Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 297: debated on Thursday 14 February 1935

House of Commons

Thursday, February 14, 1935

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

Private Business

Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

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

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Chilterns Joint Small-pox Hospital District) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Rhyl Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

South Shields Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Unemployment

Distributive Trades

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider, in his negotiations for a shorter working week, approaching employers in the distributive trades with a view to a reduction of hours of labour in wholesale and retail shops?

:In the discussions regarding the possibility of absorbing more workpeople into employment, I shall certainly keep the distributive trades in mind.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the distributive trades employ more than 2,000,000 people, and that the number of unemployed in these trades is heavier, I believe, than in any other, above all that the distributive trades are better able to make reductions in hours of labour than most industries?

:Were those interested in this side of the trade directly represented at the hours conference about a fortnight ago?

:That would depend upon the representatives from the trade who attended the conference.

Agricultural Workers

asked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to introduce legislation to bring agricultural workers within the scope of unemployment insurance?

:I have at present nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on this subject on 28th January.

Insured Persons (Sentences, Old Street Police Court)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the sentences of imprisonment passed at Old Street Police Court on three insured persons, Mr. S. F. Cox, Mr. George Burgess, and Mr. George Knight, for drawing in error sums of less than 3s. some three months ago; and whether he will immediately have these cases investigated and see if it is possible to remit the sentences.

:These persons were convicted of knowingly making false representations for the purpose of obtaining unemployment benefit, and I find on inquiry that two of them have given notice of appeal against their sentences and have been released on bail. In the third case the time within which notice of appeal may be given has not yet expired. Accordingly it would not be proper for me to intervene.

Unemployment Assistance

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the employés of the Unemployment Assistance Board are civil servants, any members of the staff and, if so, how many are now being worked at night, on Saturday afternoons and evenings, and throughout Sundays?

:In the four weeks ended 26th January, 1935, the latest date for which figures are immediately available, 2,718 members of the staff of the Unemployment Assistance Board worked hours in excess of the normal on one or more days during that period. It is not possible without further enquiry, which would involve disproportionate expenditure of time and labour, to state how many of these officers worked on Saturday afternoons, but the number is believed to be relatively small. During the same period 158 officers rendered some attendance on Sundays, but generally for a matter of a few hours only.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the employés of the Unemployment Assistance Board are civil servants, the rules of the civil service apply to all of them, especially in respect of working over time?

:Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of setting up Whitley Council machinery for the officers?

asked the Minister of Labour whether, before approving any new regulations submitted by the Unemployment Assistance Board, he will consult those chairmen of appeal tribunals who have already investigated cases referred to them, and who therefore have acquired knowledge of local conditions and of the various causes of hardship?

:When any new draft regulations are before me I propose to avail myself of this and all other sources of relevant information.

asked the Minister of Labour the difference in the aggregate amount paid in the county of Carmarthen to recipients of unemployment assistance in the first week of the operation of the now suspended regulations, and the amount disbursed to the same people in the preceding week?

:I have ventured to appeal to several hon. Members recently not to press for detailed information of this kind, at least for the present, owing to the great pressure on the staff. I hope therefore that I may have the hon. Member's concurrence in connection with this question.

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed on the registers of each of the Employment Exchanges in Carmarthenshire; and will he give in each case the number of former recipients of transitional payment who became subject to the operation of the unemployment assistance regulations?

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

Following is the reply:

The following statement shows the number of unemployed persons on the registers of each of the Employment Exchanges in Carmarthenshire at 28th January, 1935, and the numbers of insured persons who had applications for unemployment allowances authorised at that date. Corresponding figures are not available for 7th January, the date from which the Unemployment Assistance Regulations took effect.

Employment Exchange.

Total numbers aged 14 and over (insured and uninsured).

Insured persons, aged 18–64, with applications authorised for unemployment allowances.

Ammanford

799

339

Burry Port

1,065

518

Carmarthen

669

235

Garnant

1,046

632

Kidwelly

915

261

Llandilo

403

128

Llanelly

4,508

1,346

Tumble

466

152

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who are in receipt of unemployment benefits and allowances under the new board, separately, at Bridgend, Aberkenfig, Maesteg, Ogmore Vale and Pontycymmer for the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, to date?

The following Table gives the information desired for January of each year since 1931; separate statistics of the numbers of parsons with claims admitted for standard and transitional benefit, respectively, are not available for January, 1930. In view of the various changes in the conditions for the receipt of insurance benefit which came into operation in November, 1931, and July, 1934, the figures for 1931 and 1935 are not strictly comparable with those for 1932–34.

Insured persons with claims admitted.

Bridgend.

Aberkenfig.

Maesteg.

Ogmore Vale.

Pontycymmer.

26th January, 1931:

Insurance Benefit

712

310

1,147

324

344

Transitional Benefit

301

346

824

274

343

25th January, 1932:

Insurance Benefit

475

222

1,210

178

536

Transitional Payments

393

460

2,726

406

481

23rd January, 1933:

Insurance Benefit

402

213

520

1,127

469

Transitional Payments

681

548

3,300

515

788

22nd January, 1934:

Insurance Benefit

328

165

268

150

357

Transitional Payments

701

569

2,679

755

1,088

28th January, 1935:

Insurance Benefit

500

136

445

145

268

Unemployment Allowances

605

540

2,130

654

835

asked the Minister of Health whether the postponement of the second appointed day will deprive the disabled ex-Service men who would have come under the Unemployment Assistance Board on the 1st March of the concession as to the disregarding or ignoring the first £1 of their disability pension?

:The date of the operation of this provision remains unaltered.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions he purposes making to reimburse local authorities for payments of relief granted to persons who would have been transferred to the Unemployment Assistance Board on 1st March, but who are at present chargeable to public assistance committees?

:I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to questions by the hon. Members for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirk-wood) and Walsall (Mr. Leckie).

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

Following is the reply:

:In view of the fact that local authorities have made provision in their budgets for the second appointed day being the 1st March, and that the postponement will involve a considerable cost to the rates, does not my right hon. Friend think that the cost involved by this further postponement, which is in no way due to any fault of the local authorities, should be borne by the Exchequer?

:I have already stated that I am going to discuss with the local authorities the terms of compensation.

Exchange Facilities, Kimberley

asked the Minister of Labour the reason why unemployed females at Kimberley, Nottinghamshire, are compelled to walk or ride to Ilkeston, a distance of six miles altogether, costing 1s. 6d. a week if they ride, for the purpose of signing the register, seeing that there is an Exchange at Kimberley?

:There is no Exchange at Kimberley, and the temporary outhouse which has been opened for the unemployed miners cannot accommodate women claimants. The cost of a return ticket by rail to Ilkeston which is three miles away is 3d. and attendances are timed so as to fit in with the train service: the number of weekly attendances is either two or three, according to circumstances.

Hotel and Catering Industry

asked the Minister of Labour whether there are any unfilled vacancies for women workers, especially in the hotel and catering industry; and whether there is any shortage of domestic servants at the present time?

:There are a certain number of vacancies in some occupations in the hotel and catering industry, particularly for resident workers, for which the applicants immediately available on the register are not regarded by the employers as suitable, and which therefore may remain unfilled for a period. There is also difficulty in filling vacancies for some classes of resident domestic servants. Special attention is being paid to both these classes of occupation with a view to meeting the shortages both by training and by transfer.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that they would get more people into the hotels and restaurants if they controlled the hours of working?

Questions

International Labour Office

asked the Minister of Labour who represented His Majesty's Government at the recent sessions of the governing body of the International Labour Office; what decisions were taken; and what was the position of His Majesty's Government as regards these decisions?

:As the reply to the hon. Member is necessarily long, I propose, if I may, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Children Act (Remand Homes)

asked the Home Secretary what progress has been made in connection with the provision of remand homes under the Children Act, 1933; and how many areas remain at the present time without adequate provision?

:Many local authorities have had this question under consideration and several schemes for the co-operation of adjoining authorities have been completed or are in course of preparation. The problem is not easy of solution in areas where there is only a small number of persons for whom accommodation is likely to be required, but on the whole satisfactory progress appears to have been made. I am unable to answer the latter part of the question in detail, but the question of collecting further information will be considered at a later date.

Ninian Park Football Ground, Cardiff

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the serious statement of the Chief Constable for Cardiff that the Ninian Park association football ground, Cardiff, is not safe to accommodate more than 25,000 persons; and, in that 40,000 persons and more visit the ground on occasions, he will institute an inquiry in the interest of public safety?

:Yes, Sir; I have seen the report made by the Chief Constable to his Watch Committee, and I have already communicated with the Welsh Football Association in the matter, and asked for an assurance that the association will take any steps in their power to ensure that suggestions made by the Chief Constable will receive full consideration by the ground authority.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the directors are prepared to do all they possibly can in this matter, but feel very unhappy that the Chief Constable should have made this statement without first passing on the observation to them?

Motor Works, Dagenham (Accident)

asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with the death of a man and serious injuries to other workmen when a fire broke out at Ford's works, Dagenham, Essex; whether the comments made by the jury at the inquest have been brought to his notice; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

:Yes, Sir. The accident appears to have been due to an escape of gas in connection with some repairs, the gas being blown by a strong wind through the door of the boiler house, and the jury suggested that greater precautions should be taken in future when carrying out such operations as were undertaken on the occasion in question. What exactly would be the best preventive measures is now being explored by the firm's expert advisers in consultation with the Factory Department.

Betting and Lotteries Act

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that chief constables are enforcing the law with regard to small lotteries in a more stringent manner than was the custom before the passing of the Betting and Lotteries Act; and whether this is due to action taken by his Department?

:Parliament has recently revised the law relating to lotteries and it is the duty of chief officers of Police to enforce the law when contraventions of it come to their notice. In reply to the second part of the question, I have no power to give directions to the police as to the manner in which they should enforce the law, but I have caused their attention to be drawn to the provisions of the new Act.

:Is it not utterly absurd that people should be stopped from going in for small lotteries of 6d. or 1s.?

:When is the right hon. Gentleman going to codify the betting law, so that it will be comprehensive and apply equally to all sections of the community?

Education

Appointment, Flintshire

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the conduct of the chairman of a meeting of school managers in Flintshire, who questioned candidates for a vacancy as to their politics and family circumstances, and publicly stated that he would have no Socialists in the school and that all members of the staff must be Conservative, and Churchpeople; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

:I understand that a letter has been sent by the local education authority concerned to the chairman of the managers of a public elementary school in the county raising objection to certain questions which it was alleged had been addressed by him to candidates at a meeting of the managers which was called to fill a Vacancy in the staff of the school. In so far as inquiries addressed to candidates on such occasions have any reference to their political views, or are otherwise irrelevant, they are, I need hardly say, highly improper. In view of the action that has been taken by the authority concerned, and as I understand that the authority has since consented to the appointment of the selected candidate, who possessed the necessary educational qualifications, I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by any further action in the matter.

:Am I to understand that no word of censure is to be addressed to this chairman, Lord Mostyn; and, further, cannot the hon. Gentleman take some steps to ensure that in all these cases character and qualifications shall be the main test in a man's appointment, and that a teacher's politics, whether Conservative or Socialist, shall not be allowed to influence his appointment to a situation?

:That is perfectly well known. I have already expressed the opinion that this action was highly improper.

Infant Classes

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many children under five years of age are in infant classes of elementary schools?

:On the 31st March, 1934, the number of children under five years of age in public elementary schools maintained by local education authorities was 155,175.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are 1,750,000 children between two and five years of age, and will he press on the Government the necessity of having a five-year plan for children and getting as many as possible into open-air nursery schools, thereby saving thousands of pounds to the country in medical inspection when it is too late to have them inspected?

:Can the hon. Gentleman give us any reason why these nursery schools are not more keenly supported by the Government?

:Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the building programme of nursery schools in Glamorganshire is being held up?

:Will the Minister also say that there has been a good deal of trouble in getting local authorities to co-operate? They wanted to open a nursery school in South Wales, but could not on account of the Communists there.

Nursery Schools

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the strong recommendation in favour of nursery schools made by Sir George Newman in his report on the health of the school child, he will endeavour to provide nursery schools in connection with all schemes for the clearance of slum areas?

:As indicated on page 64 of Sir George Newman's report for 1933, the provision of nursery schools on new housing estates, where the housing conditions are presumably satisfactory, is a less urgent matter than their provision in areas where the housing conditions are seriously defective. My Noble Friend is, however, prepared to consider on their merits proposals for the provision of nursery schools on new housing estates where the inhabitants have previously been living under specially bad conditions, and where consequently the social conditions may be particularly unfavourable.

:Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the majority of children now living on the new housing estates have had nursery schools available to them in their old slums, and that in the vast majority of cases those children, who have been trained in the nursery schools, are now losing what was a very valuable acquisition in their young lives?

:Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how very few nursery schools there are in the country?

Unemployed Teachers

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has any information he can give as to the number of unemployed teachers in Great Britain?

:The Board of Education receive information from the Training College authorities regarding the employment of certificated teachers who leave the colleges each year, but there is no information available regarding the total number of teachers in England and Wales who may be seeking employment at any given moment.

:In view of the fact that there are large numbers of teachers unemployed, is it not possible for the Board of Education to ascertain the numbers who are available for employment and cannot get it?

:It is extremely difficult to ascertain that, because so many teachers may be teaching in non-State-aided schools and others may not be seeking employment in the teaching profession. So far as my information goes, there is less unemployment in the teaching profession than in most other professions.

:How does the number of unemployed teachers in this country this year compare with the number, say, in 1931? Is it more or less?

Questions

Public Utility Companies (Staff Pensions)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that public utility companies are not allowed to formulate a staff pension scheme unless powers for this purpose are obtained by Act of Parliament; and whether he will consider, with a view to encouraging the creation of pension funds, introducing legislation to give general powers for this purpose to public utility companies?

:As regards the first part of the question, public utility companies set up under the Companies Acts can take powers to formulate pension schemes by means of their Memorandum and Articles of Association. Companies incorporated by private Acts generally obtain such powers from Parliament. Companies for the supply of gas can also obtain the powers by Special Order of the Board of Trade. Any local authority to whom the Local Government and Other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922, applies may, with my approval, admit to their scheme officers or servants of any undertakers exercising statutory powers within the area of the local authority. As regards the second part of the question, my hon. Friend will see that the position is already largely covered, and I cannot promise general legislation on the subject.

:Is the Minister aware that the cost of obtaining a Private Bill in this matter is in the neighbourhood of £200, which is quite a lot of money for a small company; and does he not think that in order to assist these small companies the Government might introduce legislation?

:No, Sir. My hon. Friend will see from the terms of my reply that a very large part of the area is covered without the necessity of promoting a Private Bill.

:Do limited liability companies possess this power, and, if so, why should there be a differentiation between the two?

Public Health

Town Planning, Manchester (Public Services)

asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to ensure that the town planning of the area within a 10-mile radius of Manchester takes proper account of the possible future co-ordination of all the public services within that area?

:One of the functions of the Manchester and District Joint Town Planning Advisory Committee is expressed as being "to secure the co-ordination of any area schemes dealing with public utility services," and a subcommittee of that committee has been appointed to consider the general question of sewerage, drainage and sewage disposal for the area of the Advisory Committee on a regional basis.

Vaccination

asked the Minister of Health the wording of the instruction to public vaccinators under contract which either directs or permits a public vaccinator to call on a parent who has been convicted and fined under the Vaccination Act and offer to vaccinate the child in question; whether, if public vaccinators are instructed or permitted to make such visits, they have to give 24 hours' notice; where, in the instructions to public vaccinators under contract, can this requirement be found; and, if they can visit in such cases without giving 24 hours' notice, why must they give this notice on their first visit?

:There is no such instruction as is mentioned in the first part of the question, but, as I informed the hon. Member in reply to his question of the 29th. January, I am advised that visits such as he refers to do not contravene the vaccination law. As regards the latter parts of the question, 24 hours' notice is required only in connection with the visit which the public vaccinator is directed to pay under Section 1 (3) of the Vaccination Act, 1898. Visits which are made voluntarily are subject to no rules.

Maternal Mortality

asked the Minister of Health how many cases of maternal mortality, in the period covered by the latest available official figures, are known to have a previous history of abortion or attempted abortion?

:If my Noble Friend is referring to cases in which abortion had taken place, or had been attempted, in connection with pregnancies preceding the fatal pregnancy, I am afraid there are no figures available. But if the reference is to cases of abortion, or attempted abortion, in connection with fatal pregnancy, I may say that the total of 2,618 cases of maternal mortality in England and Wales in 1933 (deaths classified to pregnancy and child-bearing) comprises 378 deaths attributable to abortion (including miscarriage), namely, 257 classified to post-abortive sepsis, and 121 classified to abortion not returned as septic. There were, in addition, 97 deaths not classified to puerperal causes but returned as associated with abortion or miscarriage; and 85 deaths classified to criminal abortion on a coroner's certificate.

:When questions are put on the subject of maternal mortality will my right hon. Friend remind hon. Members who put them that it is not only a question of lack of nutrition but that there are many other things connected with the subject that up to this time have not received sufficient attention?

:Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something through his Department to spread a knowledge of scientific birth control?

Metropolitan Water Board (Holly Lodge Site)

27 and 48.

(1) asked the Minister of Health whether his Department was consulted by the Metropolitan Water Board before selecting the Holly Lodge site for the purposes of water storage to the exclusion of alternative possibilities higher up the Thames Valley or elsewhere;

(2)the Lord President of the Council whether the Geological Survey of Great Britain was consulted by the Metropolitan Water Board before deciding upon the Holly Lodge site for the purposes of water storage to the exclusion of alternative possibilities higher up the Thames Valley or elsewhere?

:My Ministry and the Geological Survey were not consulted before this site was selected, but the board had at their disposal the memoirs and maps dealing with the Thames Valley published by the Geological Survey.

Smoke Abatement

asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to set up a committee to investigate and report upon any measures likely to be used to abate nuisances which may arise from the use of pulverised fuel; and whether, if that committee is set up, special consideration will be given to the abatement of nuisances arising in connection with generating stations and other statutory undertakings?

:I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the question of the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 31st January.

Economic Advisory Council (Memorandum)

asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to publish the report of the president of the Royal Society and other scientists that was made to the Government last year on the nutrition of children and kindred subjects?

:I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a memorandum submitted last year by the Economic Advisory Council. This document was intended to be confidential and will not be published. Substantial effect is being given to the committee's recommendations by the appointment, jointly by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, of a committee to advise on certain aspects of this question.

:Is it not a fact that this inquiry was into the nutrition of certain sections of the population, and is there any reason why it should be secret?

:It is one of the inquiries that I ask for from time to time to be undertaken by the Economic Advisory Council, which the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well from his own experience makes reports on condition that they will not be published unless with its further consent. The report that was given was a very important one, a very interesting one at any rate, and it has been referred for further inquiry in certain of its more important points.

:It was perfectly possible to eliminate any matters that were confidential. Is it not of great importance that the findings of these scientists on the matter should be made public?

:The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the conditions under which the inquiries are made. If it were subjected to eliminating and pruning, the report that we published would not be the report originally given. The matter is under consideration.

Housing

Rent Restrictions Act

asked the Minister of Health what protection is afforded by his Department to a tenant of a house which is actually controlled but against which a certificate of decontrol is issued by a local authority upon instructions of the county court?

:The certificate to which the hon. Member refers is merely a certificate of registration of a claim that a house is decontrolled. It is specifically provided that such a certificate shall not be received as evidence on the issue whether or not the house is in fact decontrolled. That issue is a legal one to be determined by the court.

Slum Clearance (Silvertown)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the situation with regard to the slum-clearance programme in Silvertown, West Ham; whether his Department will undertake a separate investigation in county boroughs where conditions are bad; whether he will use his powers to see that borough councils undertake adequate slum-clearance programmes, so that the worst slums are cleared and not left standing after the programmes have been completed; and will he use his powers in the same way with regard to overcrowding?

:My attention has been drawn to this matter. The programme of slum-clearance submitted by this council is making satisfactory progress. The question whether an increase of the programme in this or other county boroughs is necessary is undoubtedly a matter for the most careful consideration. The administration of the Bill now before Parliament, if it should become law, will be on the same lines as the administration of the Act of 1930.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman ask some of the slum property owners to co-operate with the council and not to put obstacles in the way.

Questions

Rating and Valuation Act

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recent proposal of the Saddleworth Urban District Council to withhold payment of a precept to the West Riding County Council as a protest against the unfair operation upon itself and certain other district authorities in the West Riding of Section 9 (2, c ) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925; and whether he is prepared to relieve urban district authorities, having within their areas reservoirs belonging to outside authorities, of the obligation to pay to the county authorities more in respect of the reservoirs than they receive in rates from the owning outside authorities?

:I am acquainted with the position in this urban district but was not aware that the council were proposing to withhold payment of a precept. I have no power to authorise a departure from the law. Legislation would be required and I can make no promise at the present time on this matter.

:Is it not a fact that Section 9 (2, c ) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, is intended to establish a balance of burden between the rural and urban districts and that that balance has since been destroyed by the Local Government Act, 1929; and is it not therefore extremely desirable that the Minister should introduce legislation as soon as may be in order to remove this injustice to urban districts?

:I should hesitate to accept the deductions which the hon. Gentleman has drawn as I think they are rather matters of argument.

Lancashire County Council (Finance)

asked the Minister of Health the amount of money held in reserve by the Lancashire County Council?

:According to a return furnished to my Department by the county council of Lancaster the balances in hand at the 31st March, 1934, in the rate fund account of the council, amounted to £1,515,785.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the county council that a very good way to expend a little of that money would be to lighten the burden at present pressing upon the ratepayers?

:My hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt be aware that there are many purposes for which such a reserve fund is required.

National Finance

Imported Motor-Cars

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that there was an increase of £2,100,000 in the imports of motor-cars from the United States into this country in the past year, largely due to the reduction of the horsepower tax on motorcars, he will consider the limitation of this concession to British cars only?

:I cannot identify my hon. Friend's figure, unless he is referring to the total exports of vehicles of British manufacture, which have, in the past year, increased by the amount he quotes. The right figure for his purpose is roughly £700,000, and I would refer my hon. Friend to a reply given on 6th November last by the Financial Secretary to questions by the hon. Members for Bradford East (Mr. Hepworth) and Hanley (Mr. Hales).

:Is it not a fact that there is an enormous increase in the importation of foreign motor-cars into this country, and will His Majesty's Government take some steps to safeguard the industry here?

Income Tax (Messrs. Strauss & Co.)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what sums are outstanding in regard to Income Tax and Super-Tax due to the Exchequer from Messrs. Strauss and Company, Limited?

:No, Sir. I am unable to disclose information regarding the liability to taxation of a particular taxpayer.

:May I ask the Financial Secretary whether there is not, apparently, some discrepancy between the amount of money that is owing by very rich firms and the pressure which is brought to bear upon, poor people; and whether some action ought not to be taken by the Treasury?

Expenditure

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will indicate what expenditure has been incurred by the Government during the present financial year for which provision was not sufficiently made in the Budget; and whether he will give details of the items, including commitments for future expenditure, to which the Government may become liable in the next financial year?

:As regards the first part of the question, I must ask the hon. Member to wait until next week, when I hope the last of the Supplementary Estimates will be available. As regards the second part of the question, if the hon. Member will put down a further question in due course, related to the published Estimates, I will endeavour to answer it so far as it may be possible to do so without anticipating my Budget statement.

Questions

Royal Mint (Silver Jubilee Medals)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the series of resolutions he has received, adopted by the Birmingham Jewellers' Association at its meeting on the 11th instant, which embodied protests against the action of the Royal Mint in manufacturing Silver Jubilee medals for sale to the public through ordinary trade channels, whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage competition by a Department of the State against private enterprise in this branch of productive industry?

:The answer is in the negative. The medals to which my hon. Friend refers are the official commemorative medals which have invariably been struck at the Royal Mint on similar occasions in the past, such as the 1887 and 1897 Jubilees. Moreover, on the present occasion the operations of the Mint have been deliberately confined to the production of medals in gold and silver, leaving the production of medals in bronze, etc., which on former occasions had been undertaken by the Mint itself, to private enterprise.

:Does that mean that no consideration at all can be given to the representations made by the Birmingham Jewellers' Association on this matter, which involves the possibility of giving employment to so many people?

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Royal Mint is circumscribed on this occasion, and why he is not following the precedent of previous occasions?

:Has not the right hon. Gentleman stated, in answer to this question, that the Royal Mint does not intend on this occasion to issue certain medals which were issued on previous occasions?

:I made a distinction between medals in gold and silver and medals of other nature. The former, which have always been made by the Mint, will also be made by the Mint on this occasion, but the others, on this occasion, are being left to private enterprise.

:Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to limit the number of medals placed on the market?

:No, Sir; it is His Majesty's wish that as many of his subjects as possible shall have the opportunity of buying them.

:Is it the intention to issue the various currencies and medals in boxes, for the convenience of collectors?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the subsidy provided by the Treasury for the operation of the Royal Mint in the last financial year, and the loss which has been sustained by that Department during the financial years 1932–33 and 1933–34?

:My hon. Friend appears to be under some misapprehension. The Royal Mint, like any other Department of State, is in receipt of a Parliamentary grant, which amounted in the financial year 1932 to £150,000, of which, however, no part was drawn; and in the financial year 1933 to £150,000 again, of which £74,021 was drawn. The purpose of these grants, as my hon. Friend will see by studying the details of the Estimate, was to finance the redemption at face value of surplus silver coins from various parts of the Empire. So far from making a loss on its operations, the Mint usually makes a considerable profit, which reduces the sum which Parliament would otherwise have to provide for keeping our currency in good order.

:Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer assure the House that no part of the Parliamentary grant will be employed in strengthening the competitive power of the Mint as against private enterprise?

:Might not this medal business be handed over to the City, so that they could have a little gamble on it, as they do with pepper and other things?

Contributory Pensions

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause to be made an inquiry with the object of establishing the possibility, or otherwise, of the payment of pensions of £1 a week at the age of 60, on a contributory basis, to those workers who are qualified under existing law to receive old age pensions, and the cost to the State of one-third of the total cost thereof?

:If the age at which contributory pensions are paid were reduced from 65 to 60, and their amount were increased to £1 a week, the additional cost involved (including non-contributory pensions to persons over 70 which cannot be separated from contributory), would be about £120,000,000 a year. There would be a further increase of cost of over £9,000,000 a year if it were necessary to increase the pensions of widows over 60. As regards the effect and possibilities of securing further contributions towards such a scheme, I would refer the hon. Member to a reply given on the 16th November, 1932 (of which I am sending him a copy), by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question by the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Crooke).

:Does that calculation take into account the amount of money that would be saved by way of unemployment benefit?

:In view of the large number of questions on this subject, the difficulty of getting accurate information, and the importance of the subject owing to the increasing age of the population, would the right hon. Gentleman consider instituting an inquiry into the possibility of producing a workable scheme of retiring pensions?

:I think the figures I have quoted indicate that an inquiry would show that it was not possible.

:Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a jolly good way of getting a better distribution of wealth?

Canada (Municipal Loans)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether in view of the statement of the Premier of Ontario that the proposed defaults by Canadian municipalities have been caused by their having had to accept loans from lenders, he will, in order to prevent a repetition of the proposed defaults owing to loans being forced upon Canadian municipalities, confer with the London Stock Exchange with a view to withholding quotations from future Canadian municipal loans unless accepted by the borrowers with the consent of the Canadian Dominion authorities?

