delay the Committee very long if I simply read out the actual amounts that will be provided under the £55,000.

May I suggest that it may explain matters, and save further discussion, if the hon. Gentleman would read out the amounts received on the last occasion?

Yes, I will do so. The recipients are as follows: counties, Lanark and West Lothian; burghs, Clydebank, Dumbarton, Glasgow, Hamilton and Port Glasgow. In a full year—that is last year—Lanark received £10,990; in 11 months it received £10,074. West Lothian, which got £2,126, now gets £1,949. Clydebank, with £2,563 last year, gets £2,349 for the 11 months. Dumbarton, which got £568, now gets £521 and Glasgow, which then got £40,000 out of the total of £60,000, now gets £36,667. Hamilton, which then got £3,421, for these 11 months gets £3,136, and Port Glasgow, which in a full year got £332, for the 11 months gets £304. I cannot hold out any hope to my hon. Friends that a single bawbee has by chance been left in the purse.

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £54,900, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Special Areas Fund

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, 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 a Grant in Aid of the Special Areas Fund."

8.44 p.m.

The Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, received, as the House will remember, the Royal Assent on 21st December last year, and under it two commissioners were appointed, one for England and Wales, and one for Scotland. The Commissioner for England and Wales has appointed deputy commissioners as his representatives in the three areas of West Cumberland, Tyneside and South Wales. I am now asking for the approval of the Committee to a sum of £2,000,000 as the first instalment of the money placed at the disposal of the Commissioners. The expenses of the Commissioner and his staff have been financed hitherto by a grant out of the Special Contingencies Fund, and this sum of £2,000,000 will in part be required to repay those advances. Discussion on the earlier Estimates has extended over yesterday and part of to-day and not much time has been left to deal with this matter. Therefore, it will be for the convenience of the Committee, and will enable other Members to speak, if I deal with it very briefly.

Hon. Members will have seen a very full statement, issued by the Commissioner, which appeared in this morning's Press, and I have really very little to add to that statement. I can perhaps summarise its most important points in a few moments. My right hon. Friend, in the course of the Debate on the Investigators' Reports, suggested that there were three problems in connection with the distressed areas—first, the taking of the industries to the men; secondly, the taking of the men to the industries; and, thirdly, dealing with the residual population left in the areas. To deal first with the second problem, that of taking the men to the industries, the Ministry of Labour are continuing and accelerating the transfer schemes which were already in operation, in the shape of grants to enable men and their families to move from the distressed areas to employment in other parts of the country. We are opening two new Government training centres; we are opening two preparatory instructional centres; and we propose to open in the course of the year 20 new instructional centres. The Committee will remember that one of the recommendations of the Investigators who were sent to the areas last year was that an experiment should be tried to see whether it was not desirable to open some preparatory training centres which could act as, so to speak, a preliminary sieve. That recommendation we have adopted, and the two preparatory instructional centres that I have mentioned are experimental centres of this type. This provision will practically double the number of training places at present in existence.

In addition, we are making an intensive examination and analysis of the openings for employment in the Midlands and in the South of England—the comparatively prosperous areas; and we are examining carefully the men in the special areas who, we think, might be capable of filling those places. I think that everyone who has examined this question has been impressed with the desirability of encouraging employers as far as possible to use the Exchanges, and steps are being taken, in the case of every contract awarded by the big contracting Departments, to insert a special notice calling the attention of the firm to the advantage of using the Exchanges. Arrangements are also being made by the Exchanges to follow up that approach by personal interviews with the firms. We hope that local authorities will take the same steps, which will lead, we believe, to an increase in the flow of engagements through the Exchanges and increase the opportunity of the Department to secure openings for men from the distressed areas. The Commissioner has called attention, and is calling attention, to the fact that he believes that transfer from these special areas holds out the best hope for the younger elements in those areas, and he has announced that as far as possible any work undertaken in the special areas for wages, under his direction or at his instigation or with his help, will be confined to married men over 35.

I turn now to the question of attracting industries to the area. The Commissioner is using all his influence and knowledge and connection to try, not merely to develop existing industries, but to attract new industries and find the necessary finance. Hon. Members opposite will, I am sure, understand that, although the Commissioner has kept us in touch with a good number of the schemes that he has in mind, it will be impossible to divulge details at the present moment, because many schemes are under nego- tiation, and undue publicity at this stage might spoil many of his plans. Therefore, I am sure the Committee will forgive me and my right hon. Friend if we cannot enter into very great detail on this particular matter.

The Commissioner has also been impressed, as were the investigators who visited the distressed areas, with the necessity of trying to do something to make those areas more attractive. He has defintely started to forward in every way at his command any work which in his opinion will facilitate the economic development or social improvement of those areas, and that work will be undertaken for wages, probably through the local authorities. He anticipates that in the first instance many of the men over 35 who will be engaged, through the Employment Exchanges, for carrying out this work, will be men who will have been out of work for long periods, and unable to undertake a full week's work at the start at all events, and he is therefore proposing that they should be employed on a five-day week, Saturday being free unless owing to weather it has been impossible to work on one of the other days. He is taking steps to provide working clothes, boots, and some contribution towards the cost of a mid-day meal, in the case of some of the work to be undertaken. Wages will be paid at the standard trade union rate—

That will probably be got over by the fact that during the days when there is work it is intended to provide breaks, owing to the fact that the men will not be fit, and those breaks will be paid fort at the full rate. In addition to that, the Commissioner is impressed with the necessity, or at all events the desirability, of encouraging schemes which are to be carried out voluntarily. He does not propose to do that himself, but only to do it through voluntary associations, and his idea is that it should be mainly confined to schemes which will be of benefit to the majority of the men actually engaged on the scheme, or their dependants. He makes a distinction between small schemes, in which the majority of the men concerned will benefit directly, and larger schemes of social improvement which will affect a whole area, and will be done for wages. In the case of the voluntary labour schemes he is prepared to provide financial assistance to cover the cost of materials, supervision, a substantial contribution to the cost of a mid-day meal, working clothes, and, where the scheme is of any magnitude, a hut for shelter, which can subsequently be used as a club or recreation centre by the men in the locality.

The final category is that of the men who are left in the area, and for whom these schemes do not provide; and in this connection the Commissioner's view is that one of the most hopeful lines of attack is the land. He has already, as no doubt the Committee are aware, circularised local authorities urging that they should take steps to overcome what has been in the past in many areas, one of the main difficulties in the extension of allotments, namely, the acquisition of land, and he has indicated that he is prepared, where the cost of land is an obstacle, to give assistance to local authorities. He hopes in that way to get at least 10,000 extra allotments this year. In the Press and in various quarters a certain amount of ridicule has been cast on the idea of 10,000 allotments. That number of allotments may not be a very great deal, but it does represent a material improvement in the condition of at least 10,000 families, and, although it is not by any means all that the Commissioner is doing, it does represent some contribution to the human side of the problem.

