Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 297: debated on Tuesday 5 February 1935

House of Commons

Tuesday, February 5, 1935

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

Private Business

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Huntingdonshire Joint Hospital District) Bill,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Huntingdonshire Joint Hospital District," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Chilterns Joint Small-Pox Hospital District) Bill,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the South Chilterns Joint Small-pox Hospital District," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Questions

Fishing Industry (Irish Waters)

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that at Letterkenny, county Donegal, on the 8th June, 1934, the skipper of the steam drifter "Mignonette," of Buckie, Banffshire, was at the instance of the Irish Free State authorities convicted and fined for a breach of the law in having fished with lines in Lough Swilly within three miles of the shore; whether he is aware that hitherto fishermen have acted in the belief that British territorial waters are open on the same terms to all British citizens; whether he can make a statement for the guidance of fishermen who are now uncertain as to their position in Irish waters; and whether he has made, or proposes to make, representations on the matter to the Irish Free State Government?

:I understand that the facts are as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's question. On the general question the position is that the control of fishing within the territorial waters of the Irish Free State is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State. Legislation has been passed in the Irish Free State, namely the Sea Fisheries Protection Act of 1933, the general effect of which is to prohibit fishing within the territorial waters of the Irish Free State except by Irish Free State fishing vessels. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question, if he will indicate to me the points on which he considers that representations should be made to the Irish Free State Government, I shall be happy to consider them.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether His Majesty's Government acquiesce in this new view of British citizenship?

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position of Irish fishermen coming to Scottish and English waters?

:May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has already made any representations to the Irish Free State on this matter, or whether he proposes to do so?

:My hon. Friend knows that this is not a new question as far as the present position is concerned. I have not made representations on the particular point, but he will notice that in the last part of my answer I said that, if my hon. Friend will indicate to me the particular point on which he would like to have representations made, I will consider it.

:Has not the Liberal party always supported the giving of self-government to Ireland, and is this not one of the results?

Migration Policy (Australia)

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the attitude of the Australian Government towards the report of the inter-departmental committee on migration policy, as gathered by the recent visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to that Dominion?

:My hon. Friend had some informal discussion on the matters dealt with in the report with authorities in Australia. I understand that they are giving these matters careful consideration, and I hope to have an opportunity of further discussion on the subject with Commonwealth Ministers when they are in this country.

Mercantile Marine (Seamen)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the large number of coloured British subjects, paid-off seamen, in this country, and owing to the difficulty subsequently of their obtaining employment either on sea or land, he will consider the question of offering them facilities for returning to their own native country?

:It is the statutory duty of the Secretary of State for India to repatriate lascars found destitute in the United Kingdom. Apart from this provision there are, I understand, no powers to facilitate the return to their native country of the British subjects in question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider introducing legislation in order to ensure that British merchant ships shall only sign on seamen of British nationality (so long as these are available), and that at British ports overseas a system, of investigation be instituted in order to ensure that applicants are genuinely British and not merely temporarily domiciled on British territory?

:Many proposals similar to that made by my hon. and gallant Friend have been considered from time to time but we have not been satisfied that action of the kind suggested could usefully be taken. The most recent information available as to the present position is being collected by my Department and the question will be considered again on that basis.

Trade and Commerce

Factory Sites (Advice)

6 and 7.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether there is any existing Government organisation which is prepared to offer to those with money to invest in industry expert advice as to sites for factories and the apparent openings for remunerative trade;

(2)whether in guiding those who may ask the advice of his Department on the establishment of new factories in this country, he is taking into consideration the interests and claims of south-east Lancashire?

:Such inquiries as are received by the Board of Trade in connection with sites for new industrial undertakings are referred to the Travel and Industrial Development Association, which works in close contact with local Industrial Development Organisations including the Lancashire Industrial Development Council.

Balance of Trade

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the rising adverse balance of trade, he proposes to take early steps through the proper channels by means of higher tariffs or reduced quotas, or otherwise, to retain more of these imports for home manufacture by our own people with the consequent beneficial effect on unemployment?

:I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the movement of imports and exports as shown by the monthly Trade Returns, though in forming an estimate of the complete balance of payments there are of course numerous other factors to be taken into account. As regards the balance of visible trade, however, I would point out to my hon. Friend that for the year 1934 this, although slightly less favourable than in 1933, is almost exactly the same as in 1932 and shows a great improvement on 1931. There has been a substantial increase in the imports of materials for British industry, but the balance of trade in articles classed as wholly or mainly manufactured has shown a progressive improvement in each of the years since 1931. Moreover, an important part of the imports of goods classed in the Trade Returns as wholly or mainly manufactured consists of goods which are materials of industry. With regard to the last part of the question, if any particular industry considers that further protection is necessary, its proper course, as my hon. Friend is aware, so far as the goods in question come within the scope of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, is to make representations in the first instance to the Committee.

:Am I to conclude from what my right hon. Friend said that he is not going to take any further action himself, but will leave the whole thing to the industries concerned?

:Parliament laid down the process which has to be applied to cases of this kind.

:If an article goes through subsequent processes of manufacture in this country, are we to understand that its importation is regarded by my right hon. Friend as being without objection?

:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has any reason to believe that our invisible exports are increasing—the receipt of interest on foreign loans, shipping, banking, insurance payments—and that these help to pay for our increasing imports?

:The question on the Paper does not refer to invisible exports. I understand there is a further question on that subject, and perhaps my hon. Friend will put down his question.

Merchandise Marks Act (Honey)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in the interests of the producers and consumers of honey in this country, he will take steps to prohibit the use of the designation honey by the producers and retailers of artificial honey?

:It is an offence against the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, to apply to any goods a false description as to the material of which the goods are composed. If, therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of any specific case in which the name Honey is falsely applied, I shall be happy to consider whether any appropriate action can be taken under the Act.

British Army

Stores

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what steps are being taken to make good the deficiency in stores and material which the Secretary of State for War recently stated at present existed, owing to the policy of unilaterial disarmament adopted by past Governments?

:It is not possible to deal with this subject within the ambit of an answer to a question, but I hope to be able to make some statement when I introduce the Army Estimates.

:Having regard to the great reductions which have been made in the strength of the Regular Army, are not the Government of opinion that it is essential that these Forces should be as efficiently equipped as possible; and surely the House may have some assurance that the deficiences that were referred to recently by the Secretary of State will be made good at a very early date?

:Yes, we believe in having the Army efficient, and I hope that I shall be able to give some satisfaction to my hon. Friend when the Army Estimates are introduced.

Establishment (Deficit)

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the present shortage of officers and men in the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, respectively; and what steps are being taken to give a training for national defence to young men who are unable to obtain civil employment and are in receipt of State assistance?

:Including the British Army in India, the deficit on the establishment for the Regular Army on 1st January was approximately 200 officers and 3,500 other ranks. The deficit on the recruiting establishment for the Territorial Army for the same date was approximately 1,100 officers and 32,000 other ranks. As regards the last part of the question, no steps are being taken by the War Office.

:Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Government that, in view of the shortage of the defence forces in this country, it is desirable, both in the interests of the individual and also of the State, that some form of national service training should be given to young men who are unemployed and who are receiving assistance from the State?

:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the Unemployment Assistance Board gets its way, there will not be even fewer young men who will enlist in the Army or anywhere else?

Royal Artillery (Officers' Promotion)

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the selection board for the promotion of field officers of the Royal Artillery has at any time during the last three years received instructions to pass over for promotion a specified number or specified percentage of Royal Artillery majors irrespective of their records, qualifications, or suitability; and, if so, upon whom the responsibility for such instructions rests?

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

:How does my right hon. Friend account for the passing over for promotion during the last few years of the abnormal number of 30 per cent. of Royal Artillery majors who have been recommended by their superiors for promotion?

:That is another question. I have answered the question which was put upon the Order Paper.

Tattoos (Profits)

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office to what object the profits derived from the Aldershot and other tattoos are devoted; whether any statement as to the receipts and expenditure is published; and, if not, whether he will arrange for some account to be rendered regarding these functions to which the public make large contributions and in which many public servants are engaged?

:The profits derived from the tattoos are devoted to military and civilian charities. Audited statements of accounts are issued to those mainly concerned, such as the chief military authorities or the charities which benefit; but since no cost in connection with tattoos fall upon Army funds, I see no reason for their publication.

Scotland

Education (Milk Supply Scheme)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any and, if so, which Scottish education authorities are yet operating the new milk-in-schools scheme; and how many children are affected thereby?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the scheme for supply of milk to school children and the scheme of juvenile unemployment centres now applies?

:As the complete answer to these questions is long I will, with my hon. Friends' permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. But my hon. Friends may be interested to know that 13 education authorities are already operating the scheme, that nearly 200,000 children are receiving milk under it and that that number is expected rapidly to increase.

:Is it anticipated that all education authorities will be operating this scheme by the end of the present year?

:I should not like to answer that question without notice.

Following is the Answer:

The following is the position as at Monday, 4th February, 1935:

Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow (Disturbances)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make a statement regarding the recent disorder at Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow?

:On 21st December a number of prisoners created considerable disorder and did some damage. On the 22nd December some of the same men smashed the furniture and fittings of the cells to which they had been removed. Before order was restored extensive destruction of cell equipment took place, and injuries, though not of a serious kind, were sustained by 30 of the prisoners and nine of the warders. Since then, apart from a few incidents, conditions have been quiet at the prison. In view of the information which I have received, I have decided to hold an inquiry into the administration and discipline of this prison and into the existing arrangements for the inspection of Scottish prisons generally, and I have appointed Sir George C. Rankin to undertake this inquiry forthwith.

:If the circumstances which led to the disturbance in this prison are to be inquired into, surely the public have a right to know what has been at the back of it, and the cause of the disturbances. Since an inquiry is to be held, would it not be better that the Secretary of State should make a statement in the House of Commons when he receives the report from the Commissioner?

:Certainly, if the inquiry elicits any fact which the House should know, I will convey that information forthwith.

:I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will acquaint the House, through the usual channels, when the report is ready and has been submitted to him and he has considered it, in case it may be necessary to put a question down?

:When the report is received and I am in a position to make a statement to the House, I will certainly inform, through the usual channels, hon. Members who are interested in the question.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication who Sir George C. Rankin is, if he is the only gentleman who is to make the inquiry, and if the inquiry will be public, in the interests of the prison, the prisoners and the public generally?

:Sir George Rankin is a Scotsman who was Chief Justice in Calcutta for many years. He is now resident in Edinburgh. I cannot give any undertaking that the report which he will make will be published.

:That is not the point. The point is, will the inquiry be public? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that in connection with the recent cases that were tried in court the evidence was so contradictory and the public were so dissatisfied that more ought to be known of the causes of the disturbance in the prison.

:It is in the interests of all concerned that the inquiry should be held in private so that witnesses may make any statement they desire before Sir George Rankin. As I have already stated, if any facts are elicited at the inquiry which should be made public, I will undertake to do that.

:I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest possible moment.

Housing, Edinburgh

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of occupied one-room and two-room houses, respectively, in Edinburgh?

:I am informed that the Valuation Roll, which was made up as at the 8th September, 1934, shows the number of occupied one-room and two-room houses in Edinburgh as 6,181 and 32,492 respectively.

Building and Town Improvements, Rothesay

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that land for building and town improvements is required at Rothesay; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the owner of the land in question is not allowed to hinder the operations of the town council or the Bute county council in proceeding with their development schemes?

:In answer to the first part of the question, I am informed that all the land presently needed by the Town Council of Rothesay for housing purposes has been acquired. I have no information as to land being required for other purposes of town improvement. With regard to the reference to the county council in the second part, I understand that a question is under discussion with reference to the construction of a coastal road in the Island of Bute. Any question on this point, however, should be addressed to my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

:Is the hon. Member aware of the fact that the landowner referred to is the Marquess of Bute and that he has spent the whole of his life in retarding any improvement that might take place in the Island of Bute, or particularly in Rothesay?

:That does not seem to arise out of the question. I have given the hon. Member the answer to his question.

:Is it not a fact that to all intelligent people that question is entirely wrong?

:Is not this another example of one landowner trying to defend another landowner?

His MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Glasgow Corporation decided to give all the corporation employés, numbering 39,000, a holiday on 6th May with pay in celebration of the King's Silver Jubilee; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking Government action to secure that all other workers in Scotland will receive a similar holiday with pay on this occasion?

:The Glasgow Corporation has decided, as far as practicable, to grant municipal employés a holiday with pay on 6th May, employés who cannot then be released to be given another day instead. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Grundy).

:The Prime Minister's reply had nothing to do with Scotland. This question is addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and if you read the question, Mr. Speaker, you will see that I am in perfect order in asking the Minister to reply on behalf of Scotland.

Milk Re-Organisation Commission

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make a statement as to the appointment of the Milk Re-organisation Commission, its personnel, and its terms of reference?

:The constitution of the Milk Re-organisation Commission is at present engaging the earnest attention of the Minister of Agriculture and myself. We fully recognise the urgency of the matter and we hope to be in a position to make an announcement as to the personnel and the terms of reference at a very early date.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to see that the commission when it is set up produces its report not later than May?

:I cannot give an undertaking, but I am sure that they will be fully seized of the urgency of the problem.

Influenza

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there are any arrangements for the public notification of an epidemic of influenza and of the protective measures which should be taken by the public; and, if so, whether he is satisfied that the arrangements are adequate?

:In answer to the first part of the question, local authorities from time to time take steps by press notices and otherwise to draw the attention of the public to the existence of an epidemic of influenza and to indicate the precautionary measures which should be taken, and the Department keep themselves informed of the action so taken by local authorities. With regard to the second part, I am considering what, if any, further steps can usefully be taken in the matter.

Milk Marketing Scheme

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make a statement on the present position of the Scottish milk marketing scheme?

:Orders giving effect to the decisions on the complaints of the East of Scotland producers which I intimated in my statement to the House on 10th December were made on 28th December, and came into force on 1st January.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make regarding the proposed amendments to the milk marketing scheme in Scotland now upon the Table of the House?

:The orders which were made on 28th December and which have been laid before the House in accordance with the Act give effect to the decisions announced to the House in my statement of 10th December. If my hon. Friend desires further information on any point dealt with in that statement, I shall be glad to supply it.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among the South West milk producing farmers in Scotland in regard to the activities of the Milk Board there?

:Yes, I am well aware of the anxiety in many quarters of Scotland on this point.

Water Supplies

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, while £137,500 was provided last year for the improvement of Scottish rural water supplies, the applications by local authorities for grants for this purpose amounted to over £1,000,000; and whether, in view of the seriousness of the water situation in rural Scotland, as shown by the above figures, he will endeavour to provide in this year's estimates a sum of not less than £250,000 for further schemes of improvement?

:The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I can hold out no hope that the amount provided last year for this purpose will be supplemented.

Sheriff Court, Stornoway (Gaelic Evidence)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the recent action of the sheriff substitute at Stornoway in refusing to permit witnesses to give evidence in Gaelic; and whether he will take any steps to secure that discrimination against the Gaelic-speaking inhabitants of Scotland shall cease forthwith?

:I have made inquiry and find that the Court decided to hear the case in English because the witnesses spoke both Gaelic and English, and appeared to be more familiar with the latter. A Gaelic interpreter is available at Stornoway when required and was provided in the present case. I am not aware of any discrimination such as is referred to in the second part of the question.

Coal Industry

Inspections

asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the comparatively small number of inspections made by His Majesty's Inspectors on the afternoon and night shifts; and, in view of the fact that shot firing is mostly done on these back shifts, whether he will try to organise it so that a greater number of inspections shall be made on the afternoon and night shift?

:The answer to the first part of the question is yes. With regard to the second part, instructions have already been given which will result in a substantial increase in the number of inspections made by His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines on the afternoon and night shifts. During these inspections special attention is to be paid to the subject of shot-firing.

:In view of the number of accidents and the inadequate number of inspectors, will the hon. Member see that their numbers are increased?

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give the number of inspections carried out by workmen at Adventure Colliery, Durham, under Sec- tion 16 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, giviing the dates of such inspections, for each year from 1926 to 1934, giving each year separately.

:The total number of such inspections in the years 1926 to 1934 inclusive was eight. I am circulating a statement of the dates in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The dates of the inspections are as follow:

Adventure Colliery, Durham (Wages and Accidents)

asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912, is in operation at Adventure Colliery, Durham; and, if so, what provision is made for the operation of Section 3 of such Act?

:The provisions of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912, apply to all workmen underground in coal mines. With regard to the second part of the question, Section 3 of the Act makes provision for the revision of minimum rates of wages and district rules by the joint district boards constituted under the Act. If the hon. Member will let me know if any difficulties have arisen, I shall be happy to discuss them with him.

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of accidents, fatal and non-fatal, at Adventure Colliery, Durham, for each year from 1927 to 1934, giving each year separately?

:No fatal accidents occurred at this colliery during the period 1927 to 1934. The number of persons disabled for more than three days were as follow:

Questions

Naval and Military Pensions and Grants

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will make the necessary arrangements for the appointment of a medical or surgical expert resident in Scotland in all Scottish cases which are remitted for the consideration of an independent medical specialist in which a medical examination of the claimant is considered necessary?

:The arrangements already in force provide that, if in any case the independent medical expert consulted by the Ministry considers that a further medical examination is necessary, such examination can be carried out either by himself or by another medical man in accordance with his wishes.

:Where the claimant is residing in Scotland would it not be a great advantage if an examination is necessary, that the medical adviser should also reside in Scotland?

:The fullest information will always be available. In the case recently mentioned by the hon. Member, the independent medical specialist was an examiner at Glasgow University. The hon. Member has not realised that the independent medical person is there to advise the Minister of Pensions.

:In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first available opportunity.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mary Brereton, whose father, late private, No. 4,636, Royal Munster Fusiliers, died of wounds in August, 1917, is suffering from defective vision, both eyes, and is, and has been for many years, unable to contribute in any way to her self-support; and whether he will have investigations made in this case with a view to authorising the re-issue of war orphan's allowance which ceased on her attaining the age of 21?

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Florence Mary Sully, whose father (late private No. S4/128,193, Royal Army Service Corps) died from the effects of war service on 6th October, 1919, is suffering from a diseased hip and is, and has been for many years, unable to contribute in any way to her self support; and whether he will have investigations made in this case with a view to authorising the re-issue of war orphan's allowance, which ceased on 12th May, 1934?

:I have no authority to re-issue allowances in favour of the persons referred to. It is a long established principle that pensions liability for children should not extend at the utmost beyond the attainment of their majority, and, although an exception has been made as regards the special and limited class of young persons who become total orphans before reaching the age of 21, I cannot hold out any hope of a departure from the decision of the late Labour Government that the concession must be limited to this class.

:If the right hon. and gallant Member, as he says, is unable to authorise the re-issue of allowances under the Warrant, will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation to deal with cases of this kind?

:May I ask whether in the peculiarly distressing case there is not a fund at the disposal of the Minister?

:No, Sir. There is no special fund, but there are all the ordinary social services of the country, including the liabilities of the county councils which are available for such cases.

Afforestation (Lake District)

asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction aroused by its proposal to plant the upper part of the valley of Eskdale, and so to destroy its characteristic beauty in addition to depriving walkers of their existing right to wander at will over one of the most beautiful parts of the Lake District; and whether, in view of these facts, the commission will reconsider its decision?

:The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, there is no intention of interfering with existing rights. The third part of the question consequently does not arise.

:If an alternative scheme is put forward in the same neighbourhood, which would not interfere with the amenities of the Lake country, would the hon. and gallant Member give favourable consideration to it?

:No, Sir. The Forestry Commissioners are absolutely satisfied and have taken great pains to see that their work shall increase rather than diminish the amenities. There are always a certain number of persons who prefer that land should produce nothing rather than trees.

Education

Caning (Girls)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to correspondence with the medical section of his Department regarding the caning of girls attending school; and whether he is now prepared to accept the suggestion that an official opinion should be pronounced upon the medical aspect of this question for the guidance of all local education authorities?

:The administration of corporal punishment in the schools is a matter which has always been regarded as within the discretion of the school authorities, and my Noble Friend does not see any reason to vary this policy. I am satisfied that during recent years there has been a welcome decrease in the infliction of corporal punishment as a means of maintaining discipline. In the case to which the hon. Member refers, the Board regret to learn that the punishment, which consisted of one stroke with a cane on the hand, was inflicted by a male assistant teacher. This action was a direct contravention of the regulations of the authority.

Day Continuation Schools, Bournville

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he receives a yearly report from Messrs. Cadbury's day continuation school at Bournville; and whether he is satisfied that the teaching staff employed are fully qualified?

:Responsibility for the day continuation schools at Bournville attended by boy and girl workers from Messrs. Cadbury's is taken by the Birmingham local education authority and no reports are received by the Board of Education from the schools. The Board are satisfied that the staffs of the schools are suitably qualified for the work which is undertaken.

Unemployment

Unemployment Assistance Regulations

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the protest from the unemployed of Leigh protesting against the scales under the regulations which came into operation on 7th January, and will he state what similar resolutions have reached him from other organisations; and, in view of the strong feeling prevailing throughout the country, will he take an early opportunity of revising and increasing the scales?

:I have considered the representation to which the hon. Member refers and others from various quarters. I propose to make a statement on the whole subject later to-day.

asked the Minister of Labour the date upon which he received from the Unemployment Assistance Board the draft of their proposed regulations; whether the regulations submitted to and approved by Parliament are identical with the draft originally proposed by the Unemployment Assistance Board; and, if not, will he state what alterations were made and on whose initiative these alterations were made?

:The Board were required by Section 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act to submit draft regulations to me within four months from the passing of the Act on 28th June. The Board found the task of preparing the regulations within this period a difficult one and while they complied with the Act by submitting draft regulations to me on 26th October, they found on further examination that this draft was incomplete in certain respects and required amendment. They accordingly prepared new draft regulations and submitted them to me in a form which was identical with the draft submitted to the House and approved by it on 19th December. The amendments contained in this latter draft as compared with the earlier draft had the effect of increasing the total amount of the allowances to be made.

:May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will submit to the House the original draft scheme submitted by the board, as laid down by the Act?

:That is not the effect of the Act at all. It is clear that the Act does not apply to this case.

:Did not the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House to the effect that the Act stated that the original draft had to be submitted to the House. If the board have submitted draft regulations to him and they are sent back, are they not the original regulations? May I ask whether a representative of the Treasury sat with the board when making these regulations and discussed them with the board, and what representations the Treasury made to the board during the discussions?

:With regard to the latter part of the question, it is obviously a matter of which I have no knowledge, and I do not think that the board would tolerate it. With regard to the first part, the provisions in the Act to which I have referred, are mainly designed to deal with cases of disagreement between the board and the Minister of Labour, when the Minister wants to make amendments in the regulations submitted by the board. In this case, before I had time to consider them the regulations were withdrawn and a new set of regulations presented by the board.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman submit to the House the body of original regulations put into his hands by the board?

:No, Sir. I am not bound to do that; and I do not see that it would in any way serve the public interests. It would also be unfair on the board which had to submit regulations in accordance with the Act within a certain time, and which they then warned me were incomplete.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is said that these regulations were submitted to him and that owing to pressure by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself the scales were afterwards reduced? If that be not the case, why does the right hon. Gentleman not meet it by producing the original regulations so that there should be no dubiety on the point?

:I have already stated in my answer that the difference between the new and the old regulations was to increase the amount payable under the scales. I have already denied the rumour that any pressure was put by the Government on the board to reduce the scales.

:May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this matter? It is laid down in the Act that the draft regulations have to be submitted to the Minister, and even if he does not accept them he must submit them to the House. May I ask what redress the House has in this case, when the Minister refuses to submit the original draft to the House?

:That is hardly a question for me to answer. In the first place it depends on the Act; and in the second place on the Minister.

:On that point I submit that there was implicit in the Minister's statement, when this Bill went through, that the Regulations drafted by the board would be submitted to the House, apart from any Amendment that he made. Have you or anyone else no power, seeing that those statements have been made, to have the Minister carry out what was implicit when the regulations and the Bill were before the House?

:But the Minister himself pointed out to the House that the original draft was to be submitted to the House if he did not agree with it. What protection has the House if the Minister refuses to carry out what he himself admitted to the House was in the Act?

:Had I, when I had finished the consideration of these Regulations, come to the conclusion that they could not be submitted to Parliament without amendment, I should then have had to submit the new Regulations and a draft of the ones submitted by the board, with the board's statement on the difference. The position here was that, before I had considered these Regulations or come to any conclusion upon them, they were withdrawn by the board themselves and new Regulations were submitted to me which I accepted in their identical form and submitted to the House.

:I have already explained in my answer. I agree now that unfortunately a provision was put into the Act that Regulations had to be submitted by a certain date after the passing of the Act. The board found, when that date approached, that they had not finished their examination of all the problems that the Regulations would have to cover. In order to comply with the Act they had to submit the Regulations, in so far as they had completed them, before the due date, but I say that I was warned at the time that they were incomplete and in some cases would be provisional. Before I had finished my examination of them the board of its own motion withdrew them and submitted the new Regulations which the House subsequently approved.

Public Works Facilities Act

41 and 42.

asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he can state the average number of men employed on public works initiated under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, during the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934;

(2)whether he can state the number of public works initiated under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, which were continued by the present Government and, if completed, the years of their completion and the number, if any, not yet completed?

:My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot give the desired particulars. Where works have been authorised under the Act it then rests with the body to whom powers have been given to carry out the works and normally no returns are obtained of the progress of the works or of men employed. My right hon. Friend may say, however, that under Section 1 of the Act (which authorised the issue of orders for the carrying out of works but which ceased to operate at the end of 1933 except as regards schemes then being considered) 24 works were authorised, ten during the last three years, and that under Section 2, 377 orders for the compulsory acquisition of land have been confirmed, 162 in the last three years.

:Am I to understand that the Ministry are paying out the money without knowing what they are paying for?

Questions

Box Hill, Dorking (Bungalows)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, at the recent inquiry by the Ministry of Health held at Dorking, with regard to the erection of bungalows in the grounds of Camilla Lacey, adjoining the national beauty spot of Box Hill, evidence against the proposal was given by the Surrey County Council, the Dorking Urban District Council, and the Dorking and Leith Hill District Preservation Society, AS well as by the National Trust, the lord-lieutenant of the county, and many local residents; and what were the reasons which induced the Ministry to disregard so authoritative a body of evidence and to approve the building of the bungalows complained of subject to the retention of certain trees?

:I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 19th December last to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd), a copy of which I am sending to him.

:I am quite aware of that question, but will my hon. Friend inform the House what is the object of the Minister holding an inquiry of this kind when his decision is directly contrary to the evidence, the most representative evidence, which is given to him on the matter? Can we not know the grounds which induce the Minister to set aside the very representative evidence which was given to him at the inquiry?

:The object of holding an inquiry, of course, is to ascertain all the facts. Whoever gives evidence at the inquiry, the owners of land have their rights. In this particular case there was a scheme for a proposed development, and it was discovered that the scheme of the owner did not conflict with the scheme of the authority itself. If the authority said there should be no development at all then, of course, they could negotiate and purchase this land and stop all development.

:Do I understand then that the owner is prepared to allow the land to be left as an open space if proper compensation is paid to him?

:I imagine that any owner would agree to that course. All that we must do is to see that the land is not expropriated without compensation.

Building Regulations (Fire Escapes)

asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the report issued by the Building Industries National Council with regard to the simplification of the regulations governing the designing of buildings from the point of view of the provision of adequate means of escape in case of fire; and whether he proposes to redraft the regulations in such a form that they can be applied as broad principles rather than as hard-and-fast requirements?

:My right hon. Friend has no power to issue such regulations as he gathers my hon. Friend has in mind. The report to which my hon. Friend refers is stated in its preface to be intended to deal with difficulties arising in London, and in London matters of this kind are regulated by the London Building Act. My right hon. Friend understands that the London County Council intend to promote a Bill in the present Session the object of which is to empower them to substitute by-laws for statute law as the instrument for controlling building.

Proposed Air Port, Ringway, Cheshire

asked the Minister of Health whether any decision has yet been reached on the question of the Manchester Corporation's proposal to establish a new municipal airport at Ringway, Cheshire; and, if so, whether he can make any announcement?