:According to the information in my possession, no statement such as that mentioned in the question was made by the Premier of Ontario, and none of the Ontario Municipal Loans issued or quoted in London are in default. I think my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the situation will be watched as may be necessary by the market without assistance from the Treasury.

Trade and Commerce

Sumach

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of sumach which was imported into this country during the last six months of 1934; how much thereof was charged duty; how much thereof was imported free of duty; and how much thereof came from Empire sources?

:The quantity of sumach imported into this country in the last six months of 1934 was approximately 24,930 cwts., of which about 1,850 cwts. were admitted duty free under the exemption in favour of unground sumach leaves and about 4,210 cwts. as the produce of Empire sources. The balance would be chargeable with duty.

Shipping Subsidies

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to call an international conference on shipping subsidies on the initiative of the British Government or otherwise; and whether this question was considered at the recent international conference of shipping companies on the subject of rationalisation?

:The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Import Duties (Dried and Condensed Milk)

asked the President of the Board of Trade under what trade agreement we are debarred from imposing a duty on dried and condensed milk?

:The imposition of duties on imports of dried and condensed milk from foreign countries is not precluded by any trade agreement, and such imports are in fact already subject to duty. Under the agreements concluded at Ottawa in 1932, the Dominions concerned enjoy the right of free entry for their milk products for a period of three years.

:Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that in answer to me the other day the Minister of Agriculture said that there was definitely an agreement whereby tariffs were precluded from being put into the reference to the commission to inquire into milk?

:Information relating to an answer given by my right hon. Friend should be asked for from him.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman convey this information to the Minister of Agriculture so that the terms of reference to the Milk Commission can be widened accordingly?

Subsidies and Financial Assistance

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the benefit received by each separate industry as a result of direct and indirect grants from the Exchequer, relief from taxation or in any other way, due to Government action, during the year 1934 or during 12 months from the most recent convenient date?

:I fear that it would be an impossible task to allocate as between particular industries the benefit derived from general relief of taxation and the many modifications, both upwards and downwards, in Customs duties and drawbacks. I will, however, have prepared, and will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible, a statement in respect of the current year, similar to that given in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) on the 6th March last.

Agriculture

Cattle Prices

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the best steers and maiden heifers were sold last week at prices ranging between 31s. and 36s. per cwt.; and whether, pending the introduction of the Government's long-range policy, he can arrange that the temporary subsidy shall bring a return of not less than 45s. per cwt. to the producer?

:I have been asked to reply. With regard to the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend's information is that the average price of cattle of the quality referred to by my hon. Friend in respect of the week ending 6th February was 35s. 11d. per live cwt. My right hon. Friend regrets that it is not possible for him to make any such arrangement as that suggested in the last part of the question.

:If the 5s. subsidy does not result in a higher price, surely a larger subsidy is necessary?

Bacon Development Scheme

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that many sound concerns, anxious to start bacon-curing factories, will not risk doing so until they have obtained a licence from the Pig Industry Development Board, which is not yet in existence; and if he will, therefore, set up the board at the earliest possible moment?

:The draft Bacon Development Scheme, which was submitted to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, is still under consideration. My right hon. Friends appreciate the position in which firms, who contemplate establishing or extending bacon factories, are placed, but they regret that they are not at present in a position to make any announcement with regard to the draft scheme.

:Will my hon. and gallant Friend urge upon the Minister that this decision should be made as soon as possible, and the board set up at the earliest possible moment?

Ribbon Development

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when the legislation to combat ribbon-building will be introduced?

:I am not in a position to add to what I have already said in reply to questions on this subject.

:Is my right hon. Friend not aware that virtually the same answer has been given three times, to various hon. Members, and cannot he minimise delay, as harm may be done which may not be redressed for half a century?

:Will the right hon. Gentleman go down the Great West Road, where he will realise that, if he does not hurry, it will be of no use?

:Can the Prime Minister give us any indication as to when he will be able to give us some kind of answer to this question, which has been put down very often already? The subject is a very important one.

:I quite agree, and, as I say, I am hurrying it up as quickly as I possibly can.

Questions

Air Defence Measures

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the extensive preparations being made in France, Italy, Germany, Russia, Poland, and all other European countries for the protection of the civil population against aerial attacks by means of provision of gas masks and bomb-proof shelters, he will state when it is proposed to give similar protection and instruction to the people of this country as to the action to be taken in the event of attack?

:I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on the 1st November last.

:Was not information on this subject promised last summer? Is it not right that the people of this country should be in the same position as people on the Continent?

:Can we be given any idea which nation is going to drop the bomb that will make this necessary?

Don Drainage Scheme

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the nature of the reply sent to the Bentley-with-Arksey urban district council with regard to the dispute existing between the Ouse Catchment Board and the Minister of Agriculture as to the apportionment of the cost of the scheme for draining the River Don?

:It is understood that the question of the acceptance of the grant offered by the Government is being given further consideration by the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board at their meeting on 27th February, and in these circumstances no answer beyond an acknowledgment has been sent to the letter to which the hon. Member refers.

Companies (Compulsory Winding-Up)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the figures relating to the losses sustained by shareholders and creditors arising out of the compulsory winding-up of companies, both private and public, for the three past years ended 31st December, 1934, or the nearest convenient date?

:I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available.

Motor Insurance

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the recent failure of the Anglian Insurance Company and to the losses of the policy holders therein, he will introduce legislation making it compulsory for this class of insurance company to deposit with the Board of Trade a substantial cash security, with a view to protecting the interests of the various parties concerned?

:Companies transacting motor insurance business are required by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to make a deposit of £15,000. The main purpose of this deposit is to provide a measure of check on companies entering this class of business without resources, and its adequacy, from this point of view, will be considered when amending legislation is under consideration.

Scotland

Lenzie Academy (Rector)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the resolution adopted by the Dumbarton County Council requesting the education committee of the council to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to set up an inquiry into the recent transfer and reduction of the rector of Lenzie Academy; and whether he can now take steps to expedite such an inquiry?

:I am aware of the terms of the resolution referred to. But as no communication from the education committee of Dumbarton County Council has yet been received by the Department, it is not open to my right hon. Friend to take any steps in the matter at the moment.

:In the event of no communication being sent from the education committee with the request of the county council, will the hon. Gentleman take some action in the matter so as to dispose of the agitation in the district, and especially the concern of the parents?

:I think in the absence of any communication from the relevant local authority no action can be taken.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that secondary education under the public authority in this area has practically come to a standstill and that his Department is responsible for paying grants in that area on the basis of efficient education being carried on; and, in view of all those facts, does he tell us that he has no right to intervene in a matter which is a public scandal?

:These supplementary questions do not arise out of the question on the Paper. The question on the Paper deals entirely with observations made by the county council. The hon. Member is entering a much larger field. Before I enter into it by way of answer, the question must be put on the Paper.

:My question arose out of the reply of the Under-Secretary, which presumably related to the original question. Is he aware that he replied that he had no locus for intervening in the matter unless he was approached by the local authority? I am asking him; is it a fact that he is due to pay grants to this area and that education has come to a standstill. Does his Department propose to continue paying grants for no education?

:I can only repeat that before that question is answered it must be put down on the Paper and not be asked as a supplementary to a question which deals with a supposed request to set up an inquiry which has not yet reached us?

:Is it the case that the education committee of this council is capable of overturning the desires of the elected representatives of the county council itself?

:On that point the education committee is constituted in accordance with the administrative scheme of the country.

Milk Marketing Scheme

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the smallholders at Gagie, in Angus, and also some of the holders at Lintrose, Angus, have suffered considerable loss owing to the working of the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme; and whether, seeing that these dairy holdings have been rented more highly than the other holdings, he will consider calling a special session of the Land Court to consider the necessity of making an immediate reduction of rent in these particular cases?

:With regard to the first part of the question, no information has been received by my right hon. Friend as to the effect of the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme upon the returns of the holders referred to: with regard to the second part, it has been open to any of the smallholders at Gagie since the year 1928, and it is now open to them to make application to the Land Court for a revision of their rent. The settlement at Lintrose has not yet been in existence for seven years. My right hon. Friend has no information before him which would make it seem necessary for him to consider the question of altering the ordinary procedure.

:If information is submitted to show the hardship that is being inflicted on these people, will the hon. Gentleman consider it?

:Any information dealing with land settlement will, of course, be most carefully considered by the Department and by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will invite the Milk Reorganisation Commission to give its first attention to the exceptional difficulties that have arisen in the East of Scotland in the working of the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme; and whether he will invite the Commission to consider the advisability of issuing an interim report dealing with the position of level producers and producer retailers in the East of Scotland?

:As stated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 18th December, of which I am sending him a copy, he can rest assured that the Commission will give due attention to the situation in the East of Scotland. It will be open to the Commission to submit an interim report if, on consideration of the evidence, such action is deemed advisable.

Special Areas

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has had any report from the commissioner for the special areas in Scotland with reference to any schemes recommended by him?

:The commissioner has been in active communication with Government Departments and local authorities in regard to a number of schemes for the economic development and social improvement of the special areas in Scotland, and preliminary reports regarding his plans have been received. The commissioner hopes to issue a statement on the subject in the near future.

:Could the hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when these schemes will be put into operation?

Questions

Naval and Military Pensions and Grants

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state the number of cases in which the allowance to the orphan children of those who lost their lives in the Great War have been withdrawn on their attaining the age of 21, and the saving per annum to the country consequent on the stoppage of these allowances?

:Children's allowances normally cease at the age of 16. In about 45,000 cases extensions of the allowance for varying periods beyond the age of 16 have been granted on the three grounds of incapacity, education or apprenticeship. No separate record is kept of the number of payments which cease at the age of 21.

:Can the Minister say how many years beyond the age of 16 the incapacity pension or allowance is granted; does it cease at 21, or does it carry on as long as incapacity lasts?

:Incapacity pensions were not mentioned in the original question at all. Normally they cease at 21, but under the existing arrangements some of them are carried on beyond the age of 21.

:May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether, in view of the saving of £1,750,000 in his Department last year, caused through the death of war pensioners, he will reconsider the possibility of continuing these allowances to orphan children?

:There is no truth in the statement that £1,750,000 has been lost through the death of war pensioners, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.

Kenya (Europeans' "Privileged Position.")

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the correspondence which passed with the Government of Kenya Colony and/or the chairman of the Morris Carter Land Commission in December, 1932, with reference inter alia to the right of natives to acquire or occupy certain lands in Kenya, may be published as a White Paper?

:It would be contrary to well-established practice to publish confidential correspondence between the Secretary of State and Governors. But the facts are as stated in my answer to the hon. Member on the 18th of December.

The sixth term of reference to the Land Commission was as follows:

I authorised the Governor in reply to inform the chairman that the "privileged position" in question involved: reference. This statement was also communicated to the commission by the Governor.

:Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his instruction completely vitiates the report of the commission, and, in these circumstances, does not he think that the correspondence might be placed in the Library for the information of Members?

:There are two perfectly distinct points. The first is, as the whole House will agree, that confidential correspondence between the Secretary of State and Governors should obviously be treated as confidential; otherwise, no Governor and no Secretary of State could have correspondence at all. As regards the second allegation, there is not a vestige of truth in it. The definition of the White Highlands, which is the same definition which has been accepted for 30 years in practice, can no more be held to be prejudicing the issue before the Commission than if somebody said how many horses there ought to be in a field and you were asked to define a horse, and you gave an accurate definition of a horse.

:Is it not a fact that by the terms of reference Europeans should be in a privileged position, and that now, owing to the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation, no one but Europeans has any right to land at all?

:The position is perfectly simple. For 30 years the White Highlands have been an area in which Europeans have had a privileged position. The case is perfectly fair, and since it was re-stated in the White Paper in 1923, every Government has always accepted it, and there has been no change in that position.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it was that these secret instructions were either not mentioned in the report or communicated to the House until they were extracted a month ago?

:The hon. and gallant Gentleman is very suspicious. If I had been asked any question about it, I should have been perfectly willing to state it at any time. There is nothing in the least secret about the matter. The chairman of the commission asked for a simple definition of the privileged position. He was given a definition, which anyone in the House acquainted with the situation for the last 30 years will agree is a perfectly correct statement of what the position has been. I do not know what else could be wanted.

:The second term in the right hon. Gentleman's explanation does in fact constitute a serious alteration in policy in that it prevents natives from continuing in occupation of land of which they may before have been in occupation?

:It does not do so in the least. If the right hon. Gentleman will make himself acquainted with the policy followed out by his own Government, and will compare the definition given with the White Paper of 1923, he will see that the statement I made is merely a statement of the position which has existed for 30 years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has asked, or intends to ask, for the comments of the Government of India on the text of the proposed Order-in-Council defining native reserves and European highlands in Kenya?

:I shall, of course, be prepared to consider any representations which may be received from the Government of India, but I think it well to point out that the effect of the proposed Order-in-Council, so far as the White Highlands are concerned, will be merely to confirm what has been an administrative practice for the past quarter of a century. This practice was formally reconfirmed by His Majesty's Government in the White Paper of 1923, Cmd. 1922, and has not been challenged by any successive Government.

:Will not the proposed Order-in-Council abrogate the general agreement of 1923, and should not the Government of India be consulted?

:Surely, the simple position is: What is the practice? The practice for over 25 years has been that the allocation of agricultural land in the White Highlands should be confined to Europeans. Every Government, including two Labour Govern- ments, have been pledged to that practice, and to alter it would be a breach of faith.

:Is it not a fact that, however favourably the right hon. Gentleman promises to consider any Indian suggestions the Order-in-Council definitely excludes Indians from having any rights in the White Highlands?

:Certainly, and that is the policy which the hon. Gentleman's two Governments constantly carried out.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his action in giving secret instructions to the Morris Carter Commission additional to those contained in the report and published at the time, was taken with the knowledge and approval of His Majesty's Government?

:On a point of Order. Before this question is answered, may I ask if it is in order for an hon. Member to make allegations against a Minister such as are contained in this question without having the statement confirmed beforehand?

:The question contains a statement,

"whether his action in giving secret instructions to the Morris Carter Commission."

Does not that presuppose that he has taken such action, and my point of Order is to ask if an hon. Member is allowed to make allegations of this kind, which may have serious consequences in Kenya as well as in India, without having them first confirmed?

:As the hon. Member was informed in reply to his question of the 18th of December, no supplementary instruction, secret or other, was issued to the Land Commission. If he is referring to the definition of the term "privileged position" of Europeans, the answer which I have just given shows that in complying with the chairman's request for a definition, I was studiously careful to avoid anything which could possibly be construed into an instruction to the commission regarding the recommendations which they were charged to make.

:Is not this an instruction?

"I caused the Chairman to be informed .… that no person other than a European shall be entitled to acquire by grant or transfer agricultural land in such area or to occupy land therein."

:No, Sir. If the hon. and gallant Member, instead of making careful selections from my answer, will read to the House the whole of the answer that I gave on the 18th December, and the answer I have given to-day, it will be seen that what was given to the chairman of the commission was a simple definition, which no one could possibly reject as a reasonable definition in view of 30 years' practice, and that there was no sort of instruction whatever given.

:Are we to understand that it is the practice of this Government to lay down Terms of Reference and then to alter those Terms of Reference, or to give a definition in regard thereto without making them public?

:There was no possible question of altering the Terms of Reference, and it is a gross misrepresentation to continue to allege that, in view of the statements that I have made.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it was that nothing was made public about this instruction, or this definition, if the right hon. Gentleman prefers that term, for over two years after it had been given?

:There was no question about it. If the chairman of the commission asks for a definition of a particular privileged position and the definition which is given, as must be perfectly plain to the House, is simply a repetition of what has been the 30 years' practice, how on earth can there be any question of giving secret instructions?

Africa (Workmen's Compensation)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the development of gold mining in various territories in Africa, whether he can state in which territories workmen's compensation legislation exists; whether there is a statutory limitation of the hours worked; and whether there is any machinery for the regulation of wages and, if so, in which territories?

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

Following is the answer:

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 9th of March, 1932, to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in which the position as regards workmen's compensation legislation in the Colonies generally was fully set out. As regards the African Colonies, I would also refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 14th of November last to the hon. Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu). I am sending the hon. Member copies of both these answers. The re-drafting of the Model Ordinance referred to in that reply has now been completed and I hope to communicate it to the Governments of the African Colonies very shortly. I may also mention that the Workmen's Compensation Clause in the Kenya Mining Ordinance has recently been amended as an ad hoc Measure pending the introduction of a comprehensive enactment.

As regards the second part of the question, I am afraid that in the short time available it has not been possible to prepare a statement as to the statutory limitation of hours of work in the African Colonies, but I will have a statement prepared and will communicate it to the hon. Member.

As regards the last part of the question, there is statutory provision for the fixing of minimum wages in Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, the Gambia, and in Kenya, Uganda, and Northern Rhodesia. These ordinances are of a simple character empowering the Governor in Council, after such inquiry as he may think fit, to prescribe minimum wages in any occupation in which he is satisfied that wages are unreason- ably low. Similar legislation is under contemplation in Nyasaland and in the Tanganyika Territory. As far as I am aware this power has not been used to fix mining wages.

India (Pensioned Officers)

asked the Secretary of State for India how many persons born in this country are drawing pensions in respect of Government service in India; what is the total annual amount paid to them; and how many are ordinarily resident in countries outside the British Empire?

:As regards the total number of persons drawing pensions in respect of Government service in India and the annual amounts paid to them, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on the 6th and 10th December last to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). I regret, however, that information as to the number of such persons who were born in this country, or who are ordinarily resident in countries outside the British Empire, is not available.

:In view of the fact that the pensions payable to these people are presumably paid monthly or quarterly, is it not possible to get information as to how many of them are resident outside the British Empire?

:I regret that I must adhere to my original answer. It is impossible to get the information.

Saar Territory (British Troops Return)

( by Private Notice ) asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is able to announce the date upon which our troops will return from the Saar?

:Yes, Sir. The British troops will leave the Saar territory in detachments on the following dates:—19th, 25th, 26th and 27th February. The 1st Battalion, The Essex Regiment, which will reach London on the morning of the 22nd, and the 1st Battalion, The East Lancashire Regi- ment, which will arrive on the morning of the 28th, will march across London from Victoria Station to King's Cross on those dates. Particulars of the complete arrangements will be announced in the Press to-morrow.

:That is one of the details which will be published tomorrow. I will not mention all the streets, but they will proceed along Victoria Street, Buckingham Palace Road, Wellington Barracks, where they will halt for lunch, the Mall, Admiralty Arch, the Strand and Kingsway, to King's Cross Station.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement in the Press is correct that some of our troops are being entertained on their way through France by the French Government?

:Yes, that is correct, and His Majesty's Government are very appreciative of the action of the French Government.

:Why make it obligatory for these troops to march from Victoria to King's Cross Station?

:Why should they be deprived of the great privilege of witnessing the appreciation of the people?

Business of the House

:The business for next week will be:

Monday: Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) [Money] Resolution.

Tuesday and Wednesday: Government of India Bill, Committee stage.

Thursday: Housing (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading, and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

The business for Friday will be announced later.

On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Northern Ireland Land Purchase (Winding-Up) Bill

"to make provision for the winding-up of the system of land purchase in Northern Ireland established by the Land Purchase Acts and other enactments in that behalf, for the abolition of the Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland, and the transfer of functions exercisable under the said Acts and other enactments, and for purposes incidental to the purposes aforesaid and consequential thereon," presented by Sir John Gilmour; supported by Mr. Duff Cooper, and Captain Crookshank; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

Army Estimates, 1935

Estimates presented, of Effective and Non-Effective Services of the Army for the financial year 1935 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill,

Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Bill,

Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill,

Edinburgh Corporation (Tramways, &c.) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Unemployment and Unemployment Assistance

3.48 p.m.

:I beg to move,

We say that the Government should be censured because they have misled the House. I do not want to run off at a tangent and say that we are charging the Government with dishonourable conduct in the ordinary sense of the word; we are charging the Government with gross incompetence. They were dealing with a situation in which the well-being of millions of people, women, children and men, were concerned, and they were in such a hurry and so determined to speed up their arrangements that they never gave themselves, or those who had to administer this huge machine, time enough to consider the effects, although they were warned as to what would take place. I have been looking at the last Debate we had on the Bill, now an Act, and there is not a single thing which the right hon. Gentleman has admitted is wrong that he was not told would happen by my hon. Friends behind me. I would ask any hon. Member who is thinking about this question and about the responsibility of the Government in relation to it to read the speeches of my hon. Friends, and especially the speech of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), and they will find that the Government really have sinned against the light. They were warned again and again of what would happen, but with the huge battalions they have behind them they simply crushed all opposition.

The Government before the election passed the Economy Act, which for the first time put the unemployed out of benefit under the Poor Law. That was a revolution in itself. For the first time the unemployed were brought under the Poor Law, and under that wicked, and in my view atrocious household means test, which every Poor Law reformer has spoken against and done his best to overturn. I characterised that Act in exactly the same language as I have characterised the regulations. We voted against it, but the combination of Liberals, Tories, etc. carried the Economy Bill. About that there is no dispute. That was the first time that a household means test was imposed on the unemployed. I said on that occasion that it meant putting the burden of maintaining the victims of unemployment on members of the family, that you were making children keep their able-bodied parents, and other dependent children, and making parents keep their able-bodied children who were out of work. That was a revolutionary departure, undertaken in the name of economy I admit, but we do not admit that it is a proposition which should be sustained.

The lie, the infamous lie, which hon. Members continue to make going about the country and which is printed in leaflets in reference to myself is such an infamous lie that I want to stamp it down, and to say that on no occasion have I defended or voted for the household means test either in the late Cabinet or since, and if this statement is repeated—I warn the Prime Minister that if he repeats it—I will take my chance of imprisonment and print the Cabinet Minutes on the subject. I have already said from this Box that because of the summarised version of Cabinet Minutes it is impossible for the whole story to be told, but it is told in the Cabinet Minutes quite clearly that the late Cabinet—I challenge the Prime Minister to deny this—unitedly refused the proposal in the May Committee's Report to put those on transitional payment under the Poor Law. Before the right hon. Gentleman speaks he can send for the Cabinet Minutes, or if he likes I will lend them to him and to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs as well. They both know perfectly well that the only means test discussed but never settled was a means test, or a needs test as the right hon. Gentlemen call it, in reference to the individual and not to the family. I challenge either of the right hon. Gentlemen to produce a word in the Cabinet Minutes which will in any way stamp the late Cabinet with having at any time accepted a household means test of the kind we are dealing with now.

:I accept that challenge. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that on the last occasion we discussed it prior to the election I challenged him and the right hon. Gentleman for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) to deny that a means test—it is no use trying to confuse it with a household means test—was agreed to by the Labour Cabinet.

:The Prime Minister can ask His Majesty to allow me to produce the Minutes here. I have got the whole of them in the House now. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister met me in the Lobby after one of the scenes in the House on this subject and admitted to me—I do not think he will deny it—that, although we discussed this matter, we never came to any conclusion about it.

:I rise to a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would publish the Cabinet Minutes. I want to ask, now that the Cabinet Minutes have been quoted from by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, whether the House is not entitled to demand the publication of this confidential document?

:The only official documents that the House is entitled to have read are those from which quotations are made.

:I understood that the statements made by the right hon. Gentlemen on both sides purported to be from Cabinet Minutes?

:If it is going to be a matter of my words against those of the right hon. Gentleman, I am perfectly prepared to leave it to the country to judge, because in this matter I have a record. I am not saying this either boastingly or against the right hon. Gentleman, but I have spent my life in the Poor Law, and everyone knows what my attitude has been. I repeat, that on no occasion and in no circumstances have I at any time directly or indirectly supported a household means test. It is perfectly true, and I have never denied, that I made a statement here which I had to defend on 100 platforms in this country, and which has been twisted. Members on the other side talked the other night about honour, but this statement I made here some time ago has been twisted and turned by Tories, by Liberals, by Communists and by Independent Labour party friends, as if it were a statement supporting the test which was put in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows, and so does the Prime Minister, that never have I, and, I think, never has one of my colleagues supported it. If this House cannot understand the difference between saying that an individual's needs shall be investigated and saying that a family's needs must be investigated, then I despair of the intelligence of the House.

I have said this right away because I want to attack this household means test. I attack it because it is one which crushes the family life and destroys the relationships that should exist between men and women and their families. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, has come to see the enormity of that position. It is not any laughing matter. If the Secretary to the Minister had to enjoy what many of these people enjoy, he would understand that this means test which he and his Government have imposed is one which really breaks the hearts both of children and of parents. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to frame or to accept new regulations, he will leave that out altogether. We, at any rate, are not going to stand for that, directly or indirectly. The position of the unemployed is one which is not their creation, and it is one which the nation says localities cannot bear. Now it is being said that the nation cannot bear it, but that only the family shall take over this tremendous task of dealing with the victims of our industrialism.

It is proved now that a tremendous mistake was made in applying the old vicious principles of the 1834 Poor Law to this problem. I believe that the Act last spring was the culmination of a determined effort on the part of the Treasury and other Departments to get the relief of unemployment out of the control of those who would deal with it in a humane manner. There is a big principle involved in this business, and it underlies the whole of the Poor Law administration. You have not removed these people out of the Poor Law. You have created a new kind of Poor Law, and the principle underlying the Poor Law has been that the condition of the person who is receiving assistance should be less than that of the least paid worker—what is called the independent worker. That is the reason why the Government have discriminated between what it will take to keep a woman and a man, and why the man and woman without children have been pushed 2s. below what they would have obtained under the ordinary statutory benefit. The whole principle is that in dealing with this problem you must only deal with them in such a manner as will just keep them alive.

I want to say on that that I am probably doing an injustice to some of those who have administered the Poor Law. There are many who disagree with me on the question of administration who hold that if you give people outdoor relief, you must do it in an adequate manner, and who would give very much bigger scales than those which the House has laid down in the Act just passed. That was proved by the Mond scale, which was adopted and accepted by the Ministry of Health, and which gave much more generous scales all over London, but they always left it free to the local authorities to pay extras, only out of their own local funds. This is the first time that there has been this rigid application of a scale for dealing with tens of thousands of people, and what I think the right hon. Gentleman and the House forgot all through the discussions was that they were dealing with human beings just like themselves, and that it was impossible to lay down scales with all those varying adjustments and be able to meet all the difficulties. I think that was due to the fact that they started without really considering the problem with which they were called upon to deal, and it is because we felt that, that we called in question the regulations, and then we also called in question the sort of make-haste slapdash measures which the Government have adopted all the way through.

There seems to be a sort of attitude of mind among members of the Government—perhaps it is due to our numbers—which resents that we should go into the country and denounce this policy, and, as they say, take political advantage of it. When I think of the Lord President's party that he had on this side—the Postmaster-General, Lord Moyne, the present Colonial Secretary, and one or two other Ruperts of Debate, when I remember that week after week, about every other day, there was a Vote of Censure, why should you be such children as to rebuke this little lot for calling you in question? We lived in terror of our lives. You are safe with your great majority. You know that perfectly well. No matter what we may say or do, in the end the troops will march into the Lobby, and you will be quite safe. Therefore, let us get rid of this nonsense that there must be no political advantage taken of it. Why, you take advantage of the figures of unemployment. When they go down a couple of thousands, you have posters as big as this House going up, and up and up, and down, and down and down. And yet you are the people who stand up and with virtuous indignation say, "Do not take advantage of this. Do not try to make political capital out of it." You must think that we are children; you must think that we are really like you are. That is an aside, and I should like to come back to the subject. But all this is very relevant to what I am saying.