The next classification is the group holdings of a quarter to half an acre, which were largely experimental in the first place and developed by the Society of Friends as an off-shoot of their allotment movement—an attempt to provide, for the men who have shown particular aptitude for the land, an opportunity for further development. The average capital cost was about £10 per man. The Commissioner has indicated that he is prepared to give assistance in order that the number of these group holdings may be substantially increased during the year by local authorities. Then we come to the larger agricultural holdings on which a man can expect to find an independent existence, the smallholding proper. The main difficulty in the case of smallholdings hitherto has been the fact that, although local authorities under the Smallholdings Act were able to supply the holdings and the land, they could only do so to men who had experience and the necessary capital to provide for the stock. As far as the actual holding itself was concerned, the land and the building, the local authority was able under the Act to obtain assistance from the Exchequer in meeting any losses it might incur. The Commissioner proposes, in the case of distressed areas, to provide financial assistance in order to enable local authorities to set a man up on a holding complete with stock.

In addition to small holdings being set up by local authorities of special areas inside their own areas, the Commissioner intends to assist various schemes outside the areas, but for men drawn from those areas. There is already one such colony at Potton. The Commissioner is giving that special financial assistance and he is considering, with the help of the Unemployment Assistance Board, setting up other somewhat analogous schemes and is considering the desirability of erecting a special Public Utility Trust for this purpose which he will be able to finance out of this grant. The local authorities, in addition to that, will receive in the course of the next week or so detailed particulars, and a circular from the Ministry of Agriculture showing the extent to which additional financial assistance will be placed at their disposal for land drainage. Then there is the question of social service. The Commissioner, impressed with the need for developing the various social services in the special areas, is prepared to give substantial financial assistance to them. He hopes it will be mainly possible to do this through the medium of the National Council of Social Service.

There is a particular experiment in which I am personally interested and that is the experiment at Upholland which has been extended as the result of the munificent gift of £30,000 by Lord Nuffield; the Commissioner has expressed his intention of giving further assistance in order that more of these experiments may be set up in the special areas. I have tried to cover in as short a time as possible the main lines along which the Commissioner is working. He has only had statutory authority for his activity for some five or six weeks which include the period of holidays. It has taken a little time to adjust the necessary arrangements with various Government Departments about the basis of his activities, questions of employment, wages, the working week and so forth, but those are now all settled and, though very little money has been spent up to the present, the total commitments that the Commissioner has in mind will substantially exceed £2,000,000.

9.0 p.m.

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

I have listened with some disappointment to the hon. Gentleman's statement. He invited us to remember that the commissioners have only been operating formally since the Bill was passed on 21st December. I should be inclined to agree that it is not reasonable to expect great things to happen at once, but I think it is as well to recall to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that this proposal to appoint commissioners was first made on 15th November and that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer conveyed the announcement to the House, he specifically said that the commissioners, since they were operating on a purely voluntary basis, would be able to start work in the course of the next few days. This Vote only covers, as I understand it, to the end of this financial year. We have, therefore, left of the period covered by the Vote something like two months. We have already expended nearly three months since the announcement was first made, and I am quite prepared to make the concession in respect of the holidays that have intervened. We have not heard how much of this money has already been expended or whether any at all has been expended outside mere salary provision. Has any of the money been spent upon any sort of scheme whatever, even in the initial stages of it?

Since we took leave of the powers with which we clothed these commissioners in December we have not been taken very much into the confidence of the commissioners or of any one else in authority as to what is happening, and it is a little difficult to find out what is happening. A friend of mine who is a journalist called at the offices of these commissioners some time ago with a view to discovering what they were doing. He naturally first met the office boy, who confided to him that information about their work was not to be obtained at their offices, but that he must go to the Greyhound Racing Association. My friend was amazed at this piece of information and thought it must be something conjured up in the office boy's imagination. He said he would like to see Mr. Malcolm Stewart's secretary, but she told him, too, that he must go to the Greyhound Racing Association office for information and wrote upon his own private card the address of the office, inviting him to go there. I gather that there is at that office a gentleman who, presumably, is acting in some capacity as publicity officer for the Development Commissioners. Is his salary, if any, borne upon this figure of £2,000,000, and, if so, can the right hon. Gentleman give me some evidence of his activities as a publicity officer, for I confess that I have not been able to discover anything of any substance concerning the work that the commissioners are doing until to-day? We have been taken into the confidence of Mr. Malcolm Stewart as to what has already been done and what he contemplates for the future. The Minister rightly said that he had nothing more to say beyond what Mr. Malcolm Stewart said yesterday, and I believe that that is true, as he covered the ground almost exactly as Mr. Malcolm Stewart had done yesterday in the interview with the Press, a copy of which I have here.

With regard to some of the points which the Minister has made, I confess that I do not quite see that there is very much that is new in what he has said. He divided the matter into three categories—getting industries to men, men to industries, and the residuum of labour. He took the second point of getting men to industries first. I gather that the commissioner lays great stress upon the importance of transfer, and that he hopes that his efforts will be mainly directed to the transfer of young unmarried people. There is nothing new in that at all. We knew it before the commissioner was appointed. That has been the policy long ago. Many thousands of people in our respective areas have now left those areas. I cannot honestly say that I am wholly opposed to facilitating the transfer of any men who desire to go, though I must enter this caveat. I have the strongest objection to the utilising of any artificial pressure and bringing it to bear upon them in order to drive them from their homes. I am wondering what will happen in some of these areas if all our young men are to be drawn away from them. It will be a very interesting and disturbing proposition.

Take my area, which is not unlike other areas in South Wales. If you take away our virile young men and say that you are going to keep in those areas only married men of 35 and upwards, leaving us the older population, a proportion of whom, naturally, will be less healthy than the younger men, who is to bear the economic burdens of those neighbourhoods when those young men have been transferred? It is not a simple proposition for us to contemplate, and that side must be kept in mind when we talk so enthusiastically, as we do nowadays, of the transfer of young people from those areas. I see nothing new in that beyond the ordinary function of the Ministry of Labour and its Exchanges. That is what they have been doing all along the line, and there is no new idea involved in it. I am sure the Minister will agree. We had that drummed into us by the Committee who were sent down to those areas in South Wales, particularly in 1927 or 1928. I am not sure that we are entitled, unless there is a very substantial and fairly wide-spread revival of industry in other parts of the country, to anticipate from that particular line of action any very great relief. You may take away a few thousand, but you have sent many thousands already. There are so many unemployed in those areas that I cannot see how it is possible to anticipate the absorption of many more from them, and even if you could, the transfer of our people might leave us with a rather difficult social problem as a consequence.

I turn to the second proposition, namely, that of bringing industry to the men. It is difficult, I candidly confess, to be unduly severe upon the Minister because he has said—and I accept it from him that it is so—that there are certain schemes in contemplation and certain plans under way, and that because of the particular nature of these plans it is impossible to make public at the moment certain of the details. In face of that it is very difficult for me to press for any further information, but at the same time I do not find in the statement of the Minister to-night any evidence that he even glimpses the nature of the problem with which we are confronted in these areas. If the commissioner can find some opportunities for settling more people on smallholdings, and if he can develop more allotments, it will be very well, but I do not believe that those schemes will provide for very many people.

The problem with which we are dealing is infinitely bigger than any of these schemes alone or all of them together can even touch. I do not want to be unkind, because I am sure that the Ministers want to do what they can, but I cannot forbear using the word "tinkering"—playing at the edge of the thing. There is no evidence as far as I can see, unless the schemes which the Minister hinted at are much bigger than we have been led to suppose, that the problem is being tackled in the radical way in which we are entitled to expect it to be tackled. I would recall to the Committee the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which, I am bound to say, I am in complete agreement. They are to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 14th November, 1934. He was speaking of areas such as those which I represent, and he said: to be done. Let it be done. But what is it compared with the problem with which we are dealing? My complaint is that it is not thorough going enough, not comprehensive enough, not challenging enough, in view of the problem with which we are confronted.