:The Secretary of State for Air and my right hon. Friend hope to be in a position very shortly to announce a decision in this matter.

:Will my hon. Friend take into account the very considerable opposition to this proposal which is entertained by the Cheshire County Council?

Government Policy

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation enacting pensions at 60; the raising of the school-leaving age to 16 years, with an allowance for children at school and a regulation that no employer be allowed to engage boys or girls under 16 years of age; and instituting a 40-hours week, with holidays with pay, as steps towards the reduction of the ranks of the unemployed?

:I would refer the hon. Member to the answers recently given by my colleagues on these three subjects, namely, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 31st January to my hon. Friend the Member for the Yardley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Salt); by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education on the 29th January to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and by the Minister of Labour on the 28th January to my hon. Friends the Members for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) and Wallsend (Miss Ward).

:Arising from that reply, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what is his position on these three questions which I have submitted. I do not want to know what the other Ministers have replied. I want to know what the Prime Minister's view is.

Defence Services (Unemployed Officers)

asked the Prime Minister what considerations necessitate the retention on the active list of 30 per cent. of unemployed officers in the three senior ranks of the Navy and 19.3 per cent. in the Army, whereas in the Air Force no such officers are considered necessary?

:As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The regulations of all three Services provide for officers of the three senior ranks to be retained on the Active List (Half-Pay List). As regards the Army, as stated on page 253 of the Army Estimates, 1934, the establishment of general officers is made up from the number of appointments appropriate to general officers as determined by military requirements plus a margin sufficient to permit of the selection of a suitable officer as each vacancy occurs among the appointments. A considerable diversity of qualifications is demanded by the various appointments and the existing system permits of the best selection for each particular vacancy. It has the further advantage that eminent officers are not lost to the Army after a single tour of service. For instance, should a general officer (late Infantry) whose services merit further employment complete a tour, and the next vacant appointment require Artillery qualifications, it is possible under the existing system to retain him on the active list until a later vacancy occurs for which Infantry experience is required. Meanwhile the Artillery appointment can be filled by an officer (late R.A.).

In the case of the Navy, the larger margin of senior officers who are unemployed is partly due to the fact that they are required to do courses, and that naval appointments being of shorter duration a larger margin of reliefs is necessary; otherwise the conditions are much the same as in the Army.

In the Royal Air Force, also, senior officers are carried on half-pay to such extent as is required from time to time.

Firearms and Ammunition (Definition)

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to that part of the report of the Home Office departmental committee on the statutory definition and classification of firearms and ammunition in which the committee commented adversely upon the practice of inserting in Acts of Parliament well-known and easily understandable words and then, in a definition clause, attributing to them meanings which in the ordinary way they do not possess; and if he will consider circulating this part of the report among those officials entrusted with the drafting of Government Bills?

:My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the considerations referred to by the committee in its report are constantly borne in mind by those entrusted with the drafting of Government Bills.

Foreign Loans (Embargo)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether when considering relaxation of the embargo upon the issue here of foreign loans, he will as a precaution against repetition of pre-war foreign over-borrowing in London adopt the general principle that the embargo shall continue against loans designed to provide interest upon the same foreign borrowers' earlier loans floated here?

:I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

National Finance

Entertainments Duty

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the number of exemptions from Entertainments Duty which have been approved within the last 12 months owing to the fact that private profit is not being made?

:The absence of private profit is only one of the conditions which must be satisfied to obtain exemption from Entertainments Duty. It would therefore appear impossible to answer my hon. Friend's question in the form in which he has put it.

Expenditure (Development Work)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could state the approximate total expenditure from national funds during 1933–34, and the estimated approximate total for 1934–35, in respect of development works of all kinds, including

STATEMENT of expenditure from national funds on development work, etc., as specified below.

Service.

Expenditure, 1933–34 (actual).

Expenditure, 1934–35 (estimated).

£000.

£000.

1.

Grants to Public Utility Companies under Part I of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929.

795

924

2.

Housing Grants (including Slum Clearance)

15,362

16,079

3.

Special Areas Fund

2,000

4.

Grants in respect of Employment Schemes (Part II of Development, etc., Act, 1929).

4,000

4,200

5.

Rural Water Supply Grants

210

6.

Expenditure by Office of Works on New Works, etc.

500

646

7.

Transference, Training, etc.

528

964

8.

Agricultural Development and Subsidies (excluding Land Settlement).

3,995

8,826

9.

Land Settlement

1,043

1,196

10.

Forestry

450

450

11.

Fishery Development ( a ) Grants) Grants

36

95

( b ) Loans) Loans

3

1

12.

Grants by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to Research Associations.

59

85

13.

Grants by Board of Trade to British Standards Institutions

3

3

14.

Civil Aviation Subsidies

413

448

15.

Light Horse Breeding

5

16.

Mechanical Transport Subsidy

2

1

17.

Colonial Development Fund

400

500

18.

Dominions Services (Grants for Research, etc.)

53

40

19.

Overseas Settlement

65

42

20.

Colonial Research Grants, etc.

5

24

21.

Road Fund Improvement, etc., Grants

19,144

19,273

22.

Postal and Telephone Loan Expenditure

6,300

7,800

23.

Advances to Cunard-White Star Company

2,011

Total

£53,156,000

£65,823,000

Of the above items, 1 to 20 are met out of moneys provided by Parliament and, with the exception of a proportion of the expenditure under items 6 and 7 which is recovered from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, they fall directly upon the Budget. The amount recoverable from the fund in respect of the two items mentioned may be esti-

all subsidies, assistance to industry, agriculture and fisheries, housing, slum clearance, telephone and postal development, shipping, transport, roads, civil aviation, land settlement, forestry, distressed areas, financial aid to the unemployed (other than insurance), and grants by, or estimated capitalised liabilities of, the Treasury for Imperial developments overseas?

:With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

mated at £263,000 in 1933–34 and £502,000 in 1934–35. The net total charge on voted moneys for items 1 to 20 is therefore £27,449,000 in 1933–34 and £36,237,000 in 1934–35.

In addition to the items mentioned in the table, the Treasury has incurred a nominal net capital liability of £1,570,000 in respect of the Nyasaland Guaranteed Loan which was raised in 1933–34 for purposes of development in connection with the Zambesi Bridge and the improvement of other communications in the Protectorate.

Beet-Sugar (Subsidy and Tax Rebate)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what sums Parliament will have voted in the present financial year in respect of the beet-sugar subsidy if the Supplementary Estimate now proposed is agreed to; and what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer in the same period of the rebate of taxation allowed to British-produced beet-sugar?

:As shown in the Supplementary Estimate (House of Commons Paper 24), the total amount which Parliament is being asked to vote in the current financial year in respect of beet-sugar subsidy is £4,450,000. On the basis of the estimate of Excise Duty given in the same paper, the rebate of taxation, taken as the difference between the amount of duty receivable on sugar and molasses manufactured in this country from home-grown beet and the amount of duty which would be payable on a similar quantity of British refined sugar and molasses of foreign origin, is estimated at approximately £2,900,000,

Questions

British North Atlantic Shipping Interests

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that no Red Star liner has yet been transferred to a foreign flag, he can give the House any information with regard to the actual or probable disposal of the "Belgenland"?

:From inquiries I have made I understand that the British register of the "Belgenland" was closed on the 24th January, 1935, on sale to owners in the United States of America.

Australia (Loan Conversion)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the operations of so-called stags which have prevented the complete success of the latest Australian loan conversion; and whether he will confer with the stock exchange-committee and loan-issuing houses with the object of a distinction being made between genuine subscribers to a loan and speculative stags by means of preferential allotment to those who renounce right of application withdrawal before allotment, in order to protect the public against detrimental effects upon the prices of public issues of loans by the withdrawal of applications by stags?

:I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press respecting the particular operations to which my hon. Friend alludes. I understand that the general question of the activities of so-called "stags" has been engaging the attention of the authorities concerned, but no action by the Government appears to be called for at the present time.

Ireland (Frontier Smuggling)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many cattle smuggled into Northern Ireland have been seized during the last three months; and whether cattle smuggling from the Irish Free State has increased recently?

:It would not be in the public interest to furnish the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the reply is in the negative.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently a Customs officer stationed on the Northern Irish border sold the stock on his cattle farm, on transfer to another station; and does he not think that that sort of thing may lead to Customs officers having their attention distracted from their proper duties?

Road-Making (Quarrying Costs)

asked the Minister of Health to what extent municipal bodies which are road authorities carry on quarrying; and whether it is the practice for accountancy purposes to separate the cost of quarrying from the cost of road-making?

:My right hon. Friend is informed that 24 county councils in England and Wales carry on quarrying for road purposes, but he has no figures available for other authorities. As regards the second part of the question, he agrees that it is proper to separate quarrying charges from road charges. In the case of highway expenditure assisted by grants from the Road Fund, this separation is necessarily made, and my right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that the desirability of separating the two general classes is not fully recognised.

Canada (Municipal Bonds)

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the announcement by the Honourable D. A. Croll, Ontario, Minister of Municipal Affairs, to the effect that Ontario municipalities which are in default on bond obligations need only pay 3 per cent. interest instead of the 5 per cent. stipulated for when the obligations were entered into; and whether he will make inquiries of the Dominion Government in view of the injury that may be involved to Canada's high credit in this country?

:I have seen reports in the Press that a statement of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend has been made. I am making inquiries on the subject and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Transport (Accidents)

asked the Minister of Transport the total number of persons killed and seriously injured on roads from the first year when statistics were compiled to the nearest available date; at what part of the day, morning, afternoon or night the greater number of accidents occurred; and how many children under the age of 10 years have been killed and seriously injured during the past five years to the nearest available date?

:I have been asked to reply. As the answer to the hon. Member's question contains a number of figures, I will, with his permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of persons killed on roads in Great Britain during the nine years, 1926 to 1934 were as follows:

Housing (Concrete Bricks)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the manufacture of coloured bricks made of concrete; whether the durability of the concrete brick is equal to the clay brick; whether they are of the standard size; and whether he is in a position to state the price per thousand?

:The hon. Member has been good enough to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a newspaper cutting on the subject of his question. My right hon. Friend is advised that concrete bricks and clay bricks suitably constructed may be equally durable. It is open to the manufacturers, if they so desire, to apply to the Building Research Station for a report on the material now in question. The information sought in the last two parts of the question is not in the possession of my right hon. Friend and he would suggest that the hon. Member should communicate with the manufacturers.

:When the hon. Gentleman states that the Minister is satisfied that the concrete bricks and the clay bricks are equally suitable, are we to take it that that opinion has been arrived at after consultation with the Research Department?

Business of the House

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, 266; Noes, 58.

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Soper, Richard

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Stones, James

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Storey, Samuel

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Sutcliffe, Harold

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Scone, Lord

Tate, Mavis Constance

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

Wise, Alfred R.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Womersley, Sir Walter

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Thompson, Sir Luke

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Thorp, Linton Theodore

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

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Somervell, Sir Donald

Train, John

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

George Penny.

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

McGovern, John

Banfield, John William

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

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Batey, Joseph

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mainwaring, William Henry

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Buchanan, George

Harris, Sir Percy

Maxton, James.

Cape, Thomas

Hicks, Ernest George

Parkinson, John Allen

Cove, William G.

Holdsworth, Herbert

Rea, Walter Russell

Daggar, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Rothschild, James A. de

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

John, William

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

Davies, Stephen Owen

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Dobbie, William

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Thorne, William James

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

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

Tinker, John Joseph

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

West, F. R.

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Kirkwood, David

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Leonard, William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Logan, David Gilbert

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

Lunn, William

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

Message from the Lords

Consolidation Bills,—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the present Session, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee A

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Viscount Castlereagh, Mr. Owen Davies, Mr. Dingle Foot, Mr. Grimston, and Mr. George Hall; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Charles Brown, Mr. Duncan, Captain Elliston, Mr. George Griffiths, and Sir Percy Harris.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty-five Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Housing Bill):—Sir Francis Acland, Mr. Brocklebank, Mr. Cape, Miss Cazalet, Colonel Chapman, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Duckworth, Sir Geoffrey Ellis, Sir Francis Fremantle, Sir George Gillett, Mr. Greenwood, Sir Percy Hurd, Mr. Magnay, Mr. Peat, Mr. West Russell, Mr. Selley, Mr. Shakespeare, Sir Jonah Walker-Smith, the Solicitor-General, Mr. George Strauss, Mrs. Tate, Mr. Thorp, Mr. Herbert Williams, Earl Winterton, and Sir Hilton Young.

Standing Committee B

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen, Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Captain Crawford Browne, Lord Burghley, Mr. Thomas Cook, Major Despencer-Robertson, Mr. Drewe, Mr. Drummond-Wolff, Viscount Elmley, Captain D'Arcy Hall, Captain Heilgers, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Major Herbert, Lieut.-Colonel Charles Kerr, Sir Paul Latham, Dr. Leech, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Loftus, Sir Alan McLean, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Mainwaring, Mr. Martin, Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead, Mr. Nunn, Mr. Petherick, Mr. Thomas Ramsay, Mr. Ross Taylor, Mrs. Runge, Mr. Marcus Samuel, Mr. Tinker, Lieut.-Commander Tufnell, Mr. Charles Williams, and Viscount Wolmer.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day

Supply

Report [29th January]

Resolutions reported.

Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, 1934

Class V

1."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."

2."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."

3."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."

4."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."

First Resolution read a Second time.

:I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out "£5,000,000"and to insert instead thereof" £4,999,900."

I do so formally, in order to give the House an opportunity of listening to a statement from the Minister of Labour.

3.45 p.m.

:The House will remember that the last occasion on which we debated this subject was a week ago. At that time views were expressed with regard to the operation of these Regulations from all sides of the House, and I think my hon. Friends behind me were as fair and as persistent in putting the points which had arisen as hon. Members opposite. I explained upon that occasion, as had been said many times in Debates in this House, both during the passage of the Bill and during the approval of the Regulations, that the whole system was one which had been designed by the Government with the idea, not of being some sort of economy Measure, but of facilitating the payment of assistance to the unemployed and of improving in some measure their lot. I promised, too, at that time that certain specific grievances which seemed to have resulted from the operation of these Regulations were being attended to by the Board and that instructions on those points would immediately be issued. I went further and said that the Board, and indeed I myself, were conducting the most searching though, in the short time at our disposal, necessarily hurried investigation into the actual working of the Regulations throughout the country, and the possibility of difficulties or anomalies that they might be creating, and I told the House then that I had no doubt that, if the Board, as a result of those inquiries, felt that some alteration were necessary, they would have no hesitation in informing the Government and, through the Government, the House that that was the position.

As a consequence of that Debate, I represented to the chairman of the Board opinions and detailed cases which had been conveyed to me, both during the discussion by Members of the House and subsequently by other Members and by outside bodies. I realised, of course, that in all these agitations there is a certain amount which can always be discounted. I realised that a certain amount of the criticisms which reached me were not so much criticisms of the details of these or any other Regulations, but criticisms of the whole principle of a family means test, which is, of course, enshrined in the Act of Parliament under which the Regulations are made. I realised, of course, that both political views and political fears are apt sometimes to colour statements upon a matter of this kind, but still, when all that was discounted, enough remained to convince me that there was a substantial amount of grievance and hardship in existence, and that there was a certain widespread uneasiness, which was not confined to one political party or to one set of political opinions, as to the way in which the Regulations were working out in practice.

I felt, too, that in this matter I had a special responsibility. It fell to my lot as Minister of Labour to conduct the passage of these Regulations through the House, and in the course of the discussion upon them and in preliminary talk I made certain statements which, of course, had to be qualified by the difficulty of any accurate forecast as to the effect that the Regulations, which I was asking the House to approve, would have upon the general situation of the unemployed who would come under their operation. I always told the House that calculation was difficult and accuracy was impossible, but undoubtedly the statements which I made presented a picture to the House which, I believe, in no small way influenced the easy passage of the Regulations. It is impossible, as hon. Members will understand, in the time available or under the changing conditions to get accurate figures, either as to the financial effects or as to the amounts of increases and decreases which have occurred, but, from the information I have been able to get and the inquiries I have been able to make, I have seen enough to make me uneasy as to the accuracy of the picture which I then presented to the House on which, to some extent, I asked the House to approve the Regulations.

I have little doubt, however, that the Regulations which the House approved were sound in principle. I have little doubt that a large part of the dissatisfaction and grievances which have occurred are due to the rigidity and the mistakes which are inherent in the inception of a new and gigantic scheme of this kind, and that the substantial part of any of the remaining complaints can be cured by an amendment of the Regulations in the particulars in which it is desired. The trouble is, however, that all that takes time. You cannot amend—it would be unwise to attempt to amend—the Regulations in a hurried attempt to meet a position which has just disclosed itself. It is clear that, if any such amendment be necessary, it should only be done as the result of the most careful investigation and with a complete knowledge of the facts, and in the certainty that the amendment you proposed to make would actually touch the evil which you proposed to cure. Any attempt to hurry a matter of that kind could only result in great waste and might easily, in fact, leave untouched or uncured the evils it was designed to meet.

All that is an argument for a reasonable delay, for a delay in which you can first of all investigate, and, having investigated, you can consider, and, having considered, you can decide. The trouble is that we are dealing here, not with businesses, not with finance, not with intangible things, but with men and women. If grievances exist, if we are satisfied there is a prima facie case that hardships have been endured, it is impossible to sit down and say that these hardships must continue until we have had ample time for consideration and cure. I do not disguise from the House that, in so far as I was able to make personal investigations, I did feel that there were evident difficulties in the administration of these Regulations, that, largely owing no doubt to facts which it had not been possible to foresee, there were in certain cases hardships being endured; and I certainly personally felt that it was difficult, if not impossible, to get to the root of these troubles by proceeding from day to day with new attempts to patch them up.

I make no apology for having made these representations to the Board. It has, I know, been said in some quarters—never by my predecessor, who is now the chairman of the Board—that the effect of this Act was to take unemployment assistance out of politics. My right hon. Friend during the course of the Debates always pointed out the various means by which it was still possible for the House of Commons to bring under review the policy of this independent body, and to make certain that it became aware of the wishes of Parliament, and, through Parliament, of the wishes of the country. I feel, therefore, that I was fully justified in representing to the Board what I gathered from Members of the House of Commons was the feeling in the country with regard to the working of these Regulations. I found that the Board had already got the whole of this question under their most urgent consideration. It is true, of course, that they were surprised to find that Regulations which had been approved by Parliament, and which, at the time of their publication, had been welcomed in almost every section of the Press—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] At any rate, in such papers not particularly friendly to the Government as the "Manchester Guardian" and the "News Chronicle." Even the "Daily Herald," by abstaining from vitriolic abuse, went as far towards approval of Government policy as it has ever been known to do.

The Board was naturally indignant at a statement that these Regulations, which do bring, as I have emphasised before, increased and better payments to a large number of people, should be characterised as starvation level. Further, it felt that the general public, who were impressed by the stories of the numbers and the sizes of the reductions which had been effected, were not always aware of how and why those reductions occurred, and that in many cases they were not really due to the operation of the Board at all. For instance, one of the things which the Board discovered was that, in a very large number of cases, when the Board inquired into the resources of the household, the resources were very much larger than those which had been disclosed to the public assistance committee. In those circumstances, the result of the reduction might not be the result of any change in the system, but simply the result of the real resources of the household being disclosed for the first time. In addition, of course, there are many cases, especially during the improving trade of the last few months, when the resources of the household have altered for the better, and where, therefore, the reduction is the result of those altered circumstances. But, quite apart from these financial questions, they were considering the whole situation, and were in the course of preparing instructions on specific points. In view, however, of what I told them with regard to cases of which I have heard, and the feeling both in this House and outside with regard to some of the cases which had occurred, they considered the situation afresh. Realising the difficulty of the immediate application to such large numbers of the uniform system laid down by the Act, the Board feel that it is impracticable to deal promptly with the situation by a detailed treatment of the problem within the existing duties imposed upon them by Parliament in the Act and Regulations.

In these circumstances, the Board have decided, and the chairman has so in- formed me, that they are issuing immediate instructions to all their officers that all applicants to the Board should be assessed at the assessment under the Regulations if that is higher than the current transitional payments determination, or, where the current transitional payments determination has been reduced by the operation of the Regulations, at the current determination. Where reductions due to the Regulations have already taken place, retrospective payments will be completed as soon as the pressure of work permits. This arrangement can only be temporary, and for their subsequent procedure the Board will require the necessary Parliamentary sanction. The Board further impress upon me that this temporary standstill will, to a very great extent, continue the anomalies which the Board were created to remove, and, that, therefore, the earliest steps should be taken to examine how those anomalies can be put right. The Board will, accordingly undertake an immediate examination of the position, and in due course will make the necessary proposals to me. The effect of that is that during the period which, I think, everybody agrees must elapse before the necessary investigation can be carried through and the necessary alterations, if any, made in the Regulations, the applicant will be entitled to the increase under the Regulations, but there will be a temporary holding up of any reduction that the Regulations will bring.

:Yes, all applicants. As I stated, it will be necessary to secure sanction for this change. I am consulting at the moment to see what is the sanction required, and Parliament will subsequently be asked to give it. Immediate inquiry is being made into the whole situation, and at the earliest practical moment any steps which are required to remedy the situation will be suggested to the House of Commons.

In conclusion, may I say this? I quite see that this will be represented in certain quarters as a failure on the part of the Board, and a weakness on the part of the Government. Frankly, I feel that if and when genuine grievances appear to be disclosed, and when you are dealing, as I said before, not with inanimate things but with men and women, then feelings merely of dignity or pride ought not to stand in the way of most prompt and effective action. It may be that from the attitude which is adopted by some people to the steps which I have announced, we shall be able to judge how far their opposition has been due to the chance of political capital or to a genuine fear for those who are affected. Far, I think, from having injured the prospects in the future of the successful working of the Board, the realisation that public opinion still can find an outlet, and that the House of Commons is not really impotent in a matter which it regards as of such importance, far from weakening the prestige of the Board and endangering its future, it will, I believe, strengthen the possibility of what I think will be proved in the long run a useful and humane Measure.

4.7 p.m.

:The right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat began his speech by recalling the situation in which we discussed this matter some week or so ago, and I think he will agree with me that the situation as we left the subject then was unsatisfactory not only to us on this side and in other parts of the House, but to the Government themselves. The right hon. Gentleman undertook, in the course of the Debate, that he would have further inquiries made with a view to discovering what the actual situation was as it was understood to be by the Unemployment Assistance Board. It is obvious from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that his researches in the country in the course of the last week or so have been very revealing. I would like to remind hon. Members opposite that what has happened in the country during the last few days was no revelation to us on this side of the House. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's memory, I am sure, can be charged to the extent that he will be able to recall anticipations and prophecies made on this side of the House concerning not what we considered the problematical effect but the inevitable effect of these Regulations once they were applied in the country.

The right hon. Gentleman's researches, I believe, have disclosed to him that this very remarkable outburst of public feeling has not been the result anywhere of the work and efforts of designing politicians. It is not wicked Labour men who have been in the country working up feeling. It is not the Communist party that has been working up enthusiasm against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well this afternoon that what has taken place in the course of the last two or three weeks has been a genuine outburst of public feeling, not confined to members of a particular party or to trade unions, but embracing within its sweep churches and all sorts of social organisations who have a care for the condition of the common people of the country. The right hon. Gentleman, I am quite sure, will have known by now that the outburst of public feeling which has been exhibited in regard to this matter has been, I can say with confidence, absolutely unparalleled since the days of the War. I would like once again to emphasise that people not at all associated with political efforts in any way have been roused in a manner the country has never known before.

Therefore, we are entitled to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as we are concerned, we are in no wise surprised by what has taken place. If the right hon. Gentleman would forgive me for saying so, I think he trailed his coat rather needlessly in the latter part of his speech. He was terribly afraid and concerned lest we might be able to make political capital of these events. Would it not be equally fair for me to tell the right hon. Gentleman that in order to avoid certain political consequences, the Government are moving now? Is it political considerations that have made him move? Is it the fear of the removal of political support? If the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to attribute political motives to us, I am equally entitled to tell him that the pronouncement he has made to-day is also due to political considerations. The right hon. Gentleman seemed desirous of denying that there was an intention to remove the subject from the orbit of politics. Over and over again during the discussion of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, it was pointed out, and, if my memory serves me aright, it was even implied during the discussion of the Regulations, too, that one of the great and major effects that would accrue to this country from the Act and the Regulations was that from now on politicians were to be forbidden to touch the thing with their foul fingers. What has happened? Every Member, to whatever party he may belong in this House, every Member representing an industrial or semi-industrial constituency, knows quite well that the effect of this administration has been, not to remove it from the realm of politics, but to force it right into the foreground of political thought throughout the land.

The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, must not be surprised if we tell him once again that what has supervened through the medium of these Regulations and their effect is largely what we foretold weeks, and even months, ago. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), speaking about a month ago, when the Regulations were being discussed in this House, said that in his judgment the effect, if not the object, of the Regulations was to maximise the resources of the family and to minimise the allowances to the family, and I have not the faintest doubt that the report to which the Minister referred this afternoon as having come to him from the Board itself, indicates that in practice these Regulations, for one reason or another, have been so administered in some parts of the country—I will not say everywhere—as to maximise the resources of people and, in consequence, to minimise the allowances to those people. Even last week the right hon. Gentleman was not so penitent, so fully convicted of sin, as he is this afternoon. Let me recall to him a passage from the speech he made yesterday week: that is the Minister—

:No, I think the 29th follows the 28th. I quoted first from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th January and secondly from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 29th. It was the day after—or it ought to be; but, then, things are upset so by this Government. Last week, also, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the "Manchester Guardian," and quoted with very great approval the result of inquiries made by a correspondent of that very excellent paper into the operation of the Regulations in South Wales. Has the right hon. Gentleman by any chance seen to-day's "Manchester Guardian," where another correspondent calls attention to the administration of the Regulations not in an allegedly lax area like Glamorganshire or Monmouthshire, but in the county of Durham, where the Government's own commissioner has been in charge for a considerable time? This correspondent presents for our examination two tables, one giving the old scale, that is the scale paid by the commissioner, and the other the new scale as expected to be applied under the Assistance Board. Under the old scale, in Durham, a man and wife, or two adults, got 26s. a week; under the new scale husband and wife are to get 24s. per week. Under the old scale for each dependent child they received 2s. Under the new scale there is rather more—4s. for the first child, or if only one, and then there are variations afterwards according to age. Then take the case of adults living at home with their parents or other relations. A single adult, of 18 or over, living with parents or other relations got 10s. a week under the old scale, whether he was the first son or other son. Under the new Regulations the first adult over 21 in a house-hold—not over 18—gets 10s. and other adults over 21, 8s.—that is for a male, or 7s. for a female.

That is a brief presentation of the change which has been brought about in the county of Durham where, be it noted, the Government's own commissioner had been operating. Even there the scales were more generous before Christmas than they have been since under the new Regulations. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman must feel that the case has been amply proven—I would almost add, from every part of the country, though perhaps that is too much to say; but certainly from the very thickly populated areas of the country the case has been amply proven that the change has adversely affected those who come under the aegis of the new Regulations. I wish next to make one or two observations upon the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made to the House. He must forgive me if I speak somewhat cursorily about them, because I have had no opportunity of discussing them with my colleagues. I wonder whether I understand his statement aright? As I understand it the situation under the new proposals will be this: Those who have already appeared before the Board in the first instance and have suffered a determination which involves a lowering of the allowance as compared with what they enjoyed before are, I take it, to be restored to the position they were in before they appeared before the Board. Is that so?

:Assuming that the circumstances are the same, I gather that the effect of the pronouncement is that those who suffered a fall in the determination as compared with what they enjoyed before the Board began to operate are to be restored to the position in the pre-Board era. May I also ask whether any arrears that may have accrued in the intervening time are to be made good?

:Next let me take the case of people who have been a little more fortunate and have had increases under the operations of the Board. Do I understand that they will continue to enjoy the increases?