The point to which I want to come now is that of the facts of unemployment. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, as was done on the last occasion, will prove quite conclusively that there are so many millions in the Bank and that the city is doing very well. Perhaps it is not doing so very well just now. Pepper seems to be rather hot there. I have no doubt he will tell us that this trade and the other trade are improving and that things are going up and up, and so on. I am not going to worry a great deal about his figures. The fact is that on 7th February, 1893, Mr. Keir Hardie in this House called attention to unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman himself and those who were his late colleagues have again and again called attention to unemployment. Whether trade is good or bad, the unemployed are here either in decreased numbers or in very large numbers. The problem is always with us. I want to emphasise that in those days the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman stated at this Box that there were 13,000,000 living on the border-line of destitution.

:There was a committee appointed afterwards over which the right hon. Gentleman presided, and what he stated then was never contradicted. One of the Rowntrees, together with Mr. Charles Booth, put it on record that masses of people lived below the standard of life of people in the workhouse or in prison. That has been true whether in good times or in bad times. The other point which I wish to make is that in spite of the optimism of the Government on this subject there are to-day one-third more people who have been out of work for over 12 months than there were in 1931. There are now 383,000, almost 384,000, who have been out of work for 12 months or more. If we take the figures of pauperism we find that in 1931 there were 369 per 10,000 of the population in receipt of relief in one form or another and in December, 1934, there were 482 per 10,000.

It is sometimes argued, "Yes, but that figure includes women and children." But the basis of the figures for 1931 and 1934 is the same and, therefore, I am entitled to set against this supposed prosperity about which the Government talk, the fact that during this period the number in receipt of Poor Law relief has gone up very considerably indeed and also that there is a large mass of people who are outside the Poor Law and outside the Insurance Acts. They are the blackcoated workers who are not under the Poor Law and not under insurance. These people, I think, are increasing in numbers. They are not manual labourers. They are people engaged in clerical work in one form or another. They find their living in occupations which at present do not bring them within unemployment insurance. You will find them in almost every district of every great city. I believe that if they were added to the figures they would run them up some hundreds of thousands.

:There is not an hon. Member here who does not know quite well that there is a very large increase in unemployment among those who are called "the blackcoated proletariat." There is no doubt about that, but even if it were not so, I should have thought the fact that there are still over 2,250,000 that we know of out of work, according to the unemployment returns, would have been enough to make hon. and right hon. Gentlemen pause in the shout of "victory over unemployment" in which they continually indulge. They seem to take the view that the figures of trade or of profits or banking returns give them the real test of the prosperity of the country. I maintain that what would give some guarantee of prosperity would be that the whole of the able-bodied population except for time and fluctuation should be able to earn their daily bread in a reasonable manner. That, they are not able to do.

I wish to say something more about the Ministry and the regulations and the muddle into which they have got. We are very anxious that the position should be stabilised in a permanent manner as soon as possible but we want the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to face the fact that no satisfaction can come either out of that Unemployment Act as it now stands or out of the regulations. It seems to me a rather callous thing to say that a man and his family who are out of work, while they are in receipt of statutory benefit, can go and get assistance from the public assistance authority and that a man who has been out of work so long that his statutory benefit has ceased, shall be tied down to these terrible scales.

There is something which I have said to my colleagues and which I have said outside but in which I do not claim that many people will agree with me. I hold the view—and I hold it because of my own conditions of life—that when a man is out of work his wife needs as much food as she needs when he is in work. His children need as much food as they do when he is in work. The landlord needs his rent just the same. The family need clothes and all the other amenities of life as much as they do when he is earning his money in the ordinary way. I was in hospital but you did not ask me to go down to any lower scale than my salary from this House. My income remained quite stable during the whole time. If I were out of work and had a family of five or six children my responsibilities and expenses would be just the same. I say, deliberately, for myself, and for nobody else, that I believe you will never deal with this question properly until you give the man who is out of work through no fault of his own enough to maintain himself and his wife and children on the best standard of wages that there is in the country. You have no business to cut down his standard merely because he is not able to get work, through circumstances beyond his control. Further, I hope that the women Members of whom there is relatively a large number in this House, will not give the Government any rest until women and girls are treated in the same way as men. I know from experience that the cost of bringing up a boy and of bringing up a girl is just the same. Sometimes one is a little more and sometimes a little less, but on the average it is just the same and the young woman needs as much to keep herself decent and wholesome as the young man.

:The Noble Lady can come with us into the Lobby against the Government on this subject.

:I say these things because there seems to be no appreciation of the fact that men and women and children are very much the same whether they are born in Poplar or St. George's, Hanover Square. [ Interruption. ] I am very grateful to whoever interjected that complimentary remark. It may be said that I have not proved that the House was misled on the financial arrangements, but I think no one will contradict the statement in view of the fact that we have just voted £4,500,000 to £5,000,000 more money. It shows that somebody made a very bad calculation and, as we cannot blame the officials, we must blame the Minister. I am sorry for him. I had forgotten until this morning, when I was thinking a little about this, that he has only been in office a very short time, but he has a very able assistant there who ought to have taught him better.

The other part of this resolution states that the lack of any policy of providing for the great and growing number of idle workers should also be censured. That is the real foundation of our complaint against the House of Commons and the Government. On the one hand, you say to these people, "We cannot afford to keep you properly. We cannot afford to give you the standard of life when you are out of work which we all know you ought to have." Then you also say, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government say, "We cannot afford to put you to work because if we do so, only a few of you can be employed and it costs so much money that you really stop the ordinary flow of industry." It seems to me that you are on the horns of a dilemma there. You are saying to these people, "You cannot be employed, you cannot be maintained and, therefore, you must starve or semi-starve." Nobody will say that these scales are sufficient. The British Medical Association say they are not. When you remember the mass of people who have been out of work for over a year; when you remember the growing fashion of employing young people up to a certain age and then dismissing them, then you must realise it is a problem that is insoluble within the capitalist system.

I do not believe that it is possible within the competitive system to deal with this matter in any satisfactory way. My complaint against the Government and those who oppose me is not that I think they are harsh and bitter and so on; it is on account of what seems to me to be their lack of appreciation of the fact that the system under which we run our industries has entirely broken down. There are many hon. Members who support the Government and who take the same view, and they are always declaring for what are called schemes of public works. I have supported them. As a matter of fact, I support anything that shows any sort of alleviation for the unemployed, but the Government are adamant about that. To-day we may be told again of the many hundreds of millions of pounds that have been spent on public works, and that at the end the problem is just the same. I think the Government prove too much by proving those two propositions. It proves too much for the system that it is standing by.

Everyone, I think, admits that unemployment is caused just now because no one can employ the whole of the people at a profit. If profit could be made—that is the argument of the Treasury, at least to my mind—by employing these people, they would all be employed. But the basis of employment ought not to be whether you can make a profit, but whether people can be employed to produce those things which the community needs, and in any sane system of society the greater the power to produce, the higher the standard of life should be for the whole of the people. There should be more to share, and if you can produce enough for everybody with only a four-hour day or a six-hour day, then only a four-hour day or six-hour day should be worked. The real problem of modern life is not production. It has been said from that Box and all over the House that the problem to-day is distribution, and you can only distribute production by raising the consuming power of the masses of the people. The consuming power of these millions who are unemployed is very little indeed—the consuming power of large numbers of the workers is very small indeed—but if you had your industries organised so that whenever you increased your production and you had potential ability to produce more you could give to the whole of the nation a higher standard of life, it would be different. Unless that is done, we are really just going round and round this question.

I know it will be said that during the last hundred years there has been an improvement in the status of the workers, in their education and so on. That has all been brought about, not by the free working of this system, but by taking from those who have accumulated wealth half of it back again, with which to establish social services of one kind or another, and by the trade union movement, of course. But remember to-day the cost of unemployment, that insuring against it by the employers and the workers and payments by the State alone runs up, I think, to somewhere about £110,000,000, and then in addition there is the amount for transitional payments, and on top of that there is the cost of social services, Poor Law relief, etc. Often, when I hear hon. Members talk about the cost of these services, I feel that the justification for them is that if you did not spend money in that way, your people would simply dwindle and become quite unfit to carry on the work of the community. You have been forced to do that. But now we are told that the financial arrangements arising out of industry will not permit us to continue this, and I say that either the nation must accept our proposals or they must find some other means of bringing about the same end.

That brings me to this point: We charge the Government with failure to deal with this problem in any way that has brought about a real, permanent amelioration of conditions, and we charge them with refusing to carry out the policy which the right hon. Gentleman has been teaching all his political life till now. We say quite definitely that unless you are prepared to take the proposals that we put up in this matter, it is no use falling back on the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who is one of the ablest exponents of Protection, to substitute for our Motion the words:

I want, finally, to say that we believe that this suffering and misery is something which, if we had the will, we really could cure. We do not accept the fatalistic doctrine that things having been as they were, they must so remain. We say that we have reached a point in our own history when we must accept the principle of more collectivism or Socialism than before. No one, I think, who has listened to the declarations of policy by the Government, the policy of restricting the distribution of supplies, of restricting the production" of supplies, the granting of money here and there, can in his heart be satisfied that that sort of thing really touches the problem. We are out in the country definitely asking them to send us here, and they have sent me here, whenever I have been here, in order to try to persuade the House and people outside to accept the principle of social ownership, social control, and social use of those things which God and nature give us the power to produce.

We shall be beaten in the Lobby tonight, as we always shall be on an occasion of this kind, but I am strengthened in my faith by the fact that in the House representing the Church to which most of us here, I expect, belong, they have declared in no uncertain way on this subject what the duty of this House is. They say:

:This is something that I am quoting. I thought I could read it without the preamble, because, honestly, I did not want to read it, but I found that it would not make sense unless I did. It goes on:

"The unemployed have a right to be so treated here and now. But the moment this treatment is claimed for them, we find that it cannot be given because present economic conditions do not allow of it. If this is so, is it not a clear indication that these conditions are wrong?"

Surely every hon. Member here must admit that the economic conditions are wrong, when we have brought production to the pitch to which it has been brought to-day, that millions of people should live such lives as we know they are living. It was said to me the other day, "What do you want to keep coming here for? Why do you not have a rest?" I will tell you. There are two reasons, and I will give one. That will be enough. Many thousands of poor people have voted for me, given me their confidence, given me their trust, and those people believe what I have told them, and I am not going, while I have health and strength, to do other than continue to try to make people like hon. and right hon. Gentlemen here understand that it is a crime of the worst description that you and I should be willing to spend upon one meal more than we will give to an unemployed man, much more than we will give to an unemployed woman. The children of the unemployed, their women, their men, are as good as we are and as good as anybody else.

4.44 p.m.

:I am sure that I can say on behalf of the whole House that many of the sentiments that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed are not sentiments which distinguish one party alone. The very fact that he quoted that statement—I am not quite sure that it was actually passed—

:Well, I am told not, but it does not matter whether it was passed or not. That sentiment undoubtedly expresses the feeling of the great majority of those who desire to conform, not only their personal lives, but the social life of which they are a part, to the ideal. The whole problem then is: How is it going to be done? My right hon. Friend talked about opinions held and statements made. So far as I am concerned, I have never in the whole of my life ceased to enjoin upon colleagues, whoever they were, that it was their duty to hammer out methods of progress guided by the fundamental conception of evolution. If one state of society is going to evolve into another, it evolves, not by the imposition of an alien and revolutionary will, but by the development of tendencies growing up within itself, which, in due time, bring new features and new constitutions and new organisations into society. I stand here to-day renewing a profession of that faith. What am I going to do to-day? I have been brought down to the House, and as Prime Minister I have undertaken to reply to this Motion as a Vote of Censure. Where is the censure on the Government to-day? Let me remind the House what the Motion is. It is: majority of the House to-day could bring against the minority that sits opposite. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was one that appealed to us all. Its approach was most admirable, and there was no party spirit in it. It was, however, rather out of keeping with the wording of the Motion for which the right hon. Gentleman has made himself responsible. The right hon. Gentleman knew it, because he himself felt that he had to give an explanation of that word "misled." It was required. Therefore, I say that in those circumstances it would be far better if those who are touched by these grievances and shortcomings, instead of making party capital out of them and preaching them and proclaiming them on a platform that does not do justice to those who sit on this side of the House, co-operated with us in order to devise practical schemes to help the unemployed.

What we have to do is to consider whether it is true that "by their lack of any policy for providing employment for the great and growing number of idle workers" the Government ought to be censured. The right hon. Gentleman offered no reason whatever for that statement. His statement was that in the present condition of society there is unemployment and that there must be unemployment; and there he left it. What are the facts? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if the Government had not done what they have done, the unemployment figures, bad as they are, grievous as they are, would be very much bigger. He knows perfectly well that to-day, in spite of such things as have been happening during the last two or three days to create once again a feeling of uncertainty in this country, in spite of statements made without a shadow of foundation, statements that the Government are going to the country, that they are throwing up their hands, statements made apparently far more for financial than for political purposes—in spite of all that, we see, if we take up our newspapers to-day, a trend of industrial affairs that contributes to a diminution of unemployment. We find, for instance, that the January exports—[ Laughter. ] Hon. Members laugh; that is the pity of it. They venture to put down a declaration against us and they laugh at the very elements which make that declaration either false or true. So far as I am concerned, I shall help any Government, whatever it is, that increases the trade of this country, that gives the confidence and hope upon which expansion of industry is so largely based, which supports a policy which is bound to increase the demand for British labour and therefore reduces the number of unemployed. Such a Government will receive my support.

Therefore, I put to the House as a matter of serious importance that the exports of this country have gone up by 12 per cent. In another column you will find that the steel trade continues to expand. [ Interruption. ] Will hon. Members opposite go down to where the steel trade is carried on and sneer at that statement as they are sneering now? The fact of the matter is that it is within the knowledge of everybody who has any contact with the workers in the steel trade that they are infinitely grateful to the Government for giving that expansion. The year 1934 was the best coal year since 1930.

:That year was the best coal year since 1930, and if there are 10,000 fewer men working now, there would have been 15,000 if the policy of the Government had been the policy that hon. Members opposite pursued or would like to pursue. I will increase the number employed, if I can, until the 10,000 men are absorbed. We are now engaged in negotiations with other countries that bid fair to make another substantial contribution to the diminution of the unemployed colliers in Durham.

:Part of the increase in the activities of the coal trade, which have been carefully planned and carried out as a part of the Government's policy, has been in the internal consumption of coal to the extent, I am informed, of 13,000,000 tons, which indicates a tremendous advance in the home trade. What is the use of anyone, who in addition to a sincere concern for the human side of the unemployment problem has a keen sense of business responsibility, dealing with it merely by sentimentality and not by changes which remove it? What is the use of accusations being made against people because they have not abolished it all? Thirteen millions of an increase. Durham pits open which were closed. Is that nothing? My mentality is not of that sort. That increase is something which is very precious from the human point of view, and I shall certainly pursue that policy, and my colleagues with me will do so, as long as we are in this Government.

Again, the chief feature of the January returns is a special influx of young people in the labour market. I confess to hon. Members who sit behind me that we have not done everything. We have not gone in for certain policies the result of which might be very doubtful, but their results will be carefully examined under experimental conditions. The majority of this House is going to progress carefully and cautiously, not so cautiously that nothing is done, but so cautiously that the Government will not commit this country to an impossible programme and an impossible financial burden. That is the way it has to be done. The fundamental way to treat the unemployed is not to regard them as a separate section of the community living, not on their own products, but on a special share of national income. The Government that is going finally to deal with the unemployment problem will deal with it by assuming that its duty is to make the sections now unemployed part and parcel of the industrial population of the country, drawing from the national income the equivalent of the service which they give as free and independent people. It is not going to be done in a day. Nevertheless, it must be done by a Government that has the courage to face the character of the problem and the determination to carry it out until at last it is accomplished. That is the intention that we have at present.

What has been done in industry? The Government have stimulated industry; the Government have helped industry. The Government's action and the Government's financial and other policies have given industry and finance that confidence which has enabled industry to launch out. [ Interruption. ] In order to get movements (made that in the ordinary open market were impossible the Government have come to the assistance of industrial undertakings. I am not saying that this is literally true, but the House will not misunderstand me if I make a rough statement: In a sense it was the Government that launched the "Queen Mary." I want to warn hon. Members that I am making that statement in a rough sort of way, but in the sense that the Government, by stepping in after due consideration of the national issues involved and coming to the assistance of the work that was done on the "Queen Mary" and which finished in her being launched—in that sense the Government launched the "Queen Mary."

Have we done nothing to deal with the unemployment situation? It was the Government who have given the circumstances, both industrial and financial, which enabled the very promising experiment of hydrogenation to be started. We were pressed for it again and again. We had deputations from hon. Members opposite asking for it. They never had to convince us of the desirability of it. They with ourselves had to wait for the realisation of the experiment. We ourselves went into all the pros and cons, the consequences, and the consequences of the consequences, the best way to do it, the most effective way to create the circumstances which would enable the experiment to be conducted. The moment that that was finished the announcement was made here that the Government would make provision to enable this wonderfully promising experiment to be conducted.

I am not going into details; I expected that it would be necessary for me to do it, but in the circumstances I do not propose to do it. The Government's case is one of the most formidable cases of activity, of help, wise help, effective help, which is seen in the fact that to-day there are hundreds of people who sit down to tables where they can eat meals that they by their own labour have provided for themselves. Hon. Members on either side have had just as hard experience as hon. Members opposite, but hon. Members opposite are trading on the lack of intelligence in the audiences they address. [ Interruption. ] I will say that these insulting remarks are most offensive—[An HON. MEMBER: "So are yours!"]—and nobody knows it better than those who make them. But, still, the figures are known—I am not going to give them—of the reduction in unemployment, and, what is still more important, the figures of em- ployment are going up. If there are any greater schemes that will produce more rapid results let us have them. I know my colleagues so well after these years that I know perfectly well that there is not a man in the Government who would not embrace with alacrity suggestions, schemes, methods for schemes, hurrying them on, provided they come up to one test: that they will not do more harm in their application than they will do good. That is the one test.

Take some other countries. We have had this problem of ours dealt with by coercion, by the imposition of a dictator's will, by somebody saying: "There are hundreds of thousands of young men not going into industry; I am going to put them in a camp and train them, and, if they will not go, I will take them by the scruff of the neck—[ Interruption. ] My hon. Friends behind me understand. Elsewhere we have had it done by lavish heaping up of the burden of national debt. What has been the result? I say this—and when I say it it is not an expression of my own opinion but of everybody's who has gone to other nations that have been struggling with this terrible industrial crisis and have come here to look and see how we have been facing it. Those hon. Members who want results can go and look where they like, they will not get satisfactory results in dealing with the industrial crisis by any method comparable to those of the method with which this Government has dealt with it.

I shall be told that we are complacent—I cannot control the words of other people—because we have received encouragement from what we have done, as we have; because in going round among one's own friends and finding them in employment, whereas they were out of employment three or four years ago, we are encouraged to go on along this very difficult and not always very heartening road. Make no mistake about it, we are not complacent, because we thoroughly well understand that we have only begun to face the troubles that the Government will have to face before the end of its term of office. Every one of my colleagues is dissatisfied; I am dissatisfied myself. I would like to go faster. I would like to produce more rapid results. Yes, but every one who has had to deal with society has to deal with a thing which he cannot create but which has been created for him to deal with in very severe and strictly defined limits. We go on. We shall go on.

Suppose hon. Members opposite came in. I heard the other day some interjection: "Another scare." I am not going to have a scare. But one who sits on the front Opposition Bench has said this, and he is right: "I cannot imagine the Labour party coming into power without a first-rate financial crisis. That is why we ask for full emergency measures." What really is the conception of that? He understands the progression of events. Given a certain attempt to fulfil pledges that are purely market-place pledges—as soon as you start on that you are no longer masters of the consequences of your own actions. There may be divisions of opinion—I know there are—but this evolution is bound to go on, and the more it is evolution and the less it is revolution with crisis, the quicker will the progress be in the end. Just fancy—an immediate solution for this problem. May I remind the House that this is not a long-range condemnation? This is a condemnation because we have not taken immediate action, and those who are blaming us for not taking this immediate action begin, as the first phase of immediate action, with financial crisis.

:I will never agree, whatever the Government is about, I will never agree to serve the working classes by telling them that the first stage in the service I want to give them is to create a financial crisis, with misery, a crisis which will restrict markets, increase their unemployment, and make their income more precarious than before. I say that the Vote of Censure which has been moved has not been supported by any arguments, and ought not to receive the countenance of this House.

5.16 p.m.

:I rise this afternoon with a full sense of the responsibility lying upon me, and I claim the indulgence of hon. and right hon. Members for the moment or two that I shall keep them. I believe that my return to this House is an expression in itself of the mass resentment and indignation of a great body of the people in my own division of the City of Liverpool, and in the country as a whole, against the Government's policy on the two points mentioned in the Vote of Censure moved by my party. In the campaign in the division of Wavertree I was able to see at first-hand the needless suffering, anguish and anxiety of thousands of men and women claused by the Government's policy with regard to the new regulations of the Unemployment Assistance Board. I say "needless suffering," because His Majesty's Government have now retraced their steps and are getting back to the original point, and I am entitled to ask hon. and right hon. Members who was responsible for this unprecedented muddle in the history of administrative action in this country, which caused so much trouble and such a furore all over the country? One can only say that His Majesty's Ministers must be held entirely responsible for the instructions given to the officers who carry out the regulations under the Unemployment Assistance Board. The concessions—the important concessions, and welcome concessions—which have been wrested from the Government in this House by His Majesty's Opposition are really given because of the great voice of the people, of the storm in the country and the might of the common masses all over the country, who realised the iniquities, the harshness and the brutality of the treatment meted out to them under those regulations. It is, I think, a healthy sign and a good portent that the mass opinion of democracy in this country has at last made its impact felt in this House, and driven His Majesty's Government to alter and transform their policy in the matter of unemployment assistance.

Before I leave this question of unemployment assistance, may I mention a point in connection with the appointed day? The Government's vacillation on this question has already cost us in Liverpool £350,000, and I dare to suggest that £350,000 is an altogether unwarrantable sum for one city to pay for the existence of the National Government. But, in addition to that, I am informed, in correspondence from the Town Clerk of Liverpool, that the further delay which has been announced will involve Liverpool in an additional expenditure of £40,000 per month after 1st March; and we in Liverpool, in common, I suppose, with every city, ask for full and complete recompense for what the Government's policy has cost. Negotiations have been mentioned, and we recognise that something is being done to meet the municipal authorities, but our claim is that the Government are entirely, completely and absolutely responsible, under the muddle and mess arising from these regulations, for the further postponement of the appointed day, and must therefore bear complete financial responsibility for this alteration in their policy. We ask that the municipalities, which have already borne so much in recent months as a result of the Government's policy, shall be absolutely freed from this additional financial burden.

On the general question of unemployment I would like to reply to the statement of the Prime Minister that he and His Majesty's Government are encouraged by what is being done from the point of view of providing employment. I can only say that the number of unemployed has risen by 239,000 during the last month, and that that represents an increase of 74,000 over the seasonal increase for the same period of 1934. The comprehensive figure of 239,000 increase hardly encourages us on this side of the House, if it does encourage His Majesty's Government. Further, the total figure of unemployed men and women in this country does not include black-coated workers, agricultural workers, domestic servants, and professional men and women. Though I am not in a position to say what the figure would be if they were included, it is worthy of note, particularly in connection with my own division, that this vast section of men and women is not covered by the live register and the official figures printed in the Press and in Government publications. On the question of the Government's policy may I make this point? In the country as a whole 500,000 more people are to-day receiving public assistance than there were in 1931. That is the indication of the increased destitution in this country under the National Government. It is hardly a vote of confidence in the Government, and it does to some extent support the Vote of Censure on which I have the pleasure to speak this afternoon.

In the city of Liverpool—I hope I shall be forgiven for mentioning again my own city—there are to-day 93,000 people drawing public assistance, which is almost double the figure of September, 1931. That, again, is a reflection on the whole policy of the Government in the matter of unemployment and public assistance. In the Wavertree division of the city of Liverpool the decline in the shipping industry has been most marked since 1931, and that decline has not been arrested by the stubbornness of the Government with regard to the Red Star Line ships. The floating of the line was banned on the ground that there would be unfair competition with the subsidised Government shipping. We now find that those liners have been sold to Germany, and one can only assume that they will compete with ships sailing to and from the city of Liverpool, and this happens at a time when 50,000 British seamen are unemployed and 40,000 alien seamen are employed on British ships. That hardly encourages Liverpool to support the National Government, and perhaps it encouraged one division to return me so that I might speak this afternoon.

The country was entitled to expect a policy of action from the present Government above all Governments. They enjoy an almost unprecedented majority. They have the power and the strength to do almost anything, but they lack the courage of their own convictions and confidence in their own policy, and therefore, instead of witnessing a veritable policy of action and determination, we are seeing nothing but drift and decay. There is no policy—just drifting along into tranquillity and stagnation. That policy of drift is due, I think, to the fact that the Government cannot be expected to face up to the fundamental situation, because they do not analyse it from the point of view of the economic basis of society. I am entitled to point out that, although we may talk of certain schemes giving employment this week or the week after, the general trend of scientific development, the increased use of machinery, the growth in inventive capacity and so on, are throwing men and women out of work week by week, so that man-power is becoming less and less necessary, and consuming power, or effective demand, is going down in the same ratio that productivity is going up and up.

May I humbly suggest that such a situation cannot be met except by a radical policy which demands a transformation of the very basis of our economic system; and only the party on this side dare to suggest such a policy. We believe that the country is appreciating the entire inevitability of these changes, and that we are witnessing a transitionary period. May I point out that there are many schemes which could be advanced if there were an element of leadership and courage in the Government? I mention Liverpool again merely to cite typical examples of work schemes required in that city, such as could be carried out in the country as a whole. There are dangerous and narrow railway bridges in Liverpool, such as are known all over the country; there is the construction of bridges generally. New roads are wanted and are held up by the Government's policy. Schools are wanted in many of our cities, particularly our crowded industrial areas.

May I more particularly mention housing? I happen to be a member of the Liverpool City Council and a member of its Finance Committee, and the Government's policy in withdrawing the subsidies for the building of municipal houses has almost entirely crippled housing development in the City of Liverpool. [ Interruption. ] I do not know whether I ought to stop to answer the remarks of my friends. I have confidence to answer on this point, because as a member of the Liverpool Corporation for eight years, and as one representing a ward where there has recently been a medical survey with regard to overcrowding, I can say that the leaders of the Conservative party in Liverpool have repeatedly blamed the National Government for their total inability to build municipal houses because of the absence of subsidy. That is a sufficient reply. The housing industry is probably the one industry which, because of its effect upon a number of subsidiary industries, would absorb the labour of a greater number of men, and perhaps indirectly women, than other industries. We therefore demand that the Housing Bill shall be put into operation without delay so that we can begin building houses in our municipalities. We blame the Government for delay because of their anxiety to give greater compensation to slum landlords. One other point is the Everton Tunnel, a vast undertaking by which, if the Government would only show a preparedness and willingness to help, thousands of men could be given work. Such a policy can be mentioned as an alternative to the mere distribution of relief, whether it be in the shape of public assistance or unemployment insurance, and such work would bring some return.