In discussing this question of the depressed areas the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that something ought to be done if not to encourage at least not to discourage industries from going to them by reason of their drab, dull, depressing appearance. I am not sure that the leaders of industry are driven away very much by the poor appearance of a district. I do not know whether they are very much disturbed by that. If they feel that it would be worth their while establishing their industries there, they would run the risk of the attendant ugliness of the countryside. We are bound to ask this question, and I am sure that my colleagues on these benches will be in accord with me in raising this. We have heard reference to Merthyr Tydfil and to places like Ebbw Vale. Is it open to the commissioner—I know that it is not open to him to spend money—to impress upon the Government the necessity of planning the industries of South Wales and elsewhere? This problem has been raised in the House before and we cannot allow it to be overlooked.

What is the use of leaving areas like Merthyr Tydfil, Ebbw Vale, and others that I could mention, in a derelict depressed condition, shifting from those areas the industries upon which they have for years depended, establishing similar or rival industries in other parts of the country, and creating in the new areas the problem of the provision of all sorts of social services—roads, sewers, schools, buildings of all kind, parks and cemeteries, shifting a population of workers from the old areas to the new areas, and leaving the old areas with the same old problem of providing roads, sewers and other social services, drawing away the young men and leaving the financial burden to be borne by the old men? Can the commissioner not be endowed with power whereby he can bring some sort of authority to bear to help to plan in an intelligent way the development of these older areas as compared with the newer and more fertile areas?

We have heard a good deal in the last fortnight or three weeks about what is called a new deal. It is about time that the areas which are the special care of the commissioners had a new deal. I have noticed with some interest and some amusement how much Ministers one after the other have been smiling graciously in the direction of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in the last few weeks. The Government came into office not on a policy of planning but of arresting development. Economy was their great cry. In this new attitude of mind are we to take it that the Government are prepared to endow the commissioners more amply with power so that a real effort may be made to bring hope to areas that are now floundering in the morass of despair, if the commissioners are not already amply endowed with such powers? We are a little handicapped by what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. He has hinted that there are certain schemes in the offing, so to speak, and he has said that he cannot take us into his confidence. He did, however, lift the curtain slightly. He hinted that there were some impediments in the way of acquiring land and other essential elements for the success of the scheme. Who can the people be who are placing impediments in the way of acquiring land? Surely it cannot be the landowner. In any case, I thought the commissioners were endowed with power compulsorily to acquire land, so that whatever impediments might be placed in their path, from whatever quarter, they might be brushed aside with the powers that the commissioners now possess.

We are exceedingly diappointed with the very meagre story not only of achievement but of prospective achievement that was conveyed to us by the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the commissioners. I can only say to him that if this is the rate—I am not asking for miracles or for big schemes to be put into operation at once, but I do ask for information about the schemes in preparation—at which the commissioners are to proceed, we shall not get very far. If the Minister believes that the people in the depressed areas are going to be satisfied with this kind of programme, I can tell him that he is in for a very rude awakening. We have already discussed transitional payments for a night and a-half, but I know that I speak for my friends when I say that transitional pay- ments are very important while our people are still unemployed, but the great thing is the provision of work of one sort or another, for in that lies the hope of saving the morale of young and old and of kindling a new faith in the people of these districts.

9.26 p.m.

This Estimate makes no allocation of the £2,000,000 between England and Scotland. Until the end of the current year Parliament has authorised the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make drafts upon the fund with the consent of the Treasury up to any amount. What the position will be after 31st March is not quite clear, but whatever be the powers of the Treasury at present, or whatever they may be in the future, I sincerely trust that the Treasury when they sanction these grants will not proceed on the view that there should be any ratio of expenditure between England and Scotland. I am rather uneasy about this because of some speeches made by hon. Members during the Debate on the Second Reading. Here is what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. K. Griffith) said: possible protest against the notion that in a matter of this sort the needs of Scotland can be measured by a vulgar fraction. The Goschen formula, or any other formula, is entirely inappropriate. Scotland is entitled to receive whatever she requires, irrespective altogether of what may be paid to England. I deprecate these comparisons between the two countries, but if they are going to be made, it is manifestly clear that the claim of Scotland is far more urgent and pressing. Suppose all these special areas south of the Tweed were wiped off the map, England would still survive; no doubt in a crippled condition, but still able to carry on with a modified degree of prosperity. The case of Scotland is far otherwise. Our population is concentrated in an industrial belt situated south of the Forth and Clyde. I do not say that Lanarkshire is the only industrial area; there are other districts—there is Fife; there are the Lothians—but if Lanarkshire goes down and out then the industrial centre, the heart of Scotland, is paralysed. In this matter there is no occasion for any allocation at all. I have listened to or read the whole of the speeches on the distressed areas. I venture to think that 90 per cent. of what has been said was irrelevant. We are providing this money for one purpose and one purpose only—in order to enable the commissioners to make experiments. If those experiments are successful they will be applied on a large scale on a long range policy, but £2,000,000 is ample for the purpose of making experiments.

If the £2,000,000 is exhausted, the commissioners can come and ask for more and will get it, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that perfectly plain. Since I have been a Member of this Parliament I have been accustomed to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his usual place from Monday until Friday giving with monotonous regularity refusals to requests for money. Indeed, I used to picture him when he was not in the House somewhere underground deep down in the vaults of the Bank of England counting over his gold to make sure it was still all there. Now he appears in a new light. In the speech he made at the outset of these discussions he hardly ever mentioned the topic of money. He said that what we needed was something less orthodox than the ordin- ary plan, and he went out of his way to urge the commissioners not to be afraid if experiments failed. The commissioner for Scotland has invited suggestions. I will offer him one. Let him nail up on his desk in front of him the admonition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer: "Be unorthodox and do not be afraid that your experiments may fail." I would like to add this: "Have no concern for the cost. Economy is out of place in the laboratory." Every time the commissioner makes a request, that will be regarded as an outward and visible sign of his activity; later he may have to prepare an estimate of his future expenditure. The bigger the estimate the better. He will have no difficulty with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he can rest assured that when the Estimate finds its way to this House it will be greeted with the applause of all Scottish Members and with: "Well done, good and faithful servant."

9.35 p.m.

I have listened with considerable sympathy to the moving appeal made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) for special treatment for Scotland. He pleaded that the claims of Scotland should not be settled upon any arithmetical basis but in relation to the needs of the country. I am a Welshman, and without any apology I demand on behalf of Wales the application of precisely the same principle, inasmuch as well over half the population of the Principality resides and seeks work in a distressed area—namely, the combined area of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. Without putting forward any irrelevancies I want to call the attention of the Minister to one or two factors which I regard as of paramount importance. The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was quite rightly a precis of the declaration published in this morning's newspapers by the commissioner for the special area. When I read that pronouncement I was frankly more impressed by what the commissioner declared to be things he could not do than by the things he could do. He was careful to point out that certain reforms, which he apparently regards as fundamental, were quite outside the scope of his influence.

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but would he like to hand over to the commissioner a job which should normally be undertaken by the House of Commons?