:I gather that I am right in that anticipation also. The third point is this: There must necessarily be, I gather from the statement, a period of more intensive and widespread study of this subject. May I inquire how long this intervening period is likely to be? Do we understand that the pronouncement of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon will, or may possibly, involve coming back to this House with new Regulations? If that be so, I take it that, whatever improvements may have come to individual persons in the intervening time, no change will be made, and there will be a restoration of benefits that accrued before the Board came into operation. Having dealt with those three points, may I now appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, since there is to be a further examination of this problem, to invite the Board to address themselves to certain very important considerations. I have never denied that families with children below the age of 14, with no one bringing other resources into the family, will probably be better off under the new scale, because of the new allowances for children; but the real difficulty comes in the household where there are young people of juvenile or adult age who are earning. The scale for those people is, as it now stands, I beg the Minister to believe, hopelessly out of joint.

I know that hon. Members in other parts of the House advance the argument, and I am not prepared to controvert it in theory, that it is proper that young people should be prepared to accept their share of responsibility for the well being of the family. As a theory I dare say that is quite right, and though conditions do very much alter it, I know that I speak the mind of everybody in saying that none of us would applaud an individual in a family who, if he can afford it, withholds his proper support from the family. The right hon. Gentleman himself, if he were in such a position, would not withhold it, and neither would I; and it must not be supposed that young people in unemployed families are one bit less human in their regard for their family than the right hon. Gentleman or I would be. They are just as devoted to their families as he or I claim to be. But that is not quite the point. The point is whether, in insisting upon this, I had almost said "wooden," this mechanical application of this scale, we are not, while trying to vindicate a principle, doing a very great injury to the family and to the household at large.

Hon. Members in all parts of the House have been inundated with instances of families having been grievously hurt financially by the application of this principle in so mechanical a way. Let me give one instance, for which I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn). It is the case of a man at a place called East Ardsley. Soon after the War this man's married sister's husband died, leaving her with two children. There were two elder brothers. Their parents had died, and so they went to live with this widowed sister. They still live with her, but both of them have been out of work for two years. They had hitherto up to a week or two ago received 17s. a week each. Last week one of these sons, Charles by name, was completely cut off by the new Board's officer. I presume that as one has been cut off the other will inevitably be cut off. The result is that they are living at home in the widowed sister's house. The widowed sister is getting 15s. a week for herself and boy at school—10s. of that is, of course, widow's pension—and the eldest boy of 18 earns 25s. per week. Because this lad earns 25s. a week he is called upon to maintain not merely his widowed mother and the younger boy in the family, but also by implication one and possibly two of his uncles. Who can accept fully this application of the principle of family responsibility? Who can possibly justify such a ridiculous judgment as that?

The effect will be that the men will say to themselves and to each other: "We cannot mulct our sister in this terrible loss; we cannot be a burden upon this family," and they will move. Whither they will move, God alone knows. The nearest workhouse I presume, unless they have anything to live upon, because that is the inevitable place for them to go to. Further, on this question of family responsibility, let us look at another instance. I was in my constituency the previous week-end—I cannot vouch for this, but can only say what I was told—and I heard that there was a group of young men gathered together in a street of one of the biggest towns in the constituency one morning, with parcels under their arms. A friend came up and said to them: "Where are you going?" They said: "We do not know where we are going, but we are going from home, anyway." The reason was, they said: "We refuse to be a burden upon our people at home any longer." No one can tell how many of such fine, upstanding young people, every bit as good as any hon. Member in this House, may be driven to wander up and down the land aimlessly, helplessly and full of despair, with nowhere whatsoever to lay their heads, simply because of the attempt to apply a theory called family responsibility.

Let me talk about the old people again. We are all acquainted with old people in our own families. I know what happens in my own home. I appreciate very deeply the immense effort which must have been involved for my own parents to bring up myself and six others and to give us a fair opportunity in life. Having done their job, having brought up their family, it is fair that those old people in the evening of their days should expect to be relieved from the job of bringing up somebody else's family. They have finished their job, and they are entitled to sit back in some ease and comfort. The Regulations as now applied compel many of these old folks to begin all over again and to bring up other people's children. It is an impossible proposition, and I beg the Minister, with all the earnestness which I can command, "Do not do this thing. You are doing injury to an institution which we both hold in the highest possible respect."

May I say a word for another element in society who ought to have a word said for him, namely, this young fellow the lodger. In my part of the country for the last 20 or 30 years, hundreds of young lads have been coming from Herefordshire, Somersetshire and other places, attracted by what was alleged to be the gold find in the South Wales coalfields. They have drifted into the South Wales area; some of them are still drifting there, for some reason or other, and they take lodgings. They too have their family responsibilities. How can any one of them hope to send even sixpence home if this is to be the sort of allowance they are to have? It is not prodigal generosity to give them 15s. to pay for their board and lodging and to main- tain themselves in clothes, boots, and the ordinary decencies of life; it is not even decent provision for that type of person's life. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to submit to the Board that a much more generous attitude should be adopted towards these matters than has hitherto been the case.

I could go on citing cases, but I will not. I will just give a summary. Here are four cases handed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). I will give only the amounts of the reductions. Here is a lad with £1 per week reduction; here is another with 30s. a week; here is another with £1 11s. per week; and here is another with £2 3s. per week. I do not pretend to know the details of the exact incomes in these cases, but if you insist that the aggregate of a household is to be applied rigidly, you must insist, in respect of each individual, that an adequate allowance shall be made possible.

I have done my best without undue political partisanship to put these facts before the House. Why should one not be partisan in regard to the people among whom one has lived all one's life, people who are as honest, decent and upright as there are in any other community in the land? It is not a social crime for people to be poor, and we must not have it even implied that the unemployed are guilty of some sort of personal dereliction or lapse from proper standards of personal conduct. Unemployment is here because of social, economic and political causes, and those who suffer from those causes are as much, or even more, to be pitied and ought not be blamed at all.

The right hon. Gentleman has announced the Government's attitude to these matters. I want to say frankly, and to make it plain beyond peradventure, that I do not believe that he can secure a proper measure of relief for these people for whom we speak by a sort of incidental change here and there in these Regulations. What is wrong with the Regulations is the spirit in which they are conceived. The outlook and the approach are wrong, and so long as the spirit and the approach to this problem are wrong, the provisions for dealing with it will also be wrong. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman telling us that there is to be discretion, because if you have discretion on a widespread scale your rule is gone. The Regulations do not provide for discretion, except in a limited number of cases; otherwise, it is not discretion at all, but becomes the rule. I know the mind of every one of my colleagues on this side of the House, and I say that in our view these Regulations will not do. Nothing in the long run will meet our case except their complete withdrawal and supplementation with something more adequate and better inspired from the point of view of the human sympathy which they embody.

4.42 p.m.

:In the situation which has most unhappily arisen I think it will be generally agreed that the Government to-day are taking the wise course. I believe that the House as a whole will be disposed to concur. There will be a very general feeling both within these walls and outside that this situation ought never to have arisen. It is perfectly clear that very many of the reductions which have been effected under the new Regulations are not defensible; it is certain that they are not defensible. Since the matter was debated a week ago I have had an opportunity of going down to my constituency in Lancashire and for some hours receiving a constant succession of persons in that constituency, where unemployment has been widespread and long continued, many of whom have suffered severe and drastic reductions which were not justifiable. I had come to the House to-day with particulars of a number of cases which have been given to me of specific instances, supported by figures, and which I intended to give to the House, but in the circumstances, as all these reductions, or almost all, are now to be suspended, it is unnecessary for me to trouble the House with details and with figures. I shall send to the Minister, if he will allow me, the facts in these cases, which clearly demand a revision of the Regulations.

The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech that the circumstances that have arisen were due largely to facts not possible to foresee. I cannot concur there. I think that every one of these circumstances was fully known, and the result of these Regulations must have been quite easy to foresee. I am bound to say that the Ministry and the Board cannot expect to escape censure for the mistakes which have been made. If only the Government had acceded to the requests that were made during the passage of the Bill through the House that they should have the advice of local committees fully conversant with local needs, I think that these errors would not have been committed and this sudden withdrawal would not have been necessary. In the meantime, to a very large number of families and of individuals all over the country, some actual physical hardship and much mental anxiety, very grave anxiety, as to what the future would mean, have already been caused. A widespread popular agitation has been necessitated which has now been found justifiable and the attention of the country has been attracted to these matters, and much energy and time on the part of great numbers of people all over the land have been unnecessarily spent.

In these circumstances, I think the Government are right frankly to admit that a mistake has been made, and to retrace their steps, at all events for so long as will allow further consideration to be given to the matter. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's statement, it is to this effect—if the impression I have gained is wrong, perhaps he will be good enough to correct it: In the first place, all increases that have been made under the new Regulations will stand. In the second place, if reductions have been made owing to the fact that it has been ascertained that the family has larger resources than were previously known, reductions due to that cause will stand also. Otherwise, the payments made will revert to what they were before the new Regulations came into operation; and, further, any such reductions as have been effected below the payments previously received will at once be refunded.

:I should like to ask the Minister a question on that point. Is it not his intention that all reductions shall be returned without qualification—that anyone who has suffered a reduction shall be put back on to the old scale without any qualification, except in the case of changed circumstances? I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was saying that, in cases where it was discovered that wrong statements had been made about the income of the household, the reductions would stand; but there will be two opinions on the question of changed circumstances.

:I was quoting what the Minister said, and that is what I understood the hon. Gentleman himself to say just a moment ago—that, if it was found that owing to changed circumstances the ascertainment was wrong, that would be taken into account. Perhaps the Minister, either now or at a later stage, will make this point abundantly clear, so that there may be no possibility of misunderstanding.

:As the House will realise, these will be the Board's instructions, and not mine. I have read out what the Board intend to do. This arrangement will not apply to cases where there are changed circumstances. Obviously, a change in circumstances may well be between what are the real facts and what were supposed to be the facts before.

:We know that there are changed circumstances, say when a son who has been unemployed gets work and vice versa; but that is not what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. He was saying that, assuming the circumstances to remain the same as they are now, the increases will remain, and any money which has been taken away will be restored, unless there has been a failure to disclose, either to the board or to the local parish council or public assistance committee, the proper facts. If that be the case, obviously, under the old law, it was fraud, and the only people who would suffer reductions now would be people who were guilty of fraud before, because failure to disclose the proper facts is fraud. If they were not prosecuted for that at the time, it seems to me that it would be terrible now to do so.

:This is the Report stage. Hon. Members can only make one speech at a time.

:It seems to me that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has put the point quite clearly, and I understand the Minister assents to it.

:Probably it would only make for further misunderstanding if the Minister were expected to reply piecemeal to interruptions of this kind. With regard to new cases, will they be dealt with under the new Regulations, or under the system that previously prevailed? It would not seem right that, where you have identical people in exactly the same circumstances, one of whom has suffered a reduction and then gets his money repaid to him, the other person should receive a fresh payment on the lower scale and not get any such allowance. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to make that point clear also. As he has said, some method will be necessary for obtaining legal sanction for what is now proposed, for quite clearly there will be no legal authority for any payments which may be made, say during the next week, over and above what has been provided by the scales or under the conditions of the new Regulations, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General will of course be bound to challenge any issues from the Treasury which are in respect of payments not authorised by statutory Regulations. I do not know what shape this authorisation can take other than fresh legislation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make that point clear. I am not sure that even fresh Regulations would be adequate, because fresh regulations could not have retrospective validity.

There is a further point of law that arises, and, since we are discussing these matters, it will not be out of order, I think, to mention it now, for, if legislation must ensue as a consequence of these discussions, it had better be complete and include any other point that may arise. This point was mentioned at Question Time by some hon. Members above the Gangway. Are the Regulations which are now under discussion valid at all? May they not have been vitiated ab initio? They are made under Section 52 (2) of the Act, which states: My hon. Friend the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) put a question on the 19th December, and was informed that Regulations were submitted, in accordance with Section 52 (2), on the 26th October. As the Act was passed on the 28th June, that was two days within the four months, so the Regulations were so submitted. But now it appears that those Regulations were withdrawn by the Board, and a fresh set of Regulations were submitted. Consequently, it appears that these Regulations, which have been endorsed by Parliament, were not valid within the terms of Section 52 (2) of the Act. The Section goes on to say: were withdrawn, and other Regulations which were not submitted within the four months, and therefore were not in accordance with the Statute, were presented to the Minister, sanctioned by him, laid before Parliament, and sanctioned by Parliament. Therefore, I invite the Minister to tell the House what is his explanation of these proceedings, whether he now considers that these Regulations which have been submitted are really legal or not, and, if they are not, what course he proposes to take in order to validate them; and whether it will be necessary, in any Bill that may be laid before Parliament, to deal with this matter as well as the more urgent and human and vital question of the hardships inflicted by the reductions which are now seen to have been unjustifiable.

4.57 p.m.

:I congratulate my right hon. Friend on ensuring that the course which he outlined this afternoon shall be taken, and I do not think he need fear that he will have fallen in the esteem or credit either of the House or of the country in dealing with the matter in this way. In these matters, as he very rightly said, there is no question of foresight at all. There was a wide area for possible mistakes, and I do not in the least agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that, even if we had recruited the whole intelligence service of the Liberal party, mistakes could have been avoided in these first Regulations. If the right hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory by looking at the Debates which took place on the Regulations, he will find that the difficulties have arisen very largely upon points which were never anticipated, even by the Liberal party.

:The grievances which have arisen have been largely due to the enormous reductions which have been made in some cases, comparing the old dispensation with the new. Several of us on these benches pointed out that exactly those reductions would take place, and we have been entirely justified in the event.

:I am sure that, when the hon. Member comes to speak, he will point out the respects in which, if his advice had been followed, a better job would have been made of it, but I still think that my proposition is true, that, even if the combined wisdom of those on the Liberal benches, or even on the benches opposite, had been given to the matter, these Regulations would have been found to break down in respects that were not anticipated by anyone in the House. For instance, I do not think that the son-in-law complex, which has emerged with such force, was fully appreciated anywhere in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is quite irrelevant and useless at certain junctures to apportion blame; the point is that without any doubt, as the Minister now recognises, hardship has resulted in parts of the country where that hardship cannot be attributed to really loose administration in the past. I have the honour to represent an area where, in all the time during which I have represented it, I have not had one complaint about the operation of the means test. I have said that in this House before. The area is administered by a local authority which enjoys a narrow Conservative majority; it is not a Socialist council. Nevertheless, immediately upon the introduction of these Regulations, there have been protests of the most vehement character, and protests which, so far as the examination I have been able to make is concerned, have been, to some extent at any rate, justified.

There are a good many reasons why we should maintain our sense of proportion about the matter. In the first place, I think that the old public assistance committees who were about to retire, and whose functions were going to be taken over by the Unemployed Assistance Board, very naturally and humanly did not perhaps administer quite as fairly in the last few months of their lives as they might have done if they had been continuing. It would have been to expect more of human nature than one could reasonably expect to think that they should have gone out in odium; and I am convinced that, feeling that their terms of office were coming to an end, they have not made the readjustments that might and ought to have been made to correspond with the changed financial position of many households. I wonder whether we can be told whether there has been any increase in the total amount of transitional payments that have been paid out by public assistance committees all over the country within the last say five or six months, that is to say, within the time when these committees knew that they were moving towards their end.

The one point upon which most grievances have occurred is the failure by the board to apply discretion. Those of us who welcomed the Regulations just because they seemed to afford so much scope for discretion are very disappointed that the Board have not acted with the flexibility that we had hoped to find, and I should like to ask the Minister if he will give instances in which it would be proper for the board locally, in his opinion, to exercise their discretion. These are civil servants. They want a certain guidance. There is substance in what the hon. Gentleman opposite said that it is very difficult for a civil servant acting under the law and Regulations to exercise discretion at all. There must be some pointers.

I should like to notice one or two matters in which a pointer can be given by the Minister or by the Chairman of the Board in some document not having the force of regulations but for the guidance of the officials. There are many cases in which the earning member of a household has to take meals in a canteen at his or her work a considerable distance away from where he or she lives. There is nothing specific in any of the Regulations which provide for an allowance of that kind. I have not any doubt that it would come well within the special circumstances that the local official ought to consider. Does the Minister think that would be a proper case in which a local official ought to consider whether an additional allowance ought to be made? In the same way, where a payment has to be made by the earning member of club and insurance contributions, these very often amount to very substantial sums. Are not those special circumstances that the local officer of the Board would be fully justified in taking into account? One very serious class of case of which I have had one or two instances brought to me is the case of a man who has a maintenance or a bastardy order against him. A man may have an order of about 9s. a week and if he has, say, 6s. rent to pay, that is 15s., and really there is nothing left. Am I wrong in thinking that in that kind of case the local officials would be perfectly right in thinking that that was a special circumstance which he ought to take into account and, therefore, that an additional allowance could properly and rightly be paid?

:I supported the Regulations. I began my speech by saying so, and I have never concealed the fact, nor have I concealed my disappointment that on account of the failure of administration—[ Interruption. ] Am I wrong in thinking that there is scope for the exercise of discretion by local officials in the case of a bastardy order or a maintenance order? Am I wrong in thinking that there will be scope for the exercise of discretion in the case of heavy club subscriptions or in the case of considerable payments having to be made under hire purchase agreements? Those, as I understand the Regulations, are the kind of circumstances that local officials would be perfectly entitled to take into account and make an order more generous than the mere sum which the Regulations seems to afford. As I understand it, looking at the cases that have been brought to my notice, there seems to have been far too much tendency for the whole matter to be dealt with as a piece of arithmetic, adding up on one side of the column exactly how much comes in and on the opposite side the stated amount allowed by the Regulations, deduct one from the other and arrive at a figure.

I have furnished myself with several well authenticated and examined instances. Here is one—a family of five with a rent of 10s. a week, husband and wife, step daughter of 24, son of 16, daughter of 15 and two sons of 13. They were drawing 28s. transitional payment and they are reduced to 6s. a week and the Unemployment Assistance Board allowances. The whole of that is set out, because in my area something in the form of a notice has been given. It is clear that it is a pure mathematical calculation. There is no margin of any kind for discretion. There is no attempt to achieve any flexibility. I have other cases of reductions from 26s. to 9s. 2d., from 26s. to 19s. 6d. and so on. As far as one can see, the failure has been inflexibility in dealing with cases of discretion.

There is one matter I should like elucidated. In a great many cases the old transitional payment has been supplemented by relief, and the statement read to the House said nothing as to whether, when the Board comes to pay out next pay day, allowance will be made for the extra payments that were being received by way of relief. I have an analysis here of 68 cases in Nottingham. There has been a saving to the rates of no less than £20 8s. 6d. in a fortnight by reason of the fact that transitional payment in those cases is no longer supplemented by relief. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Board that those who have suffered loss owing to the coming into operation of these Regulations are to be put back in the old position to that extent also. Are they to receive the amount of transitional payment plus the amount of relief or are they to receive the transitional payment only?

I do not know whether it is too early to ask whether the Minister can give us any assessment of the additional cost likely to be incurred by this temporary provision or whether he can tell us if he has any reason to revise his original estimate that, over all, £3,000,000 extra was to be spent as the result of these Regulations. We all know, human nature being what it is, that those who have received increases do not shout from the mountain tops and tell the world about them, and the result is that we hear very little about the gains. What we have heard about very insistently are the reductions. I have not been able to find very many people who have had increases. I have found some, but it has been an awful job to find them. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, with the information that he has now, that that figure of £3,000,000 is not an excessive estimate? Is he satisfied that in that figure there is not a very considerable allowance for people who never drew transitional payment at all before, such as agricultural workers, who now come within the scope of the Regulations. It the £3,000,000 a figure that is referable to the same people we are dealing with, that is to say, people who were receiving transitional payment through the public assistance committees and are now re- ceiving it under the Regulations? I think the House wants some exact information on these matters, because clearly we are only at the beginning of our difficulties.

This present solution is by its very nature a temporary one. The grave difficulty in democracy always is to take anything back. The great danger that many of us have foreseen is that the Government might be forced into the position of having to stabilise at such a level that there could be no reduction in any cases at all. I do not think that was necessary, although I think the present impasse has put them into a little difficulty in that regard. It is important that we should have in the near future as accurate information as we can get. Meanwhile, the Government have done the right thing and the humane thing, and they will find in the long run that they have not lost anything in public esteem by the course that they have taken.

5.13 p.m.

:I am sure we on these benches appreciate the course that the Minister has taken to-day. It would be most ungenerous, I do not think it would be in keeping with the spirit that we all have here in our desire to do the very best we can for our people, if we were not to say that what he has done is a sign, not of weakness but of greatness, which does credit to him and also to the Government. Having paid that tribute, I want to deal with the position that is now created. These Regulations have proved unworkable. I am satisfied that they will never work. I am satisfied that the Public Assistance Board has made a tremendous and, I think, a vital mistake. It has so worded these Regulations and its Memorandum that, with all the will in the world, if civil servants are to carry them out and keep within the law as passed in this House, they will have no alternative but to inflict hardship and misery upon the vast majority of people with whom they come into contact. It is foolish to declare that all that is the matter with these Regulations is that they are not being administered properly and with discretion. Very little or no discretion is exercised.

I was in my constituency this week-end and I met men who have suffered tremendous reductions. I have in my possession case after case. They are pitiable cases, and people are inclined to blame the local official, saying: "This is your doing. Under the public assistance committee we were dealt with by Mr. So-and-so, who knew our case and would not have done this." I felt it my duty to defend the position of the unfortunate official. It will be very unwise indeed if the House does not realise that the responsibility for the Regulations rests upon the Unemployment Assistance Board and upon the Minister, and consequently upon the Government. There cannot have been sufficient thought given to the effect of the Regulations. I and my hon. Friends on these benches and in other parts of the House declared at the time that the Regulations would inflict hardship upon the unemployed, but no Member of the House ever thought that they would work nearly so harshly as they have done. I am sure it could never have been thought for a moment that men would be swept off and left almost without anything. Let me give an instance of a man in my constituency. He is a very good Conservative and supporter of hon. Members opposite. He is the Secretary of a friendly society, and has held the position for about 30 years, having been in the habit of doing the work in his spare time in the evenings. For doing this job he receives round about seven or eight shillings a week. The man has been unemployed now for three years through no fault of his own. Rationalisation has been responsible for his being thrown out of employment. He had been receiving under public assistance 19s. 2d. per week in respect of himself and his wife. No one could say that that sum was extravagant.

I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), who says that the public assistance committees became lax during the last few months. I am satisfied that they did not become lax. As far as the Staffordshire county committees were concerned, they were as strict as they had been at any time. I do not think that it is fair to bring this charge against them. When the new officer investigated the case of the man to whom I refer, the latter said that he had done this little bit of friendly society work for many years and that he received about eight shillings a week. He was told that that sum must be put down in the total, and they took an additional 4s. 2d. off him. That may be a comparatively small sum. I have heard of the case of a large family who, having been in receipt of 26s. from the public assistance committee, have been cut off without a halfpenny. I am satisfied that I am correct in saying that the administration of these Regulations and their results have been far worse than any of us anticipated.

What is to happen? The Minister made a very careful statement here to-day. It would be altogether wrong for the House to assume that, as a consequence of the standstill arrangement, the Regulations are to be abandoned. It would be wrong for the House to say, "Now that we have received this great concession and the Minister has made this gesture, everything will be all right and we shall not have any trouble in the future." The Minister did not suggest anything of the kind. He said that there would be time for inquiry and that they would go into the matter. He said that in principle he believed the Regulations are right and just. That is precisely where I disagree. I cannot acknowledge in any circumstances these Regulations to be right and just. Even if an attempt is made to administer them with far more discretion, they must make the lot of the unemployed worse than it was before. There is another point. It must never be forgotten that it is said by Members on all sides of the House that a matter which concerns the life of the people so vitally should be raised far above political discussion and any desire to make political capital out of it. But I would say to the Government that, if they do not realise the position of these unemployed people, it will be so much the worse for the Government and those who support them. The Regulations hit the man who has been unemployed the longest, who is more down-and-out than anybody, who for three or four years has been endeavouring to carry on and has seen the condition of his home becoming worse and his clothing getting shabbier until he has scarcely a decent suit of clothes to his back.

Many people are saying—and it is for the Government to answer it—that, side by side with all this sort of thing, increases of salary are being given to the people who administer the scheme under the Board. I am not complaining about people being paid properly, but it is obvious that it strikes the unemployed man very forcibly when he is cut down and the people who have to sit and consider his case are drawing increased salaries, some of them thousands a year. The great objection I have to the Regulations is that they reduce every unemployed man to a case paper. There is no humanity in them and no feeling that a man, wife and children are human beings. The man's name and particulars are on a case paper. The memorandum which is submitted in connection with the Regulations is like a Heath Robinson cartoon. All sorts of peculiar and foolish things are brought in to arrive at a ridiculous result. That seems to be the way in which the memorandum has been made out. I challenge hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House to read the memorandum and see what they can make out of it. Let them picture to themselves the position of an ordinary home where there is a man, his wife and children, and an old father. Such a case has been brought to my notice in my constituency. The father of the wife of the unemployed man lived in the same house, being in receipt of an old age pension of 10s., and a pension of 7s. 6d. in respect of a son who was killed in the War who might have been a help to his father in his old age. The old man is 83 years of age. The daughter of the old man had considered it her duty to look after her father, who cannot look after himself. They are decent people.

Unemployed men who are suffering under these Regulations have been as good citizens as you or I. When I first entered public life and sat on the Board of Guardians we could say to the unemployed man that he could get a job if he only set about it and had the will and the determination to do so. We cannot say that to the unemployed to-day because there are no jobs for them to do. They are eating their hearts out for jobs, and we cannot provide them with jobs. In that particular family there is a boy earning 12s. 6d. a week as an apprentice, and a young brother of the wife earning 25s. The man and his wife have now been refused any assistance at all. The poor old man of 83, the apprentice receiving 12s. 6d. a week and the young fellow 25s. have to keep the home going. None of us can stand for that kind of thing whatever our political opinions. I feel strongly, and I hope that the Minister also realises the fact that these Regulations ought to be scrapped. The Minister must not say to himself, "What we have done will quieten this agitation. They will be satisfied with what has been done. We can bring this thing in gently, and not fling it at them all at once. We can devise some new methods whereby we may reach the same result ultimately." I hope that that is not the thought at the back of the mind of the right hon. Gentleman because the Government to-day have acknowledged frankly and openly that this thing is wrong, and that they cannot stand for it.

It may be said that hon. Members on this side of the House make political capital out of this kind of thing. This matter is far too serious to be dealt with in such a way. There could be nothing more unfortunate than that there should be some sort of discrimination made of those brought under this scheme. It would be most unfortunate if some of them had money restored and others, on some other ground, were refused. The Government had better put the whole position back to what it was under the public assistance committees, and then make a fresh start altogether. That is the only way in which to get any satisfaction in this matter. I am not at all sure that the Unemployment Assistance Board has not made such a bad start that it deserves a Vote of Censure of this House. I am really sorry that a Gentleman whom many of us highly respect has been placed in such an unfortunate position in this matter. We all had respect for Lord Rushcliffe when, as Sir Henry Betterton, he was Minister of Labour. He has been placed at the head of the Unemployment Assistance Board. They have made a very bad start indeed due, I believe, in the main to a bureaucracy which is unable to understand the difference between a case paper and a human being.

It is better by far that we should make a fresh start altogether rather than that we should hold the belief that these Regulations will work. They will not work, and I make a strong appeal to the Government to realise that they will not work, that they should redraft them, come to the House to amend the law and put this thing on a satisfac- tory footing, remembering that we are dealing with people who are the victims of a system which we ourselves have created, and who are entitled to be treated as human beings. We do not want a glorified board of guardians spirit in dealing with these people. I sat on a board of guardians for many years. We were bound by regulations, but we were able to mix a little bit of humanity with the regulations. The same thing could be done in this case. I hope that as a result of to-day's discussion the Government will decide to redraft the whole of the Regulations, to scrap these, which I am sure will not work, and give us something which will be satisfactory to everybody.

5.31 p.m.

:The Committee was right to respond to the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) to the statement made by the Minister this afternoon, and I only wish that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who opened for the Opposition, had felt that he also could have paid a tribute to what the Minister said. I should like to add my appreciation of the manner in which the Government have met the criticisms which were made by many hon. Members during the Debates last week. I can assure my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government that all those who are loyal and ardent supporters of the National Government feel extremely grateful to them for the way in which our suggestions have been responded to, and anything that we can do to help the Government in coming to a wise decision on these very important matters will be done very readily and very sincerely.