I would mention one or two points in connection with an appeal to the House for a constructive policy. I ask the Government seriously to consider the raising of the school-leaving age and the enabling of men and women to retire from industry at the age of 60 with adequate pensions. In conclusion, my main complaint is that the poverty which is so marked in this country is totally and absolutely unnecessary. We are witnessing poverty in the midst of plenty. We suggest that the situation cannot be met unless the great national resources of this country, in all their bounty, all their wealth and all their richness, are harnessed in such a manner that we have the control and organisation of those national resources for the national well-being. I believe that was and is the Divine intention, and therefore I have the greatest pleasure in associating myself with this Motion.

5.30 p.m.

:In accordance with an old and honourable tradition of this House it falls to me, in following the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Cleary), to offer to him the congratulations of the House on his maiden speech. He has spoken with a self-command and a cogency which, I think, have impressed the House in all quarters, and which many of us, remembering our own feelings on similar occasions in the past, might well envy him. This is not the occasion, when we are welcoming a new Member to the House of Commons, to look too closely or with an unkind eye at his Parliamentary birth certificate, but I would only express the hope that the next speech which the hon. Member delivers here will be an urgent plea for a Measure of electoral reform.

We agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the Government in these days are deserving of censure, and I agree with the hon. Member for Wavertree that the immediate cause for censure is what he has well described as the unprecedented muddle with regard to the Unemployment Relief Regulations. But I cannot congratulate the Front Opposition Bench on the wording of their Motion of Censure for, apart from a casual phrase in regard to the Government having misled the House as to the financial aspects of these regulations, no mention is made of what is uppermost in the minds of all of us and in the mind of the country—the mishandling of the whole situation. That is the matter for which the Government deserve censure, and that is the matter which Members of the House of Commons in all quarters have chiefly in their minds. It has been an unprecedented muddle. The Minister of Labour has done his best to redeem the situation by taking upon his own shoulders the blame for what has happened; he has courageously withdrawn entirely from the position which the Government occupied, and has, in effect, cancelled the regulations. He has made a very brave retreat, and the fact that he has done so has in a large degree retrieved the situation, but the feeling remains not only in Parliament but in the country, that these events ought never to have occurred and that regulations ought not to have been drafted and presented to the House which had to be precipitately abandoned as soon as their real effect among the people who are most closely affected became clear from experience.

The Minister of Labour has had a hard task, as he has been necessarily bound by the terms of the Act. The fault mainly lies with the Act itself. The Act threw on one side all the stores of local experience which had been built up over a series of years and which, if they had been drawn upon, would have enabled these mistakes to be avoided. We, on these benches, have our consciences easy on this point. We opposed the Bill; we voted against the Second Reading; we voted against the Third Reading, and hon. Members on these benches repeatedly warned the House and the Government of the untoward results which the provisions of the Measure would undoubtedly bring. I remember that on the Third Reading of the Bill the then Minister of Labour, Sir Henry Betterton, bitterly reproached the Liberal party in this House for having opposed the Bill and having emphasised the defects which they saw in it. What we then said has been justified by the results.

Hon. Members above the Gangway do not attack the board or the main structure of the Bill, and that is to be expected from them. What has happened has been the fault of bureaucracy and the result of officialism, and it is an example of what may be expected over a much wider field if ever this country adopted the principles of Socialism. You may deal by methods of mass production with boots and with motor cars, but you cannot deal by mass production methods with the handling of human beings. Our experience shows that it is essential in these matters to draw upon local experience and knowledge, and that the unemployed and their families should be dealt with by representative persons sitting round a table and not merely by officials sitting behind a counter.

I think the further feeling which is very prominent in the minds of almost all Members in the House is that these discussions about the best way of relieving the unemployed are really beside the mark. That is not what really matters. We have to deal with these problems; we have to perfect our machinery for dealing with the unemployed, and we have to make it as humane and sympathetic as we can. But whatever the dole may be, whatever its amount and however it may be administered, it will be inadequate, and it will be demoralising. Further, it will not even touch large classes of the community who have been suffering, some of them for years, and who do not come within the purview of unemployment legislation at all. That is the large section of those who are called the blackcoated workers, clerks and other employés, in the merchant houses and in factories, who have suffered greatly during the trade depression, whose voice is not heard and whose needs receive no attention at the hands of the community. What really does matter is how to provide work, and all these discussions that go on day after day, month after month and year after year are, we all know, beside the mark. They do not touch the spot which we are anxious should be touched, namely, the abolition of unemployment itself and the drawing back of those vast multitudes of people into the ordinary economic life of the country.

We shall not cease to repeat from these benches that the essence of the matter is the halving of our foreign trade. Our foreign trade has been halved, and that is unquestionably the main cause of all this unemployment. What we have had to say year after year has been received constantly with ridicule, and we are accused of bringing in King Charles' head. No one would listen to us, and we are told that we have been harping on nineteenth century economics. The fact remains that it is because we have lost half our overseas trade with other countries of the world that we have 2,000,000 unemployed, and until we can recover that trade they cannot go back into employment. No one would listen to us during these discussions for one year, for two years, but to-day every bank chairman in his annual address to his shareholders is saying exactly what we have been saying, that unless you can get rid of tariffs, quotas and exchange restrictions, you cannot restore prosperity to this country; and until you restore prosperity to this country you cannot get rid of unemployment. Every chairman of a shipping company will say the same thing. The chambers of commerce are beginning to say the same thing. Even the Federation of British Industries, and statesmen all over the world, are beginning to confess that countries have been on wrong lines, that it is economic nationalism which is the root of the evil, and that until these tendencies are reversed there will not be a restoration of prosperity.

:Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us of one chairman of a chamber of commerce who has said that we should get rid of tariffs in this country?

:Certainly. When the present Government entered power their pledge and promise were that tariffs in this country were to be adopted mainly as a means of getting rid of tariffs elsewhere. The policy which many of us propose that we should aim at is the institution of a low-tariff group of nations, and we have continually advocated that. I was about to say that when the Government came into power they came in with very high hopes and with the hearty and enthusiastic support behind them of all parts of the nation. One reason, which I have mentioned, is that they were to adopt an economic policy which would lead to less restriction of trade throughout the world. The turning point in the fortunes of this Government came at the time of the World Economic Conference. It was the failure, the complete, utter failure, of the World Economic Conference which was really the first blow at the reputation of this Government.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman remember his own part in it?

:Yes, I know, and I said that out of modesty and diffidence. The first event in the country which really gave a grave blow to the reputation of the Government, apart from the one which the right hon. Gentleman so kindly mentioned, and which it was not for me to refer to, was the summoning of the World Economic Conference in London and its failure. The conference was held under the presidency of our own Prime Minister. That conference, no doubt, was wounded by the action of the President of the United States in the matter of currency stabilisation, and on that the Government and their supporters have sought to ride off. That wound would not have been fatal. What was fatal was that the Government of Great Britain declared that, whatever other nations might do, we should maintain our quotas and our tariffs; it was that which killed the World Economic Conference.

The Prime Minister said at that time that the conference was not dissolved, but was merely adjourned. What a subterfuge in an endeavour to conceal a failure! A year and a half have elapsed since then, and no one imagines that the conference is likely to be recalled. In the meantime the Government have proceeded with the policy of bilateral agreements between ourselves and other countries, and some of them have brought advantages. The Prime Minister is entitled to point to one or two of those agreements which, in regard to particular industries, have brought advantages. What does that recovery amount to? The right hon. Gentleman quoted one month's return. One month is much too short a period to judge, and if any return is to be quoted for a single month, why did he not quote the fact that the unemployment figures had gone up by nearly 250,000 in the same month? As a matter of fact, there has been some slight recovery in trade during the last two years, largely due to the fact that this country has gone off gold, with the result that a great stimulus has been given by a depreciated currency to our export trade, but, in spite of that, it is exceedingly small. We lost in the first three years of the trade depression, 50 per cent. of our trade. In 1929, £729,000,000 worth of goods went abroad. Three years later we sold precisely half that, £365,000,000. It was mathematically divided into two.

:We sold, let me mention, over £400,000,000 worth of goods to foreign countries in 1929, and yet we are told that we live in the post-war period when no foreign country will ever buy from us, and that we Liberals are engaged in a hopeless task, because since the War every market has been closed to us. In 1929, before the great slump, we sold £400,000,000 of goods to foreign countries, or 20 per cent. more than we had ever sold in the best year before the War. What has the recovery been worth? We lost 50 per cent. and since then there has been a recovery of £31,000,000, or 4½ per cent. I take the figures of last year, 1934. We lost £365,000,000; we recovered £31,000,000. It would take us 11 years at this rate to get back even to the level of 1929. That being the result of what has happened, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer having told us in his Budget speech that the restrictions upon our trade are worse than they have ever been—after three years of his own policy—we now find on the Order Paper of the House a Motion, put down by a number of Protectionist Members, urging the Government to make things even worse. The invariable result of Protection in all countries, when it fails, as it does fail, is that those who are devoted to it say it has not gone far enough—that there must be more duties, higher tariffs, greater barriers—that that is the way in which to restore prosperity. It is like a drug addict who finds himself momentarily stimulated, and who, after he has become depressed by what he has taken, always goes for larger and larger doses, until his health, and sometimes his sanity, is completely destroyed.

The Government, in order to cover their failure to secure a general improvement, a real, substantial recovery of trade comparable to what we have lost—not 4½ per cent. as against 50 per cent., but, say, to recover one-half or two-thirds—have adopted a policy of subsidies. Each difficult problem as it comes along is settled, one after another, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to the House of Commons and asking for £1,000,000, £2,000,000, £5,000,000, £10,000,000, for this, that and the other; and this very docile and subservient House invariably votes whatever is asked for. Within the last 12 months, the Government have come to the House on 10 different occasions to ask for various subsidies for different purposes. It is true that three out of the 10 have been for the Beet Sugar Subsidy, but that does not improve the situation. They are subsidies for private interests, all of them, and with very inadequate public control. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, I hope, permit me to say without disrespect that, while he would assume the rôole and give the appearance of a stern and ruthless guardian of the public purse, he has been more lax and lavish in the way of subsidies than any Chancellor of the Exchequer in peace-time in recent years. Then, when there is an occasion on which private enterprise, without a subsidy, would seek to promote and enlarge and expand a British industry which is hard stricken, namely, the shipping industry, in the case of the Red Star liners, the right hon. Gentleman has stepped in and put his foot upon it.

I do not think that his action has had any defender either in the House or out-side. It was based on two reasons. He said, in the first place, that it was not possible to arrange a transfer from this country to America of the necessary money, and, therefore, he had to express his opinion that it was not in the national interest that the transaction should be carried through; and, in the second place, he declared that, the Government having undertaken a large liability—£9,500,000—in respect of the Cunard-White Star liners, he thought it was wrong to de-rationalise the Atlantic shipping industry by introducing this new factor. Those were the two reasons. With regard to the first, Germany has bought the ships, and, apparently, has overcome the difficulties of exchange; and our exchange position is certainly not so bad that the comparatively small amount involved in this case could not have been provided. Secondly, as regards the rationalisation of the shipping industry, the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so untenable that he does not now press it, and, when the interests concerned propose to build new ships in this country in order to carry on the same sort of service, for the third-class passenger so to speak—a cheap Transatlantic service in British-built ships—the right hon. Gentleman does not seek to exercise any pressure upon them against it. He does not say that it is not in the national interest; he only says that, since no money has to be sent abroad, it is not a matter on which he is called upon to express an opinion. What becomes of the argument he advanced only a few weeks ago, that it was destructive of the whole scheme the Government had in view when they guaranteed £9,500,000 to the Cunard-White Star Company, and that the ships had to be vetoed for that reason?

This Debate to-day was intended to elicit from the Government some statement of what they mean to do in the future for dealing with the unemployed problem. The country will not tolerate going on indefinitely with this burden of over 2,000,000 unemployed, and the demoralisation and the immense charge which rests upon the nation. What did the Prime Minister say in his speech to which we listened a few minutes ago? He said: If there are any schemes likely to produce more rapid results, let them be produced. He said: Let the Front Opposition Bench, who have moved this Vote of Censure, co-operate with the Government in providing practicable schemes. I remember, as all Members in the House will, the Debates that took place here in this Assembly in November, 1932, when the Government gave just the same invitation, and asked the House to engage in a free non-party discussion to try to discover remedies for unemployment and how to deal with the absurd paradox that there should be so much capital lying idle, so much labour standing idle, so many needs of the nation existing, and yet no valid attempt made to bring the three together. We debated for three days. The House of Commons was at its best. There was no passion, no recrimination, no party spirit. From all quarters of the House there were moderate and cogent speeches, and numerous practical suggestions; and what was the result? The Government said that all these proposals would be carefully tabulated. But, except in the case of coal hydrogenation, I do not know of a single one of the many proposals then made that has been carried out between November, 1932, and February, 1935. What is the use of our responding to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman when we know that there is not in the Government any vigour, energy or initiative which will carry through the various proposals that might perhaps be made? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, on the Motion for Adjournment for the last Christmas Recess, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who asked him what was the Government's unemployment policy:

:I wonder if my right hon. Friend would tell me whether it was not that mandate which sent him here, and whether he would give his constituents the opportunity of renewing it?

:Doctors differ, and the doctor who remains treating the patient may not necessarily be the one with the right diagnosis or the right treatment.

The Prime Minister urged with great force and truth that it is essential for the restoration of prosperity that there should be stability and confidence. In that, of course, I wholly agree. But if stability is combined with inaction in the presence of these grave problems which so seriously affect the whole nation, and particularly the working classes, you will not preserve stability, because the policy of inaction will be so discredited that, if it is rejected, stability may go with it. Hon. Members above the Gangway belong to a party one of whose leaders, as the Prime Minister mentioned, has held out a remarkable promise to the electorate. We often find leaders of parties promising various things, but the most remarkable promise I have ever heard was that promise of a first-rate financial crisis. They promise action, but action without stability. The Government promise stability, but with inaction. Why should we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer with a policy of negation tempered with subsidies, as the only alternative to the policy of hon. Members of the Labour party, which is one of action limited by collapse? Why, the country asks, should we be limited to these two alternatives? Cannot we have both action and stability? It is a Government of that kind that the nation desires.

5.59 p.m.

:I have listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). He was logical and persuasive, as he always is, but I must join issue with him on two points. The first is as to the World Economic Conference. I really think he was not quite fair about that. He was a member of the Government at the time of the World Economic Conference—

:I beg pardon; he resigned shortly before. But the right hon. Gentleman must know very well that the success or failure of the World Economic Conference was, ultimately and fundamentally, entirely dependent on whether it was going to be possible to get stabilisation of the exchanges or not. If stabilisation of the exchanges is not attained, it is no use negotiating, or even attempting to negotiate, tariff agreements, because they mean nothing. Month by month the exchanges go up and down, and they mean very little. Quotas and prohibition I do not like, but they are a different thing. At least you know where you are. But, so long as you have violently fluctuating exchanges, actual tariff agreements are almost worthless. Therefore, once international currency stabilisation had been rendered impossible, the World Economic Conference was for the time being absolutely useless. I would only suggest that that was really not the fault of His Majesty's Government. The Government had every reason to suppose that the Government of the United States were prepared to stabilise but, for reasons which I will not deny or dispute, at the 11th hour—one might almost say at the 12th hour—it seemed desirable to the Government of the United States not to implement what had practically amounted to an undertaking. We have no right to blame them—they have a right to change their minds—but there is no right to blame His Majesty's Government for the failure of the World Economic Conference.

:Surely it is a fact that after the bombshell came from the United States the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that, whatever other people did, we should remain a Protectionist country.

:It has nothing to do with remaining as a Protectionist country. Every country in the world to-day is a Protectionist country, and we certainly shall not get on on the basis of being the only free importing country in the world. The success or failure of the World Economic Conference never depended on whether we alone among all the countries of the world were prepared to abandon Protection. It depended on whether other countries were prepared to stabilise the international exchanges first and then we could start off and see how we all stood in the matter of Protection—exchanges first, modifications of Protection afterwards. That is absolutely inevitable. Did any other country in the world suggest at any time, before, during or after the Conference, that they were prepared to abandon Protection? No other country in the world in the last 10 years—we have made pretty good efforts to get them to do it—has ever said it has been prepared to abandon that policy.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen also raised the question of the speeches of the chairmen of the central banks and how passionately Free Trade they were. I have had given to me one particular sentence from the speech of the chairman of Lloyds Bank, which I think really runs exactly contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said.

This Vote to-day is, I think, one of the strangest Votes of Censure that can ever have been moved in the history of the House. The Ministry of Labour made a miscalculation. No one, I think, pretends for a moment that it was a deliberate miscalculation. No one will suppose that the Minister of Labour de- liberately deceived the House. A miscalculation was made. We admit it. Hon. Members above the Gangway say that the Government were completely wrong from the start, but they must not forget that the Trades Union Congress itself recommended a board of just the kind that was set up by my right hon. Friend to take unemployment out of politics, and, if the Government are to blame, the Trades Union Congress is to blame at the same time. Cases of severe hardship were brought to light in the House. I, myself, took some part in that. I had no hesitation in saying that, so far as my own constituency was concerned, these cuts would not do, and I am not ashamed of having said it. I think the House of Commons during the first two days of the Debate on the Unemployment Regulations came out of the whole thing with a good deal of credit in the eyes of the country. I think they did much to restore the faith of the people in the House of Commons as the forum of public opinion. My right hon. Friend did what I regard as the wise and the courageous thing—he withdrew the regulations altogether, and it took courage, it took guts to do it.

What did the Labour party do then? Instead of saying "Thank you," the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), in the most cynical and the most squalid speech that I have ever heard in the House, practically said: "We do not care what the actual sums that you pay to the unemployed are. The point is that we have you on the run now, and we are going to make as much party capital out of this as we possibly can." I do not believe the country will forget that. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in the last Government could or would ever agree to that sort of tactics and that sort of policy. It was as disgraceful a performance and as unworthy of the House as the previous Debates on the regulations when they were first announced to us were creditable, and I think it did something to undo the favourable impression which Parliament and the House had made upon the country at a time when it is of vital importance that democratic institutions should get all the strength they possibly can from every quarter. Now, at the end of it all, the Labour party move a Vote of Censure upon the Government because they propose to give the unemployed a square deal.

If the Government had refused to move in the face of the representations that were made to it, in the face of the facts that were presented by Members of all parties, the Labour party might have been justified in moving a Vote of Censure, but the Government did what was not an easy thing to do if you look at it from the point of view of party political action. It took a lot of courage to withdraw the regulations wholesale, and the last thing that hon. Members above the Gangway were entitled to do was to censure them for that. They might find other grounds for censure, but not, I think, for that, and it makes one wonder if some hon. Members above the Gangway care as much for the unemployed and the money they are going to receive as they do for exploiting a political advantage and securing a tactical party advantage. I think, now that this has happened, and now that this scheme has quite clearly been proved not to work in accordance with the expectations of the Government, it is no good the Government thinking they can now go ahead with a few small tinkering changes. I think some radical change is necessary. I am not at all sure that the whole conception of family allowances will not have to be revised. I am sure that the whole conception of rent charges and allowances as laid down by the Unemployment Assistance Board will have to go by the board altogether because it does not work, in Scotland at any rate. Of that I can assure the Minister, and I think he will agree with me that that rent business has to go.

There is another point that I should like to bring to the notice of Ministers. I think it is a warning against too much centralisation—too much bureaucracy. I do not think we ever ought to dispense with local advice either in the matter of unemployment or anything else. You can tighten things up too much, you can have too little flexibility, and this is a warning to the Government and the country as a whole that you can overdo central bureaucracy which, with the best will in the world, will never work quite as well as a more flexible system in which you can take the advice of local advisory committees of one sort or another, who know the conditions in the different localities, which must vary from locality to locality, and therefore give a flexibility which, as the Unemployment Bill stands at the moment, it is impossible to achieve. These are the points to which, when the Government are reconsidering the position ab initio, they ought to pay very careful attention—the danger of centralisation, the impossibility of the rent charges as laid down and the necessity for revising the whole question of family allowances so far as the means test is concerned. I am sure the Minister will give these questions his most earnest attention and I am equally sure that he will produce a solution which will be satisfactory and acceptable to everyone who is not determined to make party capital out of the pitiful conditions of the unemployed.

There has been to-day a demand for a general policy for dealing with the unemployment situation. I think that demand is justified. We ought to know where we are going. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen was, I think, to some extent justified when he indicated that the Government had recently been developing what I may call a subsidy habit. People say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very austere and hard and frugal, but he has given away a good deal lately. I do not dissent from anything he has done, but, on the whole, I suggest that it is better to have a basic policy and spend all your money in carrying it out than a more or less hand-to-mouth policy of a subsidy for a tramp steamer here, for beet sugar there and for the building of the "Queen Mary" the next day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Herring!"] I quite agree. I have never made a speech without talking about herring, and I never shall. The fundamental policy of the Government has been, and must remain for the rest of its time, a policy of cheap money. That is what the whole of our industrial revival has been based upon. That depends, as everyone I think knows now, on confidence. I would say to hon. Members above the Gangway that the condition of the City of London in the last few days is a very salutary lesson as to the state of things that may occur redoubled 40 times if they really believe that they are coming back to office. [ Interruption. ] Not city government at all. It has nothing to do with the city. Investors, not only in this country but overseas, have been selling because they did not know the true facts. I agree that they behaved as if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol was already in dictatorial power issuing ukases every half hour. That is no justification for what they have done, but that is the way they feel, and we ought to note that very carefully.

My right hon. Friend has not lost the opportunity yet of making money even cheaper. I am not convinced that the Government have adopted quite the right policy in imposing on local authorities rather than upon some central organisation, the obligation to build houses, but that is the course that the Government have adopted and I do not quibble. Similarly, with regard to the Herring Bill. It authorises a Herring Board to borrow £750,000. I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what rate they were going to pay, and he said, "The Local Loan rate." That brings me back to this point. If the Government want to get expansion on the lines they have adopted, and on the principle that they have adopted, of leaving the actual construction work to be done primarily by boards or local authorities, the best way they can do that is to reduce the rate at which local authorities and boards have to borrow. They could call Local Loans at 100 and issue a dated stock which would enable local authorities to borrow one per cent. cheaper than now, and tell them to get on with it and do the business. That is one way in which a considerable expansion might be staged in the very near future.

I beg my right hon. Friend to give the House some indication of the policy he is going to pursue with regard to the matter of cheap money. The City is not really as bad or as panicky as all that, but it wants some reassurance and guidance from my right hon. Friend. It has not had any guidance for some time past. There are hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who say that, if you get cheap money and go in for a policy of expansion, it will be unfair to the rentier class because you will make money more expensive again. I do not believe that for a moment. Cheap money depends almost 100 per cent. on confidence. If the electors of this country believe that the National Government will get back at the next election, and the Government do not come out too soon, they will not mind having a bit of cheap money. The thing that upsets them is political uncertainty, and, if this Debate serves no other purpose, it will clear up the political uncertainty which has had such a bad effect during the last few days.

Some of us in the Tory party have undoubtedly been disturbed by the attitude which the Government have recently shown in regard to certain policies which we have at heart. One is the development of the Empire and Crown Colonies. We feel that it has not gone quite with the swing that is necessary at the present time. I agree with the right hon. Member for Darwen absolutely that it is no part of the Tory creed or of the creed of any other party in this country to pretend for a moment that we could exist without a great and growing international and overseas trade with other countries. We have depended upon it in the past, and we must depend upon it in the future. I love the Minister of Agriculture, but I am not so sure about that part of his policy when he tells us that economic nationalism is the only hope of the future. We shall have to cut that out sooner or later if we are to maintain the standard of life of our people in the greatest Empire in the world. We have to start international trade going. How are you going to do it I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in the long run, he will not do it by quotas. In a time of great uncertainty and stress quotas may be necessary, but for goodness sake let us recognise them as necessary evils.

Whatever the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal party may say, there has been one aspect of the policy of the Government which has been an unqualified success, and that is tariffs. They have succeeded every time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he says we should use these tariffs ruthlessly to improve the standard of living of the nation, and cut a way back into the export markets. We shall never do it in any other way. The approach to these economic questions must be practical. You must do the practical thing and the best thing. Do not let us forget that a vital principle is underlying the economic problem at the present time. There is in the world to-day a strike going on between those who believe in the supremacy of the State, those who believe in the supremacy of a class in the State, and those who believe in the supremacy of the individual. I believe that many people in all parties in this country fundamentally believe in the supremacy of the individual man and woman and that that is the only thing worth fighting for. Individual freedom and liberty underlie the whole of these economic questions. That struggle is going on at the present time, and this country is the bulwark of individual liberty in that struggle. At the present time the world is looking to us. The Government cannot and must not fall, or even falter for a moment. What are the realities? They have 20 months to go, and have a majority of 400 prepared to back them to the end if they will take vigorous constructive action. The country will not forgive them if they fail to take advantage of the opportunity.

We want to see—and there is a real demand for it—constructive action. This country has done pretty well on the whole, but no country can survive indefinitely without leadership, and lately there have been signs of faltering there, and the country has not had the leadership it deserves. Those of us who are supporting the Government against the Vote of Censure are asking for an active and a vigorous leadership and guidance, and if the Government give that to the country at the present time they can be absolutely assured of the enthusiastic backing of their supporters in this House. Mr. Garvin wrote a leader in the "Observer" the other day in which he said: and a National Government, provided vigorous and decisive leadership is given. If we can get that—and we are looking really to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day to give us that lead—I believe that the Government can restore the position not only in this country, but make absolutely certain of a further lease of real power after the next election.

6.23 p.m.

:With whatever part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) I may disagree, at least I agree with him that the country needs from the Government constructive action and a constructive policy. I listened this afternoon with great care to the speech of the Prime Minister to see whether there would come out of the statement he made any indication of a practical, positive and constructive policy. All that I could gather from the Prime Minister was that he was content to pursue in the future the same policy that he had pursued in the past. He called it a policy of evolution. What has been the evolution of that policy as far as the Prime Minister is concerned? He has been Prime Minister for a longer continuous span, I believe, than any Prime Minister in our history, and it is idle for him to shake his finger at hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House and speak disparagingly of the policies which they introduced. Why, they are the very policies of which the Prime Minister himself was a protagonist and the leading exponent not so very long ago. He cannot escape the responsibility. He has been Prime Minister for seven years, and as Prime Minister he must accept the prime responsibility for the outcome of the policies of Cabinets over which he presides.

What are the facts? When the Prime Minister took office, unemployed in this country numbered 1,165,000; to-day, after seven years of the Prime Minister's policy of evolution, they number 2,389,000—twice as many. If hon. Members suggest that those figures are not strictly comparable, it is interesting to note that the unemployed, in terms of the employed, were under 10 per cent. when the Prime Minister first occupied his first office, and they are now almost twice as many at 18.5 per cent. after taking into account the increase in the number of those employed. That seems to me to be a complete indictment—the mere figures themselves—of the policy of the Government. We have witnessed during the past few days the unusual spectacle of the Government eating their own words. How badly they were misled has been indicated in the course of the Debate. They have not merely themselves been misled, but they have been responsible for the gross misleading of the country. I have here a document which I obtained this afternoon from the Headquarters of the Conservative party just opposite. It is called the "Popular Pictorial" and was issued in January. I believe that it is a compilation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), not in his official capacity of Postmaster-General, but in his less official capacity as chief propagandist for the Government. This document issued by the Conservative party says: which they stated they were introducing the Unemployment Assistance Act in order not to do. They are paying the same rates of transition benefits as before the board was established, except that where the board's rates are higher than the earlier rates, they are paying the board's rates, and they have confessed, six months and more after the Act was passed, the unreadiness of the Board to allow the local authorities to take over the responsibility for those whose transitional benefit has lapsed. It is an extraordinary confession by the Government, and alone is sufficient to justify a Vote of Censure. But it is not the only complaint we are entitled to make of the attitude of the Government in relation to unemployment and their lack of policy. It is only a few weeks ago that the commissioners of the Government reported with regard to the depressed areas. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer do? He offered a subsidy. There was no drastic new policy. Not even the reports of the commissioners were accepted in anything like their entirety. The Government provided a mere stop-gap of £2,000,000 for the unemployed of the depressed areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen has referred to the advantages of cheap money. I agree with him. Cheap money is of first-class importance to the country and to the removal of its difficulties regarding unemployment, but subject to the condition that the surrounding circumstances are such that cheap money may be made proper use of. Cheap money may be and often is an evidence of confidence, but it may often be, as it is now, an evidence of loss of confidence. You must have the necessary surrounding circumstances if you are to make good use of cheap money. Cheap money is the central point of the Government's policy in so far as it is wanted for dealing with unemployment. Cheap money has been held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer again and again as one of the chief achievements of the Government. He failed to recognise that cheap money as we have it now is a very sad instance of loss of confidence in this country.