I am trying to estimate the true value of what is possible by the methods we are discussing to-night. I do not think it is irrelevant to point this out, because not long ago the Secretary for Mines declared that it was necessary to reduce by one halfpenny the welfare levy, on the ground that a halfpenny per ton was a matter of some importance in securing contracts in so highly competitive a market as the coal market; and it seems to me that when you have mining royalties ranging from 6d. to 1s. 4d. and 1s. 5d. per ton it has some relevancy to the recovery of the coal industry.

I do not think we can embark on this discussion, because it involves legislation.

I apologise. All I want to do is to point out that there are big fundamental problems outside the scope of our discussion to-night which cannot be ignored, and that in fact we are not discussing what is basic in the situation. We are only dealing with palliatives which may ameliorate the situation without touching the fundamentals. Let me say a word with regard to transference, and I will confine my observations to the situation in South Wales. From 1921 to 1931 nearly a quarter of a million people left Wales, and since 1931 that process has continued. I am an intensely patriotic Welshman with great regard for our traditions and our culture; and frankly I am apprehensive as to the future. When I think of this gradual draining away of the most virile and enterprising elements among the people of Wales, I am sure that we will have to pay a big price for it in the future. It is no answer to say that this was always an economic necessity in the case of Wales. Last century we could afford to send our people to London and to Middlesbrough, to the north-east coast, to establish iron and steel works, and to our Colonies because our population still grew; others came to take the place of our migrants. But during this century our population has been declining with amazing rapidity. We are not filling up the gaps, and, therefore, the problem of Wales is distinct from that point of view.

I do not want to be censorious. I know how hard is the task of the commissioner and how difficult it will be to establish new industries, but, nevertheless, I am much concerned with the welfare of my people and most desirous that something shall be done which will be helpful. It is rather stupid to talk about transference and at the same time to talk about the establishment of public utility concerns for the building of houses. Who wants to build houses in places where the population is shrinking? Can you get any private builder to undertake large-scale building operations in the Rhondda Valley, or in any of the adjoining valleys which are derelict?

I hope the hon. Member will not forget a passage in the report of the inspector for the north-east coast as to the overcrowded conditions there and the necessity for building houses.

I agree, but I am speaking with special reference to South Wales. I agree that there are many slum areas in South Wales which should be rebuilt, but from the point of view of future industrial development building seems to be quite impossible for the moment in many of these areas. I am not arguing that building is impossible or that some of these areas should not be reconstructed, but as a contribution to the solution of unemployment I think it is irrelevant. That is my point. The areas which are derelict and for which there seems to be no hope are hardly areas for which you can provide large building developments. There seems to be no hope for the coal industry in some of these areas. The whole civilisation of South Wales has been built up on the foundation of coal, and seemingly there is no hope for the coal industry. The alchemy of science may come along to transmute coal into a multitude of valuable products and I would appeal to the Minister to impress on the Government—it is outside the scope of the commissioner's powers—the vital importance of envisaging the problem of coal in terms of its scientific potentialities. I will not go beyond that. I know that certain companies have a monopoly of the patent rights with regard to hydrogenation. I know all about the difficulties with regard to low temperature carbonisation. But I do want the Government to deal with this matter in a statesmanlike way. There are tracts which can be saved; they are doomed to eternal dereliction and ruin unless something is done on this scale. As a Welshman, looking upon my country and upon these youths leaving it, and think of my country's traditions and the tragedy of its future, I do earnestly plead with the Government to take the matter up. The commissioner cannot do so.

The hon. Gentleman has just stated a second time that it would be outside the commissioner's task, and therefore the subject is out of Order in this Debate.

I seem to have an inescapable genius for coming into conflict with you, Mr. Deputy Chairman, each time that I speak in Committee. Nothing is further from my desire; but I thought it was not altogether irrelevant to relate the possibilities of the commissioner's powers to the great needs of the situation. The other suggestion of the commissioner is with regard to land settlement. There is no subject on which more nonsense is spoken and written than on this. Survey statistically the agricultural situation in Wales. I could take you to scores and perhaps hundreds of small family farms, independent smallholders, where the family cash income today is less than that of the average unemployed family in the towns. It is no good planting more people on the land to starve. I know the situation in Wales. I could give figures which perhaps would surprise the Committee as to the low level of income of the small farms in Wales. You will not settle people on the land. You cannot get them away from the amenities of the towns. You cannot get them away to toil and moil on the land, with all its anxieties, for a whole year, and at the end of that year to enjoy a cash income less than that of the average unemployed family in the town.

I feel that it is no good appealing to county councils. The Ministry of Agriculture must act. Before the War I enjoyed the friendship of Sir Horace Plunkett and he and I discussed the question of land settlement. I spent a good deal of time in Ireland in those days. It has always been a problem of overwhelming interest to me. I feel that it is no good fooling people by saying, "Take a certain amount of land and plant this number or that number of smallholdings." You are never going to settle an industrial population on the land by establishing a large number of isolated smallholdings. Your only chance of increasing the agricultural population is by colonising the land. That is what I would like to see done close to the industrial markets. You must have your aggregations; you must have close co-operation; you must have semi-industrial control.

I am not going to outline my scheme. In many parts of the world I have studied land settlement, and I feel that there is a danger of our dashing the hopes of many people and making rather appalling asses of ourselves. A cogent appeal has been made for Scotland. I am not setting up on nationalist grounds the claims of Wales, in contradistinction to those of other parts, but I would remind the Minister that there are distinctive factors in the Welsh situation. After all, Wales is not a mere geographical entity. It has a culture; it has a language. Some of us feel, as we see these youths going away, that something is going to be permanently lost, and I am sure that when the Minister is discussing questions of millions, when the Ministry is engrossed with arithmetical concepts of this problem, he will not lose sight of the fact that there are spiritual elements too which cannot be ignored in the restoration of Wales as an economic factor in the comity of Great Britain.

9.50 p.m.

The Committee has an opportunity of examining the steps which the commissioners are taking to provide work for the unemployed. I am sorry that the excuse which the Parliamentary Secretary made to-night on this Estimate seemed to be the same excuse as was made with regard to the Unemployment Assistance Board—do not be in too big a hurry; there has not been very much time yet, and because there has not been much time we should be content to wait. The Parliamentary Secretary said it was only five weeks since statutory power was given to the commissioners. But the Minister has to remember that the Government first raised the hopes of this House last April. On 19th April the Government appointed the four commissioners to go into the depressed areas. Hopes were raised then that the Government really meant to do something to help the unemployed. Here we are at the end of January and there has been nothing done. Though the four commissioners spent months and months during the summer on their task and made their report, the two later commissioners have been appointed no less than two months. Yet here we are to-night with not a single thing done and with no hope for the unemployed in the depressed areas.

I do not blame the commissioner for my part of the country. He has all my sympathy. I consider that he has undertaken a task which it is impossible for one man to perform. He is like a man trying to remove a mountain with a toothpick. He can no more do the work allotted to him than he can fly. We have had one visit from the commissioner in the North-East area. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he has an office in Westminster, and he stays there. But he paid a visit to the North. It is rather strange that on the first day he was there he traversed the same ground as the Civil Lord traversed on the first day of his tour. He went to see one of our colliery villages where the colliery has been dismantled, and the next morning we read in the "Northern Echo" a report with the big headline, "The commissioner inspects pit heaps." That seems to have been the chief work of the commissioner on that first day of his visit. But soon after that, evidently because there was some criticism, the commissioner made an effort to do something. He advised local authorities to provide allotments for the unemployed, and his recommendation was that there should be 10,000 allotments.