It seems to me that the criticisms of the Regulations fall into two categories. Some hon. Members suggest that the difficulties have arisen from lack of administrative flexibility, while other hon. Members feel that they have arisen because of some fundamental miscalculations in the Regulations themselves. I find myself in the second category. Whatever category one finds oneself in depends to a certain extent on the area to which one belongs. In the Debate last week the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) said that he felt that when the Regulations were intro- duced they should have brought amelioration in many instances to the people drawing transitional payment, but he found himself in some difficulty in coming to a decision as to why the Regulations had failed to carry out the object for which they were designed. I find myself in identically the same position.

I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister of Labour intended the Regulations to work for the benefit of the unemployed, and I believe that when we get over the initial difficulties those people receiving payment from the Unemployment Assistance Board, through the Treasury, will be better off than they are in the circumstances of to-day. I have been wondering why it is that we find ourselves in this very difficult situation, and I have come to this conclusion—I may be right or I may be wrong—that, looking back over the past three years, it is possible that the Ministry of Labour, and the Unemployment Assistance Board, may not have been quite aware of the extent of the discretionary power exercised by the public assistance committees throughout the country in the administration of transitional payment. If I see the situation correctly, it would appear to me that week by week the amount of money paid out in transitional payment would be known to the Government Department, but not the actual details of how the individual were served, that is to say, the discretionary power exercised in coming to the determinations of need would not be, so to speak, in the hands of the administering Department. As long as the various public assistance committees of the local authorities kept reasonably to the letter of the law, I imagine that the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board had no idea quite how far the discretionary power had been exercised.

I speak rather feelingly in this matter, because my constituency or, at any rate, one borough in my constituency did have a very unpleasant experience. It is extremely difficult in taking part in the Debate to-day to convey to the Parliamentary Secretary the difference in the four local authorities which have been administering transitional payment in my division. I would, first of all, refer to Wallsend Borough. The original public assistance committee resigned. A fresh public assistance committee was appointed which, if I remember rightly, consisted entirely of Socialist members of the town council. They threw in their hand, and an advisory committee of the county was then appointed to deal with transitional payments. They also threw in their hand and, finally, the determinations for Wallsend Borough were made by the public assistance officer himself. It is only fair to state that the public assistance officer was bound to act strictly in accordance with the terms of the Order in Council. However, my people in Wallsend Borough have literally been assessed extremely stringently; in fact, they have been cut right down to the bone.

I was extremely interested, for instance, when the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) commented on a household, which was subsequently referred to by the Minister of Labour in these words: was going to make his statement to-day, I suppose he thought it was wiser that everybody should wait until he had the opportunity of telling us what were his views on the subject. I had, however, hoped to be in a position to say that a very large proportion of the people in Wallsend Borough would have benefited by the Regulations.

I now turn to the other side of the picture, and that is, that where the local public assistance committees in the other places were determining the assessment of need for my constituents, there had been very considerable cuts. I should particularly like to stress the position of the mining areas. As my right hon. Friend must be aware, in both Northumberland and Durham, contrary to the practice in other parts of the country, miners in colliery houses pay no rent, but for the purpose of the monthly assessment of wages ascertainment the figure allowed in these instances amounts to approximately 4s. 6d. The hon. Member for Caerphilly and several of my hon. Friends above the Gangway last week laid very great stress upon the point that there have been these enormous cuts in Durham County, even after the determination of need had been made by the special commissioner appointed by the Government. I think no one made the point that there had been these very large cuts owing to the fact of the rent factor which under the new Regulations had been taken into consideration in the assessment of need.

In both Northumberland and Durham the mining areas have suffered very severely. I think it is only right to say that in my own mining villages practically every single case which has been assessed must have received a considerable cut, and I do not believe that that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Government when the Regulations were introduced. I very much hope that when consideration is given by the Unemployment Assistance Board to this matter and when my right hon. Friend draws their attention to to-day's Debate, the Unemployment Assistance Board will pay some heed to the recommendations of the Northern Group, of which I happen to be a member, which have been handed to the Minister and the Unemployment Assistance Board. If I remember rightly, we suggest that there should be no re- duction for rent under 7s. 6d., that the scale for married couples should be increased from 24s. to 26s. I would point out that in last year's Budget the statement that the unemployed would receive a restoration of their cuts was very warmly welcomed by all sections of the House. It seems to me from the point of view of the unemployed themselves that 26s. for a married couple would bring them into relation with the restoration of that particular portion of the cut of those people who come under the ordinary Unemployment Fund.

We of the Northern Group have also suggested that there should be no reduction in regard to large families and, finally, that consideration of the assessment of need for the whole household should be considerably revised. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I would say that those of us from the northern areas appreciate very sincerely that it was the intention of the Government to make things easier for the unemployed. We are perfectly willing to put ourselves in the hands of the Government in regard to the reconsideration of these details. I only hope that when my right hon. Friend comes to Newcastle on Friday he will be able to tell us that considerable alteration will be made in the Regulations and that those hardships to which we have felt it absolutely necessary to call attention will be remedied. From the way in which the Minister of Labour has received our representations—I really do not think that any representations were necessary—we know that he is as anxious as we are that the Regulations should work fairly and equitably. We owe him a debt of gratitude for the conciliatory spirit in which he has met us and feel certain that as a result of the statement which he proposes to make to the House at a future date not only those representing industrial areas but also those who receive payments from the Unemployment Assistance Board will feel that their cases have received sympathetic consideration

5.46 p.m.

:I am not one of those who can rise and congratulate the Minister of Labour. Nothing short of a withdrawal of these Regulations will satisfy the party for whom I speak. We on these benches and also in the Scottish Standing Committee when the Bill was before us warned the Government both publicly and privately of what would happen if they took on Mr. Reynard of Glasgow. He is responsible for the callous and brutal affair with which we are dealing to-day. I am glad that the Labour party, in spite of the great pressure which was brought to bear upon them, decided to have nothing to do with the Board which has drawn up these Regulations. It would have been to-day a tragedy for us. We should not be able to face the country. And I hope it will be a warning to our party not to take the advice of those individuals who are supposed to have all the brains in the party. Although Mr. Reynard was recommended by Glasgow that did not keep us from protesting, and indeed we warned the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State of the type of brutal mind he had. Plenty of ability but soured, and determined to crush the workers as he has done in Glasgow.

The Government would not take the warning when we said that the arrangements would not work. They are impossible. Angels from Heaven could not operate these Regulations in a humane manner, that is from the point of view of the unemployed man. It is quite possible from the point of view of the well-fed and well-clothed man, who has an entirely different point of view from that of the unemployed man. The unemployed man is not a criminal, but the Regulations, and everything which emanates from the Ministry, proceed as if the unemployed were criminals. They are not. They are victims, and should be treated with justice and respect. Hon. Members in this House when they are dealing with their own workers find it possible to have an understanding with them, but when they come here as representatives of constituencies and talk about unemployment and the dependants of the unemployed they seem to think that a son should keep his unemployed father. Why should he? Unemployment is a terrible tragedy. I do not mean in the sense of not having plenty of good hard work to do. I believe in plenty of good hard work, although the majority of hon. Members do not know what it is. They are always looking for work, but it is for the other fellow. But the idea is that because certain individuals in a family are stricken with this terrible disease, a denial of the right of access to the necessaries of life—that is what unemployment is—they should be penalised. These are our own fellows, not Chinese or Germans.

How the French or Germans can deal with this Government is beyond me. They cannot deal straight and honestly and fairly with their own kith and kin. Think of the Regulations which they have drawn up in regard to men who defended this country and risked life and limb. They propose to apply these Regulations to them. They have committed no crime other than there is no work for them to do, because neither the Government nor the employers of labour can find them work. They are innocent men and women. It would not be so bad if it were only the men and women who suffered, but it is the little children, the weans, who have to suffer as well. I have had two petitions sent to me from opposite sides in religion, the Orange and the Green. Let me read from a communication sent to me by the Catholic Union of Dumbarton, dated the 4th February, 1935:

Another case is that of a man named Devlin, of Levenhaugh Street, Dumbarton, who lives with his wife and child. Some time ago his married brother had some dispute with his wife and she went to stay with her mother. He has to maintain her. He took lodgings with his brother. He is working, and because of his earnings the householder, with a wife and child, has his payment reduced to 3s. 6d. per week. Surely a man who is a lodger should not have to maintain his brother and his brother's wife and child simply because he is lodging with them. I have ever so many more cases here. The last subject I wish to raise is on a question which I put to the Parliamentary Secretary when we last debated this matter. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has made any progress with his investigations. He promised me he would do so. The case is a general case.

When the Local Government Board was changed over, the school boards went out, and all over Scotland the counties or the big towns took over the work of the education authorities as the London County Council did in London. At the time of the change over the present right hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow (Sir J. Gilmour) was Secretary of State for Scotland. No authority would supply the necessitous children in Dumbartonshire, as they had formally done, with boots, clothing and other necessaries. Those things had previously been supplied after the children had gone through all the ordeal of proof by the schoolmaster and the medical authority that they were necessitous children. I took a deputation to Edinburgh to interview the then Secretary for Scotland. He gave instructions that the education authorities had to supply the boots and clothing that were necessary, and said that they would have to sort out amongst themselves who were to bear the burden. Since that date, up to this year, one education authority has on the average supplied 500 children with boots at this time of the year. We had terrible weather at the beginning of this year. Thank heaven it has eased off this week. But it was fierce at the beginning of the year, and there was a demand such as we have never had before for boots and clothing for these children. The things were refused because of the new Regulations. Here is a statement sent to me by a justice of the peace:

The Government can talk about our using the subject politically against them. We will use it politically against them. All we have to do is to draw attention to the fact that here was a Government which was prepared to pay plenty of money in order to get the best brains in this country and that this is what they have produced. Here is this Board. It is the Government's selection. Had the Labour party selected the Board which did these things, which had made such a bloomer with regulations such as these, we should have heard of it. It is the second time it has happened. We with all our difficulties, the Government with all their superior education and all the advantages in life that they have had over us—if we had made the mistakes that the present Government have made in these Regulations, hon. Members opposite would have done the uttermost to hound us out of society. It is our business to do the same with them.

6.9 p.m.

:I do not know what arrow was let loose by the Minister which pierced the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) so severely, but he seems to be a little more thin-skinned than usual. Happily he has shown himself, during one of his usual speeches, just as skilful as ever in looking after himself, though possibly just as inaccurate, because I find, when I look into the Regulations governing the proceedings of the Board, that as far as the meals of children in schools are concerned, there is special provision for those meals being ignored, and that the provision of milk and other special things, such as cod-liver oil, can also be ignored; and that the provision of meals up to two meals a day for a single child in a household, or one meal for two children, can be ignored. So that some of the facts mentioned by the hon. Member are not accurate so far as the children are concerned.

:I am not quite clear about boots. Perhaps the Minister will clear up that point.

:Is the Noble Lord aware that if one child has more than one meal a day one penny per meal has to be deducted?

:That may be but the provisions say quite clearly that meals at school can be ignored. I think the whole House will be grateful that as a result of the Debate last week, the Minister has consulted with the Board and that the Board has decided to take action. My right hon. Friend has shown himself to have been clearly impressed with the fact that the hardships cited in the House and in the country are not just the ordinary reactions which one would expect in the case of a public assistance committee which has been deliberately extravagant. There is something much more fundamental and much more serious than that.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), followed closely by some Members on the Liberal benches, claimed that he and the Labour party forecast all these difficulties long ago. They can hardly blame us on this side for not paying too much attention to their prophecies, because we have heard many on different subjects from those benches; and he will realise that the value of prophecy is sensibly diminished when it is often repeated and so seldom fulfilled. The value of the criticism of hon. Gentlemen opposite is prejudiced also by the fact that a good many of them have been unable to resist the temptation of going out into the country and, quite legitimately, airing their grievance. In spite of that I want to say this to the hon. Member. I realise, and the Minister realises, and we all do on this side of the House, that on this occasion there is a much deeper reason behind hon. Members' speeches than there has been on numerous occasions when we have listened to the normal and monotonous reiteration of the Socialist attitude towards the spending of public money. There is now a much deeper motive behind the criticism; there is a real desire to meet a genuine grievance. We are with them in that.

It is no use apportioning the blame. It is perfectly clear that this vast change has been made in too great a hurry. It is clear also that working on a few specimen cases which looked to be justified by the facts and figures, the Board have been quite unprepared, and indeed most Members of the House have been quite unprepared, for the effect of imposing uniformity on something like a million householders. There is no need to labour that point. Hon. Members opposite have quoted the case of drops from 37s. to 6s. a week, and another case of a drop from 24s. to 10s. I think it is perfectly clear that when such tremendous cuts as those fall on a household, in a week, like a bolt from the blue, they throw a spanner into the internal economy of any household, and when it happens to be one of the poorer families it is entirely upset and deranged; and where, as too often happens, the Board have given a very narrow interpretation of their discretion, I have no hesitation in saying that some of the determinations which have been made, have been parish rates and not only that, but parish rates which have been cut to the bone.

I have no wish to exaggerate, but I wish to draw a lesson from that fact and, if possible, indicate to the Minister the representations which I think ought to be made to the Board in order to arrest these grievances. First, I think that where a reduction is made and where it is justified—and there will be many cases in which it is justified—that alteration should be made gradually step by step. In the earlier stages the area officer should be instructed in cases which involve a substantial drop, that those are cases of special circumstances and that his discretion should have a wide range as to how far and how soon these Regulations shall come into full force. I am bound to say that I do not think the discretion of the area officer will cover those cases. I believe that nothing short of the drastic amendment of the scheme will meet the situation. The Regulations when they are finally approved ought to cover the majority of contingencies which will arise so that discretion will only be used in a minority of cases—otherwise there is bound to be difficulty.

The main criticism which I have to make of these Regulations is with regard to the basic rent provision. That is the part of the scheme in regard to which the chief demand for amendment has arisen. I am bound to say that I am attracted by the motive behind the basic rent provision which is to encourage people to go into better houses and to move out of the slums. That is an ideal to which we can all subscribe and a principle which I do not want to see scrapped. On the other hand where there is no alternative accommodation and where there are large families who have to pay very low rents there is no possible doubt that the application of the provision regarding the basic rent of 7s. 6d. to an allowance of 24s. to 30s. has had disastrous effects. It bears no relation to the facts.

I would say, in conclusion, that I think it is possible to sacrifice too much to uniformity in this matter. The objection in regard to uniformity was the difference between village and village, street and street or house and house. But I can see no objection to reasonable variation as between area and area and I would ask the Minister in approaching the Board for an amendment of the scheme, to impress upon them that it is not inconsistent with the general principle of the Regulations that there should be wide variations between area and area particularly in respect of the basic rent Clause. I would also suggest that no chairman of a tribunal should have the right to refuse an appeal, at any rate in the earlier stages of the scheme. I think there should always be a duplicate form too, given to the man so that he can understand the determination. It is the desire of the country that there should be no abuse but within that limit, the administration of the scheme should be humane. I believe that we can achieve that end. What is more I believe the House has taken the right step even if it means a full retreat from these Regulations. I believe that the Minister has taken the best way in order to secure the best possible treatment for these unfortunate people in the future.

6.20 p.m.

:Whether, like the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), we refuse to congratulate the Minister or not, I think there is among all who represent industrial constituencies a tremendous feeling of relief that this period of grace has been granted during which these scales and Regulations can be considered. I, for one, congratulate the Minister not on the Act or on the Regulations but on the manner of the withdrawal of the Regulations. Speaking as an opponent of the right hon. Gentleman I, personally, feel deeply grateful that he has had the courage to withdraw these Regulations to-day. That does not alter the fact that such a withdrawal ought never to have been necessary if the Regulations had been properly drafted in the first place. Speakers from the Government side seemed to offer the explanation that the difficulties which have arisen and which are universally acknowledged, have been due to harsh and unsympathetic administration. On that point I join issue with them. There may, of course, be one or two unusual cases which were not foreseen when the Regulations received the assent of the House in December last, but, for the most part, these enormous reductions in family incomes were foreseen by speakers on these benches and above the Gangway.

We pointed out last December exactly what the provisions as to basic rent allowance and some of the other provisions were going to involve, in reductions in household incomes. It is not for the Noble Lord who has just spoken, or the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), or any other hon. Member to suggest that the House did not know what it was doing in December. I am not asking the Noble Lord to accept any prophecies from this side of the House but there was nothing to prevent him working out the scales for himself and seeing their effect on his own constituency, when they were before the House in December. Had he done so, he would have appreciated at that time the enormous reductions that were going to be made. These grievances are not the fault of the officials or the manner of administration, they are the inevitable result of the Regulations which the House assented to in December. These scales have operated as they were bound to operate. I do not suggest that the Minister intended them to operate in that way, but if he and the Board did not intend them to operate in that way, then, I am bound to say, they were very badly served by those who advised them. The right hon. Gentleman when introducing the Regulations on 17th December said: but the operative word is "shall." On the next page of the Regulations we find:

Arising out of the Minister's statement to-day I would like to put two questions as to the operation of the change or concession which has been made. We are told that for the time being all reductions are to be cancelled out. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Subject to one exception, I agree. But, where a family has come off transitional payments and come under the jurisdiction of the Board, and where there has been a reduction—except in cases where the circumstances have altered—that reduction is to be cancelled out for the time being. The Minister has not been able to give us any date or any indication as to how long this arrangement will last I wish to know whether it will last beyond 1st March because it is on 1st March that those who are now on the Poor Law are to come under the jurisdiction of the Board. I hope the Minister will clear up that point, which seems to be important. If they come under the jurisdiction of the Board while this temporary arrangement is still maintained, on what scale are they to be relieved?

The strict legal position under the public assistance committees was that the transitional class should be relieved, in exactly the same way as those who came under the Poor Law. But everybody knows and it was stated in the report of the Royal Commission that there was scarcely any public assistance committee which carried out that injunction strictly. That was not because they were reluctant to spend their own money and anxious to spend national funds. I think it was because the public assistance committees who had been accustomed to the type of persons with whom they had to deal under the Poor Law, found that they were having to deal with an entirely new class and an entirely different type of people when they came to deal with the transitional class in 1931. So, as a matter of practice, the Minister knows that these people were not relieved by the public assistance committees on the same scale as the people who were receiving transitional payments. I want to know whether they are going to receive the same scales if they come under the Board while this temporary arrangement remains in force.

One other point of importance arises. It must be obvious that where false or incomplete information has been given to the public assistance committee and the Board has been able to get better information, this new arrangement would not necessarily apply. It is not, however, always a question of false information having been given. The Board may arrive at a different estimate of the resources of an applicant. Supposing there is a case of a small hawkers business or something of that kind—such as is referred to in the memorandum recently issued—carried on by a member of a family and in connection with that business no books are kept. The public assistance committee or the officer of the Board as the case may be would have to form an estimate of the average profits of that business. The officer of the Board might arrive at an estimate different from that formerly made by the public assistance committee. In a case like that—and they are not very infrequent cases—which estimate is to be accepted, the estimate of the committee or the new estimate of the Board?

We heard last week of a number of very unusual cases, but I think all hon. Members will agree that the grievances fall under two major headings—firstly, deductions in respect of rent and, secondly, family contributions. I will not say anything more about the rent deductions, except that I think it is difficult to find any city in Scotland where the average rent is anything like 7s. 6d., but with regard to the family contribution, the Minister, when he introduced these scales last December, referred to the work of the better public assistance committees and a number of them in this country which kept scrupulously within the law, and yet managed to reach a very good working arrangement with regard to the family contribution. The arrangement in those particular areas was that the first 20s. or 21s. of a wage-earner's earnings should be left to him for his own use, and that any amount over and above that should be contributed to the maintenance of his family. I am not suggesting that that was a perfect arrangement, but at any rate it did leave a certain minimum. Here, the minimum is very much lower. It is the scale, which may be 10s., and then a third of the earnings up to the first 20s., and in Dundee, where they allow 21s., and in a number of other places, where 20s. has been allowed, the wage-earners in a family, and especially the lower paid wage-earners, have suffered as a result of the change-over.

Take the case of a young man who is bringing in a wage of 25s. a week. Under the old dispensation he was required to contribute 4s., a not unreasonable sum, for the maintenance of the rest of the family, but under the arrangement which prevailed until to-day, first of all there was the scale of 10s., then 6s. 8d. personal allowance, being a third of the first 20s., and then 1s. 3d., being a quarter of the 5s. remaining, leaving him with 17s. 11d. for his own needs, in place of 21s. under the public assistance committee. That is to say, whereas he formerly had to contribute 4s. for the maintenance of the family, he is now required to contribute 7s. 1d. I do not dissent from the principle of a sliding scale—in fact, I have frequently advocated it in this House—but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there ought to be a minimum of 20s. or 21s., and that if a worker does not earn more than that, he ought to be able to keep that sum entirely for his own use, and only when his wages rise above that very modest sum should he be required to contribute something for the maintenance of the household.

A number of suggestions have been made to the right hon. Gentleman as to the changes that might be made when fresh regulations are brought before the House, and there are three points on which I should like to touch very briefly. First, it seems to be rather an anomalous situation where one member of a household is receiving Poor Law relief and another member comes under the Board, and the Poor Law relief of the first member is taken into account in the assessment of the second member. I have here a copy of a letter which I received a day or two ago from the chairman of the Dundee Public Assistance Committee, and I would like to read an extract or two. He refers to a family consisting

Then there is the question of school meals, to which reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs. It is true that allowance is made with regard to meals and that a certain number of free meals are disregarded—the exact number is set out in the memorandum which was issued to the House a few days ago—but in the case of large families it happens that a certain amount is still being deducted in respect of these meals. In fact, officers are ordered in the memorandum to make that deduction. Only a few days ago I received a vigorous protest from the education committee in my constituency, which pointed out that there were cases where as much as 2s. and 3s. a week were being deducted from the family assessment because of the free meals that were allowed in the school. The free meals are not given on account of unemployment; they are given when it is thought the children are in need of them, and that is another way, if you are going to make deductions in respect of those meals, in which you are recovering from the rates what ought to be paid, and was intended to be paid, by the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Thirdly, there is this point: When the Debate on the Regulations took place last December, I put a question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General as to whether the special circumstances referred to in the Regulations under the rent clause were circumstances peculiar to the household or circumstances peculiar to the district, and he replied to the effect—I have not his exact words here—that the circumstances were peculiar to the household and not to the district, but he said that circumstances would be similar from one household to another in a particular district, and that from the decisions of the officers and appeal tribunals there would grow up what he called a body of case law. That was an interesting announcement, which may have some effect in the future on any regulations that may be made, and I think it is of value that any decisions that are made should be known. I may be wrong in this, but as far as I have been able to find out it has not been the intention of the Board that the appeal tribunals should publish the reasons for their decisions.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this matter cannot be reconsidered. There are ad hoc tribunals which are set up from time to time, as, for example, the licensing authority under the Road and Rail Traffic Act. That is not, strictly speaking, a court of law, but the appeal tribunal there issues from time to time, in book form, its various decisions and the reasons for them, and naturally that is of great value, not only in guiding applicants for licences, but in guiding the licensing authorities themselves. If there is to be, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, a body of case law, it will not only guide the applicants, but it will be of great assistance, I think, to those—and there are many of them—who endeavour from time to time to advise applicants upon their position. It is essential that reasoned decisions should be published, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that point in mind.

:Does not my hon. Friend see in that some danger of an increase in that rigidity which we are all anxious to avoid?

:No, not if discretion is included in regard to the scale. But one of the difficulties is that people do not always know the reasons why their allowances have been reduced or assessed at a certain figure, and one of the minor grievances has been that people have not had their case paper put before them, showing exactly how their assessment has been arrived at. When you get a point of particular interest, say, a test case, going up to the appeal tribunal, governing a number of other cases, what will happen? The tribunal will arrive at its decision, then, if other cases of a similar nature come along, presumably they will not go to the tribunal, because the leave of the chairman will not be given. He will say, "This point has already been decided." That being so, it will be of the greatest value to know the reasons why the tribunal arrive at their decisions, and in some ways it will avoid rigidity, because it will show whether a subsequent case is really on all fours with a case that has already been decided.

Finally, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, when fresh regulations are brought before this House, as they will have to be, whether there is fresh legislation or not, to take the House of Commons a little more into his confidence than he has done in the past. I understand that when these Regulations were brought forward in the other place, repre- sentatives of the Board had an interview with what, I think, is called the Special Orders Committee in the other place, and that they placed before that committee the data upon which they had arrived at their conclusions, showing how the Regulations in regard to the basic rent and so on had been framed and the reasons for them. I think a great many difficulties might have been avoided, and the House might have understood these Regulations in the first place much more clearly, if similar information could have been supplied to this House. I hope we shall be told, when regulations are brought forward in future, not only how the Minister and the Board expect them to work, but exactly how these figures of basic rents and other relevant considerations have been arrived at.

6.43 p.m.

:When these Regulations came before the House in the month of December they were greeted by, I think, almost all hon. Members who supported the National Government with paeans of praise. I did not support the Regulations, and I did not vote for them. I spoke against them, and nothing that has happened between that date and this has caused me to alter my decision. The reasons for which I spoke against the Regulations were mainly two-fold. First, these Regulations are, as we have been constantly told, the barest minimum upon which human beings are supposed to be able to subsist, and under them a woman has to receive a lower scale of assistance than a man. That is perfectly logical in a way, because in employment a woman is generally paid less than a man, and she draws lower unemployment benefit than a man. But logic does not always work out satisfactorily, and we have often been told that unemployment pay was not supposed to be a sum upon which a person could exist; it was supposed to be a sum to tide someone over a bad period. These sums which we are discussing to-day are really subsistence allowances, and, therefore, I think it is quite indefensible that a woman should have from 1s. to 2s. less allowed her than a man.

When the Parliamentary Secretary replied to this criticism of mine he said that the British Medical Association had more than once proved that a woman needed a smaller number of food value calories than a man, and he continued that that of course was the answer to the hon. Member for West Willesden. Unfortunately for the Parliamentary Secretary's argument, the British Medical Association has not even been able to agree with the Ministry of Health as to what is the correct number of food value calories for any one person. Therefore, if they cannot agree between themselves on this matter, it is not very likely that they can agree as to the difference between the calories needed by a man and the calories needed by a woman. In America the food values allowed for a man are quite different from the English values of the British Medical Association standard, and they differ by as much as 2,000 as between the sedentary worker and the manual worker. However, these Regulations are far more serious than that, because the rent allowance is based under them on a basic scale allowance. Therefore, as I pointed out at the time, if a man and woman have four sons they are entitled to a larger rent allowance than if they had two sons and two daughters, whereas it is obvious that a mixed family needs more accommodation.

One might say that that can be dealt with by the discretionary power of the board, but it is not possible to deal with it by discretionary power. You cannot say that discretion can go so far as entirely to go against what is laid down in the Regulations. Therefore, I beg the Minister to give fresh consideration to the scales as between men and women, and particularly the scale with regard to rent. I have heard many Members say how much their constituents have suffered because they paid very low rents and because they had a very large reduction on that account. My constituents do not come under that heading. The average rent for two rooms in Willesden runs between 15s. and £1 a week—that is, for two bedrooms. Overcrowding is appalling, and a lodger getting a bed in a room where there are many other beds would have to pay about 8s. without meals. Therefore, rent allowances are a very vital question to my people. There is another question which needs careful consideration when the Regulations are reviewed. That is the personal allowance of the earning members of the family. Where the earning member of the family has to go a long way to work and has fares to pay, those fares should be counted in the personal allowance of the recipient.

The object of these Regulations is to make the scales more or less the same all over the country. We want to do away with different scales in different parts of the country, but we are not going to do that if we lay down that in each area the earning member of the family is to be allowed to keep a certain definite sum. In a dormitory constituency such as mine many of the people have to pay many shillings a week for fares, and under the scales as operated they would have nothing left for their personal use. I congratulate the Minister on what everyone must acknowledge is a courageous action. It cannot be a pleasant thing to come to the House and acknowledge that these Regulations have worked out entirely contrary to the way in which we all hoped they would work out. The way in which the Minister met the House to-day was not only just, but extremely generous. It is a pity that we have had so little appreciation from hon. Members on the opposite benches for what has been done by the Minister with regard to these Regulations. However, thanks for what is done are not very customary from them.

6.51 p.m.