What has cheap money done? It has sent vast sums of liquid assets from the banks and from industrial and commercial concerns careering round the narrow circle of the City and the Stock Exchange, engaged on speculation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, by one of his informal and, incidentally, entirely non-legal arrangements, has stopped foreign lending in the City, and has taken pretty stringent measures to regulate the order in which corporations and public utility companies may convert their issues of capital. He has prevented by another of his famous, or, perhaps more accurately, notorious informal and entirely unenforcable undertakings, unenforcable in law, the acquisition of British ships which might have brought trans-Atlantic travel within the reach of a new public, and has enabled foreign ships now to compete with British. Yet he can find money for subsidy after subsidy, even for shipping itself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can tax but he can do nothing for the welfare of the economic activity of the country, upon which all taxation depends. The truth is, that cheap money, which might do so much, has done next to nothing except to provide speculators with funds. Think of what has occurred in regard to shellac, pepper and metals recently.

There are grave suspicions and ugly rumours. Do not let the Government lead the House to believe that it was the fear of a General Election that has affected the City and the Stock Exchange. It is the rumours, the suspicions of what has been taking place, what has led up to and who is involved in these speculations. The reason the foreigner has sold securities is not that he had read Mr. Garvin on Sunday and thought that the Government were doomed to fall. The reason, if my information may be regarded as correct, is that the wireless from Paris last Tuesday stated, broadcast, that these speculations would involve in this country a scandal which would equal the Stavisky scandal in France. The right hon. Gentleman opposite probably knows more about that than I do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there are sources of information open to the Government which are not open to any hon. Member, and I cannot but believe that when there is a sagging hour after hour of gilt-edged securities in the City of London, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make it his business to ascertain the reason for it.

Apart from the policy of cheap money, which has so glaringly failed so far, although under different auspices it might be so successful, the only alternative that the Government have placed before the country is the policy of Lord Melbourne, "Why not let well alone." The Government have made bungle after bungle whenever they have intervened in the economic machinery of the country, and have only done ill when they have let it alone. The result is that we have unemployment figures in one month going up by almost 250,000, to the figures at which they stood a year ago. We have the labour market saturated with the young who are coming from the schools without any avenue in which to start work, and we have employment, increasing though it is, barely keeping pace with the normal growth of the working population. All the time we have a currency which has steadily depreciated by about 9 per cent. in the past year, compared with gold prices. We have a high tariff. We have as complicated a system of quotas and subsidies as is known in any economically nationalistic country of Central Europe or the Balkans. We have the illusory and loud-trumpeted benefits of the Ottawa Agreement, the ever-invoked solatium of cheap money, the ban on all foreign loans. Yet we find the owners of liquid funds driven desperate in trying to discover a good yield on short term securities, and we have a Government with a crushing majority that would enable it to carry through any constructive policy, if it had any constructive policy.

In these circumstances, when the Press of the world is discussing the rapid disintegration of the vital force of this Government, if it ever had any, when the gilt-edged market is in a condition which gives rise to very grave concern, we are entitled to move a Vote of Censure on the Government. We are entitled to ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire asked, whether the Government have any policy at all for our economic plight, or do they intend to continue the policy of let ill alone and to quote pious phrases like "cheap money" and "new enterprises"? To-day the Government's policy is a negative policy. They will not stabilise the pound with the franc or with the value of gold. They will not negotiate wider trade agreements which would be of enormous advantage to our trade and commerce, and they will not relax the embargo on foreign loans. They muddle along with piffling bilateral trade agreements, calculated to a digit of the pound sterling, and by the giving of subsidies for the production of wheat, bacon, sugar and mutton and beef, while those who have to pay the subsidies have to suffer. The result is that they have been able to bring about cheap money, but those who possess funds are driven to speculate while the Government, according to the Prime Minister's speech today, insist on refraining from employing these cheaper pounds in those public works which would be of capital value to the country.

The truth is that this Government is a vagabond Government. It goes from one region to another, from one area to another, producing promising foundlings and leaving the local authorities to look after them. The truth is that the country is sick of the Government's platitudes, their boards, their inquiries, their Bills turned into Acts and then upset by other Bills almost before they are in operation. The country is tired of old watchwords, like "restoring the country's finances" and "cheap money." The country asks, for whom have the country's finances been restored? As things stand at present, it looks like the speculators in pepper and shellac, the effects of whose speculations may be far deeper and graver than is anticipated. I would ask the Government, as was asked by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, what policy have they as a Government to place before the country for the country's economic ills? Their negative policy of let ill alone has been proved to be bankrupt. Their positive policy has been futile, ineffective, restrictive and in principle mistaken. What do they propose to do now for the economic future of the country? Is there any Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench who will say, or will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I understand will reply to the Debate, say to the House and the country what positive policy the Government are prepared to adopt and follow for the remainder of their term of office?

6.43 p.m.

:I cannot agree with the last speaker that the Government are quite as bad as he makes them out to be. He says that they have a negative policy. I cannot say that of the Labour party's policy. They have a positive policy, and that is the policy of a financial crisis at once. If the country had to choose between a Government with such a positive policy and a Government with a negative policy—I do not agree that the Government have such a policy—they would certainly rather have a Government with a negative policy than one supported by hon. Members above the Gangway. I was abroad when Parliament opened the present Session. I was one of those Members grateful to the Government for having brought in the Unemployment Assistance Act and for having set up the Unemployment Board. I believed in it, and I still believe in it. Imagine my surprise when I came back to find the mess which the Government seemed to have got into. I do not think the Government really have got into a mess. I would like to censure them, not for that for which the Labour party seek to censure them, but for not standing by their board and for getting the wind up so quickly when things went wrong. For that they deserve to be censured.

I would like the House to face a few facts. We have to remember the primary object of the board. The object of the Act was to save our unemployment insurance system, which very nearly finished under the late Government. The board was set up to take the question of unemployment out of party politics, not to take it out of politics. Unless democracy has the courage of its convictions it will never stand. We know the way in which certain people are always appealing to the down-and-out, are always trying to bribe the electors, and we know that if they had their way the unemployed would get more than the employed. That is what happened under the Labour Government. They borrowed £100,000,000 for the unemployed, and all the time that they were borrowing unemployment went up and up. That was a policy which would have led to Fascism or Communism. We are grateful that the Government set up the board to take the matter out of party politics, and it is only under a democratic form of government like that which we have in this country that it is possible to review the situation in a free House of Commons. There is hardly a country in Europe in which you would have been able to review the position. Here we can correct our mistakes. I am not blaming the Government for correcting their mistakes, but I am blaming them for the way they are apologising for correcting mistakes. There is no occasion for them to apologise.

The board had a most difficult task to do. They wanted to secure uniformity. It was well known that irregularities were going on in various parts of the country. In Durham we had a means test. Wales never had it. Wales has been doing things which should not have been done for at least five or six years. [ Interruption. ]I know the Welsh. An ancestor of mine who bore my maiden name came from Wales and was a Member of Parliament in 1671. The board had to deal with irregularities, inequalities and illegalities. They had to have a household test. It seems to me that hon. Members on all sides are running away from it. I believe in it, and I think that most people believe in it. It may be badly administered, but since when has not the family been the basis of all our social legislation? If I were a Communist I should not of course pay any attention to the family. I read a speech by the Leader of the Opposition on how hard he had worked to support his family. Other families in work have to be taxed to support the family out of work, and I do not see why members of a family who are in work should not bear some responsibility. If you take away family responsibility you are taking away the very basis of the State. The board had to endeavour to get uniformity in spite of the irregularities in different parts of the country. They had to put in a household test and be sure that the unemployed insured were not getting more than the employed insured. It was a difficult task. They had also to deal with the low wages of the agricultural workers. They had an almost impossible task.

The regulations came in on 7th January. There were bound to be difficulties at first. We did not realise that some of the mistakes would be so glaring, but I am against the Government because they should have given the board time to review and amend the regulations. Instead of doing that, the Minister of Labour comes down to the House in a panic and makes a real scuttling speech. I do not blame him for saying that mistakes have been made, but for being so apologetic about it. If the board had been allowed to deal with the matter they would have done so. Nobody would call the chairman of the board inhuman. He is one of the most humane men who ever lived. He was perfectly willing to put it right, but, instead of doing that, the Government get into a panic because of letters they receive from hon. Members and because of the agitation of the Labour party. The Labour party only lives by agitation. They would never get a vote but for their agitation. They have nothing else to live on. But the Government listened to them and to their grievances, and then the Minister of Labour seemed to crumble up. If he had known the Labour party as well as I do, he would not have crumbled up. There is nothing to crumble up about. The principles of the Government's Act are right; they may have been badly administered, but they are right, and I blame the Government for running away from things which they believe to be right, just because the Labour party are making a row.

The Government have put the back bench Member in an awkward position. I have been among some of these backbench Members and perhaps if the right hon. Gentlemen had been as long as I have in the House they would not have taken any nonsense from the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition in one of his speeches referred to the difference in the allowances between women and men. I hope that the Government will put right what is somewhat unfair in the different amount given to a woman as compared with that given to a man. A man may eat more than a woman, but he does not eat 20 per cent. more. The mixed family also is a hardship, but that is being dealt with. But when I hear the Leader of the Opposition say that the Government have been most unfair to women, "come into the Lobby" with me, I ask what about the Anomalies Act when 200,000 women were put out of unemployment insurance.

:I did nothing of the kind. I have done whatever I could for women; and no one can say that I have ever shown cold feet in the House of Commons. I am prepared to stand with hon. Members below the Gangway when they are right, and that is more than a lot of people would want to do. Really, for hon. Members of the Labour party to talk about the cruelty of the Government to the workers of the country is all nonsense. The Leader of the Opposition talked about hard-hearted people. I believe that there is no warmer heart in England than the heart of the Leader of the Opposition. His heart is all right and his intentions are all right, but Hell is paved with good intentions. Think of all the humbug which comes from the Labour benches. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has been constantly asking his leaders the question whether they believe in the means test or not. Finally, they said that they did not. Now they say that they do, but not in the household means test. It is all nonsense.

The Government are fundamentarlly right in this matter. They have made mistakes, and I am certain that most Members do not wish to censure them for the mistakes they have made but for being so apologetic about it. The Minister of Labour should not be so apologetic. He should face these fellows. The matter with the National Government is that they are not showing enough fight. We have a perfectly good policy and a perfectly good programme. When I hear Members of the Labour party talk aboupt insurance and about hypocrisy, and about what the Government have done, my mind goes back to what the Minister of Labour in the Labour Government said, that it would be disastrous to borrow any more money for the Insurance Fund, and then she borrowed to the tune of £100,000,000. Instead of the Minister of Labour being apologetic, he should stand up to the Opposition. I say in all seriousness that I do not think the Government have been fair to the board. They had a most disagreeable task to do. Some local authorities with labour councils knowing that these regulations were coming in at once put up the rates of benefit. You have a splendid chairman and board, and, if the Government had waited a little time and allowed them to make readjustments, it would have saved the country many millions of pounds.

:Revolution. I must tell the House a story about revolution. It concerns the days when there was a Communist Member in this House, about 1917. A man rushed to his house at midnight and said that he was wanted to lead the revolution. A Russian ship had arrived, and the revolution had arrived; and he was wanted to lead the revolution. He said, "I cannot lead a revolution so what am I to do? He said, "Well, sit down, and have a cup of tea." I am not frightened by a threat of revolution, but I do deplore that, having set up a strong board, the Government should have run away so quickly from its findings and not have allowed them to put things right. I beg the Government to show a little more fight, and not to run away because these Labour people are agitators, particularly in Wales. You will never satisfy Wales whatever you do. You can give them everything they want in the world, but they will not be satisfied. There are some parts of the country which you will never satisfy.

I think that the people of this country want to see the unemployed fairly treated, and the employed fairly treated as well. It is no good talking about the means test. If you gave what some of the people from Wales and hon. Members below the Gangway desired you would have a rising of the employed about what you were doing for the unemployed. The only thing of real importance is that the National Government should go on for another 10 years, by which time there may be some hope of an alternative Government with a real constructive programme. I really mean that. I think we must have a National Government until such time as the Opposition has a constructive and not a destructive programme. I am not going to apologise for the National Government, but I am going to ask them not to let us down by running away from their own regulations. The regulations can be made better, but do no show the white flag to or run away from such a ragged army.

7.0 p.m.

:One of the two grounds on which this Motion seeks to censure the Government is that the Government have misled us on the financial effects of the regulations which have now been withdrawn. On that part of the Motion I have only one observation to make, and I want to base it on the statement which the Minister of Labour made in the Debate last Tuesday. He said:

On the Committee stage of the Bill Amendments were moved from many sections of the House designed in one way or another to restrict the board's discretion. I took some part in resisting those Amendments in support of the Government, and the argument which we used against them was this, that if we imposed these restrictions, they would so limit the discretion of the board as to prevent the board from fulfilling its functions with the necessary elasticity in giving everyone an allowance in accordance with needs. We are now entitled to ask that the board itself, in any new regulations which it may frame, shall not commit that error against which we protested on the Committee stage; and that the board shall not unduly restrict its own discretion by rigid regulations of the kind against which we tried to protect it on the Committee stage of the Bill. I really cannot agree with the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) that the Government have let down the board, or that they have run away, or that they have yielded to any kind of agitation.

My own constituency is one where, I think—at least in one or two sections of it—the proportion of men on transitional payments has been greater than in any other part of Scotland for the last few years. It is a constituency which is vitally interested in this subject and in which you might have expected to find at least as much agitation as in any other constituency within the last month or two. Perhaps it may be exceptional, but I am bound to say that I have not received any violent or declamatory resolutions about these regulations, and I have not seen any signs of agitation which one might describe as having a revolutionary character, or as showing unreasonable hostility against anyone. What I have received, from many quarters, is a great deal of sober and reasonable criticism designed quite genuinely to bring about either an improvement of these regulations or a new plan which will more properly fulfil the intentions of the Unemployment Act. That is the test by which the Minister or anybody else will be judged—and I do not care in the least whether the administration is done by the Minister, or a board, or anybody else. The Minister, of course, must be responsible to the House. It has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by some supporters of the Government that the board was designed to take the unemployment question out of politics. But I remember the late Minister of Labour continually pointing out that the ultimate responsibility must lie with the Ministry and explaining how many opportunities we in this House would have for discussing any regulations which might be brought forward and for moulding the policy which we desired to adopt in relation to unemployment relief. I hope the present Minister will have the determination to secure what I know he desires and what we all in this House desire.

I should like to turn for one moment to the other ground on which this Motion seeks to condemn His Majesty's Government; that they have not produced a policy of finding work for the great and growing number of the unemployed. The main policy of the Government, and the policy since they took office has been the policy of providing cheap money and the restoration of confidence. I think it is worth observing, before we add anything further, that this policy has resulted in a very large increase in the number of persons who are at work. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) recalled the situation of exactly two years ago when the Prime Minister asked all Members of the House to make suggestions for the relief of unemployment. I think he gave the impression that the suggestions then advanced had been rather contemptuously treated by the Government. As he spoke I happened to remember the Ministry of Labour figures dealing with employment in that very month of January, 1933. The number of insured persons in employment was about 9,200,000. The number of persons to-day in employment, according to last month's figures—even after this seasonal increase in unemployment which always takes place in January—is nearly 10,100,000. That is an increase of 900,000 over that period two years ago to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and that is an increase which, although not as great as many of us would like to see, is by no means to be despised. It has been brought about for the most part by that restoration of confidence which it is now becoming the fashion to deride, and by the provision of cheap money, which I still believe to be a first necessity.

But the question which we have to consider, and which not unnaturally a great many people in the country are asking, is this: Having created those conditions, having got cheap money, is there anything that the Government ought to do to stimulate the use of that credit and to promote the expansion of industry? That is really the feature of this Debate in which Members are most interested at this moment, and in which the country is most interested. People who read the newspapers have been assured during the past week that there is so much idle capital and so much unused credit in the country that it was inevitable that a great part of this unused credit should have been devoted to the purchase of pepper on a large scale. When people read that can we blame them for wondering whether this unused credit, instead of being used as it actually was used, to acquire a superfluity of pepper, might not have been used without fatally deranging the economic system of the country and without totally destroying public confidence—to improve the standards of the unemployed, who would have spent the money not on buying pepper but on buying articles of food, which our farmers are at present unable to sell at a remunerative price? Or, alternatively, might it not have been spent on some constructive undertaking, employing men, which, although it might not have been calculated to produce exactly the same financial return as might reasonably be expected on a private investment, would nevertheless have been of greater value to the nation than 20,000 tons of that unimportant spice.

It is natural that these questions should be asked in the country. But I do not think we are entitled to ask them in this House unless we are prepared to put forward with some degree of exactness the proposals which we desire the Government to adopt. How many speeches we hear urging the Government to make use of all this unemployed credit for some great constructive scheme? Then, when the speaker is asked to describe what scheme he has in mind, he makes some such reply as: "Why not build a tunnel under the Mersey, or a bridge over the Tyne?" I think it is incumbent on anyone who urges the Government to adopt some constructive policy to define very clearly what he means. He must bear in mind that if the Government spends money on wasteful undertakings the effect will be to destroy that accumulation of unused credit and to annihilate that very superfluity of idle capital in the banks which is now such a favourite target for the sallies of economic theorists. Are there any major works on which we can say the Government ought either to spend money, or by some legislative action to cause money to be spent by other people? We shall probably all agree that the most obvious undertaking on which capital ought now to be spent is the construction of houses. That is precisely what the Government are doing. They have already created a record in the building of privately built houses through the employment of cheap money.

Last year the Government began to direct more capital through the local authorities into another channel, that of slum clearance. This year they are doing the same in regard to overcrowding. It ought to be remembered that on this major problem of our national life the Government are doing exactly what the expansionists have always urged them to do. Is there anything else the Government can do in the same way? We had, a month or two ago, a Bill dealing with the depressed areas which was received in some quarters with much discontent, largely on account of misrepresentation. For it was represented widely, and believed in some quarters, that £2,000,000 was the total sum which the Government were willing to spend, although, as we knew, this was only a preliminary advance until March of this year during which time the commissioners would be able to decide how large a further demand they should make on the Government.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour during the Debates on that Bill held out expectations which were moderate but I think not insubstantial. I hope they will soon be able to give us a general idea of the speed with which these expectations are likely to be realised. I am most anxious not to over-estimate the number of men whom it is possible to settle on the land, but I think the number is larger than is generally imagined. It is worth observing in this connection that public taste in diet is moving in the direction of that kind of foodstuffs which can most conveniently be produced on the smallest type of agricultural holding. Again I do not want to over-estimate the possibility of establishing new industries in those areas, but do not let us under-estimate it. The time has come when we must reconcile ourselves to this fact. If industry in those areas does not develop with sufficient rapidity; if private undertakings will not take advantage as quickly as they ought to do of the favourable monetary conditions which the Government have created, some guidance if not definite direction must be given to the course of industry by the Government itself or by the commissioners.

There is one other step by which I believe the Government have done a great deal to promote employment and which has already been mentioned in this Debate. I refer to the various forms of financial assistance given to particular industries. Some of these have been objected to by the financial purists but I believe myself that they are thoroughly sound, economically, and that many of them do not go far enough. I quote only one example, namely, the subsidy lately given to milk. I think that is thoroughly sound on financial grounds and I regret that the Government could not see their way to adopt the much broader proposals in that respect put forward by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). I only quote this as an illustration and I do not propose to discuss it on its merits. I confess that I share the opinion which has been expressed from time to time by some of my hon. Friends that in all these branches of policy to which I have referred, the Government might proceed on a larger scale and with a greater celerity. I say this with the full consciousness of the great temptation to which we are all subject to press the Government into adopting some great spectacular programme, having ourselves no responsibility for any unforeseen disadvantages which might result from too much boldness.

The question which the Government have to decide is one of degree rather than principle. They have to decide, not whether these policies are right or wrong but the scale on which they ought to be pursued and the speed with which it is expedient in the public interest to follow them up. If some of us urge that the speed might be greater, or the scale wider, it does not mean that we are un-appreciative of the very large achievement which already stands to the credit of the Government, or that we shall neglect to warn the country against the dangers of an alternative policy which would again throw our industrial system out of gear and undo all the hard-earned progress which has been won in the last three years.

7.22 p.m.

:It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) who addresses the House with sober and reasoned argument, particularly in comparison with the diverting but irrelevant flippancies of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). As I listened to her I thought that there was no Member of this House who was less entitled than she was to make the speech which we heard from her. I should have thought that a Noble Lady so comfortably circumstanced as she is was not entitled to implore the Minister of Labour to allow the unemployed to starve until such time as the board could adjust their regulations. I think it was an indecent exhibition of bad taste for her to come along and make that speech at all and I hope that when she reads it to-morrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT she will be very sorry for herself. There is only one thing which is gratifying here and it is that, judging from the reports from her own constituency, we shall not be plagued with her very much longer in this Chamber.

The speech of the Prime Minister today although rather clearer than his speeches usually are did not seem to do justice to the Vote of Censure. It is perhaps rather better for the Prime Minister if he does not make himself clear because then we are in some doubt as to what his case is. But when he is clear his case is also made very clear and its meagreness stands revealed. He told us that the Government were entitled to the support of the country because of the hydrogenation experiment and the launching of the "Queen Mary." Such a case as that does not scale up to anything like the dimensions of the problem which is facing the Government. In fact I do not think the Prime Minister did the Government's case justice. The Government have a far better case than that. Some people have said that one of the defects from which the National Government is suffering is that its showmanship is wrong. They are convinced that it has an excellent case but that somehow that case is not being put across to the country.

I am prepared to make this concession. It seems to me that, if we take an objective view of the history of the Government, judged from the orthodox point of view it is as good a Government as we have had for some time. It is perfectly true that it has a good comfort able record of solid legislation. But what the Government does not realise is that it is not faced with an orthodox situation and that orthodox policies, pedestrian policies, are hopelessly inadequate to deal with the situation which does confront it. It is no use for hon. Members to try to comfort themselves with the thought that they will be able to go to their constituencies and point to this record of worthy legislation as though the country would return them again on that account. Ordinary men and women in Great Britain and in most of the industrial nations of the world are now profoundly convinced that we are face to face with the disintegration of the social order and that if civilisation is to be saved it can only be saved by the application of bold experiments to the economic structure of society. It is because, in comparison with the nature of the problem, the Government have so miserably failed that the Vote of Censure has been moved. The Prime Minister, for example, revealed by the very figures which he used, how gravely he under-estimates the difficulties. He spoke about the coal industry and said that the output had been raised by, I think, 13,000,000 tons. [HON. MEMBERS: "14,000,000 tons!"] What hon. Members have forgotten is that this is an improvement in consequence of the damage which was done to the coal trade during the first years of the National Government.

:I am quoting the Prime Minister, and I understood the Prime Minister to give the increase of 13,000,000 tons or 14,000,000 tons as being the increase over the year before.

:The hon. Member had better refresh his memory by reading the OFFICIAL REPORT and I think he will find that I am correct. But although the increase in output is about 11 per cent. the surprising thing is that the increase in employment is only about two or three per cent. That is one of the major diffi- culties from which our industrial civilisation is suffering. It is true that you can have an increase in production but you get a relative decrease in employment because you have less employment to the quota of goods produced.

:Really, I cannot go into that matter in reply to the hon. Member's interjection, because I have promised to be very short as other hon. Members wish to speak. I would merely say that it seems to me that any Government which fails to face up to that particular difficulty is bound inevitably to fail. That difficulty lies at the root of the main problem with which we are confronted. The increased mechanisation of industry is going to add enormously to our unemployment figures and let me say in passing that one reason why our unemployment figures are not higher is the incompetency of British capitalists. I notice that an hon. Member opposite laughs but let him compare the mechanisation of British labour with the mechanisation of American labour. If the mechanisation of British labour were on the same scale, if our capitalists had been able to take advantage of mechanisation to the same extent as the Americans, our unemployment figures could not be less than 4,000,000. I have read textbooks in which some apologists defend the British capitalists because of the small scale production. In other words British capitalism is able to have a comparatively good record of employment by sabotaging the wealth production agencies of the modern world. But I cannot pursue that line of argument further at the moment although I am sure hon. Members would agree that it is interesting.

I say that the figures given by the Prime Minister do not entitle the supporters of the Government to feel any reassurance at all. I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and I regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was not here. I learned from the newspapers that a new combination in politics is slowly being assembled in secret places. I thought there was going to be an alliance between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the right wing Tories. Judging by the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen—

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Meropolitan Water Board Bill (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Second Reading deferred until Monday next, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

Unemployment and Unemployment Assistance

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,

"That, by their lack of any policy for providing employment for the great and growing number of idle workers and by having misled this House as to the financial effect of the Unemployment Assistance Regulations for the maintenance of the unemployed, His Majesty's Government have forfeited the confidence of the country."—[ Mr. Lansbury. ]

Question again proposed.

7.31 p.m.

:The hon. Member said if we came in we should disturb the City, so that I understand that no Government is going to be allowed to carry out any policy in this country which is not satisfactory to the City. That is an astonishing proposition. The City embraces one of the principal instruments of economic reconstruction, and unless that instrument can be used by the Government, either in its present form or in some altered form, then any programme of economic reconstruction is impossible. Unless the policy of the Government satisfies the hypersensitiveness of the gamblers in the City, we shall not be able to do anything at all. That is a monstrous proposition to be advanced in an Assembly like this. I have an industrial constituency where there is a large, idle steelworks. Propositions have been put forward in the last six months which involve the expenditure of a capital sum of less than £1,000,000. The works are in the very heart of one of the most depressed districts in the country, but the City refuses to advance the money at a time when £2,000,000 is held up in commodity gambling. Does anyone suggest that the people of this country will stand that sort of thing? There are people who say that so far from this orgy of cheap money being a source of resuscitation of business, it is becoming a very serious encouragement to wild and unscrupulous gambling and may indeed bring about results comparable with the collapse in the Wall Street market in 1929.

:The hon. Member is making a serious charge. I am not in the City and do not know what happened in the case mentioned by the hon. Member, but what security does that particular project offer? Would it be a security which he, as a business man, would consider reasonable?