In the North of England alone the commissioner has to deal with 197,000 unemployed men. For those men he suggests 10,000 allotments. If all those allotments were provided to-morrow, what good would they do among 197,000 men? Even for those who did get allotments what good would they do? What is the growing of cabbages going to do for an unemployed man? That is all it means. The commissioner seems to think that if he can set 10,000 men to the growing of cabbages, it will solve the unemployment problem there. Such a proposal on the part of the commissioner is ridiculous. I shall refer later to a further statement of the commissioner, but, so far, that is all he has proposed. And he is not finding the money for this purpose. He proposes that the local authorities should find the money to set these 10,000 men to grow cabbages. Naturally there was a howl of indignation—not confined to the Labour people—in the North. There was indignation at the fact that after waiting since last April and after the Government had come to the point of appointing this commissioner, and when it was expected that something was going to be done, such a proposal as this should be made. The "Morning Post" and the "Times" sent correspondents to Durham to investigate matters for themselves. The "Morning Post" correspondent described the kind of man who is now asked by the commissioner to grow cabbages. The correspondent wrote: quiet and to wait because the commissioners are considering the question of getting new industries. There is no question but that the commissioner could, if he were only allowed, use his influence to start industries in the north, of England that might put every one of our men back to work. One of the strange things is that we have two oil-from-coal plants in the county of Durham, one just at the edge of the Prime Minister's division and the other in the Prime Minister's division. All the rest of the county is left out. It seems, somehow or other—and it would be interesting to know how it has happened—that there has been influence used to get this oil-from-coal plant in the Prime Minister's Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Surely the hon. Member does not want to make such an unfair inference. He knows quite well that the Imperial Chemical Industries' works at Billingham were in existence there long before the Prime Minister went to the Seaham constituency at all, and it is not an unnatural conclusion that when Imperial Chemical Industries wanted to go in for oil themselves, they put their works up where they already had works.

Do not try to run away like that. My last statement was not with regard to Billingham, but to Lord Londonderry's place at Seaham. When the Government decided to protect Billingham in regard to the tax upon oil, the Prime Minister was in Seaham, and only a fortnight ago he took credit that the Government are being the means of getting Billingham to start an oil-from-coal plant. There is need for influence to be used, through the commissioner, to get these oil-from-coal plants in other parts of the county that need them so much, and if that influence could be used in that direction, it would be well. There is a market for the oil—it is a commercial proposition—and if that were done, every one of our miners, instead of growing cabbages or being transferred down to this Potton place, might be back in the pits. We want, not promises by the commissioner, but work.

10.13 p.m.

Although I do not represent a distressed area, I make no apology for intervening in this Debate, because I believe it is impossible to regard this problem as limited to one particular sec- tion of the community. Each one of us, I believe, is not only willing but anxious to contribute what he can to a common pool in order to bring relief to what we believe is a great national disaster. I do not want at this stage to dilate upon the circumstances which have combined to bring the distressed areas into the condition in which they find themselves to-day. It is due to a combination of circumstances, and we find that, however large the improvement of trade in the country generally may be, whatever improvement there is in the conditions of the great majority of our people, there are in these areas vast communities of men and women whose very living and life-interests have been taken away by the stagnation which has existed there for so long a time.

Whatever criticisms we have to make and whatever suggestions we have to offer in regard to proposals which are being considered by the newly appointed commissioners, we have to remember that the Government, at any rate, have attempted to tackle the problem, and it cannot be said that they have stood still and seen the position go from bad to worse. They have done something to alleviate the position of those who through no fault of their own find themselves in circumstances which bring out the sympathy and consideration of us all. We cannot confine this problem and put it in some localised area or some watertight compartment. It is a great national task which has to be faced and solved, and it demands from every one of us the best contribution we can give towards a remedy for an evil which we know exists and which we want to see removed. It was not necessary to send commissioners to find out what the position was in these places. Most of us knew how shocking they had become and how diminished had been the hope for a long time of the people who live there. Most of us believe that something can be done whereby the whole outlook of the people in the distressed areas can be changed; and we wish to present what contributions we can to the desire which the Government have to put an end to the circumstances which we are now discussing.

I want to pay what I am sure is the tribute due to those public-spirited gentlemen who have been willing to discharge voluntarily the unenviable task of com- missioners. It must be said to their credit that they are trying to serve their country and their fellow men in no small way, but I would join in asking my right hon. Friend the Minister whether he thinks that the authority with which they have been armed is sufficient to make a real onslaughter on the difficulties which they have to face. There are times when the House is ready and willing to authorise large amounts of public money for what is felt to be a national benefit. I think it was always unfair to say that the only amount of money that the commissioners would have power to spend would be the small sum of £2,000,000, when it was expressly stated that that amount was only for the period to the end of the financial year.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether he really thinks that the commissioners have got authority and are invested with the machine whereby they can really tackle this difficult and longstanding problem. It was said by the Parliamentary Secretary just now that Mr. Stewart hoped that some 10,000 allotments would be cultivated in the course of the coming season. Nobody can deny the importance of an increase of allotments, but a proposal of that nature only touches the mere fringe of the problem and does not go into the heart of the matter at all. I should like to know whether the Minister thinks that with the powers which the commissioners have and with the expenditure entrusted to them, their work goes beyond mere flirtation with the problem, or goes beyond a palliative into some possible solution. For instance, we remember that it was said by the Civil Lord in his report, in relation to the attraction of new industries, which is really a vital matter:

I am sorry if I have transgressed. May I put it to my right hon. Friend in this way? May I echo the request made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) when he asked whether he could be informed by the Minister how the £2,000,000 was being expended, whether any part of the money had been spent by the commissioners for the purpose of attracting new industries to the depressed areas, and whether he was able to show that any new industries had been or were about to be established there. One realises that names and amounts must, to a certain extent, be regarded as private, but I think the Committee would like to be assured that steps have been taken to get some new industries into those localities. At the same time one cannot overlook the difficulty of Durham and the Tyneside being regarded, from their geographical position, as being perhaps too remote from the largest market for the goods of the light industries, because there is definitely a trend of industry to the South.

When these matters are discussed a great deal is always said about industrial transference, land settlement and allotments, but it is difficult to get to know how things are really progressing. Bearing in mind the definite trend of industry to the South, I would ask the Minister what connection is being maintained between the flourishing industries in southern areas which are constantly needing labour and the vast mass of unemployment in the North. It is not enough for us here, or for some Employment Exchange, to know that on the Great West Road factory after factory is increasing its establishment. We want to know what steps are being taken to put the growing industries at Slough, on the Great West Road and in the whole southern area in touch with the mass of employment on the North-Ease coast or in South Wales. Is some really live machinery functioning day after day to keep touch between these vacant places and those idle hands, because unless there is some such machinery at work then, in my humble judgment, transference can get us nowhere. It is no good to say, "Here we have 10,000 people out of work who are willing to leave their homes and to move 150 miles away if work is waiting for them there." In my view that statement alone gets us nowhere. The point is: Is anything being done to make transference a practical possibility, and to bring the people from the North or from South Wales to the waiting jobs as soon as employment expands in the southern areas?