:I shall be expressing the views of Members in all parts of the House when I say that the speech which the Minister found himself able to make this afternoon was in accordance with the qualities of his own character, but I am bound to say that it is expecting a little too much to ask us to express gratitude to the Minister. I see no reason why, if a man knocks me on the top of the head and then comes to bandage it, I should fall on my knees and thank him. All that the Government have done is to restore what never should have been taken away. They cannot expect us in these circumstances to feel particularly grateful, glad though we are that this has been done. Members in all parts of the House came along to-day armed with particulars of individual instances in their own constituencies which they intended to use in this Debate. It is hardly wise, and certainly hardly relevant, to use those individual cases against Regulations that no longer exist. We have to postpone such criticism as we may have until the Regulations are before us. It would certainly be relevant to spend a moment or two in inquiring why these Regulations were unsatisfactory. I believe it is an entire mis-statement of the position to say that they were unsatisfactory because they were inelastic. I do not know how it is possible to introduce elasticity into this administration without giving the local officer power to disperse public money that he ought not to possess.

That is the whole difficulty. There are no local committees with any powers superintending the administration of the officers. The only people to whom they are responsible are the Board. It is certainly undesirable to adopt the advice given by hon. Members in the course of this Debate that the Regulations ought only to be pointers, and that the officer should have the power to vary the amount of allowance in almost every individual case. That is an intolerable method of distributing public money, and one that leaves the applicants at the mercy of the caprice of an individual officer. That is a situation that cannot be tolerated. It is not lack of elasticity that was responsible for the breakdown of the Regulations. The breakdown is implicit in the obligations imposed upon the Board. It is unjust to blame the Board, for it is not to blame in this matter. It is certainly unjust to blame the officers, who are the servants of the Board. The people who are to blame are the Government. They impose upon the Board a task that cannot possibly be discharged agreeably to Members of this House. The Act imposed upon the Board the obligation of carrying out the means test having regard to the household resources of the applicant. I can see no way in which Regulations are to be drawn up within the ambit of those instructions which will be free of the anomalies that have already been created by the present Regulations. You may make an attempt to define the family, but if you define it as being those people who sit round the same table or define it genealogically, you are in the same difficulty still. Are you going to impose a burden on the son who is at home and leave exempt the son who is away? I look forward with considerable anticipation to the task of the right hon. Gentleman, with the assistance of the Board, in attempting to define the family for the purposes of the Act. They are in a bog now, but they will be up to their necks if they start to alter the position much further.

It must not be supposed that we are going to allow this agitation to die because of what has happened now. There is only one thing that will make this satisfactory to us, and that is a drastic amendment of the Act of 1934. As long as there is a means test, these anomalies will exist. I make a challenge to hon. Members. They will pardon my reminding them that I made it last December, and I make it again now. It is that the new regulations which are brought forward will meet with as great a storm of criticism in the country as those that are now being withdrawn. If you are going to raise the scales, you will find yourself right up against Part I of the structure of unemployment insurance. If you alter the allowances given to the family you must define the family for the purpose of deciding who is to have the allowance or whose resources are to be disregarded, and that will defy the ingenuity of the Law Officers of the Crown. I see no way of avoiding these difficulties. It is far better for the Government to act courageously in the matter, to admit that they are faced with a task that defeats their ingenuity, and to amend the 1934 Act so as to eliminate the family as the basis of assessment. It will be observed that I am not at the moment urging the Government to abolish the means test, but I do suggest that even this Government might consider abolishing the family test, and take into consideration only the needs of the applicant for benefit. I am sure that if you do not reduce the means test to these narrow proportions, the amount of money you will save on the applicant by the family test will not be worth the machinery of investigating his means.

I should be out of order if Ii pursued that further, because it would involve new legislation, but I think the House is permitted to ask this question. If the Regulations are to be withdrawn and new ones to be brought in, will they be brought in in the same way as the others? I think we are entitled to say that one of the reasons why this situation has arisen is that the House of Commons was never permitted to give the Government the benefit of its advice. The Government deprived themselves of the advice of the local authorities, who have had many years' experience in the administration of the Poor Law. They brought forward these proposals, and we had to say either yes or no, Members of the House who had experience having no opportunity to advise their colleagues or the Government. If the House of Commons had had the right to put down Amendments Clause by Clause to the Regulations, they would never have been carried in their present form, and we should not be in this position to-day. I submit that that is no over-statement of the position. People are inclined to jeer at the House as a very deliberate assembly, but I know of no more comprehensive pool of public knowledge than this. It is a mistake, for the Government to frame legislation in such a way as to prevent us from giving the benefit of our advice. I would ask the Minister whether he is going to bring in the new regulations in pursuance of the 1934 Act, or whether he is going to amend the Act itself? I think that it is very important to have a reply to that question. If new regulations based on the 1934 Act are brought in, I do not see how the Board will amend its position substantially without violating the Act. You will have to amend that part of the Act relating to family resources. I would suggest that, as it could be shown to be desirable, there should be some measure of elasticity giving local committees far more power than at present besides having many more such committees, so that more individual variation of allowances may be made to meet exceptional circumstances.

A question which, I think, has been put before, but which I wish to repeat so as to impress the matter on the mind of the Minister, is this: If these individuals whose resources have changed since their case was investigated by the Board's officers have had reductions, are they to have their reductions after the others have their cuts restored? Will this not create a feeling in many parts of the country? Would it not be far better—there cannot be many of them, and it would not cost much—for their resources to be assessed as they would have been by the public assistance authorities? If you apply the scale under the new Regu- lations, then you apply to their resources a different test than would have been applied if the public assistance bodies had been in operation. If their resources have changed, or the board has elicited facts not available at the time to the public assistance authorities, will the new circumstances be assessed as if the public assistance body were in power and not the Board? In that case it might be possible to avoid ill-feeling and many reductions not now restored be restored. The definition of a household has been changed, and consequently more resources are taken into account than was the case by the public assistance authorities.

I think we shall have to wait until the new Regulations are brought forward before we express any opinion as to how valuable the Government's concession is. I would merely point out that I believe Members in all parts of the House sincerely believed that these Regulations were going to benefit the unemployed mainly because they listened only to Ministers and no one else, because very often in the course of the Debates on the Unemployment Assistance Bill the benches were almost entirely empty, and Members came running in from the Smoke Room or anywhere else to listen to their own champions, heard what they wanted to hear and went away. Some of us spent weary months examining the provisions of the Bill miscroscopically. Every prophecy which we made in respect of them has been fulfilled. An hon. Member shakes his head: it is impossible to educate him, though I will say he has been here throughout the Debate and misunderstands the position now as he did at the beginning. The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) was in great difficulties. I wish he were in the House now. I have a speech he made on these Regulations and he was lyrical in praise of the Board. He said:

7.10 p.m.

:No doubt many hon. Members, like myself, received the Minister's announcement with profound relief. I would like to add that I think it is a good thing that in this extraordinary situation there was a Minister in charge who had the courage to act promptly. The Minister said very truly that when both the Bill and the Regulations went through the House they were passed with a general hope that their effect would be some improvement in the lot of the unemployed with which they dealt. I think that was very true. Unfortunately, we know now that that has not proved to be the case. It is not necessary to look to those areas where special circumstances exist, such as low-rated areas; we need only look at an area where no very unusual condition exists, where previous administration was in accord with the demands of the Government Departments. One has only to look at an area of that kind to find out what has been the true effect of these Regulations—an area such as I represent, with no unusual conditions. In that kind of area the reductions have been many and very large. I do not think there can be the slightest doubt that the Regulations have not carried out what was intended.

We have to apply ourselves to see what the future Regulations are likely to be. As far as I can see, very great care will have to be taken in regard to two large points when drafting the regulations in future. A great deal has been said in the Debate about elasticity. It is evident that practically no elasticity existed in these Regulations, and it was clear also that this was not the fault of the officials, who had been given an impossible task. I think that if the Regulations are to have elasticity there will have to be a different system of administration than that set up under these Regulations. There will have to be a greater measure of co-operation with local committees than was intended by the Regulations. The second very important point that will have to be considered is that of family contributions. As far as I can make out, most of the heavy reductions in my constituency have come about because of this. I would ask the Minister to look into the practice of the better local authorities to see how they administer this part of the subject before bringing in new Regulations.

I hope very much that the Board will finally suggest distinct alterations in the administration of the Regulation affecting family contributions. The position cannot be met simply by a few amendments and alterations; the alterations will have to be drastic. I would urge this point on the Minister. I imagine that most of the trouble was probably caused by the fact that neither the Board nor the Minister had sufficient time to work out what the effect of the Regulations would be, and I hope that mistake will not be made again, but that the Minister will take his time in order to see that the full intentions of Parliament are carried out.

7.16 p.m.

:Some observations which I had intended to make have been rendered unnecessary by the statement of the Minister, and therefore I shall deal with only one or two aspects of the matter, and shall, as far as possible, touch lightly on those already referred to. I shall not say anything with regard to the Minister's action to-day, except that I regret that he still takes up the attitude that he cannot see anything approximating to a starvation level in the figures presented to the House, because while I am not stating everything that I had desired to state I have not modified my attitude towards his proposals. There comes to my mind the case of one family. The man is an artisan, capable of dealing with his own problems. He asked me whether I would go out to see his wife. I went and found an exceptionally clean family home. I learned that the family consisted of the man, his wife and four children, two of whom were working, receiving some 2s. over the £1 a week. Under the previous dispensation they were receiving 21s. a week. In my simplicity I endeavoured to explain just how the reduction imposed on them came about. An hon. Member opposite said he deplored the arithmetical method adopted in dealing with these problems. I could explain the arithmetical side of the case, and I could see that the wife understood the argument, but what she could not understand was the lack of humanity in those who could expect her to maintain her family on 14s. a week less than she had previously received, for she contended that her table, even with the extra 14s., was not adequate. Many of the conditions that such people have to endure are starvation conditions, and I am in no way disrespectful in suggesting that the Minister's knowledge on these points is not what it might be.

I heard a comment on the relationship existing between the local authorities and the administration in the past. At the present time there are approximately 30,000 transitional cases which have not been dealt with by the machinery of the Board but by other agencies. I do not know whether I am too hopeful but I trust there is some possibility of returning to a system which will allow that intimacy and knowledge which resides in a locality to make contact with the machinery set up to look after the able-bodied unemployed. One specific point on which I wish to touch concerns the deductions that have to be made in the case of a family numbering over five. I am informed that the system is based on the idea that when a number of people con- gregate together, so that the on-cost is spread over a larger number of heads, the proposed deduction is a satisfactory means of dealing with the case. That is all right with one proviso, namely, that every member of the family is getting enough; but I cannot accept the system as a sane one when we find that the wage allotted to them is not one upon which they can subsist. In an aside, may I say that I think it is not the people who are on statutory benefit who require the wage but those who have exhausted statutory benefit and are under Part II of the Act, because they have nothing on which to depend. A family over five—it may be there are eight in family—find, after all the computations have been made, they are to receive a certain sum, and that because there is an on-cost spread over eight people there is to be a deduction of 3s. a week. That I cannot understand, and if there is any possibility of a modification of the Regulations I hope this aspect of the matter will be thoroughly gone into, because we cannot apply such a rule until every member of the family is getting sufficient. Once they are getting sufficient let us apply the rule, but it is not a reasonable thing to apply it while none of them are getting sufficient to meet their everyday requirements. The Parliamentary Secretary said: be related to the people who were coming in immediately, but that does not get over the fact that when the scheme is operating in its entirety 75 per cent. of the able-bodied people in Glasgow will be living in houses under 7s. 6d. and therefore will have to bear the burden of which we complain. The Regulation will not apply only to those receiving up to 30s. a week, but to those receiving over 30s., and that is a most reprehensible thing. It was said that the larger the house the more the people would receive because of the children in the house, but after the extra money had been given in respect of the children the application of the basic rent formula took from them all they got in respect of the children.

I agree with the hon. Member who said it was a laudable thing to urge people to move into better houses, but it is a difficult thing always to assess correctly the factors—sometimes even to ascertain the factors—which account for people living in low-rented houses. They are numerous, and some of them would be acceptable even to hon. Members opposite, and therefore I feel that this formula applied to rent in all cases where people are receiving 30s. or over requires a rigorous examination and a definite alteration. My last point concerning the latitude allowed to officials has already been touched upon. There has been a general complaint of the rigidity with which the Regulations were applied. I notice that in the first memorandum issued there were not so many details as in the second one. The first one comprised 10 pages and the second one 30 pages. On the second page there are three statements to amplify the point that officials are to exercise latitude in order to see that the ascertainment is fair and reasonable, but on page 3 we see the utter impossibility of any latitude being possible in some cases, and on page 4 we have items for the guidance of officials who are to display latitude laying down what they are to do. We find this: any number of weeks would buy him something. Again:

7.29 p.m.

:I am one of those who appreciate what the Minister of Labour has done in withdrawing the Regulations. As one representing an industrial area and an area which has low-rented houses, I feel that it will be a great relief. I have been in my own constituency from the time when these Regulations came into force, and I have heard a great deal of them. I addressed a large mass meeting last week, and I heard a number of points of view then. I do not so much mind a rough house, but I cannot forget the large number of people who came up to me—families whom I have known well, decent people—who were suffering under these reductions, which in my constituency were practically universal. I am very glad to know that further consideration is to be given to the Regulations. It is our business now to try to find out what the trouble has been and what is the best remedy.

I do not come from a constituency where the public assistance com- mittee have been lax in administration. On two or three occasions it has been held that the public assistance committee were not giving up to the maximum which might have been given, and certain criticisms were made against the committee on that ground. In the early summer of last year a circular which was sent out by the Government showed that the Government desired higher allowances, and the allowances were then raised. The difficulty in my constituency has been a different one; it has been largely a difficulty in regard to the basic rent. A great many more people have suffered reductions in consequence of the basic rent than for any other reason. I made an inquiry as to the rents in the locality. I got the town factor to supply me with maximum and minimum rents of old properties which had been bought by the corporation, and I found that the rents of one-roomed houses ranged from 1s. to 1s. 6d. weekly, of two-roomed houses from 2s. 10d. to 7s. 4d., of three-roomed houses from 5s. to 8s. 6d., and of the new council houses for overcrowding from 6s. to 6s. 9d. for a two-roomed house, and from 7s. 6d. to 8s. 3d. for a three-roomed house. It can be understood that the reductions which have been made from these rents had been very large and in some cases amount to 10s. and 12s. on that ground alone. There have been larger reductions for other reasons.

The principle of putting the basic rent at one-quarter of the whole income does not correspond with conditions, certainly in the North-East of Scotland. An inquiry was made by my town council on that subject in connection with the clearance houses which were being put up, and which have recently been finished. The council endeavoured to ascertain how much of a man's income he normally spent on rent—I mean a man living in the poorer parts of Aberdeen. The result of the investigation was to show that the average was one-eighth of the income for basic rents. A differentiation of rent was drawn up for those clearance houses, and was recently put into force on the basis of one-eighth of the income. If a man had an income of 40s., his basic rent was fixed at 5s. If these new regulations had come into force they would have created an impossible position. The State would have deducted 5s. from a basic rent of 10s., and the income would have come down to 35s. The town council would then have reassessed the rents, and this process would have gone on ad infinitum. Fortunately, I hope permanently, the system of one-quarter basic rent has gone.

I hope more discretion will be given under the new regulations than has already existed. First of all, there is a point with regard to the information which Members of Parliament can get. That matter ought to be made perfectly clear. I went to the unemployment assistance officials and asked for certain information in connection with cases, but I was informed that the instructions were that information could only be given from the head office at Dundee; such information could not be given in Aberdeen because Dundee had been made the head of the area. Dundee, however, had no books, and I was powerless to get the information which I wanted. There should be discretion in connection with families, and there are several points which should be considered. There are many cases in which a special diet is given, and in other cases boots. Some such discretion should be allowed somewhere. After the Regulations came in, public assistance committees could not touch any of these cases, and the Unemployment Assistance Board would not do so because they had not the power to exercise discretion in those matters. As to the pots and pan allowance: I heard of an applicant who asked for that, and the information which he got was that the allowance was only intended for houses which were burnt down, or for similar catastrophes. I do not think that is what the regulations contemplated when they were brought in. There are a number of such cases of hardship.

The question of earnings has been raised. I do not want to speak of individual cases which I have had brought before me, but I had a letter yesterday which dealt with a case in which a man had been out of employment, and in which the man's wife had been very ill and had had a serious operation. There was a large doctor's bill owing, and when the wife came back, although she was not strong, she got work at 14s. 6d. per week at a picture house in order to help to pay the doctor's bill. That amount was deducted. In such cases there should be discretion. I hope that under the new regulations that will be looked into.

I feel that we now have experience. I liked the old local system much better. I said so when transitional payments were discussed in 1932. Only in the localities is there the local knowledge which is needed in cases of this kind. It has been decided otherwise, but I hope that in some way local help will be brought in, so that we may avoid a repetition of the difficulties which have occurred, and which have raised a great deal of feeling in my constituency and in other industrial constituencies, particularly in Scotland. I have no doubt that all the facts which have been brought forward by hon. Members will be taken into consideration, and that we shall not have such anomalies in the new regulations as those from which we have suffered.

7.38 p.m.

:I am rather amazed at some of the speeches which have been made from the National Government benches. A short time ago hon. Members were saying that there was nothing finer under Heaven than these Regulations, which were to open up a new era for the working classes of this country, to take away from them the old Poor Law taint and to give higher allowances. The workers were to be dealt with in a more just and humane fashion than previously. The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) and the hon. and learned Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. J. Reid) vied with each other in their approval of the Regulations.

It only proves to the people of this country, if they have the consciousness and the intelligence to profit by the lesson, that no attention ought to be paid to speeches made by the docile and slavish supporters of the National Government who are prepared to approve of anything that is brought forward from the Government Front Bench. It also proves one of two things: Either the hon. Members who made those speeches were dishonest and incapable, or were completely lazy and had never paid attention to the Regulations. If they understood the Regulations, and that the Regulations were humane and just and were to be a boon and a blessing to humanity they were dishonest; if they did not understand them, having read them and studied them, they were incapable of the job which they have been sent here to do. If they did not read them but gave slavish support to the Regulations they were both lazy and dishonest and were not entitled to be given the confidence of the people of this country.

I say frankly, not because I am politically opposed to the Minister or to the Government, but because I have had experience of Poor Law work in the parish council and of public assistance work in connection with Glasgow Town Council, that I knew that an ounce of practice was worth a ton of theory, and that the theoretical points put by the Minister at that Box were all nonsense. I was conscious that inhumanity was bound to ensue from the Regulations when applied to the country. If one makes a careful study of the old Poor Law Regulations and of the means of applying and assessing incomes, one readily understands what must be the result of the Regulations that were put through this House. Therefore, as we said, there was not a single word to be said in favour of the Regulations; they had not one redeeming feature.

It is all very well for the Minister to come here to-night and withdraw the Regulations in order to create a temporary easing of the position, but we want to know what is the position of the Board. Have the Board resigned? Have the members of the Board given up their jobs? They cannot be freed from responsibility for the results of the application of the Regulations. The Board are either inhuman or incompetent, and in either case have no right to be entrusted with the destinies of human beings who are down in the gutter with starvation at this time of crisis throughout the world. If the Board are incompetent to judge the effects of the application of the Regulations to the poor people of the country, they should be swept out of existence as a Board, and men capable of judging not only the present position but the application of the theories of means test and Poor Law benefits should be put in their places if the Government intend to continue the Board. If the Board were competent and had correctly judged the effects of the Regulations, and if they realised what was meant by the application of the theoretical words of the Regulations, they were so inhuman as to be worse than the beasts of the jungle, and they ought not to be entrusted at any time with the destinies of the working classes of this country.

The Government have suffered irreparable damage from the Regulations. The Minister may be a busy man, and I am not going to be unfair or unjust to him. He may have a tremendous responsibility and a great amount of work to carry out. Had he not applied his mind to the Regulations? He is paid a substantial salary from the taxpayers to see that nothing goes through this House which shall operate unjustly and harshly on the people, as the Regulations did. Where does he stand in connection with the Regulations? He approved of them; he said that the Board were acting in a wise and courageous manner. We are told from some parts of the House that the Minister has been a courageous man to come here and admit the necessity of a change. They say that any fool can make a mistake but that it takes a wise man to admit error. That may be true, but we have to go further and deeper into the matter.

The Minister, at that Box to-night has uttered the greatest condemnation of the Unemployment Assistance Board that could be uttered by any human being. He said, when he was questioned by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) concerning the original Regulations, and when pressed with his back to the wall, that the original Regulations gave lower scales of benefit than these Regulations gave. That means that the Board are even more inhuman than the country realises. Therefore, we demand in this House, whether our voices be heard or not, that, if there is to continue to be a Board, the present one shall be superseded by men of capacity, intelligence and humanity. I realise that the Minister is the mouthpiece of the Cabinet—that the Cabinet have discussed these Regulations and their effect in the country and have bent before the storm of popular indignation from one end of the country to the other. They saw that, instead of the plans they were making for having a General Election and bringing about the same old conditions as in 1931, they were themselves being put into the dock, and that doom awaited them when they decided to appeal to the country. In passing I would say that, when the Government de- cide to appeal to the country, they will discover that the lesson which has been learned by the people as a result of the application of these Regulations will not easily be forgotten.

This change has taken place, not because of the pledges of Government supporters in this House, not because of the dawn of reason or the application of sanity, but because of the mass pressure of down-and-out humanity in this country congregating in their tens of thousands to show their indignation against the brutal and tyrannous application of these regulations. The Government were compelled to bend before that storm, and to realise that a change must be effected. We have been told in the Press that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture went to Glasgow last week to make inquiries as to the effect of the Regulations. I would say to the Minister of Agriculture, who represents the Kelvingrove Division, let him go down to Kelvingrove and address a public meeting there. I challenge him to go down there this week, next week, or a month hence. He dare not show his face at a public meeting in his area, and, although I am not a desperate gambler, I would say that he will require to find another seat after the next election, or a job on the Agricultural Marketing Board. Much to my regret I was ill for some time and unable to attend to my duties. I regretted it very much because I knew the effect of the Act and the calls that would be made upon me in connection with it. I realised that the application of the Act was not as Members of the House have suggested to-day; and here let me say that I have never met with a more contemptible attitude than that which has been taken by the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham and others in attempting to defend their own previous approval of the Act. Instead of, like the Minister, coming down to the House and saying, "I was wrong; I miscalculated it all," they come down and put the blame on to the officials of the local Employment Exchanges as being responsible for the misinterpretation and inhumane consideration. I know these people in the Exchanges. I have been in public life now for a number of years, and have never had one single word with any manager or employé at an Employment Exchange. Indeed, I have found, in connection with this Act, officials in the Exchanges whose very hearts were torn by the decisions they were compelled to make; and they were not making those decisions on their own account, but were in consultation with headquarters all the time to get ratification in regard to the decisions they were making. Let no Member get up in this House—because I know every detail of what took place—and say that the local officials were responsible for the misinterpretation and inhumane decisions. In connection with one case I had to write to the Prime Minister because it was so bad. I gave him four cases, which were passed on to the Minister of Labour, and I was asked to give further details. It was not, however, my job at that moment to deal with individual cases—there were too many of them—but with the principle. The machinery had to be altered.

Here is one case, that of a householder whose mother had died two years ago. He was earning £2 5s. a week. Owing to the shortage of housing, a brother-in-law, who was previously drawing 28s., was living in a room in his house, with a wife and child, and his new determination was 2s. a week instead of 28s. That was because the brother-in-law who owned the house was expected to keep him. They were paying 5s. a week to the brother-in-law for the room, so they were 3s. short even of the amount of the rent, to say nothing of sustenance. I went up in connection with this case, and I was listened to with attention, courtesy and consideration. I explained that there were two separate households, that this man had nothing to do with his brother-in-law, and that they should be assessed as two separate households, for they only lived there because they had no home. The result could only be that the brother-in-law would put them out of his house, refusing to recognise any responsibility for them. The officials made further inquiries, and went down to the house at dinner-time, when the man who was working was at home for his dinner. They made a new determination, giving 26s. a week, but the only reason for the new determination was that the man from the factory was frying his own sausages in the pan. They were given the benefit of the doubt. If the woman of the house—the sister of the man in question—had been frying the sausages, the old determination would have stood. People talk of detectives, but the treatment applied to these people is worse than it would be in a convict penal settlement. Since this man had no legal responsibility, and refused to accept any decision of any kind, they were bound either to go out of the house and get a new room with a stranger, or be thrown on to the street, for, under the means test, nobody wants them, because the income is taken into account. That is the great tragedy of the application of the means test—there is no housing accommodation.

Another case that I had was that of a man and his wife, both over 70, old age pensioners, receiving £1 a week. They had also a pension of 12s. for two sons killed in the War, and a son who was married and out of the house allowed the old couple 8s. They had £2 a week to keep them in comfort. They had, however, a son-in-law with his wife and three children living in one of their rooms, owing to a shortage of housing. They were previously allowed 32s. but their new determination was 14s. a week—they were being thrown on to the old age pensioners. I told the man in charge that I did not think it was ever intended that the Regulations should apply in this way, and the answer was, "We have our instructions." I discovered that secret instructions were going out daily to the officials in the Exchanges. In addition to that, the test as to whether two families should be regarded as one was this—it is about the best I have ever heard—that, if the two families sat at the one table and took their food from the one table, they were one family, and were assessed accordingly. I had so many cases, that as Parliament was not sitting, I resorted to writing a letter to the Prime Minister, and I said that, if these people did not get their old scales, I should be bound to take them to the Poor Law and make application for Poor Law relief for them. If I was told that the Poor Law would not deal with them, then, I said, I should be compelled to go to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because, if you punish a man for failing to maintain his child, surely, by all the logic we can get together, the Government or an authority must be responsible for the starvation of the children in those circumstances.

Finally, I said this, and I say it here in the House, that, if these Regulations had continued, I would have taken the responsibility to-morrow or Thursday of going down to Glasgow and saying to the people who were being treated in that way: "There are large stores in this city, filled from floor to ceiling with food. It is your duty to your children to go and take what you need." I would have said that publicly, and would have accepted the responsibility for the acts of which those men might have been guilty. I am pleased to see that the Government have bent before the storm, but I would say to the unemployed and to every person of humane disposition in this country, "Keep your powder dry. You have only won the first round. Do not dismiss your forces meantime, until we see what is lying in store and being prepared by this ingenious method of men who are cheese-paring and are thinking of how they will starve the common people of this country down to the gutter level."

A great deal was made last week, and I regretted not being present, of the fact that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) had described the Prime Minister in terms that were not generally approved of in the Press and by Members of the House. We were told in some newspapers that it was gutter language. I can only say that the Regulations were gutter conduct, and gutter expressions were the only expressions that were suitable for the gutter actions of the Government of this country and of the Board. In this old Victorian, moth-eaten Assembly, when one breaks the rules and customs of the House, I can understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have to punish the offender, but I can never understand the indignation of Members of the Government and Members of the House at the use of unparliamentary language. The Government can go out and starve the children and degrade the women. They can drive young women on to the streets to prostitution by inadequate scales of relief. That is the conduct of Park Lane; it is the conduct of the drawing-room; it is the conduct of British gentlemen. But when you use an unparliamentary expression the whole house of cards comes down upon you to condemn you and hold you up to public ridicule. I can only say that the conscience that can only be roused by the use of an unparliamentary expression, and cannot be roused by the starvation of women and children, is of no consequence to me and of no use in society at any time.

When we are dealing with these scales, I should like to point out a contrast. I have heard that in Glasgow and elsewhere, at this time of poverty and suffering, great preparations are being made to celebrate the Jubilee of His Majesty. Glasgow is going to spend from £30,000 to £40,000 on the celebrations. I say that that money should be spent on erecting black flags throughout the length and breadth of this country for a day of national mourning for the common people who are being thus destroyed and degraded by this great National Government. Money will be spent lavishly by local authorities. The Members of the Cabinet will turn out in their Court dress and will pay homage and lip service to the great progress of this country and this great Empire. For the next five days we shall have dinned into our ears the break up of the Empire if the Government of India Bill is put through. The House will not have its 20 to 30 Members then. Everyone looking after his selfish economic interests and crushing money out of the Indian peasantry will be here. They have men in charge here who can exercise that pressure on the working class. This 25 years has been 25 years of progress and economic advancement to many members of society. It has been a gradual trudge down the slope into the valley of starvation and despair for the great mass of the people. What have they to celebrate about? What have they to enthuse about?