:It is obvious that if the steelworks to which I refer, or any other steelworks, could come on the open money market and raise money on its own security, my speech would not be necessary, but what steelworks can come on the open money market and raise money to-day on its own security? Corby itself was provided by some Government guarantee. Guest, Keen, and Nettlefolds, Baldwins, and Dorman Long are the same. Everyone knows that it is impossible to raise money for long-term industrial investment. It is all held up in the short-term market. The hon. Member shakes his head, but these are facts that are well known to Members in all parts of the House. The Bankers Indus trial Development Corporation was formed precisely in order to provide capital sums for industrial undertakings—

:The other day the United Steel Company's ordinary shares were offered to the extent of £5,000,000 without any question of Government guarantee, and subscribed readily by the public.

:Does the hon. Member think that if you got cheap money in this country it would be difficult for good industrial companies to raise money for capital expenditure?

:The answer is that in the circumstances facing capitalists to-day they will never, no matter how cheap money becomes, be able to feel sufficient confidence to go on the speculative market and sink millions of pounds in large-scale enterprises.

:The indictment that we are bringing against the system is that the profit-making principle is breaking down as a means of organising employment. The hon. Member shakes his head, but practically every orthodox economist, even a professor, whose opinion, I am sure, will be supported with great enthusiasm by the antediluvians on the Liberal benches, admits that so long as you have, in a structure of capitalist industry, some governmental form of organisation which cannot properly be assimilated into the structure, like the marketing schemes of the Ministry of Agriculture, cheap money will never be able to resuscitate industry. Sir Arthur Salter and a great many others who belong to that school say that the difficulty with the present system is that it cannot make up its mind whether industrial recovery will be brought about by the unimpeded initiative of private individuals or whether it will be done by collective, corporate effort on the part of the State. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen, I thought, was in favour of some form of collective economic planning by an intelligent Government, though he did not indicate this one as being the Government, but in another part of his speech he said he stood upon the individual as the basis of the State.

:The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I was not applying that part of my speech to economics at all. I said there was a principle at stake, which was individual liberty and freedom, but that does not mean that I applied laisser faire to economics.

:I admit that my hon. Friend's observations on political philosophy had little to do with his economics and that his economics had little to do with his political philosophy. That is my complaint of his speech, that one part of it had little to do with the other part. In one part he applauded the value of continual cheap money as the thing to resuscitate industry, and in the other part of it he urged upon the Government the necessity of starting large schemes of public works. How those two policies are going to be run concurrently, I do not know.

:The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that it is the feeling of the Treasury that permanent, cheap money for private enterprise is possible only if the Government does not step into the market, but once the Government does step into the market as a large-scale borrower, money prices will at once rise.

:Surely the hon. Member knows of the millions of public money that are being spent on roads, for instance, and now on new housing and many other enterprises. Therefore, he must apply himself to practical politics.

:The hon. Member knows very well that it is just this expenditure that he and his friends regard as inadequate and that they wish to be larger. He also knows that if the expenditure takes place on a larger scale, the Government will have to step into the money market as a very large borrower, and if it does that, it does so in competition with those who are trying to get money there now, with the result that there will be a rise in the price of money. That is elementary, and it is absurd for hon. Members to try to pour libations on the altar of orthodox finance and at the same time come down to the House of Commons and implore the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find money for large-scale industrial undertakings. Hon. Members, before thinking about new political combinations, should make up their minds what sort of policy they are going to back. At the moment they cannot, and I hope the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will not flirt with these young Tories in any of these combinations, because I can assure him that they have not made up their minds where they want to go yet, or, rather, they have not so much got new ideas in their heads as merely an itch in the blood.

:But I have not flirted with him. The charge that we bring against the Government of wilfully withholding information from this House can easily be substantiated if any hon. Member will look up the OFFICIAL REPORT for the last nine or 12 months and read the speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. Have not hon. Members in this House got up one after another and been reassured by the Government that everything in the garden was going to be lovely, that the board was going to raise the scales? And after all this has been fully reviewed here, Members say we must not make party capital over such a matter. The Government never withdrew the regulations, or amended them, because of the suffering that they had caused. It was not because the right hon. Gentleman found that people were suffering that he intervened. The Government intervened because it was made to intervene by mass demonstrations all over the country, because representatives of industrial constituencies in this House knew that their seats were in jeopardy.

Even at the price of being charged with political bigotry and intolerance, I refuse to believe that the Government intervened because people were suffering, and there is one cardinal piece of evidence that supports my contention. According to the Minister of Labour even these universally condemned regulations have raised the standard in some parts of the country. That means that for three and a-half years the Government has allowed those people to live in semi-starvation, on scales of benefit far lower than those now being withdrawn. Why? Because they were too weak and helpless to force the Government to give them attention. The Government has not yielded to the sufferings of the people. The Government has yielded to fear, to public pressure, and I want to warn the Government not to listen to the hysterical outburst that we heard this evening from the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division, talking about not taking any notice of public pressure in the country. I warn the Government that when it brings its new regulations before this House, if those regulations are based upon the Act of 1934 and will therefore be limited by the limitations of that Act the outburst of indignation which caused the Government to remove those regulations will break forth once more and will continue until the Government has been eaten up.

7.45 p.m.

:I should like to acquit myself of any accusation of having flirted with an elder statesman in the way that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) suggested. The hon. Member has spoken with his usual Celtic fire, but with his usual Celtic absence of facts. The whole case that the Opposition has hitherto put forward has been so helpless in its attempt to deal with the problem which faces the country that one danger in which His Majesty's Government must find themselves is that of being unduly conceited by the weakness of the Opposition. Hon. Members opposite are endeavouring to censure the Government for failing to deal with the unemployment problem. Hon. Members opposite should know a great deal about unemployment, for in the days when they formed a Government they succeeded in trebling it, and those who were inoculated with the disease might possibly know the cause of it.

:The Prime Minister said at that time that it was due to an economic blizzard.

:I am afraid I cannot undertake responsibility for the remarks of elder statesmen at that time. What I wish to put now are the views of the younger Members supporting the Government. In spite of anything that may have happened in the past, I still maintain that it ill becomes hon. Members opposite to use the criticisms which they have used to-night in an endeavour to condemn a Government in a situation infinitely better than the situation in which they were able to leave the country when they abandoned office and retired into Opposition. I heard from the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) a condemnation of the subsidies which the Government have given. It did not come very well from the hon. and gallant Member, although he is a comparatively recent recruit to the party, when he had sitting below him the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), who is the king of all subsidy givers, and whose housing subsidies are likely to burden generations to come.

:The whole of my housing subsidies this year will not be any more than the Government are spending on the "Queen Mary," and they were for houses that will last for 100 years.

:A large number of the right hon. Gentleman's houses are in my own constituency. Lured by his attractive subsidies at the time, the local council embarked on schemes for which they are still paying 6 per cent. The only alternative which is offered by the Opposition is the abolition of the present capitalist system. Is there any reason why the abolition of capitalism should affect the problem of unemployment? Will there be no unemployment under a Socialist system? Will there be no casual labourers going from one job of work to another? Hon. Members tell us of the trouble that there is in all capitalist countries, but is it not a fact that there is just as much trouble in the one Socialist country in the world? I do not blame the disasters of that country on their Socialist system, and I am therefore entitled to ask hon. Members opposite not to blame our troubles on the capitalist system. Hon. Members on the Liberal benches, who are apparently joining in this Vote of Censure, tell us that all would be well if we only adopted a system of Free Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) put the point cogently when he said that if we got rid of our economic barriers, our quotas and restrictions, our foreign trade would mount up and our unemployed would be re-employed—making goods, I suppose, for countries that would refuse to buy them. Were there no unemployed when this was a Free Trade country? Was the steepest fall in our export trade when we were a Free Trade country, or since we ceased to be one? Between 1929 and 1931 Free Trade did not save us from entering a commercial crisis. If anything, Free Trade pushed us into it. The whole charge against the Government, therefore, breaks down, not because they are perfect—few Governments have been—but because those who are bringing the charge are themselves so guilty of worse offences that it is as if a hardened murderer endeavoured to get some unfortunate man convicted for obstructing the traffic.

It is, nevertheless, possible to make constructive suggestions to the Government as to what could be done to solve what is undoubtedly a very pressing evil, which is recognised on this side just as much as it is by any of the Members of the many Oppositions. We on these benches know as well as hon. Members opposite that there are well over 2,000,000 unemployed and that that figure has been unpleasantly stable for the past 12 months. We know as well as anyone that the real problem is not so much the physical well-being of the unemployed, as their moral well-being. We know that the problem is the absolute absence of hope for anything better and that that is not confined merely to the unemployed. We know that there are vast numbers of those in employment whose wages are not high enough, and that there are many who see no opportunity of earning more. We know there are many, even of those who are not in the artisan class—the black-coated workers—who are in employment but see nothing in front of them, and who are beginning to ask whether they would be any worse off as civil servants. That is a dangerous feeling because it means that they are beginning to abandon hope of being able to make good for themselves.

There is one way of bringing hope to these people, and that is to realise that we are no longer an island and that we have enormous resources at our disposal. We have one quarter of the world's territory in our hands, and have room to remove men who cannot earn a living at home where they can have greater opportunities of producing and acquiring goods. It is not impossible that a really well-organised Imperial settlement policy can still be adopted. There is plenty of room in the British Empire; there are adequate national resources; and there is plenty of idle money in the capital of the British Empire. It only needs some effort to unite these three things. The difficulties are clear enough. We have had departmental committees which have said that nothing can be done, and we have critics who say that our Dominions do not want it. Nothing is so impossible, however, as not to be worth the effort. If this be the one hope of producing a permanent solution of the unemployment problem—and I firmly believe it is—it is for the Government to ignore every departmental committee that has ever met, and, whenever they are told by officials or the Dominions or by anybody else that this thing cannot be done, simply to say that it must be done.

7.57 p.m.

:We have had interesting speeches from the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) and from the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn). It was noticeable, however, that each of them found themselves making certain suggestions to the Government, and, although we are discussing a Vote of Censure, neither launched out into a defence of the Government. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) blamed the Labour party for bringing forward a Vote of Censure so shortly after the Minister had given way on the regulations. I am bound to say that very seldom in Parliamentary history can a Vote of Censure have been more thoroughly justified than it is on this occasion, because more has happened during the last month or two to forfeit for the Government the confidence of the country than has happened during the whole three years of their existence. I am going to submit that the difficulties in connection with the unemployment regulations in the last few weeks were not fortuitous and unforeseen, and that the Government have only themselves to blame for the position in which they found themselves. The effect of the regulations should and ought to have been foreseen. The whole of these difficulties are not something that arose suddenly, but they arose directly out of the Unemployment Act which was passed last year. We spent a whole Session—I do not know how many Parliamentary days and nights—discussing that Measure. It was thoroughly thrashed out, and this is the harvest of that Act—an Act which, after all, was the principal legislative achievement of the Government in their third year of existence. The trouble is rooted, not in the regulations themselves, but in Sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Unemployment Act, which reads: which were made from this side of the House, and had inserted their scale and their rules for the application of the means test in Section 38 of the Unemployment Act. I venture to think that the position would have been very different, and that they would have been saved the humiliating surrender of a few days ago, because there would have been a long discussion in the Committee stage, a further discussion on the Report stage, similar discussions in the other place, and hon. Members would have had time to go to their constituencies—as they had not in the case of the regulations—to find out exactly how the regulations were going to affect their constituents. Also the Minister and other people concerned would have been able to ascertain the views of the local authorities and avail themselves of that local knowledge and experience of which we have heard so much in the last few days.

The Government turned a deaf ear to all our appeals. They refused to deal with this matter by Statute. That is merely a symptom of the advance of bureaucracy which we see in one Government after another. They preferred to deal with this matter by ministerial regulation. Then there were the Debates on the regulations themselves. Warnings were given to the Government when these regulations were brought forward. I am not going to refer to speeches that came from hon. Members on this bench or from benches above the Gangway. If anybody likes to look back at a speech made by the hon. Member for Willesden (Mrs. Tate) or the speech by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Sir R. Aske) they will see that all these difficulties and hardships were perfectly well anticipated at the time, even by hon. Members on the Government Benches. All these warnings were given to the House by hon. Members who during the few days which were available for the House to consider the regulations—we only had six days between the time they were published and the day they were debated by this House—had been able to visit their constituencies and were able to see plainly what was going to be the effect of these regulations. I do not know how far the Minister was impressed with the speeches, but it would not have made the slightest difference if he had been, because by the terms of the Act, he was debarred from making the slightest alteration. The difficulties the Government have encountered in the last week or two is the direct result of their legislation on which they spent so much time last year.

In order to support this Vote of Censure it is not really necessary to look any further than the chronological list of events in connection with these regulations. The Unemployment Act became law, if I remember rightly, on 28th June last year. The Unemployment Assistance Board, which had its officers in every part of the country, had four months in which to compile its draft regulations. We are not sure that they took exactly four months or a little more, but in any case it was about four months. After that the Minister, with all the resources at his disposal, had six weeks in order to consider the regulations and to see whether he himself or his Department would make any Amendments. Then there was a further six days before the regulations were actually adopted in this House. There were between five and six months between the time that the Act became law and the time the regulations had to receive the assent of this House.

In spite of that, in spite of all the time, in spite of all the resources that were at the disposal of the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board, we are told that both the board and the Ministry entirely miscalculated what the effect of these regulations was going to be. Other people did not miscalculate. There were a great many of us who, with only a week-end at our disposal, had been able to appreciate exactly what was going to be the effect of these regulations, because we went to our constituencies, we saw the members of our public assistance committees, and we simply had to compare the scales that were in operation, even under public assistance committees that acted strictly within the law, with the scales proposed in these regulations, and it was a simple matter to find out how these regulations were going to work. It is a rather remarkable thing that the information that was available to every Member of Parliament, if he cared to search for it, should not have been available to the Unemployment Assistance Board or to the Ministry of Labour.

I do feel that there are ample grounds for supporting a Vote of Censure. It seems to me that we have never had these miscalculations properly explained. Nobody is making any charge against the right hon. Gentleman himself; nobody is bringing any personal charge against the members of the board, but it is obvious that they were extremely badly advised, and the Minister is the only person—again, under the operation of the Act—that we in this House are able to hold responsible. I do feel some explanation ought to have been given to-day, because, after all, this matter is directly referred to in the Vote of Censure. Although I listened closely to the Prime Minister's speech, and although he had a number of brickbats to throw at the party opposite, I think I am right in saying that there was not a single word to explain why not only the House but the country were misled in the Debate on the regulations in December of last year. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, on one of the rather rare occasions when he does take the trouble to come down and address this House, might at least have addressed himself to the main subject in the Vote of Censure and might have given us some explanation as to all these events.

I was rather interested in one passage in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), and I think it should be considered in conjunction with the speech of the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor). The Noble Lady moved a kind of vote of censure on her own. I think she was expressing in vigorous language what a great many people in the country are feeling. She was expressing what was said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale when he said that the withdrawal of these regulations—or rather the partial withdrawal; they are not altogether withdrawn—was due to mass demonstrations all over the country. I do not think that that is entirely true. I believe that the credit for the withdrawal of these regulations was partly due to the right hon. Gentleman himself, but is due chiefly, I think, to the protests that were made in this House. The House, immediately it met after the Recess, was discharging its traditional and proper function of making heard the grievances of the country and demanding redress.

:The hon. Member will allow me to interrupt. Can he explain how there was such a startling change in the attitude of Members, particularly on the Government side of the House, in the course of a week-end if it were not due to the feeling that they got in their constituencies?

:I entirely agree. My hon. Friend is mixing up two entirely different things. Of course Members were representing the feeling that existed in their constituencies, but there are other ways of finding out the feeling that exists in your constituency than by a hostile mass demonstration. The idea that was implicit in the speech of the Noble Lady, the Member for Sutton and in the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, is an idea that must have got into the heads of a great many people in the country. It seems to me that the action we have seen during the last month or two, first, bringing forward these regulations after months of preparation, and then having to withdraw them, not only weakens the position of the present Administration—I should not very much mind that—but weakens respect for the machinery of Government altogether. In dealing with this matter of the means test, the Government always act too late. When the means test was first imposed in 1931 it had to be done in a hurry. Everybody recognised that if it were to be done at all in those hectic days of August, September and October, 1931, there was no time to be lost, and as the machinery could not be improvised for applying the means test the whole matter was handed over to the public assistance committees who were told to treat the transitional people as they treated their own poor.

Naturally, there were a great many grievances arising out of the application of a Poor Law means test, because that is what it was in effect, to an entirely different class, a class of people of a sort who never before had come under anything like the Poor Law. There were a great many protests at that time and hon. Members in all parts of the House and Members from every party got up and protested against the way in which that means test was being administered; but for months nothing was done. Nothing was done until the summer of 1932 when a Bill was introduced, if I remember rightly, to mitigate to some extent the harshness of the means test dealing with transitional payment. The point I want to make is that shortly before that Bill was introduced there were riots in a number of cities in the North. I do not say, and I am not suggesting, that that Bill would not have been introduced but for the riots, but that certainly is the impression that must be left on the minds of a great many people—that if there had not been noisy and in some cases violent demonstrations nothing would have happened. That certainly is the impression, I think, on this occasion. It must be thought in the country that if there had not been these demonstrations, these regulations would never have been withdrawn. I see in the newspapers that there was a serious riot yesterday in the city I represent, in which a large number of people were concerned, in which the police had to draw their batons, and as the result of which there were a considerable number of arrests. The Noble Lady referred to agitators, and she has a great dislike for agitators, but I do think that censure is deserving for a Government which supplies the legitimate grievances upon which agitators are able to thrive.

If I may pass for one moment to the second part of the Vote of Censure dealing with the restoration of employment—it seems to me—that there are three ways in which the Government ought to attack the problem of our 2,000,000 unemployed. It is perfectly true that I was one of those who voted against the Tariff Bill. I do not regret that in any way and I would remind the hon. Member for Smethwick who had something to say about Free Trade a moment ago, that if he will look at the time exactly 12 months after that Tariff Bill was passed, in February, 1933, when tariffs had been in operation for 12 months, the unemployment figures were then substantially higher than they were when the Tariff Act was passed into law in February, 1932. It was not until there began a world revival of trade, which affected some 20 other countries as well as our own, that the unemployment figures began to fall.

I voted against that Bill, but I have never said that you could not use tariffs for bargaining purposes. I believe they can be so used, but I very much doubt if they will ever be effectively so used by a Protectionist Government, because a Protectionist Government is always far more concerned with protecting the home market than in securing overseas markets. Since we have tariffs and the machinery for Protection, I do urge that there should be a far more vigorous use made of the machinery of Section 7, which enables the British Government to pull down our trade barriers if other countries are prepared to do the same, and not to confine themselves merely to bi-lateral agreements. One of the most significant things said by a Member of the Government in the last few months was a remark by the President of the Board of Trade last summer that the home market was nearing saturation point. Not many people were present, and so it did not raise the storm that one might have expected, but on the present level of consumption I think that what he said is true, and that we cannot look for any substantial diminution of the number of 2,000,000 unemployed unless we find fresh overseas markets.

It is perfectly easy to negotiate with Denmark or some other Scandinavian countries, because they are so dependent on the British market that we held all the cards in our hands for negotiating purposes, but even if we take the Danish agreement, which is always produced as a specimen agreement by the apologists of the Government, it will be found—I am speaking from memory—that out of some 80 items in the Danish tariff schedule there is an actual reduction in the Danish tariff upon our goods in only some 20 cases. Why is it that no approach has been made to some of the countries with greater markets, such as the United States of America? I do not believe the reason lies in any technical difficulty, but fear of the shout there would be from the Government's Protectionist supporters if they proposed any really broad and sweeping trade agreements. Secondly, and here I rather disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, if we are to adopt the policy of seeking fresh overseas markets and recapturing our old markets it is essential that the Government of the day, whatever its complexion, should give all the assistance possible in the re-equipment of British industry, so that our export industries may be ready to take advantage of their opportunities. I shall not go over the figures now, but in two Debates on Finance Bills I have quoted figures showing the difference in the depreciation allowances made by our foreign competitors and the allowances granted in this country. It is remarkable to see how much more generous are the wear and tear and obsolescence allowances made by France, Germany and Italy, and even by some of our own Dominions, than those made in this country. I do not believe it is true that the re-equipment of industry necessarily means more unemployment. It is bound to mean more unemployment if our markets remain stationary, but I think it is historically true that it has often enabled us to exploit fresh markets, and in the end has given increased employment.

Thirdly, I hope the Government will not put on one side the suggestions for national development of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It is frequently said that this policy was tried out under the last administration. I do not think it was. What was tried out then was a policy of glorified local development, the Government writing round to the local authorities to ask whether they could not find some work in their areas which might reasonably be undertaken. Before we embark on a policy of national development there ought to be a national survey, or at any rate regional surveys, in order that we may look at the thing not merely from the point of view of a locality but from a very much wider point of view. We on these benches advocate a policy to encourage individual enterprise, and we are supporting the Vote of Censure because we believe the effect of the Government's policy has been to restrict enterprise. In my view there is not much to be said for the orthodox Socialism of the party above the Gangway on this side, but I believe there is nothing at all to be said for the bastard Socialism of the Minister of Agriculture and some of his colleagues. We have some marketing schemes which are simply statutory monopolies—not a very far step from nationalisation. We have quotas imposed by the Minister of Agriculture, in collaboration with the President of the Board of Trade, which are precisely the same in principle as the import boards suggested by hon. Members above the Gangway. We have had the recent unfortunate entry of the Government into the Atlantic shipping business and, following that, the successful attempt to prevent the acquirement of the ships belonging to the Red Star Line. I was startled when the Prime Minister had the audacity today to refer to the launching of the "Queen Mary" and the employment given as the result of that expenditure. I have never been in favour of that project, because I do not think there is very much chance of the taxpayer seeing his money back. When the Prime Minister was referring to the employment given by the £9,500,000 voted by the House, surely he should also have referred to the unemployment caused among British seamen and in British shipyards by the Government's attitude towards the Red Star project. I was reading some time ago a history which is rather out of fashion nowadays, but which had considerable vogue in the last century. It was by the historian H. T. Buckie, who wrote a "History of Civilisation in England." I would like to read one passage in which he described the policy which prevailed at the beginning of the last century. It seems to me a perfect picture of the policy now being pursued by His Majesty's Government:

8.24 p.m.

:I have listened to the whole of the Debate since it was opened by the Leader of the Opposition and I do not complain that opportunity has been taken by the Opposition to move this Vote of Censure. If they had not done so they would have missed a Parliamentary opportunity of expressing their views on recent events, and to that extent, I think, they were perfectly entitled to put down their Motion in the terms in which it appears. I am not quite so sure, however, that their Motion will have in the country the effect which they imagine. The Leader of the Opposition said, with truth, that, of course, this Motion would be opposed by our majority in the Division Lobbies, and I believe it is equally true that the vote to be given to-night against this Motion will be a true reflection of the feeling of the people of the country as a whole—at any rate of the Vast majority of the people. One thing which is perfectly clear, so far as I have been able to ascertain, is that there is not that want of confidence in His Majesty's Government which is suggested by the terms of this Motion.

There is certainly perturbation and sorrow that His Majesty's Government have made a mistake, but that only demonstrates how important it is that the present Government should not make mistakes. They have established a reputation since 1931 which has caused the people of this country to have confidence not only in them as a Government but in our Parliamentary institutions; and because of their success they have to be particularly careful. In the political world as in most others, people are apt to remember the things that go wrong and to forget the things which have been achieved and which have been beneficial and right. I am not sure that my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) was not right when she spoke from this bench a short time ago and brought a woman's view into the question. She said that there was a way to do things and a way not to do them. I am not sure that she was not right also when she suggested that it was possible to be too apologetic about things.

Opportunity has been taken, as almost always happens on a Vote of Censure, not so much to direct attention to the particular Motion on the Paper as to expound partisan views. The Leader of the Opposition took the opportunity to put forward the views which his party hold, not so much on what he pleases to call the sins of the Government, as in regard to the system under which we live. We always expect that from the right hon. Gentleman, and he nevers disappoints us. He said, as he has said so often now that I expect he really believes it—I give him credit for believing it—that the system under which we live has broken down. An old friend once said to me that the greatest success in politics was to be found by people who were always giving expression with hardy assertion, and constant reiteration, of any particular fad which they held. The Opposition have so often said that the capitalist system has broken down that I give them credit for believing it; it is possible to repeat a thing so often as to give credence to it. But is that true? Is not the fact merely this, that the present system that has borne such overwhelming burdens has stood up to those burdens as no other system could?

We have to consider this Vote of Censure not in relation to the events of the last two or three weeks but in the light of what has happened since 1931. The real test of a Vote of Censure is the comparison of the state of the country when the Government came in with the state of the country when the Vote of Censure is being proposed. Is it not true to say that the position of this country is infinitely better than it was three years ago? Does any hon. Gentleman challenge that? The Leader of the Opposition very airily dismissed the financial position of the country. Apparently he is at one with his colleague the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) who confidently expects us to accept the theory that if and when his party come into office the first thing they expect is a financial crisis. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that? He has perhaps a greater appreciation of the importance of financial stability. He admits, I take it, from his silence, that the financial position of this country is better than it was since 1931.

:When he was a Member of the Socialist Government in 1931, that Government because of what arose out of this question of unemployment, had so piled up payments in respect of unemployment benefits—and not always benefits, but payments—that it was necessary to borrow £80,000,000, £50,000,000 from France and £30,000,000 from America, for which they had to pay 5 and 5½ per cent.

:We borrowed from the banks and not from the countries. The hon. Member makes that statement, but he knows perfectly well that the money was borrowed to help the banks out, and not the nation. He knows as well as I do that the nation did not owe anybody anything, but had let France off £600,000,000 and let Italy off £400,000,000, and had paid the American debt. This Government have defaulted. If we had defaulted you would have chased us out.

:Whether the money was borrowed through the banks or anybody else, the main point is that this is the statement that I made and by which I stand: The Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member had to borrow £80,000,000 to make up the deficit.

:They had to pay 5 and 5½ per cent. for the loan. To-day, the position of affairs has so altered that the Government can borrow at something less than 5s. to 6s. per cent.

:The right hon. Gentleman would be glad to have some, I am sure. Confidence and stability have been restored in the national finances. Those must be the concerns of any Government. We are apt to forget that the real, fundamental function of government is not to deal with questions of economic or academic theories but to look after the people of the country. The first thing that makes for good government is sound national finance. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues ask us to accept with equanimity the suggestion of one of them that the first thing they will have to confront when they come into office will be a financial crisis. One utterly fails to understand their mentality; they cannot possibly appreciate the significance and importance of the functions of government unless they accept at once the principle that there must, in the first in- stance, be sound national finance; otherwise, how are you going to help the people who you are supposed to govern? Most of the schemes that we discuss in this House are directed to helping people who are least able to help themselves. How are you going to help those people if you have not a solid basis of national finance on which to begin? The Liberals are not quite sure whether they are going to support this Vote of Censure.

:They do not quite agree with its terms and their own Motion is in different terms. They are not quite satisfied that the country lacks confidence in the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) rather suggested that because they voted against the regulations which are the subject of the Motion that was sufficient to convince us that we must be wrong. The fact that they voted against the resolution does not carry any conviction with me. I find that they carry their opposition to His Majesty's Government to the length of voting against them on the suspension of the 11 o'clock Rule, but that carries no conviction. They cannot say that they are necessarily always right, because on one particular matter they may be right. Looking at their Amendment, I find some contradiction in terms. It deplores the inefficiency inherent in an over-centralised and bureaucratic system. That is quite right and proper. But it goes on to suggest that we should embark upon a further policy of national development. We have had no details or suggestions as to what this policy of national development may be, but I imagine, from various vague remarks that have been made, that it would involve more central and bureaucratic systems, upon which no doubt hon. Members would have something to say and would be able to tell us that either they did or did not vote for them at the moment when it was suitable to give the answer.