Further, I would like to know how much money has been spent in departmental salaries in connection with the commissioners. When the State steps in, in a matter of this kind, one always fears that a good deal more is spent in that way than results justify. The House will never be unwilling to grant funds for the purpose of reinstating the work-less in employment, but if the money is to be used merely to create departmental employment without doing much good for anybody else the whole business will wear a different aspect. It is not enough that millions of public money is to be expended to encourage voluntary societies to make gifts to long-standing unemployed persons. We want to go beyond the question of gifts. Valuable as is the work of the voluntary societies and long as have been their efforts inspired by public spirit, it is not to them alone that the distressed areas should turn.

These problems have become a national charge. For too long have they been cast aside by Governments who were afraid to face things as they are, and we welcome the fact that this Government has been the first to try to face up to the position and to do something permanently to remedy a state of things which we all desire to see entirely eliminated. It is said that we need something more rapid and more direct than we are to get. That is right; we do. We believe that most of the people are anxious and willing to find work and to become self-supporting, and it is the desire of this House that every avenue should be approached by the commissioners and that some kind of machinery should be at once started to give work, to increase work and to multiply possibilities for those who have so long been suffering from the distress which is evident in these special areas. I ask the Minister to bear in mind when he replies the great public interest in this human topic and to take us a little more into his confidence. Let him tell us whether he thinks that the powers with which the commissioners are invested are sufficient to enable them to give proper rein to the imagination which will be necessary to bring about an improvement in the conditions which we all deplore.

One of my hon. Friends just now spoke about the claims of Scotland in relation to the claims of Wales. There is no rivalry in this matter. The men and women in the distressed areas have undoubted claims on us all, and we all desire to discharge our duty to our fellows in every one of the distressed areas. I would like to think, and I hope the Minister can assure us, that all that can be done is being done by the commissioners, not merely by way of exploring the ground, or touching the fringe of these matters, or of finding what the evils are, because they are too well known and we do not need any more exploration or discovery. I hope that we can be told that steps are being taken to grapple with the question and that concrete measures are being undertaken in consequence of the onorous duty which the commissioners have assumed.

It is not a question of a new deal in land settlement or of a new deal in transference; such things will not be sufficient. Every suggestion and proposal that might put an end to the shocking state of affairs which now exists is worthy of grave consideration. If the introduction of new industries is, as has been said, of major importance—I say this in no super-critical spirit—we are entitled to know what steps have been taken, not merely for allotments but for the establishment of those new industries which the Civil Lord said had become a matter of major importance. We are entitled to know how much money has been and will be expended and what steps will be taken, in view of the difficulties which we know to exist, to endeavour to attract new industries to those places to which industries never seem to want to go.

It is easy to promise to try to attract new industries, but that will not quite suit. There may be many reasons why new industries are not attracted to these areas. At this stage, when we are all trying to pull together, we do not want to indulge in recriminations, but we want to know what steps are being taken, not merely to speak about the importance of new industries, but to see that new industries are brought to these areas where sites, machinery, man-power and possibilities exist; and, if those steps are being taken, no one is going to begrudge the grants that may be given from time to time for this great national purpose. Seeing that this is the first time that any Government has really tackled this question, we ought all cordially to wish that Government success, and in doing so to offer what contribution we can towards putting an end to an evil which affects the whole countryside, and from which none of us can try to escape.

10.32 p.m.

Representing, as I do, a part of one of the depressed areas, I listened with attention and interest to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. In his usual style he gave us a review of what was likely to happen at some time; he outlined to us the schemes that the commissioner had in his mind, and the possibilities that lay open if only those schemes were put into operation. It seems that we have to take up a sort of Micawber attitude and see what turns up. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has stated that the commissioner has traversed exactly the same ground that the Civil Lord did when he made his report. A new assistant commissioner has been appointed for Cumberland. He has been there for three or four weeks, and has gone over the same ground that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy went over. Evidently, therefore, the commissioner and his assistants are going round the depressed areas to see if the footprints left in the sands of time are still there.

The assistant commissioner in Cumberland has interviewed a good many organisations and influential bodies in the county, including the representatives of the trade union movement. I am not going to make any complaint about all the interviews that he has had and the speeches that he has made on several occasions, because he has been very cautious in what he has said, which is one of the chief attributes of the Government in London. Up to now we have had these extraordinarily cautious statements, but we have never had anybody else to tell us definitely when something is going to be done. I can quite understand, though I am not what you could call brilliant, that a good many of the schemes outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary will need time and consideration before we can really embark on them. Some of them are large, ponderous schemes which probably in the end will absorb a few hundred men, so there may be some reason to say that there should be caution, deliberation, investigation and research before starting on them. But some seem so simple that they do not need much consideration to start with.

The Minister is the generalissimo of the commissioners, because to whatever Departments they submit their schemes, they must finally come to him for confirmation. I submit to him, therefore, that the commissioners should show that they really mean to do something. They probably have the best intentions in their minds, but what is the good of my going to my people and telling them of the kindly feelings that I have towards the commissioner and the assistant commissioner? They will say, "Tell us when they are going to do something." If I say that according to the latest statement in the House of Commons something is going to be done at some time, they will want to know when that time is likely to come. I urge upon the Minister to insist that the commissioner or the assistant commissioner shall put into operation some of the small schemes so that people can realise that they intend to do something. It seems to have become a by-word that the commissioner is going to visit Cumberland next week and somewhere else the week after, and that then something may be doing. The visits take place and then we have to wait until another visit takes place, and something may be done after that. As far as anything really practical is concerned, we are just where we were before the introduction of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to do something to relieve unemployment in the depressed areas, let him make a commencement, however small. There are several schemes in my county which could be commenced with very little delay. The idea of them was promulgated long ago. The Minister of Labour should either get on with some of the schemes or drop them altogether. These men see reports in the Press which make them believe that in the course of a few days or weeks something will be done. Weeks come and go and still nothing is done at all. I urge upon the Minister to impress upon the commissioners and his assistants the desirability of putting some of their schemes into operation at the earliest possible moment.

10.41 p.m.

I do not happen to represent a distressed area, but my sympathy for the unfortunate people who have been so long unemployed is not less than that of any other hon. Member of this House. I have tried as an industrialist to help the situation by dealing with it in every possible way on the suggestions of the Government. I conducted an experiment recently in the London area which has proved entirely successful. I brought a number of Welsh miners to a place within seven miles of this House some months ago and started them in an industry there, and they are working entirely satisfactorily in a job of which they had no knowledge a few months ago. There is room for greater expansion on those lines, but the problem of unemployment is one that demands vast schemes and bigger measures than have been presented to this House as yet.

We cannot be said really to have tackled the problem of unemployment in this country unless we are content to have it permanently with us without seeking any adequate solution at all. The vast army of unemployed cannot be dealt with by mere schemes of transference or land settlement. I represent an agricultural constituency, and I tell the Committee frankly that until the people who are at present on the land can make a living, it is not a bit of use putting others on it. There are opportunities, I believe, in the agricultural industry which will widen and afford an opportunity for more to be engaged in that great industry, but we have to tackle the problem on bigger and broader national lines than anything that has hitherto been suggested. We have to face to-day a system of mechanisation in industry which is putting out daily more and more people and is calculated to do so far more seriously in the future than it has done in the past. The ordinary methods of communication have been speeded up so rapidly that vast numbers of people have become unemployed. I can only speak from my own personal experience of the coal mining industry. Last week I in- stalled a machine in one of my coal mines which put out of work 12 men. I have had to do that in order to compete with other people who have these machines. So the operation goes on, and as long as you produce machines which do away with labour, something will have to be done to provide the people displaced with a form of living and with something which is better than mere unemployment benefit.

The speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman might be quite proper in an unemployment Debate, but I do not think that it has any special reference to the subject before the Committee.

I do not want to go outside the bounds of your Ruling, but I feel that when we have commissioners specially appointed to deal with the problem of unemployment under the charge of the Ministry of Labour, they will have to be armed with such powers as is necessary to enable them to assist those people to get back to work again; otherwise, the control of the Ministry of Labour and of this House becomes an absurdity. This problem is not being relieved to the extent that one would expect from the improvement of trade that we see in the country. I was hoping when I saw the better trade returns that there would be a natural expansion of the labour market. Wonderful as the improvement of industry has been in this country it has not been reflected in the number of people put back to work to the degree that we expected when we had carried through our great reforms. I would ask the Minister of Labour in what relation does the Tariff Advisory Board—

In the limited scope of this Debate one can get very little satisfaction as to dealing with the great problem of unemployment. I would suggest that when the commissioners are analysing the work that is available they should take into special consideration the amount of such work so that they may devise some satisfactory method of dividing it among the largest number of people possible, and we can have a proper trained reserve of labour, able to carry out skilled duties, in view of the fact that people invariably lose their skill in long periods of unemployment. There are two methods of dealing with this matter, and I do not know whether they cut across the lines of this Debate. One is to bring about increased purchasing power for the people by some method or other.

I was interested in a speech which the Minister of Labour delivered at Leeds the other day, but I do not know whether his remarks will be out of order to-day. His speech seemed to me to be one of the greatest contributions from a Cabinet Minister towards a solution of our very great difficulties. While we can help in many directions the people who are probably the worst hit by transferring them to other industries, that does not form a satisfactory solution. I thought that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) was unfair in his references to the extraction of oil from coal and in his reference to the Prime Minister. The Minister, rightly, explained that Imperial Chemical Industries were obliged to put their works down within the circuit of their operations, so that they might have them under careful supervision and be able to make a better national contribution to the solution of this tremendous problem by observing their works closely and possibly extending them later. That great experiment is not limited to one company. Any other companies are at liberty to deal with the job, and they ought to deal with it if they possibly can. This scheme seems to have in it more substance than most suggestions put forward for a national outlet for labour.

We live in a rapidly increasing oil age. More and more oil from coal will be needed to develop and build up our national resources, and the Government and the commissioners are wise in exploring districts where plants may be established. I have had some personal experience of this matter, and I know that it is not by any means a proved business. The business is highly intricate, and a great deal of knowledge will have to be gained before launching out on a nation-wide scale. Industrially there are vast potentialities which may restore the coal trade. I do hope that the commissioners in dealing with the depressed areas will be able to find opportunities where such plants may become available. There are, of course, other works of national importance, which afford opportunities for labour. I believe the roads of the country are far from being what they should be, and would recommend work of that kind to the commissioners.

I am afraid I am getting out of order on all sides this evening. Those of us who are interested in agriculture, who desire to see a great influx on to the land, would ask the commissioners, when they direct their attention to this form of occupation, to see that they put into this occupation only those men who can readily and easily earn a living. An agriculturist cannot be brought straight out of a coal mine and earn a living at once. An agriculturist is just as highly skilled a worker as any other. Those in agriculture at present have the hardest job in making a living. If the commissioners are looking in that direction for an increase in employment, I hope they will take the Government into their confidence before sending these men, and that they will see that the men are suitable and adequately trained before leaving them to fight their battles alone. I do hope we can get to a satisfactory state of affairs, when everyone will be able to earn his own livelihood. No man likes to be living on public assistance, and unless the Government open up substantially and devote more finance to employment, I believe they will not have done what the country expected them to do and which they were returned to power to accomplish.

10.54 p.m.

We on these benches were delighted to hear the last speaker, and would have liked him to develop his theme. There can be no doubt that the distressed areas problem is really a problem of the export market. The reports of the investigators show that they involve the whole of the heavy industries, coal, iron, steel, shipbuilding, all concerns related to the export market. It would seem to be quite useless to endeavour to tackle this problem without first appreciating that known fact. Further, the Government, I think, are tackling the matter quite wrongly in not endeavouring to create that market, and if not a market for export goods, an internal market to consume more goods. We have had in an earlier Debate evidence of protests all over the country at the way in which the means tests and Regulations are being applied. Within a few hours we are thrown from a debate in which we gave evidence of the contraction of the markets in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire by over £1,000,000 a year into another debate in which we are talking about expanding our markets and employing more labour. It seems so senseless when one realises the nature of the last debate and the present debate.

If we could get into the mind of the commissioners we should receive a statement to the effect that "after having surveyed the problem and the sum of money at our disposal, it is an insuperable problem. It is inadequate for the purpose." They would also admit, I think, that they have found attached to the local authorities in the country schemes which would use up the money to better advantage, which would create more labour and more assets for the nation, than if it were spent on lines which they may ultimately decide. A short time ago I accompanied a deputation from an urban authority in my district to the Ministry of Health in regard to sewage works. Under the old Local Government Acts it was possible for a local authority to obtain a grant for works of that kind. The engineer of the Ministry of Health had been on the area and had agreed to the facts cited by the deputation. But there was no money to advance to that local authority, they could not obtain a grant from the Ministry of Health, and it was indirectly suggested to us that we might approach the commissioner and see what could be done. An estimate was submitted that the work would cost £30,000. On Thursday of last week the deputy-commissioner had occasion to meet a delegation representing this urban authority and two other authorities, and also a large rural authority, and it was suggested that a main trunk sewage line from each of the valleys should be constructed to the sea. The sewage works were originally constructed for a population of 15,000; the population is now 30,000. Crude sewage is now running into the river, and hon. Members will appreciate what that means.

The estimated cost of this main trunk sewage scheme is £350,000. I assume that that is as much as we can hope to have in South Wales. But it is absolutely essential because it is quite impossible for this local authority, with a rate of 19s. 4d. in the pound, to think of incurring heavier rates by having to borrow the money when faced with this heavy financial obligation. The financial burden on the other local authorities is comparable. This is a matter of life and death to these areas. It is a serious problem of health. What is the use of setting up clinics and other things of that kind in an area where it is admitted that the population is at least 100 per cent. above the sewage capacity for the area? What is the use of talking about small matters pertaining to health in that district while we have one large problem like that confronting us all the time? From each of the distressed areas the commissioner is confronted with applications from local authorities which are already overwhelmed with debt, with a high rate poundage, and with assessments depleting rateable values. All these things are confronting him, and he is quite unable, with the miserable pittance that he has at hand, to meet the enormous calls that are made upon him.