:I intended only to cite the different treatment that is given to one section as against the other, and I am going to contrast the payments made under these Regulations with the payment made to other people in society. You have the chairman of the Board paid £6,000 a year, and the impertinence to me is this. I have never been able to understand men and women in society, who have all the comforts of life, who, if they had the power to consume them, have the ability to pay for 100 dinners a day, sitting down and determining that one man, woman or child who has not a decent dinner has to go further down the social scale, and that is what these Regu- lations mean. Take the case of the ordinary worker with 24s. a week. Under these Regulations there is a 2s. reduction, the reduction in connection with rent, then the reductions in many cases where they have been in low wage employment, we have the cuts in many cases which have never been restored, we have the personal means test and the family means test, and now we have in addition the dual means test applied to two families in one home, and if that is not the Gethsemane of the working class I do not know what is. The Minister will be going back to the Board and, if he were a wise man, he would sweep away altogether not only the Regulations but the entire means test, because it is from that that spring all the inequalities and in justices that ensue. Once you adopt a means test you get entangled in all the effects of it. We are told we are a poor nation. We pay to King George £10,750 per week. That is £64 an hour. We pay £25,000 to the Duke of Kent and his wife, that is £480 a week, £68 a day, £2 17s. an hour, a shilling a minute. These parasites who are living on the wealth of the country—

:The hon. Member must not refer to members of the Royal Family in those terms.

:I want to know, Sir, if you can refer me to any Rule of the House that prevents me from applying the same terms to members of the Royal Family or any other person in the country? If you can show me that, I am prepared to accept it.

:It is an old standing Rule of the House that criticisms of the Royal Family should be made only on a substantive Motion.

:On a point of Order. If one has to differentiate in regard to the tariff on the family life of the country, is it not in order to refer to any person in the land who is getting State aid?

:I did not rule the hon. Member out of order for that, but for the use of a very offensive expression.

:I am bound to disagree. I say these people are part of a parasitical class that live on the com- mon people of the country, and no efforts of their own provide the means of life that they enjoy. There is not a Member on the Government benches who would not be up in arms if any suggestion were made that that was expenditure which could not be justified. There is no means test applied to these people. Their families are all paid. For every child that comes into the home of the Duke of Kent £10,000 a year will be given. No hon. Member opposite would attempt to prevent them from getting that. It is settled by precedent and custom. Their life has been made possible by the energy, ability and capacity of these people whom they despise. You will treat them with your Unemployment Board. If your class goes to war, you will appeal to these men to arm themselves, to take your rifles and poison gas and machine guns and annihilate the working-class of another country, who have a similar means test from their ruling classes. I hope that, when that day dawns, the workers will take your rifles and use them with effect against the ruling class that crushes them down into the depths of poverty and despair and that the workers outside will profit by the experience of these regulations of this National Government, this gang of national crooks—

:The hon. Member must not make a personal attack on any Member of the House.

:You are putting me off my speech, Sir, with this sort of interruption. I have always been taught that if men—[ Interruption ]. You may put it on the working-class, but you will not put it on us. [ Interruption ]

:I think we should get on better if the hon. Member were allowed to make his own speech.

:That is what I have been saying to you, Sir. These Regulations are, in effect, a lowering of the standard of life of the unemployed, and the Regulations have been proved to be inhuman and unjust and unworkable. There is no use in the Minister making appeals to the House to find out whether they can be altered to suit the needs of the people. They are unworkable. They are packed with difficulties, and any man who has sat at the daily relief board of the Poor Law knows that the test can never be applied in a humane manner. Therefore, I say, sweep it away. Send your Board about their business. Send the chairman to the House of Lords to end his days in comfort in that moth-eaten assembly. Send your incompetent members back to their places in the country to take up their ordinary jobs and lead the decent life of country gentlemen. Abolish them altogether. Withdraw your regulations. End your means test, because you will discover that in the end these regulations wil sweep you out of existence. I prophesy this. Go to the country this year or next year, and you will meet the doom that the official Opposition of to-day met in 1931, and you will have the most disastrous defeat that any Government has had in modern times.

8.12 p.m.

:I should like to add my thanks to the Minister for giving us, what we should expect him to give us, an example of great courage in the face of difficulties. I should like to thank him for his statement to-day. In a question that affects the unemployed no one is concerned with pride. Every Member of the House, irrespective of party, is anxious that the treatment of the unemployed should be humane and as generous as it is possible to make it. I spent the last week-end in my constituency trying to find out what effect these Regulations have had upon them. I have attended at different centres of population and advertised the fact that I was going to be there to hear of difficulties under the Regulations and to give help and advice. I had hoped to be able to come here to-day and say exactly what the position was in the different kinds of area that I represent. In one thickly populated industrial area, with an electorate of about 10,000, I waited for two hours in a room that I had taken in order that people with difficulties might come to see me. In two hours I had only one who was in difficulties. I am not suggesting that there were not many more with difficulties, but they did not avail themselves of the opportunity of coming to me that day. I have been able to find out more accurately the effect that the Regulations have had in the coalfield upon my people. I took at random the first 25 people who have been on transitional payment and applied for the new unemployment assistance, and out of those 25 cases there were 22 with increases in their allowance ranging from 3d. to 8s. 9d., and three decreases. I investigated the cases of decrease and found that in one the circumstances of the household had altered, in another the wrong earnings had been given, and in the third the circumstances of the household had altered since the last assessment.

I also came upon some very difficult cases. I cannot say conclusively what real effect this is having upon my people. One cannot do so unless one is able to go into every individual case, but from the cases I investigated, I came to the conclusion that there were really two things wrong with the new Regulations Perhaps the first thing was what we should all expect at the inauguration of a scheme of such complexity and magnitude, namely, that the area officers were not really using the discretion that they had under these Regulations. The second thing that I discovered in my investigation of the cases was that there is something definitely wrong with certain part sof these new Regulations. I can only deal with the effects upon the cases which I have met in my constituency. The part where I found the greatest difficulties was in the mining area where the only industry is coal mining, and where the young people have to go out some distance by train or omnibus to find other employment. I found that when the family earnings were taken into account, in some cases as much as half of what a member of the household earned was actually taken in travelling expenses. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that the question of travelling expenses might well be considered when these Regulations are amended. When a boy of 15 or 16 who is earning 11s. 1d. a week has to pay 6s. 5d. in train fares, there is no justification at all for taking all that sum into account, and the question should be gone into.

In the mining area, too, most of the permanently unemployed are men between 50 and 60 who really are healthy and strong, and, for the most part, able and thirsting for work. I have said before in this House—and I would like to reiterate it—that it is demoralising for a man who is in full control of all his faculties, who is able to work and is desirous of working but is unemployed without the prospect of re-employment for the most part, to find himself totally dependent upon his family for pocket money. That is demoralising, and it is a question that might well be taken into account and discretionary powers given to deal with circumstances of the kind. I found during my observations in the coalfield that the greatest difficulties existed in the allowances to the members of families who were contributing to the household and to the older men who had no allowances of any kind and had to be kept by their families.

Another case of difficulty that I came across, which is not so common of course, was the case of the household where there are step-children. I do not propose to go into great detail, but just to explain one case. A War widow who had two sons re-married, and there were four little children of this marriage. The two grown-up sons were being made to keep the step-father and the four small children. I do not believe that that can be justified on any grounds. There is one question which I would like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to know the position of a man who is paying out of his unemployment assistance the sums necessary to keep up his right to benefit. Under the Reulations it states:

I came across several instances in which the difficulties of appeal were mentioned. I think that in the early stages particularly, of the enforcement of this Measure, it will be very necessary to make it as easy as possible for applicants to appeal to the tribunal. If anything could be done that would make it easier for applicants to appeal, or less difficult for an appeal to be refused, I should welcome that as a useful addition. I am certain that every hon. Member in the House, no matter to which political party he belongs, would never want to exploit for political purposes the misery of these poor, unfortunate people who are unemployed. Every hon. Member knows that it was the intention and desire of the Government, when the Unemployment Act was introduced and these Regulations were brought forward, that the lot of the unemployed should be made very much easier and brighter than it had been before. In thanking the Minister for what he has done now, I sincerely hope that the ultimate result of these Regulations will be to bring the unemployed greater security and add to their well-being.

8.23 p.m.

:I have had in my mind nearly all day the saying:

I spoke at about this hour of the evening on the 17th December and stated that these scales were the biggest home-splitter since Adam was driven out of the garden. Some hon. Members smile; but it is true. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mrs. Ward) has been talking about the income going into the home. She has spoken of the allowances for sons and daughters and the scales so far as maintenance is concerned—the 10s. for the first son, 8s. for the second son, the 8s. for the first girl and the 7s. for the second girl. After I had spoken on the 17th December the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Conant)—I am sorry that he is not here to-night—said:

:I am sorry. It is the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. O'Connor) to whom I was referring. The hon. and learned Member also spoke to-day. When he spoke on the 19th December he said that the scales were going to be O.K., that everything in the garden would be lovely, and that we had not the common sense or intelligence to understand the scales. Although that was not what he said in actual words, that is what he meant. He came to the House to-day and said, "I admit that the garden has not produced the lovely fruit and vegetables that I expected it would grow," and he turned to the Minister and said, "I am very glad that you are altering it."

The Minister has read something from the Box to-night, and I feel in my soul that when we read it to-morrow morning it will not appear as it appeared to us when we heard it. I should have liked the statement to have been in the hands of every hon. Member so that we could have read it over and over again, because I am satisfied that the Press of the country to-morrow will say that everybody have gone back to where they were. Everybody are not back where they were. The Minister said that the resources are different under the Board than under the assistance committees. Certainly, things are different from the household standard, because the standard has been extended. Heaven alone knows who is in the household now. Previously it was only the sons and the daughters, but now it is any people who happen to get their feet under the table.

I have my pockets bulging with hard cases, but it is not my business to give individual cases. I could go on for a long time giving individual cases. A man came into my front room last Sunday and said that he was going to commit suicide. I replied to him: "I should not do that if I were thee. I believe this Government has been more shaken this time than they have been at any time since 1931." That statement is proved by the way the Minister has come here to-day in sackcloth and ashes. He realises that the Government have been shaken. On the 17th December I said to hon. Members opposite that the place that knew them now would know them no more after these scales had got to work. Hon. Members opposite realised that there was truth in that statement and they have written to the Minister and had deputations to him saying: "Save us, if you please, by doing something so far as these Regulations are concerned."

The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Captain Sir William Brass) spoke on the 18th December and said that all his people were going to have a rise in their allowances. He said: That was on the 18th December, but the other day he came to the House with a tear on his cheek as big as a snowball, and told the Minister that he had cases where his people had been cut down shillings and shillings. That is the man who prophesied that every one of his constituents was going to have an increase. I should like to say to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase that it is no use blaming the area officers. That is all bunkum and eyewash. The area officers who hold the positions now are men of long-standing and experience and the majority of them know their job. They also know that if they are to keep their job they must keep the Regulations. Command Paper 4765 says: Board, although I have read it and reread it. There is one other point so far as the scales are concerned. The Regulations say: January, if he is a single applicant, will, for three weeks, get nothing whatever, and on the fourth week only 7s. Is that the intention of the Unemployment Assistance Board? Did any hon. Member think the Government would be so mean as to say to an ex-Service man getting 5s. a week, "We are going to watch you and are going to cut you off for three weeks." When you are assessing the money in the home the first £25 is not taken into account, the first £49 is not taken into account. You do not start assessing, as far as capital is concerned, until the second £25; and yet the Government say to these Army reservists, "We will not bother about the first £25 or the first £49 in one case but as soon as you get hold of 5s. 1d. per week, if you are a single applicant, you will have to live on nothing for three weeks as far as we are concerned." Does he not want food and clothes and shoes. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to wipe this instruction out.

Another and an even meaner instruction is that concerning the schools. If one child has above two meals a day, or two children have above one meal a day the area officer is instructed that for every additional meal the children get they are to take off one penny per meal. One child can have 10 meals, two children can have only five meals and three children can only have 20 meals between them. You will have to keep a clerk to keep an account of it and if it is found that they have had 25 meals between them that will be fivepence off. That is the miserable way in which the Government are applying these scales. We are told that they are to be withdrawn temporarily. We shall wait anxiously to see how long "temporarily" lasts. We shall wait and see how long this temporary occasion lasts, and we shall see what new scales come in. We ask that the present scales shall be withdrawn entirely.

8.45 p.m.

:I wish also to congratulate the Minister on what I consider to have been the plucky action that he took this afternoon. In some quarters there has been a certain lack of generosity towards him, but I am sure that that will not be the attitude of the public outside. In this country there is always a generous measure of response to those who, when things go wrong, have the pluck to come forward and say so. Before passing on to what I wish mainly to say, let me state that I funnily enough find myself in agreement on one point with the last speaker, and that is on the question of Army Reservists. I do not wish, and have not time, to develop the case, but I fought against and voted against the Government on this subject. I think it is extraordinarily unfair to take away from these men, who are bound by very special obligations, that small sum which is theirs just because they have the heavy liability of being called up at any time.

I am one of those Members of Parliament who went down to their constituencies in order to se how the Regulations worked out. I must say this at once, and in it I am in agreement with a good many who have already spoken—that the officials seemed to me to be in no way to blame for the harshness of the administration. The Minister himself seems still to think that there was a certain amount of lack of skill and understanding on the part of the officials. I went through case after case on the look-out for the least slip on the part of an official, and I could not find any. We have very good officials in this country, and undoubtedly the hardships are due to the Regulations themselves.

My own constituency is quite a good example to take. The city of Carlisle is not a distressed area. The public assistance committee in the city was not a Socialist committee. It was composed of high-minded and disinterested citizens with a very profound sense of their duty towards the unemployed and a sense of responsibility for the public money which they administered. The fact that there have been no complaints from the Ministry of the way in which they administered the scales does show that they did their work efficiently. In spite of that there is no doubt that the unemployed are far worse off under the new scales than they were under the public assistance committee. It is not yet possible to say whether more people are receiving benefit than there are people receiving cuts, but of one thing I am sure, and that is that there are enough people receiving cuts to cause very bitter feelings indeed.

We are told that those who supported these regulations were stupid and dishonest and goodness knows what. I am one of them. I believed in these Regulations and I defended them. Frankly, I say now that when I went to my constituency and saw how the regulations worked, I felt like a director who had signed a fraudulent prospectus. I am, therefore, intensely grateful to the Minister for having got me out of that very embarrassing position. I would like to point out to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that what was found particularly exasperating was that the seeming generosity towards the children turned out to be no generosity at all in cases of large families. That is dreadful. It seemed so hypocritical to give with one hand and take away with the other. I have here a number of cases to illustrate that, but I am not going to produce them, as I have not time to do so. But it would appear that under the Regulations the only way an unemployed person paying less than 7s. 6d. a week rent could benefit by the increased allowance for children was by moving into a more expensive house. If that had been allowed to go on we would have had the ridiculous position of officials having to advise people to move into unnecessarily expensive houses for the sake of getting the extra children's allowance. That is not only perfectly ridiculous but dangerous too, because it would look—I am sure it was no one's intention that it should do so—as if what we were trying to do was to subsidise the landlords, to put money into the landlords' pockets. That is a thing that ought to be avoided.

There is one other matter to which I would draw attention. It is one that has not been discussed by the House so far. That is the question of savings. I have here the case of a man and his wife and five children. Up to the time when these regulations came into force they were receiving 22s. from the public assistance committee. They had put aside £478 and under the new Regulations they receive nothing at all. What those people have to do is to spend their capital until it is down to £300 or £350 and then they will receive some benefit. Really this is not such a large sum for a man to have saved in a lifetime and I think that people should be allowed to keep their capital up to the amount of £500 in any case. What is more, a man even with £300 capital is supposed to receive 1s. a week income for every £25 of capital—

:I think, speaking from memory, that that is laid down in the Statute and is a matter which would involve legislation.

:I am sorry, I did not realise that that point was out of order. I would merely say in conclusion that I am certain that the people of this country will be very indulgent both to the Government and to ourselves as long as we are doing our best to deal with these matters. They understand that we cannot solve the unemployment problem quickly, but what has appeared in the last few weeks, shows that the country will not tolerate experiments carried out at the expense of the poorest among us. I therefore hope that at the earliest possible moment, new regulations will be brought before the House which will implement the avowed intention of the House, that the unemployed should be better off under the new Regulations than they were under the old public assistance committees.

8.58 p.m.

:I wish very briefly to raise two points which I think are of importance. In my constituency we had meetings at the week-end with large audiences and one or two difficulties were presented which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. I compliment the Minister on his courage in coming forward as he has done to-day. He has seen the error of his way and announces his intention of making certain adjustments. Therefore I am not going to raise any further points in regard to the matters which have been under discussion to-day. I think it is better that we should wait until we know what we have to discuss in regard to the amendments or readjustments which are to be made in the Regulations. The two matters to which I wish to call attention are, I think, within the discretion of the Minister and I am drawing attention to them in the hope that it will be possible to avoid difficulties in the future. The first is the question of the poor household in which weekly payments have to be made in respect of furniture. I want the Minister, in the exercise of his discretionary power, to see that in assess- ments in cases of that kind, account is taken of the weekly payments which are essential to retain the furniture and keep the home intact. I think there ought to be a discretion to take such payments into consideration.

Another point which is causing great trouble throughout the country and which is largely a matter of book-keeping and the adjustment of the debit and credit accounts in a ledger which is being closed, concerns the winding up of the work of the public assistance committees and the taking over of their responsibilities by the Ministry of Labour. At present the people who go to the public assistance committees for relief receive a coupon or ticket which extends over a week representing the money to which they are entitled. Now 28th February, the last day on which the public assistance committees are to act in this matter is a Thursday and the new arrangement comes into force on the following day, 1st March. That means that in many cases in Liverpool for example, those who are at present under the public assistance committees will have their assessments under those bodies terminated on Thursday night, 28th February. The obligation for those cases then falls on the Ministry of Labour. Cases were brought to my attention on Sunday night in which this would mean that as much as 16s. or 17s. less would be available for these people for the week including 28th February. They would then, it was feared, have to wait for the new arrangements to be carried out.

There can be no excuse for not dealing with this matter, as long as the Minister knows that we want, during this transfer, a continuation of the relief which is at present going into those homes. We ask that there shall be no waiting period so far as these people are concerned while the change from one body to another is being adjusted. There should be some system of book-keeping by which arrangements could be made to carry over the responsibility from the one body to the other in such a way that the recipient will continue to receive his relief and will not have to wait for a determination on the sittings of a committee. A waiting period in this respect would be a terrible matter to 6,000 or 10,000 people in Liverpool. I am putting the difficulty in regard to Liverpool before the Minister in advance, hoping that on this as well as on the other point which I have raised, he will take steps to avoid an evil which I believe can be avoided.

9.2 p.m.

:Some reflections have been cast upon Members on this side of the House because a certain spirit of caution has been displayed even in regard to the very important statement made to-day by the Minister. I think those Members who have been in actual contact with the results of the Regulations and have compared those results with what we were told during earlier discussions will agree that there is reason for very great caution in regard to any statements made on this subject in the House. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary three questions which are, I think, of importance. I understand from the Minister that the increases already given by the board will stand, and that in the case of the decreases the original payments are to be restored and arrears are to be paid to those who have suffered reductions. I understand that in various parts of the House there is some question in the minds of hon. Members as to how long this arrangement is going to continue. Does the Minister's statement as to the re-arrangement of increases and reductions and the general restoration of the reductions apply until the new regulations have passed this House. It is very important that we should have an explicit answer upon that point. I do not think there ought to be any qualification about it. That is the general understanding in the House that this applies until the new regulations are put before the House and passed.

The second question is this: The public assistance committees in some cases have been supplementing the amount received into a home for transitional payment, and that has been accepted. In effect, it has meant that they have received transitional payment plus a certain amount from the public assistance committee. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House explicitly whether, if the public assistance committees continue to supplement the amount given for transitional payment, that will be permissible? The hon. Gentleman must understand that what the board does now is to intimidate the public assistance committees. In fact, the Government representative in Durham said to the public assistance committee: "If you give them a shilling, I will take a shilling off." There is no real restoration without qualification of the status quo if the public assistance committees are not allowed to supplement and to put the people in the same position as before.

:What will be the position of an entirely new person next week? Is that also included in the hon. Member's remarks?

:That is the third question to which I was coming. On what principle are the people who will come on for transitional payment between now and the operation of the new regulations to be assessed? Are they to be the subject of these Regulations which have been repudiated, not only in the country but in the House? I think we ought to have some guidance on that point to-night, because I am very sure that if the House does not get something fairly concrete on that point, there will be trouble in the country generally. Let me say frankly that, assuming this promise will continue until the new regulations are passed by this House, I was at least relieved to hear the Minister's statement this afternoon. I was afraid they were going to niggle and compromise about this matter, but anyone who knows what the situation has been in the country, voiced very emphatically in South Wales and other parts of the country, sometimes with mutterings and sometimes with roarings, and anyone who knows what the position means to hundreds of thousands of men and women, must have been pleased to hear that statement to-day. I think the courage of the right hon. Gentleman in the circumstances was commendable, and I hope he shows the same courage in facing up to the new situation when the Regulations have to come before this House.

The fact is that Members came here to hear that statement to-day in a way they have never done before during this Parliament when unemployment was being considered. The outstanding thing in this House when that topic has been discussed has been that, no matter who was speaking or what kind of day it was, the House has been scarcely half filled, almost empty, but the House was filled to-day. It was packed to-day. One would almost think the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was coming up to deal with India, from the way the House was filled to-day, and I am very glad indeed that the unemployed of this country have at last attained to a position in this House of equality with the right hon. Member for Epping. The fact is that what we have seen to-day is the logical outcome of the deep-laid policy of the Government and the Members supporting it for the last three years. If anybody here says he was surprised by what has happened in the country, all I Can say is that he has not been attending to his duties as a Member and has shown an ignorance of the Regulations and of the whole policy of the Government which is really remarkable.

I will not refer to the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), who makes very eloquent speeches and sometimes speeches that are useful contributions, but on this question of the unemployment regulations he certainly tripped up badly, as did a good many other hon. Members. The Members of this House who support the Government were in a deep conspiracy in order to impose upon the unemployed conditions which have proved intolerable, and which it was clear would prove intolerable, in order to cut down the incomes of those who had been afflicted by modern industrial conditions. It has not come off, and I am very pleased it has not come off. I am pleased that my countrymen, even though they have been unemployed, have refused to be beaten down to practically the coolie standard that these Regulations laid down. I wonder what the newspapers would say to-morrow supposing a Labour Government had been in office. To-morrow they will say, "The Government has been magnanimous in considering the new position," but if the Labour Government had been in office, they would have said, "The Government runs away." I hope hon. Members on the opposite benches, when they go to the country at the next election, will keep off the run-away tale at any rate, because to-day we have had one of the most inglorious retreats that any Government has ever had to face.

I wonder, when the new Regulations come before us, whether we shall get them in the "Take it or leave it" spirit that we had with the last Regulations, if we shall have to take them or refuse them as a whole. I think I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) that if we are to give them reasoned consideration, we shall have to have some amendment of the Act. That Section was put into the Act, I thought at the time, in order that the House should be, as it were, rushed and compelled to accept the whole of the Regulations, some parts of which they might not like. I think the Government must get rid of that Section of the Act, otherwise we shall be placed in the same position of "Take it or leave it," and I hope that somehow or other it can be contrived so that there will be a kind of interim debate before we get those regulations.

We have expressed ourselves in a multitude of cases, but I do not think the position of the Regulations has been covered by recent speeches in a way that would show that a thorough overhaul is necessary. For instance, there is a general feeling that the rent Clauses and the household Clauses are very bad, but let the Government be under no illusion about the scales, which are also very bad. One of my hon. Friends gave an illustration of a case of a boy between 14 and 18. A floodlight which startled me was thrown upon the Regulations by a case which came to me this week-end. There are three boys, neighbours of mine, working in the mines. They are 14½, 16 and 17½ years of age. They are away from home nearly 10 hours a day, and two of them never see the other from Sunday to Sunday, although they sleep and eat in the same house, owing to the times of the shifts. Their total income is 42s. a week, and they each spend 8½ hours a day in the pit.

That sum does not keep three growing boys. Anyone who knows anything about a mine knows that miners must have good food in order to maintain them for that class of work. The father is unemployed, because the boys are employed rather than the father, who is a hefty kind of man. The father has been getting 21s. a week, 17s. for himself and 4s. for the younger children under 14. When this man goes off standard benefit in the ordinary way to get transitional payment, 6s. is taken as the maintenance standard for each of the three boys, which leaves 24s. over according to the standard of the Regulations. The consequence is that the father will get nothing. That is an absurd state of things. In the old days parents could look forward to giving the boys some pocket money to cheer them on while the father earned a wage, and the boys got better clothes and food and a lot of other things. Now, however, the boys are asked to keep their father. That is the standard of the Regulations. I hope the Government are under no illusion that not only the question of rent and household resources, but the scales themselves must be reconsidered.

There should be a kind of interim Debate before we consider any fresh regulations. If, however, the Government are wise, they will not bother with any regulations at all. It is as clear as daylight that, whatever they do to apply a means test, they will find themselves in exactly the same position. I have never agreed with the means test. I do not believe it is equitable or that it can be operated. I do not believe we can operate a standard of national relief without the help and guidance of local people who know the local situation. The country has at last realised what the means test really means in practice, and I am certain that Members will realise it more effectively when the General Election comes. As in the interim period increases are to be made, it is not our intention to go to a Division on this Estimate, but we shall certainly hold the Government responsible, if the questions I have asked are answered in the affirmative, for the administration of this new system, which appears to be a sort of hanging in the air policy without any particular legal sanction at all.

9.22 p.m.

:Hon. Members in all parts of the House will, I think, realise, after the very full statement made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, that there is little left for me to do but to answer one or two specific questions that have been addressed to us as to what will be the situation during the interim period. A number of hon. Members raised detailed criticism of the existing Regulations. These will, I can assure them, be taken into careful consideration by ourselves at the Ministry of Labour, and, I feel certain, also by the board; but the immediate remedy is not a matter into which I need go to-night. Various hon. Members asked what would be the position of persons coming within the sphere of the Board for the first time after exhausting their benefit. The answer is that their determination will be reckoned in accordance with the Regulations, but not rigorously, and the board inform us that they are now considering the necessary instructions to deal with these particular matters which they will issue to their officers.

The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asked what was the position of persons who had originally been in receipt of supplementation from the public assistance committee before the determinations of the Board were made. The board propose, I understand, to continue them at their transitional payments rate or at the new determination of the board, whichever is the higher. The mere fact that supplementation was granted by the public assistance committee will not necessarily be a reason for continuing the determination at the original transitional payment rate plus the public assistance supplementation. Steps will be taken to make sure that needs are met and no hardship is created. They will get at least the full transitional payment rate and such sums as are necessary to prevent hardship and meet need. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street asked how long this transitional period was to continue. The answer is that the interim period will continue until such time as the necessary modifications have been made.

:If entirely new regulations are required, until they have been passed by the House.

:Before any change is made in this position, will the House have an opportunity of expressing itself upon the proposed changes?

:At the present moment we have not had time to find out what the Board propose, what new regulations, if any, may be required. Speaking personally I would say that I should think that would be necessary. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) asked what was to be the position of the persons who were to come in on 1st March. That is not a very easy matter. It is one that is raised in an acute form by the decision of the Board to-day, one to which they will have to give full consideration and no doubt decide what to do in due course. The hon. Member for Dundee also asked whether, if the giving of false information to the public assistance committee by an applicant was discovered, that would be regarded as an alteration in circumstances. The answer I give certainly is, yes.

:Suppose the resources are assessed by the officers of the Board differently than they were assessed by the public assistance committee, as for instance in the case of a hawker's business, I asked whether this would be regarded as a different assessment.