The right hon. Gentleman said that Members supporting the Government were too much concerned with questions affecting finance, and did not take into account other symptoms which denoted whether or not the prosperity of the country was increasing or going back. If the Vote of Censure had stated that the Government were neglecting opportuni- ties for employment, that they were neglecting their opportunities of helping the many unfortunate people in our country, I think we should have been justified in saying, "Let us see." You can look at the railway traffic returns. They have no political bearing; they are statements of fact. You can look at the increased revenue from the Post Office—a sure indication of whether matters are prospering or not. You can look at the coal returns. There are a thousand and one evidences—

:I should like to correct the hon. Member with regard to coal. Although there has been a slight increase so far as working time is concerned, there has also been la steady decrease in the number of miners employed.

:There is another point that I wish to bring before the House, on the cases presented by hon. Members below the Gangway with regard to the present system. Is it not a fact that, within the lifetime of every Member of this House, there has been an enormous improvement in the general conditions of the people? Is it not perfectly true that, under this system which hon. Members are condemning, we are now carrying an enormous social service which is unparalleled and unexampled in any part of the world? Is it not true that in the last 50 years there has been an enormous improvement in the general conditions of the people—shorter hours, better wages, better housing conditions, greater facilities for education? For hon. Gentlemen to suggest that the present system is bad is to deny all the facts which are evident.

I am interested, as we all are, in any scheme which will make for the employment of more people. Our real problem is that, so far as we can, it is our duty, as representing the State, to collaborate with trade, industry and commerce in order to find employment, for, in spite of what politicians may say, the real prosperity of our people and their future happiness can only come from steady and regular employment. The State can never provide employment. The State is always the spender. Every Department of State is a spending Department. The function of the Government is to collaborate with any and every industry, whether shipping, or coal, or iron, or steel, or whatever it may be, but it must leave to those who are conducting the industries initiative, enterprise and freedom to develop their industries in their own way. This regular employment can only be found through trade and commerce, industry and agriculture. When hon. Gentlemen object to subsidies for this and subsidies for that, they are taking a most short-sighted view, because, unless we get the industries of this country prosperous, we shall never get that steady and regular employment which we all wish to see for the vast numbers of our working people.

I would like to see the Government determined, as I believe they are, to improve the housing conditions of our people. I am very glad that they have passed a Slum Clearance Bill, and have another Bill in progress. In my opinion, there is more employment for larger numbers in house-building than perhaps in any other industry which the Government can assist, with the possible exception of shipbuilding, and I think most of us will agree that house-building is more immediately useful and necessary. I would ask the Government to prosecute their housing scheme with the greatest possible vigour, and I would congratulate them on having brought about a resuscitation of our financial stability to such an extent that money can now be borrowed very cheaply. I should like to reinforce the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously to consider the question of dealing with the local loans. That is not a matter which will affect the Budget of the nation, but it affects very seriously the local authorities concerned. This is the most appropriate time at which local authorities could be relieved to the extent of one or one-and-a-half per cent., and, over an extended period, that would represent a very considerable saving.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made one suggestion which struck me as being worthy of consideration, for, after all, no matter from what source suggestions come, if they are good they are worth looking at. The right hon. Gentleman suggested in one of his speeches that the Cabinet should consider the appointment of four or five members who would be detached from depart- mental work, and whose main function it would be to consider the economic conditions of the country and how best they could help the country in the various proposals and schemes that were before it. I think that that suggestion contains the germ of a very wise policy. Governments to-day, with all their troubles at home and abroad, and with all their departmental troubles, are apt, if they are not very careful, to get absorbed in their own individual duties and to miss opportunities of taking a wider vision. I would like to commend to the Government the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope they will consider it. If there were four or five people whose main daily work it was to take into account the serious economic conditions of the day, and to look after that work day in and day out, considering carefully all suggestions that might be offered, I am sure that a great deal of latent ability would be disclosed. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that at present no opportunity is given to many people who have contributions to make, and I feel sure that, if a small Cabinet Committee were appointed in that way, we should get an advance in the national system that would be of great value to the country as a whole.

8.45 p.m.

:I have been very interested in the hon. Member's speech. I notice that throughout it all there ran an adulation of cheap money and the great advantage if it. I had forgotten his constituency for the moment and, hoping to be called after him, I possessed myself of Dod's Parliamentary Companion for 1935, and then I recollected at once that he was the Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland). I also noticed that he was a native of Aberdeenshire, and then I understood his adulation of cheap money. I am very glad that money is cheap, and I wish I had a little to enable me to buy some of this cheap money. The whole basis of our Debate arises from the fact that, however cheap money may be, there are about 2,000,000 of our fellow citizens who cannot get enough to supply them with the barest necessities. That is the raison d'être of this Vote of Censure. The Prime Minister or anyone else may carry it on to any other ground he pleases but that is why the whole situation of last week arose and why we are facing this sequel this evening.

I am amazed how the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) has changed her loyalties. In the last Government the Prime Minister was anathema to her. Now she seems to worship at his shrine. The faintest word that falls from his lips is now a word inspired, according to her ideas. She has slanged, in that racy cross between the Southern States of America and Limehouse, everyone who has ever been in this Houes of Commons except herself and the present National Government. In her slanging she condemned those areas in Britain which had been straining the law in being too generous to the unemployed. Wales in particular came under the lash of her tongue. It was only last night, just at the conclusion of the Debate, that the right hon. Gentleman, in defending the operations of his board, said that after all, while we were not paying very much to single men, what they were paying to single men in South Wales was 10s. a week. The Noble Lady seemed to indicate that she thinks 10s. a week is an excessive payment for the maintenance of an adult man. An hon. Member who has since gone out dissented from my statement at the beginning of my remarks that there are people unable to get bare physical necessities, and many hon. Members here actually believe that there is no one in the country without bare physical necessities. A man with 10s. a week income cannot get bare physical necessities. If it be possible to make an adulation of the existing social order and the progress that private enterprise and capitalism has made—if one can be enthusiastic about that, surely it would be a very modest thing to say that people have a right to expect something more than bare physical necessities.

I want to point out to the hon. Member who spoke last what seems to me to be a contradiction in his remarks. Among his evidences of prosperity and success he gave the millions that this country is spending on the social services—I think he said greater than any other country in the world—an expenditure on ambulance work, saving the debris of the industrial system, and picking up the breakages, because the overwhelming amount of the social service expenditure that you are boasting about only arises because the industrial system is unable to employ the workers.

:Even under a Socialist system there will be births and maternity benefits, education benefits and sickness benefits. There will still be sickness under Socialism and death will occur in any system of society.

:But in a Socialist society there will be no one born in poverty. [ Interruption. ] It is absolutely so. I have not any doubt about that. No one will die in poverty, and no one will be sick in poverty. That is the meaning of Socialism.

:In Russia, starting from even lower levels of capitalist corruption than in this country, the whole story has been one steady bringing of order out of chaos and coming from a deeper depth of abject poverty on to better standards of life.

:Is it not a fact that after some 19 years of undiluted Socialism in Russia the condition of the working man is more poverty-stricken than that of the unemployed in capitalist countries?

:The answer to that is in two parts. First, neither Stalin nor any other responsible statesman in Russia would for a moment make the assertion that they have Socialism in that country. The most that they claim is that they are in process of constructing Socialism. The other point that the hon. Member makes is that the condition of the Russian people after 15 years is worse than the condition of the unemployed in any capitalist country.

:The workers in Russia are worse off than the unemployed in this capitalist country.

:That is a very wide and sweeping assertion, and in my view an absolutely untrue assertion. It could have been supported with a reasonable degree of responsibility five years ago, but it is absolutely not defensible now. It is absolutely true that over these 15 years the condition of the workers of Russia has improved every year, showing a total increase of over 100 per cent., while during the same period of time the tendency for workers in Great Britain has been a downward one.

:Is it not a fact that the wages of the working man here are higher to-day than they have been at any previous time, except in the boom period of 1920; that to-day the capitalist system produces nearly £500,000,000 for social services; that the standard of life of the people is much better—they have the pictures; that the standard of life of the working men to-day is higher than that of the barons in the time of King John, and that the Russians cannot compete with it?

:Having disposed of the challenge of the hon. and gallant Gentleman about Russia, he is now asking me to prove that the condition of the workers to-day is not higher than the standard of the barons in the time of King John. If it is true that the workers to-day are better off than the barons in 1215, why should they not be? I did not institute any comparison. I am not thinking about 1215 at all. It was the hon. and gallant Member, who, I know, has curious habits. I try to be a practical politician and to face, in 1934, the problems of 1934, and in 1935, the problems of 1935, but to try to take me back 700 years is not fair We are dealing this evening with a Vote of Censure, not on the Russian Government or on me, but on the present Government, on the ground that they have failed to solve the unemployment problem. Is anyone going to attempt to deny the truth of that charge?

:Yes. I say that they are in process, and rapid process, of so doing.

:That is a sort of optimistic philosophy with which we go through life, and it must be very regret-able for the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his colleagues on that side of the House that the electors do not share their views. The electors do not think so. I wonder, apart from the political point of view, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman, or anyone sitting behind the Government, really believes that they have any firm grip upon the essential problems that have to be dealt with.

:Does anyone honestly believe in his heart of hearts that the fundamental causes which led to the collapse in 1920, and to recurring crises even since, have been finally removed, that we are now on a steady upgrade to prosperity, and that while the progress will be slow, it will be sure and certain?

:That may account for the fine sunburn on the face of the hon. Member, but it is sheer, foolish, blind optimism, and the sun must have got into his eyes so that he cannot see the hard facts. Nothing has been done since 1931 which alters in any way the basic causes of the crises that took place before. I have seen six successive Governments sit in this place, every one of them making exactly the same kind of speeches as the Government before. It is no good the Prime Minister coming here and telling me about the sins of the last Government. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions giving away inside Cabinet secrets. It is no good the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) saying that the crisis of 1931 was due to the fact that the Labour Government were running us into debt with foreign countries. It was not true. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was!"] Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer can answer that question. I should be very much surprised if the total dead weight debt of this country now is any smaller than it was in 1931 when the Labour Government went out. During the time that the Labour Government were in office, hon. Members opposite poured out from these benches foolish, mischievous, malevolent propaganda directed towards the immediate purpose of damaging the Government in office, and in so doing damaged the whole standing of their country with other nations of the world. No one thought about what the effect would be on the country. It is true that the moneylenders of the United States of America heard that the country's finances were going to rack and ruin, and heard it from the lips of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. When they heard it from the lips of a man now holding Cabinet rank and who had previously held Cabinet rank, no wonder that the financial credit of the country among the people of the world went shaky.

:At the time when the crisis began, if my memory serves me correctly, the right hon. Gentlemen who are now sitting on the Government Front Bench offered to go in with the existing Labour Government and to form a joint Government to help the country. There was no attack there.

:The hon. and gallant Member was not here at that time. The particular thing about which he is talking arrived very late in the story. From the Opposition benches, which were occupied then by a solid Conservative Opposition, there poured out, night after night, a steady flow of poison gas, directed to discrediting the Government of the day, but in actual fact discrediting the nation and its financial stability in the eyes of the world. The unfortunate thing, and the thing that brought the final crisis to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, was that instead of treating it as they ought to have treated it, hon. and right hon. Members joined their voices in the cry and said: "It is true that we are in a financial mess, and we shall have to set up an Economy Committee to see whether we can save our country by sneaking money out of the pockets of the unemployed." The dirtiest, most low-down propaganda on the part of the Opposition of those days and the stupidest, most cowardly surrender on the part of the Government of the day.

To-day, the Prime Minister starts to defend himself by making a quotation which has been used not only by the Prime Minister but other Government supporters. I think I have never heard anything more unscrupulous in Parliamentary debate than to take hold of a statement by the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps), which has been explicitly disowned by the party above the Gangway.

:The hon. Member will know as he gains experience in this House that a wonderful variety of people can occupy the same benches. If you are going to be too narrow about these things and not have a wide, broad tolerance, you will find yourself in a very small party. You have to give-and-take in these matters. The Prime Minister seizes on one remark, which has been explicitly disowned, publicly disowned by the party above the Gangway. They have stated in the clearest and most positive language that that view is the view of the hon. and learned Member, and is not shared by the party. For the Prime Minister to come here and to use that view with the object of carrying the war out of his own camp into the Opposition camp is even too unscrupulous for the Prime Minister.

:That is an amazing charge. The Prime Minister and others have reminded the House that one of the leaders of the official Opposition, looking forward to his own policy, which one assumes he knows, took the considered view that if that policy were carried into effect there would be an immediate financial crisis. What is there unscrupulous in repeating that statement?

:Nothing. If the Prime Minister had that command of his language as is displayed by the hon. Member and he limited his statement to what the hon. Member has just said, there could have been no harm at all, but to make the opinion of one man the opinion of a party which has disowned that particular opinion, is not fair debating. I am prepared to stand here and say that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol is perfectly correct. If a Labour Government sat on the benches opposite and a Conservative Opposition of the same kind as the one to which I have referred sat in opposition and had so little regard for the general welfare of their country that they would use in debate the most low-down argument to beat their political opponents, there would be a financial crisis. I do not know what the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol thinks about it, but it would not be a crisis that need disturb the general population of the country for any prolonged period. It would not be a crisis beyond the capacity of being handled by men who really meant business.

The Government to-day are in the dock. They were taken to task by one of their own supporters because they ran away last week, although she said they had nothing to fear from the ragged band of the Opposition. Why did they run away?

I am not going to attempt to put the blame on the shoulders of the Minister of Labour. It will not do. I have seen a long line of Ministers of Labour destroyed by this problem, not one of them left with a reputation for statesmanship. Destroyed in public esteem by this problem, the scapegoats, the whipping boys, for the Government. The present Minister of Labour is no more responsible than any other Member of the Government. The whole Government have to shoulder the responsibility, and, having regard to the fact that the House of Commons so recently passed the legislation and accepted the regulations, the Government majority in this House must share equally with their Cabinet and their Ministers the responsibility for the mishandling of this important bit of national life.

It is true, as the leader of the Opposition has said, that the oppositions in this House cannot defeat the Government in the Lobby on the Vote of Censure to-night, but, if the Government and those Members who maintain them in office have any self-respect, or any regard for the decencies of public life, if they regard themselves as holding power only in so far as the people of the country are prepared to give them power, then they would not wait to be beaten by an adverse vote in the House of Commons to-night; they would go to the country, face the electors, and ask their opinion as to how unemployment has been dealt with and how the Government have been handling the country's problems in the last four years. They would face the electors and ask for a new mandate. I am perfectly satisfied that whether this House of Commons will carry this Vote of Censure or not the overwhelming mass of the people of the country would.

9.20 p.m.

:I have listened with interest as one of those former Ministers of Labour who have no reputation left to the always attractive but seldom relevant remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgton (Mr. Maxton).

:What was there that was irrelevant. I wish you could make a speech like it.

:I said always interesting but seldom relevant, and I meant exactly what I said. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into some of his excursions, but I must take up his criticism of the Prime Minister for the way in which he referred to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) with regard to a first-rate financial crisis. Does anyone who takes a sensible and impartial view of the situation think that it was improper or unfair for the Prime Minister to make the criticism he did. The hon. and learned Member sits on the front Opposition bench. Although they have dissociated themselves from that one statement yet he sits there; he is in their inner councils, speaks for them on important occasions and is in collaboration with them the whole time. Does anyone ever dream that if the opportunity made it useful and convenient the Labour party would not turn round and adopt the policy of the hon. and learned Member? Of course they would.

I want to point out a rather remarkable characteristic of the Motion before the House which so far has not received any attention. On Tuesday morning the Motion put down by the Opposition dealt simply with matters connected with the regulations. On Tuesday afternoon were published the figures of unemployment taken on the 28th January. On Wednesday the whole Motion was recast and a sentence was inserted that the Government showed a

The second part of the Motion says that the Government have misled the House as to the financial effect of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations. That is perfectly true. They gave the House a wrong impression, and the mistake that was made has for the time being had a serious effect in the country. But the question is what is the degree of blameworthiness on the part of the Government for having made the mistake. It is true that they were responsible for giving to the House an estimate made by the board, and for not having themselves corrected it. But I would ask any impartial hon. Member, or anyone outside, to consider the actual amount of blame which should attach to the Government. To my mind, it has been grossly exaggerated. It is all very well for officials of the Inland Revenue, who deal with particular subjects from day to day, to be able to estimate the results of the future within a very narrow degree of error, but in this case everyone conversant with the subject knows that there was no collected body of data or evidence on which an exact estimate could be based. It was as difficult a subject of which to take a sample or get a general view as any body of persons could ever have to deal with.

The result was a mistake. But this seems to me one of these cases where people have to go out into a new country which is as yet very largely uncharted, and do the best thing possible in the circumstances. If a mistake is made, it is best to be perfectly frank about it and retrieve it as quickly as possible. That is just what the Government have done. If I were to make any criticism it would be this—that I do not think it is possible to have a really satisfactory system of dealing with allowances and relief which is so highly centralised as is the present system. I have always been very reluctant to criticise any action that has been taken by the Department to which I once belonged, and where, in the opinion of one hon. Member, I lost my reputation. But the one point upon which I should have felt compelled to state a contrary opinion to the policy of the Government would have been in this matter of centralising under the central Government the whole system of allowances and relief. I do not wish to discuss that further this evening, because it is really not apposite or material to the Vote of Censure. I would, however, like to express the opinion that when the whole business is revised it may be possible to de-centralise again, at any rate to a considerable extent.

Now I come to the Motion. Part of the charge relates to

:I was never a member of the National party. At the last election I refused to stand as a supporter of the National Government. I stood and was elected as an Independent Liberal.

:I am delighted to hear that. The hon. and gallant Member sat here as an Independent Liberal, and he gained a greater degree of independence when he crossed the Floor and sat on those benches as a still more Independent Liberal.

:The right hon. Gentleman is again mistaken. I did not cross the Floor to sit upon those benches, I crossed the Floor of the House to sit upon these benches.

:As a matter of fact, I think the hon. and gallant Member sat at the extreme corner of those benches as distinct from where he now is. When he was charging the Government with being a vagabond Government, I could not help remembering how aptly his own movements are described in the lines of the well-known hymn:

The Government, it is said, have had no policy for providing employment for the great and growing number of idle workers. Let me deal first with their past record. Allusion has been made— and I do not want to enlarge upon it—to the fact that this country, of set policy, quietly and without ostentation, has seen an immense inflation. There has been an inflation to the tune of about £300,000,000 in bank deposits. That is one of the causes, together with the confidence created, which has made possible the conversion of our Public Debt and has created cheap money. Cheap money in its turn is the cause of it being possible to have such an immense expansion in our building policy. To say that the Government have had no policy is simply to turn a blind eye to the plain facts of the situation as they are known to anybody who makes a fair examination of them.

I take next the views of hon. Members on that side of the House who say that, for good or evil, the protective policy of the Government is not a policy and a settled policy. Of course it is. I do not expect the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and other Members to agree with me about its merits—but whatever view they take of it, there is no question that the stimulus to employment for the time being in this country is enormous. Anyone has only to look at the iron and steel industry to see the effect of a policy of that kind—at any rate for the moment, whatever my right hon. Friend opposite may think of its ultimate results. Yet we are told there has been no policy on the part of the Government. How has the result been shown? I do not propose to quote a string of figures to the House, but it is shown by the fact that the revival under Protection in this country has been greater than that of most of our great manufacturing rivals, such as the United States, Germany, France or Belgium. In all those countries the amount of revival is much less than it is in this country. That is shown quite clearly by the statistics available to anybody who cares to look them up.

What strikes the ordinary person on this side of the House when you get criticisms of a lack of policy is this. It seems to me perfectly amazing that the party opposite do not realise the advantage of a policy that sets men to work in their own trades. If you stimulate the building trade, you have set people to work at their own trade. If you stimulate the iron and steel trade, you have got people to work at their own trade. This is by far the best kind of stimulus there can ever be with regard to employment. Yet it is one which, apparently, Members of the Opposition do not recognise. The sort of thing they would like, no doubt, would be to have great works schemes, to have workmen set to work upon the roads whatever their previous occupations might have been. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] Do hon. Members opposite say it is nonsense? [HON. MEMBERS: "Who ever said it?"] It is not a question of who said it; it is what hon. Members opposite did when they were in power. They extended these schemes and it was one of the Welsh Members who is not in his place at the moment who wanted something startling of that kind done. That is what comes of living too much in the cinema atmosphere. One always wants something startling. What is required is, as far as possible, to get people employment in their own trades and from that point of view, any impartial observer would say, with regard to the past, that any charge of the kind made against the Government is so ridiculous that it practically needs no refutation. As regards the past there is no case to answer.

When it comes to considering the future I would ask the Government myself not to be weary of well-doing but to go on with the work. I find myself in the unexpected position of agreeing with some of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in his speech at Bangor. He said he was in favour of land schemes and work schemes and he explained his view in considerable detail. Some of those schemes may be good and, in so far as they are good, I think any Government ought to do its best to carry them out. I believe there is one case in which there could be development and that is in the case of small dairy produce farms. I have inspected one or two of them, I have gone into their acounts. I believe that it is possible to extend this kind of development although it will not be easy to do so and will require a lot of organisation. The question is: Can these land schemes or work schemes, even if they are successful, do more than touch the fringe of the present problem of unemployment? That is where I part company with the right hon. Gentleman. We have an unemployment figure of over 2,000,000 and it would be optimistic to believe in the possibility of finding permanent employment by work schemes or land schemes, which would satisfy the criterion laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs of being financially justifiable, for more than 200,000 at the most. If that be so the best you would have done even if you were successful, would have dealt with only a fraction of the problem.

:In referring to schemes of this kind, instead of talking about spending money on road-making and so forth, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the problem with regard to shipping and how to put our own nationals into British ships instead of having foreigners in them?

:I am not going into that question now because I have not time and no one would expect me to try to do so on this occasion. What one would have to do is obvious. One would have to weigh up the comparative cost of freights and go into them very closely and see how much we would gain and how much we would lose in the long run. But, as regards the main problem, what I would ask the Government to do is to diagnose clearly what has been and still is the real cause of unemployment—to get down to the fundamentals. Is there any one thing which, more than another, has caused this great access of unemployment not only recently but during the years before the acute slump came upon us? I think it is clear that the great cause of our unemployment is not the want of some new and striking policy. Unemployment is due, above all, to the shrinkage in our proportion of world oversea trade. That may be a platitude but the greater the truth the greater the platitude, and the more it needs enforcement. Before the slump we had an over-valued currency and that, among other things, was a great handicap. Since then that handicap has been removed but to-day we and all the world are suffering from a shrinkage of international trade. If international trade can be got going again, I believe that that is the first essential. It would have more effect on the position here than all the specifics which anyone can devise.

I am an Imperialist and always have been. I would do anything to secure the greater unity of the Empire. But I have to realise that this country can never be self-supporting and that Imperial trade alone will never suffice to give us back our old prosperity. We must face the fact that it is our trade with the countries of the whole world that is really necessary. What is the difficulty at present? Four great obstacles to international trade exist to-day and each country in trying to defend itself makes these obstacles, to the rest of the world as a whole, more formidable. We have instability of currencies; we have exaggerated tariffs; we have quotas and we have restrictions upon exchange. These four constitute a zareba which prevents international trade from developing once again.

I would ask the Government to consider how it is possible to attack this problem; whether it is possible to attack it from the point of view of tariffs, or from the point of view of exchange. I have seen in the speeches of leading bankers the suggestion that it should be attacked from the point of view of tariffs. If it can be so attacked, well and good. If it can be so attacked, I believe, Tariff Reformer as I am, that it would be worth while to abate some of our tariffs if we could get a general reduction, or if not a general reduction, then a reduction over a group of countries so planned that it could be extended. Should that not be possible I suggest that another step to be considered is the possibility of stopping instability of exchange. I see a general reluctance on the part of leaders of finance in the City, in regard to the idea of stabilising exchange at the moment. Nobody, I think, would dream of stabilising the pound alone—in isolation—and I do not think that anyone would contend, even, that it was possible. But it seems to me that it might be possible to start with, to fix some provisional ratio between the pound and the dollar. We might approach the United States for that purpose, and if a provisional stabilisation could be reached, then we might jointly approach the gold bloc of countries. It may be that no favourable answer would come from the United States. Affairs there are so uncertain that that avenue may be blocked. But if not, that is one way, I believe, in which it might be possible to effect a breach in what I call the zareba in regard to international trade.

I would ask the Government to realise, in conclusion, that all these policies involve a risk. Of course they do, but the policy of not doing anything with regard to international trade involves, I believe, at least as great a risk as any other policy. We have the fact that in this country, whether we like it or not, there are signs which indicate that the degree of our recovery is beginning to slow up and that we cannot be sure that it will continue if we have to rely on the exploitation of the domestic market alone. That is one reason. The other reason is this, to anyone who looks around the world outside. We have to realise that in those countries which are still on the Gold Standard, the position is getting more and more shaky. Belgium is the weakest spot. Holland has a great advantage in her reserves which she obtained during the War, but there too the situation is weak. The French will hold on to the Gold Standard as long as they can, but conditions in those countries have become increasingly difficult as recent months have passed. If those countries were to go off the Gold Standard, we might indeed be in a welter of currencies which would make the recovery of any international trade still more difficult than it is at the present time. I put this before the Government because I feel sure of this: It is a platitude to emphasise the need for freeing international trade. But I repeat again that the greater the platitude the greater the truth of the statement. It needs recognition. We would like the Government to attack the problem strongly, because I am convinced that it is that freedom of trade, and that freedom alone, which is going to bring back prosperity on a great scale, alike to town and country, alike to trader and artisan.

9.48 p.m.

:The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) is a little unfortunate with his facts. He seems to have made a mistake in the geographical position from time to time of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). He was equally out in the rather elaborate structure that he built up in regard to the framing of this Motion and the unemployment returns. I had a hand in framing it myself, and it was framed before those returns were out, and so I can say that that structure was built on nothing. I was interested to see how he came round in a complete circle. He first said the Government had no policy, he then said that after all they had a great policy of tariffs, and he finally came round to the view that tariffs were a great obstacle and that we must try to get more international trade.

:That is a complete misrepresentation. I do not wish to take up the hon. Gentleman's time, but I hope he will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.

:I think one other point might be made. I think the right hon. Gentleman should understand the position of Members who come from the depressed areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) was pressing that something great and startling should be done. The right hon. Gentleman calls that a cinema atmosphere, but perhaps if he went and lived in Ebbw Vale or in Abertillery, he would experience the need of something greater to be done. I wish now to turn to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, from whom we were very glad to have a speech in this House once again, and after that speech, which is the first we have had over a very long time, what does it all amount to? We first of all had a number of disconnected items of this or that that the Government had done. The longest connected passage in his speech related to the launching of the "Queen Mary" and something about hydrogenation, which I did not quite catch, because those items were addressed to someone up in the corner, and I was not able to catch the whole of them, but I gathered there were certain items of what had been done. Then we had a reaffirmation of his faith in evolution. I thought it was rather a pathetic Victorian faith, the kind of idea of evolution that we were always going up and up and up and on and on and on, because, after all, you can evolve either up or down. I have watched the evolution of the right hon. Gentleman. I have seen the right hon. Gentleman at a time when he held the respect of himself and every one in this House as the trusted leader of a great Socialist movement, and I have seen him come to his present position. That is one kind of evolution.