Allotments are related to the Government's marketing schemes, whether for beef or milk or mutton. The marketing schemes are for the purpose of raising prices and consequently limiting production. But allotments will have for their purpose, apparently, an increase in production. We have these contradictions to face every day from one Minister or another. However, I am asking the Minister of Labour quite seriously whether such a scheme as I have mentioned comes within the purview of the commissioner. If the commissioner reports that such a scheme is a favourable one and should be proceeded with at once, and that the burden cannot be carried by the local authority, will the Minister be prepared to agree that the commissioner should ask for a larger sum, if necessary, so that the scheme shall be proceeded with?

I am sure that that is the kind of question that would be put by most hon. Members on this side and by his own supporters also. In the last three years the Government have made local government stagnant. It is really static at this moment and leeway has to be made up. The longer it is left the more serious the plight will become. I trust the Minister will tell us whether he can seriously tackle these great problems as presented to him by local authorities in deputations, either in a joint manner or as individual local authorities that are overwhelmed with financial burdens.

11.3 p.m.

In replying to the very interesting Debate we have had I shall not detain the Committee long, because the burden of most of the speeches has been a complaint as to the delay in the active operation of the commissioner. That there has been some delay I admit, and for the delay I feel that I must take the greater part of the responsibility. After all, we were in This scheme setting up a new relationship between a Minister responsible to Parliament and a semi-independent person who was to act under him. There was the difficulty of trying to get a relationship which allowed the commissioner to act as speedily as possible and on his own responsibility, and at the same time give me enough knowledge and control to be able to discharge my responsibility to Parliament. For instance, hon. Members opposite would have been the first to criticise me severely if, before the commissioner embarked upon the actual scheme, we had not settled in principle such questions as wages and conditions of labour and matters of that kind.

Therefore it was necessary at the inception of this new scheme to get some general agreement on principles which would enable me to discharge my responsibility to the House of Commons but which, once the principles were settled, would allow the commissioner the free exercise of his responsibility on the details. That settlement of principles did occupy, inevitably, a certain amount of time but I am glad to Say that they are all settled now and that within the ambit which the commissioner himself described in his report yesterday, there is nothing to prevent him going ahead immediately with such schemes as he finds desirable and practicable. I understand that he already has a considerable number of such schemes ready for almost instant operation.

In regard to particular points that have been raised during the Debate, I will endeavour to answer first my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) who raised the extremely important question of why the publicity agent of the commissioner was situated at the offices of the Greyhound Racing Association. I understand that the gentleman in question is an expert whose services were kindly loaned to the commissioner for the inception of this scheme and that he naturally remained in the office in which he was situated and inquirers—including the inquirers to whom the hon. Member referred and the correspondent of the newspaper the name of which I forget was one of these—were referred to him. He received no salary I may add for this work.

Reference has also been made to the question of transfer and to the problem which, of course, will eventually have to be faced—I do not say in these areas as a whole but in certain parts of those areas—when large numbers of the younger men go away and the remaining and declining population of the district are old people. The possibility that that may happen in the fairly far distant future ought not to stand in the way of doing everything we can, to assist any young man in those areas who sees a chance for himself outside and who really desires to take it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Lyons) referred to this question but I do not think this would be the time to describe the very elaborate system of transfer which already exists through the Employment Exchange service and the very great efforts which that service makes to get in touch with all employers in surrounding districts and to get employers to utilise the Exchanges for the engagement of all their labour. Once they are able to do that, then in proportion to the absorption of the local unemployed they are able to find room for people from the special areas. It is not only a question of finding a job and bringing the man to it, but all kinds of questions arise, such as, in the case of juveniles, after-care, looking after these boys and girls when they have been moved out of the area and seeing that their lives in the area to which they have been transferred are comfortable. I believe that in all these kinds of cases the commissioner can and will be of great assistance; and when the hon. Gentleman talks about the possibilities of transference, I think there is a good deal more of unsatisfied demand for labour in different parts of the country than he quite realises. Some of it, it is true, may be a demand for skilled labour of a particular kind that can only be filled by the people from the special areas after some training is given them, but this is one of the questions that I am discussing now with the employers and trade union representatives.

I want to find out, first of all, how much actual shortage there is now, whether it will be filled later, what amount of training which we could give to an unskilled man in one of these areas would make him sufficiently skilled to fill that job, and how much is of an unskilled type which could be filled by transference; and, secondly, what would be the shortage if there was a gradual improvement of industry from the present moment. I rather fear—it may or may not be right, but this inquiry will prove—that any substantial improvement of industry from its present level would find in a great number of industries a real, definite hampering shortage of skilled labour. You might easily discover, suddenly, with an improvement of industry, that you had a real shortage of skilled men, and in these discussions I hope I shall be able to get some idea of how it will be possible to fill that potential shortage, to maintain that reserve of labour, and to enable some transference to be made.

The hon. Member also asked, with regard to the commissioner, whether he could call the attention of the Government to possibilities of doing something in the areas which lies beyond his own power to do. That has been taken on several occasions to be one of the potential functions of the commissioner, that he should act as the Government liaison officer in direct contact with these particular areas, and that wherever he feels that some method is desirable, either of bringing a new industry into an area or of getting some useful public work done which, for some obstacle or other, is held up, he should advise the Government on how the job could be carried out and the work put in hand.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans), in the course of a very interesting speech, denied the possibility of any real expansion of house building in Wales, and I am not going to argue that he was incorrect, but I think those who have studied the report of the Civil Lord on the North-East Coast would say that there is a definite shortage of houses, if overcrowding and bad conditions are to be avoided. Although it is true that the Government, under the slum clearance scheme and under the scheme which is to be discussed in the House to-morrow, will give assistance to local authorities to carry out their duties, it may be that in some of these areas, where the local authorities are not prosperous and have not much money to spend, a housing utility society may do a great deal to facilitate the operation of the Government's slum clearance and overcrowding schemes. My hon. Friend also said, with his long experience of land settlement, that it was not much good putting individuals on the land, but I am sure he will have noticed that, in the programme of the commissioner, there is included a scheme not only for individual settlement of men on the land and for smallholdings, but for the settlement of group holdings and for such schemes as the Scott and Upholland schemes.

Many speakers have referred to the possible development of oil from coal, whether by hydrogenation or low temperature carbonisation. That is a possibility which, I am sure, the commissioner will always have in mind, and about which he will advise the Government, if and when he sees some opportunity of bringing it into his area. The only other definite question I was asked was that of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) with regard to sewage schemes. I cannot, of course, answer in regard to particulars of a scheme of which I do not know, and the hon. Member would not expect me to do so, but it was announced by the Parliamentary Secretary to-day that sewage schemes were one of the objects in connection with which the commissioner was prepared to help local authorities.

Let me in conclusion state once more the position, which is so little understood, as regards the finance of this fund. The position is that the fund is created with an initial payment of £2,000,000. That is not £2,000,000 up to the end of this year, or up to the end of any other year, but £2,000,000 in the fund. If and when it is exhausted, and the commissioners feel that there is useful work remaining to be done, they will make their request to the Government, and through the Government to the House, for such further sums as they require; and in the light of the utility of the services they have already rendered, they will be judged as to the necessity for placing further funds at their disposal. With the apology I have given to the Committee for the inevitable delay which has occurred in the last few weeks, I feel the Committee will be prepared to pass this Vote. I am confident that the causes of delay have been removed and that there are now no obstacles to the rapid execution by the commissioner of many of the schemes which have been referred to in his report.

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,999,900, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Sir W. Womersley. ]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes after Eleven o'Clock.