:I was coming to that point. I understood him to raise the definite point of false information, before going on to quote the case of a hawker. I think he will realise that in the case of a hawker or man engaged in business on his own account the man himself does not come under the Board now or on 1st March. As far as the man himself is concerned the question is purely hypothetical. Already provision is made for the situation, when one cannot be sure of the income of other members of the family and an approximate figure is reached which is discovered to be recorded wrongly. As to the resources coming into the family as a whole, the question was asked how, if there was an alteration, the matter would be treated. It is the Board's intention that if, for example, the wages of an individual member of a household are increased, some part of the increase shall be taken into account and the determination correspondingly reduced.

:My hon. Friend talks about the Board doing this and that and its intentions. Does that mean that all these are decided by the Board without reference to the Government? Surely the Board is in consultation with the Government and not doing all this independently?

:The last time I spoke of this, I think on 19th December, I got into serious trouble with Members opposite in talking about "we" in referring to the Board's determinations. I think I had better not fall into that trap again. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel)—I am sorry I was not in the House when he spoke—I understand raised the point whether the Regulations are valid on the ground that they are not the Regulations originally submitted by the Board. I have been in communication with my learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and he informs me that that fear has no substance, for the Minister did not make any regulations otherwise than in the form of the draft submitted to him. The Act said that the draft had to be submitted by the Board, with certain conditions in the event of the Minister not agreeing with the draft. There was no question of him not agreeing with the draft. The Board after consideration decided that a new draft was necessary. My right hon. Friend has already explained that the new draft was more favourable to the applicants than the original.

:Did the Solicitor-General say whether this draft was submitted in accordance with the Statute, which says that it should be submitted within four months of the Act? Was this draft so submitted or not?

:I have been reading the notes the Solicitor-General drafted for me. I am not learned in the law.

:I will continue.

"Before any regulations had been made and while the Minister was considering the first draft it was withdrawn and an amended draft submitted. It is quite clear from the Act that the Board can submit draft regulations at any time within the four months and afterwards, on reconsideration, a second draft."

I think that answers all the particular points raised in the Debate.

:What about children in Dumbartonshire and their boots? They have not got any boots.

:In so far as I understand the provision of boots is necessary on medical grounds, their supply will not be taken into consideration by the Board. The original state of affairs is being restored. The apprehensions of the hon. Member as to what will happen in the transitional period need not have arisen.

:Before sitting down will my hon. Friend deal with another point. What will be the statutory authority for the payments to be made next week and the following weeks above the figures authorised by the Regulations? It is not a matter of discrimination in particular cases, but an all-round rule that scales laid down in the Regulations be departed from. What statutory authority is there for making these payments, even if it be the intention of the Government afterwards to bring forward a measure of indemnity? I am not suggesting that the course taken ought not to be taken, but I am asking what would be the legal effect.

:I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think my right hon. Friend did make the point clear this afternoon. Of course, in the opinion of the Board this action which they are taking is not within the four corners of the Statute, and it will be necessary for us to come to the House to ask for the necessary Act of Indemnity. The exact form which it will take will have to be considered within the next few days, but it is clear that we shall have to do it, and I do not imagine that any particular difficulty will be created by any party in the House. I would merely state this one further point. A good deal of criticism has been directed towards these Regulations. In the discussions, both on the Bill and on the regulations we made it abundantly clear that the essence of the whole matter was discretion. I am sure that many hon. Members who have had experience of Poor Law administration will agree with me that it is quite impossible to lay down individual scales that will cover all the varying circumstances of all the families in the country. We said originally that these scales were merely to serve as a sort of standard, and we always anticipated that it would be necessary to apply them with wide discretion, and it was for that reason that we set up the machinery of the Appeal Tribunal. In the Debate last week I said that I, personally, relied very largely on the action of the Appeal Tribunals to see that no hardship was created. In the instructions which were sent out, and which are embodied in the memorandum which an hon. Member showed to the House to-day, it was quite clearly laid down that whatever the Regulations said, or whatever the par- ticular arithmetical assessment made in accordance with the Regulations, it was essential that every determination should be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

As a result of the very detailed inquiries which I undertook during the week into the administration in various parts of the country, I was satisfied—I am not apportioning blame, I am merely stating the facts—that that intention was not being carried out. I will be quite frank with the House. With all our experience we had not realised the incredibly varying conditions in different parts of the country, and I think there is a good deal in what the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said just now, that we should have done well to call to our aid the knowledge of local people who know the circumstances; because there is little doubt that the conditions under which Scottish people have lived for generations are entirely different from those in England. I freely confess now that I doubt very much—I do not know what the board will eventually decide—whether it is possible to have a uniform scale for the whole country. We may possibly be blamed for having made a mistake in having brought in these Regulations, but I venture to think, and to hope, that the House and the country will agree with the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) when he said that what my right hon. Friend and the Board have done to-day is a sign not of weakness but of greatness.

9.40 p.m.

:Speaking for the Party that I represent I have to say that we regret that no Division is to be taken, and that for our part we shall try to divide the House. We cannot accept the view that the question should go unchallenged because of the action of the Government. May I say with reference to the last remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary that whatever else may be said of them they have been frank and courageous? I submit, however, that the position is such that the Government ought to reconsider the matter much more fully. As a result of what has been said to-day, to-morrow we shall start making illegal payments, yet all the time the Government will be prosecuting people for trying to get money from them illegally. The Government should not forget that they are dealing with the most simple section of the population, the unemployed. Officials will be prosecuting those people for alleged illegal acts when all the time the body under which those officials are working is acting illegally. I ask the learned Solicitor-General or anybody else—is there any defence to that position? They will say to a man, "Tom Brown, you are trying to get 5s. too much from us," and then it will be found, if the case goes to court, that he was trying to get it from a body which was itself acting illegally. There is no defence in commonsense or law to that position.

The Minister ought to realise that the whole system has broken down. The point put by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) is a sound one. The answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary did not do him credit, namely, that these Regulations were submitted two days before, and were then withdrawn and resubmitted. Obviously it was a trick to overcome the Act. I suggest that a Bill ought to be brought in to-morrow scrapping this section of the Government's work. Let them start de novo after re-examining the position. The Minister has told us that a new man applying for assistance is to be paid not according to the scale of the men already receiving assistance but according to a scale to be fixed by the officials. According to what Regulation will the official act? Is he to be bound by what the Poor Law authority in the district used to do, or is he to be bound by the Regulations in operation? What we are doing is handing over the unemployed to officials, who can do with them as they like, because there will be no regulations governing them and no control. The payments an official makes will be those which he sees fit to make. The position is becoming intolerable. The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) blamed the local officials for all this. That was the implication of his speech.

:If I created that impression I certainly did not mean to do so. I was criticising the application of a rigid system to the country as a whole, so rigid that it was impossible to get flexible administration.

:I took it that the hon. and learned Member was. With regard to the rigid administration, everyone knew that it would be rigid. Scotland and England are treated in the same way. Glasgow is treated the same as Edinburgh, and Edinburgh the same as other places.

We shall proceed to divide the House, because we believe that serious injustice is still bound to arise to a number of the unemployed. We do not agree with handing over completely to a local official, although he may be capable, the destinies of the unemployed of this country. There has been no answer from the Government to the questions put to them about the board, although the House and the Government have passed a vote of censure on the Board. Hon. Members may wriggle about it as much as they like, but they have said that the Board's Regulations

are wrong and unworkable, and take no notice of the varying conditions of the country, that 24s. was a bad minimum, that the regulation in regard to two families was bad and that there was not enough flexibility in regard to rent. We have also seen that the conditions under the Board were not the worst, because the worst were turned down and the Government improved upon them. To-day hon. Members have censured the Board, but the Board are still to be entrusted with the lives of millions of people, even though they could not carry out a simple job like this. Whoever else may divide the House, we shall do so, because we shall allow no opportunity to pass for challenging the Government.

Question put, "That '£5,000,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 6.

Division No. 43.]

AYES.

[9.50 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Jennings, Roland

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Kimball, Lawrence

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

Dawson, Sir Philip

Knight, Holford

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Drewe, Cedric

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Assheton, Ralph

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

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Atholl, Duchess of

Dunglass, Lord

Law, Sir Alfred

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Eady, George H.

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

Balniel, Lord

Eastwood, John Francis

Leckie, J. A.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Elmley, Viscount

Lees-Jones, John

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Levy, Thomas

Bossom, A. C.

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Boulton, W. W.

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Llewellin, Major John J.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Ganzoni, Sir John

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Gibson, Charles Granville

Loftus, Pierce C.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

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

Glossop, C. W. H.

Mabane, William

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

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

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Gower, Sir Robert

McCorquodale, M. S.

Burghley, Lord

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

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Burnett, John George

Graves, Marjorie

McKie, John Hamilton

Butt, Sir Alfred

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Grigg, Sir Edward

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Grimston, R. V.

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Maitland, Adam

Carver, Major William H.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Martin, Thomas B.

Christie, James Archibald

Hanbury, Cecil

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

Clarke, Frank

Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Meller, Sir Richard James

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

Conant, R. J. E.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Cooke, Douglas

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Moreing, Adrian C.

Copeland, Ida

Howard, Tom Forrest

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

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

Crooke, J. Smedley

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Morrison, William Shephard

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

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Cross, R. H.

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

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Crossley, A. C.

Jamieson, Douglas

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Summersby, Charles H.

Nunn, William

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

O'Connor, Terence James

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Thompson, Sir Luke

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Salmon, Sir Isldore

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Salt, Edward W.

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Orr Ewing, I. L.

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

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Pearson, William G.

Scone, Lord

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

Peat, Charles U.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Tree, Ronald

Penny, Sir George

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Petherick, M.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Shute, Colonel Sir John

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Pybus, Sir John

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

Radford, E. A.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

Slater, John

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

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

Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Somervell, Sir Donald

Wells, Sydney Richard

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Soper, Richard

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

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

Wise, Alfred R.

Robinson, John Roland

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Womersley, Sir Walter

Ropner, Colonel L.

Stones, James

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Storey, Samuel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Ross, Ronald D.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Mr. Blindell and Major George

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Davies.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

NOES.

Batey, Joseph

Salter, Dr. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Kirkwood, David

Tinker, John Joseph

Mr. McGovern and Mr. Buchanan.

Maxton, James

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

Supply

Considered in Committee.

[Lieut.-Colonel CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, 1934

Class VI

Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,150,000, 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 Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain."

10.0 p.m.

:I am sure the Committee will greet with a certain amount of pleasure the sight of the Minister of Agriculture bringing forward a further Measure to promote employment in this country, after the Debate that we have just had on the subject of unemploy- ment. I feel sure that the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), about how desirable it would be to pay all the workers to do nothing, to pay all the factories to stop, in fact, to pay everybody concerned not to do anything which this subsidy encourages them to do, will lose a great deal of point after a Debate such as that which we have had this afternoon. I make no apology for bringing forward this Supplementary Estimate. It is in pursuance of an Act passed by the House. It is true that the Act raised certain questions of policy, into which, of course, it would be unfitting to go fully at this moment, and into which various committees are now inquiring, the Greene Committee in particular. But of course any pronouncement of the Greene Committee would only affect future legislation, and it would be entirely out of order on this occasion for me or anybody else to refer to anything that that committee might decide.

The Supplementary Estimate arises from one or two unusual facts, upon which I think we can congratulate ourselves rather than otherwise. It arises, first, from the fact that the increased skill of British farmers is bringing them much closer than anyone had believed possible at this stage to the yields of the best sugar-beet cultivating countries; secondly, from a greater degree of efficiency among the factories, leading to a greater extraction of sugar; and, thirdly, from a greater sowing of beet acreage, which has, indeed, led to a greater amount of the beet crop being grown in this country, but has, of course, relieved the strain upon other crops which the market shows itself not particularly anxious to absorb. In previous days we were attacked on the ground of the uneconomic nature of this crop, but that argument has worn a little thin, since it is difficult to point, in this or any other country, to any crop or any industry which is carried on under 100 per cent. economic conditions. Indeed, if I may judge by the recent utterances of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen and others, although they deprecate slightly the ruthless use of tariffs, they would be willing to agree to a certain amount of ruth. That they agree with the use of the tariff, though not with the tariff itself, to which they still object, shows that, contrary to what has often occurred, their views have become mellowed in the shades of opposition.

As I have said, the home sugar-beet industry has often been criticised on the ground that the yield per acre has been low. A yield of nine tons per acre was obtained in 1933, and that at least showed that the attainment of a 10-ton yield, which is usually regarded as the standard of cultivation, was merely a matter of time, and depended mainly on the farmer and his workers attaining the necessary degree of skill. We did not expect that it would be reached in 1934, but it was reached, and, indeed, surpassed, for we obtained, of clean beet delivered by the growers to the factories, an average yield of 10.1 tons per acre. That achievement is mainly responsible for the Supplementary Estimate of £1,150,000 which is now submitted for the consideration of the Committee, and I am glad to find that the achievement meets with the cordial support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen.

I must, of course, apologise to the Committee for the inaccuracy of the calculations, and I fully agree that it is very necessary that our calculations should be as accurate as possible. But it must be remembered that in January a forecast has to be made of the payments which will fall due on sugar and molasses to be produced from a crop of which the acreage is not known, and the harvesting of which does not begin until the following September, the crop itself being susceptible to weather conditions; so that the result is that neither the yield per acre nor the sugar content can be estimated with close accuracy. So we must make the best forecast possible of the area, the yield and the sugar content, and then make an estimate of the sugar and molasses likely to be produced at the factories. There is, of course, an added difficulty in the course of the world market because, if the world market falls, it is necessary further to insulate the British home producer. That is, of course, a principle which was pressed upon the House by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the Wheat Act, whose passage through the House owed so much to the powerful support of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), now, alas, temporarily parted from us. The principle that a fall in world price would involve a higher support for the home producer was fully accepted, and indeed was the basis of that Act. Consequently, the fall in the world price, which has meant cheaper sugar for the British consumer, has led to an increase in the protection or insulation necessary for the home producer.

The Estimate, working on these factors, has as its basis an acreage of 380,000 acres. That is what we estimated it would be. We estimated a yield of 8.6 tons and a sugar content of 17 per cent. These bases gave us an output of 3,270,000 tons of beet and a factory production of 469,000 tons of sugar. Furthermore, looking at the state of the world market, the raw sugar futures, we thought there would be a saving of £170,000 on the molasses subsidy. On the basis of these figures the commitment amounted to £3,220,000, to which had to be added a further £80,000 in respect of subsidies carried forward from 1933, which made a total of £3,300,000. An Estimate for that amount was submitted to the House and voted. The anticipated saving of £170,000 did not materialise, because the certified average price of raw sugar was less than the price we estimated on. That was 4s. 3d. per cwt. As to the acreage, the British farmers planted 404,000 acres, an increase of 24,000 acres, of which it is interesting to note about 5,000 acres were in Scotland. Scotland, which has not quickly taken up the cultivation of sugar beet, begins to turn towards that crop, partly owing to the very low price of other farm produce, and indeed other parts of the country are beginning to desire to go into that cultivation also. Notably, in one of the reports of the commissioners on the distressed areas there was a recommendation for a beet-sugar factory at Pembroke, and I was glad to see that all the recommendations received the hearty support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which I take it was in favour of the extension of sugar beet cultivation to Pembrokeshire, and indeed to other distressed areas.

:Fifeshire. It is a crop which can be grown on arable land, and it is possible that even further north it might be found that there was suitable land for the growing of beet. The estimated sugar content of 17 per cent. was realised, but the technique of the factories had improved and, instead of extracting 14.25 per cent. of sugar, they extracted 15 per cent. These are the items that make up the Supplementary Estimate that I am now laying before the Committee.

Hon. Members may ask why, when all other root crops showed the effect of the drought in 1934, did the sugar beet give such a good yield. I think it is due to the increase of knowledge and skill of the producers. Deep autumn ploughing and the adequate application of fertilisers have all played their part. Growers have realised that it is false economy to economise on seed and liberal seeding and skilful blocking out and thinning did a great deal to ensure plenty of young plants in 1934.[ Interruption. ] I said "liberal" seeding; I did not say Conservative or even Crippsian seeding. I understand that the thinning in the latter case is very much more drastic than would be recommended on this side of the House. The early deliveries of roots to the factories were about average in size, and the fuller stand of plants gave indication that a yield of about nine tons was a fairly good probability. The sugar content, of course, under the conditions could not but be abnormally high. As the season advanced some rain fell and the roots began a second growth of tops, which is detrimental to the sugar content. With remarkably open weather, the crop could continue to grow without hindrance, and a yield of about 10 tons to the acre is the result. Since a heavy yield does not usually go with a high sugar content, the final figure of 17 per cent. of sugar content is really very satisfactory. As the result of these conditions a total of 4,000,000 tons of beet will be delivered to the factories. That additional raw material is responsible for an extra production of 138,000 tons of sugar and 31,000 tons of molasses, making a total production of 608,000 tons of sugar and 145,000 tons of molasses.

It may be said that, when there is already a surplus of sugar in the world, it is a great pity that, even by a ton, it should be added to in any quarter, particularly in Great Britain. Still, home production is only equivalent to a third of our consumption of sugar. For every pound of sugar that we grow ourselves we buy two pounds from abroad. I do not know many other countries which are absorbing so considerable a proportion of the world crop of sugar. Mention has already been made of the increased manufacturing efficiency of the factories. I think it is important to note that the factories extracted 99 per cent. of the total sugar available—an almost Aberdonian percentage. Apart from the satisfaction that this must afford on general grounds, it is very important to the growers, because under the terms of the co-operative contract, which is now in universal operation, they take 80 per cent. of the total of the factory income as the price for their beet. The actual price that the grower will receive cannot be determined until after the books have been audited, but it is anticipated that it should be at least 41s. per ton, which represents a total disbursement by the factories to 46,000 contract holders of over £8,250,000.

The only argument which has been advanced to the House repeatedly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen is that, although this great development in this country would normally be a matter for pleasure, it is, in fact, a matter for regret, since it is carried on by subsidy. He buttresses his argument by pointing out that it means a loss of shipping freight in carrying the crop of sugar to this country which otherwise would have been enjoyed by the shipping companies. He points to the depressed state of shipping and claims that the Government are deliberately worsening it by the policy of increased home production. The figure which he gave was a loss of shipping freight of between £300,000 and £400,000, but surely we are entitled to take account, on the other side, of the carriage of beet and sugar in this country, which also goes to the maintenance of labour and to the encouragement of our home industries This amounts to a sum far larger than that. It amounted in 1933–34 to £1,800,000.

:If the sugar were brought from abroad in future and came to the ports, would it not have to be distributed by some kind of carrying power?

:I think that my hon. Friend neglects the difference between the finished article and the raw material. The carriage might by itself—

:I think we are now getting a long way from the Supplementary Estimate.

:I bow to your Ruling. I only trust that it will be possible for the House to take the view that, in these days and on this day when we have been debating with passion the tragedy of unemployment, we should not look with too unfriendly an eye upon any project by which employment is maintained in the countryside as well as in the towns. The extra production, and the extra extraction and the extra work given by this development are not subjects for regret in this Committee to-night, and it is with the greatest confidence that I commend the Supplementary Estimate I have sought to lay before the Committee.

10.18 p.m.

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

The right hon. Gentleman pointed to the policy of the Government and apologised for previous mistakes. We do not blame the right hon. Gentleman, but sympathise with him in the unhappy position in which he finds himself. When the right hon. Gentleman sails away so merrily over the defects and ignores entirely the enormous implications in this Vote, we have to press some of those implications upon the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have some satisfaction in criticising the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). I do not think that when the time comes, and that criticism has been directed with all its force, the Government will have an adequate reply for the distribution of the enormous sums of money in recent years. We are all awaiting the report of the Wilfred Greene Committee which has been withheld for some mysterious reason from people who are intensely interested in the subject. This is one of the most pressing questions connected with British agriculture and with the attitude of the Government towards agriculture and industry in general.

The right hon. Gentleman is satisfied, he says, that there is a greater demand for labour, that the scheme is working with greater efficiency, that the acreage is being extended and that the crop is increasing. He says, in effect, that we are pouring money out but that we have something to show for it in the way of providing work for people in carting the sugar-beet roots from the farm to the factory and back from the factory to the warehouse and the refining house. All that is good, he says. It does not matter what it costs. It pays us to spend money lavishly in order to get this work done. That comes strangely from the representative of a Government that has been resisting claims for maintaining the most slender purchasing power of the unemployed people, and that has resisted it until public clamour and public resentment compelled them to abandon the position under which they were trying to economise and to restrict the purchasing power by reducing the allowances of the unemployed.

In this case there is no intention of economising. There is not one word of regret for the large amount spent. There is no indication that the Government are going to reduce the amount. We are told that there is a larger production and that the Government are spending more money because the industry is producing more. It is not only a question of an increase in the acreage and the crop, but the yield of the sugar beet is much highre. The Government estimated for about 14.25 degrees. The right hon. Gentleman says that the yield has been higher than the estimate. Is not that an indication that the profits are going to be higher? The Government have under-estimated the possibilities. They based the assistance which would have to be given to the industry on 14.25 degrees and a tonnage of 9 tons per acre. Because they have under-estimated, we are called upon to pay more money to add to the exceedingly large profits of the industry.

I have taken the tronuble of going through the excellent report issued by the Ministry of Agriculture two or three years ago, and I find that in the six years 1925–26 to 1929–30, £7,500,000 trading profits were made by the companies, a sum equal in the aggregate to the whole of the capital invested. All the capital was repaid in those six years, and now we find that the Government are going to pour out another £8,000,000. I think it is £8,250,000. On the estimate that we have before us we are called upon to pay an additional £1,150,000, because the Government were not aware, when they estimated some time ago, that these people were doing so well. The remarkable position has been reached that because these people are making large profits and because those profits are better than the Government estimated, they are to receive more subsidy. This House is to pay more and more money without any indication that this charge is to come to an end at any time. That is a very serious matter. The House ought to-night to be passing a vote of censure on the Government and not simply a reduction of the Vote by the small sum of £100. We ought to be moving for the entire repudiation of the transaction.

The Government stand self-condemned. The only conclusion that the House can come to is that we have paid too generously in the subsidies. They are now compelled to fulfil their part of the bargain that they made. The fact is that 12 months ago they fixed the rate of subsidy too high, having regard to the productive achievements in the industry in the last 12 months. This is not an accidental occurrence but a case of sheer bad estimating and lack of knowledge of the possibilities of the industry. Because of that, the country has to pay now an additional £1,150,000. How much of this year's subsidy is going in profits? What is the rate of profit to be made by the industry? Are we to understand that the whole of this year's subsidy is to go in profits to the beet factories and in additional earnings to the farmers? It is really an unusual form of justification to say that it produces work. There are many other alternative kinds of employment where labour could be usefully employed without having to pay exorbitant rates of profit. The only possible virtue of a scheme of this kind is that it gives opportunity for maintaining labour on the land, that is to say, if you can employ 10,000 people for a full year or 50,000 for one-fifth of the year, or 100,000 people for a few weeks in a year. That is the only justification for the subsidy.

:I must point out that we cannot discuss the merits of the subsidy. We are discussing a Supplementary Estimate.

:I am criticising the merits of a proposal which leads to a demand for these additional payments, and I think the Committee, before passing this Estimate, should be told what proportion is going in additional profits and what proportion in wages. The only justification and explanation we have had is that the industry is doing better than usual, and I should like to know what proportion of these additional payments is to go in wages and what proportion in additional profits to the already large profits which have been made. The only passage in the Minister's speech which appeals to me is that in which he referred to the tremendous economic aspects which cannot be dealt with in this Debate. He said that we are now producing 600,000 tons of sugar, approximately one-third of our total consumption. It is all right to have regard to production, and if it were ordinary agriculture it would be some consolation. But when we are told that we are raising this quantity of additional sugar without relating it to the price there is not much encouragement to those who believe that agriculture should be considerably stimulated and extended. We are paying too high a price, and an unnecessary price. We are paying much more than we should for the encouragement and maintenance of the growth of sugar-beet. It is little consolation to find that we are paying a subsidy which works out at 20s. per cwt.

The figures given by the right hon. Member for Darwen stand unchallenged, and will be confirmed when the report is presented to the House. We on this side challenge the Government's attitude on this matter and hope that this will be the last supplementary Estimate, the last subsidy, for beet production in this country. If after all this money, £45,000,000 in direct subsidies and an additional sum in freedom from taxation, the industry cannot stand on its own legs and take its place in sugar production for our own people, then the industry should be abandoned. We ought to be producing something else more compatible with our climate. We hope that on this occasion the Minister will give some assurance to the House that this money is not frittered away and that it does not go in large measure to produce unnecessary and unjustifiable profits for people who have no business to get such large sums of money from the State.

10.31 p.m.

:The hon. Member who has just spoken is optimistic indeed if he imagines that the Minister will give any such assurance as that which he invited in his concluding sentences—any assurance that this money will not be frittered away or that any measures will be taken to relieve the taxpayers of the enormous burden which the Minister is continually imposing upon them. Twice a year this performance takes place in the House of Commons. There is a Supplementary Estimate each year and there is the ordinary Estimate. Twice a year the Minister of Agriculture comes forward with his amiable smile and passes round the collecting bag for £1,000,000, £2,000,000 or £5,000,000 for the sugar-beet industry, and twice a year, with a somewhat wry smile—no pun is meant, for I know that the chairman of the Agricultural Committee is much interested in the subject—the House of Commons votes the sums that are demanded.

Observe what the right hon. Gentleman has said to-day in justification of this particular Supplementary Estimate, an enormous Supplementary Estimate of over £1,000,000. If that had been the substantial Estimate it would have been bad enough, but this is a sort of makeweight, to throw in towards the end of the financial year, which makes it much worse. What is the reason for this colossal Supplementary Estimate for this particular industry? It is that the farmers have been more successful in producing sugar-beet, that they can produce a larger quantity to the acre now and that by more skilled methods they get a larger sugar content from the beet. What should be the moral of that? Obviously that they need not come to the taxpayer for so large a sum of money. But no, this charming subsidy has exactly the opposite effect; the more profitable the crop the more the taxpayer has to pay. When the subsidy was first given, of course, it was said that the industry was new in this country, that it had to be supported for a time, that soon the farmers would do better, that they could not be expected at the outset to produce as much as their Continental competitors, but that as years went by the sugar content would increase, the annual yield would increase, the factory methods would improve and the subsidy would go down and down. But to-day the right hon. Gentleman says that the reason for this larger sum, £1,150,000, is that the farmers need it less. The more the profit, the more the subsidy.

No wonder the acreage is increasing, as the right hon. Gentleman says. No wonder farmers devote themselves to this crop instead of to other crops. It is the ambition of a very large proportion of the population to be able to pick a certain winner. Every farmer in planting sugar beet is able to do that. Whatever may happen to other crops, sugar beet is certain of a profit, and the more profitable it is the more the right hon. Gentleman will come and ask the House to pay towards it. Last year the Supplementary Estimate was £450,000. This year it is £1,150,000. The original Estimate this year was £3,300,000, and that Estimate has proved to be 30 per cent. wrong. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We cannot calculate with complete accuracy." That was his phrase. The margin of error is 30 per cent. If that is "not complete accuracy" how much margin may he not claim in some future year? It may be 50 per cent. What figure is the House liable to be asked for when an error of 30 per cent. is excused on the ground that this is a case in which "close accuracy" is not possible?

This is not all that Parliament has given to the industry in this year. There is the £3,300,000 of the original Estimate, and the £1,150,000 which is to be voted to-day. I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much was the total sum paid in subsidies to the industry and, in addition, how much went to this industry through the rebate in taxation? For, let the Committee mark this, that this industry pays only half the taxes which other sugar pays. The consumer pays the same for all sugar, whether imported or home-produced but the Treasury only gets the full tax on the foreign sugar. It gets less tax on Imperial sugar and considerably less tax still upon the home-grown sugar. The answer of the Financial Secretary was that the value to the industry of the rebate of taxation this year was £2,900,000. These three items together make in this year £7,350,000 for this one industry. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a year ago what was the total sum under these heads that the industry had received and the figure was £39,631,000.

:I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to this sum of £1,150,000. That is the sum with which we are dealing and it is quite out of order to go beyond that.

:Am I not in order in pointing out the total which will be reached when this sum is added to the sums which have already been granted?

:The only matter which is under discussion now is the reason for this particular increase.