The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to attack the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), in his absence. It is a pity he did not make quite such a strong attack when the hon. and learned Member was here on Tuesday. It was an entirely unjust attack. It was full of misrepresentations, and it led astray even the right hon. Member for Tamworth. What are the facts with regard to that statement? It was made in allusion to a speech by a colleague of the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade made a celebrated statement in which he said that if there was a danger of our coming in, he proposed to go to the bank and draw out his money. We all recognise the influence of the right hon. Gentleman in these financial matters. He is very strong on points of drawing out money. One of his strong suits is starting runs on savings banks and banks, and my hon. and learned Friend said that if that happens, we shall be in a financial crisis. The Prime Minister chose to put in the word "create"; it is very easy to let misrepresentations slip in, and—

:If there is any misrepresentation going on the hon. Member is doing it himself. It was the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) who stated over and over again that if the Socialist Government comes in, there must inevitably be a financial crisis.

:The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) will understand that there must inevitably be a financial crisis and that it is the policy of the Labour party to create that crisis. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said, and let us see what the right hon. Gentleman who makes these charges himself says. He is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 12th February, 1924, as saying:

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman disclosed no vestige of a policy. He said his policy was the same as it had always been, but he never had a policy, and out of nothing nothing can come. Really, the right hon. Gentleman has something to answer. The attitude he showed in his speech was the attitude he usually takes, namely, that any criticism of the Prime Minister is the course of those people who want to play the old party game. But criticism of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government is widespread. I should not like to quote from the Labour Press because he might regard that as propaganda. I will quote a paper that generally supports the Government. This is what the "Times" said: Is there any coherence in the Government's policy? Is there any coherence in the rival policies of the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Board of Trade with regard to meat? Is there any coherence in appointing a commissioner to go down to the distressed areas of South Wales and report how terrible their position is, and not giving them part of the £2,000,000, and in adopting a plan which reduces the purchasing power of that area by £1,500,000? Is there any coherence in a plan that talks about increasing foreign trade when there is always tremendous cheering in this House at any reduction of imports to pay for the exports? Is there any coherence in making money cheap and then leaving it to lie idle?

One might really imagine from the Prime Minister's speech that the only criticisms he has to meet are those which are made from these benches, but the criticisms are nation-wide. We find in every kind of assembly criticism of the Government. The "Times" expressed it in a picturesque phrase by saying that the Government were an Administration which had presented to the country the same faces in the same positions from the beginning. I do not know that it matters what the faces are. What matters are the brains behind the faces and the policy that comes from the brains. There has been a lack of policy from the beginning. Even those who cling to the idea of a National Government want a different sort of National Government. If they do not want a re-deal, they want a reshuffle.

As a matter of fact, the country has not really been saved from the crisis. We know that, because the Prime Minister only joined up for the duration, and he is still there. The crisis has been at various times put forward as due to the Labour Government, and I am surprised that that was revived by an hon. Member to-day. People who look at things from a broader point of view have put the facts quite differently. Mr. Bennett said that this world-wide depression had not been created by the Government of just this one country under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. He said that it was more than a temporary crisis; it was the entire break-down of the capitalist system. As a matter of fact, the criticism that we get everywhere is the contrast of poverty and abundance. I do not think anyone thinks that to-day we are out of that crisis and in a stable condition. With the slightest touch the whole illusion of stability goes. If the Government blunder, there is a fall in securities. I do not say that the fall comes from that cause alone. The Government blunder, and the attacks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and other things cause talk about a General Election. Then there are some failures in the city, and the structure begins to totter. Then of course the Northcliffe Press begins to tell foreigners that things are getting very shaky. The "Daily Mail" gets busy. That is what we had to suffer from all the time that we were in office. There was a steady flow of things like that, with the support of hon. Gentlemen on the other side who did their full share of crying "stinking fish" about this country.

Why is the situation so unstable? It is because the whole system is absolutely rotten. Look at the pepper ramp. It may seem a small thing. It is an attempt to corner a commodity so as to make profits. The "Times" says that fidence in the financial institutions of the City of London. I should like to know who are the people who are in these rings. There appear to be quite big people in the company that was formed only about six months ago and has now fallen through. It is these people whom we are always told are the impregnable gentlemen who control this great instrument of finance. Of these rumours the "Times" said:

But here we have the fact that we are told that there is gambling going on in commodities. The Government have instituted various kinds of control over production. When are they going to take control over the commodity market, and are we to continue to have our finances run by people who go in for this kind of gambling? Why should we have this important side of the national life run on the principle of a gambling hell? We say that it is entirely wrong, and that from the point of view of the Government and the nation you have got to step in with a positive policy both for dealing with unemployment and industry and for taking control of finance.

The hon. Member for East Aberdeen put up a very false dilemma to-day. He suggested that you had either to run the community in the interests of the State or in the interests of a class or in the interests of individuals. He came down on the side of running the community in the interest of individuals. I should like to hear the hon. Member go down and explain to the unemployed the position of the individual and how the community is run for these particular individuals. The Government have no positive policy whatever to deal with the major problems of the present day, the major economic problem of how you are going to utilise the potential abundance in the world. How are you going to utilise the services of men and women in this community? How are you going to save the individuals who make up that great body of unemployed from the evils of continued worklessness? We fail to see any large policy on the part of the Government. We hear talk of the need for reduction of hours and for greater leisure. When the matter comes up at the International Labour Office, we find our Government opposed to it. Other States take action; our Government are indifferent. We claim work. The Government turn down work schemes and go to Geneva and say, "Oh no, we cannot have work schemes." I gather that the Government do not intend to go in for any extended scheme of works. They consider them wasteful. Well, if the Government say, "We propose to continue the factory system; we propose to continue production for profits," with its incidence of booms and slumps, crises, gambling, rings and the rest, we say, they must pay for their amusement and give, full measure of support to victims of the capitalist system.

We do not claim that that is an ideal situation. We are not claiming that we want to have huge sums handed over year after year to people for not working, because we claim that the workers should have their status in society and their right to produce and to consume. Finally, the Government have done nothing in regard to seeing that somehow or another we are getting an increase of purchasing power for the masses. In a speech he made just before the Adjournment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he did not believe so much in the Government using money as in the Government making facilities for other people to make use of their money. He did not say who these people were. We claim that that money should go to those people who need it most, that the really outrageous thing in this country is that you have millions of people who cannot purchase anything more than the barest necessities and therefore you have a starving home market. If, as a fact, the Government's main policy is that of tariffs, protection, quotas and the rest, the only logical conclusion to that policy is a development of internal purchasing power and the fullest utilisation of the services of all its citizens.

I have no doubt that I shall be told that the situation is very much better than when we were in Office; that there were 3,000,000 unemployed then and 2,000,000 now. I suggest that the Government should be a little more ambitious. They might try to get beyond that. It is not good enough that this country should sit down with an unemployed role of 2,250,000. We have said more than once that that is going to be the normal amount of employment under a tariff system. We see no signs of reduction. We see an actual increase, about which we need not make too much, this month and I think that the whole situation is such that a very slight derangement here or there may start the figures climbing again up to their former level. We say that our society to-day is on a rotten foundation, and we put forward this Motion because, in our view, the country is ready now to face the fact that only by very far-reaching changes can we attain to anything like safety for the mass of the people. I do not know whether another scare will be tried, but I doubt whether it will go down, despite all the excellent efforts of the President of the Board of Trade, who may not bring off another scare; but we are quite clear that you cannot make the capitalist system work in the age of abundance, and that the only way to deal with this problem of unemployment which, as the Lord President said, has brought down Governments and will bring down Governments, is by a complete change to the system of Socialism.

10.15 p.m.

:I must say that I found it difficult to disentangle from the speech to which we have just listened much that was relevant to the Motion now before the House. Misrepresentations of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, misrepresentations of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and dissertations upon the pepper gamble—seeming to me to prove that we should be well advised to go back to dear money in order to prevent gambling in the commodity markets in the city—make very poor substitutes for solid argument. This Motion appears to be founded upon what the party opposite no doubt regard as two pieces of good fortune which have befallen them. The first was the admission by the Government that the regulations of the Unemployment Assistance Board had not fulfilled the expectations we had, and the frank and courageous decision of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to suspend their operation until the whole position had been thoroughly analysed and reviewed; and the second was the publication of the figures of the January returns of unemployment, showing the usual seasonal rise at this time of year, which, happily for the Opposition, coincided with the first subject to which I have alluded. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) assured us that his Motion was drafted before he had any knowledge of these figures. In that case may I ask him what he had in his mind when he spoke of the growing figures of unemployment? He had even better fortune than I have ascribed to him, because the figures confirm what otherwise would have been an entirely unjustifiable statement.

That the party opposite should make the most of these two circumstances for their own party purposes is not very chivalrous, perhaps, but I am not disposed to quarrel with them, because, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it is the business of the Opposition to oppose, and they are entitled to take any good fortune that comes their way. After all, one can have some sympathy for them for they have had precious few opportunities for any serious criticism during the last few years, and naturally they are anxious to grasp at any chance of covering with more oblivion the deplorable exhibition which they made of themselves in 1931, when they preferred to quit their posts rather than face their responsibilities.

The Motion declares that the Government have no policy for providing employment for the idle workers. I shall show that this is directly contrary to the facts; that not only have we a policy, but that that policy has been eminently successful. If it were a statement of truth, I could still say that the party opposite were the very last people who were entitled on their records and on their programme to criticise the policy of this Government. Between June, 1929, and August, 1931, unemployment, under the policy of the party opposite, increased by 1,600,000 persons.

:They reserve their bitterest sneers and gibes for the Prime Minister, because they cannot forgive him for the contrast which history will make between their conduct and that of my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who had the wisdom to see that a new policy was required and the courage to put it into operation, even though it meant the breaking of the associations of a lifetime. As to the programme of the party opposite, what practical contribution have they made to our problems of to-day? Those wild and wordy resolutions which they pass at their general conferences—there is no greater authority on that subject than Lord Snowden. What does he say about it?

We have good deal for which to thank the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, in his pronouncement. The hon. Member for Limehouse completely misunderstands the inference we draw from it. We are not making charges against the Labour party that they desire to create a financial crisis; we know they do not. What the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol did was to express his own personal opinion of what would be the result of his own policy, but what matters is not what the Labour party think about it, but what those who have money invested or money in the banks think about it. Personally, I think it is just as well that we have had this frank and blunt statement from the hon. and learned Member, who is still one of the leaders of the party opposite, although we may wonder at the cheerfulness with which he appears to contemplate a contingency that would put in jeopardy, not only the employment of our people, but our whole system of social services, in cluding, of course, what we do for the unemployed.

Earlier in the Debate, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) made an allusion to an observation of mine during the Debate on the Adjournment at the end of last year, when, in reply to an interruption, I stated that our unemployment policy was to pursue the course we had hitherto followed. That was a Debate on monetary policy, and I had no time to pursue the matter, but I would like to elaborate that observation now, and to tell the House what seems to me to be the most practical way of dealing with employment. As a preliminary, I would like to make this observation: The continually repeated cry that the Government have no policy on employment always has behind it the implication that there can be no policy which does not involve a large expenditure of public money, whether directly in public works carried out by the Government, or in subventions to other bodies doing similar things. I believe that to contain a complete fallacy. There may be circumstances when it is right and sound to follow a policy of that kind, but not for the purpose of providing employment, because the whole experience of the past shows that, for the purpose of providing employment, this policy of public works is always disappointing. In that respect the experience of this country is no different from that of other countries which have tried the same thing.

It should be remembered that the amount that can really, actually be spent by a Government in work of this kind in a year is small in comparison with the amount which is normally spent on capi- tal works through the ordinary channels of trade and by local authorities. I estimate, on some figures that I have seen, given by an eminent economist, that something like £350,000,000 to £400,000,000 is spent every year on capital works of this kind—a far larger sum than any Government can possibly spend on public works. I think one may say this, that, if you take the maximum effect of the maximum effort which has ever been made by any Government to create employment directly, it is trifling compared with the effect which can be produced by even a small improvement in ordinary trade. The conclusion I draw from that is that the quickest and most effective contribution which any Government can make towards an increase of employment is to create conditions which will encourage and facilitate improvement in ordinary trade. Perhaps if one may sum up the Government's policy in a few words, one can hardly do it better than in that sentence that I have just uttered.

A very interesting and valuable speech by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) pointed out that, while it was always attractive to hon. Members opposite to suggest that it ought to be possible to find great schemes on which public money might usefully be spent, when it came to producing those schemes it was generally found that for some reason or another they were uneconomic or unsound, and yet perhaps the most useful form of public work that could be encouraged by Government spending was in housing, and that it was precisely in housing that the Government had taken steps which had caused a larger amount of money to be spent in housing than at any time since the War. If you can assume that building by private enterprise goes on at its present rate, and add to that the building that will be done in consequence of the Government's new housing scheme and the slum clearance campaign, it is probable that we shall find not fewer than 750,000 people continuously employed at their own job in the housing business to start with. It may amount to anything from £125,000,000 to £150,000,000 a year spent in an industry which, as I have previously pointed out, has a repercussion, because the money involves expenditure in a number of subsidiary trades.

I am not content merely to state what the Government's policy is. I want to show how it has worked. I hope hon. Members will pay particular attention to the facts as I present them to the House in order that they may examine them for themselves, and that they may not be tempted by anyone, however distinguished, to drop the bone which they have in their mouth in order to grasp at a shadow which is only an optical illusion. Look at the history of the great trade depression. We might divide it for the purpose of my examination into four different phases. In 1930 the Labour Government were faced with a tremendous drop in the export trade. They tried to meet that by an expansionist policy of public works. As we all know, it failed. The adverse balance of trade imposed a very severe strain on sterling, and the fact that the Budget was unbalanced at the time caused a loss of confidence which led finally to the crisis of 1931. That was the end of the first phase. The second phase began with the advent of the first National Government and continued till the middle of 1932. The task that faced us then was a hard and grim one, much too hard and grim for the weak nerves of the Opposition. It was carried through. By cuts, by economy and by severe taxation the Budget was balanced. Tariffs were imposed in order to redress the adverse balance of trade, and by the end of the phase confidence had been restored and the fall in employment had been definitely checked.

The third phase was built upon the foundations laid in the second, and because confidence had been restored the credit of the country rose to such a height that it was possible to carry through the Conversion operations which led to the great reduction in both long-term and short-term interest rates. During this third phase the effects of the Government's policy began to become visible, and employment began to move up. First of all, there was a great increase in the production of capital goods, particularly in housing. That was followed by an increase in the production of consumption goods. The motor trade, the iron and steel trade and others entered upon a period of very considerable prosperity, and then the effects worked through the population, and, as the general purchasing power increased, we saw a steady rise in the figures of retail trade. What was the result of this employment? Even if you take this temporary drop in the figures that we have just had, and which, if the practice in former years be followed this year—and I see no reason why it should not be—should be absorbed again in the course of the next few months—but even taking those reduced figures, it means that 700,000 people more were at work than there were three years ago. There is no alternative which has been put forward either in this or any other country which has produced a result comparable to that.

I suppose it is natural that the Opposition should dwell always upon the gloomy side of the picture. They reproach us with complacency and with callousness, because they say there are still 2,000,000 unemployed. Of course, there could be no satisfaction with 2,000,000 unemployed, but it is quite untrue to suggest that we are not making progress or that the 2,000,000 are persons who are unemployed all the year through. Do not let us forget, in the first place, that the employable population has increased by 1,000,000 since 1929, so that when you are comparing the figures of to-day with those of five years ago, you have to remember that we have 1,000,000 more to take care of, and that if the figures are no worse, then that 1,000,000 is the measure of our progress. Let us analyse this 2,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech this afternoon, stated that the number of those who had been unemployed for more than a year was one-third more to-day than it was three years ago. I wonder where he got those figures. As a matter of fact, I find that in the Ministry of Labour there are no figures available of the number who had been unemployed for more than a year in December, 1931. I have got the figures.

:May I put the right hon. Gentleman right on that point? Frankly, I am responsible for those figures quoted by my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Ministry of Labour had no figures of comparison. Is he aware that, as the Ministry of Labour representative at the conference at Geneva, I was given the figures at that time to use in June, 1931, namely, that there were then 100,000 people unemployed who had been out of work for more than a year?

:I will give the House the figures for December, 1934, 1933, and 1932, and they will then see for themselves what accuracy there is about the right hon. Gentleman's statement. In 1934 the figures of those who had been unemployed for more than a year was 384,000. That was the figure the right hon. Gentleman gave. In 1933, the figure was 451,694, and in December, 1932, it was 461,722. If there were one-third more in December, 1934, than in 1931, the proper figure for 1931 should have been 288,000. I think it is hardly likely that that could have been the accurate statement of figures then, when a year later it was 461,000. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to give any figures that were inaccurate, but I am now giving figures that cannot be challenged.

:The others were official figures. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know where I got them.

:The figures which I have quoted show that the right hon. Gentleman's inference was inaccurate.

:Here is a further fact. The investigation shows that the average total experience of claimants during 1934 was less than 20 weeks of unemployment. When you consider that that includes a considerable number who had been unemployed for more than a year, it is obvious that there must have been very large numbers who were unemployed for a good deal less than 20 weeks. I do not suppose, so far as I can judge, that out of the 2,000,000 there are more than about 400,000 or 600,000 who can really be called the hard core of unemployment, the people for whom we must either provide transference, or occupation of the land, or deal with by some other special measures.

Having said that much about these growing figures of unemployment, I should like to say a word on what I will call the fourth phase of the position, that is, the phase we are in now. It must be clear to the House that the pace at which employment is going to be increased can- not be so hot in this fourth phase as it was in the earlier time, when we had the full effect of the transfer to British manufacturers of a considerable amount of trade which previously had been done by foreigners. At the same time I see no reason why we should not yet make a very considerable reduction in the figure of 2,000,000 of unemployed. There is still, as the right hon. Member for Darwen pointed out, a tremendous gap between our exports to-day and our exports, say, in 1929. Where I differ from him is that he seems to think that the loss of our export trade was entirely due to the fact that we had put tariffs on in this country.

:At any rate, he suggested that the proper thing to do was to take the tariffs off if we were to restore our export trade. It seems to me that his suggestion that the heads of Governments of the world are beginning to regret their protective policy and wish that they could go back to a system of Free Trade is a piece of fantastic optimism. The real trouble is not the use but the abuse of tariffs. The Government's policy to try and get back an increased proportion of the export trade is directed by all kinds of different methods to removing or lowering the barriers which to-day are preventing the exchange of goods between one nation and another. It is perhaps difficult for hon. Members to realise how much we are doing in this respect, because, as I have said, our efforts are numerous. They take a great number of different forms, and it is their cumulative effect which is gradually becoming apparent in the increased figures of British exports, which should give us all so much satisfaction during the last year. The agreements at Ottawa, for instance, I believe will lead to an increase of our trade. Then the commercial agreements we have been able to make with a large number of countries, of which we certainly have not seen the full effect. There is the Anglo-German trading Agreement of a little while ago, and I would add to all those, the efforts which we make from time to time towards the maintenance of peace and to increase the sense of security among the nations of the world. Every one of those is directed towards removing the anxieties which nations feel to-day in erecting these barriers in defence of their currencies. The efforts we have made have largely helped to mitigate the effects of that economic nationalism which the right hon. Gentleman so much deplored. He is very contemptuous of the small advance in exports which we have been able to make. To my thinking it is a remarkable figure, and I do not think any country in the world except Japan can show a similar increase in its exports.

I hope I have shown the House that we have a definite policy. That policy has been pursued consistently from the time we took office, changing its direction according to any alteration in the conditions; and, I should like to add this, that the continued success of our policy to increase employment must depend upon our continuing the policy we have hitherto pursued of creating conditions of cheap money and adhering to a sound financial policy. We have by degrees established confidence in the finances of the country. We have recently seen how easily that confidence can be upset. Idle rumours over the week-end, a talk of an imaginary crisis, and an intending election, can affect values by many millions of pounds. I say to some of my hon. Friends, who from time to time call upon the Government to be bold and courageous and start out on new adventurous policies, that you are playing with fire when you are dealing with the national finances. We who have to carry the responsibility for these things are determined that we will not jeopardise the future development of our policy for employment by departing from the main lines which have hitherto been successful, and which I think have the approval of the vast mass of business and commercial circles.

I have left myself very little time to deal with the second part of the Motion, but I do not regret that because there is really very little to say about it in addition to what has been already said to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. The facts for the most part, I think, are not in dispute. We have stated to the House that the regulations which we asked the House to accept and which we believed would provide certain results have disappointed our expectations. We have said—indeed, we could not help it—that we accept full responsibility for what has happened. It is true, perhaps, as my Noble Friend the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) said this afternoon that if we had left the board to correct the initial errors of judgment they might have done a great deal to meet the difficulties and grievances of which we have heard in this House. And if the differences between the realities and our expectations had been small no doubt that is the course we should have taken. But they were not small. In many cases they were very large indeed. What we felt was that alteration and correction would take time and that while it was going on there would be many men and women who were not getting as much as we had expected them to get. Bather than that they should suffer we were willing to face the taunt which we knew would be levelled at us of being "on the run," or frightened of hon. Members opposite.

There is one thing I would like to say because it affects me personally. There have been allegations made—not I think in this House, but outside—that the original proposals put forward by the board were sent back to them by the Government on the ground that they were too costly by some sum of £5,000,000 or £10,000,000. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has given a denial to that statement. He has further added that the final form of the regulations as accepted by the Government was actually more favourable to the unemployed than the original scale. That disposes of that.

:I must point out to the hon. Member that the right hon. Gentleman has only five minutes left.

:Of course, if the hon. Gentleman does not accept my statement and that of my right hon. Friend—

:There is a further allegation or suggestion which I want to allude to now. That is not that the Government rejected the regulations offered by the board but that the Treasury exercised influence, through a member of the board, to cause the board to reduce scales which otherwise they might have agreed to. I wish to give the House a personal assurance from myself that I never gave any instructions or expressed any desires to any member of the board during their consideration of the regulations. It was open to me, of course, if I thought that the regulations as presented to the Government were too extravagant or too costly to make my objections and if I had persuaded the Cabinet that I was right they might have been rejected. But as a matter of fact I did not feel myself obliged to make any such objections and, therefore, I have no personal responsibility for any reduction in the scales which the board may have made, or indeed, for the scales themselves, except in so far, of course, as I accept responsibility with the rest of the Government for the scales which were accepted. This Resolution declares that the Government has forfeited the confidence of the country. The opinion of the country can only be expressed by the country. But that the Government have not forfeited the confidence of this House, that this House still believes that this Government is the best Government to minister both to the encouragement of trade and the welfare of the unemployed, I believe the result of the Division in a few minutes will show conclusively.

Question put,

"That, by their lack of any policy for providing employment for the great and growing number of idle workers and by having misled this House as to the financial effect of the Unemployment Assistance Regulations for the maintenance of the unemployed, His Majesty's Government have forfeited the confidence of the country."

The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 374.

Division No. 48.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Cove, William G.

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Curry, A. C.

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Banfield, John William

Daggar, George

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Batey, Joseph

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Buchanan, George

Davies, Stephen Owen

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Cape, Thomas

Dobbie, William

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

Cleary, J. J.

Edwards, Charles

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

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

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

Groves, Thomas E.

McEntee, Valentine L.

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Grundy, Thomas W.

McGovern, John

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

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

Mainwaring, William Henry

Thorne, William James

Harris, Sir Percy

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Tinker, John Joseph

Janner, Barnett

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Jenkins, Sir William

Maxton, James

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Milner, Major James

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Wilmot, John

Kirkwood, David

Parkinson, John Allen

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Rathbone, Eleanor

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Lawson, John James

Rea, Walter Russell

Leonard, William

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Logan, David Gilbert

Rothschild, James A. de

Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

Lunn, William

Salter, Dr. Alfred

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Goff, Sir Park

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Gower, Sir Robert

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Clarke, Frank

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

Albery, Irving James

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Alexander, Sir William

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Greene, William P. C.

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Granfell, E. C. (City of London)

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

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Grimston, R. V.

Apsley, Lord

Colman, N. C. D.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Assheton, Ralph

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

Astor, viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Conant, R. J. E.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Balley, Eric Alfred George

Cook, Thomas A.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Cooke, Douglas

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cooper, A. Duff

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Hanbury, Cecil

Balniel, Lord

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hartington, Marquess of

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

Hartland, George A.

Bateman, A. L.

Crooke, J. Smedley

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

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

Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Crossley, A. C.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Bernays, Robert

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Boothby, Robert John Graham

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

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Borodale, Viscount

Davison, Sir William Henry

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

Bossom, A. C.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Boulton, W. W.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Horobin, Ian M.

Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

Dixey, Arthur C. N.

Howard, Tom Forrest

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Donner, P. W.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Doran, Edward

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Bracken, Brendan

Drewe, Cedric

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Duggan, Hubert John

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Broadbent, Colonel John

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

Hutchison, W. D. (Essax, Romf'd)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Dunglass, Lord

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

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

Eales, John Frederick

Iveagh, Countess of

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Eastwood, John Francis

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

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

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

Buchan, John

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

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

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Elmley, Viscount

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Burghley, Lord

Emrys Evans, P. V.

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

Burnett, John George

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

Ker, J. Campbell

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Butler, Richard Austen

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Butt, Sir Alfred

Everard, W. Lindsay

Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Kimball, Lawrence

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Kirkpatrlck, William M.

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Fox, Sir Gifford

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Carver, Major William H.

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Leckie, J. A.

Cassels, James Dale

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Leigh, Sir John

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Ganzonl, Sir John

Levy, Thomas

Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Lewis, Oswald

Cazalet, Thelma (Isllngton, E.)

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

Glossop, C. W. H.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

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

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

Llewellin, Major John J.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Peake, Osbert

Somervell, Sir Donald

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

Pearson, William G.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

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

Peat, Charles U.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Penny, Sir George

Soper, Richard

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Percy, Lord Eustace

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Spens, William Patrick

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Petherick, M.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Mabane, William

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

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

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

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Pike, Cecil F.

Stevenson, James

McCorquodale, M. S.

Potter, John

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

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

Stones, James

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Strauss, Edward A.

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Purbrick, R.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

McKie, John Hamilton

Pybus, Sir John

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Radford, E. A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Summersby, Charles H.

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

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

Sutcliffe, Harold

Magnay, Thomas

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

Tate, Mavis Constance

Maitland, Adam

Ramsbotham, Herwald

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

Making, Brigadier-General Ernest

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

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

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

Ray, Sir William

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Martin, Thomas B.

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

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

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Remer, John R.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Meller, Sir Richard James

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Rickards, George William

Tree, Ronald

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Milne, Charles

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

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

Ross, Ronald D.

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

Mitcheson, G. G.

Runge, Norah Cecil

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

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Watt, Major George Steven H.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

Morgan, Robert H.

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Morrison, William Shepherd

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

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

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Munro, Patrick

Selley, Harry R.

Wise, Alfred R.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Womersley, Sir Walter

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

North, Edward T.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

O'Connor, Terence James

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Wragg, Herbert

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

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

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Slater, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Palmer, Francis Noel

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Captain Margesson and Mr. Blindell.

Patrick, Colin M.

Smithers, Sir Waldron

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

Adjournment

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

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.