:Surely when the Committee is being asked to vote fresh sums, we are entitled to see what is the total which will be reached by the granting of those sums. That is all I am doing. I am only pointing out to the Committee the colossal nature of this demand. If this were the first £1,000,000 asked for the Committee might vote it with equanimity. If it were even the first £1,000,000 asked for this year the Committee might vote it with equanimity. But when it brings the total up to £47,000,000 we must look at it in a very different light. That is the only reason why I am pressing this point. The right hon. Gentleman says that we give employment in this way. Yes, of course we do and we assist the farmers who are producing this crop in preference to other crops in order to get this profit. But I think we are entitled to point out that these farmers have received from first to last £100 per acre—

:That is just the point on which I called the right hon. Gentleman to order. I understood that the whole sum that we are discussing now is the £1,150,000 which is the estimate over and above the original estimate.

:I thought that the Minister justified his argument on the ground of the great employment which is being given. Surely it is open to us to reply "Yes, the employment is being given, but at what a cost." However I do not wish to pursue the point.

:In any case since this is the first time we have had the pleasure of seeing you, Lieut.-Colonel MacAndrew, in the Chair—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, we are so glad to see you in the Chair that I shall discontinue the line of argument which I was about to pursue—and which I may mention I had very nearly completed—and will turn to one other point which I know is in order because I had a slight argument with the Chair about it last year, and at the end it was ruled to be in order. That is with reference to a footnote which appears on this paper now before the Committee and to which, after some discussion, the Chairman last year allowed me to draw attention.

:As a matter of fact, I took the trouble to look up last year's discussion on this Supplementary Estimate, and I gathered from the Chairman's Ruling that the Chair was not responsible for what the Minister might put in a footnote, and that we could discuss only the sum stated in the Supplementary Estimate.

:It is not my duty to guide the right hon. Gentleman on that point, but to prevent him discussing points which are out of order.

:I am afraid, Colonel MacAndrew, you are rather more strict than your predecessor was a year ago. These payments, such as we are called upon to make to-day, will presumably go on year after year—I think I am in order in saying that—so long as the present policy continues, and how long it will continue must depend upon when we have the information before us which will enable the House to vote against Supplementary Estimates such as this to-day. On this occasion we have not got the information which we have a right to demand before considering Votes of this character, whether the substantial Estimate or a Supplementary Estimate, and I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman, who last July referred to the Committee which was sitting, in connection with the Supplementary Estimate, and said that it would be making good progress, has not given us any indication to-day of when we may expect the report of this inquiry to enable us to deal in a proper fashion with the whole matter. Meantime, putting all these sums together, the taxpayers are paying £20,000 a day for the beet-sugar subsidy and in rebate of taxation, and I earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to expedite the proceedings of the Committee in order that this colossal, wasteful, and, I should add, scandalous expenditure may be brought to a speedy conclusion.

10.43 p.m.

:I speak with a full sense of responsibility in representing a very large and important agricultural constituency, in which the sugar-beet subsidy has been of very great value and has brought much assistance to many farmers in the West Riding of Yorkshire. That area has felt severely the agricultural depression, and the sugar-beet subsidy has been a perfect godsend to many of them. But I believe I am right in saying that the most conscientious supporters of the present agricultural policy, those Members of this House who take the very greatest interest in all agricultural subjects, have a certain feeling of guilt when they consider the enormous figures that the sugar-beet subsidy has now reached. It is not only the opposition of the hon. and right hon. Members opposite or of those Members of the Liberal party who sit below the Gangway of which I am thinking, but the many Members who represent agricultural constituencies and sit on this side of the House. The Vote which we are now considering has brought to our notice once again the very large sum which is being given annually to one section of the agricultural industry. I only rose to express the hope to the Minister of Agriculture that we shall have in the very near future the report of the committee which is considering this question. I feel certain that no one really wishes that the policy of pouring out so many millions of pounds to the sugar-beet branch of the agricultural industry should continue for one moment longer than is necessary, and we should all be happy if the Minister were able to lay before the House a long-term policy which would bring equal benefits to the farmer and be more consistent with my conscience, and, I am sure, the consciences of many agriculturists in this House.

10.46 p.m.

:I am sure that the majority of hon. Members must have listened with the greatest pleasure to the statement, so full and ample, of the Minister in introducing the Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) criticised the Estimate because, they said, the more profitable the industry was the more the House of Commons had to pay. I should like to point out that it is not the right way of looking at the matter. Why is the Minister asking for this Estimate? It is partly because the industry is more profitable, partly because more labour is employed, and partly because sugar is cheaper. I should like to dwell on the labour aspect of this question.

:That question is outside the scope of the Supplementary Estimate.

:Part of the Estimate will go into the pockets of the labourers, and I hope I am entitled to point that out to the Committee. A considerable proportion of this sum will go into the pockets of the labourers, some of whom have been employed for a longer period than is usual because of the bountiful harvest. That, I think, is a very important point. I would like plainly to ask hon. Members opposite whether they would prefer these men to be on unemployment benefit? Would they rather discuss what doles should be paid to them and their families or vote a sum of money which would give them good employment? Does the hon. Member for Gower say that the agricultural wage is sufficient? The wages committees will tell him that no more wages can be paid economically at the moment by farmers, because they are doing so badly themselves. The House ought to be pleased and rejoice with the Minister at the Supplementary Estimate because it means more labour, cheaper sugar, more profits generally, and more money in the countryside.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) pointed out that the amount paid in beet-sugar subsidy is very considerable. I would venture to say in answer to that, that it is a very small sum compared with the amount that the House has, quite rightly, voted to unemployment insurance and unemployment benefit in urban areas. As there has been no corresponding vote for agricultural areas, this should be considered as something to go to agricultural districts to counterbalance the enormous sums voted in Estimates for unemployment in urban districts. Surely it is better to pay money to employed men and to keep land under cultivation, than to let land go out of cultivation, which would be the sure effect if subsidies were not paid, because agriculture is suffering and in the same position as other basic industries in which 30, 40 and 60 per cent. of the men are unemployed.

:Before the hon. Member sits down, will he say what industries are receiving subsidies to the same extent as agriculture?

10.52 p.m.

:The House has rather been misled by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and the other hon. Member who has spoken. Certainly the money does not go to the agricultural workers or to the farmers, but they say into the factory's profit.

:I am glad to hear the right hon. Member take that back. Certainly in Lincolnshire we have two very up-to-date factories which have paid no dividend, as far as I know, on ordinary shares, or in recent years on preference shares; only on the higher debentures have they paid any dividends. One is a little doubtful therefore of the accuracy of the line of attack of either of those two hon. Members. This extra subsidy is helping us in Lincolnshire to deal with extra acreage. Before, a lot of experimental acreage was grown, but not enough. For the first time we have got sheep on the tops, a thing done in foreign countries but not here. I should like to thank the Minister for the care and attention paid to the needs of farmers. The right hon. Member for Darwen raised the question of the pulp that comes back to feed the cattle. This was at first neglected, but it has become one of the most useful things for feeding cattle in districts even in which beet is not grown.

10.54 p.m.

:Before touching on details, I should like to emphasise the contrast of attitudes shown in this House. Earlier this evening we were dealing with one end of the social scale: now we have a discussion of great benefit to those who have very little need, so far as we can ascertain. I shall deal with the question of industrial workers as well. There is no doubt that all thinking persons in the country look on this sugar subsidy as a scandal.

:We are considering a Supplementary Estimate now, and this is not an opportunity to discuss the whole policy.

:I suggest that this request for a further £1,150,000 is a great scandal and that the Government know it is a scandal. Had it not been for the fact that the question is perturbing them they would not have entertained the suggestion of an inquiry. I speak with all due deference as regards any Member of this House, but it seems to me a preposterous position that when ordinary members of an organisation which I have the honour to represent who are members of a municipal council are refused the right to vote for a simple contract in which they may have a very slight interest, people in this House who are directly interested in the subject now under discussion can come here and vote on behalf of themselves—because definitely this is on behalf of themselves. An hon. Member on the benches behind me said just now, "This is helping us very much." I cannot restrain myself from speaking strongly.

:On a point of Order. Is not an hon. Member entitled to say, in speaking of his constituents, "This will help us very much"?

:That was not a reference to an individual but to constituents.

:We have had speeches by hon. Members who said they spoke as farmers growing sugar-beet in this country.

:Is it not fair for a man who is interested in miners as a miners' representative to speak in this House on a mining question?

:I was referring to the view that is taken as regards members of co-operative societies. With regard to what has been said about doles and work, I agree that no Member of this House would object to substituting work for the dole, but I would point out that the great expectations which were raised at the outset as to the number of people who would be employed in sugar-beet cultivation have not been realised. I am informed that Lord Denbigh, who is intimately concerned with this matter, or has been interested in it, claimed that in future years there would be some 40,000 extra labourers on the farms and 30,000 extra workers in the factories. When I look to see what the actual position of affairs is, I find Mr. K. A. H. Morey, of the Agricultural Economic Research Institute of Oxford, stating that at that rate, on the 1930 acreage, employment would have been provided for 35,000 workers, whereas the actual number employed was only 9,900—which is a very big reduction. A further point which I wish to make is that such help as has been given in the matter of finding employment is to a great extent localised help. It has been confined, in the main, to four counties in East Anglia. I think two-thirds of the activities in this matter are confined to those counties; the remaining activities are scattered through the rest of the country. As to the suitability of the crop, I have here a statement from Sir Daniel Hall, the chief agricultural adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture. At a meeting of the British Association which was discussing the planning of agricultural production, he expressed the view that the fostering of sugar production from beet in this country had become of doubtful expediency. That was the expressed opinion of one of the chief guides of the Minister of Agriculture.

:Unfortunately I have not the date from the details which were supplied to me on the 24th of last month by the sugar representative of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society.

:May I ask if the hon. Member is an official of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society?

:If hon. Members are not sufficiently intelligent and need an answer, the answer is, "Yes." I may say that that organisation has objected to this matter from the inception, and not only at the present time. The Government are not justified in bringing forward the proposal. If there have been errors in the Estimate, that is no reason why the country should be asked to pay for them, and I cannot understand that form of reasoning. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has entered into the question of the Excise Duties, which are one of the benefits received. I am informed that this payment is 5s. 10d. per cwt., which, added to the subsidy of 6s. 6d., makes an advantage to, the industry of 12s. 4d. in respect of every cwt. of homegrown sugar. That, to a large extent, goes to those who have been making in recent years from 16 per cent. to 22½ per cent. in profits. An industry which can do that ought to try to give a little help to those who work in the industry, instead of expecting the citizens and the taxpayers to do it for them.

The other point with which I want to deal is that if we are to continue in the circle of increased production and increased Supplementary Estimates, what is going to be said to the Colonies who ask for a preference as well? They are British Dependencies engaged in the production of cane sugar, and they are economically better able to supply our requirements than is the home-grown product. We are in a vicious circle, and the Government are continuing us in that circle, which is not to the advantage of this country.

11.3 p.m.

:The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said that twice a year we discussed either this Estimate or the beet sugar subsidy. May I also point out that twice a year the right hon. Gentleman makes his excellent speech and that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) is absent? The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) said that the country is paying for this. The way it is paying is by providing employment on the land for over 7,000 people, and it is getting, in terms of national freights, over £400,000 for this extra million and a bit, and is only losing £80,000 of shipping freight. Another point which the right hon. Gentleman for Darwen made—I know he is perfectly right logically—was that the subsidy was costing the country £7,000,000. He is quite correct, but I prefer to consider the cash cost to the country, which is roughly £1,500,000, which has been voted after Excise Duty has been deducted.

I can give an instance of how this matter affects my own county. I went to a football match last Saturday and I spoke to a builder who said that the increase of sugar beet acreage had been a very great help this year, and that it was the first time that he remembered since the War that they had not had any bad debts from farmers. I am grateful, on behalf of my county and of my own town of Bury St. Edmunds, where there is a factory, for what has been done by this subsidy.

11.5 p.m.

:I want, in a sentence or two, to clear up the doubts which the hon. Member opposite seems to have. I grow sugar beet, and am not ashamed of it. The average wages paid for labour in the cultivation of sugar beet are £10 16s. and some odd pence per acre, and, of that amount, something just over £3 is for horse labour, the rest being for manual labour. These figures, taken over 400,000 acres, will give the hon. Member very closely what he wants.

I want to put another point, which is very short. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), in his very able and interesting argument against the payment of this supplementary sum, gave a lot of figures, but the one fact which has had more bearing on the situation than all the rest put together, is the fact that the average world price of raw sugar when the Subsidy Act was being discussed was 25s. 9d., and it hag now dropped to 4s. 3d. If the fall had been only half that figure, all the anticipations would have been realised, and there would have been no need for any subsidy at all.

11.7 p.m.

:While I am in sympathy with my right hon. Friend opposite, yet, representing, as I do, the only constituency in Scotland where there is a sugar-beet factory, I have a practical connection with this problem, and I find myself in a dilemma. On the one hand, this additional subsidy is described by the Opposition as a scandal. The hon. Member who moved the reduction said that, if he had his way, he would move the complete rejection of the subsidy. That is very interesting as coming from him, when one recalls that it was he and his friends who introduced this scandal some years ago. On the other hand, one of my hon. Friends behind me described it as something which we ought to accept with pleasure and joy. I cannot associate myself with that view; I think there must be a midway course. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The Committee have to take a midway course, and, surely, it is this: The idea of handing over great sums to agriculture is not pleasant to a great majority of the people, but, on the other hand, it should be realised that the need for it is exceedingly great. My right hon. Friend opposite spoke of the profits, or, at any rate, the additional advantages, that came to farmers out of the subsidy, and he seemed rather to lead one to suppose that, as a result of the subsidy, there was at the present time increased prosperity among them. Indeed, he almost led one to think that in his view they were enjoying a fairly pleasant time.

:I think the hon. Member is going perilously near the main Estimate.

:I realise that the middle course is sometimes a difficult one. If we were to reject this Supplementary Estimate, we should be breaking faith with men who, in Scotland at any rate, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to believe, are still, despite all the assistance they have received, in a terribly difficult and almost tragic financial position. I believe if we added still more millions to the assistance of agriculture it would still be in a most dangerous position. I believe it is essential for the welfare of the country that we should stabilise and strengthen agriculture. To turn down this Vote would be to break faith with these men and do inestimable damage to the industry. Therefore, I associate myself with those who beg for the speedier presentation of this report so that we may examine this problem and debate it and vote upon it with a clear conception of what it is that we are doing so that our conscience may be clear. [ Laughter. ] It is all very well to laugh, but many hundreds of men in my constituency have received employment this year which they would not have received otherwise, and many thousands of farmers in the country and hundreds in Scotland have that to thank for the fact that they are still solvent. I would beg for the earlier presentation of the report, feeling that, though theoretically it is not sound, it was impossible to turn it down. I am sure I represent many persons—

:I fully admit that a large proportion of this Supplementary Estimate will do a great deal of good, but I rather wonder whether the Minister, by his rather ruthless use of Supplementary Estimates for subsidies is securing the best interests of agriculture. I should like people to consider whether it is better to be putting money back in this way into agriculture, or whether it would not be better to relieve agriculture by direct taxation. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to bear closely in mind the fact that he has told us that gradually the intelligence of the English farmer is spreading into Scotland and they are increasing their acreage as well. If we are going to grant this Estimate we are entitled to ask for some assurance that it will never occur again. It may be very nice to have a biennial speech on this subject from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) never changing and never varying, but it is strictly against the best principles of the House of Commons and very inconvenient—it is nearly always late at night—to ask for these colossal Votes when the burdens on those who have to find the money are perfectly appalling. This whole method of subsidies which produces these Supplementary Estimates over and over again is not in the best interests of agriculture. I would urge the Minister, if he really wishes to help agriculture, to try to get away from these subsidies, which in the opinion of the people as a whole, are certainly likely to do a very grave injury to the agricultural districts.

11.15 p.m.

:The most interesting aspect of the Debate this evening has been to see how far hon. Members could keep in order and discuss the general question, and get away with it. The important point is to justify the Supplementary Estimate which has been presented. The justification for it is that it is keeping a bargain which had already been made. The Minister would not be carrying out his duty if he did not come forward when he found that the Estimate which was previously made was not sufficient to fulfil that bargain, the terms of which we are not permitted to discuss to-night. The only criticism which can be made is as to whether the first Estimate was an adequate one or not. The Minister himself gave a complete answer to that. It was an estimate made at the time when the crop had not been sown on the basis of an area which was unknown, and at a time when climatic conditions, which govern two very im- portant points—the bulk of the crop and the quality of the crop—were entirely unknown. He made the best estimate he could at the time on the advice of his experts. That was found not to be adequate, and we ought to appreciate the fact that he is now keeping his word and has come forward with another

Supplementary Estimate to that which was first introduced in the House and which was to provide for payment on a certain basis.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,149,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 180.

Division No. 44.]

AYES.

[11.20 p.m.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Moreing, Adrian C.

Banfield, John William

Harris, Sir Percy

Parkinson, John Allen

Batey, Joseph

Holdsworth, Herbert

Rathbone, Eleanor

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Janner, Barnett

Rea, Walter Russell

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

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Daggar, George

Lawson, John James

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

Dobbie, William

Leonard, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Logan, David Gilbert

White, Henry Graham

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Lunn, William

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Mainwaring, William Henry

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Milner, Major James

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Elmley, Viscount

Llewellin, Major John J.

Aske, Sir Robert William

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Loftus, Pierce C.

Balniel, Lord

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Fleming, Edward Lascelies

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Bateman, A. L.

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

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

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Fremantle, Sir Francis

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

Ganzoni, Sir John

McKie, John Hamilton

Blindell, James

Gibson, Charles Granville

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Bossom, A. C.

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Boulton, W. W.

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

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Glossop, C. W. H.

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

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Brass, Captain Sir William

Goff, Sir Park

Martin, Thomas B.

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Graves, Marjorie

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

Broadbent, Colonel John

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

Grimston, R. V.

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

Burghley, Lord

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

Burnett, John George

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Morrison, William Shepherd

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Hanbury, Cecil

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Carver, Major William H.

Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

Natlon, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Nunn, William

Christie, James Archibald

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

O'Connor, Terence James

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Howard, Tom Forrest

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

Conant, R. J. E.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Cooke, Douglas

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Pearson, William G.

Copeland, Ida

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

Peat, Charles U.

Cranborne, Viscount

Jamleson, Douglas

Penny, Sir George

Crooke, J. Smedley

Jennings, Roland

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

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

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Petherick, M.

Cross, R. H.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Dalkeith, Earl of

Latham, Sir Hubert Paul

Pybus, Sir John

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

Leckie, J. A.

Radford, E. A.

Dickie, John P.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

Drewe, Cedric

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ramsbotham, Herwald

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

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Eastwood, John Francis

Levy, Thomas

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Robinson, John Roland

Soper, Richard

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Ropner, Colonel L.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Tree, Ronald

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

Turton, Robert Hugh

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Stones, James

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Salmon, Sir Isldore

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Wells, Sydney Richard

Salt, Edward W.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Scone, Lord

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Slater, John

Thompson, Sir Luke

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-in-F.)

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Sir Walter Womersley and Lieut.-

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Class VI

Department of Overseas Trade

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum. not exceeding £50,950, 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 Overseas Trade, including Grants in Aid of the Imperial Institute and the Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland."

11.26 p.m.

:At this late hour the Committee will not expect me to keep them long on this supplementary Estimate. It is necessary for two reasons. First, on account of the decision of His Majesty's Government to participate in the international exhibition which is to be held at Brussels this year, and secondly, in order to give further assistance to Empire trade in the form of a grant in aid to the Imperial Institute. Imperial trade and foreign trade are thus affected by the supplementary Estimate. During the time I have been Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade I have never yet had to bring in a supplementary Estimate, nor indeed has the Estimate of my Department ever been challenged, and I am sure that this confidence continues although there is the necessity of bringing in this supplementary Estimate. Let me explain the reasons for the two decisions—to participate in the Brussels international exhibition and to give a further grant in aid to the Imperial Institute. I will take the Brussels exhibition first. It is on a very large scale. When we were first asked in 1931 to participate in the exhibition the financial stringency then prevailing caused us to give the answer that we could not partici- pate. The invitation was renewed in 1933 and on that occasion the Belgian Government were told that it was not possible for us to take part.

Last year, 1934, when the invitation was again renewed, it was decided to review our attitude; and for these reasons. In the first place there was an improvement in the financial and industrial position in this country, and, in the second place, there was the fact that no less than 18 or 20 important countries were taking part in the exhibition, including our neighbours France and Italy and other important European countries. Thirdly, in view of the recent accession of King Leopold to the throne of Belgium and the fact that the exhibition would be an outstanding event of his reign, the refusal of the British Government to participate in the exhibition might be regarded as specially ungracious. Fourthly, there are in our trade with Belgium questions of importance which arise and have to be discussed. That trade is a valuable one of £12,000,000 on either side, closely balanced. It was felt that to discuss these questions, difficult and troublesome questions as they are, in an atmosphere of having refused to participate in this important event, would not be a happy background for any such discussion. I can assure the House that there are signs that such discussions as we have had proceed on a happier basis when we are taking part in the exhibition.

I have given these four reasons why the Government decided to review their attitude. Before a decision was come to I called together a representative committee which we have for the purpose of advising the Department of Overseas Trade oh questions of official participation in overseas exhibitions and fairs. That committee is composed of certain experienced business men and official representatives from various departments, and it advised that we should participate in the exhibition. The Treasury were approached for the purpose of supplying a grant. I have been in Belgium myself this last week and have satisfied myself that the arrangements ensure worthy participation by this country. But I want to impress on the Committee that, having reached the decision to participate, it would be worse than useless to take part on an unworthy scale. That is the reason why I have to include in this Estimate a sum of £44,000 for exhibitions, which is the amount that will fall due during the present financial year in respect of the Brussels Exhibition.

I turn to the other subject which has necessitated this Supplementary Estimate, and that is the grant-in-aid of the Imperial Institute. Ever since it was founded by the late King Edward, then Prince of Wales, as a memorial of Queen Victoria's first jubilee, it has provided a very valuable link between the producers of raw materials in all parts of the Empire overseas and manufacturers of all kinds in the United Kingdom, and through its intelligence and investigating laboratory it has instituted commercial trials as the necessary preliminaries to continuous marketing. It has provided a valuable service which is appreciated in this country and in the Empire. There are two technical sections dealing with plant and animal products on the one side and minerals on the other. The Committee should be well aware of the work of the Institute. I can assure them that if they wish to make personal investigation into the work or to visit the Institute, they will be welcomed there and will be impressed with the work of the Institute in making the resources of the Empire known in this country.

:We had better not pursue that question on a Supplementary Estimate.

:I need not describe the work further to explain the reason why the estimate is necessary. The finances of the Institute were in an unsatisfactory condition. I took advice on the subject from the Departments concerned and it was decided to issue an appeal to the Dominion Governments and the Governments of the Colonies to assist the work of the Institute by further donations. The response from the Colonial Governments has been most gratifying. In many cases increases of 100 per cent. on their former donations have been granted. The Treasury have now agreed, in turn, to provide an increased grant of £6,350 that being exactly the amount of the increases offered by the Colonial Governments. Those are the two items which necessitate this Supplementary Estimate.

:I understand that the amount included in the Estimate in respect of the exhibition is merely a small sum by way of a beginning. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us any idea of what the total cost under this head will be?

:In any case it will not be more than £80,000, but the balance which is not provided for in this Estimate will be borne on the normal Estimate of the Department for next year.

11.37 p.m.

:Even at this late hour I would ask the indulgence of the Committee for a few moments to protest against this expenditure of public money. Because I do so, it might appear to some, that I am opposed to money being voted for exhibitions which are designed to help trade, but I should not like any such idea to prevail among hon. Members. I welcome any proposals for improving our trade but I would point out to the Committee that of the sum for which we are now being asked no less than £44,000 is in respect of an exhibition in Brussels—I suppose in the interests of our foreign trade—and that we are being asked to vote that sum at a time when the Government's trade policy of tariffs, quotas and embargoes is calculated to restrict and retard our foreign trade. It seems monstrous that the Government should ask for this grant in view of their general trade policy. Ministers have told us repeatedly that their eyes are on the home trade rather than on the export trade. If they were anxious for the interests of our oversea trade, they would give us a policy for the development of that oversea trade and not for its restriction. I pay my tribute to the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department for his gallant conduct at that Box in trying to explain the Government's policy and to convince us that our trade with foreign countries and with the Dominions is advancing, to however small an extent. But if we are to vote sums for purposes like this, then in Heaven's name let us have a trade policy based on common sense; let us have an open, free flow of trade and not a policy which restricts and retards. We are supposed to be an intelligent body. Are we to be asked to vote this grant while acquiescing in a policy of restricting trade?

:Has the hon. Member ever studied the trade policy of which he is a supporter? Has he ever heard of tariffs and quotas and embargoes? This exhibition is to be held in Belgium. Belgian securities are held in high repute on the London market and one object of our participation in the exhibition is to bolster up our foreign trade and presumably to facilitate dealings in Belgian and other foreign securities in this country. Does the hon. Member know that there is an embargo, by a dictator at the Treasury, against foreign loans being floated in this country? Yet we are asked solemnly to vote £44,000 for an exhibition of this country's products in Belgium. Is it not the height of idiocy? I, for one, would vote willingly £50,000 to help our trade, but when we are solemnly asked to vote money for a particular exhibition to keep our overseas trade and we know that the policy of the Government is calculated to retard that very policy, I say that is an insult to our intelligence, and I hope some other hon. Members will support me in this protest.

11.41 p.m.

:I hear some hon. Members calling out "Divide," but this is the first time I shall have spoken in this House this year. Six hours have been taken up to-day in discussing a subject which might have been dealt with in 10 minutes, and at the fag end of the evening are we not to be allowed to spend a reasonable time in discussing the all-important subject of our export trade? I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) in what he said, because, as one who knows something about export trade and who exports goods to many of the markets of the world, I can speak in the highest terms of the work of the Overseas Trade Department, a Department which is more alive to-day than it has ever been in the past 10 or 15 years. I can speak in the highest terms of its work, and—

:I must remind the hon. Member for Pudsey and Otley (Mr. Gibson) that the work of the Overseas Trade Department is not now before the Committee.

:May I ask for your Ruling, Captain Bourne, on this point, namely, whether what I am saying with reference to the work of the Overseas Trade Department cannot be taken under this Vote dealing with the remuneration of Ministers, civil servants, and expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade?

:That being the case, I bow to your Ruling, and I am exceedingly sorry that under it, apparently, I cannot deal with one or two points as to exports to Turkey and Rumania.

:Perhaps the hon. Member will postpone his remarks on that subject till we discuss the main Estimate, on which occasion they will be more appropriate than now.

:Thank you, Captain Bourne. I support whole-heartedly the Resolution before the Committee. I know that in connection with trade with Belgium there are serious difficulties at the present time, and I hope that as a result of this exhibition, in Brussels the Belgian Government may take a more reasonable view of the trade position as between this country and Belgium. They have imposed very serious quotas against us in the past. We have a comparatively free market over here, but their mills are working overtime and on double shifts in producing goods for this country, and I hope that as a result of this exhibition the Belgian Government may find it more important in the future, to influence the fostering of a freer interchange of commodities between this country and Belgium than they have done during the past year or two, when they have been restricting to a great extent the possibilities of trade by the imposition of quotas which have been very harmful to our exporters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Class II

India Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £958, 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 Contribution towards the Cost of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council, including a Grant in Aid, and a Grant in Aid of the Defence of India."

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[ Sir G. Penny. ]

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

Ways and Means

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, the sum of £8,659,450 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[ Captain Margesson. ]

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

Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 49, ss. 4 and 11.)

:I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (4).

These words were included in another place in order to avoid a question of Privilege.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

Herring Industry [Money]

Resolution reported,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a board with power to make, in consultation with the herring industry, a scheme with respect to the re-organisation, development, and regulation of the industry, for the variation or revocation of the scheme, for authorising the giving of financial assistance to and borrowing by the board, and to make other provision in connection with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient—

A.—To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

Provided that—

B.—To authorise the Treasury to remit any sum repayable by way of principal of any such advance as aforesaid as to which they are satisfied that it cannot be repaid."

Resolution agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.